The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-06-08
MR.. ROBERTS Opinion.


this year viii consider resolutions in /
favor of a constitutional amendment
placing polygamy, marriage divorce
and kindred subjects under federal (
jurisdiction. The action of the Idaho /
Democratic convention is only one of I.
several steps in this direction.
Here In Utah the immediate problem
is as to the attitude the state delega- /
tions TO these conventions win take
when the anti-polygamy resolution I
comes up. The fact that the RepubH- /
can delegates are either close friends !
or camp followers of Senator Smoot +
warrants the assumption that the del /
egaton viii fight amy such declaration /
since the hearing of the senator's case
has had much to do with the sentiment
IN favor OF an amendment.
The Democrats are stiu TO consider
the matter ian state convention and the
preliminary discussion indicates a hot
struggle over ii. Former Senator Can
non, Judge Powers ana others have al
ready expressed the belief that il
would be unwise for Utah to oppose
the resolution in favor of an amend
ment They argue that opposition from
tagOnism TO the state which has arisen
from the embers Of the Smoot invesu-
cation; that the eastern delegates
would certainly be aroused the more
by the activity of The Utah delegation
against the resolution, and that the
only result would be a more vigorous
and successful demand for it's passage
by the convention.
Speaking for those who take am
other point of view. b. II. Roberts. in
The Herald, makes very vigorous ar
gument. He would have the Utah con-
tiHgeHt at st. Louis night To the death
against the proposed resolution. In his
judgment. any other position is cow
ardly. DusillauimOus and unworthy of
Democrats; IF such is to be the spirit
OF the men elected to the national
Democratic convention and the ma
tiOnal committeeman from Utah. then
j have misconceived the. spirit of De
m0cTacy ana would certainly pray both
OLA the part Of myself and the state of
Utah TO be delivered from it and fromg
such leadership"
The words quoted read much like a
threat OF secession from the party I'm
case it's convention should indorse the
judgment of Senator Cannon and those
who agree with him. Indeed, on pos
sibly strained construction the threat
might De interpreted 10 mean ruin for
the Democracy in this state in such
contingency
Ia support of his position, 8Ir. Rob
erts assumes that an amendment reso-
luton could be aimed only at Utah and
that there is no demand for legislation
affecting the whole problem of mar
rage and divorce throughout the coun-
Try. He ignores the fact that all the
great denominations are working iu
unison for a reform in lax divorce laws;
he refuses TO admit that the Ameri-
can people are deeply concerned, not
only about conditions I'm Utah, but
about conditions all over the country.
lin this he Is mistaken, seriously mis-
taken. The SmoOt inquiry helped crys-
taIIize public sentiment on the general
subject. but it was not the sole cause
of public concern and demand for fed
eral legislation.
Nor is the sentiment In favor of an
amendment confined TO 1.-The Baptist
Union association. a Mothers congress,
the w c.. Il. u. and other hystericat
uItra-reform associations outside of
our state that are not satisfied with the
manner in which the laws of Utah are
administered" The demand for a
change iu the system Of laws affecting
the marriage relation is widespread,
deep-fouuded; it is being furthered by
practically all the great denominations
ana the5r associated organizations. il
VIII inevitably ind expression i'm both
conventions in some form and the peo-
ple of Utah may as well face the fact
as best they may
1ir. Roberts has doubtless heard the
modern parable of the bun that tried
20 butt the train of the track. People
admired his courage but few revereuced
his wisdom. If they had no predlspo-
sIIoH Tor or against the resolution
cool Judgment ought 90 convince Mr.
Roberts ana his followers that there is
little profit and less glory in trying 20
breach a stone wall with ones skull
However magnificent TT might be as a
display Ot c0urage-aud mo one doubts
either edifying CT advantageous for the
Utah delegation 10 tight the resolution.
DO the people of this state want to- ga
on record as against federal legislation
in behalf of better public morals In the
home? Does Utah care TO advertise the
fact that this state aione-for it win be
aIone-has reason within its borders foI
dgbung such an amendment?
The Herald believes that Senator
Cannon is right when he says 1T would
be unwlse TO pursue such course as
aar. Roberts would map outi il believe.
the only result would De 70 conTincs
the other states 81 the Union THAI Utah
IS guilty Of all that has been charged
to her in mauee 81 believes. further
that the opponents 81 the amenanen