The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-21
MAJORITY REPORT.
Seven of the Nine Members of the
Committee Signed 1t.


z6s To-
Seven of the Nine members of the
Committee Signed 1t.
WASHINGTON. Jan. 2o-The majority
report, signed by Chairman Taylor anG
six of his associates. is voluminous
document. and Is accompanied by sum
mary of the law and facts. 1t gives the
details OF the hearings, the ample oppor.
tunities afforded TO Mr.. Roberts to pre-
sent his case, his refusal to testify an6
the unanimous finding of facts, hereto
fore published. 1t proceeds:
1.-The committee is unanimous in its be-
lief that Mr.. Roberts ought not to re-
main member OF the house of represent
atlves. A majority are of the opinion
that he ought not to De permitted TO pc ne.
right to exclude him. A minority are OF
the opinion that the proper course OF pro-
cedure is to permit MIN to be sworn IN
and then expeI him by a tWo-thirds vote
ing Tor expulsion.
Your committee desire to assert with
the utmost posiliveneSS at this point that
not only is the proposition of expulsion
as applied to this case against precedent.
but mat exclusion is entirely in accorQ
with principle, authority and Legislative
precedent, and not antagonistic 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 commuters resolution
the following summary:
Upon the facts stated, the majority VI
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 TO
be declared vacant.
'The minority on the other hand. as
sert that he ought to be sworn In In Or
der that if happily two-thirds vote there
for he may be expelled.
Three distinct grounds OF d1Squailnca-
ton are asserted against Roberts.
''First-By reason Of his violation of the
Edmunds law.
and defiant Violation of the law of the
land. of the decisions Of the supreme
court and of the proclamat1ons OF the
presidents. holding himself above the law
and not amenable to it..
mo government could possibly exist in
the face of such practices. He Is IN open
war against the laws ana institutions OF
the country, whose congress he seeks TO
enter. Such an idea is lntolerable. 1t is
upon the principle asserted in this ground
that all cases Of exclusion have been
based F
''Tkird-His election as representative
is an explicit and offensive violation or
the understanding by which Utah was adj
mitted as a state.
'The objection is made to the refusal
to admit Roberts that the constitution
excludes the idea that any objection can
be made to his coming IN IF he is twenty
five wears of age, has been seven years q
citizen of the United. States and was an
inhabitant of Utah when elected, no mat,
ter how odious or treasonable or criminal
may have been his life and practices.
To this we reply:
"First-That the language of the con
provision. the history OF It's
framing in the constitutional convention
and it's context clearly show that 1t can
not be construed to prevent disqualified
ton for crime. fYr,ra1-.
'Second-That the Overwhelming au-
thority of text book writer's on the con-
stitution is to the effect that such dis
qualification may be imposed by the
house and no commentator on the con-
specifically denies It. 20 54,s.
'Third-The courts of several OF the
states,in constituting analogous provisions,
have with practical 'unaninity declared
against such narrow construction OF sucd
provisions. 4y 800.
has never denied that 1T had the right
to exclude a member-elect, even when he
had the three constitutional qualifica-
lions.
fsFifth-In many instances it has dis
tinctly asserted its right so to do In
cases of disloyalty and crime.
sixthaIt passed in 1857 tine test 9aJn
tial disqualification for membership in
disqualifying hundreds of thou
sands of American citizens. This law re-
manned in force for twenty years and
thousands of members OF congress {. We're
to take the oath 1t required.
''Seventh-The house, in 1869 adopted
rule of order, providing that no
person should be sworn in as member
against whom the objection was mace
that he was not entitled to take the test
oath, and if,~upon investigation. SUCH fact
he was to be permanently de-
barred from entrance. 49,
"Eighth-The interesting propos1tion IS
made that the claimant be sworn in and
then turned out. Upon the theory that
the purpose is to permanently part COM
pany with Mr.. Roberts, this is a dubious
proceeding Such action REQUIRES the
ask if such vote is possible or right, In
view of the following ,obseryations:
"The expulsion clause Of the constitu-
ton is as follows: Each, house may de-
termine the rules of its proceedings; pun
ish it's members for ,dIsorderly behavior
and, with the concurrence of two-thirds,
expel member. Y4etss,g
mo lawyer can read that provision
without raising in his own mind the ques-
ton whether the house has any power to
expel, except for some cause reiaung TO
the context. TO-
'SThe ablest lawyers from the beginning
of the republic have so, insisted. and their
reasoning has been SO seogent that these
are established, namely:
"First-Neither house of congress has
ever expelled member for acts unre.
lated to him as a member or INCONSISTENT
with his public trust and duty as Sucn.
"Second-Both houses have many times
refused to expel where the guilt of the
member was apparent; where the refusal
to expel was put upon the ground that
the house or senate, as the case might
be- had no right to eXpel for an act I'M
related to the member as such, or be-
cause it was committed prior to his cleo
The report concludes as follows,
eff there Is any fact apparent In this
case, it is that the constituents of Mr..
ton. Can there be room to doubt of the
proper action of the house? Is 1t pre-
pared to yield up this salutary power of
exclusion? VIII 1t declare itself defense
less 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
of the constitution, who will not admit
that If vote to declare the seat vacant
is sustained by two-thifds majority.
the constitution is substantially complied
with. He may not agree with the com
mittee that a mere majority can exclude.
but he can reserve the right to make the
point of order that the resolution is not
carried If two-thirds do not vote for 1t.
IF the house takes the action, which
the minority of the committee insists 1t
ought to take. 1t will, for the first time
in It's history. part with a most bene-
ficent power which lie has often exer-
cised, power that fought rarely to be
exercised, but which the house has new
er declared It did not possess.
Mindful of the gravity Of the ques-
ton and realizing the Responsibility i'm
posed upon us, we recommend the adop-
ton Of the following resolutions:
Resolved. That undfem the facts and
circumstances of this case, Brigham H.
Roberts. elect from the
state of Utah. ought not to have or to
hold a seat in the Rouse zos representa-
lives. and that the seat 81 which he waa
elected Is hereby declared vacant.
-sRobeft, ". Taylor,
Charles 3. Eandis,
-"Pagess,Morris.
Romeo IF. Freer,
-"Smithz ME- Pherson.
Samuel W r. Lanham.