The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-02

convicted of the crime, and that 1t would
be more proper to require a conviction OF
the crime, before court of competent
jurisdiction, before 1t is assumed that he is
guilty. This, we take 1t, Is new way OF
putting the old argument in these cases,
that the constitution guarantees to every
person accused of crime the right of trial
by jury. To this it may be answered, as
II has been many times before, that the
constitutional guarantee applies only to
courts, where an accused person is placed
upon trial for the purpose, If found guilty,
of meeting out punishment to him. We
believe this to be the well settled construc-
ton of the constitution, But, unfortunate
ly, in dealing with these questions, indi-
vidual members of Congress do not con-
slider themselves bound by precedents or
anything else save their own caprices. 1t
seems to us that il would be monstrous
doctrine to hold that Congress could not
expel or exclude member for crime--the
object being not to punish the criminal,
but to purge Congress of him-without
previous conviction by jury. To so hold,
would practically take away from Con-
gress the power to purge itself and the
spectacle might again be witnessed of con-
fessed murderers assisting in making laws
for the government of n law abiding poo
pie.
But they say that it would be in accord
ancc with English precedents." Would
it either accord with English or American
rrecedents? We think not. We do not
propose TO quote any of these cases. Suf-
fee it to say, that Judge Poland, in his
speech on the Credit Mobiler report, cited
enough to show that parliament expelled
members charged with crime prior to any
conviction therefor and, in one case at least,
where it would be impossible to obtain a
conviction. In our own country, fOrtu-
nately, we have but few precedents, and
| these, with one exception, are all one way.
| That exception was the case of Humphrey
Marshall, senator from Kentucky, al
legged to be guilty of perjury. He was
/ elected with full knowledge, on the part
of the legislature, of the charge, but the
senate there held that he co uld not be ex-
PEELED without previous conviction by a
Jury. This was the first case of the kind
before the senate, and Its value, as a prece-
dent, is destroyed by the fact that it was
based on the constitutional guarantee of a
trial by jury, and because the senate suDse-
quently overruled it first in the case of
Blount, of Tennessee, and then in that OF
John,Smthlof Ohio, and, still later, in the
case of Bright of Indiana, and other sena-
tors in the early days of the rebellion. The
same is true of the house, SO far as there
are any precedcnts. The case of White
more expelled for selling West Point
cadetship is an instance, and SO, as much as
undecided cases can be, are the credit mo.
bilier cases of Ames and Brooks. 1t may
be further stated that In the whole annals
of the American congress, with the eXcep.
ton of Marshall's case, there cannot be
found an instance which can be construed
into precedent for the claim that congress
cannot expel member for crime prior tt
legal conviction therefor.
But the gravamen of the report is con
tanned in its last paragraph, where il i
, stated that "the gravest question to be con
sidered is whether the house ought, as
matter of policy, to establish preceden
/ for the expulsion of either delegate or
: member on. account of alleged crimes o
immoral practices unconnectcd with hi
obligations'as member or delegate whe
he possesses all the necessary qualification
to entitle him to his seat" And they ask
as if in moral fear of their own cases, 81
inquiry is to be made into the moral titnes
of man to occupy a seat in the house
where will the inquiry stop?' That is t
say, if man be OF suitable age, has been
citizen of the United States the requisit
5 number of years, and resident of til
state from which he is elected, no matte
that he is guilty of treason, that he has in
: bued his hand in his fathers blood, that
= is perjurer, pauper and thief, he must l
i and remain member of Congress, and h
i brother members have no power to purg
: themselves of the leprous stain. This, to-
IS In spite of the fact that the laws of Il
} land expressly provide that no person pra
!. tcing polygamy shall be entitled 10 Sc
It in Congress. This is refinement of col
Y stitutional construction. 1t throws I'M
o the shade all precedents, and is as ba
l. even, as Eldrdge's claim that although Il
e constitution apparently gives an unlimitt
" power of expulsion to Congress, yet it on
n means that it can expe for disorderly co
n duct. IL equals the claim made in Matt
G. sons case that member was purged
ID crime If he was elected after his constit
IN ents became aware of the charges mat
ct against him. Why didn't the commit
II place it thusly 1t is true that Cannon
Y. guilty of the crime of polygamy and tn
,e he is practicng it all the time, but his /
r, telligent constituents are fully aware
~ the fact, and although the law renders hi
"a ineligible therefor and his constituents I
IN elected him to show their contempt for +
,o law, yet that act condoned his crime, al
at it is, moreover, unsafe to deal with mel
,e Der for crime or immoral practices, thcl
If fore he is good enough for delegate
q Congress, and can be neither expelled
excluded To this absurdity does TIT
last proposition lead. With its aoeeptanC
criminal laws, or conviction for erin
to would not bar the doors of Congress l
4 lands law making a polygamist inellgil