Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1900-02-01
JUDGEPCWERS ON pOLYGAMY
Able Speech on the Question OF the Elk
clusion of Roberts of Utah From
the House.
Congressman Il. Horny Powers delivered

Congressman II. Henry Powers delivered
the following speech in the House on Jan
uary q. in relation to the Roberts case;
Mr.. Speaker, the House and the country
are to lie congratulated that this great
question which now engages our attention
has been submitted to an able, pairStlk-
ing committee, who have searched throueh
all the pr"CcdentS that are to be found in
the records of Congress have explored all
the decisions of the courts, and examined
the text of all the commentators upon
this subject and have presented to us an
exhaustive analysis Of this great fund of
nformatio in the reports which they
have laid upon our desks
They have been unable to agree. Their
disagreement Is not upon the facts upon
which our action Is to be based, but upon
the conclusion TO which those facts point
The majority of the committee say that
the remedy to be applied to the wrong
which they insist has been done is to eX
Guide Mr.. Roberts from his seat in the
House TO prevent even his being sworn
in as n member of the House
ON the other hand the minority of the
committee say that that remedy can not
be applied, but that the proper one Is to
hrst admit and swear him, and then eS-
pei him. Well. now this presents. there
fore the only question for the considcra-
ton of the House at this time: Which of
mont of facts. is the proper one for the
House 10 adopt?
1t was said by the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Littleheld) on yesterday. in
his very able and exhaustive argument,
that the preCedents point to expulsion as
tho proper remedy. But If ! may be al
lowed to crtiCise the genteman's logic I
should say that he runs right UP against
the very presidents which he cites, be-
cause 1t is q universal rule, so far as the
committee has given us information upon
the subject. that you can not expel
member from the House for any offence
committed Srior to his election: and it IL
confessed fact In this case that the
crime Of polygamous marriage that vas
committed by MIR, Roberts was COM
mitted long before the people of
Utah elected him ms their representa-
tive on this floor, and that II was well
known to the people OF Utah when they
cast their ballots that he had committed
that crime.
reply to this and say that polygamy is
continuing status and that | shall insist
to be the fact: but nevertheless, the crime
Itself, the initial steps that made him
guilty and answerable before the bar OF
public justice, were taken long before he
was elected to Congress.
SO that Mr. Speaker. the minority of
this committee, however ingenously they
may argue the question, are confronted
with this obstacle in their pathway. The
conclusion which they reach is one which
can not he carried out If we are to follow
the precedents that have been established
Tor many years in this behalf.
The House to-day il sitting in the ca
pacity of a judge. Its jurisdiction is con
icrred by that clause in tho Constitution
which declares that each House shall be
the judge of tho election. returns, and
qualifications of it's members.
The power to judge Is a plenary enc We
are not told in the Constitution when we
shall judge or how we shall judge. but the
broad grant Of power to sit in Judgment
is given. and the method that shall be
adopted to accomplish that judgment is
loft. and necessarily left. to the discretion
of the House itself. 1t Is fundament a |
principle in tho law that where there is
grant of power given thatthe very grant It,
self, ex vi termini. carries with 1t every
incidental power necessary to make the
grant effective. And SO in this case whore
the House is authorized to judge of the
elections ard qualifications of its MEM
ber, 1t may judge in its own way 1t may
Judge at such time and in such manner ~
1t secs fit. 1t is Just a permissible to Judge
at the time that a member presents him
self to take the oath as it is after he has
taken ii. If the House in its wisdom and
discretion sees fit to pass its Judgment at
t1Ht stage in the proceedings, it has the
right so to do.
We are not restrained by this provision
Of the Constitution We are not restra ned
by aTY other provision of the Constitu-
ton and without any language what ever
giving us tho right to determine the lime
and the manner in which he shall Judge
of these qualifications this general grant
of power carries with 1t the incidental one
to determine the method.
But. sir, there Is another clause in the
Constitution which declares that each
House shall make its rules and regli'a-
tiona, ana that would justify the House
IN proceeding under any regulation or rule
that 1t might prescribe in determining
when and how it shall sit in Judgment on
this question.
The House. then, having the right to
determine when and the method by which
1t Will decide this question, the inquiry
arises, May it not determine 1t before the
member takes his oath? 1t seems to me
to be entirely unanswerable to say that
the House may do so a that time.
Now. sir, much has been said on the
floor in the debate thus far as to the guilt
of Mr. Roberts. | think, sir. there is an
other party that is guilty in this matter,
and that is the people of the State
OF titan. They are responsible for
this condition of things that we
are confronted with here to-day.
The people OF the State of Utah came 10
the doors of Congress three or four Years
since With an application for admiss ion to
statehood. They came protesting that
poly gamy was a dead issue in that Ter
ritory, and they came with a manifesto
from the chief executive officer Of the
Mormon church. in which he had said to
his people that polysamy must cease.
They came by their Representative on
this floor. and declared that puolic strtI-
ment in Utah was against this practice;
and listening to this appeal that was
made by The people of the Territory. this
House and Congress consented TO take
them in after prescribing certain condi-
tons that never before had been prescrip-
ed in the case of the admission of "a new
State into the Union. This House orig
mated proposition to this effect: That
the State of Utah when they adopted their
constitution should put into 1t clause Of
their own making, by their own free will
forever prohibiting polygamous or plural
marriages No such restriction as that
was ever before Incorporated in the en-.
aiding act admitting new State into the
Union. But IN this case, in view of the
pledges that were made by that people
and in order to bind them TO the utmos,
good faith for the redemption OF these
pledges, Congress said to them: Gentle
men, you must incorporate that into YOU
organic law as the condition precedent tc
your admission into the sisterhood o,
States"
Now, sir they did what they were TO ID
out we were told that that prohibition
was prospective in its operation; that f
merely prohibited polygamous or pura