Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-06
nation he was not pardoaed by that proc


Questions Raised.
This situation, assuming the facts to be
as alleged raises several questions.
First. If Roberts was convicted as stat
ed is the burden on him to af4irmativeIy
bring himself within the embrace of the
amnesty proclamation?
Second. If he was guilty of poygamous
eohabitation after November l. $780, is he
rot without the benefit OF the proclama-
ton?
Third. If he continued to be the head
of more than one family under his original
polygamous marriage contract after the
list of November, 1890, and without polyga-
nous cohabitation, then is he not a poyga-
mist under the definition of the Supreme
Court in the case of Murphy VS.. Ramsay?
Fourth. May not the facts, if establish
ed, and Independent of any law creating
meligiblity, justify the House in refusing
admission to Roberts?
Fifth. Does not the compact created be-
tween the United States and the state of
Utah by the proclamation enabling act and
Constitution Justify the House in refusing
to admit representative from that state
who is today, under the definition of the
supreme Courts, polygamist?
sixth May 1t not be that upon care
ful examination of the law it will be found
that the claimant is not a citizen of the
United States, and If not, of course, in
eligible?
Seventh Is it wise, if the facts be as
alleged, unless We are absolutely without
power to keep Roberts out, to subject his
case TO the doubtful process of expulsion?
Doubtful for two reasons:
Question of Expulsion.
First, because it requires the concur
renee of two-thirds to expel him.
Second, because very eminent lawyers
from the beginning Of the government down
to the present time have taken the position
that the House has no right to expel ex-
cept for some misconduct while a member
and relating to his office as a member In
the Thirty-fifth Congress- in the Mattison
case, a committee, by an all but unanimous
voice, reported that the House had no
power, mean and low and vile as the char
acter of that man was, as exhibited by his
conduct before that time, to expel him. be-
cause 1t had no right to eXpel man for
that which had occurred prior to his cleo
ton to Congress"
Constitutional Qualifications.
Mr. Tay1er then went into legal argu-
nent in support Of the proposition that
Congress had the right TO hold Mr.. Roberts
ineligible to sit as a member of Congress
He commended that the language of the Con-
stitution with respect to the qualifications
Of members of the House was negative in
It's character, and that with Congress was
lett the right to add TO those qualifications.
He then cited as presidents for the present
course the cases of Proctor Knott, Boyd
Winchester and John M Rice of Kentucky,
who were charged with disloyalty after the
war, and concluded as follows:
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 history to
answer for our deeds. We are in no clois-
ter court. We are no statute-bound tri-
bunal. We are the servants of the people,
empowered. thank God under the Consti-
tuition, 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, Gap
plause on the republican side)
Mr.. Richardson Replies.
Mr.. Richardson, the minority leader, fol-
lowed Mr.. Tayler. He did not intend. he
said, to discuss the merits of the case. The
question in issue was to whether the
representative-elect (Roberts) had prima-
facie right to his seat. He was not willing
TO reject a rcpresentative-elect who APP
peared at the bar of the House with his
credentials In due form. If he was denied
ADMISSION, precedent would be created
winch would rise to plague the House in
years to come. The only constitutional OBJ
lection raised against the member-elect re-
lated TO his naturalization. and that, Mr..
fichardson asserted, would not hold. He
dehed the other side to produce single
precedent where objection was raised to the
administration of the oath except on con-
stltutional grounds. The precedents cited
We're made during the war, and were not to
De relied upon. In those days the Consti-
tuition was written with the sword They
had all been since overruled, after the pas
s1ons mat followed the war had subsidized.
Mr.. Richardson declared, that the minor
ity was in no wise bound by his position.
He spoke for himself alone, He was will
ing to say that If the charges against the
member-elect We're proven he should favor
his expulsion. IF there is one thing the
American people are unit upon said he,
1T Is that the American home shall be pre-
purity" tApplause(
But" he proceeded, sit is not wise to per-
nit our Judgment to be warped by public
ciamor. To do so amounted to condemna-