The Big Stone Gap post. [volume] (Big Stone Gap, Wise County, Va.) 1892-1928, 1900-01-25
The Special Committee Of InveSti-
cation of the Roberts Case
Makes a Report.
MEMBERS DIVIDED ON THE SUBJECT.
The Majority Of the Opinion That the
C0ngressman-Elect From Utah
Should Be 0usted at Once.
Majority Says That lie Should lie
Expelled at Once--iinority Fs-
vorS Ills Being sworn In
nnd Then Onsted.

Washington. Jan. 2l.-The reports
o. the special committee oi invc3.i.
CATION in the case of Brigham II. l."h-
erts, OF Utah, were presented TO the
house Saturday. 1t said:
THE committee is unanimous in It's
belief that Mr.. Roberts ought not 10
remain member of the house ot rep.
resentatives. a majority are OF the
opinion that he ought not 10 be per-
mitted to become a member; that tho
house has the right to exclude him. A
minority are OF the opinion that the
proper course OF procedure 10 per-
nit him to be sworn in and tnen eXpel
him by two-thirds vote under the
constitutional provision providing for
expulsion.
Your committee desires 10 assert
with the utmost postiveness ut this
point that not only is the proposition
of expulsion as applied to this casr
without precedent, but thai exclu.
sion is entirely in accord with prin-
ciple, authority and Legislative exact
ment which the house of representa-
tivcs has ever taken.
For convenience we prescn, here
with, before proceeding to extended
argument in support OF the commit
tees resolution the following sum-
mary.
upon the facts stated, the ma jor-
ity of the committee assert that the
claimant ought not to be permitted
to take seat in the house OF repre-
sentatives, and that the seat TO which
he was elected ought to be declared
vacant.
THE minority. on the other hand.
assert that he ought to he sworn in
in order that if happily two-thirds
vote therefore he may be expelled.
"Three distinct grounds Of dsquali-
.fcation are asserted against Roberts:
"First-By reason of his violation
of the Edmunds law.
Secondly reason of his notori-
Gus and defiant violation OF the laws
Of the land. of the decisions OF the
supreme court and Of the proclama-
tions of the president, holding him
self above the law and not amenable
to it.
mo government could possibly cx-
ist in the face 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 intolerable. 1t is upon the
principle asserted on this ground that
oil cases of exclusion have been based.
"Three-IIis election as representa-
tive is an explicit and offensive viola
ton OF the understanding by which
Utah was admitted as a state.
"The objection is made to the re-
fusal to admit Roberts that the con-
stitution excludes the idea that any
objection can be made to his coming
in il he is 25 years of age, has been
seven years citizen of the United
States, and was an inhabitant OF Utah
when elected, no matter how odious
or reasonable or criminal may have
been his life and practices. To this
we reply:
"First-That the language OF the
provision, the history
of it's framing in the constitutional
and its context clearly
show that it can not be construed to
prevent disqualification for crime.
"Second-That the overwhelming
authority of text book writer's on the
is to the effect that such
disqualification may be imposed by
the house, and no commentator on
the constitution specifically denies 1t.
"The courts of several Of the states,
In constituting analogous provisions
have. with practical unanimity, de-
clared against such narrow construc-
ton of such constitutional provisions.
"Fourth-The house of representa-
tives has never denied that it had the
right to exclude member-elect even
when he had the three constitutional
provisions.
"Fifth-In many instances 1t has
distinctly asserted its right so to do
In cases Of disloyalty and crime.
"Sixth-It passed, in 1852, the test
oath act. which imposed a real and
substantial disqualification for mem
bership in congress, disqualifying
of thousands OF American
citizens. This law remained In force
for 20 years, and thousands OF mem
bers of congress were compelled to
take the oath il required.
"Seventh-The house, in 1859, adopt
ed a general rule of order. providing
that no person should be sworn in as
a member against whom the objection
was made that he was not entitled TO
take the test oath. and II upon in
vestigation such fact appeared, he was
TO be permanently debarred from en-
trance.
"Eichth-The interesting PROPOSE
ton Ia made that the claimant be
sworn In and then turned out. Upon
the theory that the purpose is to per
part company with Mr.. Koo-
erts this Is dubious proceeding. Such
action requires the vote OF two-thirds
Of the members"