The age-herald., 1900-01-21

stated in the constitution. There is no de- c.sion of the United States supreme court directly or indirectly construing this pro- vision. There is no decision of any state caIn.t directly in point.
 "Second-If the right to add a disquali- fication by law is assumed, the disqualifi- cation imposed by the Edmunds act does not apply to member of congress, and therefore does not affect MT. Roberts. The only poi ton of the section that can be said to have any application to member of the house of representatives Is that which declares that no poiygamist, etc., shall he entitled to hold any office or place of public trust, honor or emolument under tho United States. Unless a member of the house holds an office under the United States within the meaning of the constitu- ton and the law, there is no disqualified ton"
 Strong Language Used
 The full report contains the majority's view, and in some parts uses strong langu- age against MT. Roberts. As to his plural marriages 1t says:
 'Prcl- to 1882 B. H. Roberts had married one Louise Smith. She has borne him six children, and is still living.
 About 1885, when Utah was fairly ring ing with the blows of the Edmunds act of 1882; while numerous prosecutions were go- ing on. and after the supreme court had
 
 the American people supposed that polyga- my had received its death blow; when no man of the many whose cases went to the United States supreme court pretended the provisions against polygamous marriages were invalid, with all these facts insistent- ly before him, Brigam H. Roberts took an- ether wife; his first polygamous wife Celia Dibble, by name who in the follow ing twelve years bore him six children.
 The second wife he n.-rred in defiance of the Edmunds law. He spat upon that law; he declared by his act that he recog- nized no binding rule upon him of law of congress: he declared by it that he re- cognized a higher law. The congress of the United States was to him an object of con- tempt. The supreme court of the United States might declare for others, but not for him. He laughed at its futile decrees and spurned the admonitions The executive which had declared in solemn messages gone forever he defied and despsed. Of .wi1at consequence to him were laws of con- 9i'ess and declarations of the highest court against his sensual interpretation of a sen- sual doctrine?
 And all the time the Edmunds law de- clared not only polygamy but cohabitation with more than one woman unlawful. Rob- eTts not only bigamously married a second wife but he persisted in violating and trampling under foot every provision of the act. But he had not yet sufficiently shown his utter contempt for the supreme corrt. for congress and its most solemn enactment. few years later he took a .thirH wife.
 Ecohabitsting With Three Women ] Prom the time of his second marriage to the third he cohabitated with two women. From the date of his third marriage down to his election, and we doubt not, to the present time he has been coha bitating with three women.
 s fAs recently as December 6, 1899, he de- fined his position as follows:
 !" These women have stood by me. They are good and true women. The law has sad l shall part from them. My church has bowed to the command of congress and is against the practice of plural mar images. But the marriage cannot free from obligations assumed by it. No power can do that. Even were the church that sanctioned these marriages and performed the ceremonies to turn its back upon us and say the marriages are not vakd now, a nd that I must give these good and loyal women up, II'll be d-d if I would.
 nln this statement he adheres to the au- dac6sus assumption that the law of 1882 did not speak to him, and that he did not recognize it as rule of conduct to him. We assert before the house, the country and history that it As absolutely and im- pregnably sound, not to be effectively at tackled consonant with every executive precedent, in harmony with the law and with the text books on the subject.
 That Brigham H. Roberts persistent, notorious and defiant violation of one of al1e most solemn acts ever passed by con- gress, by the very body which he now seeks to enter on the theory that he is above the law and his defaEt violation of xhe laws of his own state, necessarily render him Ineligible. disqualified and unworthy to be a member of the house of representatives. And this position is asserted not so much for political purposes, but because 1t goes to the very integrity of the house and the republic as such."