The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-06-02
THE DEBATE.
Continuation Of the Cam n
Campbell Contest in t"'
H0use.

leILs " mich VIII yiel0 10 tne BSosA0'
from Massachusetts Mr.. RsnneyI'
Cries of"Vote!"
Mr.. Oates said:
Mr.. Speaker; The system OF govern
ments in the United States is or
ought 10 be, pre-eminently one OF law.
Every citizens rights, however pun pie
or exalted he may be, should In sil cases
be determined by the Law honestly ana
fairly applied. The question before the
House is not one of morals but OF legal
right. Approval or disapproVal OF Pr
IyRamy is not involved. This Hoaie mas
given a very potential expression OF lis
opinion upon that question in the Law
passed at this session for the suppression
Of polygamy.
There is no dispute about the facts.
There appears from the reports OF the
committee to be no issue Of fact. All Ad-
NIT that Cannon was elected. The first
question, then, to be settled is, was be
eligible to the office when elected7 No
one, believe, questions, and certainly
the evidence does not controvart that
fact. Has anything trsnspired since his
election 10 render him ineligible or to
deprive him of the right TO his seatT 1t
is commended by those who oppose
seating him that the recently enacted
law Il Congress, declaring among other
things any perron who lie guilty Of poyg-
anous practices ineligible to seat IN
this House, disquslifes him aud presents
q legal impediment to Cannon's taxing
bis sest here as delegate from the Ter
ritory Of Utah. 1t is sound rule OF in
depreciation Of statutes that they shall
operate only in future. It is competent,
however, for the the law.makinR power
to enact retrospective laws or those which
relate to or operate upon the past, pro-
vided they do not divest vested rights or
make that criminal which was innocent
when performed prior to the enactment,
and publishes tie same. 1t was held by
the Supreme Court eff the United States
in the case Of Calder vS. Bull, in Dallas
that any law whereby o conviction can
be had upon less evidence even than the
rules of evidence In the existence at the
time the alleged illegal act was performed
required WAS &c post fdcto and void. =
All writers on statutory and cOnstitu-
tional law lay down the rule broadly that
no statute shall be construed to have q
Retrospective or retroactive operation I'M
less the statute itself so declares. The
recently enacted statute against polyg-
am, upon which the other side relies,
does not declare that it shall so operate.
1t must therefore be construed as though
the word hereafter" was interpolated
into esch section thereof. It therefore
follows as logical sequence that Cannon
is legally entitled to seat on this floor
as delegate from Utah. After he is
seated should charges be then brought
against him Of violating the recent enact
ment while sitting here as delegate, and
his guilt be established by proof, he might
be legally expelled from this House, and
for one would vote for his expulsion IN
that event.
But Mr.. Speaker, he will not be seated.
It is q foregone conclusion that the tenn
per exhibited upon thepart of the major
| ity of.this House unmistakably indicates
such decision. I regret it for the reason
that ia my judgment the citizens, the
legal voters of . tab will be thereby de-
MED great legal right. It lie no answer
to say that the Mormons are violstors Of
the law Of the land. Await their ria
and conviction; or would you condemn
| American citizens without hearing
We are in this case . judicial tribunal
Ny duty to my country is to advocate the
fair and unprejudiced enforcement Of the
law, and I shall therefore vote to seat Mr.
| Cannon,
Mr.. Robeson-We hsye fifteen minute
left on this side. -
Mr.. Calkins-I yield what time I haY,
left to the gentleman from Massachusetts
| IMr. Ranney.
Mr.. Ranney-Mr. Speaker, 1 had in
| tended to address the House on this sub
ject very briefly on certain questions o
law. ! had desired simply to show tina
| the recent act Of Congress, approved
March %, 1882, would cover my vote il
this case. / believe by the op ration o
| that act Mr.. Cannon should be EXCLUDES
from his seat. I had intended 10 occupy
the time Of this House in discussing tht
| operation Of that new act, bat it is Sc
late, and gentlemen are 30 anxious to pro.
| coed to vote, will simply ask to make &
! brief statement Of my position on tina
natter, and to put it on record.
The Speaker-The Chair hears no OBJ
| lection, and the request Of the gentleman
from Massachusetts is granted.
Mr.. Rsnney-This case has assumed G
new Phase since it Was heard and re-
ported upon to the House. It has been
argued in two aspects: hrst, as it stood
under the Law prior to the act of March
q, 1882; and, second, under hat act.
I do not propose to discuss the case in
the view of the Law as it was. l have al
/ ready presented my views in committee
| and they are before the House in print
| All desire to say is that could not vot
for the pending resolutions on the ground
assigned in the majority report, dis
| sented from them in committee, and d.
the same now. l deem the doctrine s,
predicA.ed to be in eontrsventIon of al
authority and precedent, unsOu1d il
principle, aud mischieYious ia practice.
But can now, and propose toavete 70
the pending resolutions, because the new
act expressly provides that polygamis
shall not be entitled to hold any Office o
place Of public trust, honor, or emolu
ment, etc.
l have no doubt that this act Ap
plies to the present case becAus
of this clause, nor of the fact tha
Mr.. Cannon can safely be assumed
to be q polygamist now upon his writer
admission fled. He is presumed to con
time in that relation, and there is e.
pretense that there has been any chang
in his status since that written admission
was filed and made part OF the record
and under the issue raised presenting
that question for action.
Contestant cannot be admitted to q sea
which he would net be entitle1 to hold
already in the same. A public ONCE
the kind is subject to congressional con
troll, as it is but the creature OF 9 statute
AnNnN OVll