The age-herald., 1900-01-24
Lengthy Argument Supporting & the Majority Report
MIR. LITTLEFlELD's MAIDEN EFFORT
In Defending the Minority Report-He Grew Eloquent and Showers of Applause Greeted Conclus-
 sion of His Speech.

Washington, January 2S.-This has been an oratorical field day in the house over the case of Brigham H. Roberts, the Nor mon representative from Utah. The galler- les were packed to suffocatlon, chiefly with women and other spectators. who after listening attentively to the arguments of MT >Tayler of Ohio and MT. Littlefield of Maine for the adoption of the majority and minority reports respectively of the special committee that investigated the case, re- mained long after nightfall to hear the inn passioned words of the accused, as he faced the house like animal at bay, knowing that every hand was raised against him.
 Mr Roberts was very adroit in the han ding of his case and at times exceedingly dramatic.
 Taking advantage of the issue raised by the division in the committee as to the method of busting him he appropriated to himself the argument of the minority that he was constitudonally entitled to be sworn in and the argument of the majority that, once sworn in, he could not be expelled.
 He defended the action of the Mormons in fighting the authority of the United
 
 lieved that sentiment would cnange, and dramatically stated that in those days he had rather have alis flesh hewn from his bones than to have senounced his religious tenets.
 He concluded with an eloquent peroration in which he said he had never been con- scious of a shameful act and if he was sent forth from this body wanderer, he would leave with head erect.
 MT. Littlefelds speech today, while being his maiden effort was brilliant and sue cessful oration, receiving the full and hearty support of his older colleagues.
 The debate will be closed next Thursday at 4:S0.
 Chairman Tayiet'sSpes
 In his speech on the majority report Chairman Tayler said in part:
 "Chies Justice Waite, in the Reynolds case in 1878, speaking of the claim that polygamy was a religious practice, said: 'To permit this would be in effect to per init every citizen to become a law unto Himself The government could exist only in name under such circumstances and Chief Justice Matthews in the Hamsy case in 1884, declares in substance that all po- 1ftical Influence ought to be withdrawn from those who practically hostile to the establishment of free and self-gov- erning commonwealth, founded on the idea of family as consisting in and spring ing from the union for life of man and one woman in the holy state of matri- mony.
 If we are to attach any importance to those fundamental declarations of the J,i what moral questions may be involved that this case presents in bold relief ques- tion of governmental life, the basis of which is law.
 'This is a republican government. and 1t springs from the people. from the people who make the law, and their representatives are such because they are believers fin the law and subject to the law
 MT. Tayler was emphatic sn his assertion that exclusion was in harmony with prece- dent, expulsion in violation of It. He ann plifed 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 congress he seeks to enter; and third, because his cleo tion was a violation of the compact by which Utah was admitted into the union.
 There was no demonstration throughout MT. Tayler's speech. but at the conclusion he was vigorously applauded.
 Littleie.d's Argument
 MT. Lfttlefield, stalwart and tall, made a deep impression upon the house in his maiden speech. He recounted at the outset the integrity, honesty and ability of the majority of the committee, but he could not concede it's judgment. The only issue be- tween the majority and minority was as to whether Roberts should be excluded or ex- pelled. The constitutional qualifications against inhabitancy, MT. LNtleheid assum- ed, could not be added to. If they could and the house now excluded member be- cause he was guilty of the polygamous practices, next year 1t might exclude for adultery. or because member was an at torney for a trust, or an octopus. or for any other reason. The right of member to his seat was constitutional right.
 He took issue with the majority as to the power of the house to expel a member foI acts committed before his entrance into the house, citing case after case in support of his contention First he went back tc the case of John Wilkes the famous Eng fish champion of free speech, who was three