The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-02-16
POLYGkMY as A DISABILITY.

cIally denunclatory OF the way III
which Mr.. Cannon has been treated
from the time the certificate was
wrongfully given to the man who
was not elected, during all the stages
of congressional lodging and daily
ing until the present. No person
who has regard for the right as it is
understood in the republic, can ap-
prove the course that has been pur-
sued. The passage by the House of
the bill fixing the qualifications of
delegates in Congress called forth
an editorial in the Times, " hich we
reproduce below:
1t must be admitted that the anti
polygamy bill, passed by. the House of
| Representatives few days since, is a
desperate remedy for the Mormon evil.
| The most important provision of this
scheme of law is that no person guilty OF
bigsmy or pOlygamy shall be eligible to
the otfic Of delegate 10 the House of
Representatives from any territo'y. The
| Constitution provides that each house
of Congress shall be the judge of the
qualifications Of its own members. This
being the case, it would lie competent for
! the House TO declare, by simple resolu-
! ton. that no person guilty Of any speci-
fed otfense shall be eligible TO seat as
delegate or as representative. The diff
Guilty with q simple resolution in this
particular case, however, would be that
it might be rescinded at any time, pro-
vided votes enough for that purpose could
be mustered in the House. The bill, as
passed, becomes the law Of the land when
1t has received the sanction Of the Sc" ate
and the signature Of the President. To |
repeal this law would require more time |
and more numerical strength in both |
branches of Congress the the resembling |
offs simple rule Of the House. A resolu.
ton can be readily reRcinded. A statute |
of the United States is q much more for
mids5le affair.
Allowing that there will be no difficulty
in convicting polygAmous person Of the
fronted at once with the proposition that
Congress has selected from the
calendar one crime which By
statute shall be held to disable
The offender. It is to be presumed that
he clause iD tho Constitution that gives
70 each House the right to determine the
qualifications of its mem bers includes the
light 10 determine those qualifications on
moral grounds. Thus, we can imagine
hat notorious counterfeiter might be
efused q seat in Congress. or, if once !
Gated, might be expelled by q two
birds vote, as provided in section of
he article relating 10 the qualifications of
nen. bers. Congress may enact that a
ertain class of otfenses shall be held to
e crimes disquslitying the offender from
sking q seat in the House or Senate.
tut the catalogue of criminal effsnses is
cry large. In some states of the Union q
bose are crimes which may not render /
ne offender amenAble to law 10 another 1
tate. Tie use OF profane and blasphe- l
lous language, the sale OF Intoxicating
quors, aud the dealing in lottery tickets
re among these ofepses. II Congress
lay single out any one Of these otfenses
3 the subject OF q special enactment poll
cally disabling the offender. it may mus
issble the bigsmous or polygsmous
erson. It would be as competent for
congress to declare by statute that q r
Issphemous person shall not be eligible L
sest in either house as to enact that
person having two or more wives shall
u be eligible 1t does not meet the case
assert that bigamy is practice that
recognized as crime in every state in
Q Union. If the criminal is to be ex-
uded from a seat il Congress, he should
excluded because each of the two
,uses. acting uAder its constitutional A
iyilege, excludes all criminals, not be-
use be has committed one otfense in
q calendar which has been selected on
count Ct its peculiar enormity.
But the bill just passed by the House
,es not apply to Representatives in Con-
ess it is leveled at delegates from ter
,ories. OF course, we ell know that this
esns that no polygamous delegate from
tab shall be eligible to seat in
q House. Is there danger that
gamous persons shall apply for
mission ss members from states, that
is inhibition and disqualification is q
nited to territorial delegstes? Why
ould bigamist from q state be ad-
tilted, and bigsmist from 3 territory
excluded? 1t is not al Intelligent and
anly grasp of the subject which singles
It polygsmy as the only statutory Of
nse which shall work disqualification,
Id then limits the disqualification to
'rsCns claiming to represent territories.
would seem as if there ought to be
snliness and courage enough in the
ouse of Representatives to refuse q
,lFgsmist, or bigamist, or q counter ..
tier, or q murderer q seat, provided
. offender shall have been convicted u
the offsnse charged. In the case
fore Us it is proposed to bind this
ouse, and each successive House,
th the concurrence Of the Senate, TO
q Introduction of special Of
Csc. 1t is assumed that the House will
It be able to meet the question Of polyg-
ny as it comes up, Congress after Con-
ess, in the person of individual appli-
ats for seats. To fortify the weak and
We sn excuse TO the tim in the House,
is thought desirable to set up prohi-
ton, which the bigsmous Territorial %
elegate may be directed to behold when !"
ventures to the door of the Capitol.
le time-servers may say, "We are very r
rry, but there is the law, and you cam e
t come in" More truthful, however,
ose who desire 10 crush out Mormon
a will poin. to the law as not easy of
peal, and will felicitste themselves on
wing devised so effectusl barrier against
lich the covert friends of Mormonism
Congress may vainly rage. Many
hcultios surround the Mormon prob
n. This latest device does not indicate
Beedy and honorable deliverance from