The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-12

DOTtLy yesbSIudy QeclareQ mat Qecen
respect for tho opinions of mankint
should constrain US to follow the prece
dents set by the last four Congresses, ant
accord to Mr.. Cannon his seat. The SD
peal was an unfortunate one. I main
tain with gre confidence that, under tn
law and the facts in this case, q decen
respect for the opinions of mankind over
.whelmingly justify US in refusing to sd
NIT to this supreme legislative tribuna
o. this great Christian republic one who's
prsctices are offensive to our civilization.
hostile to civil society, and fatal to tn,
welfare of the state.
MIR. Jones, of Texas, said:
Mr. Speaker: In the time allowed me
l shall not be able to notice or discuss al
of the many interesting questions of con-
stitutionsl law involved in this debate
shall, therefore, select such as seem Il
me most salient and give them such con-
siderstion as my ability and the limited
time Will permit.
1t is not denied that Mr.. Cannon was
duly elected, receiving some $4,000 votes
to about some LOGO votes against him,
1t is not questioned that these votes were
legal. So that the only question before
the House is whether he is laboring IN
der any disability or disqualification on
account Of which he is denied or should
be denied q seat on this floor. Touching
this vital inquiry, l shall call attention
to the qualifications established or pre-
Bcribed by the Constitution for mem bers:
mo person shall be representative
who shall not have attained the age OF
twenty-five years and been seven years q
citizen of the United States, and who
shall not, when elected, be an inhR bitant
Of that state in which he shall be
chosen"
It is admitted in the report of the ma
jority that Mr.. Cannon possesses all of
these constitutional qualifications. The
rule is familiar to the House that the
qualifications thus prescribed by the
Constitution exclude all others; In other
words these are all the qualifications that
can be required for members Of t his
House. The old familiar rule, .'the in
clusion Of the one is the exclusion Of the
other" in its application to this psrticu-
lar section or clause of the Constitution
is expressly recognized and affirmed by
Mr.. Story in his treatise on the Constitu-
ton. There is no question about that.
1t is not pretended that Congress can
either add to or take from these qualiicA-
tions. 1t is, however, or has been in
this debate, insisted that Congress may
in the exercise of its constitutional prero-
gstive to judge of she elections, quslfea-
tons, and returns Of its.own mem bers,
apply other tests or require other qualif-
cations in delegate from territory.
Congress has the prerogative o. ex-
elusive privilege to Judge, not to enlarge
or to contract or TO diminish the quslifi-
cations prescribed by the Constitution.
The power is clearly one ofjudgment,
one of ascertainment, and not one Of
creation. The House can neither enlarge
nor diminish in so far as its members
are concerned. But it is maintained by
some gentlemen that this constitutional
provision has little or no application to q
delegate ceming from q territory. Why
not? Is net the reason the same? Con-
gress cannot certainly require greater
qualifications in delegate, in an inferior,
in one occupying less important pesi-
ton upon the floor than q member. To
do so would in itself be travesty on
law. You may require
less, but certainly cannot require more.
You cannot erect . standard for dele
gate different from and more exscting
than the one by which you propose to be
ruled yourselves. It not only involves
legal sophism but it involves self
reproach for a member of the United
States Congress to stand up here and say,
II am good enough to represent my con-
stituents, but some man hailing from
territory is not good enough. though as
good as myself, to represent his" Here
in that same breath we have it that the
people in the territories are better than
those in the states, when it serves your
purpose; and yet the breath Is not cold
before you tell Us that the people of the
states are really better than those in the
territories, and ought to have better men
10 represent them in the Uni.ed States
Congress. And yet gentlemen attempt
ing to maintain the sophism by which
hey sustain themselves in this particular
case do not get through their pretended
before they tell vs. the people
10 the territories have no rights we are
bound to respect.
Now, then, it being conceded that Mr..
Cannon possesses ali of these const!tu-
.ionsl qualifications, let US see if he does
act possess all the qualifications required
by the acts of Congress in respect to the
Territory of Utah.
Gentlemen tell US this is new question,
IS if it were here for the frat time in its
original character for our consideration,
md yet the very same gentlemen who
ell US go go back and trace our legisla-
ion for thirty years in respect to this
very territory and this very question.
Was not this question before Congress
when it passed the organic act Of the
erritory of Utah2 And what is that
organic act? Has it sny binding force or
fleet upon the people of the United
States or upon this Congress? Can you
reat it in any other light than a charter
government for that people2 Here is an
organic act; you passed it and that people
accepted it. It is in the nature OF
legislative contract, and is binding on all
parties, and certainly repealAble by
neither except with the agreement and
~ the consent Of the other.