The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-21

DO not defend polygsmy, nor would
defend infdelity. Infdelity saps and at
tacks the very foundations Of the Chris
tan religion fully as much as do the
Rractlces OF the "Lstter-day Saints. !"
Yet doubt II any member upon the
moor OF this House would vote against
3 man because he had no religious con-
Vctlons at all, and belongs to the class
which the Bible says 'thath said In bis
heart there is no God"
| We are not an ecclesiastical synod;
we are not sent here as an inquisstorial
body to make inquiry whether A, B, or
o comes up to the religious standard that
We have established FOR ourselves. We
come here as legislative body. The
committee on elections of this House has
certain functions to discharge, which in
no wise affect mans religious belief or
his practices under that religion.
The trst question for Us to deter mine
In cold blood is: Was the terri
tory OF Utah, at the last general
election, entitled 20 delegate
ia this houseP Were the people OF Utah
entitled to exercise the right of fran
chise? Did they exercise the right of
franchise, and did they choose Dele
gate to represent them here as their
agent? The msjority report OF the
committee on elections decides, frat, that
Utah was entitled to representation;
second, that the population of Utah did
possess the elective franchise; third, that
they exercised that franchise, and By an
overwhelming majority selected as their
| delegate or agent, 10 communicate to as
their wishes, George Q. Cannon, who.
the committee report, is not entitled to
De received upon this floor as their rep
resentative.
Was Mr.. Cannon eligible under the
laWr The only eligibility required is
that ne shall be citizen Of the United
States, and l believe that that even is
denied by the majority report, and they
bold that there was no qualification at
all. Then if he fills all the requi-
Sites
Here the hammer fell ] -,
The Speaker-Tbe time of the gentle
man has expired.
Mr.. Bragg-The gentleman fom
Texas Mr.. Jonesl, sgreed to yield me
some time.
The Speaker-The time of that gen.
tleman has been exhausted.
Mr.. Sparks-The gentleman from
Texas agreed to yield some of bis time.
fhe Speaker-That is true; but never
theless the time of the gentleman from
Texas has been exhausted.
Mr.. Davis, of Missouri-I have some
time left at the conclusion Of my re-
marks yesterday, and I will yield ten
minutes to the gentleman from Wis
eonsin, [Mr. Bragg
Mr.. Brsgg-I thank the gentleman. I
say that when the committee on elections
exercised their functions, they were
exercised legally and properly in ascer-
tanning the several facts. When they
have found these facts all in the sfirms-
tive, they have no right legally, morally,
or otherwise, in the discharge Of their
duties as an election committee of this
House examining into the election of 8
member or delegate of this House, TO go
outside of the naked legal propositions
VII ch were submitted to them, and
bring in for the consideration Of this
House, discussion upon the question Of
the propriety or legality Of polygauy.
This agent, who has been selected by
the polygsmists to represent tkem here
as their sgent, has been here through
two successive Congresses -
Mr.Sparks-Through four Congresses.
Mr.. Bragg-Through four successive
Congresses. He has borne himself a
gentleman In every respect. He has
certainly not contaminated any me Der
Of Congress by any Eoxious doctrine.
Mr.. ALKins-VVill tho gentleman fun
Wisconsin Mr.. Brsgg] allow me to in
tsrrupt in the little time he has to speak?
I'would like to hear from him, il he can
reach the point upon the effect of the Ed
munds bill, the recent law of Congress,
upon the right of the delegate from Utah
to his seat, whether or Lot IL is rstroac-
tive? That is the point In this case.
Mr.. Bragg When rose to speak,
d so elmply for the purpose of giving
the reasons, without entering into any
general discussion, Of my vote on this
question.
Insve considered the question which
has been propounded to me by the gen.
tleman from Tennessee Mr.. Atkinsl and
my view upon it from . legal standpoint
is this: II Mr.. Cannon was eligible and
entitled to his seat when he received the
franchises Of bis people which gave him
that right to q seat, no subsequent act OF
congress can deprive him of that right
thus given him By the franchise which
his people possessed, which they exer
cised, and which has become executed by
the election which resulted In choosing
him for this seat.
1.-THE committee on elections desires
to reach the question OF pOlygsmy, III
his House desires to reach that question,
if the sentiment Of the country desires to
reach that question, it must reach it by
the disfranchisement of any person enter
tanning that species Of religious belief
which il entertained by the Mormons.
And I doubt very much whether any
member Of this House will claim that
the right exists in US to disfranchise any
person in the Territory who by local law
is entitled to Ihe,exercise Of the right Of
franchise.
If they have that right Of franchise
they have the right OF selection, and
when they have made their selection. If
they are entitled to it, We cannot deprive
them of the benefits Of that selection I'M
less we repeal the law which entities
Utah to a delegate. For these reasons.
Mr.. Speaker, Independently Of all ques-
tons Of polygsmy or Mormonism, l shsll
cast nv vote to seat Mr.. Cannon as q
delegate from his people to communicate
to Us their wishes upon the subject OF
legislation.
Mr. Moulton-I yield seven mlautes
20 nv friend from Michigan, Mr.. HorF.