Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-02-17


Identical there would be no occasion
10 particularize senator or represent
tatiye.'
II Identical, the adjective other
should have been used, so that the
clause should read. "or person holding
any other Office Of trust or profit under
the United States" etc.
These observations apply to the fol-
lowing provisions:
fThe senators and representatives be-
fore mentioned, and the members OF
several State legislatures, and all ex-
ecutiye and judicial officers, both OF the
United States and OF the several States,
shall be bound by oath or affirmation,
etc. Constitution, Art. N1)
mo person shall be senator or rep.
resentatlve in Congress or elector Of
President and Vice President, or hold
office, civil or military, under the Unit
ed States. or under any State, who hav-
ing previously taken an oath, etc. civ
Amendment, Sec. 80"
Article II, section 4-"The President,
Vice President. and all civil officers OF
the, United states shall be removed
from office on impeachment for and
conviction OF treason. bribery. or other
high crimes and dlsdemeanors"
been construed by the only tribunal
therefor known TO the Constitution, the
Senate sitting as court OF impeach-
ment, which held that a senator was
not a "clyil officer" and therefore was
not liable 20 impeachment. IL was the
case OF william Blount a senator, who
was impeached before the bar OF the
Senate by the House OF Representa-
tives. In his plea he claimed that as a
member OF the Senate he was not one
OF the civil officers OF the United
States and on the 18th OF February,
1877, the Senate announced its conclu-
sion, as follows:
"The court Is Of the opinion that the
matter alleged 10 the plea OF the de-
fendant is sufficient In law 10 show
that this court ought not to hold tur-
isdictiOn OF the said impeachment. and
that said impeachment is dismissed.
annals Of Congress. volume s, page
23l9)"
Story concurs IN this view. (Story on
the Constitution, section 1922
Who can be said to hold Office "un-
der the United states" was practically
decided in United States VS. Germaine
900 u. s., 50s-5l2), where the court said:
''The Constitution. for purposes OF
appolntment. very clearly divides oil It's
officers into two classes. The primary
class requires a nomination by the
President and confirmation by the Sem
ate. But foreseelng that when officers
become numerous and sudden removals
necessary this mode might be incon-
venlent, AT was provided that, In regard
to officers inferior 10 those specially
mentioned Congress might by law vest
their Appointments In the President
alone. in the courts Of law. or In the
heads OF departments. That all per-
sons who cen be said 10 hold an Office
under the government about 90 be es-
tabllshed under the Constitution were
Intended 10 be Included within one or
the other OF these modes Of appointment
there can be but little doubt"
In United states VS. Mouat (2i Y. s.,
3O3-3 OS) the Germaine case Is cited and
approved, the court saying:
In that case, II was distinctly pointed
out that under the Constitution Of the
United States, all It's officers were APP
pointed by the President, by and with
the consent Of the Senate. or by court
Of law, or the head Of a department"
The same principle is affirmed in
United States VS. Hendee OLA U. 81 SOs-
1857
II. then, "all It's officers" under tho
Constitution" are appointed In the
manner above indicated. clearly a men,
Der OF either house does not hold an Of
flee under the United States and
the Edmunds Act does not apply.
The fact, II II be a fact, that there
are statutes in which the expression
office under the United States" ls dis
closed by the context to include men,
Der Of Congress, when there Is no such
context In this act and when the ex-
listing conditions expressly negative the
idea. s Of no probative force In con-
STRUNG this act OF 1852. ] submit upon
this branch Of the case that there Is no
question but that this act has no appll-
cation whatever 20 the member from
Utah. because an "ofilce under the
United States" does not include
member OF Congress.
THE EDMUNDS ACT.
The committee quote section s OF that
act and then say:
Reading that act as applicable to
This case. eliminating the irrelevant
portions, It appears as follows"
And let US see haw they eliminate
it.
NO poygamist shall be entitled TO hold
any office or place OF public trust.
honor. or emolument under the United
States"
| sumbit 10 this House whether that
Is the act.
mo polygamist shall be entitled TO
hold Office or place of public trust
honor, or emolument under the United
states"
Where? According TO the statement
OF the committee, when they have elm
mated all they desre-(and ! am pre-
pared to concede that II this committee
can amend the Constitution, the funda-
mental law Of the land, they have equal
authority and power at least, 10 amend
the statutes Of the United States with
out the assistance OF Congress)-il laugh
teri where, after their elimination. does
the act apply? Anywhere, everywhere,
without limit. The only place where
this act can operate-"any Territory or
other place over which the United
States has exclusive jurisdlction"-is
irrelevant" In the opinion Of the COM
mlttee What does the act say?
mo polygamist, bigamist, or any per-
son cohahiting with more than one wo-
man In any Territory or other
place over which the United States has
exclusive Jurisdiction"
Let US have an analysis OF this law
as II Is. not as some Of US wish II was
This will show that no ineligibility can
be predicated upon section 5 OF the Ed
munds Act, upon the facts. as they
must be conceded TO exist. A brief
statement OF the history OF the legisla-
ton involved may be useful.
The Edmunds Act became law
March 22. 1889 Section / amended Sec
tion $3.50 Of the Revised Statutes OF
the United States and defined and pro-
hibted polygamy. Section defined
and prohibited unlawful cohabitation.
and reads as follows:
Sec. 3. That II any male person, In
a Territory or other place over which
the United States have exclusive juris-
lt.tt.. t.n~xaf,o, oeh, Aft. NTH ...xrr