Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1900-01-21

port of the special committee of in
vestigation in the case of Brigham H.
Roberts, of Utah, were presented to
the House to-day. The majority report,
signed by Chairman Taylor and six
OF his associates, is a voluminous docu-
ment, and is accompanied by a sum-
mary of the law and facts. 1t gives
the details of the hearings, the ample
opportunities afforded Mr.. Roberts to
present his case, his refusal to testify
and the unanimous finding of facts,
proceeds:
The committee is unanimous in it's
belief that Mr.. Roberts ought not to
remain a member of the House of Rep
r~esentatives. A majority are of the
opinion that he ought not to be per-
mitted to become a member; that the
House has the right to exclude him. A
minority are of the opinion that he
proper course of procedure is to permit
him TO be sworn in and then expel
him by a 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 precedent,
and not antagonistic to any legisla-
tive action which the House of Rep
rnCantQfiunc hoe nUor fa1nn -H
For convenience we present here
with before proceeding to extend argu-
ment in support of the committees res
olution the following summary:
Upon the Facts Stated
the majority of the committee assert
that the claimant ought not to be per-
mitted to take a seat in the House of
Representatives, and that the seat to
which he was elected ought to be de-
clared vacant.
The minority, on the other hand, as
sert that he ought to be sworn in in
order that, if happily two-thirds vote
therefor, he may be expelled.
Three distinct grounds of disquali1-
cation are asserted against Roberts:
1. By reason of his violation of the
Edmunds law.
2. BY reason of his notorious and
defiant violation of the law of the
land, of the decisions of the Supreme
Court, and of the p-roclamations of the
President, holding himself above the
law, and not amendable to it. No
government could possibly exist in the
face of such practices. His is in open
war against the laws and institutions
of the country, whose Congress he
seeks to enter. Such an idea is intol-
cradle. It is upon the principle as
serted in this ground that all cases of
exclusion have been based.
3. His election as representative is
an explicit and offensive violation of
the understanding by which Utah was
admitted as a State.
The objection is made to the refusal
to admit Roberts that the constitu-
ton excludes the idea that any OBJ
lection can be made to his coming
In if he is twenty-five years of age,
has been seven years a citizen OF the
United States, and was an inhabitant
of Utah when elected, no matter how
odious or reasonable or criminal may
have been his life and practices.
To This We Reply.
l. That the language of the con-
stitutional provision, the history of its
framing in the constitutional V
ton and it's context clearly show that
it can not be construed to prevent
disqualification for crime.
3. That the overwhelming author
ity of text book writer's on the con-
stitution is to the effect that such dis
- ao&;o~ ho imn0Cn6 nv tho
House. and no commentator on the
constitution specifically denies it
2 The courts of several of the
States in constituting analogous proyis-
ions have with practical unanimity de-
clared against such narrow construc-
ton of such constitutional provisions.
4. The House of Representatives
| has never denied that it has the right
to exclude a member-elect even when
he had the three constitutional pro-
visions.
s. In many instances it has distinct
iy asserted its right so to do in cases
Of disloyalty and crime.
6. 1t passed, in 1862, the test-oath
act. which imposed a real and sub
stantial disqualification for member
ship in Congress, disqualifying hun
dreds of thousands of American citi-
zens. This law remained in force for
twenty years, and thousands OF mem
bers of Congress were compelled to
g q the oath it required.
The House. in 1869. adopted a
= ,eral rule of order. providing that
lo nerson should be sworn in as a
Is nber against whom the objection
a made that he was lot entitled to
lf9a the test oath. and, if upon in
LEGATION. such fact appeared. he
y :, 10 be permanently debarred from
e rance.
Z The interesting proposition is
,aa that the claimant be sworn in
al ! then turned out. Upon the theory
til 1 the purpose is to permanently
paft company with Mr. Roberts, this
is 4 dubious proceeding. Such action
reu1i~es the vote Of two-thirds of the
MEMBERS.
| The Minority Report
Is signed by Mr.. Lttlefield (Rep-),
Maine, and Mr.. DeArmond tDem.),
Missouri. It says in part:
Assuming that Mr.. Roberts has
beep All is now q polygamist, unlaw-
! FULLY coSabitfng with plural wives, and
| the iHokse Of Representatives Is tor
| thaa re- bon ot the opinion that he