Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-12-06
A DANGEROUS PknUNnEN 7

n
Mr. Roberts had the same right to be
sworn in as member OF Congress that
any member in Washington had. His
name was on the roll and all members
so enrolled receive pay monthly from
the beginning of their terms. The clerk
at the organization of past Congresses
has repeatedly refused to amend this
roll or to entertain any appeal from
that decision.
But Roberts has been 'set aside and
his plain constitutional rights denied.
His opponents knew, if once sworn in
it would take a two-thirds majority to
Gust him, hence, this revolutionary pro-
ceeding, the only presidents for which
are folnd in civil war times and during
reconstruction when no regard was paid
to the rights of the minority.
The eligibility of a member is deter
mined by the Constitution and there is
nothing in the Constitution about
polygamy. There was no Constitutional
disqualification that could rightfuIly be
urged against Mr.. Roberts. AS the
Louisville Courier-Journal puts it, this
is not a question of polygamy at all.
1t is one of the right of a member to
his seat when his credentials are regu-
lar, and when he has the Constitutional
qualifications. The question of the pro-
priety of allowing a polygamist to sit
in the House may come up on mo-
ton to expel. The House may expel
member for any cause whatever, since
there is nobody entitled to revise its
Judgment as to what is proper cause
credentials and qualifications can be re-
fused seat by the mere objection of
member who alleges no Constitutional
disqualification, it is obvious that the
original membership of the House de-
ponds on the will of the Speaker elect
before the members are sworn in. If
he refuse to administer the oath to one
member he may do the like for hun
dred on a bare objection, without any
hearing of evidence at all. The mem
bers actually sworn in will then deter
mine the right of the others to their
seats by a bare majority OF a quorum.
1t is obvious that this is a departure
from the practice of Congress, except
in revolutionary times, which is much
more dangerous than would be a fail
ure to expel a member for polygamy."
Our contemporary adds this just and
temperate comment:
There is no disposition anywhere, we
presume, outside of Mormon circles te &C.
fend polygemy. The election of a polyga-
mist to Congress was justly offensive 10
the sentiment of the country. But as he
has been elected, he ought 10 be dealt with
according to law, which gives TO Congress
ample means to rid itself of an obnoxious
person. Ii is not at all necessary to create
a dangerous precedent which places the
right OF member to his seat at the mercy
of a mere majority, without even the
formality of a trial.
Every intelligent citizen as well as
every lawyer must agree with this and
acknowledge the great danger created
by this precedent, which removes every
Constitutional safeguard from the mi
nority The halls of Congress are far
from being strangers to majorities of
INSCRIPTIONS partisans who would not
stop at taking advantage of such pre-
cedent to totally disfranchise an objec-
tionable minority. What is to prevent,
say, rampant, blood-shirt majority
some day from deciding to ''set aside"
the representatives from the Southern
States-not violent supposition by
any means in view of the persistent
clamor about cutting down the South's
representation. The majority would
have every bit as much Constitutional
right to do that as it had to refuse
TO swe1r in Mr.. Roberts, who possessed
every Constitutional requirement
The strong tendency Of the Republi-
can administration and of this Congress
to set aside the Constitution as out Of
date. and the actual fact of its being
set aside in several instances, Of which
the Roberts case Is the latest. bodies Ill
for the Constitutional liberties of the
people under continuance of the rule