The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-06
Therefore, Under the Utah Enabling
Act. MIR. Roberts Is Guilty as Ever
OF the Crime Of PoIyeamy.
KERNEL OF WHOLE QUESTION
REMOVED FROM THE SHE'LL BY THE
INDIANIAN IN A FEW WORDS.
Statement by Mr.. Roberts In His own
BehaIf-An Opinion from Ex-Sec-
retary John q. Carlisle.
special to the Indlanapolis journal.

Special to the indianapolis Journal
WASHINGTON. Jan. 5.-Representativs
Lands illuminated the proceedings in the
Roberts case to-day with bright passage
which threw the polygamist member from
Utah into confusion. The Indiana member
at the same time gave the committee light
on a troublesome dark subject and incl
dentally supplied the keynote TO the argu-
ment on which the majority report will
be based. Mr.. Roberts was in the midst
of his argument before the committee and
was urging on the attention OF his hearers
that clause in the Utah enabling act
wherein it is provided that ''polygamous
or plural marriages are hereafter prohib-
ited" This he held to be tacit rccogni-
ton of polygamous marriages contracted
previous to the passage of the enabling
act and to confirm the theory that the con-
tract or compact which has been so much
talked about applied only to the prohibition
of the ceremony of polygamous marriages
after the admission of the State into the
Union. This argument is the backbone OF
the Mormon contention. While Mr. Lam
diss colleagues have been storing their
the question Ii occurred to the member
from Indiana to look up the dictionary
definition of marriage. His dictionary re-
search gave him idea which was pre-
sented to the committee II an interesting
fashion this afternoon. Mr.. Roberts was
dilating at great lengh on the implied un-
derstanding recognizing polygamous mar
riages entered into before the passing OF
the enabling act when he was interrupted
by Mr.. Lands with this query: your
understanding of the term marriage is
that it is a ceremony. take it?"
YES" was the reply.
"a ceremony and not a condition?
"Yes."
''That is not my understanding. I find
that the Century Dictionary defines the
word as a state condition. The cere-
mony is simply the inauguration OF that
state or condition. I have read with great
care the discussion the Utah enabling
act and find that from beginning TO end
opposition to making Utah a State was d.
rected against the institution OF polyga-
nous or plural marriages. IL was against
the condition or state OF polygamy. Con-
gress clearly had in view the dictionary
definition of the term and not the mere
ceremony Of marriage"
Continuing Mr. Landis said: 'The pro-
hibition embraced in the provision you
have quoted as the keystone OF your de-
fense is clearly against the further con-
tinuance Of the condition polygamy and
not against the mere marriage ceremony
I am not a lawyer, but I'm the light OF tho
debate on the Utah enabling act IL is clear
to me that the purpose of Congress was
to eradicate the practice of polygamy in
the State and put the ban OF the law on the
further continuance OF polygamous condi-
tions"
Mr.. Landis's argument threw Mr.. Rob-
erts off his feet and he scattered badly
from that time on TO the end OF the ses-
sion of the committee. The point was one
which had not previously been suggested
and Mr.. Landis's colleagues on the COM
mittee congratulated him on his perspicu-
ity. AS one OF them expressed II. he had
found the kernel of the whole question"
Mr.. Roberts will continue his argument
tomorrow. The committee will probably
bring in it's report in about two weeks
Two or three days will be given over to a
discussion thereon and the time may pos
sibly be extended into a week.