The San Francisco call., 1899-12-06


erts' statement concerning the appoint
ment by the President of polygamists in
Utah as a miserable subterfuge.
81 make the statement, said he, land
1 defy contradiction, that the President
OF the United States never knowingly ap-
pointed a polygamist to Office. AS we'll
plunged his stainless hands in human
blood as TO charge that he appointed TO
public office men guilty OF the crime al
legged against the gentleman from Utah.
II charged and l reiterate it," said
Roberts. that men appointed to Office in
Utah were charged before the President
and the Senate with the same misde-
meanor OF which II Is charged l am
Were they guilty?" inquired Dalzell.
at does not appear whether they were
guilty" answered Roberts. raising his
voice and looking around the hall. "They
were only charged. as l am charged"
applause on the Democratic side, in
which many people in the galleries Join
ed)
Taylor concluded the debate Roberts.
he said had exhibited a large incapacity
to understand his (Taylor's) position, his
(Roberts) position or the spirit of the
American people-a righteous expression
OF their sentiment Justly founded. how
ever much misdirected. He did not say
Mr.. Roberts was guilty. But he indicted
him upon his own responsibility. Said
he;
OF the question the House is about to de-
eide. It is unusual but not unprecedented.
We do not undertake TO determine the
only whether he shall be halted at the
bar OF the House and await the admins
tration OF the oath until the House shall
determine that right.
''Mr Speaker. Utah was admitted as a
State into the Union on the 4th day OF
January 1896. These are the alleged facts
indicted. in February. 1857. for unlawful
cohabitation under the Edmunds act and
pleaded guilty on April %, 1889, and was
!ncarcerated on that account in the pen
itentiary for four months: second, that he
has persistently from that time forward
down 10 a recent date been guilty of the
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 convicted in 1889
did he not then become and ever after
ward remain by reason of section inAi-
he were pardoned? II he were guilty OF
polygamous cohabtation between No
vember /. 1890, and the date OF the Harri-
son proclamation he was not pardoned by
that proclamation.
This situation. assuming the facts to be
as alleged, raises several questions:
"First-If Roberts was convicted as stat
ed. is the burden on him TO afflrmatively
bring himself within the embrace OF the
amnesty proclamation?
"Second-If he was guilty OF polygamous
cohabitation after November l. 1890 Is he
not without the benefit of the proclama-
ton?
more than one family under his original
polygamous marriage contract after the
1st OF November. 1890 and without polyga-
nous cohabitation, then Is he not a
polygamist under the definition of the
Supreme Court in the case Of Murphy vs.
Ramsey?
lished. and independent Of any law Great
ing ineligibility. justify the House in re-
fusing admission TO Roberts?
"Fifth-Does not the compact created
between the United States and the State
OF Utah by the proclamation. enabling act
and constitution justify the House In re-
that State who is to-day. under the def
mist?
"Sixth-Nay II not be that upon a care
ful examination of the law II would be
found that the claimant is not a citizen
of the United States, and If not. OF course,
''Seventh-Is It wise II the acts be as
alleged, unless we are absolutely without
power TO keep Roberts out to subject his
case TO the doubtful process OF expulsion?
doubtful for two reasons: First because
II requires the concurrence of two-thirds
TO expel him; second, because very emf
Government down 10 the present time
have taken the position that the House
has not right TO eXpel except for some
misconduct while q member, and relating
to his offense as member. In the Forty
NTH Congress, in the Mattison case a
committee by an all but unanimous voice
reported that the House had no power
mean and low and vile as the character of
that man was, exhibited by his conduct
before that time, TO expel him, because
that which had occurred prior to his cleo
ton TO Congress"
Taylor went into a legal argument In
support OF the proposition that Congress
had the right TO hold Roberts Ineligible
10 sit as a member of Congress. He con-
tended that the language OF the constitu-
ton with respect 10 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 precedents for the pres
ent course the cases of Proctor Knott
Boyd Winchester and John NJ Rice OF
Kentucky, who were charged with dis
loyalty after the war. and concluded as
follows:
Mr.. Speaker. We are told that this Will make
an unhappy precedent. Precedent? Why what
We do here We do before the open and gazing
eyes OF the world, and are at once dragged
TO the bar OF history to answer for our deeds
ute-bound tribunal. We are the servants OF
the people empowered. thank God. under the
right That is the law to US. The public
eye is on us. the public conscience auickens US
In that presence and before such a Judge we
do wrong II we but obey H. (Applause
on the Republican sde.)
The vote was then taken, first on the
substitute, which was defeated. 6e-247
Inc vote lUen REQUIRED upon the adOD-
tion OF Taylor's resolution, the roll being
called upon the demand OF the Republi-
cans. The resolution was adopted. BOP
30. Those who voted in the negative were:
Adamson. Allen CMississippD. Bailey. Bali.
Brewer. Burlison. Carmack. Cooper. Davey.
De Graffenreid. Dinsmore Fitzpatrick Flem-
ing Kitchen, Lester Lewis Mcclellan Me
Culloch, Maddox. Norton (South Carolina
Rhes. Richardson. Robbins. Slayden Small
Snodsrass. Stephens. Turner Democrats: New.
lands (Nevada). Sllverite: Loud California;
Republican.
The Speaker then appointed the follow
ing members the special committee under
the resolution:
Republcans-Tayler (Ohio). chairman; Ian
dis Gndsna) Morris (Mlnnesota) Freer yves,
yirginis). Litteheld Oaine). Mcpherson
Iowa). Dcmocrats-De Almond (MissourD
Lanham (Texas) and Meyers Undiana)
The death OF the late Representative
Settle OF Kentucky was then announced
and, at 6:25 p. m, as further mark OF
day.