The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1904-04-27
RICH AND RACY.
Former Congressman Gave Sensational
Testimony on Norman Tenets.
rHE SITUATIONS CONFLICTING

=
Cause in Which Obligations to
Church Would Clash With
Duties to the State
Confessed.
With the reopening Of the investi-
CATION in the Reed Smoot case before
the senate committee on privileges
and elections, at Washington Wednes-
day the prosecution devoted consider
able time to drawing from. Brigham
H. Roberts the character Of the oaths
which are said to be necessary for a
Mormon official to take in order to
have the support of the church for
political office. Members Of the COM
mittee showed an equal interest in
the obligations which are said to be
taken by Mormons who go through
the endowment house. +" Along both
lines much evidence was brought out
which is expected to have consider
able bearing on the fitness Of a Nor
mon chuch official to hold q seat in
congress.
1t was shown by Mr.. Roberts testl-
mony that without the consent OF the
Mormon church he failed Of election
to a seat in congress and later with
church recognition of his candidacy
he was elected. In relation to the
endowment house obligation Mr..
Roberts was extremely reticent.
Mr.. Roberts said he has three wives:
one married in 1877, the second in
1886 and the third in 1890. He said
he has had children by all Of the
wives and by the first plural wife
since his election to congress.
Senator Overman inquired OF Mr..
Roberts whether bis first wife and
bis second wife had consented to bis
third wife.
mo SIR" said Mr.. Roberts. "They
did not learn Of the marriage for three
or four years.
''How was that?" asked Senator
Beveridge. "Do you mean to say that
the marriage was not known to any
one?'
1T was known to some Of my
friends but not to my wives" was the
answer.
why was this marriage concealed
from them?" asked Chairman Bur-
rows.
WOULDN'T EMBARRAss THEM.
Because I did not want to embar-
raSs them"
How embarrass them?"
"Well, we knew the marriage was
illegal and it might be embarrassing
to them if they should for any reason
be called on to testify
MI. Taylor asked Mr.. Roberts why
he thought it incumbent upon his to
take plural wives. From boyhood, y
replied the witness, Il had been
taught the rightfulness Of plural
marriages and I believed this practice
to be the law Of God. I knew that
this practice was contrary to the
mandates Of congress but believed
that the law Of God was the highest
rule and felt impelled to obey it. .
Chairman Burrows asked number
Of pointed questions which brought
out the confession from Mr.. Roberts
that he still believes in and is practic-
ing polygamy. He said that be be-
lieves that the Woodrug manifesto
was divinely inspired and that now in
practicing polygamy he knows be is
disobeying both the laws Of the land
and the laws Of God. He was asked
why he continued to djsobey the laws
of God, if he believed them to be the
highest laws and with resigned air,
he said: "Well, the manifesto left
re in the midst of obligations to
these wives. I am trying to do the
best I can to live within the laws but
these obligations I cannot shirk.''
At the afternoon session Mr.. Ro-
berts said no action had ever been
taken by the church in respect to bis
living with more than one wife.
Question were asked respecting Mr.
Roberts views regarding the manifesto
of 1890 against plural marriages and
living in poloygamous cohabitation
and the witness said be regarded the
manifesto as an administrative act Of
the church and Of binding force upon
all members. He admitted that to
disobey any Of those laws would sub
iect the member to liability to church
discipline. The witness was asked
then in regard to polygamous CO.
habitation, and said that he and
many others were living in polygamy
at the time the rule was made against
such cohabitiat.on and that they con-
Sidered themselves under moral obliga-
tion to live with the wives they had
married.
do you think you are morally
hound to cOhabit with all Of your