The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-21
RIVAL REPORTS ON
CASE Of ROBERTS.
Continued from Page One.
law and presidents bearing on the case.
The main heads are as follows:

court directly in point.
.'Second--If the right to add a disquali-
fication by law is assumed, the disquaiihca-
ton imposed by the Edmunds act does not
apply to a member of congresses and there
fore does not affect Mr.. Roberts. The only
portion OF the section that can be said to
have any application to q member OF the
house Of representatives is that which de-
clares that no polygamous' etc. shall be
entitled to hold any office or place Of pub
lie trust, honor or emolument UNI
der the United States
UNLESS q member of the house holds
an ONCE under the United States within
the meaning Of the constitution and the
law. there Is no disqualification"
Continuing the report says:
This house by it's independent action
cannot make law for any purpose. The
adding by this house, acting alone, OF
qualification not established by law, would
not only be violation Of the constitution
and the law, but 1t would establish
most dangerous precedent which could
hardly fail to return to plague the in
ventor.'
Had Precedent to tEstnbIish.
You might feel that the grave moral
and social aspects of this case allowed you
to-
.Wrest once the law to your authority
To do great right. do a little wrong
But what warrant have you, when the
barriers Of the constitution are once
broken down, that there may not come
after us a house with other standards of
morality and propriety which will create
other qualifications with rightfil founda-
ton that in the heat and unreason OF par
tisan contest-sincc there will be no defin-
lite standard by which to determine the ex-
istence Of Qualifications--will add any
thing that may be necessary to accomplish
the desired result? EFFICIENCY will deter
mine the sufficiency. 1t would no longer
be government Of laws. but of men, To
thus depart from the constitution and SUBJ
stitute force for law Is to embark upon
trackless sea, without chart or compass,
with almost a certainty of direful chip
wreck"
Dangers May Follow.
The report concludes as follows:
"A small partisan majority might render
the desire to arbitrarily exclude by a ma
jority vote In order to more securely in
trench itself In power irresistible. Hence.
its exercise Is controlled by legal rules. In
case of expulsion, when the requisite two
thirds can be had, the motive for the ex-
ercise Of arbitrary power no longer ex-
lists, as two-thirds' partisan majority Is
sufficient for every purpose. Hence. ex-
pulsion has been safely left in the discre-
ton of the house and the safety OF the
members does not need the protection Of
legal rules.
ut seems to US settled, upon reason
and authority, that the power Of the house
to expel is unlimited and that the legal
propositions involved may be thus fairly
summarized:
1.-The power of exclusion is matter of
law, to be exercised by majority vote, in
accordance with legal principles, and
exists only when a member-elect lacks
some Of the qualifications required by the
constitution. The power of expulsion Is
made by the constitution purely matter
OF discretion, to be exercised by a two
thirds vote, fairly intelligently, conscien-
tiously, with a due regard to propriety and
the honor and integrity of the house and
the rights of the individual member For
tho abuse of this discretion we are re-
sponsible only to our constituents, our
conscience and our God.
Roberts Should be Expelled.
1--WE believe that Mr.. Roberts has the
legal constitutional right to be sworn in
as a member. but the facts are such that
we further believe the house, in the exer-
else of Its discretion. is not only justified
but required by every proper considera-
ton involved to expel him promptly after
he becomes a member.
Minority's Proposed Substitute.
'swe recommend the following as a SUBJ
stitute for the resolution proposed by the
committee:
Resolved, That Brigham III. Roberts,
having been duly elected a representative
In the Fifty-sixth congress from the state
of Utah, with qualifications requisite for
admission to the house as such, is en-
titled by constitutional right to take the
oath of Office prescribed for members
elect; his status as a polygamist, unlaw-
fully cohabitating with plural wives, af-
fording constitutional ground for expul-
sion, but not for exclusion from the house.
"And If the house shall hold with us
and swear in Mr.. Roberts as member,
we shall, as soon as recognition can be-
offer resolution to expel him as a poly
gamist, unlawfully cohabiting with plural
wives.
(signed) &c E. LITTLEIEL
DAVID A. DE ARMOND."
Scathing Arrangement of Roberts.
The full report of the committee eiab-
crates the summaries and in some parts
uses strong language against Mr.. Rob-
erts. AS to his plural marriages, 1t says
Prior to 1882 B. II. Roberts had mar
ried one Louisa Smith. She had borne him
six children, and is still living.
about 1885. when Utah was fairly ring
ing with the blows of the Edmunds act of
1882, while numerous prosecutions were
going on, and after the supreme court had
passed upon the validity of the act; when
the American people supposed polygamy
had received its deathblow; when no man
of the many whose cases went to the su-
preme court pretended the provisions
against polygamous marriages were in
valid, with all these facts insistently before
him, Brigham Fl. Roberts took another
wife, his first polygamous wife-Celia DID,
BILE by name who in the following twelve
years bore him six children.
He Spat Upon the Law.
',rhis second wife he married In defiance
of the Ednunds law. He spat upon the
law: he declared by his act that he rec
cgnized no binding rule upon him of a
law of congress: he declared by it that he
recognized higher law. The congress
of the United States was TO him an ob-
ject Of contempt. The supreme court of