The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-24

of the fundamental law Of the land"
lGreat applausel. Mr.. Littlefield closed
rather abruptly.
Mr.. Tayler then renewed his request
for an agreement for vote at 4:30 on
Ihursday, but Mr.. Crumpacker, OF indiana,
objected.
MR.. RoBERTs's SPEECH.
On the request of Mr.. Tayler. Mr.. Rob
erts was then given one and half hours
In which to present his side of the case.
He spoke at first very low but his voice
soon rose and he was at ease apparently.
The two arguments just presented he
began, made it appear that there was
difference of opinion as to the method of
procedure in the case of the member from
Utah." From his standpoint he could
agree with neither view presented. II find
myself in the position" said he. where
1 might say with propriety "a plague on
both your houses, since both propose my
undOing.' GLaughterl But, he con-
tinued, the situation was not altogether
without its advantages. He was convinced
with the minority that the Houses had no
right to exclude him, and, with the major
ity. that once admitted he could not be ex-
PEELED. Between the two" said he,
matters fall out about as 1 would have
them, and substantial justice will be DONE"
lRenewed laughterl
Mr.. Roberts gave notice that he should
appropriate the arguments OI TIE IUdJOTlty
against expulsion and those of the minority
against exclusion. His constitutional quail
fications were admitted by both the major
ity and the minority of the committee. and
he declared that the members of the House,
IL they had regard to the Constitution of
their country, would call him back TO the
bar from which he had been improperly
turned away. He warned the House that
nations fell because they departed from
the traditions. If a nation INDUCED in
constitutional immortality 1t died did
the individual who is guilty of immortality.
He beseeched the House not TO yield to
the clamoring of unthinking people. What
was the emergency for this proposed de-
parture from the Constitution? A man
who had married in the sanctity Of the
church a plurality of wives had been
elected to Congress. The cry had gone up
that the American home was endangered
and these extraordinary proceedings had
been inaugurated against him.
For few moments" said sfr. Roberts,
'T want to pay attention to the nature of
this crime, not with view of showing
that the American people have not the
right to establish monogamy as a system
of marriage that shall prevail, and not for
the purpose of defending polygamy either;
for in the early debate that took place
with reference to this case, on the floor of
the House, / then declared that 1 am not
here TO represent polygamy, nor to defend
, 1t. We have long ago passed that stage,
and the thing is out of the realm of discus
sion. do not wish my remarks construed
us Il ueIeTSe Oh pOlySdny, out 90 want 10
call attention to the nature of this crime
In order that we may ascertain whether it
Is so awful In Its aspect as TO warrant
more lawless act than polygamy ITSELF in
order to rebuke man who has been elect
ed to the House Of Representatives. Take
the Jewish people who were made the de-
posftory of Gods revelation to humanity
You shall not find the crime Of polygamy
referred to among that people as of the
character that 1T is described here in the
report of the committee. If you go to the
teaching of the Great Master, whom take
it We all revere. although He denounced
every crime, every sin that man can COM
NIT. you shall find no word of His in con-
demnation of the conduct of the patriarchs
or Of the law as it was given to Moses and
ancient Israel
MARTIN LUTHER QUOTED.
Last week, when taking a walk in
the resident portion of your city,
passed a magnificent heroic statue of
Martin Luther. whom the nations of west
ern Europe owe much for the religious
liberty they possess-the founder of Prot
estant christendom. and that man upon
this subject that is here so denounced.
declared in the early days of Protestant
christendom, when he was informed that
his disciple Carlsbad was teaching po-
lygamy, I indeed must confess that
cannot protest. for it does not contradict
Philip de Landgraave of Hesse, remarking
on the fact that Philip had taken a second
wife, his first wife being still living, he
said: In matters of matrimony the laws
of Moses are not revoked or contradicted
by the gospels Yet we built monuments
TO Luther. Notwithstanding his liberation
and defense of that form of marriage Now
L say all these things, not for the purpose
of arguing here on the rights of polygamy,
but / do say what L have here remarked
for the purpose of liking 1t In the minds
A. IL
cause prohibited by law. 1 say that the
United States had the right 20 make the
law If It wished to. The States have the
mgRe he aM Of that sae rgh
done so. Consequently iG is outside of
the realm of discussion further than in
this incidental way
Mr.. Roberts then explained the Mormon
belief in polygamy He next described the
condition that existed in Utah in 1882 as
reign of terror The federal courts were
exile. A man was brought before the
court. He was told that he need not go
to prison if he would give UP polygamy
But them said Mr.. Roberts, dramatic
ally, II felt ii would have been deserving
the cause of God to have agreed" A scat
tering wave of applause passed over the
galleries at this utterance, but 1t was
quickly drowned with Kisses.
AZ had rather had my flesh hewn from
my limbs" he continued, than to have
been untrue to my people. 1t was this feel
ing that was the incentive to the lawless-
ness such as Ii was.
But. he continued. the time came when
the Mormons of Utah were obliged to sub
NIT and they did submit. Since then there
had been not a single plural marriage in
Utah. The plural relations had been
broken up in many cases. Death had kind
ly solved the problem for some of the
heartaches it left for some and made them
wish the same end had come for them. He
insisted that the compact with the United
States had been observed, that polygamy
had practically ceased, that the Mormon
Church had given up polygamy in good
faith.
Mr.. Roberts said he had been in public
life for twenty years and was not driven
to the defense of his moral character. He
was not hers representing the Mormon
Church. He had received a greater num-
Der of votes from gentiles than Mormons.
You can neither exclude nor expel me-"
said Mr.. Roberts, in conclusion. 81 will
cling so hard to the pillars of liberty that
you shall not drag me from them without
bringing down the whole temple. Applause
and hisses.l / have lived with a good con-
science until this day and sensible Of
no act of shame on my part. You can
brand me with shame and send me forth.
but / shat leave with head erect and
brow undaunted and walk the earth as
angels walk the clouds. If you violate the
Constitution all the shame will be with
you"
There was a great outburst of applause
| in the galleries when Mr.. Roberts con-
,r,, Of h. he 11nrf loo