Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-03-06
THE RUTLAND HERALD
SATURDAY, MARCH |, 1873.
The vote of Censure.


precedent. The resolutions to oxpel Mr..
Ames and Mr.. Brooks were, practically,
defeated by vote of one hundred and
ten ayes TO one hundred and fifteen
nays. The vote, to be sure, was not
taken upon the direct motion to expel,
but on resolution substituting simple
vote of censure. The vote showed, that
In any event, 1t was impossible to expel,
resolution for that purpose requiring
q vote of two-thirds of the House, while
the vote on the adoption of the substi-
tute showed an actual majority of five
against expulsion. The yeas and nays
are not given, but we have reason to in
fer that our Vermont delegation, from
their actions, votes and utterances here
tofore on the subject, were unani-
mously in fayorof expulsion. The mat
ter In reference to Mr.. Ames and Mr..
Brooks was disposed of, in vote of cen
sure, the resolution censuring Cakes
Ames being In these words THAT the
House absolutely condemn the conduct
Of Cakes Ames as a member of the
House from the State Of Massachusetts,,
in seeking to procure Congressional at
tention to the affairs of corporation in
which he was interested and whose in
tsrest directly depended on the legisla-
tion Of Congress, by inducing members
Of Congress to invest in the stock of said
corporation" The resolution in refer
ence to Mr.. Brooks was substantially to
the same effect, being only varied by
the recital of the fact, that he was
government director of the Union Pa
cific railroad company, and secured stock
for himself and family. These resolu-
lions were adopted by vote Of one hun
dred and eighty-one to thirty-eight, the
Vermont members, of course, voting in
the affirmative, except Mr.. Smith, who
seems to have been absent. The plea
upon which most of the members, oppos-
ing expulsion, excused their conscienccs
seems to have been that Congress had
no power to take such action for offenses
alleged to have been committed prior to
their election. Yet, when it came to
the point of establishing that proposition,
as direct proposition, they refused to
endorse the preamble to the resolutions,
they had just adopted, which declared
that grave doubts exist as to the right
full exercise by this House of its power
To expel members for offenses committed
by such member long before his election
thereto and not connected with such
election" there being only ninety-eight
votes in Its favor to one hundred and
thirteen in opposition. So the House of
Representatives, after basing their ac-
tion on their want of power to expel for
acts committed before a members cleo
ton, refused to say that, in their opin-
lon, there was, in fact, any such want
of power. This Is not the only curious,
not to say shameless, phase of the mat
ter. 1t will be seen that more than two
thirds of the members voted to censure.
Where do they obtain their power to
csnsurer The only power is, of course,
that conferred by the constitution of the
United States, which provides that leach
House may determine the rules of it's
proceedings, punish its members for dis
orderly behavior, and, with the concur
renee Of two-thirds, eXpel a member,
and, in another clause, that leach House
shall be the judge of the elections, re-
turns and qualifications of its own mem
bers.' Here is their power and their
whole power In the premises. 1t is
either question of qualifications or
the power to ''punish." The matter of
qualifications would, probably, not be
proper either for expulsion or censure,
bit could only be considered in refer
ence to the right of member to his
seat. Either of them would be ''pun-
ishment, the difference being in degree.
and in the fact that mere majority
could punish in the one case, while two
thirds would be required in the other.
The power to punish in either way is
derived from the same article, the same
clause and the very same sentence of
the constitution. II they had the power
to do the one, they had the power to do
the other. Yet, we find grave members
of Congress, claiming to be intelligent
and honest, arguing that Congress has
no right to expel for acts done prior to
their election, and, at the same time,
voting to censure for TIE very same acts.
This, be it remembered, is no party
question. In went far beyond the do
main of party politics long ago. The
constitution of the investigation commit
tee, their unanimous report, the gentle
men recommended for expulsion and
the several votes during the action on
the report, all show that party was not
considered. No party, but men of all
parties, will have to take the response
bility of this action The House, by
their action, have virtually sustained the
action of the committee. By the votes
of 'absolute censure" passed they have
endorsed the facts as found by the com
mittee. BY their refusal to censure Mr..
Kelley, Of Pennsylvania, and other gen
tlemen involved, and by discharging the
committee from further action, they
say, In so many words, that the state
ments, findings and conclusions OF the
committee are correct. We said, at the
time of the making of the report, that
1t would commend itself to the consider
ate Judgment of Congress and the coun-
try. Congress has, by their action, sub
stautially confirmed our judgment, al
though, by contemplate bubble, they
have refused to expel. The country has
already pronounced its judgment on the
matter, and we very much mistake the
temper of the people If they do not, at
their first opportunity, place their seal
of condemnation on the bubble and sub
t.rfuge that controlled their final action.
The same great defect in the character
of the majority of American statesmen
and politicians, which gave rise to the