The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-01-23
HOSTS OF WOMEN.
CONTINUED from First Page.)

CONTINUED from First Page)
had had in mind the particular eMgen-
cy to which the words are applied, they
would if the proposition was approved
have written into the constitution the
words which are necessarily implied
The constitution says: This consti-
tuition and laws of the United States,
which shall be made in pursuance
thereof shall be the supreme law Of the
land
IF the member elect from Utah is
eligible to be q representative in con-
gress, then for the purpose of his case,
we must read into the constitution 9TH
er words so that it would read: No per-
son shall be a representative in con-
greSS unless he shall have attained to
the age Of 25 years and been seven
years a. citizen of the United States,
and who shall not when elected be an
inhabitant of that state in which he
shall be chosen, provided that no per-
son shall be ineligible to a seat as such
representative who in form and SUBJ
stance, in word and act, in life and
practice defies the constitution and the
laws and denies their validity and su-
premacy.'
1T matters not whether this proviso
be attached to the clause referred to or
some other. 1t must be written into
the constitution somewhere if the
claimant is eligible and my friends on
the other side Of the question will not
deny it.
Thus stands the case, then: If the
minority be right, the trainers of the
constitution if they had foreseen the
Roberts incident with it's defiance of
the constitution and of the law and it's
denial of their validity and supremacy
as to him, would have said Brigham H.
Roberts is eligible and must be seated
if elected. 1 say that no such provi-
sion could have been adopted; and if it
could not, cannot be implied. Much is
said about the moral side of this ques-
ton. Doubtless it has such side, and
If that were the only consideration be-
fore US the house might take the same
action it will take. But 1 do not here
and now in the face of the great fun
damental fact of diSObedience to law,
plus audacious defiance of it, care to
assert the moral ground. Mr.. Speaker,
1 do not hesitate to submit this pre- pO-
sitiOn to the candid judgment of this
house and before the bar of history. I
am profoundly convinced that it is
right, and that history will SO declare
it; the house can no more safely part
with any power it possesses. This
touches its very vitality. If it loses it,
it is in certain conceivable instances
absolutely without power. J2ut we are
told that it is a power that may be
abused. What power does the house
possess that it has not at some time
abused? What branch of the govern
ment is it that having power has not
at some time abused it? What man,
what body of men, clothed with a little
brief authority, has been free from an
unWise abuse of that authority? And
shall they therefore be shorn of power?
''It is a mighty question. 1t is a ques-
ton Of governmental life; it. is not to
be lightly dealt with or inconsider-
ately answered.
THE case of Roberts sinks into in
significance in its presence. 1 should
assert, what here assert, with
precisely the same solemnity. if the
right of expulsion after admission, was
absolutely clear. If we do not exclude
this man we strike down one of the
most vital and necessary powers that
belong to a great legislative body. Let
no such thing be done.
IF it is now, we may be sure that
never again, while the spirit of civiliza-
ton dominates this republic, will any
defiant ViOlator of law under color of
religion or any other claim, whether
polygamist or murderer, knock for adj
mission at the door of the American
congress"
There Wereno demonstrations through
out Mr.. Tayler's speech but at the con-
clusion he was vigorously applauded.
Mr. Littlefield (Maine) on behalf of
the minority of the committee then
arose in support of the minority plan
of seating and then expelling Mr. Rob-
erts.
Mr.. Roberts followed with intense in
terest the points brought out by Mr..
Littlefield. After reviewing the famous
Wilkes case before the British house
of commons, Mr.. Littlefield declared
that the majority in the Roberts case
were resorting to the same Infamous
instrument of outrage and oppression"
1t was a course then denounced as
damnable and subversive of the rights
of the people," and the majority of this
could be called, of following such a
precedent.