Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1873-03-07
THE T.OTE OF CE.vSURE.

The great struggle over the Credit Mo-
bilier investigation, in the national House
of Representatives is ended. 1t has a sad if
not dsgraceful ending, and one which we
fear will be quoted hereafter, and thus form
disastrous precedent. The resolutions to
expel Mr.. Ames and Mr.. Brooks were
practically defeated by vote of one hun
dred and ten ayes to one hundred and fif-
teen nays. The vote, 10 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, a resolu-
ton for that purpose requiring a two-thirds
votes OF the House, while the vote on the
adoption of the substitute showed an actu-
al majority of Eve against expulsion. The
yeas and nays are not given, but we have
reason TO infer that our Vermont deega-
ton, from their actions, votes and utter
ances heretofore on the subject, were unan-
imously in favor of expulsion. The mat
ter in reference 10 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 Ames
as a member of the House from the State
of Massachusetts, in seeking to procure
Congressional attention to the affairs of q
corporation in which he was interested and
whose interests directly depended on the
legislation of Congress, by inducing men,
bers 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 rect-
al of the fact, that he was government di-
rector of the Union Pacific railroad COM
pany, and secured stock for himself and
family. These resolutions were adopted by
a vote of Isl TO %, 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,
opposing expulsion, excused their con-
sciences seems to have been that Congress
had no power to take such action for Of
lenses alleged to have been committed pri-
or to their election. Yet, when 1T came to
the point of establishing that proposition,
as a direct proposition, they refused to en-
dorse the preamble to the resolutions they
had just adopted, which declared that
"grave doubts exist as TO the rightful exer-
else 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 9S votes in its favor to l13
In opposition. So the House of Represen-
tatives, after basng their action on their
want of power to expel for acts committed
before members election, refused to say
that, in their opinion, there was, in fact,
any such want of want of power. This is
not the only curious, not to say shameless,
phise of the matter. If they had the pow
or 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
fjr the very same acts. This, be 1t remem-
bered, is no party question. 1t went far
beyond the domain of party politics long
ago. The constitution Of the investigation
committee, their unanimous report, the
gentlemen recommended for expulsion and