The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-24
lightly dealt with or inconsiderately an
MIR. L1TTLEFIELD's MAIDEN.

He recounted, at the outset, the integ-
rity, honesty and ability of the majority
of the committee, but he could not con-
cede its Judgment. The only issue be-
tween the majority and minority was as
| TO whether he should be excluded or ex-
PEELED. The constitutional qualifications,
| age and inhabitancy, Mr.. Littlcf1eld ar
| gued, could not be added to. If they
could and the house now excluded a
member because he was guilty Of polyga-
| nous practices, next year 1t might ex-
| clude for adultery, or because member
+ was an attorney for a trust, or an octo-
| pus, or for any other reason The. right
| Of a member to his seat was a constttu-
| tional right.
| He took issue with the majority as to
| the power of the house to expel a mem-
ber for acts committed before his en-
| trance into the house, citing case after
ease in support of his contention. First
| he went back to the case of John Wilkes,
| the famous English champion Of free
| speech, who was three times excluded
| and twice expelled from the house of
| commons, to serve time for an act for
which he had been sent to prison five
years before. He quoted from the Junius
| letters the denunciation of the dam
nable doctrine that a single house Of par
| lament could alter suspend or abrogate
| the law of the land" He went back to
| the constitutional debates to prove that
congress could not add to the qualifica-
| tions Of members negatively stated in tho
| constitution.
| After depicting the conditions that sur
| rounded the framing of the constitution
| and quoting the words of Madison, Hamil-
| ton and Jefferson, he asked, triumphantly,
who there was who could shatter the
crucible of history that surrounded it, or
the decision Of the men who framed it.
Who would undertake to impeach the in
tegrity- of the men who were present at
the dawn of our history?
Some Of the precedents cited by Mr..
Tayler were ridiculed by Mr.. Littlefield.
He also challenged Mr.. Tayler's authori-
ties.
FIRST BURST OF APPLAUSE.
Mr.. Littlefield said the majority were
driven back to support the contention
for additional qualifications upon the gen.
eral welfare clause of the constitution.
He won the first burst of applause while
ridiculing 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 Mr.. Littlefield
make him the Boswell of the constitution.
Great laughter)
Mr.. Littlef1eld said the minority stood
teenth century, with Jefferson, Madison,
Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and the
men who framed the constitution, with
the decisions of the courts of Maryland,
Montana and Virginia, with the opinions
of Story, Cooley, Gushing, John Randolph
Tucker and Webster. He then challenged
Mr. Tayler's statement that no precedent
existed against exclusion, citing the case
of Benjamin Stark, in the senate in 1862,
xTrI,o o1,D xrr;4 l;eI1
yet who was seated by the senate with
out prejudice to subsequent action against
him. The majority, he said, had cited this
case, but had not stated this fact.
Therefore" said Mr.. Littlefield, in
commenting upon this particular case
''Mr Roberts has full right to a seat
in this house"
The applause which swept over the
floor at the conclusion Of this statement
extended to the galleries.
Mr.. Littlefield closed rather abruptly
Mr.. Tayler then renewed his request for
an agreement for a vote at 4:30 on Thurs
day.
Mr.. Crumpacker Ond.) objected.
DEFENSE OF ROBERTS.
Upon the request of Mr. Tayler, Mr.
Roberts was then given one and one-half
hours in which to present his side of the
case. He spoke at first very low, but his
voice soon rose, and he was at ease ap-
parently.
For few moments" said Mr.. Rob-
erts, ~ want to pay attention to the
nature Of this crime not with a view of
showing that the American people have
not the right to establish monogamy as
a system of marriage that shall prevail,
and not for the purpose of defending
polygamy, either; for, in the earlier de-
bate that took place in reference to this
case on the floor of the house, I de-
clared I was not here to represent po-
lygamy or defend it. We have long ago
passed that stage, and the thing is out
of the realm of discussion. I do not wish
my remarks construed as a defense Of
polygamy; but I do want to call atten-
ton to the nature of this crime, in order
that we may ascertain whether 1t Is so
awful in its aspect to warrant a more
laWless act than polygamy itself in order
to rebuke man who has been elected to
the house of representatives. Take the
Jewish people, who We're made the deposi-
tory of Gods revelation to humanity You
shall not find the crime of polygamy re-
ferred to among that people as of the
character that it is described here In the
report of the committee. Evidently 1t is
malum prohibitum. 1t is not mala in Sc
If 1t were you would not find the jury
law enforcing 1t under some circum-
stances, regulating 1t unQor other cir
cumstances and men after Gods own
heart sustaining those relations which
are now supposed to justify you in clos
ing the doors against the member from
Utah. If you go to the teaching Of the
Great Master, whom I take it we all re-
we're, although He denounced every crime,
every sin that man can commit, you
shall find no word Of His in condemna-
ton of the conduct of the patriarchs or
of fIn 1oVr er,ry% Il
ancient Israel.
MARTIN LUTHER CITED.
Last week. when taking a walk in
the resident portion of your city, passed
a magnificent heroic statue Of stern old
Martin Luther, than whom the nations
of Western Europe and America owe no
man more than they do to him for the
religious and civil liberty that they now
possess-the founder Of Protestant Chris
| tendon. And that man, upon this subject
that is here so much denounced, declared
in the early days of Protestant Christen-
dom when he was informed that his dis
ciple. Carlstadt, was teaching polyganiy:
| 1 indeed must confess that 1 cannot pro-
! test when one takes many wives, for 1t
does not contradict the Scriptures
! 'tAnd again in his letter to Philip
| Landgrave of Hesse, remarking upon the
| fact that Philip had taken second wife.
| his first wife being still living, he SAID:
| In matters Of matrimony the laws OF
Moses are not revoked or contradicted
| by the Gospels
Yet we build monuments to Luther,
| Notwithstanding his liberation and de-
fense of that form. of marriage. Now,
| say all these things not for the purpose
! Of arguing upon the rights of polygam my
| but l do say what I have here remark
ed for the purpose of fixing it in the
minds of members that 1t is merely a
! doctrine prohibited by law. 1 say that
the United States had the right to make
| that law if they wished to. The states