The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-21
Two Reports from the Committee
That investigated the Charges
Against the Polygamist.
FINDING OF THE MAJORITY
1T RECOMMENDS THAT THE UTAH
SEAT BE DECLARED VACANT,
while the Minority Maintains Rob-
erts should Be sworn In and Then
Expelled as a Law-Breaker.

WASHINGTON. Jan. 2O.-The reports of
the special committee of investigation in
the case Of Brigham II. Roberts, of Utah,
were presented to the House to-day The
majority report, signed by Chairman Tay-
Ter and six Of his associates is volum-
nous document, and is accompanied by a
summary Of the law. and fact. II gives the
details OF the hearings. the ample oppor-
tunities afforded to Mr.. Roberts to present
his case. his refusal to testify and the
unanimous finding Of facts heretofore pub
lIsned. 1t proceeds:
1.-THE committee is unanimous In It's be-
lief that Mr.. Roberts ought not TO remain
a member OF the House of Representa-
tives- A majority are CT the opinion that
he ought not to be permitted 10 become
member; that the House has the right
10 exclude him. A minority are of the
opinion that the proper course of procedure
Is TO permit him TO be sworn in and tten
cxpei him by a two-thirds vote under the
constitutional provision provided for OK
pulsion.
Your committee desires TO assert with
the utmost positiveness. at this point, that
not only is the proposition of expulsion as
applied to this case against precedent hut
sh3t exclusion Is entirely in accord with
principle, authority and legislative prece-
dent and not antagonistic to any legisa-
tive action which the House of Representa-
tfves has ever taken. For convenience we
IIcStnt HtIcWlln, DcLOTG proceeding TO eX-
tended argument In support of the COM
mittees resolution, the following sum-
mary:
ssOn the facts stated. the majority of the
committee assert that the claimant ought
not to be permitted to take a seat in the
House OF Representatives and that the
seat TO which he was elected ought TO be
declared vacant The minority, on the
other hand, assert that he ought to be
sworn In in order that If haply two
thirds vote therefor he may be expelled.
Three distinct grounds of disqualification
are asserted against Roberts.
FIRSTLY reason of his violation of the
Ednunds law.
''second-By reason of his notorious and
defiant violation of the law of the land,
OF the decisions of the Supreme Court and
of the proclamations of the President,
holding himself above the law and not
amenable to il. No government could pos
tbly exist in the face OF such practices.
He is in open war against the laws and
institutions of the country whose Congress
ne seeks TO enter. Such an idea is intol-
cradle. 1t is upon the principle asserted
in this ground that all cases of exclusion
have been based.
'"Third-His election as representative is
err explicit and offensive violation CT the
understanding by which Utah was admitted
as State.
RIGHT Or TIE HOUSE TO EXCLUDE.
1.-The objection is made to the refusal to
admit Roberts that the Constitution ex-
cludes the idea that any objection can be
made to his coming in If he is twenty-five
years of age. has been seven years a citi-
zen of the United States and was an In
habitant of Utah when elected, no matter
how reasonable or criminal may have been
his life and practice. To this we reply:
'First-That the language of the consti-
tutional provision, the history of its franz
ing in the constitutional convention and it's
context clearly show that il cannot be con-
strued to prevent disqualification for crime.
..Second-That the overwhelming author
fly Of textbook writer's on the Constitution
Is to the effect that such disqualification
may be imposed by the House.
"Third-The courts of several States, in
constituting analogous provisions have with
practical unanimity declared against such
narrow construction of such constitutional
provisions.
"Fourth-The House of Representatives
has never denied that IL had the right to
exclude a member-elect, even when he had
the three constitutional qualifications.
.'Fffth-In many instances IL has distinctly
asserted its right so to do in cases of dis
loyalty and crime.
ssSixth-It passed In 1862 the test oath act.
which imposed real and substantial dis
qualification for membership in Congress.
disquahfying hundreds of thousands of
American citizens. This law remained in
force for twenty years and thousands of
members or Congress were compelled to
take the oath il required.
'.Seventh-The House i'm 1869 adopted a
general rule of order. providing that no per-
son should be sworn In as a member
against whom the objection was made that
he was not entitled to take the test oath.
and II on investigation such fact appeared,
he was to be permanently debarred from
entrance
'sEighth--The interesting proposition is
Eiade that the claimant be sworn in and
then turned out Upon the theory that the
purpose Is 10 permanently part company
with Mr.. Roberts. this Is dubious pro-
ceedng Such action requires the vote of
two-thrds of the members. We ask il such
a vote Is possible right, in view of the
following observations:
.sThe expulsion clause OF the Constitu-
ton Is as follows: Each House may de-
termine the rules of its proceedings. punish
its members for disorderly behavior and.
with the concurrence OF two-t thirds, expei
q member
mo lawyer can read that provision with
out realizing in his own mind the question
whether the House has any power TO ex-
pei. except for some cause relating TO the
contest The ablest lawyers from the be-
ginning OF the Republic have so insisted,
and their reasoning has been so that two
propositions are established. namely:
"First-Neither house of Congress has
ever expelled member for acts unrelated
TO him as a member or inconsistent with
his public trust and duty such
"Second-Both houses have many times
refused TO expel where the guilt OF the
member was apparent where the refusal TO
expel was put on the ground that the
House or Senate. as the case might be,
had no right TO expel for act unrelated
20 the member as such, or that IL was COM
mitted prior TO his election
The report concludes follows: 'If
there Is any fact apparent In this case.
II Is that the constituents OF Mr.. Roberts
knew all about him before his election.
Can there be room to doubt the proper
action OF the House? Is il prepared TO
yield up this salutary power of exclusion?
Will IL declare itself defenseless and ridic-
ulous? No, sir: those who assert that ex-
p1lsion Is the remedy are necessarily barred
the seat vacant. He must. indeed be tech
Constitution who will not admit that If a
vote 10 declare the seat vacant is sus-
tained by two-thirds majority, the Con-
stitution Is substantially complied with.
He may not agree with the committee that
a mere majority can exclude, but he can
reserve the right 10 make the point OF
der that the resolution is not carried IL
two-thirds do not vote for H.
IF the House takes the action which the
minority OF the committee insists IL ought
10 take, it will for the first time in its his
tory part with beueficent power which IL
has often exercised power that ought
rarely to bee exercised. but which the House
has never declared IL did not possess Mind
ful of the gravity OF the question, and
realizing the responsibility imposed upon
US. We recommend the adoption of the
following resolution:
Resolved. That under the facts and the
circumstances OF this House. Brigham ii.