New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-21
REPORTS ON ROBERTS CASE.
MAJORITY AND MINORITY OF THE
COMMITTEE PRESENT THEIR
VIEWS TO THE HOUSE.

Washington. Jan 2O-when the House met to-day
Mr. Tayier Of Ohio chairman of the special COM
rnttee TO investigate the case of Representative
elect 3. H. Roberts. OF Utah. presented the ma
icrity report in favor of the exclusion Of MI ROD
erts and gave notice that he would call the case up
on Tuesday.
Mr. IAttlefieid of Maine. presented the minority
report in favor of seating Mr. Roberts and then ex-
penng him The minority report was signed py MI
IHtleieId Republican, and Mr. De Almond Demo-
GRAFT Five thousand copies Of the reports were OF
dered printed for general distribution MI ROBERTS
was present during these proceedings, but mace no
effort 10 address the House.
THE MAJORITY'S CONCLUSIONS.
The majority report, signed by Chairman Tayler
and six Of his associates. is a volumnous document
and is accompanied by a summary OF the law ana
facts II gives the details Of the hearings, the
ample opportunities afforded Mr.. Roberts to pre-
sent his case his refusal to testify and the unan-
nous findings of facts heretofore published 1t
then proceeds as follows:
The committee is unanimous in its belief that Mr.
Roberts ought not TO remain member OF the House
OF Representatives A majority are OF the OPINION
member; that the Eouse has the right to exclude
him a minority are of the opinion that the proper
course Of procedure is to permit MN 10 De sworn
and then expel him by two-thrds vote under the
coRstutionai provision a With The Utmost
ositiveness this point that not only is the propo-
precedent but that exclusion is entirely in accord
with principle authority an9 Ies1satVe Poecee i.S
the House OF Representatives has ever taken.
ceeding 10 extended argument in support of the
committee resolution. the following summary:
,ttee assert that The claimant ought not to be per
tted to take scar l the 1IcSe 0l ae eIected
ought 10 be declared vacant. - -
ougbI 10 be- sworn G in in order that if Happily
thirds vote therefor he may be expelled
GROUNDS OF DISQUALIFICATION.
Three distinct grounds of disqualification are as
sod ofs1Gr
Firstly reason of his violation of the Edmunds
Secondly reason of his notorious and defiant ant
violation of the law of the land. Of the decisions
the Presidents holding himself above the law ana
30 government could possibly exist in the face of
such practices. He is in open war against me
gress he seeks to enter Such an idea is intolerable
II upon the principle asserted in this ground that
al cases of exclusion have been based.
nlict and Offensive violation of the understanding
The objection is made to the refusal TO admit
that any objection be made TO his coming in If
ne Is caeh Of e United I'll aDd
inhabitant of Utah when elected, no matter how
lis life al and pTactces' To this i we reply
First-That the language OF the constitutional
sftutional Convention and its clearly show
that it cannot be construed TO prevent disqualified
SeeondEThat the overwhelming authority of text
that such disqualification may be imposed by the
House. and commentator on the Constitution
ThirdNThe courts Of several States. in constituting
analogous provisions, have with practical unanim-
such constitutional provisions.
denied that it had the right to Exclude member
elect even when he had the three constitutional
Fiffh-In many instances It has distinctly as
serted its right so 10 do in cases of dsloyalty and
sIxth-It passed in 1852. the Test Oath act, which
nemhe-siip in Congress- 1isoualifving hundreds of
thousands Of American citizens This law remained
IN force for twenty years, and thousands of mem
bers Of Congress We're compelled TO take the oath
it required.
Seventh-The House in 1863 adopted general rule
Of order providing that no person should be sworn
IN es member against whom the objection was
oath and s. upon investigation such fact appeared
EXPULSION A DUBIOUS PROCEEDING.
Eighth-'The interesting proposition is made that
Upon the theory that The purpose is permanently
70 part COMPANY with l Mr. Roberts this is du
OF two-thi,d s OF the members We ask II such
vote IS possible or right in view Of the following
The expulsion clause of the Constitution is a.
Each House may determine the rules of its pro
eeedings punish its members for disorderly be
hayfor and. with the concurrence OF two-thirds
No lawyer can read that provision without rails
ing in his own mind he question whether tn,
House has any power to expel, except for som
from the beginning of the Republic have so in
sisted and their reasoning has been so cogent tina
these propositions established. namely:
Frst-Neither House OF Congress has ever ex
member consistent with his public trust ant
Where the hou s Of R eng mt tss Was
parent; where the refusal TO expel was put upo1
might be. had right TO expel for an act unre
S. - 80