The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-06

not undertake to determine the right
OF the claimant to seat, but only
| whether he shall be halted at the bar
| of the house and await the administra-
| ton of the oath until the house shall
determine that right
The Charges Against Roberts.
"Mr. Speaker, Utah was admitted as
| state into the union on the 4th day of
January, 1896. These are the alleged
| facts against the claimant: First, that
he was indicted in February, 1887, for
unlawful cohabitation under the Ed
munds act and pleaded guilty April 20,
| 1883, and was incarcerated on that ac-
count in the penitentiary for four
| months; second, that he has persistent
| ly from that time forward down to
recent date, been guilty of the offenses
| of unlawful cohabitation, and also that
| he has continued from the date of his
conviction and is now a polygamist.
by the alleged facts these questions
are raised: First, after he was convict
ed, in 1883, did he not then become and
ever afterward remain, by reason of
| section 8, ineligible to be member of
| congress unless he was pardoned? II
| he was guilty of polygamous cohabita-
ton between Nov. /, $780, and the date
of the Harrison proclama ton, he was
not pardoned by the proclamation
! This situation, assuming the facts
| to be as alleged. raises several ques-
| tions. First, If Roberts was convicted,
as stated, is the burden on him to at
| Tentatively bring himself within the
embrace of the amnesty proclamation?
| Second, if he was guilty Of polygamist
cohabitation after Nov. /. 1890, is he
not without the benefit Of the procla-
nation? Third, If he continued to be
| the head of more than one family I'M
der his original polygamous marriages,
contracted after the first OF November,
| 1890. and without polygamous cohabl-
tation. then Is he not polygamist UNI
der the definition of the supreme court
Fourth, may not the facts, II estab-
| lished, and Independent Of any law
creating ineligibility, Justify the house
In refusing admission to the house?
| Fifth. does not the contract created
between the United States and the
enabling act and the constitution justt-
| fly the house in refusing to admit a
representative from that state who Is
to-day, under the definition of the SUI
| preme court, "a, polygamist? Sixth, may
| it not be that, upon a careful examine
ton of the law, it would be found that
| the claimant is not citizen Of the
| United States. and If not, Of course, In
eligible? Seventh, is it wise, If the acts
be as alleged, unless we are absolutely
without power to keep Roberts out. to
| subject his case to the doubtful pro-
cess of expulsion? Doubtful for two
reasons: First, because 1t requires the
| concurrence of two-thirds to expel him:
| second, because very eminent lawyers
from the beginning of the government
| down to the present time have taken
the position that the house has no
right to expel except for come miscon-
| duct while a member and relating to
his office as a member. In the Forty
fifth congress, in the Mattison case,
| committee by an all but unanimous
| rannrfaI
power, mean and low and vile as the
| character of that man was. as denoted
by his conduct before that time, to ex-
| pei him. because it had no right to ex-
pei a man for that which had occurred
prior to his election to congress-.
Legal Argument.
Mr.. Taylor went into legal argu-
| ment in support of the proposition that
congress had no right to hold Roberts
gress. He contanded that the language
Of the constitution with respect to the
qualifications of members of the house
was negative in its character and that
with congress was left the right to add
to these qualifications. He then cited
as presidents for the present course
the cases OF Proctor Knott, Boyd VIM
chester and John M. Rice Of Kentucky,
who were charged with disloyalty after
the war, and concluded as follows:
| L.
will make an unhappy precedent. Why,
what we do here we do beneath the
gazing eyes Of the world and we are
at once dragged to the bar Of history
to answer for our deeds. We are in no
cloister, court We are no statute.
Of the people; empowered, thank God,
under the constitution to do the right
as we see the right. That is the law
to us. The public eye is on us, the
public conscience quickens US. In that
| presence and before such judge we
can do no wrong if we but obey it,
applause on the republican side).
The vote was taken. first on the sub
stitute, which was defeated, So to 247
The vote then required upon the
adoption of Mr.. Taylor's resolution, the
roll being called upon the demand OF
the republicans.
The Vote.
The resolution was adopted, 3o2 tt
30.
Those who voted in the negative were
as follows:
! Adamson, Allen (Miss.), Bailey. Ball
Brewer Burlison, Carmack, Cooper
Davey, De Graffenreid, Dinsmore, Fftz
patrick, Fleming, Kitchen, Lester
Lewis, Mcclellan, McCulloch, Maddox
bins Slayden, Small, Snodgrass, Ste
phens, Turner, democrats; Newland:
(Nev.). Loud (Cal), republicans.
The speaker then appointed the fol
| lowing members of the following mem
bers OF the special committee under
the resolution:
Observation-Disclosures, Ohio, chairman
Lands, Indiana: Morris, Minnesota
Freer, West Virginia; Littleheld
Maine; Mcpherson, Iowa.
Democrats--De Almond. Missouri
Lanahan, Texas; Meyers. Indiana.
The death of the late Representative
Settle of Kentucky was then announc
ed, and at 625 as further mark of re-
spect the house adjourned until Thurs.
day.