The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-02

far as I know, that Campbell was q citi-
zen Of the United States, but how he
ever brought his judicial mind 10 the
conclusion that Campbell had been
elected, and thus moved his executive
mind to give him certificate Of election,
is what no one ought to be expected to
understand who is not able 10 combine
within himself the judicial and executive
abilities of the remarkable public
fun dictionary appointed by the President
governor of Utah, and appointed by
himself a special judge to pass on the
questions Of naturalization and polygamy
as they presented themselves TO his dual
mind Ia Cannon's case. The committee,
in their report, reverse his honor on
the naturalization question, and hold
that his ezcellency slightly erred in Civ
ing a certificate Of election to man who
only missed an election by failure TO
get the votes Of the people he aspired to
represent. But they affirm the court on
the polygamy question. The error Of his
honor in deciding that Cannon was not
naturalized, and OF his excellence in re-
fusing him certificate Of ell elton, has so
far kept Cannon out of seat to which,
under the law, he was as much entitled
ss any member upon this floor, and his
exclusion is to be made final if the House
should adopt the resolution proposed by
the majority of the committee.
as before intimsted the committee
admit that Cannon Is a nRturalized citi-
zen of the United States, and that he was
duly and legally elected Delegate to
represent the Territory Of Utah in the
present Congress. They also admit that
he possesses all the qualifications which
the Constitution of the United States
prescribes for a member Of Congress-
One would very naturally conclude after
these admissions that the committee
would find no obstacle and raise no
objection to the admission Of Cannon to
his seat. But Euch is found not 10
be the fact on an examination Of the
extraordinary report which the ma
jority have submitted to the House.
They take the ground that Cannon is not
q member OF the House, but merely a
Territorial agent whom the House may
admit to his seat or not, as they see fit.
They insist that Congress has never pre-
scribe6 the qualifications of q Delegate
from Territory, and that they have no
right to pass law defining such quali-
fcstions, and that no law can be passed
in reference to such qualifications which
this House could not disregard at will
Now let US inquire in the first place
whether Congress has ever by law pre-
scribed the qualifications of Territorial
Delegate.
The Constitution of the United States
provides that
1.-THE Congress shall have power 10
dispose Of and make all needful rules |
and regulations respecting the Territory |
or other property Of the United Ststes." |
Laboring under the impression that |
this clause Of the Constitution empowered |
them to do so Congress at an early dsy
passed the following law; which has re-
msined unchanged and unchallenged |
upon the statute book ever since:
Livery Territory shSll have the right
TO send Delegate to the House of Rep
of the United States to serve
during each Congress. who shall be
elected by the voters in the Territory
qualified to elect members of the Legis-
atiVe Assembly thereof The person
having the greatest number of votes
shall be declared by the governor duly
elected and a certificate shall be giVea
Every such Delegate shall
nave seat in the House Of Representa-
ives, with the right Of debating but not
IF voting"
In the organic law for the Territory of
D tab Congress enacts-
s ''ThAt the Constitution and laws of
he United States are hereby extended
over and declared to be in force in said
Territory of Utah, and so far as the same
" any provision thereof may be appli-
,able."
Now, among the provisions Of the
Constitution thus extended By statute
,ver Utah, We find the qualifications Of
or mem bers of Congress
prescribed: they shall be twenty. Eve :
'ears Of age, seven years citizens of the
United States, and shall be when elected
inhabitants of the State in which they ,
hall be chosen. But it Is said that these
are not applicable to a
Delegate. Why not? True he is not ,
member with full powers, as he cannot
-ote, but in all other respects he is
member. He receives the same salary
s member, has right to introduce |
measures of legislation as a mem Der, is
ppointed by the Speaker of the House /,
n Committees TO shape legislation as
1em bers are, the oath administered to q
Delegate is the same as that administered
D q member. The time, manner and I
lace Of electing Delegates are the same
5 those prescribed for members. Vacan-
les in the cases of Delegates are filled in
be same way as those occurring in the
asses of members. IL a contest arises,
ne case of a Delegate is treated pre-
lsely as that CT me Der, and the
nalogies between the two are fully !
scognized by law, by the rules Of the
louise and lis uniform practice. With
ut q recognition of this analogy the case
oW under consideration could not have
,und Its way under the rules OF the
louise TO the Committee on Elections.
TO be contialued.) h