The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-06

and pleaded guilty April 90 1880, and was
incarcerated on that account in the peni-
/ Tertiary for four months, second, that he
! mas persistently from that time forward
down to recent date been guilty OF Of
/ lenses of unlawful cohabitation and also
I that he has continued from the date oil
his conviction and is now, polygamist.
by the alleged facts these questions
are raised: First. after he was convicted
in 1889 did he not then become and ever
afterward remain by reason OF section 5,
ineligible to be a member of congress TN =
less he was pardoned? If he was guilty
of poiygamous cohabltation between No
v1mber l. 1890 and the date of the Harri-
son proclamation, he was not pardoned by
that proclamation. This situation. assum-
ing the facts to be as alleged. raises sew
eral questions.
IL IL Roberts was convicted as stated,
is the burden on him to afiirmatively bring
himself within the enforcement OF the
amnesty proclamation?
-. If he was guilty of polygamous, CO.
habitation after November !. 1880, is he
not without the benefit of the proclama-
ton?
- II he continued to be the head OF
more than one family under his originai
polygamous marriage contract after tue
list of November. 1890, and without po-
lygamous cohabitation then is he not d
polygamist under the definition OF the
supreme court in the case of Murphy VS..
Ramsay
-. May not the facts il estab-
ished and independent OF any law ere
ating ineligibility. justify the house In re-
fusing admission TO Roberts.
-. Does not the compact created be-
| tween the United States and the state of
Utah by the proclamation &aabling act
and constitution justify the house in re-
fusing to admit representative from
that state who is today. under tire defini-
ton of the supreme court polygamist?
g aloy it not be that uron careful
examination OF the law il will be found
that the claimant is not citizen OF the
United States and if not, of course is In.
eligible?
~ Is 1t wise if the facts alleged. UNI
loss we are absolutely without power to
keep Roberts out to subject his case 10
the doubtful process OF expulsion? Doubt
full for two reasons. first because 1t re-
quires the concurrence of two-thirds 10
expel him: second because very emf
nent 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 some mscon-
duct while a member, and relating 20
his office as member"
Mir Taylor then went into a legal argu-
ment in support OF his position.
The vote was then taken, first on the
substitute. which was defeated. Ayes 50;
noes 247.
The vote then required upon the adop-
ton of Mr.. Taylor's resolution, the roll
being called upon the demand OF the re-
publicans. The resolution was adopted
ayes 3o2; noes so
These who voted In the negative wdre
as follows Adamson, Allen (MissD.
Bailey Ball. Brewer, Burleson. Carmack,
Cooper Davey De Graffenreid. Dinsmore.
Fitzpatrick. Fleming. Kitchen, Lester,
Lewis. Mcclellan. McCulloch. Maddox,
Norton Is. Cl Rhea, Richardson Rob
bins. Slayden Small. Snodgrass. stephens.
Turner democrats; Newlands (Nev), Lew
ertt, Loud (Cal), republicans.
Tho speaker then appointed the follow
ing members as the special committee un-
der the resolutions Republcans-Taylor
(oho). chairman; lands tlnd), Morris
(Minnl Greer wv Va.). Littlefleld
(Malne), Mcpherson Gowa), Democrats
De Almond MOD, Lanham tTexas) aud
Meyers QndO.
The death OF the late Representative
Settle OF Kentucky was then announced
and at 6i5, as further mark OF respect
the house adjourned until Thursday