The times., 1899-01-26
MR.. EDMUNDS ON ROBERTS.
The Mormon Congressman May Prop
erIy He Expelled.

rom the CHRISTIAN Hefdld-l
at is now evident enough that Congress
was mistaken when 1t passed the enabling
act in supposing that polygamous notions
had disappeared and that the State would
go in the same way as other States.
I Congress also must have overlooked the
fact that any engagements on the part of
the State of Utah as condition OF its ad
mission to the Union relating to the ad
ministration of its internal affairs would
not be binding in point of law. and could
only bind the faith Of the State govern
rSent, for a breach Of which the only re-
dress must be the forcible oyerturning
OF the State government. which would be
simply war. The instant the State was ad-
mitted, every act of Congress relating TO
its internal policy ceased to have any force
whatever. The consequence is that in
point OF law, the State of Utah has the
same sovereign rights that any other
State has. She many punish polySlmy
or unlawful cohabitation, or she may au-
thorize it. She may declare, as Congress
had done. that illegitimate children shall
not inherit, or she may declare, as she ap-
pears to have done since her admission.
that illegitimate children shall inherit On
an equal footing with legitimates-
The constitution of Utah only prohib-
its the ceremony of making a po,ygamoHS
or plural marriage. 1t does not prob bit
/ the carrying on of po.ygamous relations.
Nor do her laws go any further, so far
| as / can ascertain. In fact, she is, as /
have said. absolutely Independent of Con-
gress il respect of the subject, and she
appears, from all reports, TO be steadi y
taking advantage of her opportunities.
and has if reports are true, deliberately
elected 10 Congress a person in the open
and notorious practice OF polygamy. / am
not informed at what time these alleged
Olygamous marriages took place. nor is
this material to the question. II they
took place before the State was admitted,
Mr.. Roberts could have been punished b.
the authorities OF the United States. But
he cannot be now. The acts of Congress.
while they punish cohabitants with plural
wives. did rot punish and were rot in
tended to punish those who had been IN
the practice of polygamy for supporting
those who had been their unlawful wives;
hut they did provide for Furnishing a con-
tinuance OF the pOiygamOus relations. II
Mr.. Roberts polygamo1s marriages to
place after the State was admitted. he
would be guilty of violating the State law
in contracting such marriage but he
would not be guilty of vio' ating any State
Law in living as a husband with all his
plural wives. fer. so far as | anS inform
ed there is no such law of Utah In any
case. as is true everywhere, statutes re-
straining crime are of no value unless
there be a state OF government. executive
and judicial. willing and desirous to exc
cute the law and bring offenders to pun
ishment. 1t would seem clear from what
has transpired, that the government OF
Utah has no disposition to proceed in that
direction.
In this state of things you ask: What
can the House of Representatives do in the
case of Mr.. Roberts? The Constitution Of
the United States provides that the House
of Representatives shall be the judge OF
the election and qualification of its men,
bers. The power to judge of the election
is merely the power to ascertain whether
a majority OF the legal voters have in the
manner provided by law voted for the
member. and that is all. The qualifications
of the member are three: He must be
| twenty-five years of age; he must have
been seven years citizen of the United
States; he must have been at the time OF
his election an inhabitant of the State. OF
these three requisites the House is the
judge. II he possesses these the House has,
in my opinion. no lawful power to apply
any other further test in respect of his
being admitted to 4 seat. IL would be eX-
tremely dangerous for Constitution to
give a majority of House the right TO de
termne what particular sort of man the
people of the State should have the right
TO elect TO represent them further than our
Constitution has declared.
This is too obvious To require fiustra-
ton But when a man so elected and pos
sessing the qualifications required by the
Constitution has once taken his sear. the
Constitution brings into play another and
entirely different provision, authorizing the
House with the concurrence of tWo-thirds
to expel a member Upon the exercise of
this right, the Constitution wisely imposed
no limitation except that of requiring the
concurrence OF twO-thiTdS to eXpel- H.
therefore, the Housee of Representatives
shall find on due enquiry that Mr. Roberts
is an Open practical. and persistent polyca-
mist, and the House thinks that in view
of the fact and in connection with tho
circumstances under which Utah was aI-
mitted. or without reference 10 these cir
cumstauces it will be a reprcach to its
dignity and good name TO continue Mr.
Roberts as 4 member IL may lawfully and
rightfully eNpel him. Ii il does not act
at all (supposing the facts to I've as statedl.
it will have given its Gcquiescent approval
of the conduct OF Alr Roberts. and of the
action OF the people who elected him with
full knowledge of the circumstances. and
henceforth II will be justly considered
that the House has no disposition to inter-
fere with the practice OF pOlygamy in Utah
II il does ac>and expel the member it viii
have declared against the perpetuatiou oC
that system.
Utah being now a sovereign State, with
all the power of any ether State neither
house of Congress or the whole Govern
ment of the United States can do anything
| further. except by the act OF war to which
| have already alluded