The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-01-21
DOORS CLOSED ON ROBERTS.
REPORT or THE SPECIAL COM
MITIEE or THE HOUSE.

the Power of Exclusion ns Well ne Ex-
puI.ion-Ihe Minority Argu" Ihnt the
Power Of Exclusion Exists Only when q
Member Elect Lacks some Of tho Quail
,ncation. I,sauirrd by the Constitution
-Cnmniitrr Unanimous Thnt Roberts
Should Nnt u" u Member OF tho House
wAsHISGroS Jan. 20 Mr.. Tnyler OF Ohio.
chairman Of tho Special Committee on the
Roberts Case. presented to the lious" to-day a
report. signed hy n majority of I'll" IN
10 the effect that ltoberts " n poiy:nmist and
10 not entitled 10 n seat md Sn-talninR ths
course OF the House In preventing him from
taking his sent. The report Il signed by Chair
man Tayler Of Ohio. Lands OF Indiana. Morris
Of Minnesota. Freer Of West Virginia and
NcPherson Of Iowa, Republicans, and Lanham
OF Texas and NIer, ~ Indiana, Democrats.
The views Of the minority. recommending that
Dir. Roberts be frat seated and then expelled,
we're presented by Mr., Littlehold Of Maine.
Rapubllcan, AMI DeArmond o. Missouri, Demo
crat. Tho majority report says:
"The committee is unanimous In It's belief
that Mr.. Roberts ought not TO remain a mem
bsr OF the House Of Representatives. A major
ity are OF the opinion that he ought not he per-
mitted 10 become n member AMI that inc
House has the right TO exclude him. A minor
ity are OF the opinion that the proper course OF
procedure II IN permit him to la sworn In and
then expel him by a two-thirds vote under the
constitutional provision providing FOR expul-
sion. Your committee. desire to assert with
the utmost positiveness at this point. that not
only Ia the proposition Of expulsion as applied
10 this case against precedent, but that the ex-
clusion Ia entirely In accord with principle.
authority AMI legislative precedent. and not
antagonistlc 10 any Legislative action which the
House OF Representatives has ever taken.
Three distinct grounds OF disqualification
are asserted against Roberts:
"First-By reason Of his violation OF tho Ed
nunds law.
"~Second-By reason Of his notorious and de-
faut v,olationlo' h claw Of the land. OF the deci-
sions Of the SuprpmeC Court and OF the proclama-
lions OF the Presidents. holding himself above
the law and not amannble TO II. No government
could possibly exist in the face OF such prar-
tees. He Is In open war against the laws and
institutions Of tho country whose Congress he
seek 10 enter Such an i,ea ia intolerable. II
n upon the principle ASSERTED in this ground
that all enses Of exclusion have been based.
"ThIrd-His election rs Representative Is an
explicit and offensive violation Of the under.
standing by which Utah was admitted as a
State.
THE objection ia made TO the refusal to ad-
NIT Roberts that the Constitution excludes the
idea that any o. %Jn'tion can be- made to his com-
ing in II he IL - years ~ age. has been seven
years a citizen = the United States and was an
inhabltAnt Of Utah when elected. no matter
how odions or reasonable or Grim ma may
have been his life and practices, To this we
reply:
"First-That tho language Of The Constitu-
tlonal provision. the history OF It's framing in
the Constitution Convention. and its context
clearly show that II cannot he construed to
prevent disqualification FOR crime.
"Second-That the overwhelming authority
OF text books writer's on the Constitution is to
the effect that such disqualification may be
imposed by the House. and no commentator on
on tho Constitution specifically denies il.
"Third-The courts Of several Of the States.
in constituting analogous provisions. have with
practical unanimity declared against such
narrow construction Of such cons i~tutional
provisions.
"Fourth-The House of Representatives has
never denied that It had tho right 10 exclude a
member elect. nven whom he had the three
constitutions ro0uireu emit
'Fifth--In many ms unc a It has distinctly
asserted its right so to 20 in cases OF disloyalty
and crime.
%"Sixth-It raised in 1852 the test.oath act.
which II imposed a real md substantial disquall-
fcatton for m"rnhorehip In Congress, dis1uali-
Tying hundreds OF thousands Of American Cit.
Hens This ,aw remained in force Cor twenty
years, and thousands " members Of Congress
were compelled to take the oath II It required,
"Scvcnth-The House in lsSna adopted a gem
eral rule Of or'cr, providing that no person
should be- sworn as n mnilO"r against whom
the objection Was made that he was not en-
titled to take the test oath. aud II upon iuvesti-
CATION such fact appeared he WAS to Doe perna-
nently debarrcd from entrance.
Tho interesting proposition is that the
claimant be SWORN in and then turned out.
Upon the theorv that the purpose Is TO perma-
nently to part company with Nr. Roberts this
is a dubious preceding such action requires
the vote OF two.thiri ~ the members W. ask
II such a vote l. possible or right in view Of tho
following obscryHt ous;
The expulsion clause of the Constitution is
Each House may determine tho rules q. IL
proceedings, liul~n = members for disorletly
behavior. ana wI'h IA" concurrence Of two
thirds, eXpel = member
mo lawyer can read that provision without
raising In his own mind the question whether
the HOUSE. has any VOW r 10 rNNHl. evonpt for
some cause r''t'Iugt To- the CONTEXT The nbleSt
lawyers nom ih. bog uning of tho Republic
have so insi-''l. ant their reasoning has
been SO cogen' that these propositions are -.
First -Neithee house ~ Congress has ever
expelled a r em'e~ 'r acts unrelated 10 him az
a member or Inconsistent with his public trus st
and duty as such,
"Second-Both houses have many times re-
fused to exp". when" n" guilt Oi the member