The Portland daily press., 1899-12-29
CURRENT COMMENT.
BAD PRECEDENIS IN THE ROB-
ER1S CASE
IN Y Suul

"It would seem but fair reasoning upon
the plainest principles of Interpretation, %
says Mr.. Justice story, "thsJ when the
Constitution esta blished certain qualit-
cations as necessary for office. IL meant to
exclude all others as prerequisites.
Applying this doctrine to the case OF
brigham n. Roberts, Rspres IN tatIve. elect
from Utah, We have insisted that he Is
entitled to adm mission to Congress II he
possesses the qualifications as to age,
citizenship and inhabitancy prescribed by
the Constitution. We concede that any
question as to whether he lacks the pre-
soribed qualifications may properly be
In vesti gated before he Is sworn In; but
the inquiry should be limited to the
question whether the applicant for adj
mission 10 &C nstitutioualIy qualified. II
this inq oiry 10 answered In the afhrma-
tive he should be admitted. IL 10 Is there.
after ascertained that he Ia for any 1ood
reason unit to remain Representative,
he may be- expelled by q two.thifds vote;
and the power Of expulsion may be exsr-
o sed not merely on this ground that the
member has committed u crime, but In
OASIS Of moral turpitude not amounting
to a violation OF the criminal law.
The principle advocate Of exclusion
rather than expulsion IN the Roberts case
is MIR. Robert W. Tayier CT Ohio, an able
and WELL meaning man, who iDsists that
the presidents are IN favor Of bis pro-
cedure. There have been some cases. 1t
Is true, in which the HOUSE Of Rsprssen-
tatives has refused TO admit persons duly
elected to Congress, on other erourd.
qualifications. But preoejents are sntit.
led to little Weight In political detsrmina-
lions which ars not subjsc to judicial
service. Tbs power OF the House OF Rep
resentativas In passing upon the qualifi-
cations of its members Is atsolute and
exclusive. No court can supervise or CON-
troll 1t There Is no remedy for wrong
full exercise of the power. To those who
pgtee with Mr.. Justice Stnry in the In
depreciation Of the Constitut ton, 1t seems
that the power to exclude was exercised
without warrant Of law In the cases
whioh Mr.. Tayler cites rs precsdeDts.
And they believe. furtherIr ore, that q
finally dsoided until &c 10 decided right.
Mr.. THylsr admits that asome very sx-
cellept authority" has declared that Con-
grsss has no power to add TO the qualih-
cations prest rlbed for a Rspr sentative by
thu Constitution but after this polite
reference to Story and other eminent
commentators, he proceeds to combat
their opinion By the citation OF cases In
which he says contrary doctrine has
been asserted by the New York Court Of
Appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court and
tine Supreme Court OF Colorado.
ACCORDING 10 mir. lAylers pne Courb OF
Appeals Of New York, IN the case Of
Rogers against the City Of Buffalo, Sin
an opinion rendered by Mr.. Justice Peck
ham, who now adorns the bench Of tho
Supreme Court of this Uuited States, held
that provision of the Constitution de-
claring certain qualifications for office
was not exclusive and did not bar the
legislature from imposing new. reasona-
BILE and proper qualifications. We have
been unable to find any such proposition
In that opinion. What Judge PeckhAm
did declare In the Rogers cass was that
the civil s'rvice legislation there In CUES
tion did not amount "to a general regu-
lstion requiring qualifications not men
toned in the Constitution;" which Is q
very different thing from saving that tbs
quail ucations for Office mentioned In the
Consultation may be increased By enact
ment of the Legislature. -e.-.-~-
The Ohio and Colorado Jases to which
Mr.. Tayler refers are capable of a CON-
struction which affords some support &c
his position. but these decisions can
hardly prevail as against the plain Ian
guage of the Constitution and the opinion
Of such jurist Ms Joseph Story. In this
controversy we are content to be on their
81 de.