Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1900-01-25
ROBERTS CASE REPORTS.
Majority and Minority Reports In
the Case of Brigham 81. Rob
erts Presented.
IT'S EITHER EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION.
The Majority Would Not Permit Him
to QuaIffy. But the Minority
would Have Him Sworn in and
Then Proceed to Kick Him Out
by an 'rvO-Thirds Vote.


by an .rwo-Thirds Vote.
Washington, Jan.20.-Reports CT the
special committee of investigation in
the case of Brigham HI. Roberts, OF
Utah, wer. presented to the house.
The majority report, signed by Chair
man TayIer and six of his associates,
is yoIuminolIs document, and Is &C
companied by summary of the law
and facts. 1t gives the details OF the
hearings, the ample opportunities al
forded to Mr.. Roberts to present his
case; his refusal to testify, and the
unanimous finding of facts, heretofore
published. 1t proceeds:
1.-The committee is unanimous in its be-
lief that Mr.. EcbsrtS ought not TO re-
mir a member of the house of represen-
tatlDes: ma19 b,. yn ar ~ - become a
member; shat the house has the right 10
exclude him. A minority are OF the opln-
ion that the proper course OF pFoceuiuIe
is To permit him re- &c 5Torn in and then
expe! him by a two-thirds vote under the
constitutional provision providing Tor
Your committee desire to assert with
the utmost positiveness at this point that
not only is the proposition Of expulsion as
applled a. Siiis case against precedent,
but that exclusion is entirely In accord
with principle, dulHoIlly lCSASASA$A'N
precedent, and not antagonlstic to any
legislative action which the house OF rep
resentatives has ever taken ,-,.,.
For convenience we present herewith
before proceeding to extended argument
in support of the committees resolution
the following summary:
.JTpon 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 10
be declared vacant
sert that he ought TO be sworn in IN order
that If, happily, by twO-thlrdS vote
Three distinct grounds OF dlSquahnc2-
ticn are asserted against Roberts
IL BY reason OF his violation of the Ed
mUndS law.
- BY reason of his notorious and de-
fiauE violation - the law OF the land OF
tt decisions of the supreme court. and of
th.. procIamations of the president, hold
Ing himself above the law and not amen
a6te to it. :,
the face of such practices He is in open
war against the laws and institutions OF
the country, whose congress ne seeks 10
enter. Such an idea is intolerable. 1t is
upon the principle asserted in this ground
that ali cases of exclusion have been
IS His election as representative is an
explicit and offensive violation of the
Understanding by which Utah was ad-
'"fhc objection is made to the refusal
to admit Roberts that the constitution
be made to his coming in IL he is % years
of age. has been seven years a citizen OF
OF Utah when elected. no matter. how
odious or reasonable or criminal may
have been his life and practices
To this we reply:
81 That the language of the colstitu-
tional provision, the history of its framing
context clearly show that it can not be
construed to prevent disqualification Tor
crime.
text book writers on the constitution Is
to the effect that such disqualification
may be imposed by the house and no COM
montator on the constitution specifically
3 The courts of several of the states.
with tactical upanimity declared against
such narrow construction of such conSti-
81 The house of representatives had
never denied that it had the right to ex-
clude a member-elect even when he had
the three constitutional qualifications.
IS. In many instances it has distinctly
asserted its right to do in cases of
disloyalty and crime.
sc. Il passed, in 1862, the test oath act
which imposed real and substantial dis |
qualification for membership in congress.
hundreds of thousands of
American citizens. This law remained in |
force for twenty years, and thousands of
members of congress were compelled to
take the oath ii required.
81. The house, in 1861. adopted general |
rule of order, providing that no person |
y Wbom the oSieet,o5 Was ne ma9e t fin he
was not entitled to take the test OATH |
ami if upon investigation such fact ap- |
peared. he was to be permanently de- |
barre;? from entrance.
IS. The interesting proposition is made |
that the claimant be sworn in and then |
purpose is to permanently part company |
with Mr.. Roberts, this is a dubious pro- |
OF two-thirds of the members We ask |
If such vote Is possible or right, in view |
of the following observations:
Tho 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 con-
currence of two-thirds. expel a member
No lawyer can read that provision
question whether the house has any power
II eSpel, except for some cause relating
the beginning of the republic have so in
sisted. and their reasoning has been so
cogent that these propositions are estab-
II Neither house of congress has ever
expelled member for an act unrelated to
public trust and duty as such.
- Both houses have many times re-
fused to expel where the guilt of the
member was apparent; when the refusal
II expel was put upon the ground that the
house or senate, as the case might be, had
the member as such, or because it was
prior to his election.
The report concludes as follows:
IF there is any fact apparent in this
case. IL is that the constituents of Mr.
Roberts knew all about him before his
election. Can there be room to doubt the
proper action of the house? Is it prepared
to yield up this salutary power of exclu-
sion: VIII It declare itself defenseless and
ridiculous?
Nor are those who assert that expul-
sion is the remedy necessarily barred |
from voting for the resolution declaring /
the seat vacant. He must indeed, be /
technical and narrow in his construction |
OF the constitution who will not admit !
that IL vote to declare the seat vacant /
is sustained by a two-thirds majority the |
with. He may not agree with the COM
mittee that a mere majority can exclude, |
bur he can reserve the right to make the /
point of order that the resolution is not /
carried If two-thirds do not vote for it.
II: the house takes the action which the /
minority of the committee insists 1t ought |
history part with most beneficent power |
which il has often exercised, but which |
the house has never declared 1t did not /
possess.
anil realizing the responsibility imposed /
upor us, we recommend the adoption of |
the following resolutions:
=" Resolved, That under the facts and
Gil cumstances of this case, Brigham II. |
Roberts, a representative-elect from the /
state of Utah, ought not to have or hold
tllas the seat to which he was elected is
Nsies ROBERT w. TAYLER.
CHARLES B. lands.
PAGE MORRIS.
ROMEO II. FRERE.
SMITH MCPHERSON.
s Sa9IEL w " T. LASHAM
The Minority Report.
The minority report is signed by Mr..