The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1900-01-25
ROBERTS
Majority and Minority Reports
Are Presented to the
House.
Majority Holds There Is Album.
dant Precedent for Refusal
to Admit.
VIGOROUSLY and Defiantly at
War With Our Laws and
Institutions.

, WASHINGTON, Jan. 22.-The reports
OF the special committee Of investiga.
ton in the case of Brigham Fl. Roberts
OF Utah have been presented to the
house. The majority report, signed by
Chairman Taylor and six of his asso-
ciates, is voluminous document, and is
accompanied by q summary Of the law
and facts. 1t gives the details of the
hearings, the ample opportunities af.
forded to Mr.. Roberts to present bis
case, his refusal to testify and the unan-
imous finding of facts, heretofore pub
ished. It proceeds:
1.-THE committee is unanimous in its
belief that Mr.. Roberts ought not to re-
main member of the house of repre-
sentatives. A majority are Of the opin.
ion that he ought not to be permitted 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 expel him by two
thirds vote under the constitutional pro-
vision providing for expulsion.
"Your committee desire to assert with
the utmost positiveness at this point that
not only is the proposition of expulsion
as applied to this case against prece-
dent, but that exclusion is entirely
in accordance with authority and legis-
lative precedent and not antagonistic to
any legislative action which the house
of representatives has ever taken.
For convenience, we present herewith,
before proceeding to extended argument
in support Of the committees resolution
the following summary:
upon the facts stated, the majority
of the committee assert that the claim.
ant ought not to be permitted to take
seat in the house Of representatives and
that the seat to which he was elected
ought to be declared vacant.
1.-The minority, on the other hand, as
sert that he ought to be sworn, in order
that, if happily two-thirds vote therefor,
he may be expelled.
''Three distinct grounds of disqualifi.
cation are asserted against Roberts.
81. By reason of his violation of the
Edmunds law.
''2. By reason of his notorious and de-
faint violation of the law of the land, of
the decisions Of the supreme court and
of the proclamations of the president,
holding himself above the law and not
amenable to it.
mo government could possibly exist
in the face of such practices. He is in
open war against the laws and institu-
IF hn xryho ho
seeks to enter. Such an idea is intoler-
able. It is upon the principal asserted
in this ground that all cases of exclusion
have been based.
so. His election as representative is
an explicit and offensive violation of the
understanding by which Utah was adj
mitted as a state.
1.-THE objection is made to the refusal
to admit Roberts that the Constitution
excludes the idea that any objection can
be made to his coming in if he is %
years of age, has been seven years cit
izen of the United States, and was an
inhabitant of Utah when elected, no
matter how odious or reasonable or
criminal may have been his life and
practices. To this we reply:
"That the language of the constitu-
tional provision, the history of its fran
ing in the constitutional convention and
it's context clearly show that it cannot
be construed to prevent disqualification
for crime.
"That the house of representatives has
never denied that it had the right to ex-
the three constitutional qualifications.
"The house in 1869 adopted general
rule of order, providing that no person
should be sworn in as member against
whom the objection was made that he
was not entitled to take the test oath,
and if upon investigation, such fact ap-
peared, he was to be permanently de-
barrod from entrance -