The Anaconda standard., 1899-12-06

ber-elect," said Mr.. Richardson; per
sonal disqualifications only are al
legged"
Yes, personal objections" shouted
member on the republican side amid
another outburst.
Mr.. Richardson read from alleged in
terviews with Mr.. Dalzell of Pennsyl-
vania, Mr.. Steele of Indiana and Mr..
Cannon of Illinois. in which they were
alleged to have stated that Mr.. Roberts
was entitled to take the oath upon the
prima facie evidence of his creden-
tials.
Mr. Dalzell and Mr.. Steele denied the
interviews.
Mr.. Cannon asserted that, in his opin-
ion, If charges of ineligibility were made
it was competent for the house to re-
ceive them now or hereafter.
sIr. Roberts in Defense.
Mr.. Roberts himself took the floor in
his own defense after Mr.. Richardson
had concluded. He occupied a con-
spicuous place Immediately in front Of
the clerks desk. Several legal volumes
We're piled up in front and a bouquet
of carnations lay upon his desk. The
most intense interest was manifested
as he arose. Members crowded about,
but were compelled to return to their
seats. The galleries We're hushed. Tho
occupants leaned over to listen. eager
to let no word escape. Mr.. Roberts
first sent to the clerks desk and had
read his naturalization papers. He then
began to speak. His voice was soft and
low, but his enunciation was distinct
and in the stiffness could be heard TO
the farthest corner of the hall. AS he
got into his argument. his voice grew
louder until, on several occasions, it
rang out until the ceiling overhead gave
back the echo.
Urges Caution,
Mr.. Roberts began by sending to The
clerks desk and having read a copy OF
his naturalization papers, as he said
that all the documents in this extraor-
dlnary case should be before the house
He then read a paragraph from Nc
Creary on Elections" containing a gem
eral caution against hasty procedure in
election contests.
Now, gentlemen" continued Mr.
Roberts, that is the statement of one
whose book has authority in this coun-
try, and if the rule of the house of rep
resentatives in cases that arise to the
high dignity of a contest how closely
should that rule be observed when only
mere protest is made against a mem
ber who presents himself to take the
oath of office.
Il next proceed to the consideration
of the charges that are supposed to
(Mr Taylor) himself considers to be
an unusual proceeding and which my
friend on this side (Mr. richardson
has demonstrated to be an unprece-
dented proceeding. The gentleman
from Ohio bases his charges upon a
court record:s that some y years ago.
in the midst of our conflict in the then
territory of Utah over the subject of
polygamy, that | pleaded guilty to a
charge of misdemeanor. The gentle
man seems to be oblivious to the fact
that since the date of his court record
ON this subject we have had two pres
idential amnestica~, reclaimed that
have been applied tn men disqualified
by the Tucker act understand gem
tlemen who Were lawyers to admit this
fact, and they will certainly appreciate
the cost Of It,
'The gentleman from Ohio has no
court record to show that ! was ever
arraigned or condemned of crime what
sOeVer since the promulgation of the
amnesty proclamation of the president
of the United States. The gentleman
seems also to forget the fact that since
the confession of that misdemeanor, to
which he has referred there was passed
by congress an enabling act, authoriz-
ing the people of the state Of Utah TO
form a state government. That en-
abling act also had a provision embod-
led in it that qualified all citizens with
III IKE ltIllllS VI lllt territory TO DeCO1n9
citizens of the United States, and was
particularly framed to remove the dis
qualifications and disabilities which
had been created by the E,dmunds-
Tucker law. The gentleman seems to
forget also that the state constitution
of Utah was satisfactory to the presi-
dent and his advisers. and Utah has
been admitted as a state into the union
and has taken upon itself the respon-
sihilities OF a sovereign state, declaring
under its constitution who of the peo-
pie residing in its borders shall exer-
else the elective franchise and be quail
flied for office as citizens of the great
commonwealth.
40. "a Lawbreaker.
I'm regard to the second charge, |
which is supposed to go to the question
of eligibility of the member srom Utah,
and which is made upon affidavit and
other papers in his possession the gen
tleman from Ohio says that ever since
1889 ] have been a persistent lawbreak-
er in the state of Utah. If that be true.
let me ask why it is that l was not
for lawbreaking. Certainly
there was no disposition not to execute
the law on the part of the people Of |
Utah. Its administration was in the |
hands of non-Mormons and these had |
no sympathy with men of my religious |
faith. All the machinery of the law
was in the hands of federal appointees. |
How is it, then. that l could be an
open and defiant lawbreaker and yet |
escape the penalty of the law?
THE gentleman's objection is, then. |
based not upon court record, but upon
nfiidavits and papers that have been |
supplied him by the people.
"And now as to the manner in which |
these charges are made. 1t has been |
about Is months since they began |
since the representative from Utah was |
leralded throughout this land as a de-
iant laWbreaker. And yet l walked |
he streets of Salt Lake City in open |
lay, within easy reach of the law, and
ny faults lay open to the law, if I
we're guilty of transgrassing. Other
men We're arrested before the courts of
Utah and We're fined for the very of
'ense alleged against me. and vet no
was made against me.
Not until my business called me
EAST did they undertake to make any
'harges against me. But the moment
If or shortly after. my departure they
)esan this agitation, resulting in the
present sentiment of the country now
lroused against me. l call your atten-
10 h., /