The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-03
THE DEBATE.
Continuation of the Cannon
Campbell Contest in. the
House.
Representative Houses Argu-
ment.
(Continued from Tuesdays Daily

CONTINUED from Tuesdays Daily.)
The rule provides that subjects rela ins
to the election of members shall be r.
frrred TO ths committee on election 5,
The rule makes no meation of delepa {
at all. How then did this case get before
the committee On fleet ons? Clearly By
the recC gnltIon of the analogy between q
member ana a delegates: and the CON-
mlttee, by the attempt to deny this ana =
ogy, repudlste The only source of jurjs-
dIction they have to touch the case at all.
1t the provisions Of the constitution tela-
tive 10 mem bers are not to be extended
by analogy to delegates, then the Hou- g
has no power whatever to Judge of the
election or qualifications of delegate;
nor has 1t any right 10 expel him, tor ali
these rights refer to members only.
Now, it will not do to derive the toWer
to judge Of the election of a delegate, TO
expel him. or to examine his case by n
committee of the House from the ana
Ogy between . delegate and mem Der,
and yet deny the applicability of that an
slogy when the qualifications of the
former are to be passed upon. No rea-
son Is given or can be given, or i, At
tempted 70 be given why Congress did n ot
mean by extending the. Constitution of
the United States over Utah to make the
qualifications of delegate from that ter
rltory the same as those Of a member by
the close analogy of the two. II it had
been intended 10 prescribe q higher
standard of morality for delegate than
for a mem Der, surely that intention would
crop out somewhere in the Legislation
relative to the territories.
If any reason exists for requiring q
higher degrees of qualification for dele
gate than tor member, surely the COM
mittee in search of reasons to deny Can
non his seat would have discovered it
and given US the benefit Of it in their ra-
port, which, it must be confessed, is not
at all crowded with either logic or law to
sustain the positions assumed. But it is
said the election of delegate is not pro.
vided for by the Constitution. But such
election is provided for by an act of Con-
gress, which is as binding upon this
House as the Constitution is. Congress
has the power to pass all needful rules
and regulations for the territories. In
the language Of the supreme court:
1.-THE organic law of a territory takes
the place Of a constitution or the funda-
mental law of the local government"
And again;
1T (Congresa) may do for the terri
tories what the people under the Consti-
sutton of the United States may do for
the staLes."
The chairman of the committee who
submitted the msjority report says:
IS Delegates are creatures of
statute, and it would be competent at
any time for the legislative branch to
abolish the Office sltogelher."
Suppose this is true; it does not follow |
that one branch of Congress can abolish |
the office, or which amounts practically |
TO the same thing, nulify the law by ar |
bltrarlly refusing, as it is claimed the |
House has right TO do, 10 allow the DEL |
egste duly elected under the law 10 take
his seat. But says the chairman Of the |
committee further:
''The writer ofthis report goes further
than that. He holds that it is incompe-
tent for Congress and the Executive to
impose on any other future house the
right Of delegates to seats with defined
qualifications; hat is to cay, when the
several laws were passed giving the ter
ritories the right to this limited represen-
tation, those laws were binding only on
the lower House, which permitted them
to be, or made it possible for them to be
passed, and were persuasive only to the
House of future Congresses.
Then they we're rot laws. For Iif they
are laws fail 10 see how they are bind.
ing Cd the House that assisted in passing
them and persuasive only to the Houses
Of future Congresses" 1t seems to me a
new rule in the Interpretation Of statutes
TO hold that the lower House of Congress
g bound bJ law because it participated
q its passage, but future House that
had no hand In making the law, and did
lot therefore assent 10 1t, : only bOuad
~ 1t in so far As it chooses to be. And
gain the chairman says in his report:
and with reference TO the election of
delegates who Of they hold any Office or
franchise 1t alb can be nothing but ,
geuts representing the common prop ,
rtY and territory o. ali the people, il op- :
rates only on The lower branch of Con- ,
.ress, fer their election extends no right
o them to interfere with the business Of !
he Senate or to act as mem bers thereof, Z
That il true. The election of 3 dele :
ate does rot extend to him the right to ,
interfere with the business of the Senate :
IT 10 act SIS member thereof. Neither +
oes the election 0: a member of the ;
House extend 10 him the right TO inter .
ere with the business of the Senate or TO .
ct as q member thereof bot what this I
rOves OF is intended to prove on The =
oint IN hand by the author of the re- =
ort 1 do not know that L perceive. If !;
is meant to assert that as q delegate =
annot have anything to do with the pro- o
eedings in the Senate, and that ther.-ii .,
1re the Senate should have nothing 10 Z
o with fixing his qualifications I fail to &
ee the force of it. For, although the T
eIegaie takes bis seat in the House +
lone, he represents, as the report saws. -
the common property and territory Of y
Il the people," and it would seem that "
: the Senate as we'll as the House ia
othed by the constitution with the power .
pass all needful rules and regulations
I