The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-21

a, ~. proceedings. punish its members for
disorderly behavior. and with the concur
renee Of two-thirds. expei a memoeh
mo lawyer can read tnat 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 ablest lawyers from the be-
ginning of the republic have SO insisted,
and their reasoning has been SO cogent
that these propositions are established
namely:
'.First Neither house Of congress has
ever expelled a member for acts unrelated
to him as a member or inconsistent with
his public duty as such.
Second. Both houses have many times
refused to expel where the guilt OF the
member was apparent, where the relusal
to expel was put upon the ground that the
house or senate, as the case might be, had
no right to expel tor an act unrelated to
the member as such or because 1t was
committed prior to his election.
No Room for Doubt.
.Yf there is any fact apparent in this
case II is that the constituents OF Rob-
erts knew all about him before his cleo
ton Can there be room to doubt the
proper action Of the house? Is 1t prepared
to yield up this salutary power OF ex-
clusion? VIII 1t declare itself defense
less and ridiculous?
Nor are those who assert that expul-
sion is the remedy necessary barred from
voting for resolution declaring the seat
vacant. He must, indeed. be technical and
narrow In his construction Of the consti-
tuition who will not admit that If vote
to declare the seat vacant is sustained by
a two-thirds majority, the constitution is
substantially complied with. He may not
agree with the committee that mere ma
jority can exclude, but he can reserve the
right to make the point of order that the
@Ix,tfo 10 mt OQr 4
not vote for 1t. If the house takes the
action which the majority of the commit
tee insists 1t ought to take, 1t Will for the
first time In its history part with most
beneficent power, which 1t has often ex-
ercised-power that ought rarely to be ex-
ercised--but which the house has never
declared 1t did not possess.
Mindful of the gravity Of the question
and realizing the responsibility imposed
upon us, we recommend the adoption of
the following resolution:
Resolution of Exclusion.
Resolved, That under the facts and
circumstances of this case, Brigham H.
Roberts, representative-elect from the
state of Utah. ought not to have. or hold.
a seat in the house of representatives, and
that the seat to which he was elected is
hereby declared vacant
(Signed) ROBERT w. TAYLOR,
CHARLES w. Lands,
page MORRIS.
"ROMEO H. FREER,
"SMITH MCPHERSON,
SAMUEL L. LANHAM,
"ROBERT w. MIERS.''
The Minority Report.
The minority report says:
''The undersigned members Of the spe-
cial committee appointed to investigate
and report on the prima facie final right Of
ri oh In a
as the representative from Utah, being I'M
able to agree with the conclusions of the
committee as to the constitutional Ques-
Lsns involved. very respectfully submit our
views:
Question of Constitutional Right.
Assuming that Mr.. Roberts had been
and Is now polygamist, unlawfuliy CO.
habiting with plural wives. and the house
of representatives Is for that reason of the
opinion that he ought not to be member
thereof, what course should it rightfully
pursue under the constitution. the supreme
law of the land--exclude him or expel him?
II he is to be excluded 1t must be because
he is for such reason legally ineligible or
disqualified. The purpose is to consider the
question Of constitutional right, not Of pow
er, as II is conceded that the house has the
power to exclude, with or without rea-
son, right or wrong, The exercise Of such
a power without CONSTITUTIONAL warrant
would simply be brute force, a tyrannous
exercise of power Unbelievable by any
tribunal
Cannot Make New Laws.
After citing the constitutional provision
as to the qualifications of a representative
in congress the report proceeds:
rs It seriously contended that this
house can of its own motion. by its own
independent action create for the purposes
of this case legal disqualification? This
house alone cannot make or unmake the
law of the land. 1t is quite clear that the
house by its Independent action cannot. IL
II would, make for this case any disQualify-
ing regulation that would have the force
of law"
Law and Precedents.
The report then extensively reviews the
Continued on Para TWa