Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1899-12-06

He ridiculed the manner in which the
petition favoring his expulsion had been
procured. In concluding, he denied that
the members who voted to seat him
would be voting for polygamy. The Ques-
ton of polygamy was settled.
Il hold it as an honor" said he, that
I will be quoted long in Utah as one who
helped to settle .that question on. the
floor of the constitutional convention. |
am not defending polygamy. 1t is dead y
Mr. Roberts concluded by thanking Mr..
Tayler and the House for their lndul-
gence. he was given round of ap-
plause as he took his seat.
Mr.. Dinsmore Oem., Ark.) briefly op-
posed the Tayler resolution.
Mr.. Grosvenor (Rep., o. denounced
Mr.. Roberts statement concerning the
appointment by the President of polys-
amists in Utah as a miserable subter-
land l defy contradiction, that the
President of the United States never
knowingly appointed polygamist to Of
President had plunged his stainless
hands in human blood as to charge that
he appointed to public office men guilty
of the. crime alleged against the gentle
the Republican side).
Il charged and 1 reiterate it, said Mr..
Roberts, that men appointed to office in
Utah were charged before the President
meanor of which it is charged / am
guilty"
zell
TT does not appear whether they were
guilty" answered Mr.. Roberts, raising
his voice and looking, around the hall.
charged" Applause on the Democratic
side. In which many people in the gallery
Mr. Tayler concluded the debate. Mr..
RnnorfS ha aYhfhtraH
incapaclty to understand his tTayler's)
position, his tRohertsO position or the
spirit of the American people-a right
eous expression of their sentiment justly
founded, however much misdirected. He
did not say Mr. Roberts was guilty. But
he indicted him upon his own RESPONSE
bility.
81 am not unmindful of the Importance
Of the question the House is about to de-
eide said Mr.. Tayier. ut is unusual,
but not unprecedented. We do not un-
claimant to a seat, but only whether he
shall be halted at the bar Of the House
and await the administration OF the oath
until the House shall determine that
right.
..Mr. Speaker. Utah was admitted as
a State into the Union on the fourth day
of January, 1886. These are the alleged
1S was indicted % m in february ISL for 5na' ne me-
lawful cohabitation under the Edmunds
act and pleaded guilty. April %. 1889. and
was incarcerated on that account in the
penitentiary for four months; second, that
be has persistently from that time for
ward down to recent date been guilty
Of the offenSes of unlawful coha abitation,
date of his conviction and is now a polyg-
amist.
by the alleged facts these questions
are raised: First, after he was convicted
afterward remain by reason of section
eight ineligible to be member of Con-
yress unless he was pardoned? If he was
:ween November /, 1880, and the date Of
he Harrison proclamation, he was not |
'ardoned by that proclamation. This
'IIeged. % raises = several Ia Questions @ To DC as
'First-1f Roberts was convicted as |
stated, is the burden on him to af- |
bring himself within the en-
,race of the amnesty proclamation?
"Second-If he was guilty of polygamous |
after November /, 1890, is |
lie not without the benefit of the procla-
"Third-If he continued to be the head |
# more than one. family under his orig
nal polygamous marriage &c contract after
cohabitation,. then is he not
polygamist under the definition of the !
upreme court in the case of Murphy VS..
ramsay?
shed. and independent Of any law Great
ng ineligibility, justify the House in re-
using admission to Roberts?
etween the United States and the State
( Utah by the proclamation enabling
ct and constitution justify the House in
hat State who is to-day, under the defini-
ion of the supreme court. polygamist?
'Sixth-May it not be that upon care
ul examination Of the law it will be
+ the United States. and If not Of
curse, ineligible?
"Seventh-Is it wise. if the facts be
ut power to Keep Roberts out. TO subject
is case to the doubtful process of ex-
ulsion?
auss It requires the concurrence Of Two
minsnt lawyers. from the beginning Of
he Government down to the present
ime, have taken the position that the
louise has no right to expel, except for
elatinx to his office as a member
'In the Thirty-fifth Congress in the
case committee by an all but
Iouse had no power, mean, low and vile
s the character of that man was, as
Exhibited by his conduct before that time.
xpeI man for that which had occurred
rior to his election to Congress-"
Mr.. Tayler then went into legal argu-
1ent in support Of the proposition that
|
rts ineligible to sit as a member. Ho
that the language of the con-
titution with respect to the qualifca-
ions of members of the House was mega
we in its character, and that with Con-
ress was left the right to add to those
qualifications. He then cited as pre-
edents for the present course the cases
Proctor Knott, Boyd Winchester and
ohm M. Rice, Of Kentucky, who were
harged with disloyalty after the war,
nd concluded as follows:
''Mr. Speaker, we are told that this
ill make an unhappy precedent. Prece-
ent! Why, what we do here we do be-
,re the open and gazing eyes of the
orld, and we are at once dragged to the
ar of history to answer for our deeds.
1e are in no cloister court. We are no
atute-bound tribunal. We are the serv.
nts Of the people. empowered. thank
3D. Under the constitution to do the
ght as we see the right. That Is the
wv to US. The public. eye is on us; the
ublic conscience quickens US. In that
resence and before such a judge We can
D no wrong If we but obey it,
The vote was then taken, first on the
which was defeated-5s to 247. /.
he vote then recurred upon the adop..
on of Mr.. Tayler's resolution, the roll
sing called upon the demand Of the Re-