Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1900-01-23
CASE OF Mr.. ROBERTS.
Arrangement Of Member of Con-
gress from Utah.
MAJORITY TO REJECT.
A yioiator of the Constitution and
Laws of the Land Has No
Place in Congress.

or1S OF tlan WerC presented TO the House
today. The majority report signed by
Chairman Taylor and six of his asso-
ciatcs, is a voiuminous document, and is
accompanied by summary of the law
and facts. 1t gives the details of the
hearings. the ample opportunities afford
ed TO Mr.. Roberts to present his case. his
refusal to testify and the unanimous find
ing of the facts heretofore published. 1t
proceeds:
The committee is unanimous in its belief
that Mr.. Roberts ought not TO remain Il
member of the House of Representatives.
a majority are of the opinion that he ought
not to be permitted to become Il member:
that the House has the right to exclude
him. A minority are of the opinion that
the proper course of procedure is to permit
nm TO he sworn in and then eXpel him by
q two-thirds vote uncer the constitutional
provision providing for expulsion.
Your committee desire 10 assert with the
utmost positiveness at this po.nt that not
only is the proposition of expulsion as ap-
piled to this case against precedent, but
that exclusion is entirely in accord with
principle, authority and legislative precc
dent. and is rcy antagonistc to any egis
lative action which the House of Repre-
sentatives has ever taken.
For convenience present herewith.
before proceeding to extended argument in
support Of the committees resolution, the
Upon the facts stated, the ma iorty of the
committee assert that the claimant ought
not to be permitted 10 take seat in the
House of Representatives and that the seat
TO which he was elected ought to be de-
clared vacant
The minority. on the other hand. assert
mat ne ought 10 be sworn, In order that if.
happily, two-thirds vote therefor he NAV
be expelled
Three distinct grounds of disqualification
are asserted against Roberts:
MINDS law
=. nv reason of his notorious and defiant
4 nT he LAM nf1 ba IL
cisions of the Supreme court and Of the
pfociama1lons of the Presidents. hoIGing
hlmscif above the law and not amenabie to
No government could possibly exist in the
lace OF such practices He is in open war
against the laws and institutions Of the
country whose Congress he seeks to enter.
Such an idea is intOiera Bile. 1t is upon the
principle asserted in this ground that all
cases OF exclusion have been based
piicit and offensive violation of the under
standing by which Utah was admitted as IA
state.
The objection is made to the refusal to
admit Roberts thar the constitution excludes
the idea that any objection be made
mas been seven years a citizen of the United
States and was an inbabitant of Utah when
elected. no matter how odious or treason
able or criminal may have been his life
and practices. To this we reply:
l. That the language of the constitutional
provision. the history of its framing in the
clearly show that ii cannot he construed
TO prevent disqualification for crime
,. That the Overwhelming authority of
textbook writer's on the constitution is to
the effect that such disqualification may be
imposed by the House and no commentator
on the constitution specifically denies it,
j. The courts of several of the states in
constituting analogous provisions have with
practical unanimity declared against such
narrow construction of such constitutional
provisions.
4. The House Of Representatives has new
er denied that it had the right to exclude
member-elect even when he had the three
constitutional provisions.
.. IN many instances il has distinctly as
serted its right SO to do in cases of dis
loyalty and crime
6. 1t passed in 1860 the test oath act
which imposed a real and substantial dis
qualification for membership in Congress.
disqualifying hundreds of thousands Of
force for twenty years and thousands Of
members of Congress were compelled to
take the oath ii required.
Z. The House in 1869 adopted general
rule of order providing that DO person
should be SWORN in member against
whom the objection was made that be WAS
upon investigation such fact appeared. he
was to be permanently debarred from
trance.
s. The interesting proposition is made
t}Iat the claimant be sworn in and then
turned out. Upon the theory that the pE:'-
pose is to permanently part company with
X
Such action requires the vote of two thirds
of the members. We ask if snch vote is
possible or right, in view of the following
observations:
The expulsion clause Of the constitution
Is as follows:
Each house may determine the rules Of
its proceedings. punish it's members for dis
orderly behavior and. with the concurrence
Of two-thirds. eXpel member
No lawyer can read that provision without
raising in his own mind the question wheth-
CT he HOUSE ndS any power TO GXDei. except
for some cause relating 10 the context. The
ablest lawyers from the beginning of the
republic have insisted, and their rea-
sonin2 has been so cogent that these propo-
sftions are established namely:
I. Neither house of Congress has ever eX-
PEELED It member for acts unrelated to him
as a member or inconsistent with his public
trust and duty as such.
>. Both houses have many times refused
to eXpel where the guilt of the member
was apparent: where the refusal to eXpei
was put upon the ground chat the House or
to eXpel for an act unrelated to the member
as such. or because it was committed priO%
to his election.
The report concludes as follows:
If there is any fact apparent in this case,
it is that the constituents of Mr.. Roberts
knew all about him before his election.
ton of the House? Is it prepared TO YIELD
up this salutary power of exclusion? Will
it declare itself defeneeless and ridiculous?
Nor are those who assert that expulsion Is
the remedy necessarily barred from voting
for the resolution declaring the scat vacant.
He must, indeed. be technical and narrow
in his construction of the constitution viii I'll
will not admit that if a vote to declare the
seat vacant il sustained by a tWO-thirds ma
jority the constitution is substantially com
piled with. He may not agree with the
committee that mere majority exclude.
but lie can reserve the right to make the
point of order that the resolution is not car
ried If twO-thrGs Go MOI vote for it.
If the House takes the action which the
minority Of the committee insists il ought
10 take. it will for the first time in it's his
tory part with a most beneficent power
which it has often eXercised-a power that
ought rarely to be exercised. but which
the House has never declared it did not
possess
Mindful of the gravity of the question and
rs. we recommend the adoption of the fol
lowing resolution:
Resolved that under the facts and cir
cumstances of this case. Brigham H Rob
erts. representative-eiect from the state of
Utah. ought not to have or hold seat in
the House of Representatives and Il seat
to which he was elected is hereby declared
vacant.
ROBERT W. TAYLER.
CHARLES 3. lands.
PAGE MORRIS.
ROBERT H. FREER.
SMITH M'PHERSON
SAMUEL w. T. LANHAM
ROBERT W. METERS.