Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1899-12-06
soc. and SI.oo, all druggists.
SCOTT & BOVINE, Chemists, New York.

/ 5oc. and SI.oo, all druggists.
SCOTT & BOVINE, Chemists, New York.
favor of the adoption of his resolution
| referring the whole matter to a commit
tee of nine members. Mr. Roberts lef,
| the seat he had been occupying and took
| one near the main aisle, where he could
| hear better. Throughout Mr.. Tayler's re-
marks he sat facing his accuser. except
| when he turned to his desk to take notes
| of the points to which he desired to reply
Mr.. Tayler contended first that Mr.
| Roberts conviction of violations of the
! Edmunds law in 1859 rendered him in
| eligible by the eighth section of that act;
| second, that If since guilty of polygamy
| he was still ineligible under that act.
| Third, that if a polygamist within the
| meaning of the decision of the supreme
| court he is ineligible independent of that
statute. Fourth. that the compact be-
| tween Utah and the United States justi-
| fies the House in refusing him admission
Mr.. Tayler urged that il would be better
| for the House to exclude Mr.. RNberts
| than to expel him. All the authorities, he
said, were against the right of the House
| to expel a member for acts done prior to
his election, no matter how vile they
might be.
Continuing Mr.. Tayler read from a de-
cision Of the supreme court defining
polygamy, which stated that irrespective
of whether a man had contrS,ted a plural
marriage after the passage of the Ed
munds act and irrespective of whether he
had since cohabited with plural wife
he was guilty of polygamy if he still
maintained the relations of husband to
more than one wife. Referring to the two
proclamationS of amnesty he urged that
the claimant was in no better position
than he would have been had no such
proclamation been issued. But higher
than the civil law was law of civiliza-
tfon, which demanded that one so taint-
ed should be excluded.
There were precedents for such an ap-
peal to the higher law. He cited the case
OF Whittemore, who had been guilty of
selling cadetships. and who, upon his ap-
pearance at the bar of the House. was
rejected as Unfit to sit. The power and
the right were inherent, said Mr.. Tayler.
1t was only a question of propriety, of
wisdom and of precedent.
In all his investigation and study of
precedents, Mr.. Tayler said, he had failed
to find single case where the House
had hesitated to assert upon proper oc-
casion its right to halt member at the
bar when his qualifications for a seat
were questioned. He quoted extensively
from 'McCleary on Elections" In sup
port of his argument, he reviewed the
eases of Proctor Knott, Boyd Winchester
Ind John M. Rice, of Kentucky, who had
been stopped at the bar of the House
on the ground that they were disqualified
because they had been disloyal
Mr. Richardson the minority leader, fol-
lowed. He did not intend, ne said, to dis
cuss the merits of the case. He was not
willing to reject representative-elect
wfo appeared at the bar of the House
with his credentials in due form. If he
was denied admission, a precedent would
nraQtad W. -nrr1d y~ic 10, ,larv }I,a
House in years to come The only con-
stitutional objection raised against the
member-elect related to his naturalization,
and that Mr.. Richardson asserted would
not hold. He defied the other side to pro-
duce single precedent where objection
was raised to the administration of the
oath except on constitutional grounds.
The precedepts cited were made during
the war and were not to be relied upon
In those days the constitution was written
with the sword. They had all been since
overruled. after the passions that follow
cd the war had subsded. Mr.. Richardson
declared that the minority was in no wise
bound by his position. He spoke for him
self alone. He was willing to say that If
he charges against the member-elect
were proven he should favor his expulsion.
If there is one thing the American peo-
pie are unit upon,'' said he, "it is that
the American home shall be preserved IN
all its loyeliness. sweetness and purity"
But he proceeded, sit is not wise to
permit our judgment to be warped by pub
lie clamor. To do so amounted to con-
demnation without trial. Mr.. Richard |
son then brought forward several prece-
dents in support of his position. The first
was the case of George Q. Cannon, who |
appeared in the House as a delegate-elect |
from Utah in 1873. Mr.. Cannon was Re |
publican. Almost identically the same |
charges now made against Roberts yvare |
made against Cannon. He read from the |
speeches of S. S. Cox, of New York, and |
other prominent Democrats opposing
denying a seat to Mr.. Cannon en- the |
ground that it would establish danger
Gus precedent and produce chaos in the |
future. ''Those Democrats" said he. rose |
above party prejudice and stood by the
constitution and the right"
He also cited the case of RAINY, negro |
Republican from South Carolina, in the |
Fifth Congress, where the Democrats had |
insisted that he should have the oath ad-
ministered to him. He also quoted the
late President James A. Garfield in sup
port of his contention that where the
credentials presented are regular in form |
there is no power in the House to exclude
him. He read from alleged interviews
with Mr.. Dalzell of Pennsylvania. Mr..
Steele of Indiana and Mr.. Cannon of Illi-
nois, in which they were alleged to have
stated that Mr.. Roberts was entitled to
take the oath upon the prima facie evil
dence of his credentials.
Mr.. Dalzell and Mr.. Steele denied the
interviews. MIR. Cannon asserted that in
his opinion if charges of ineligibility were
made it was competent for the House to
receive them now or hereafter.
Mr.. Roberts himself took the floor In
his own defense after Mr.. Richardson had
concluded. He occupied a conspicuous
place Immediately in front of the clerks
desk. Several legal volumes were piled
up in front of him, and bouquet of car
nations lay upon his desk. The most
intense interest was manifested as he
arose. Members crowded about, but were
compelled to retire to their seats. The
galleries were hushed. The occupants
eaned over to listen, eager to let no word
escape. Mr.. Roberts first sent to the
clerks desk and had read his naturaliza-
ton papers. He then began to speak.
His voice was soft and low, but his enun-
,iaticn was distinct, and in the stiffness
could be heard to the farthest corner of
he hall. AS he got into his argument
MS voice grew louder, until on several
occasions it rang out until the fretted
ceiling overhead gave back the echo.