The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-06

eral officials in Utah, but the objections
were waived aside"
mists were appointed tc federal cfiices
in Utah by the present executive?"
queried Mr.. Hopkins (Rep-. ND
With the knowledge Of the presi-
dent?" added Mr.. Grosvenor REP, o..
quickly, amid some laughter on the
Democratic side.
When men were applicants for fed
eral offices in Utah." reiterated Mr..
Roberts. OBJECTIONS were made and af-
fidayits We're filed both with the presi-
dent and the senate, but nevertheless
the appointments were made
THAT does not answer my question"
observed Mr. Hopkins.
Should Go to Judiciary.
Mr.. Roberts urged that the case ought
to go to the judiciary committee, where
1t could be investigated. He warned
the Republican side that this was a
serious question. If the people of Utah
were guilty of violating the compact
with the Union. what of the president
who had appointed to positions in
Utah men chargeable with the same Of
Tense?
Mr.. Roberts ridiculed the manner in
| which the petition favoring his expul-
sion had been procured. In concluding
! he denied that the members who voted
lygamy. The question Of polygamy was
settled.
Il hold it as an honor" said he, that
l will be quoted long in Utah as one
who helped to settle that question on
the floor of the constitutional conven-
ton. 1 am not defending polygamy;
it is dead"
Mr.. Roberts concluded by thanking
Mr.. Tayler and the house for their in
diligence. He was given a round of
applause as he took his seat.
Mr.. Dinsmore Dem. Ark briefly
opposed the Tayler resolution.
Mr.. Grosvenor (Rep., o. denounced
Mr.. Roberts statement concerning the
appointment by the president of po-
lygamists in Utah as "a miserable sub
terfuge.
Il make the statement" said he.
land I defy contradiction. that the
president of the United States never
knowingly appointed a polygamist to
office. AS well might one charge that
the president had plunged his stainless
hands in human blood as to charge
that he appointed to public office men
guilty of the crime alleged against the
gentleman from Utah." Great applause
on the Republican side.)
Il charged and 1 reiterate it, said
Mr. Roberts. that men appointed to
office in Utah We're charged before the
~ c-,I0Ciit anu lilc SCndtt Will tllc
same misdemeanor of which it is
charged / am guilty."
Were they guilty?" inquired Mr..
Dalzell
TT does not appear whether they
were guilty. answered Mr.. Roberts,
raising his voice and looking around
the hall. They were only charged, as
am charged" applause on the
Democratic side, in which many people
in the galleries joined.)
Tayler Concludes Debate.
Mr.. Tayler concluded the debate. Mr..
Roberts, he said. had exhibited a large
incapacity to understand his (Tayler's)
position. his RobertsD position. or the
spirit of the American people--a right
eouS expression of their sentiment just
ly founded, however much misdirected.
He did not say Mr.. Roberts was guilty,
but he indicted him upon his own re-
sponsibility.
II am not unmindful of the impor-
lance of the question the house is about
to decide" said Mr.. Tayler. 1T is un-
usual. but not unprecedented. We do
not undertake to determine the right
Of the claimant to a seat. but only
whether he shall be halted at the bar of
the house and await the administration
of the oath until the house shall de-
termine that right.
NIL CPOdhCir Oldn WdS dutlillltu do
a state into the Union on the 4th day
of January, 1886. These are the alleged
facts against the claimant:
First, that he was indicted in Feb
ruary. 1887. for unlawful cohabitation
under the Edmunds act and pleaded
guilty April %. 1889. and was incarcer-
ated on that account in the peniten-
tiary for four months: second, that he
has persistently from that time forward
dntVn N a a TO Of
the offenses of unlawful coha bitation,
and also that he has continued from
the date of his conviction and is now
polygamist.
Grounds of Ineligibility.
by the alleged facts these questions
are raised:
''First-After he was convicted in 1889,
did he not then become and ever after
ward remain, by reasons of section s,
ineligible to be a member of congress
unless he was pardoned? If he was
guilty Of polygamous cohabitation be-
tween Nov. ]. 1890. and the date of the
Harrison proclamation he was not par
doned by that proclamation.
This situation, assuming the facts
to be as alleged. raises several ques-
tions.
''First-If Roberts was. convicted, as
stated, is the burden on him to affirm
atively bring himself within the en-.
brace of the amnesty proclamation
''Second-If he was guilty CT polyga-
nous cohabitation after Nov.s1. 1890, is
he not without the benefit ofthe proc
iamation?
'.Third-If he continues to be the head
of more than one family under his orig
inal spolygamous marriage contract af-
ter the 1st of November 1890. and
without polySamouS Capitalization, then
is he not a. polyganist under the def
milton of the supreme court In the case
Of Murphy VS.. Ramsey?
'Fourth-May not, the facts. if estab-
lished. and independent of any law Gre
ating ineligibility, justify the house in
refusing admission 10 Roberts?
Justification of the House.
"Fifth-Does not the compact Great
ed between the United States and the
state of Utah by the proclamation, en-
abling act and constitution justify the
house in refusing to admit a represen-
tative from that state who is today un-
der the definition of the supreme court
a polygamist?
''Sixth-May IL net be that upon a
careful examination of the law it would
be found that the claimant is not
citizen of theUnited States. and, if not,
Of course Ineligible.
'Seventh--Is 1t wise. Il the acts be
as alleged unless we are absolutely
subject his case to the doubtful process
of exoulsion2
Doubtful for two reasons-First, be-
cause it requires the concurrence of
two-thirds to eXpel him., second, be-
cause yerv eminent lawyers from the
beginning OF the government down to
the present time. have taken the posi-