Daily new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1897-1906, 1900-01-24


with little brief authority. has been
! free from an unwise abuse of that au-
thority2 And shall they, therefore, be
shorn Of power?
1T is a mighty question 1t Is a cues
ton Of Governmental life; It Is not 20 be
lightly dealt with or iusonsiderateiy an
| swered.
1.-The case of Roberts sinks into insfg-
nificance in It's presence. ! should assert,
what | here assert with precisely the
same aolomnity. If the right Of expulsion
| after admission. was absolutely clear. II
we dc not exclude this man. We straHs
down one OF the mos vital and Heeas-
/ safy powers that belong To a great lzse-
i islative body. Let not such thtug he
done. If IL is not, we may be aUt-s t9d1
never again, while the spirit OF esFt -
/ tion dominates this republic viii aHY
/ defiant violater of law un0er color OF re-
/ ligion or any other claim. whether pol8g-
aTnist or murderer, knock f5r adm son
/ at the door of the American Congress.
There were no demonstrations through
j out Mr.. Taylers speech but at he ~
elusion he was vigorously appiauded
Mr. Littlefeld took issue with the
majority as to the power Of tile house
! to expeI a member for acts committed
/ before his entrance into the aoasa, cit
/ ing case after case IN support OF MS con
tention. First he went back to the Cise
/ Of John Wilkes, the famous English
champion Of free speech of c0nIE1 ons, the
second time for an act for which ne had
! been sent TO prison five years bef5re he
quoted from .Junius' letters the denun-
citation Of the 'damnabie doctrine shat
single house Of parliament could
either suspend or abrogate the law ut
the land. fie went back to the cor
stitutional debates to prove that con
gress could not add to the qualifications
of members negatively stated in the con-
stltunOn.
After depicting the conditions that
| surrounded the framing OF this PROV
sion of the constitution and quoting the
words of Madison, Hamilton aud Je4fer-
son, he asked triumphantly who there
was who could shatter the crucible of
history which surrounded it, or the dee.
laration of the men who framed it. Who
would undertake to iuipeach the integ-
rity OF the men who were present ut the
| dawn Of our history?
Some Of the preeedents cited by Mr..
Tayler were ridiculed by Mr.. Littletield.
| He also challenged Mr.. Tayler's au-
thorltes. Mr.. Llttlefeld said that the
majority were driven back to support
their contention for additional qualifi-
cations upon the general welfare clause
| of the constitution He won the first
burst of applause while ridiculing the
attempt of the minority to dispose Of
Justice Story's opinion by stating that
he mad sought to give his own ideas,
but only the ideas OF others. They
would, said Mr.. Littleteld, make him
the Boswell of the constitution
Great laughter.
MIR. Littleiield said the minority stood
with Burke. the statesman of the Eigh-
!
son, Hamilton, Gouveneur Morris and
the men who framed the constitution,
with the decisions of the courts of
Maryland Montana and Virginia, with
the opinions of Story, Cooley, Gushing,
John Randolph Tucker and Webster
He then challenged Mr.. Tayler's state
ment that no precedent existed against
exclusion. citing the case of Benjamin
Stark III the senate in 1862, who was
charged with disloyalty, yet who was
seated by the senate without prejudice
to subsequent action against him.
The majority, he pointed out. had
cited this case. but had not Informed
the house of this fact.
Il believe, said Mr.. Littlefeld, con-
Guiding his comment on this particular
case, "that Mr.. Roberts has full con-
stitnUional right to a seat i'll this house. ;"
Proceeding he pointed out the un-
questioned right Of either house to expel
member for any cause deemed sutfi-
cient. This power was unduestioned,
and before 1t was exercised MIR, Roberts
should be sworn Ill.
I'VE state upon our conseienees and
oaths, SAID he, ''that he should have
the full benefit of the fundamental law
of the land. Great applause.
At the conclusion Of Mr. Littlefeld's
Speech Mr.. Iayler renewed his request
for an agreement for a vote at 1870 on
Thursday. This was objected to and
Mr.. Roberts was then given one hour
and half i'll which to present his side
of the case.
The two arguments just presented, he
began, made 1t appear that there was a
difference Of opinion as to the method
of procedure III the case of the member
from Utah. " From his standpoint he
could agree with neither view pre-
scented.
Il find myself in the position, 3" said
he, "whgre [ might say with proprietv:
." a plague on both your houses,
since both propose my undoing. y
Laughter. But, he continued, the
situation was not altogether without its
advantages. He was convinced with
| the minority Gllat tne mouse mad no
right to exclude him and with the ma
jority that, once admitted, he could not
be expelled. Between the two >" said
he, "matters fab cut about as | would
have them and substantial justice viii
be done" Renewed laughter.
Mi. Roberts gave notice that he
should appropriate the arguments of the
majority against expulsion and those OF
the minority against exclusion.
His constitutional qualifications were
admitted by both the majority and mi
nority OF the committee, and he de-
clared that the members of the house, il
they had regard to the constitution of
Their country, would call linn back to
the bar from which he had been I'M
properly turned away He warned the
house that nations fell because they de-
parted from their traditions. If a nation
INDUCED in constitutional immortality
it died as did the individual who was
Il. i