The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-21

The report then exhaustively reviews tho
law preeeds nts bearing on the case The
main heads are as follows.
( ]. II Is very grave question as 10
whether congress can by a law duly
enacted add TO the qualifications Mega
! lively stated tn the constitution,
! There Is no decision Of the United
| States supreme court directly or indi-
| recuy constituting this provision. There
! is no decision OF any State court d.
/ rectly IN point.
=. n the right to add dlsauslifca-
tion by law is assumed the disqualih-
cation imposed by the Edmunds act
does not apply TO member OF con-
/ gress and therefore does not affect
Mr.. Roberts.
The only portion OF the section that can
bs said TO have any application TO mem
Der OF the house OF personalities Is hat
which declagcs that no polygamist etc.
shall he entitled TO hold any office or
place OF public trust honor or emolument.
Unless a member OF the
house holds an Office under the United
states within the meaning Of the constlln-
ton and law there - 10 disqualification
Continuing, the report says This house
By IT. independent action can not maSe
law Tor any purpose, The adding by this
house. acting alone. OF a qualification moi
established by law would not only be A
violation OF both the constitution and the
law but II would establish a most danger
Gus precedent which would hardly fail
70 return TO plague the inventor, You
might feel that the grave moral ald social
aspects OF this case allowed you. to wrast
once the law to your authority to DO
great right, 20 do a little wrong But what
warrant have yOu when the barriers OF
the constitution are once broken down
thar there may not come after No a house
with other standards OF morality and pro-
4rh pritl .flt at
t,tns which have no rlghtful foundations,
that IN The heat Of unreas1n OF partisan
contest--Ence there VIII be no definite
standard by which 10 determine the exist
ence OF qualifications viii add anything
that may be necessary 10 accomplish the
desired result EFFICIENCY will determine
The suficiency Il would no longer be- a
government OF laws. hut of men TO
thus depart from the constitution ana sub
stitute force for law. Is TO embark upon q
trackless sea without chart or compass,
with almost a certainty Of dreful ship
wreck
The report concludes as follows 4
small partisan majority might render the
desire to arbitrarily exclude b. majority
vote In order 10 more securely intreneb
itself IA power Irresistible. Hence IT'S eN-
ercise is controlled by legal rules. In case
OF expulsion. when the requisite two
thirds can be had. the motive for the ex-
erelse OF arbitrary power no longer exists,
as a two-thirds partisan majority Is suf-
itciont 10 eject a member. II seems To rs
settled upon the reason ana authority that
the pawer or the house to eSpe is uplim
tied and that the legal propositions may
thus he fairly summarized,
The power OF exclusion is matter OF
law TO be exercised by majority vote, IN
accordance with legal principles and ex-
lists only where a member-elec lacks some
of IA Ana ftf.F.s I.Kr
stitution The power OF expulsion is made
purely matter OF discretion 10 he ex-
erclsed by a two thirds vote, intelligently
and oonsclentiously with a due regard 10
the propriety aud the honor ana integrl-
ty OF tho house aud the rights OF the In
divldual members" For the abuse Of
this discretion we are responsible only to
our constituents our conscienees aud our
God
We believe that Mr. Roberts has the le-
gal constitutional right to be sworn In as
a member but tho facts are such that we
further believe the house, ia tho exercise
OF It's discretion, is not only justified but
required by every proper consideration in
volved, 10 eSpo him promptly after he ba-
comes member. We recommend the fol-
lowing MS substitute for the resolution
prepared by the committee:
NeSoiNed, Tint briGham n. Hob
crss, having been duly elected rep
rescptativc in the Flity-sixth com
Grcr- from, the state of utab, with
the qualifications requisite for nd-
mission Ia the house RH-such, - en-
titled as constitutional right TO
take the oath of office prcscrtbed
for mcmbcrs-eicct, his status rs u
poiyGnmist, unlnwfuily rohnbittuE
with plural wives. making him tia
Pile, according 60 c0ustituftonnII
grounds, 40 expulsion, hut not 10
exclusion from the house
David 4. DeArmoDd.
&. u. Littieheid,
Tho full report OF the majority OF tho
committee Celebrates the summary, aud ~
some portions uses strong language
against Mr. Roberts AS to bis plural mar
ringes, u says,
Prior to 1852 n. II, Roberts had mar
ried one Louisa Smith, She has borne
him six children and Is still living, About
1855, when Utah was fairly ringing with
the blows OF tho Edmunds act of 1852,
while numerous prosecutions were going
on, and after the supreme court had passed
upon the validity OF the act; when tho
American people supposed that polygsmy
had received its death blow; when no man
q the many whose eases Went to the
United states supreme court pretended the
provislens against polygamous marriages
would be opposed--with all these facts In
sistently before him, Brigham H. Rob
oits tNoh another VIE, lHla second WIG
he married IN defiance OF the Edmunds
law, He spat upon that law; he declared
by his act that he recognized no binding
rule upon him OF q law OF congress: no
declared by II that he recognized a higher
law, The congress Of the United States
was TO him an object Of contempt The
supreme court OF the United states might
declare tho laws for others but not him.
He laughed al it's futile decree aud spurned
~ admonitions The executive who had
declared in solemn messages his gratihca-
ton that polygamy seemed gone Forever,
he defed and despisoa. or what conse-
quenee TO him were the laws OF congress
and the declarations OF the highest courI
and the proglamations OF the presideM |
against his sensual interpretation og /
doctrine? I
And all the ttimc tho EdmunS law
declared not only polygamy but o6hahsta- 4
ton with more than ona womnuflnlawful 4
Roberts not only blgamisucally married
second wife. hut he perslsteain violating 4
and dsfiantly tramping under foot every I
other provision Of the aeK But he had /
not yet sufficiently proclaimed his utter /
contempt for the snpre,ne court for eos.
grtss and It's most solemn en3ctments. al
few years later he TOOK third wife From
ths time OF his second marriage 70 the /
third ne cohsbited With two women. From I
the date Of his third marriage down tcl