Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-01-20
ESPECIAL To THE oNEws.nl

ESPECIAL TO THE "NEws."1
Washington, D. c.. Jan 2O,-The spec
ial Roberts committee made reports in
the House today The majority report,
which was presented by Chairman Tay-
Ter, is a most volumlnous document, and
covers every phase Of the question. 1t
recommends that Roberts be excluded.
The minority report which was pres
ented by Littlefeld (Rep) and Dear
mond (Dem.) is an exhaustive review Of
the constitutional questions involved,
The slgners point out that Roberts has
all the constitutional requirements and
that his prlma facle right to be sworn
in cannot be questioned.
They agree, however, that It has been
established that Roberts is a polygamist
and as such. he should not be allowed to
retain hiss seat. They concede that the
House can. II It SO decides. exclude Rob.
erts, but to do so, would be an abuse Of
arbitrary power; 1t would be an act Of
tyranny. and II would establish dan
gerous precedent
The minority report Is highly spoken
Of. The case viii come up next Tues
day.
Roberts viii be given two hours 10 re-
ply to the majority and minority re-
ports.
A vote will probably be had Thursday
afternoon.
Washington, Jan. 20.-Reports Of the
special committee Of investigation In
the case Of Brigham II. Roberts Of
Utah were presented to the House to-
day. The majority report, signed by
Chairman Tayler and six OF his asso-
ciates, is a yoluminous document and
Is accompanied by summary Of the
law and facts. II gives the details OF
the hearings. the ample opportunities
afforded to Mr. Roberts to present his
case, his refusal to testify, and the
unanimous finding Of facts, heretofore
published.
1t proceeds;
"The committee is unanimous In Its
belief that Mr.. Roberts ought not to re-
main a member Of the House Of Rep
resentatlves. A majority are Of the
opinion that he ought not to be per-
mitted to become a member; that the
House has the right to exclude him
A minority are Of the opinion that the
proper course Of procedure IS to permit
him to be sworn In and then eEpel him
by a two-thirds vote under the C0nstl-
tutional provision providing for expul-
sion.
Your committee desires 10 assert
with the utmost posltiveness at this
point that not only is the proposition
Of expulsion as applied to this case
against precedent but that exclusion is
entirely in accord with principle, au-
thority and legislative precedent. and
not antagonistic to any legislative ae-
ton which the House Of Representa-
lives has ever taken.
For convenience we present here
with, before proceeding to extended
argument in support Of the committees
the following summary:
Upon the facts stated the majority
II the committee assert that the claim
mt ought not TO be permitted TO take
/ seat In the House OF Representatives
md that the seat which he was elected
,ught TO be declared vacant
"The minority. on the other hand, as
'ert that he ought 10 be sworn in In or
Ter that IL happily two-thlrds vote
hereior he may be expelled.
Three distinct grounds Of disquali-
lcatIon are asserted against Roberts:
'1-By reason Of his violation OF the
sdmunds law.
ply reason OF his notorious and
Iefiant violation OF the law OF the land,
4 the decisions OF the Supreme Court.
nd Of the proclamations OF the Presl-
Tents. holding himself above the law
nd not amenable TO II. No government
ould possibly exist In thdIace Of such
PRACTICES. lie Is In open war against
he laws and Institutions OF the c0un-
ny. whose Congress he seeks TO enter.
iuch an idea is intolcrable. II is up
n the principles asserted IN this
round that all cases Of exclusion have
Ieen based.
"3-His election as a representative
) an explicit and offensive violation Of
he understanding by which Utah was
Omitted as State.
THE objection is made TO the refusal
o admit Roberts that the Constitution
xcludes the Idea that any objection can
e made TO his coming In II he is 20
ears old, If he has been seven years a
itizen OF the United States and was
n inhabitant Of Utah when elected, no
natter how odlous or reasonable or |
rimlnal may have been his life and |
ractices. To this we reply:
Il. That the language OF the con- |
tltutional provision. the history OF It's |
raining IN the constitutional conven-
lon. and its contex clearly show that
cannot be construed TO prevent dis
for crime.
80. That the overwhelming authority
text book writers on the Constltu.
ION In 70 the effect that such disQualiA- ]