Editor’s Table: Talks to the Young Men; Deference to Sacred Places; The Roberts Case

EDITOR'S TABLE.

TALKS TO THE YOUNG MEN—DEFERENCE FOR SACRED PLACES.

BY THE SENIOR EDITOR.

There is a signal lack of character in the person who has no deference for sacred places. By deference as here employed is meant that quality which enables one to deny, or to hold in the back-ground, his natural wishes and desires for fun and lightmindedness, and give preference to the spirit of worship in the place in which he finds himself. Deference, it has been said, is

"one of the most indirect and elegant of compliments." comes It

with special grace from the young to people older in years, from the governed to the governor, from the layman to the person in authority, from the audience to the speaker, from the worshiper to the place of worship. It is not as deep as reverence, for in the latter is mingled a sentiment of fear with high respect and esteem; to God reverence is due, but to the place of worship, deference. When a person attends church or meeting, he should remain during the service, and enter into the spirit of the act of paying divine homage to the Supreme Being. Nothing so completely exposes a young person's boorishness as ill conduct and lack of deference in a place of worship. Recently, at a young people's conference in Salt Lake City, a most flagrant case of bad manners came under my observation. While the services were still in progress, scores of young men and women left their seats, and crowded out of the doors of the Taber-

306 IMPROVEMENT ERA

nacle, seemingly unconscious of the offensiveness of their action. To thus leave a house of worship before the close of the services, is a breach of one of the most essential forms of good breeding,

that should never be tolerated, much less indulged in. On this occasion, the speaker who arose to address the congregation notified all who wished to retire to do so, and then he asked that the doors be closed. This was done, and there was comparative quiet while he spoke. No sooner had he closed his remarks, however, than there was another rush for the doors, for it was forgotten, apparently, that singing and prayer are also parts of the service. Nor was this all the offense, for the behavior of a large number who were present at the meeting was not at all what deference to a house of worship, to say nothing of respect for the speaker, should and does demand. Such conduct is severely reprehensible, and should be stopped. Young men and women who are guilty of it should consider what a grave offense it is, and strive not to be guilty of it again. It is unworthy the children of the Saints, or of

any person who has proper respect for himself. The young people should learn to act proper ly in places of religious worship; they should be willing to set aside their natural inclinations for pleasure and license, and learn to control themselves, and act with propriety. It is an old and true saying that there is a time and a place for all To be able to conduct things. oneself in conformity with the demands of the place in which one finds himself, is a very useful acquirement, essential to the comfort and the pleasure of others and to our own true happiness. Upon this matter, every young person should thoughtfully consider, and then strive to improve. Those who preside over religious gatherings should insist upon receiving from the audience and from each individual thereof, that regard and deference which are due to the places and to their positions. The boys and girls should learn that John or Thomas or William, however plain and familiar when among them as playmates, companions, or friends and neighbors, are entitled to special respect when presiding over meetings of worship. Neither should it be forgotten by them that the place itself is sacred, and that good breeding demands of them that they shall also pay to it the deference due. Their fellow-worshipers should also be consid-

EDITORS TABLE. 307

ered. The scripture passage: "For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" might be changed to read: "For he that regardeth not his brother in authority nor payeth deference to the house of worship, how can he love and revere the Lord?" The teaching of deference for sacred places should be encouraged in our associations, as well as in other gatherings of the Saints, A vigorous discipline should be instituted to impress its importance. The possession of the quality of deference marks a high type of manhood and womanhood, a lack of it is characteristic of the ill-bred and unrefined.

THE ROBERTS CASE.

The reader of the daily press who has kept informed upon the case of Utah's representative in Congress, Hon, B. H, Roberts, and followed the proceedings to prevent his being seated, must have noticed the unusual and even unwarranted steps in the action taken by Congress, There is no irregularity in his certificate or in his election. He possesses all three of the qualifications of a representative, prescribed by the Constitution: he has attained the age of 25 years; he has been seven years a citizen of the United States; and is an inhabitant of the state in which he was chosen. And yet the House, when he presented himself to take the oath of oflace, excluded .him, deciding by a large majority vote that he would not be permitted to take the oath of office. Why? Because of the presentation of large bundles of petitions principally written, obtained and presented through the labors of church ministers who are prejudiced enemies and radical opposers of The Church to which he happens to belong. These petitions charged him with living in polygamy; in other words, with violating a statute in Utah which defines his alleged offense as a misdemeanor. But there was no evidence except the unsupported allegations of the petitioners. There was no court record of such

308 IMPROVEMENT ERA.

alleged crime, although ample time and opportunity were given to establish this, if it existed, through the state courts of Utah which had jurisdiction in such cases. There was further, no law applicable to his case, either of the State of Utah or of the United States, which disqualified him. Notwithstanding these facts, the House prevented him from being sworn, without evidence, cause or reason except the allegations of a multitude of irresponsible petitioners; and it undertook to establish his guilt while he was yet unsworn, hence not a member, by referring his case to a special House committee, which committee endeavored by the examination of witnesses to establish his guilt on a violation of a state statute with which neither the House nor its committee had anything to do. The Constitution, among other provisions, gives Congress a own members, and to right to be the judge of the elections of its expel a member for just cause, Nowhere,however, is the right given to prevent a representative who has the qualifications provided in the Constitution, and who holds his proper state credentials, from being sworn, and from taking his seat. He must be a member before he can be treated to expulsion'.f or cause. It is true, the quali-

fications of persons claiming seats in the House may be called in question, and in such case the house may go behind the certificate of election, examine witnesses, and decide who has received a majority of legal votes, but until the matter is decided, the person holding the certificate of election is a member of Congress just as if there was no question about his election. But Representative Roberts, with all his qualifications, has been denied membership, and that too while he is being tried without warrant in law. There is absolutely no justification for the House in the proceedings it has taken to prevent Mr. Roberts from becoming a member. Religious prejudice has completely upset the judgment of its members and has caused them to recklessly over-ride all law and precedent. Bigoted ministers have caused that supposedly great body to set an example of defiance to law and right that is liable to become a dangerous rock to the ship of liberty. It has been maintained that the Edmunds law disqualifies Mr. Roberts and gives the House an excuse for its action. The people who have protested against his being sworn and taking his seat.

EDITOR'S TABLE. 309

base their objections upon this law, and rely upon it for a justification and warrant for their course. It provides that no person who is a polygamist, or who cohabits with more than one wife shall be entitled "to hold any office or place of public trust, honor or emolument * * * * under the United States." But all the disabilities which Mr. Roberts may once have had under this law were removed by the amnesties of two presidents, and the enabling act of Congress for the admission of Utah, which latter provides for just such cases by permitting all male citizens twenty-one years of age or over, who have been one year residents of the then territory, to take part in the formation of the state constitution, and to vote for its adoption. But, again, if this were not enough, and the Edmunds law, as some have contended, should be applied to the District of Columbia where Congress has sole jurisdiction, and to the qualification of members of Congress, and Mr. Roberts thus by law be prevented from taking his seat, the question would naturally arise whether the office of Representative in Congress is an office under the United States. The New York Sun has called attention to and investigated this question, and has come to the conclusion, citing several precedent examples, that the "weight of legal authority is strongly in favor of the proposition that it is not," and "that the framers of the Constitution excluded senators and representatives from the category of persons holding office under the United States." And thus every vestige of authority by law upon which is based the protests against him, and their acceptance by Congress,are swept away, and the House is left without law or excuse for its action in refusing Mr. Roberts to be sworn, and denying him a seat. It has done him and the state which he represents a grave wrong in denying him rights to which he is clearly entitled, and by so doing has set an example that threatens the liberty of every state in the Union. The Sun comes to the conclusion after a review of the case of Mr. Roberts that, "if the prosecutors of Mr. Roberts have any case against him which affords good ground for his expulsion from the House of Representatives, let them bring it forward after his admission and turn him out. The case for excluding him which they have thus far presented, is fatally defective, and it is no exaggeration to say that its success would be a menace to American liberty."

310 IMPROVEMENT ERA.

The minority Committee report which holds to the above view, will doubtless open the whole subject for debate in the House, when Utah's Representative will have an opportunity to continue the vigorous battle that he is waging single-handed for the right.