The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-06

he has persistently from that time forward
down to a recent date been guilty OF the
offenses OF unlawful cohabitation, and also
that b, has continued from the date of his
conviction and is now a polygamist. BY
the alleged facts these questions are raised:
First, after ne was convicted in 1852 did
he not then become and ever afterward re-
main. by reason of Section s. ineligible to
be member Of Congress unless he was
pardoned? If he was guilty of polygamous
cohabitation between Nov. 1. 1880. and the
date of the Harrison proclamation, he was
not pardoned by that proclamation.
This situation, assuming the facts to be
as alleged. raises several questions. First
ly, il Roberts was convicted. as stated. is
the burden on him TO affirmatively bring
himself within the embrace of the amnestF
proclamation? Secondly. If he was guilty
of polygamous cohabitation after Nov. ],
1880, Is he not without the benefit of the
proclamation? Third, If he continued 10 ne
the head of more than one family under his
original polygamous marriage contract
after the 1st of November, 1890, and with
out polysamous cohabitation. then is he not
a polygamist under the definition of the Su-
pren1e Court in the case Of Murphy VS..
Ramsay? Fourth, may not the facts, if es-
tablished, and independent of any law Gre
ating ineligibility, Justify the House in re-
fusing admission to Roberts? Fifth, does
not the compact created between the
United States and the State of Utah, by the
proclamation, enabling act and Constitu-
tion. justify the House in refusing 10 admit
representative from that State who is to-
day, under the definition of the Supreme
Court. polygamist? Sixth, may it not ne
that upon a careful examination of law il
VIII be found that the claimant is not i,
citizen of the United States. and, If not. of
course ineligible? Seventh, is it wise, If
the facts be as alleged. unless we are abso-
lutely without power TO keep Roberts out,
to subject his case to the doubtful process
of expulsion?
TWO REASONS
doubtful for two reasons:
First, because it requires the concur
renee of two-thirds to expel him. Second,
because very eminent lawyers from the be-
ginning of the government down to the
present time have taken the position that
the House has no right to expel except for
some misconduct while member and relat-
Ing to his office as a member.
Al eAo oity-iiltu congress, IN the Mat
tison case. committee by an all but unan-
imous voice reported to the House no power
mean low and vile, the charac Ger of the
man was. as exhibited by his conduct before
that time, to expel him, because it had 10
right to expel a man for that which lad
occurred prior to his election TO Congress /"
Mr. Tayler then went into a legal argu-
nrent In support of the proposition that Con-
gress had the right TO aold Mr.. Roberts
ineligible to sit as a member OF Congress.
He contended that The 'an3uage If The Con-
stitution with respect to the qualifications
Of members of the House was mega live in it's
character and that with Congress Vas left
the right to add 10 hose qualifications lie
then cited as precedents for tie frtsent
course the cases Of Proctor Knott. Rcyd
Winchester and John VI Rice, of Ken
lucky. who were charged With d'sloyslty
after the war, and concluded as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, we are told that this Will
make an unhappy precedent. Precedent? {?
Why, what we do here we do before the
open and gazing eyes II the world, an6 we
are at once dragged TO tile bar of history
to answer for deeds. We are in no
cloister court. We are 10 siatute ound
tribunal. We are the servants of the people,
empowered, thank God, Under the Const:tu-
ton to do the right us We see the right.
That Is the law to us. The public eye is on
us. the public conscience uuitkens us. In
that presence and before such a Judge we
can 10 no wrong IL We but obey it," Zap
plause on the Republican side.l