The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-12
THE DEBATE.
Confirmation Of the Cannon
Campbell Contest in the
House.
BeItzhOOver's Argument.
Continued from Wednesday.

| AiHlOeL uuh0lmOusiy IGpOIhc'
against his right to admission on th
ground that he had written sn impruden
and dlsloysl letter; nothing more. ID
had never committed an act @
treason. He was never srres.et
or tried or convicted. he denies
all reasonable intent in the letter, All
made every effort in his power TO eX
plain and extenuste his ofense. Blu
seven on! of the nine mem bers Of th
committee on elections OF the Forfeit
Congress reported that he "Was not en-
titled TO take the oath Of Office, or 10 b
admitted 10 the House as representative
from the state of Kentucky" This repor
was adopted by the House by vote o
los to AZ. The minority report in tina
case made an argument against the &C
ton of the majority in almost the same
words, and on identicslly the same
grounds that the minority Of the com
mittee on elections occupy in the case
under consideration. 1t was argued thai
Mr.. Brown had all the constitutions
qualifications, and that Congress hEd nc
right to exact more; that in any event he
had never been tried or convicted of trea-
SOD, and unless convicted Of the crime
even treason was no disqualification.
But Congress thee laid down the rule
above given. and never sbrogsted since
that in addition to the ordinary constitu-
tionsl requirements, every man must be
we'll disposed and loyal toward the gov
eminent before he can be admitted to
Congress to aid in forming its policy and
controlling It's deGtinies.
The act of July 2, 1862, providing
what is known as the ironclad oath,
added new and marked qualification to
those required Of members Of Congress
prior to that time, and every member
who has taken that oath since has sub
mitted to the eXaction of that additional
qualification. The distinguished counsel
who argued the case Of Mr.. Cannon be-
fore the committee on elections, felt the
force of this act and the long-continued
practice of Congress under it, and ex-
! planned 1t as q war measure. He said:
The grounds upon which this law Was
vindicate5, although not stated with
clearly enough disclosed by the debates.
1t was enacted as q war measure. The
ironclad oath was adopted as the counter
sign which should, in time of war, ex-
clude domestic enemies from the civil
administration of the government, in the
same manner and for the same reason
that the military countersign was en-
ployed to exclude those enemies from the
military lines of the army. l. was
enacted as measure Of defense against
an armed enemy in time of war, and was
as necessary and as justifable as any
other war measure mot specially marked
cut in The text of the Constitution.
If Congress could, almost without
challenge. provide and add such dis
tinet and imperative qualification, not for
delegate but for q membe of Congress,
in 1862, why may we not in 1882 ask q
reasonable additional qualification for q
delegate from territory who does not
come within the letter or spirit of the
Constitution? The act of 1862 was q
bold and radical assertion of the doctrine
of self-preserYation Oh the part of Con-
gress to maintain its integrity and the
purity and loyslty Of its cOunsels. The
resolution recommended By the ma
jority OF the committee on elections
only says to the people of Utah,
You shall not abuse the privilege of rep
resentation which we allowed you on the
floors of Congress, by sending as your
delegate person who adheres to an or
ganization that is hostile to the interests
Of free government, and whose doctrines
and practices are offensive to the masses
Of the moral people of the great nation
we represent.
CONCLUSION.
The following is summary Of the rea-
sons for my concurrence In the resolu-
IT,, 81 4 ~
|. The history of the cessiOn and or
gsnizstion of the territory, which be-
loDged to the federal government at the
lime of its formation, the history Of the
clause in the Constitution which relates
to that territory, and the Constitution it
self all show clearly that it was Lot con-
templated or intended that delegates
which might be sent from said territory,
then Immediately under the Constitution,
should have the same qualifications as
members Of Congress.
2. The Constitution does not extend
over Utah except IS part of the statute
law provided for that territory by Con-
gress, and there is therefore more reason
for holding that the qualifications required
for members of Congress by the Consti-
tuition do not extend to delegates from
that territory than there Is IN relation to
delegates from territory Immediately IN
der the Constitution.
8. The Constitution not only does not
provide that Delegates shall have the
same qualifications as members Of Con-
gress. but no law, in almost century OF
legislation on the subject, has SO provided.
4. There is no reason why the qualif-
cation of delegates should be the same as
those of members of Congress. Their
status and duties and powers are widely
different, and their qualifications should
be made to conform to those powers and
duties, which in case Of delegates are
purely Of ailocal and business character
5. The territories can only be held and.
by Congress with one single
purpose in view, which is to adopt aud
prepare them for admission as ststss OF
the Union. It will hardly be commended
that Utah will ever be admitted as a
state while polyEAmy dominates 1t, or
that It is preparing it for admission as
state to hold out to its people the deluslYe
doctrine that polygamist is not dlsquall-
fed as mem Der of Congress, and there
fore that polygamy is 10 bar to the ad-
mission of Utah to the Union.
6. No law fixing the qualifications OF
delegates passed by any former Congress
would be binding on any subsequent
House. Each House shall be the judge
of the qualifications of its own members,
and for much stronger reason 1t should
be the exclusive judge of the quslihca-
e.. - a. j.. 5oIooofoc uvbioh ora ite arpa-