The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-12-06

greeted with storm OF applause both
from the floor and the galleries. Few
Democrats, however, Joined in the ap-
plause.
Mr.. Richardson. the minority leader,
followed Mr.. Taylor, He did not In
tend, he said. to discuss the merits Of
the case. The question in issue was as
to whether the ftepreseutatfve-elect,
Roberts, has a prIma facIe right to his
seat. He was not willing to reject a
representntIve-elect who appeared at
, the bar of the house with his creden-
tlals in due form. If he was denied ad-
mission a precedent would be created
which would rise to plague the house In
years to come. The only constitution
al objection raised against the MEMBER,
elect related to his naturalization, ana
that, Mr.. Richardson. asserted. would not
hold. He defled the other side to pro-
duce single precedent where oojec-
tiOn was raised to the administration OF
the oath, except on constitutional
grounds The precedents cited were
made during the war, and were not 70
be relied upon. In those days the
constitution was written with the
! sword. They had all been Overruled.
after the passions that followed the war
had subsided. MIR. Richardson declared
that the minority was In nowise bound
by his position He spoke for himsell
alone. He was willing to say that II
the charges against the member-elect
were proven he should favor his eXpul-
sion. 'If there is one thlnG the Amer
lean people are unit UPON said he,
at Is that the American honor shall be
preserved In al It's loVellness sweetness
and purity" CApplause.)
But" he proceeded. 1T Is not wise to
permit our Judgment to b. warped by
plblic cIAmor. To do SO amounted to
condemnation wlthoultrial Mr.. Rich
ardson then brought forward SeveiAl
preSetleHts In support Of his position.
The first was the case Of George Q. can
non. who appeared in the house as u
delegate-el from Utah In 1873 Mr..
Cannon was Republican. Almost
Identcally the same charges now made
against Mr.. Roberts were made against
Mr.. Cannon He read from the speeches
Of S. S. Cox, OF New York, and other
prominent Democrats. opposing. deny
ing seat to Mr.. Cannon, on the ground
that II would establish dangerous pre-"
cedenI, and produce chaos in the future.
Those Democrats" said he, rose
above party prejudice. and stood by the
constitution and the right" Democratic
applause).
James A. Garfield In support OF his con-
tention that where the credentials pre-
senled are regular In form, there Is no
power in the house to exclude him.
Mr.. Richardson read the words OF
Mr. Garfield, which concluded:
There are no personal objections.
But there are personal objections In
the case before the house." intcrposed
Mr. Taylor amid Laughter and np-
plause.
Not personal objections to the mem
ber- elect" said Mr. Richardson, per
sonal dlsQualIhcatons only are al
iCgcG.
Mr., Roberts himself took the floor In
Ills own defense after Mr.. Richardson
had concluded. He occupied con-
spFcuaus place. Immediately In frost uf
the speakers desk. Several legal vol
umcs were piled up In front Of hin and
bouquet OF carnations lay upon his
desk The most Intense interest was
manifested as he arose. Members
crowded about. but were compelled 10
retire to their seats The galleries were
hushed. The occupants leaned over to
listen, eager 10 let no word escape. Mr..
Roberts firs. sent TO the clerks desk
and had read his naturalization papers.
He then began to speak. Hts voice
was soft and low, but his enunclation
was distinct, and in the stiffness could
be heard To the furthest corner OF the
hall
As he got into his argument his voice
grew louder, until on several occasions
il rang out until the rrcttcd ceiling over
head gave back the echo.
= -. = hN
proclaimed amnesty since his conviction
FOR n msdemeanor. He denied that he
had been a law breaker since 1889, and
asked why he had not been prosecuted
ic n law breaker. He referred to the
present agitation as n "cOnspirncy' to
force this subject TO the front at this
time.
Proceeding, he took up the charge that
Utah had broken her compact with the
United States by the election OF an al
legged polyamous representative. II
that was true. then Utah had simply fol-
lowed the IllustrIous example OF the
present national administration.
81 affirm" said he. that there Is
abundant evidence that objections SINH
lar TO those in the present case were
made to the President and to the senate
agalst the appointment Of certain fed
crnl officials in Utah, but the objections
were waved aside"
do you mean to say that polygnmists
were appointed 10 federal office in Utah
by the present executIve2" queried Mr..
Hopkins, Rcp)., Of Illinois.
with the knowledge Of the PreSi-
dcnt?" added Mr.. Grosvcnor, CRcp)., Of
Ohio, quickly. amid some laughter on
tho Democratic side.
when men were applicants for fed
eral offices In Utah" reiterated Mr..
Roberts. COLLECTIONS were made and AMI
daylts were filed with the President and
the acnnte, but nevertheless the appoint
mcnts were made"
"Thnt does not answer my question"
observed Mr.. Hopkins,
MIR. Roberts urged that the cnsc ought
to 10 to the judiciary committee, where
IL could be Investigated. He warned the
Republican qldc that this was EcrlnuH
question. II the people OF tUah were
guilty ~ violating the compact with the
Union what NJ the President, who had
appointed 10 lie positlens IN Utah men
chhrrcabfc with the same offense.
SIR Roberts Hdiculcd the manner IN
which the petition ravorlug his cKpul-
sion had ben procured. In concluding.
h. Ihnled that thc members who voted
TO seat him would be voting for polyga-