The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-01-21
HE WILL GO BACK TO UTAH.
SIMPLY 4 QUESTION OF EXCLUSION
or EXPULSION.

VIII he Excluded From the House.
Majority Says He Has No Right
Even to De sworn in by Reason OF
His Violation of the Lnw-MinOrity
Wants Him First sworn in and
Then Expelled.
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
Tayler and six of his associates is a vo-
by a summary of the law and facts. 1t
gives the details of the hearings, the am
pie opportunities afforded to Mr.. Roberts
to present his case, his refusal to testify
and the unanimous finding of facts, here
tofore published. 1t proceeds:
"The committee is unanimous in its be
lief that MIR Roberts ought not to re-
main a member of the House of Represent
atves. a majority are of 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 proceed
ure is to permit him to be sworn in and
then expel him by a two-thirds vote I'M
der 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
precedent. and not antagonistic to any
legislative action which the House of
Representatives has ever taken.
He should lie Excluded.
For convenience we present herewith,
before proceeding to extended argument
in support of the committees resolution
the following summary;
Upon 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, as
sert that he ought to be sworn in in order
that it, happily, two-thirds vote therefor
he may be expelled.
Three distinct grounds for disqualified
ton are asserted against Roberts.
First. BY reason of his violation OF
the Edmunds 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 proclamatons of the President.
holding himself above the law and not
amenable to il. No government could pos
sibly exist in the face of such practices.
He is in open war against the laws and in
stitutions of the country, whose Congress
he seeks to enter. Such an idea is in
tolerabe 1t is upon the principle as
serted in this ground that all cases of
exclusion have been based.
Third His election as representative
is an explicit and offensive violation Of
the understanding by which Utah was ad-
mitted as a state"
A Dubious PrOceeding.
After further arguments on these lines
the committee continues:
"The interesting proposition is made that
the claimant be sworn in and then turn
ed out. Upon the theory that the purpose
is 10 permanently part company with 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 the following
observations:
1.-The expulsion clause of the constitu-
ton is as follows:
Each house may determine the rules
of its proceedings. punish its members for
disorderly behavior and with the concur
renee of two-thirds, expel a member
mo lawyer can read that provision
without raising in his own mind the ques-
ton whether the House has any power to
expel, except for some cause relating to
the context. The abiest lawyers from the
beginning Of the republic have so insist
ed"
The report concludes as follows:
IF there is any fact apparent I'm this
Roberts knew all about him before his
election Can there be room to doubt the
proper action of the House? Is II propos-
ca to yield up this salutary power of ex-
cusions? VIII it declare itself defenseless
and ridiculous?
Nor are those who assert that expul-
sion is the remedy necessarily to be barr
ed from voting for the resolution declar-
ing the seat vacant. He must indeed, be
technical and narrow in his construction
of the constitution who will not admit
that If a vote to declare the seat vacant
is sustained by two-thirds majority, the
constitution is substantially compiled
with He may not agree with the COM
mittee that a mere majority can exclude,
but he can reserve the right to make the
point of order that the resolution IS not
carried If two-thirds do not vote for 1t.
'If the House takes the action which
the minority of the committee insists II
ought to take, II VIII for the first time
In its history part with a most benehcent
power which it has often exercised-a
power that ought rarely to be exercised,
but which the House has never declared
It did not possess"
The Minority's View of u.
The minority report is signed by Mr.
Iittleheld Republican, OF Maine. and Mr..
DeArmond Democrat, of Missouri. 1t
says, In part:
Assuming that Mr.. Roberts has been
and is now a polygamist unlawfully CO.
habiting with plural wives, and the House
of Representatives is for that reason of
the opinion that he ought not to be n
member thereof, what course should It
pursue under the constitution,
the supreme law OF the land--exclude him
or expel him? If he Is to be excluded, It
must be because he Is for such reason
legally ineligible or disqualified The pur-
pose is to consider the question OF consti-
tutional right. not of power, as Il Is con-
ceded the House has the power 90 exclude,
with or without reason, right or wrong.
The exercises Of such a power without