The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-06
y coneluded: .rhese are mot personal

But there are personal objections In
the case. before the house" Interrupted
MIR. Taylor. amid laughter and applause.
Not personal objections TO the mem
ber-elect" said Mr. Richardson: personal
disqualifications only are alleged"
yes. personal objections" shouted a
member on the republican side. amid al
other outhurst.
MIR. Richardson read from alleged inter-
views with Mr.. Dalzell OF Pennsylvania.
Mr. Steel OF Indiana and MIR. Cannon OF
Illinois, In which they were alleged to
have stated that Mr. Roberts was entitled
10 take the oath upon tho prl.na faeie EVIL
dence of his credentials,
Mr.. Dalzell and Mg. Steel denied the
interviews.
Mr.. Cannon asserted that In his opinion
II charges of inetigibility we're made Vt
was competent for the house TO receive
them now or hereafter
Mr.. Roberts himself took the floor In
his own defense after MIR. Richardson had
concluded. He occupied conspicuous
place Immediately IN front of the clerks
desk. Several LEGAL volumes were piled
up in front and a bouquet of carnations
lay upon his desk. The most intense in
terest was manifested as he arose. Mem
bers crowded about. but were compelled
Ia return to their seats. Galleries were
bushed. The occupants leaned over to
listen. eager TO let no word escape. MIR.
Roberts first sent TO the clerks desk and
had read his naturalization pane
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 or the hall. As he got into
his argument, his voice grew louder until
on several occasions 1t rang out until the
fretted ceiling overhead gave back the
echo.
I Mr., Roberts read paragraph from Mic
Creary on Elections containing a general
caution against hasty procedure in cleo
ton contests. Now gentlemen, contin-
ued Mr. Roberts, that Is the statement
OF one whose book has authortyin this
country, and If 1t Is the rule of the house
in cases that arise TO The dignity of
contest how infinitely more should that
rule be observed when only mere pro-
test is made against a member who pre-
SCENTS himself to take the oath of office.
next proceed To the consideration of the
charges that are supposed TO be what the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor him
self comedies to be an gnuanal proceeding,
and which my friend on this side tMr.
richardson. Tonn) had demonstrated TO
be an unprecedented proceeding. The gen.
tleman from Ohio bases his charge upon
court record that some twelve years ago
In the midst OF our conflict In the then
Territory Of Utah over the subject OF po-
lygamy. that pleaded guilt TO a charge
OF a mis- temeanor. That gent tnau seems
10 be obvious to the tact tia. since the
date OF his curt record on this subject
We have had two parliamentary amnesties
proclaimed that have been applied TO men
disqualified by the Edmunds Tucker act.
understand gentlemen who are lawyers
admit this fact. The gentleman from Ohio
has no court record to show that | Was
ever arragned or condemned of any crime
whatever since the PRONUNCIATION OF the
amnesty proclamation from the president
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 authorizing
1.-THE people OF the State q utah to form
State government, that enablins act also
had provision embodied in 4 nat quail
fed all citizens within the limits OF the
territory to become citizens of the United
States and was practically framed to re-
move the disquaincations and disabilities
which have been created by the Edmunds-
Tucker law The gentleman seems to Tor
! get also that the State constitution o. Utan
was satisfactory to the president and his
1 advisers and Utah has been admitted as
n state into the Union AMI has taken upon
/ itself the responsibility of sovereign
State declaring under us con shtuter VINO
of the people residing in It's borders shall
exercise the elective franchise and quail
! fled for office as citizens OF that great
commonwealth.
"The second charge, which is supposed
10 go to the question OF eligibility OF the
member from Utah, is that upon afidaWt
and other papers In his possession, the
gentleman from Ohio says that ever since
1889 have been a persistent law breaker
in the state OF Utah. II that be true let
me ask why It is that ] was not punished
for law breaking? Certainty there was
no disposition not TO execute the law on
the part OF the people OF Utah. Its ad- |
ministratlou In the hands of non Nor |
mons. of those who had no sympathy with
mon Of my religion All the machinery OF
the law was in the hands Of the Federal
appointoes. How Is It then that / could |
be an open and defiant law breaker and |
yet escape the penalty OF the law? The |
gentleman's objection Is then based not
upon court records. but upon afhdavit5
and papers that have been supplied him |
by the people
And now, as to the manner in which |
these charges are made. II has been |
about fifteen months since they began.
since the representative from Utah was
law breaker. And yet ! walked the streets
of Salt Lake City In open day, within
easy reach OF the law and my faults lay
open to the law If was guilty OF trans
erosion. Other men were arrested be-
fore the courts Of Utah and were fined for
the very ononse alleged against me, and
yet no complaint was made against me.
No, IL did not salt the purpose OF those
who had this present agitation in hand 10
the law quietly and by the usual
methods 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. Bus the moment. or shortly
after my departure, they began this agi- |,
tatlon, resulting in the present sentiment
u the country now aroused against me.
Il call your attention next to the fact
that the only charge against me. even
by the proponents of this resolution, is
that of mfsdemeanor. They do not
charge felony. | understand->hat the
members OF congress are granted certain
privileges while in attendance upon this
house II would be impossible TO arrest
any one OF the members upon the charge
of misdemeanor. And yet you would
deny me the privilege OF being sworn as a
member of this house. upon the alegation
Of the existence OF some charge or other
that | was guilty of misdemeanor. For
the thing for which the law itself could
not lay hand on ME while in attendance
upon this house, you propose speak OF
the little coterie of men who have en-
ter inf mt 40 A., |