Omaha daily bee., 1899-12-06
ROBERTS Is DENIED A SEAT
House Adopts the Tayler Resolution by an
Overwhelming Majority.
CASE eotS TO A SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Substitute Resolution Onercd by
Richardson, Minority Leader, Re-
ceivcs only Fifty-Sevcn Votes,
Including Two Republicans.


ing debate of three hours the house today
by vote Of 3O2 yeas to 80 nays adopted
the resolution offered by Tayler of Ohio
for the appointment Of a special committee
to Investigate the charges against Brigham
II. Roberts. the Mormon Representatives
elect from Utah Previously the house had
rejected a substitute resolution offered by
Richardson. the leader OF the minority, 90
allow Roberts to be sworn in and to send
the whole case to the judiciary committee.
This substitute resolution, however, by no
means commanded the full democratic
strength. Only fifty-seyeu members voted
for it. OF the thirty who voted against
the Tayler resolution all were democrats
except two, Loud, California republican,
and Newlands, a silverite from Nevada.
BY the terms of the resolution Roberts
is not only excluded from all participation
in the proceedings of the house until the
committee reports and passes on his case,
but Is denied a seat in the hall. Whether
this will be interpreted to deny him adms-
sion within the chamber pending the disposi
tion of his case is yet to be decided.
The reading of the presidents message
was completely overshadowed by the dra-
matte proceedings which resulted in the
action of the house The galleries were
thronged with spectators, mostly women,
who sat patiently through the three weary
hours that preceded the debate and then
waited three hours more until it was con-
cluded.
The most remarkable feature of the debate
was the fact that Roberts presentation OF
his side of the case, which lasted almost
an hour, became so absorbing that he won
the sympathy of many of those in the gall
leres and was several times showered with
applause. 1t was evident that he realized
that the house was overwhelmingly against
him and at times he spoke fiercely and de-
family.
Tayler conducted the case on his side.
Richardson championed his resolution. Dur
ing the debate Grosvenor rose to Indignantly
repel an insinuation of Roberts that the
president had knowingly appointed men
guilty of polygamy to federal offices in Utah.
Mr.. Roberts himself entered the hall about
IL 80 and Immediately became the cynosure
of all eyes. Just before the house convened
he took the seat he selected yesterday on
the extreme right of the democratic side.
At IL O'Clock Speaker Henderson called
the members to order. All arose in their
places, Mr.. Roberts included, and stood with
bowed heads while the chaplain delivered
his invocation.
The reading of the message consumed two
and one-half hours and at the conclusion
the republicans gave 1t hearty round of
applause.
Mr. Payne, republican of New York, the
floor leader of the majority, Immediately
that the message be referred to the
committee of the whole on the state of the
union and ordered printed.
Mr.. Grow, republican of Pennsylvania,
expressed desire to debate the
but this was declared out
OF order The speaker then laid before
the house Tayler's resolution to refer the
Roberts case, in accordance with the agree |
ment yesterday.
Richardson introduced a substitute to refer |
the case to the judiciary committee and that |
Roberts be sworn in as member pending /
the investigation.
Tayler addressed the house in support of |
his resolution as follows:
am not unmindful of the Importance of |
the question the house Is about to decide. |
1t is unusual but not unprecedented. We |
do not undertake TO determine the right of |
the claimant to a seat but only whether he |
shall be halted a the bar of the house and |
await the administration of the oath until |
the house can determine the case.
Convicted of PoIygamy.
Mr. Speaker, Utah was admitted into the |
union on lIt lOuElu udS OF JANUARY ioJp' |
These are the alleged facts against the |
claimant First, that he was indicted in |
February, 1887, for unlawful cohabitation |
under the Edmunds act and pleaded guilty |
April 30, 1889, and was incarcerated on that |
account in the penitentiary for four |
second, that he has persistently |
from that time forward down to recent |
date been guilty of the offenses of unlaW- |
full cohabitation and also that he has con-
tinued from the date of his conviction and ,
is now a polygamist BY the alleged facts !
these questions are raised: 1000 ~,
First-After he wa convicted in 1888 did |
he not then become and ever afterward re-
main by reason of section Ineligible to be .
a member of congress unless he was par /
doned. If he was guilty of polygamous CO.
habitation between November l. 1890. and |
the date of the Harrison proclamation he |
was not pardoned by that proclamation.
as alleged, raises several questions
FirSt-If Roberts was convicted as stated |
Is the burden on him to aiiirmatively bring
himself within the embrace OF the amnesty
proclamation?
second-If the was guilty of polygamous
rohabitation after November l. 1890 is he
not without the benefit of the proclamation?
Third-If he continued to be the head of
more than one family under his original
yember /, 1890, and without polygamous
then is he not polygamist
under the definition of the supreme court in
the case of Murphy against Ramsay?
Fourth-iMay not the facts, if established
and independent of any law creating tnelig-
bility. Justify the house In refusing admis-
Fifth-Does not the compact created be-
tween the United States and the state OF
Utah by the proclamation enabling act and
justify the house in refusing TO
admit a representative from that state VINO
is today under the definition of the SUI
preme court a polygamst?
SiXth-May 1t not be that upon a careful
examination of the law It will be found that
the claimant is not citizen of the United |
States and, If not of course ineligible.
SeVenth-Is 1t wise, If the facts be as al
legged 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
Il requires the concurrence of twO-thrds to
eNpel him; second, because very eminent
lawyers from the beginning of the govern
ment down to the present time have taken
the position that the house has no right to
sXpel except for misconduct while a mem
Der and relating TO his office as n member
In the Forty-hfth congress, in the Aiatti-
son case, a committee in all but a unani-
nous voice reported that the house had no
power, mean, low and vile as the character
Of that man was, as exhibited by his con-
II had no right 10 eXpel "A man for that
which had occurred prior to his election to
congress.
MI. Tayler then went into a legal argu-
nent in support Of the proposition that
congress had the right TO hold Roberts in
eligible to sit as a member of congress.
He contended that the language of the con-
5ttution, with respect TO qualifications OF
members of the house, was negative in It's
character and that with congress was left
ha OH nd IN