Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-20
CONGRESSMAN ROBERTS DEFENSE.

the constitutional NOnNtnNh IA 'N.'"
but evidently not so understood by the
gentlemen on the floor OF the House
who entered into the discussion mere
Mr. Roberts--Doubtless different
Views on that win be entertained ana
don't know that there win be any har-
mony between other gentlemen ana my
self with reference 90 n. SUI De
lleve the language used by Mr.. Powers
the gentleman from the state Of YER
mont Is susceptible Of an understand
Ing that Il went TO the practice OF
plural marriages only and had refer
ence 10 the contracting OF marriages
for the future only. / wish to say thal
believe that
MIR. Ll,tlehed-T That IL, marriage as
an act and not as an institution Thal
is the distinction.
Mr.. Roberts-If the marriages were
prohibited tho institution Of p0lygainy
is doomed. OF course.
Mr.. LAndis-- Doomed, but not dead
Mr.. Littleheld-The distinction In
your mind Is between the act and the
institution
Nh. Landis-Yes; my contention Is
that Congress. when Il passed TINS en-
abilng act. by that provision meant 10
cover the entire question OF polygamy'
10 cover the entire system ana II
etrikes me that IL brought out by the
subsequent legislation I'm the state OF
Utah on the question OF polygamy ana
on the question Of unlawful eohaplta-
tion.
Mr.. Morris-And Mr. Roberts posi-
ton was that Il was intended TO cover
the future celebration Of ceremonies OF
that kind. and thereby the institution
OF the relation IN the future, and not
10 cover the practice Of the condition
already existing
Mr.. Roberts-From marriages that
had been performed in the past. quite
right.
Mr.. Llitleheld--In other words. i
was section Of the Edmunds Act ana
not section g. That Is about II, Is II
not?
Mr. Roberts-Yes, sir Ny point Is
this. That this question being befo'e
Congress and that system practically
having been abandoned from lSsO-that
"a, THE practice OF plural marriages haN-
ing Been abandoned from 1880 ana the
ceareEt evidence existing that IL haa
been 30 abandoned--the object really
was TO provide against It's revival IN
the futrre by bringing In this provision
that would forever prohibit such mar
riages In the future. And that so TAR
az the conditions that existed IN Utah,
coming down TO US from the past We're
concerned, that WAS a matter that the
State OF Utah itself would be able 10
contend with. And. OF course as
said yesterday, the fountain OF eyil be-
ing dried up, Congress was Wiling 70
let the streams take their course under
the direction Of the local effect OF such
laws az might be operative upon them.
now desire 10 briefly call to the at
tentlon OF the committee the conditions
that existed In Utah after the formula
ton and adoption of the constitution
and the existence Of statehood. To show
that this settlement Of the polygamy
question In Utah was acceptable II was
OF course In ORDER Immediately after
the adoption OF the Constitution, that
the people should prepare for statehood.
Officers were to be elected for national
positions and for state positions, and
men who were in the status OF polyg-
amy. or al least who had been con-
nected with that Institution in the past
were among those who were freely
nominated by the conventions OF the
two political parties IN the State. The
Democrats OF Utah we're quite generally
| I'm favor of electing senators by vote OF
| the people, and the Democratic coayen-
ton thought 10 approach that condi-
ton as nearly as might be by nomlnat-
ing men for the Senate In their party
| conventions.
The two men who were nominated IN
| 4.
Hon Joseph l.. Rawlins. now senator
! from the State Of Utah, ana Moses
! Thatcher Mr.. Thatcher was a Nor
mon" and had been an advocate OF this
| marriage system. and II was generally
known that he had held polygamous
relations and had polygamous wives
then living. lie was nominated In the
! convention for the Senate, and would
| have been elected had the Democratic
party been successful. | myself was
nominated for Congress In 1895. and
certainly all the objections that people
! have against me now existed then. Tht
nomination came 10 me, and also e
Mr.. Thatcher. without protest from any
| quarter whatsoever. We went through
rather stormy campaign, and ut nc
time was II lnumated that ! was ar
undesirable candidate on account OF my
connection with this plural marriage
system In the past.
Mr.. Morris-Who waa elected at tina
time?
Mr.. Roberts-Mr. Allen.
Mr.. Morris-Was he admitted TO Con
gress?
Mr., Roberts-Yes, sir. Mr.. Allen wa
Gentle and a Republican / think
however. he served only for one session
Of Congress then. our election came II
1895. Il was an odd-year election. am
think his term was merely the las
session OF that particular Congress.
Not only was this The case In regar,
% these national positions, but II wa
true I'm regard TO our local officers. Me
were nominated by both political partie
for office In the Territory-members o
the legislature and for other State posi-
tlons-whO were Wen known TO be con
nected with the polygamous marriag
system OF the Mormon Church, and al
this without any protest on the par
Of the gentlles of the State OF Utah
or any complaint that there was an
breaking OF faith, or any violation Q
the agreement or compact with IN
United States.
II was during this time, too. that Fed
eial appointments were made-that u
succeeding tatehood-with0ut any oh
lection with reference 10 their connec
ton with polygamy, except from YER
ohscure and narrow minded sectaria
persons. and that by the way-that II
th0ee obJectons-dld not come up unit
some time later That did not lmmc
Ciately transplre after the admisslo
VI the State. but a year or two after
words. Aud these appointments WEI
made--and II Is useless 10 attempt an
denial Of it--they were made IN the fac
Of the fact that protests were mad
as was supposed before the proper az
thcritlos, and those protests were base
upon ahldavits that were made concern
lug ne poiygamous practices Of Oh
candidates for appointments 10 Fedcr'
p5silons and these same protests Wet
Ignored and these men were appolnie
Ia those positions.
Mr.. Lands. Al what particular tin
ala this oecur-io what time are you n
| ftrrlng?
( Mr.. Roberts. think. sir, It mus
have been az least IN 1897 when NJ
smith. Of Logan. the Presidential pos
oillce Gppolniee, and also Mr. Graham
another Presidential appontee receive
their commissions.