The age-herald., 1900-01-24
BIRMINGHAM ALABAMA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24 1900
IN DRAMATIC TONES ROBERTS
 DEFENDS HIMSELF IN THE HOUSE
2 The Galleries Were ThOnged With Women Who Frequently Ap-
 pIaudGd the ImpaSOned Words of the Mormon

times excluded and twice expelled from the house of commons. the second time for an act for which he had been sent to prison nVe years before. He quoted from Junius letters the denunciation of the damnaible doctrine that single house of parliament could alter, suspend or abrogate the law of the land. He wenic back to the constitu- ttonal debates to prove that congress could not add to the qualifications of members negatively stated in the constitution.
 After depicting the conditions that sur rounded the framing of this provision of the conSttution, and quoting the words of Hamilton and Jefferson, he asked triumph antly who there was who could shatter the crucible of history which surrounded it, or the declafation Of the men who framed it. Who would undertake to impelch the in- tegrity of the men who were present at the dawn of our history?
 The Precedents Ridiculed
 Some of the precedents cited by Mir Tay- Her. were ridiculed by MT. Littlefield. He challenged MT Tayler's authorities. MT. Littlefield said that the majority were driven back to support their contention for additional qualifications upon the general welfare clause of the constitution. He won the first burst of applause while ridicuing the attempt of the majority to dispose or Justice Story's opinion by stating that he had not sought to give his own ideas, but only the ideas of others. They would make him the Boswell of the constitution Great laughter)
 MT Littlefield said the minority stood with Burke, the statesman of the eigh- teenth century; with Jefferson Madison, Hamilton, Gouveneur Morris and the men who framed the constitution, with the de- cisions of the courts of Maryland, Mon- tana and Virginia, with the opinions Of of Story, Cooley, Cushing John Randolph Tucker and Webster. He then challenged MT. Tayler's statement that no precedent existed against exclusion, citing the case of Benjafin Starkey. of the senate in lS62 who was charged with disloyaity, 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 the fact.
 ''I believe" said MT. Littlefeld. conclud- ing his comment on this particular case, that Ar. Roberts has full constitutional right to a seat in this house."
 The applause which swept over the floor in response to this statement extended to the galleries, many of the ladies there pres- ent participating.
 whittmore Case Poor Precedent
 The Whittmore case, which occurred some time after the war, MT. Littlefield said, was poor precedent. The passions Of the war had not cooled. Mr. Littlefield attacked the proposition of the majority that MT. Roberts tad violated .he compact between Utah and The United States. He asked where the authorities of the state ment that there was an understanding be- tween a state and the United States come from. He declared that the idea of com pact between Lfle states had been the fa- ther of secession, plotted out by the lives of half million of men.
 Mir. Littlefeld'S defense of the proposition or the minority that tfne house had a right to expel MT. Roberts concluded his argu- ment. He aroused a great deal of enthu- slasm when he recalled the difficult posi- ton in which ex-Speaker Reed had been paced in slle last congress when General Wheeler returned from the Spanish war covered with laurels to resume his seat in 'lrle house, and the difficult task of Speak CT Henderson, then chairman of the com dn4ttee on 1udfciary, w.lo reported against tment permitted them to override the plain dictates of ther duty
 At tn conclusion of Mir. Littlefe,d's speech. MT. Tayler renewed his reuues,. for an agreement for a we're al 43O o'clock. 1tl4s was objected to. and Mir Roberts was then givei1 one hour and a half in which to present his side of the case.
 Roberts Begins
 The two arguments just presented, he be- iilobS It dIptstT ii.-ll tfere was diff ference of epinion to u,e method of pro- eedCre En A2e 6lse of t,e member from Utah. From his standpoint he could agree wltl neither view presented. "I find my self in the posidoa.'' said he, 'ir I msht say with propriety, a p:ague on both your houses since boal propose my undoing tLauSnser) But" he cct1 inued s'the sT uation is not altogether without it's advan oages. lie was convinced with the mt- noraty, thae the house had no ri.r:t to ex- e.ude him. and wl3l Ccle majority, that once admitted he could not be exoelled.
 Between tne two," said he, "matters fall out about as would have them, and sub stantial justice will be done." Renewed laughter.)
 MT fooerts gave notice that he should appropriate large number of the majority against expulsion and those of the minority against exclusion. His constitutional quail incations were admitted by the majority and minority of the committee and he de- eaared that members of tine house if they had any regard for the constitution of their country would call hi back to the bar from which he had been improperly turned away
 He warned the house that nations fell be- cause they departed from their traditions. If a nation indulged in Constitutional im- morality it died as did the individual who was guilty of physical immortality. He be- seeched the house not to yield to the clamor of minimizing people.
 Wndt was yHe SenCy TOT IniS pTOpOS- ed departure from the constitution? A man who had married in the sanctity of the church a plurality of wives had been elect ed to congress. The cry had gone up that the American home was endangered by these extraordinary proceedings that had been inaugurated against him.
 Nature of the Crime
 "For a few moments" said Mir. Roberts, "I want to pay attention to the nature of this crime, not with the view of showing that the American people have not the right to establish monogamy as system or marriage that shall prevail. and not for the purpose of defending polygamy either; for in the early debate that took place with reference to this case on the floor of the house. I then declared that am not here to represent polygamy. nor to defend 1t. We have long ago passed that stage and the thing is out of the realm of the discus sion. do not wish my remarks construed | as a defense of polygamy; but do want to call attention to the nature of this crime, | in order that we may ascertain whether l 1t is so awful in its aspect as to warrant a more iayless act than polygamy itself, xxrtxn hao hnnv,