The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-12-09
snArrLE, SATURDAY, DECEMBER
RoBERrs, LEGAL RIGHTS.


The sdase Of Congressman Roberts Is
one Of intense interest. not only be-
cause Of the circumstances and the
strong public sentiment with regard to
questions involved.
A clear distinction should be main
taineds in the consideration of this SUBJ
ject between sentiment and Judgment
between the offense against public opin-
ion and the jurisdiction of congress over
the subject matter. Special caution is
necessary because the feeling in this
country against polygamous marriage is
80 intense that any one guilty of It is
almost regarded as an outlaw In view
OF that prevailing sentiment 1t was wise
for the house of representatives to stop
the accused member at the very thresh-
old In order that he might not be ac-
corded any advantage to which he was
not entitled or which might not, in the
discretion of the house, be properly
withheld pending inquiry
The matter having passed into the
hands Of quasi-judicial tribunal, the
sole question to be determined is wheth-
er Roberts has brought himself within
the discretionary power reposed in the
legislative body over its own members.
Each house of congress possesses like
powers and so far as they relate to this
case, there is right to pass upon the
qualifications of q member and, even
though he possess all constitutional
qualifications, to expel him from men,
bership. The point raised now is wheth-
er the house of representatives may
prevent Roberts taking his seat or
whether it's right course is to admit
him upon the credentials from his state
and then expel him.
1t takes only a majority Of quorum
to disauahfy. but two-thirds of the
whole house. to expsl. The question has
never been authoritatively decided. In
the case of Cannon, in the Forty third
congress, it was held by the house Of
representatives that a member duly
elected could not be disqualified for a
cause not named in the constitution In
that case the offense charged was i'm
morality, and the house decided that
its remedy was expulsion.
The senate and the house have not
always followed the same method. Dur
ing the civil war, and before the adop-
ton Of the Fourteenth amendment, the
house refused admission to members
elect who had been disloyal to the
Union. The senate refused to pursue
this practice. In the case of Benjamin
Stark of Oregon, against whom charges
of disioyalty were made, the oath was
withheld until after the report of a COM
mittee upon his credentials had been
made, but it was decided that the oath
must be administered. This did not
prevent the house expelling several
members for disloyalty after admitting
them, including John c. Breckenridge
and Trusten Polk.
The strongest presentation of the view
that each house has control OF the quail
ifications of its members is that made
by Lyman Trumbull, in the Stark case
He took the decided stand that either
house might prevent a person possess
ing all the constitutional qualifications,
and duly elected, from taking his seat
in the senate. Trumbull considered that
the right to expel was given In order to
afford a means of punishment for an
offense committed after being seated,
but that the right to pass upon the
qualifications of members extended to
some cause existing before the member
was elected or had taken his seat. THAT
an armed traitor, convicted felon, or
a person known to be disloyal to the
government" he says, has a consti-
tutional right to be admitted into that
body would imply that the senate had