Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-06

| ton without trial. Mr.. Richardson then
brought forward several precedents in sup
port of his position. The first was the case
| of George Q. Cannon, who appeared in the
House as a delegate-elect from Utah in
1873. Mr.. Cannon was a republican. AL
most identically the same charges now
made against Mr.. Roberts We're made
| against Mr.. Cannon. He read from the
speeches of S. S. Cox of New York and
other prominent democrats opposing the
denial of seat TO Mr.. Cannon, on the
ground that it would establish a dangerous
precedent and produce chaos in the future.
Those democrats" said he, rose above
party prejudice and stood by the Constitu-
! ton and the right" Democratic applause)
He also cited the case of RAINY a colored
republican from South Carolina, in the
Forty-ffth Congress, where the democrats
had insisted that he should have the oath
administered to him. He also quoted the
late President James A. Garfield in support
of his contention that where the credentials
presented regular in form there is no
power in the House to exclude him.
Mr.. Richardson read the words of Mr.
Garfield. which concluded: There are no
personal objections"
But there are personal objectioss in the
case before the House." interpdsed Mr..
Tayler amid laughter and applause.
Not personal objections to the member
elect said Mr.. Richardson: personal dis
qualifications only are alleged
Yes, personal objections" shouted a
member on the republican side amid an
other outburSt
Mr.. Richardson read from alleged inter-
views with Mr. DaIzdl of Pennsylvania,
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 evil
dence Of his credentials.
Mr.: Dalzell and Mr.. Steele denied the in
terVleWS Mr.. Cannon asserted that in his
opinion If charges Of ineligibility were
| made it was competent for the House to
receive them now or hereafter.
Mr.. Roberts Defends HfmseIf.
Mr.. Roberts took the floor in his own
defense after Mr.. Richardson had con-
cluded. He occupied a conspicuous place
Immediately in front of the clerks desk
Several legal volumes We're piled up in
front of him 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
to retire to their seats. The galleries were
hushed. The occupants leaned over to
listen eager to let 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, however. his voice grew
louder until on several occasions 1t rang
out until the fretted ceiling overhead gave
back the echo Mr. Roberts began as
d
having read copy of his naturalization
papers in order as he said, that all the
documents In this extraordinary case
should be before the House. He then read
a paragraph from McCreary on elections
containing a general caution against hasty
procedure in election contests.
Now, gentlemen" continued Mr. Rob-
erts, that is the statement of one whose
book has authority in this country And
II 1t is the rule of the House of Represen-
tatives in cases that arise to the dignity
OF contest how infinitely more should
that rule be observed when only a mere
protest is made against a member who
presents himself to take the oath of Of
flee.
Il next proceed to the consideration of
the charges that are supposed to justify
what the gentleman from Ohio CMr Tay-
ler) himself comedies to be an unusual pro-
ceedinS, and which my friend on this side
tMr. Richardson of TENNESSEE has demon
strated to be an unprecedented proceed
Ing. The gentleman from Ohio bases his
charges upon a court record: that some
twelve years ago in the midst of our con-
Met in the then territory of Utah over the
subject of polygamy that l pleaded guilty
to the charge of a misdemeanor The gem
tleman seems to be oblivious to the fact
that since the date of his court record on
this subject we have had two presidential
amnesties proclaimed that have been ap-
piled to men disqualified by the Edmunds-
Tucker act. l understand gentlemen who
We're lawyers to admit this fact, and they