The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-24
Features Of the Utferances of TayIer,
LittIeneId and Roberts.

Features Of the Utferances of TayIer,
LittIefieId and Roberts.
Mr. Tayler, OF Ohio. chairman of the
special committee that investigated the
Roberts case, was the first speaker. He
was emphatic in his assertions that ex-
ciusion was in harmony with presidents:
expulsion in violation of IL. He amplified
the three grounds for Mr.. Robertss ex-
ciusion-firstly, his violation of the Ed
munds acts; second because he was liv-
Ing In open, fragrant and notorious viola
ton OF the statutes of the Congress he
seeks TO enter, and third. because his cleo
ton was a violation of the compact by
which Utah was admitted into the Union
Mr.. LittleheId.> stalwart and tall, made
deep impression. He recounted at the
outset the integrity. honesty and ability
OF the majority of the committee, but he
could not concede its judgment. The only
issue between the majority and minority
was as to whether he should be excluded
or expelled. The constitutional qualifica-
tions, age and inhabitancy, Mr.. Littlefield
argued. could not be added to. If they
could and the House now excluded a men,
Der because he was guilty of polygamous
practices, next year it might exclude for
adultery or because a member was an
attorney for trust, or an octopus, or for
any other reason. The right of a member
TO his seat was a constitutional right.
He took issue with the majority as to
the power of the House to expel MEM
Der for acts committed before his entrance
into the House, citing case after case in
support OF his contention. First he went
back 10 the case of John Wilkes, the
famous English champion of free speech,
VINO was three times excluded and twice
expelled from the House of Commons, the
second time for an act for which he had
been sent to prison five years before. He
quoted from the Junius Letters the de-
nunciation of the ''Damnable doctrine that
a single House of Parliament could alter,
suspend or abrogate the law of the land"
He went back to the constitutional de-
bates to prove that Congress could not add
10 the qualifications of members mega
lively stated in the Constitution.
After depicting the conditions that sur
rounded the framing of this provision Of
the Constitution and quoting the words
OF Madison. Hamilton and Jefferson, he
asked triumphantly who there was who
could shatter the crucible of history which
surrounded IL or the declaration of the man
who framed 1t. Who would undertake to
impeach the integrity OF the men who were
present at the dawn of our history?
PRECEDENTS RIDICULED.
Some of the precedents cited by Mr.
Tayler were ridicuied by Mr.. Littlefeld.
He also challenged Mr. Tayler's author
ties. Mr.. Littlefield said the majority were
driven back to support their contention
for additional qualifications on the general
welfare clause OF the Constitution. He
won the first burst of applause while ridi-
culing the attempt of the majority to dispose
Of Justice Story's opinion by stating that
he had not sought to give his own ideas
but only the ideas of others. They would.
said Ifr. Littlefield. make him the "Bos-
We'll of the Constitution" IGreat laughter. ]
Mr.. Littlefield said the minority stood
with Burke, the statesman of the eigh-
teenth century; with Jefferson, Madison,
Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and the men
who framed the Constitution, with the de-
cisions of the courts of Maryland Montana
and Virginia, with the opinions of Story
Cody, Gushing, John Randolph Tucker and
Webster. He then challenged Mr. Tayler's
statement that no precedent existed against
exclusion, citing the case of Benz. Stark in
the Senate in 1852 who was charged with
disloyalty, yet who seated by the SEN
ate 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.
81 believe" said Mr.. Littlefield, conclud-
ing HIS comment on this particular case,
that Mr.. Roberts has full constitutional
right TO a seat in this House." The ap-
plause which swept over the floors in re-
Spouse TO this statement extended to the
galleries, many OF the ladies there present
participating. The Whitemore case which
occurred Immediately after the war, Mr..
Littlefield said, was a poor precedent. The
passions OF the war had not cooled and
he believed the action of the House in ex-
Guiding him at that time on the ground of
selling cadetships was unwarranted and
ill-advfsed.
Mr.. Littlefieid attacked the proposition of
the majority that Mr.. Roberts had vio-
lated the compact between Utah and the
United States. He asked where the au-
thorfty for the statement that there was
an understanding between the State and
the United States came from. Eloquently
he declared that the idea of a compact be-
tween the States had been the father of
secession, blotted out by the lives of half
million OF men.
Mr. Littlefeld's defense of the proposition
Of the minority that the House had a right
to expel Mr. Roberts concluded his arg
ument. He aroused a great deal of en-
thusiasm when he recalled the difficult DO
sitfon In which ex-Speaker Reed had been
placed In the last Congress when General
Wheeler returned from the Spanish war
covered with laurals to resume his seat i'm
the House and the difficult task of Speaker
Henderson. then chairman OF the commit
tee on judiciary, who was obtained TO re-
port against General Wheeler. No more
patriotic sentiment permitted them to over
ride the plain dictates of their duty. Pro-
eeeding. he pointed out the question right
or either House to expel a member fol- any
cause deemed sufficient. This power was
unQuestioned, and before II was exercised
Mr. Roberts should be sworn in eve
state on our consciences and oaths" said
he, that he should have the full benefit