The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-06-01

ties it. The moment Congress attempts
70 pass law upon that subject the House
divides the right which resides alone II
IT, that power which this House as legis
lAtlve body possesses, which is inheren
IN Il IS parliamentary body, and it sur.
renders the right to judge ofthe quslifca.
lions. Such Law is clearly unconstitu.
tloOal aud wholly void, and Congresl
cannot prescribe such qualifications: he.
cause If that were admitted this HOUSE
might propose bill fixing one quaIifcA-
ten for delegates; the SenHte might
hx an entirely different qualification, Shd
the bill going to the President might be
vetoed by him because it did not Ger
respond with his views. Thus you would
have the Senat4 and the President pre-.
scribinR the qualifications of delegates
who are to sit in this body.
Mr.. Springer-NOihing would be pre-
scribed until the law had been passed By
both houses and approved by the Presi-
dent. s
Mr.. CAlkins-CertAinly no.; but. the
moment you say that the law prescribing
the qualification must be submitted to
the Senate and the President you take
away the power Of the House on this suO-
iect.
Mr.. Springer-Allew me one question
more. Suppose Congress should pass
such q measure rs that which is kne Rn
as the "Psndleton BILL" sdHitting mem
bers Of the Presidents cabinet to seats on
this floor to speak on questions Of legisla-
ton. Suppose such bill after passing
both houses, should be approved by the
President, would 3 subsequent House of
Representatives be authorized to refuse to
Dlembers of the Presidents cabinet seats
on this floor?
Mr.. Calkins-Assumiug that Congress
has the constitutional power to pass such
a Law, say that this Hsuse, and this
House alone, would be the judge Of the
qualifications Of those cabinet officers if
they should become members.
Mr.. Springer-Then this House could
exclude them.
Mr.. Calkins-This House could exclude
them, because it is power residing I'M
felt BRED and unrestricted in every parlis-
mentsry body. Without it the House
could be imposed upon to An unlimited
extent. This House and every legisls-
tive body must have this power in order
to protect themtelves.
Mr.. Atkins-I ask the gentleman to
give way nov for q motion to adjourn.
He can finish his remarks in the morn
ing.
Mr.. C.kins-I shall be through in ten
minutes.
Mr.. Atkins-We can vote in the morn
ing just as we'll as this evening. 1t is
piece of tyranny to force Us to stay here
longer tonight.
Mr. Calkins-I shall be through in ten
minutes, and hope the gentleman will
not interrupt me now.
Ny friend from Tennessee rMr. Housed
was pleased to enter into some animsd-
versions with reference to the report of
the majority Of the committee. One of
his points, am free to say, was very
well taken. Where the word ''legal"
occurs it WAS, admit, inAptly used. But
the gentleman understands the sense in
which it was used. It was in consradis-
tinction to the IDEA that some qualifca-
ton might not be prescribed by the
House. In technical sense my friend
was right, but submit to him that criti-
cism of the use OF language is not fore
ible answer to the substance Of the Ques-
ton; aud when arguing the question rs q
matter OF substance he wks, I submit,
quite disingenuOus IN his remarks. Again
ne said, after quoting from the report Of
the majority:
Mr.. Speaker, stand silent in the pres
ence of this logic and this law.
Now, that was designed as satirei-
cold, crushing satire!-nipping, biting
satire! But as q matter Of fact, my friend
did not stand silent very long, for he i'm |
medistely proceeded to exercise his lung
power, and his elOquence, and his per-
suasive faculties, and his legal genius, to |
make his hearers walk eontenledly by |
the "Nheel Of the Mormon chariot" |
How far be succeeded will very soon be
seen. / an content to let the report and |
the remarks have made with reference |
to this constitutional question go down |
side by side with the gentlem sn's speech. |
and let the pen o. impartial history say
which is right.
I now come, Mr.. Speaker, to the last |
point which desire 10 discuss in coDLec- |
ton with this case; il is the religious phase
of the question. It is true that under the |
Constitution we are prohibited frem
passing auy law which shsll impair the
right Of any person to worship God |
according to the dictates of his own
conscience. But an examination of the |
authorities Diseases distinction between |
that which IS religion is harmless or |
beneficial to society. and that which,
under the guise VI religion, is mischievous,
The law says that no man can put on the |
robe Of sADctity and use it as cloak to |
commit ffenses sgsiDst public morals |
and public deceDcy. Whenever any one |
undertakes 10 do so, the laW-mskiDg |
power and the courts step in to prevent it, |
IN spite of the religious garb attempted to |
be set up IS q defense and justification.
admit that Ysgsries which harm no.
body except those who practice them may
be practiced under the cloak OF religion
without the intsrfelences of the law and
even under its protection. But whenever
any one under the gsrb of religion at
tempts that which is harmful to the
public, and which degrades morality,
that moment the robe falls, and the law
seizes the offender, as it does another
malefactor o. lsw-breaker who violates
decency without such pretense.
My friend from Tennessee Mr.. Rouse)
said yesterday;
1.-THE history of the VERDI Ead of the
religious prosecutions that have dis
yraced churches and governments
this fact beyond controversy
,r doubt. 1.-THE blood Of the martyrs Is
he seed of the church" has held good in
III the past, and will prove true to-day"
In answer to that statement ~ we'll as
o that part Of the contestants remarks