The Forrest City times., 1900-01-26

HuI'u.nse thereof. sAAu ss the 'uprsna TT the memesr-sisct from Utsn is ssas.. then. for the purpose of his case. we mus read Into the constitution other woEos se that 1t would read;
 In congress unless he shall have a.taineo 10 the age of S years. and been sever years a citizen of the United States. ane who shall not. when elected, be an in. haoitant of that state in which he shaA De chosen; provided that no person shah De ineligible to a seat as such representa-. and act. in life and practice. defies the constitution and the laws. and denies theii validity and supremacy
 IT matters not whether this proviso ot attached to the clause referred to or te some other. IL must be written into the constitution somewhere if the claimant is eligible, and my friends on the other sict of the question will not deny it.
 Thus stands the case then: If the mi nority be right. the framers of the con. stitution, if they had foreseen the Roberts ton and tke law, and its denial of theii validity and supremacy as to him, woulo have said Brigham H Roberts is eligible ana must be seated if elected
 'I say that no such provision could have been adopted; and if 1t could not, can no,
 Much is said about the moral side oi thls question Doubtless it has such . side: and if that were the only consid- erstion before us. the house might take same action il will take. But l do not here and now, in the face of the great Fundamental fact of disobediense to law, plus audacious defiance of it, care to as- eert the moral ground.
 MT. Speaker. I do not hesitate to sub mt this proposition to the candid judg- n.ent of this house, and before. the bar that it is right, and that history vii se declare it; the house can no more safely Rart with any other power 1t possesses il. 1t is in certain conceivable instances, absolutely without power. But we are told that 1t is . power that may be abused. What power does the house pos sess that it has not at some time abusedi Nhat branch of the government is it that, having power. has not at some time abused It? What man. what body of men clothed with a little brief authority, has been free from an unwise abuse of that authority? And shall the house therefore be shorn of power?
 Tt IS mighty question It is a ques- ton Of government life, it is not to be lightly dealt with or inconsiderately an-
 The case of Roberts sinks into insig. nincance in its presence. I should assert what l here assert, with precisely the same solemnity. if the right of expulsion we do not exclude this man. we strike down one of the most vital and necessary powers that belong to a great legislative
 NIT. Tayler was emphatic in his as- sertions that exclusion was in harm ony with precedent; expulsion in vio- lation of it. He amplified the three grounds for Mir. Roberts exclusion, first because of his violation of the Edmunds act; second, because he was living in open, fragrant and notorious violation of the statutes of the con- gress he seeks to enter, and, third. be- cause his election was violation of the compact by which Utah was ad- mitted into the union. There were no demonstrations throughout Mir. Fay ler's speech, but at the conclusion, he was vigorously arplauded.
 Mir. Littlefeld (Me.), on behalf of the minority of the committee, then arose and addressed the house in sup port of the minority's plan of seating and then expelling MT. Roberts.
 MT. Roberts followed with intense interest the points brought out by Mir. Littlefeld. After reviewing the fa- nous Wilkes case before the British house of commons, MT. Littlefield de- elared that the majority in the Rob- erts' case were resorting to the Same infamous instrument of outrage and oppression" Ii was a course then de- nounced as "Damnable and subversiye of the right of the people," and the majority of this committee had the honor, if such it could be called, of following such a precedent.