Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1900-01-23
TWO REPORTS ARE MADE.
Special Roberts Committee Pre-
sents Its Findings in the
Noted Case.
UNANIMOUS AGAINST THE pOLYGAMIST.
The Majority Fnvors Excluding the
Utah Congressman-Elec from
House While the Minority RECON-
mends His Expulsion After He Has
Been Sworn In.

Washington, Jan. 22.-The reports
of the special committee of investiga-
ton in the case of Brigham FL. Rob-
erts, of Utah, We're presented to the
Louse Saturday. The majority report
signed by Chairman Tayler and six
of his associates is voluminous docu-
ment, accompanied by a summary OF
the law and facts. 1t gives the details
of the hearings, the ample opportun-
tiles afforded to Mr.. Roberts to Pre-
sent his case, his refusal to testify and
the unanimous finding of facts, here
tofore published.
1t proceeds:
1.-THE committee is unanimous in its belief
that Mr.. Roberts ought not to remain a
member of the house of representatives.
majority are of the opinion that he ought
not to be permitted to become member;
that the house has the right to exclude
him. A minority are of the opinion that the
proper course of procedure is to permit
him to be sworn in and then expel him by
two-thirds vote under the constitutional
provision providing for expulsion.
your committee desire to assert with
the utmost positiveness at this point that
not only is the proposition of expulsion as
applied to this case against precedent, but
that exclusion is entirely in accord with
principle, authority and legislative prece-
dent and not antagonistic to any legisla-
tive action which the house of representa-
tives has ever taken.
"or convenience we present herewith be-
fore proceeding to extended argument in
support of the committees res solution, the
following summary:
upon the facts stated, the majority of
the committee assert that the claimant
ought not to be permitted to take seat
in the house of representatives and that
the seat to which he was elected ought to
be declared vacant.
1.-THE minority, on the other hand, assert
that he ought to be sworn in in order that
If happily two-thirds vote therefor he may
be expelled.
Grounds of DISQUALIFICATION.
"Three distinct grounds of disqualified
ton are asserted against Roberts.
81. By reason of his violation of the Ed
munds law
80 BY reason of his notorious and de-
fiant violation of the law of the land, OF
the decisions of the supreme court and OF
the proclamations of the presidents, hold
ing himself above the law and not amen
able to 1t.
mo government could possibly exist in
the face of such practices He is in open
war against the laws and institutions of
the country whose congress he seeks to
enter Such an idea is intolerable. 1t is
upon the principle asserted in this ground
that all cases of exclusion have heen based.
''3. His election as representative is an
explicit and offensive violation of the
understanding by which Utah was ad-
mitted as state.
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 rs years OF
age, has been seven years citizen OF the
United States and was an inhabitant OF
Utah when elected, no matter how odious
or unreasonable or criminal may have been
his life and practices. To this we reply:
81 That the language of the constitu-
fional provision, the history of its franz
ing in the constitutional convention and its
context clearly show that it cannot be con-
strued to prevent disqualification for crime.
so That the overwhelming authority of
text book writer's on the constitution Is to
the effect that such disqualification may be
imposed by the house, and no commentator
on the constitution specifically denies it,
"3. The courts of several of the states
In constituting analogous provisions, have
with practical unanimity declared against
such narrow construction of such consti-
tutlonal provisions
"a. The house of representatives has
never denied that it had the right to ex-
clude member-elect even when he had the
three constitutional provisions.
So In many instances it has distinctly
asserted its right so to do in cases of dis
loyalty and crime.
sc. 1t passed, in 1862, the test oath act
which imposed real and substantial dis.
qualification for membership in congress
disqualifying hundreds of thousands OF
force for 20 years. and thousands of mem
hers of congress were compelled to take the
oath it required.
~. The house, in 1869, adopted a genera
rule of order, providing that no person
should be sworn in as member agans
whom the objection was made that he wa!
not entitled to take the test oath, and i
upon investigation such fact appeared
he was to be permanently debarred from
entrance.
IS. The interesting proposition is mad
that the claimant be sworn in and thel
turned out. Upon the theory that the pur
pose is to permanently part company wit
Mr. Roberts this is a dubious proceeding
Such action requires the vote of two
thirds of the members. We ask If such
vote is possible or right, in view of tn
following observations:
The Expulsion Clause.
1.-THE expulsion clause Of the consttu
ton is as follows:
Zach house may determine the rule
of its proceedings. punish its members fc
.dsorderly behavior and. with the concur
renee of two-thirds. eXpel member
mo lawyer can read that provisio
without raising in his own mind the ques
ton whether the house has any power
expel except for some cause relating
the context.
1.-THE ablest lawyers from the beginnin
of the republic have SO insisted and the
reasoning has been SO cogent that thes
propositions are established. namely:
81. Neither house of congress has evs
expelled member for acts unrelated
lit alpr I'M etc with !,
public trust and duty as such.
20. Both houses have many times r.
fused to eXpel where the guilt of the mer
Der was apparent, where the refusal
expel was put upon the ground that Il
house or senate, as the case might be- hi
no right to expel for an act unrelated
the member as such, or because it was cor
Initted prior TO his election"
The report concludes as follows:
'If there is any fact apparent in this cas-
1t is that the constituents of Mr.. Rober
knew all about him before his electio
action of the house? Is it prepared
yield up this salutary power of exclusion
will it declare itself defenseless and ridic
ious?
Nor are those who assert that the e
pulsion is the remedy necessarily barr
from voting for the resolution declari
the seat vacant. He must, indeed be tee
nical and narrow in his construction of t
constitution who will not admit that II
vote to declare the seat vacant is ST
tanned by two-thirds majority the &C
stitution is substantially complied wit
He may not agree with the committee tn
mere majority can exclude, but he C.
reserve the right to make the point of
der that the resolution is not carried
two-thirds do not vote for 1t.
IF the house takes the action which t
minority of the committee insists 1t Dug