The record-union., 1899-12-06

/ the confession of that misdemeanor 70
which he referred there was passed by
Congress an enabling Act authorizing
the State of Utah to form a State gov
eminent. That enabling Act also had
provision embodied in it that qualified
| all citizens within the limits of the
| Territory to become citizens OF the
United States. and was particularly
| framed to remove the disqualifications
and disa bilities which had been ere
ated by the Edmunds-Tuckerl law. The
| gentleman seems to forget also that
the State Constitution of Utah was sat
fsfactory to the President and his ad-
visors, and Utah has been admitted as
a State into the Union, and has taken
upon itself the responsibilities of SOW
ereign State, declaring under its Con-
| stitution who of the people residing in
] it's borders shall exercise the elective
franchise and be qualified for Office as
citizens of that great commonwealth.
The second charge, which is sup
posed to go to the question of eligibility
OF the member from Utah, is more up
on affidavits and other papers in his
possession. The gentleman from Ohio
says that ever since 1889 I have been a
persistent Iawbreaker in the State of
Utah. If that be true let me ask why
it is l was not punished for lawbreak-
ing. Certainly there was no disposition
not to execute the law on the part Of
the people of Utah. It's administration
was in the hands of non Mormons, of
those who had no sympathy with men
| of my religious faith. All the ma
chinery of the law was in the hands Of
Federal appointees. How is it that l
could be an open and defiant lawbreaker
and yet escape the penalty of the law?
''The gentlemans objection, then, is
based not upon court record, but upon
affidavits 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 fifteen months since they began,
heralded throughout this land as a de-
braided throughout this land as a de-
| faint lawbreaker. And yet l walked
the streets of Salt Lake in open day,
within easy reach of the law, and my
faults lay open to the law if I were
guilty of transgressing. Other men
were arrested before the courts of Utah,
and were fined for the very offense al
legged against me, and yet no complaint
was made against me- No, it did not
suit the purpose of those who had this
present agitation in hand to vindicate
| the law quietly, and by the usual meth
DDS. They desired particularly to have
this case upon which apparently to
arouse the sentiment of the country.
Not until my business called me East
did they undertake to make any
| charges against me. But the moment
Of or shortly after. my departure, they
| began this agitation resulting in the
present sentiment of the country now
aroused against me. I call your atten-
| ton next to the fact that the only
charge against me, even by the present
| opponents of the resolution, is that of
a misdemeanor. They do not charge
a felony
! Il understand that the members of
Congress are granted certain privileges
while in attendance upon this House.
1t would be impossible to arrest any
one of the members on the charge of Il
misdemeanor. And yet you would deny
me the privilege of being sworn as a
member of this House, upon the ale
cation of the existence of some charge
or other that 1 was guilty of a misde-
meanor. For the thing for which the
| a
while in attendance upon this House,
you propose speak of the little
coterie of men who have entered into
this conspiracy to crowd this question
to the front at this particular time,
and for the reason that they are fear
full that if the matter should go to a
consideration under a resolution to ex-
pei the member from Utah they could
not marshal the necessary two-thirds
vote to accomplish their purpose-to
pass the present resolution.
81 understand, sir, that these i'm
munities are not given for the benefit
Of the individual members. They are
given rather as a protection against
his constituency, who are entitled to
his services as their Representative.
And, therefore, invoke the protection
that is given to the constituency of a
sovereign State against the proceedings
they are fnstituting here to deprive me
of the privilege of being sworn in as a
member of this House. Privilege, did
I say, sir? I am not asking any privi-
leges in this House. I am not asking
any favors of the members of this
House. Under the shadow of the Con-
L
demand, both for myself and for the
people of my State, the protection that
is due us-and it is demand, and it IS
asking no favors." Great applause on
the Democratic side and in the CALLER
ies)
/ Roberts next called attention to the
precedent in the Forty-third Congress
in the case Of Cannon, adding:
Il can add nothing to the force OF
that gentleman's remarks except this
that in the case of Cannon the House
| was dealing with a Delegate from a
Territory, not the Representative of the
people of a sovereign State. They were
dealing with a Delegate who was Gre
ated by/a statute passed by the Con-
gress of the United States. And
throughout the discussion it was al
I legged as reason for taking exceptions
to him that they could do so because
he was unprotected by the provisions
of the Constitution. And yet. sir, know
| ing he was but a creation Of law. still
they admitted him as a member upon
the floor of this House 1t is to be re-
marked in this connection that. strange
to say, the course of nature was not
disturbed
notwithstanding an alleged polyg
amist was permitted by the vote of a
Republican Congress to remain upon
the floor of this House, it did not trans-
pire, as 1t is said it did transpire in