Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-21
'Thc Committee I. Unanimous I'm Hts
Belief That Ho 1. PoIyEan,ist
una Therefore Disqualified. Bnt
Differs ms 10 Proper Disposition of
His Cnso-Mnjority nnd Minority
Reports Submitted to tho House.

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 n voluminous document, and
IS accompanied by a summary Of the
law and facts. 1t 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:
DO NOT WANT HIM.
'The committee is unanimous in lite
belief that Roberts ought not to re-
main n member of-thc House OF Rep
resentatives. 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 expel him
by q twothirds vote, under the constI-
tutional provision providing for expul-
sion.
Your committee desire to 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 antagonistlc to any Legislative ac-
tion which the House of Representa-
tives has ever taken.
SUMMARY.
Tor convenience we present here
with. before proceeding to extended
argument In support OF the committees
IN, flay.f ~Il
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,
anu that the seat to which he was
elected ought to be declared vacant.
The minority on the other hand,
assert that he ought to be sworn in in
order that IT, happily two-thirds vote
therefor, he may be expelled.
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICA-
TION.
Three distinct grounds for disquali-
ncation are asserted against Roberts.
list. BY reason OF his violation Of the
Edmunds law.
'2d. BY reason Of his notorious md
defiant violation OF the law of the land.
OF the decisions Of the Supreme Court
ana Oh the proclamations OF the Presi-
dents. holding himself above the law
and not amenable to 1t.
NO government could possibly exist
IN the face of such practices. He is in
open war against the laws and institu
lions OIL the country whose Congress he
seeks to enter Such an idea Is intoler
aoie. 1t is upon the principle asserted
in this ground that all cases OF ex.
clusion have been based.
Sd. His election as Representative 10
AM explicit and offensive violation Of
the understanding by which Utah was
admitted as n State"
After further arguments on these
lines the committee continues:
The interesting proposition is made
bnat the claimant be sworn In and
then turned out. Upon the theory that
the purpose is to permanently part
company with Mr.. Roberts this is n
dubious proceeding. Such action re-
quires the vote of two-thirds of the
members. We ask if such a vote is
possible or right. in view Of the fol-
lowing observations:
THE expulsion CLAUSE OF the Consti-
tuition Is as follows
Each house may determine the
rules OF Its proceedings. punish it's mem
Ders Tor disorderly behavior and, with
the concurrence of two-thirds. expel n
member
mo lawyer can read that provision
without raising In his own mind the
question whether the House has any
power to cxnel. except for some cause
Teiatlng to the context? Tho ablest
lawyers from the beginning of the re-
pubic have so insisted"
me renort concludes as follows:
IT there Is any fact apparent An
this case 1t is that the constituents of
Mr.. Roberts knew all about him h.
fore his election. Can there he room
70 doubt the proper action of the
House? Is it prepared to Yield I'm this
sanitary power of exclusion? Will At
declare itself defenseless ami rid,c,N
lous?
Nor are those who assert that ex-
pulsion is the remedy necessarily
barred from voting for the resolution
declaring the seat vacant He must
ihoeed, be technical and narrow in his
construction ,I OF the constitution, who
VIII not admit that II a vote to de-
clare the seat vacant is sustained by a
,.Wo-thirds majority the constitution
IS substantially compiled with. He
may not agree with the Commits that
mere majority can exclude, but he
can reserve the right to mako the point
oi Sraer that the resolution is not car
ile1 ~ two-thirds do not vote for 1t.
the House takes the action which
the minority of the committee insists
IL ought to take, it will for the first
sitne IN lis history part with a most
osnencent power which 1t has often
exercised-a power that ought rarely
10 De exercised, but which the House
~ ..U