Union gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Benton County, Or.) 1899-1900, 1900-01-26
FRIDAY, JAN. 26, 1900.
POLYGAMY INVESTIGATED.

POLYGAMY INVESTIGATED.
Brigham H. Roberts, the devoted
Mormon whose seat in congress has
been undergoing examination be-
fore committee appointed to ascer-
tain if he was entitled to be seated
as the lawfully elected representa-
tive from the state of Utah, has
contended that his plural marriages
were contracted before the Edmunds
law was passed and before Utah
was admitted to statehood, but the
committee appointed to investigate
and report his case, find from the
evidence and report as the facts
deducible therefrom that "Roberts
married one Louisa Smith prior to
1882, who is still living, she having
born him six children. After the
passage of the Edmunds law In 1882
which prohibited polygamy, there
after in 1885 Roberts married Celia
Dibble, his first polygamous wife
who in the twelve years thereafter
bore him six children. Thereafter
he married a third wife, in open
defiance of the laws of congress in
which he now asks to be seated
Roberts claims that he should be
sworn in and become a member Of
the house of representatives. Two
of the committee submitting a
minority report, contend that he
should be permitted to take the
oath of office, and that Immediately
thereafter he shall be expelled on
the ground that he is a polygamist,
unlawfully cohabiting with plural
wives. The remaining seven of the
committee report against permit
ting him to take the oath of Office,
and recommend for adoption by the
house of representatives that he
ought not to have or hold seat in
the house of representatives, aud
that the seat to which he was
elected be declared vacant.
Roberts having lived in open yio-
lation of congress and of the special
under which Utah was
admitted as state, requires the
exercise of great deal Of circumlo-
cution to say that he must be sworn
in as a member of the house so as
to be Immediately expelled for his
open violation of the law of con-
gress. Why should it be required
that he become member of the
house by the ridiculous farce Of be-
ing courteously invited to come in
through the front door while he
the solemn process of
taking the oath of Office, all being
done for the only purpose of being
Immediately kicked out the back
door for being a polygamist, when
it is also admitted that every MEM
Der of the house knew before the
oath was administered to Roberts
that he was guilty of the acts for
which he would be expelled? Who
ever heard of a practice in any
court of justice where the accused
upon being brought in to be tried
for some heinous offense was re-
quired before proceeding to his
trial to take oath by which he
would solemnly swear before God
and man with uplifted hand that
he "would support the constitution
and laws of the state and of the
United States and lproperly deport
in office as citizen of his
state, then proceed to select trial
Jury to convict him." All will readi-
ly admit that to administer an oath
to an accused in criminal court un-
der such proceeding would not be
proper. Then is the reason much
stronger why Roberts should rot be
to take the oath of office
after the referees or committee ap-
pointed to take the testimony and
report their findings of fact and law
have reported him guilty and all
agree that his guilt merits his just
and sneedv punishment.