The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-04-29

This house has no right to add to or {,
take from these qualifications prescribed
By Congress.
But it is claimed, rs 1 have. said, tbs
Congress cannot fix the qualifications O.
Delegate. Ifthat is true, then certainly
this House cannot FIX the qualifications
because that would be an act of lepisla-
tion, and The power of legislation does Dol
raside in this House alone, but in both
Houses of Congress. But let Us look al
This in another light. Section 1906 pre-
scribes. as I have said, the qualification
of citizenship for certain Delegates. Now
sunnose that to be the only qualification
prescribed, would this House have the
RIGHT TO add or to take from that Quail
| jfcation? Certainly not; because that
would DO altering or amending 8 law, an
act of legislation, the power to do which
does not rest in this House alone, but in
the Congress of the United States.
II what I have said is true, if the
ARGUMENT that I have attempted to make
has any foundation. Mr.. Cannon was
entitled to his seat when this House uet,
and he has been kept out only by the
arbitrary power of this House. But il is
claimed that section s Of the act of 1882
will deprive him of the right to hold this
Office. Tha. section says that no polyg-
smist, bigamist or person cohs6iting
with more than one woman IN any Terri
tory shall be entitled to hold Office under
the United States or any Territory
thereof. But | suppose that no one will
say that Mr. Cannon can be denied the
Office until he is proven to be polyg-
amist, a bigamist, or to have cohablted
with more than ore woman. In other
words, under this law bigsmy or polyg-
amy is q disqualification for holding
Office. But I contend you must prove
that the disqualification attaches 10
the particular person before you can deny
that particular person the office. But It
is said that Cannon acknowledged that he
had plural wives aud was living with
them. All right. When wGs that doIe?
One year ago. But say you cannot ap-
ply this law unless you prove that he has
been guilty of bIgsmy or polygsmy since
the passage of this act of 1882. Why is
that so? Because, under the law Of 1862
defining bigamy the punishment was
simply fine and imprisonment. The dis
qualification of holding office was not
part of the punishment prescribed by
that act of 1862. You therefore cannot
apply in this case the law Of 1882. Why
noE? Because it would be adding & new
punishment to an old ofense; because it
would be inficting q greater punishment
than was annexed to the crime when it
was committed; because it would be in
Aicting different punishment from that
prescribed by the law in force when the
ofense was committed. And the Supreme
Court of United States has hold such &C.
al ~
fore make this law operate in an uneOn-
stitutionaI way. 1t must apply to the
future and not to the past.
Mr.. Ranney-Where has the Supreme
Court decided that?
Mr.. Davis, CT Missouri-In 4 Wallace,
0 nited States reports But I understand |
the statute Of 1852 says that msn who, |
having q wife living, shall 10 territory |
marry another woman, shall be deemed |
guilty of bigsmy. In other words, the |
living with plural wives is not ofitself an |
ofense under that statute. He must have |
married after its enactment and had an
other wife living. l say there was no
testimony before the committee, there is |
no testimony before this House, IS to |
when these plural marriages took place.
We are therefore unable to decide
whether they took place before or after
the Law Ws5 enacted. What then has
bigsmy to do with this case? Absolutely
l may say that I wish this
penalty could be applied to this particu-
lar case, but you cannot get my consent
TO do it in an improper way. I may say
that / would like to have II applied now,
30 that these people may understand once
for all that this thing shall cease. But (,
you ask me to deny representation 10 8
territory when it has sent man here
who has ali the qualifications of any
other representative or delegate, and who
IS under no disqualification as under
stand the law. You ask me to do this in
violation of law, In violation of all prece-
lent, In violation Of sll parity Of reason
Dg, and under circumstances in which
you would not dare 10 deny q representa-
i've from g state sest in this House. I
cannot 10 it. l kOow there has been an
attempt to make capital out of this mat
or. l know we have been told that the
people are in favor Of Kidding the country
II thi. incubus. That is all very true.
We are told that it is the will OF the peo-
lie that some action be taken in this mat.
er; and we have already taken action in
be law that we passed few days ago.
3ut when l am asked to consult the will
# the people Of this country, must an
wer that l find their will expressed in
heir written Constitution and in their
written laws, aud my allegiance shall be
o them until they ara changed. That is
II, Mr.. Speaker, that l desire to say at
bis time will reserve the rem ainder Of
~ time until further along in the debate
(To be cO1ltinued.)