The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-05-25

Campbell had about 100; it is conceded
that Mr.. Cannon had been seven years 8
cltiz9n Ofthe United States, and also that
he was an inhsbitant of the Territory at
the time Of his election; If the constltu-
tlOnsl qualifications are to be applied 10
him, that ne is qualified. These facts be-
ing conceded. what is the reason that he
Is not entitled to his seat? The gentle
man fIom Tennessee says notwithstaud-
ing the inf my of the man-and think
the history of Congress bears him out Ia
that-notwithstsnding the infsmy OF the
man. if ne is semi here from state he Is
bound under the Constitution to let him
| In; and it that law applies to delegate,
the same logo would compel you to let
him in.
But it is said here, and it has been
stated repeatedly, that MIR. Cannon ad-
mlts that he is or WAS poiygamlst on
the first day of June, 1880. The PrIncl-
psi obi sction that has been urged, and
may say the only argument that mas oeen
made, and in my judgment the only ar
gument that can be made, Is simply ana
solely that he was q polygamlst, and
therefore that be is polyRsmlst to-day.
That is the argument and reason given
why he should not be seated, and that Is
the naked question. Now desire to ad :
dress myself to that part of the argument
under the operation ofthe autl-polygamy
bill before referred to.
Mr., ToWnshend, of Illinois. Is there
anv evidence he was living in state of
polygsmy since the adoption of that law?
Mr.. Moulton. No sir. l want to say
word or two as to the admission of Mr.
Cannon ss to being q polygsmist. 1
want to call the attention OF the House IN
the first place to the admission that they
say was made aud the circumstances un-
der which it was made, to zee what force
and effect it has and how far and to what
extent Mr.. Cannon is bound by that ad-
mission or how it affects him.
In 1881, in the contest of Campbell Us.
Cannon, at the end Of 8 depo-
sition that seems to have been
taken in that contest the admission
is made that has been read. Now In the
record there is not particle Of explsns-
ton given Why it was made, or for what
purpose it was made, or how it came 70
be there. 1 say there is not particle of
evidence In the record 90 to that. We are
trying this case upon the law and upon
the evidence. Some gentlemen have
| intimated that TO exclude Cannon 1t is
only necessary for them to know that he
made that admission, without reference
| 10 what the law or the Constitution or
anything else is. There is the admission.
He protested at the time it was made
against it, and says it is improper and
| irrelevant to any issue in the case. Still
| the admission is there, and it shows that
| he had been or wSs then cobabiting with
plural wives. That is all it shows. 1t is
an extraneous fact thrust into the record.
Now, suppose for the purpose OF the
! argument the admission was made. We
say very frequently We admit a thing
for the purpose ofthe argument. That
is done in pleading. But he makes it
under protest, aud puts it on the distinct
ground it is wholly irrelevant. And
say here, as q lawyer, aud l do not think
any lawyer on this side will differ from
me, that so far as the issue between
| Campbell and Cannon was concerned 1t
was wholly irrelevant to any issue in the
case, whether you apply the constitu-
tional provision of qualification or
whether you take the law that makes no
qualification. If the law prescribes no
qualification then he has right to come
| here and demand his seat under the law,
whether be is Polygamist or not There
is the admission. This case must be tried
| py the law AQU Inc 6Vlu0uC6s
Now, Mr.. Cannon had the right to as
sumo that polygamy was no issue In his
contest with Campbell, for the reason
that this House in the case Of Maxwell
as. Cannon in the Forty-third Congress,
where the precise question was involved,
| the committee on election unanimously
decided that polygsmy was no disquslih-
cation for delegate; and this report was
I 10 H. no
tanned it, and Cannon took his seat.
Therefore Mr.. Cannon was justified in
regarding polygamy as not being an Is
sue and as not affecting his rights.
1t is said that, the admission being
made, the nti-polygamy law that was
| passed by this Congress operates and ex-
| cludes Mr.. Cannon. l admit that this
law operates IN present.. do not ad-
NIT that It operates retrospectively, and
| I want to show to the House, which l
think can do in very few moments,
that this anti-polygsmy law deprives Mr..
| Cannon Of no right whatever, and cannot
| possibly affect him, for the reasons which
l think can give.
The first section ofthis act provides:
"Every person who has husband or
| wife living who, in territory or other
1 DldC6 ON6E HulCE JIG - ulLtO Ob0hOo navy
exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter msrries
| another, whether married or single, and
any man who hereafter simultaneously,
OF on the same day, marries more than
one woman, in territory or other place
over which the United States have ex-
| elusive Jurisdiction, is guilty eff polyg-
amy, and shall be punished by fine Of
not more than $500 and by imprisonment
etc."
The third section provides:
'That if sny male person in terri
tory or other place over which the United
States have exclusive jurisdiction, here
after eohabits with more than one wo-
man, shall be guilty of q misdemeanor,
| and fined and imprisoned, &C."
And 1 want to Say to my friends on
the other side of the House that the first
and third sections apply to this territory
here; that they apply to Washington
City; but am willing to give them the
advantage of the charity OF the presump-
ton that they have not violated this law
since it has taken effect.
Then the eighth section provides
"That no polygamist, bigamist, &c,
shall be eligible for election or appoint
ment to or be entitled to hold any Office
or place of public trust"
Under the Government, If you Fsay
this law operates IN present., If you say
that it operates now, it does not affect
| Mr. EanuoO in tho mat Mr. Cannon. IL