The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-04-26
The DEBATE.

election case OF cannon CeTSJLS
Campbell for the Utah delegates
seat. None of the first days pro.
ceedings came over the wires, and
the synopsis of the second days was
brief indeed. Because of that fail
ure on the part of the Associated
Press we reproduce below a portion
of the debate, which was opened in
the House on Tuesday, 18th instant
by Mr.. Calkins, who said:
The House having decided to enter
upon the consideration of the Utah con-
tested election case, | now yield 10 my
colleague on the committee on elections,
the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr..
Hsz5IIonl.
Mr.. Hszelton-It may seem, Mr..
Speaker, somewhat strange to this cOun-
try, after the passage of such an act as
that which struck down the political
power of polygamy in the territory Of
Utah, that this House should now occupy
any further time in determining the
question whether that institution should
| msintain representation upon this heOr.
| H6NGIAuElCebg
coming from the committee on elections,
to which it was referred to ascer ala and
report the facts and the law, it
becomes necessary that the case shall
be grappled and decided b. this House
the sole arbiter of the whole question.
l assume, and have the right to assume,
hr. Speaker, in view of the large vote
which determined the question Of politi-
eel power under the se-cslled Edmunds
bill, and which has received, as | under
stand, the signature of he President and
become q law, that this House of Repre-
sentatives, on both sides, by the measure
and character of that vote will deny
representation to Mr.. Cannon, although
he has received Is. 900 votes. If they can
find good cause for so doing. And l
assume that every gentleman will act In
good faitL In the determination Of the
! question now before the aouse-one Of
the most important Of our congressional
history. The committee disposes Of the
case 80 far as Mr.. Campbell is concerned
under the law which exists in almost
every state in the Union, that minority
vote under the circumstances could not
control as against majority vote, which
had TO be counted and canvsssed. Under
the decisions of WiscoHain and other
states Of the Union, Mr.. Campbell,
therefore, is declared not TO be elected,
although be has the certificate Of the
| Governor of the territory Of Utah.
liz this contest the question was raised by
MIR. Campbell, the contestee, that Mr..
Cannon was not citizen of the United
States at the time of the election. The
committee brushed that point away also
and found, although there were some IT.
Irregularities, while there was not full
and perfect record behind the certificate,
although it was not clear upon the proof
behind the certificate that his residence
was such as was required by the law
when he received his certificate CT natur-
RliZ4tion, vet under the decisions they
held they could not attack that certificate
collaterally, and acknowledged and con-
ceded the question of citizenship stood
upon the record in his favor, the court
having se found and certified. This
brought the whole case up to the ques-
ton whether Mr.. Cannon having re-
ceivei this number of votes and being a
citizen under the law was disqualified on
account of beng a polygSmist. Now,
cir, it Is not the first time the question
hiss been raised in this congress. 1t has
been raised before aud gone to 9 com
nittce by the vote Of the House, but
nave before has it appeared to confront
Us fairly and squsrely by being presented
to the American representatives as
S question Of disqualification for
the Office of territorial delegate.
The majority OF the mmittee believed,
first, that in the decision of this question
oGe important consideration entering into
il WAS the difference between q delegate
on this floor and B member of the House
from one Of the states, holding his au-
thoriiy and power under The Constitution
of the United States. We held as q ma
ijority that if the delegate were mere
creature Of the law, his office not being q
constitutional franchise, if his Office was
crested by statute alone, at the will and
sufFersnce of the HC use, then the whole
question of determining whether be
should go on. or remain, whether be
could be expelled or rejected, was ques-
ton within the control of majority of
this House of Representatives. That i!
coRld take nc larger vote to expel or re-
ject the delegate than that required to
ensct OF repeal the law creating the Office
Of delegate. Our opponents on the other
side held to the position before the
committee, and think in the report,
that although a delegate he stands
guarded by all that fortifes a mem Der of
Congress within the spirit AID letter of
the Constitution, that the same quahfcR-
tons apply to him which apply 10 q
member of Congress, that he can only
be disqualified for the same reasons
which disqualify member of Congress
Upon all those points the majority of the
comm ttee in their report take issue with
the msjority. The discussions which
have taken place as 10 the tenure and
character Of the Office Of delegate and of
8 mem Der of Congress are an interesting
portion of our legislative annals. They
came up far back in the history of the
nation, and before any of Us we're born.
The question csme up, Mr.. Speaker, and
was discussed AID determined by Con-
gIess composed of members many of
whom had taken an active part in the
formation Of the federal Constitution. It
was considered and determined By some
of the greatest constitutional lawyers
and statesmen who sdorn our national
history. Among these / name James
Madison, President of the United States,
one of the strongest and foremost per-
haps of all who helped lay the POUNDS
ton OF our republic; and it was deter
miaed, there and then, that delegate
wss q mere creature OF the law, that be
was mere envoy or agent from the PEG
pie Of a territory, coming here by the
permission Of Congress to take 8