The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-12-06
UTAH MEMBER IS DENIED A SEAT
IN THE HOUSE UNTIL HIS CASE
Is PASSED UPON
DRAMATIC DEBATE on ISSUE
GALLERIES WON OVER BY EAR.
NESTNESS OF THE MAN FIGHT
ING FOR RECOGNITION
VOTE WAS OVERWHELMING

Be Pursued I'm the Case of Mr..
Roberts, but Did Not Defend Him
Or His Acts-Hr. GrOsvenOr Re.
Hented Charges.
| WASHINGTON, Dec. 5.-After an in.
| teresting debate Of three hours the house
today, by a vote Of SO2 to 30, adopted the
resolution offered by Mr.. Taylor. of Ohio.
| yesterday, for the appointment of a spe
cial committee to investigate the charges
against Brigham H. Roberts. the Mormon
representative-elec from Utah. Previous
~ the house had rejected a substitute
resolution offered by Mr. Richardson, the
leader Of the minority, to allow Mr.. Rob-
| erts TO be sworn in, and to send the whole
case up to the judiciary committee This
substitute resolution, however, by no
means commanded the full Democratic
strength Only ffty-seven members voted
Tor 1t. OF the thirty who voted against
the 1aylor resolution, all were Demo-
Gratis except two Mr.. Loud, of CaIifor-
nla' Republican, and Mr. Newlands. q
silvertte, from Nevada.
BY the terms of the resolution Mr.
Roberts Is not only excluded from all
| participation In the proceedings of the
| house until the committee reports and the
house passes upon his case, but he is de-
MED seat in the hail. Whether this will
be interpreted to deny him admission
within the chamber pending the DISPOSE
ton 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 today. The galleries
were thronged with spectators, mostly
women, who sat patiently through the
three weary hours that preceded the de-
pate' and then waited on three hours
| more until it was concluded
The most remarkable feature of the de-
bate was the fact that Mr.. Roberts pre-
sentation of his own case, which lasted
almost an hour, became so impressive
that he Won the sympathies of many in
| the galleries, and he was several times
! showered with applause 1t was apparent
he realized the house was overwhelmingly
against him, and at times he spoke fierce
ly and defantly.
Mr. Taylor conducted the case upon
his side.
MIR. TAYLORs ARGUMENT
! all AOl u4LLl4uUIul OF the importance
of the question the house is about to de-
clde' said Mr.. Taylor. 1T is unusual
but not unprecedented We do not un-
oertake to determine the right of the
claimant to seat, but only whe her he
snail be halted at the bar of the house
and await the administration Of the oath
until the house shall determine the case.
Mr.. Speaker, Utah was admitted as a
state into the Union the 4th day of jan
uary, 1896. 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 29, 1889, and was in
carcerated on that account in
the penitentiary for four months.
second, that he has persistentlv. from
that time forward down to a recent date.
been guilty Of the offense of unlawful CO.
habitation, and also that he has contin-
ued from the date of his conviction and
is now a polygamist.
BY the alleged facts these questions
are raised: First, after he was convict
ed In 1889, did he not then become and
ever afterward remain, by reason of SEC
ton 8, ineligible to become g member of
congress unless he was pardoned? If ba
was guilty of polygamous cohabitation
between Nov. l, 1890, and the date of the
Harrison proclamation, he was not mar
doned by that proclamation.
QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
This situation, assuming the fao,s -
De as alleged, raises several questions:
FIRST, II Roberts was convicted 90
s;tf' staISu' rs the burden on him to affirma-
of os9IS +So pr1ng himself within the embrace
Rl1v17
Second, if he was guilty of poIvea-
nous computation after Nov / 1890 ia
ne not without the benefit of the proc
Third, If he continued to be the head
oI more than one family under his origin-
a. a. p0lygamous marriage contract after
polygamous cohabitation, then is he NOT
a polygamist under the definition of the
supreme court in the case of Murphy VS..
| Ramsey? w.
Fourth, may not the facts If estab-
nshed, and independent Of any law Great
ing 1neH3lbility, justify. the house in re-
| fus!ng admission to Roberts?
FIRTH, does not the compact created
| between the United States and the state
or Utah by the proclamation of the en-
abling act and constitution justify the
house In refusing to admit a representa-
| tive from that state who is. TODAY. nm
der the definition of the supreme court.
| q polygamist?
Sixth, may it not be that upon n
careful examination of the law it will
| De IounQ that the claimant is not a citi-
| Zen OF the United States, and If not, OF
| course ineligible
Seventh, is it wise, IL the facts be as
| alleged, unless we are absolutely with
out power to keep Roberts out, to sub
| ject his case to the doubtful process of
| expulsion?
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
we are at once dragged to the bar of his
tory to answer for our deeds. We are
in no cloister court. We are no statute
bound tribunal. We are the representa-
tives of the people. empowered, thank
| God, under the American Constitution, to
| do the right as we see the right. That
is the law to us. The public eye is on
us. The public conscience quickens US.
| In that presence and before such Judge
we can do no wrong, If we but obey it,
| applause on the Republican side)
MIR. ROBERTS RIGHTS.
Mr.. Richardson, the minority leader
followed Mr.. Tayler. He Gid not intend,
he said, to discuss the merits of tho
caco TNha nueStiOo af icSIfa N