The evening times., 1900-01-20
the member as such. or because 1t was
committed prior to his election"

cluding that of George @ Cannon, former
Delegate from Utah. OF that case, the re-
port says:
50. In the case of George Q. Cannon,
delegate from Utah In the Fortythird
Congress- 1874 and 1875. we find a series
of events suggesting, In the light OF this
case, how history repeats itself.
Cannon seat was contested by Max
well who had received but a handful Of
votes. and had no right whatever TO the
seat, even if Cannon was not entitled to
it, The claim was made that Cannon was
a polygamist. There was no evidence AT
that time before the House that he had
married plural wife after the act of 1862.
II he had not. he had violated no law.
resolution was adopted declaring that
he was entitled to the seat as delegate
the claim being made that he might be
proceeded against in expulsion proceed
ings. Whereupon. on the same day. May
II. 1874. j committee was appointed TO in
vestigate the question of Caunon's poly
gamy and the right of the House TO ex-
pei Ii reported in January. 1875. that
Cannon was a polygamist, and brought in
q resolution OF expulsion. A vigorous
minority report was filed. in which the
right of expulsion was combated on three
grounds.
First That the House had already de-
seat The force of the argument was ap-
parent for nothing had interviewed to make
him any less entitled then than on the day
his title was confirmed by the previous
action OF the House.
Second That when Utah was created as
a Territory Congress knew it would send
Mormon delegates, and it ought not now
to complain that a Mormon had come 10
the House.
Third That a graver ground OF cb-
lection existed The question is, said the
report, whether the House ought as
matter OF policy. or to establish pre,e-
dent. expel either a Delegate or Member on
account CT alleged crimes or immoral prac-
tices uncounected with their duties or obli-
cations as Members or Delegates when the
Delegate or Member possesses all the
qualifications to entiHe him to his seat
The reasoning OF the committee and the
cogent force of an unbroken line of prece-
dents against expulsion seem to have pro-
foundlY impressed the House, for when
couple Of weeks later the case was called
up and the question of consideration rails
ed only a beggarly twenty-one could be
found ready TO take up the case and it was
never heard OF again.
Thus ended the first campaign 10 con-
FIRM a polygamist in his seat in the fond
hope that he might later be expelled.
4. The next is the case of Schumaker
ana King in connection with the China
mail service, August 9, 1875 The Commit
lee on the Judiciary submitted a report
in the course OF which il asserted thar the
House OF Representatives had no authority
10 take Jurisdiction of violations of law or
offences committed against a previous
Congress. Referring TO the constitutional
provision respecting expulsion, it says:
This power is evidently given to en-
able each house to exercise its eonstitu-
tional function OF legislation unobstruct-
ed
The committee recommended that the
House leave the charges against Schu-
maker and King where they are now in
court
The minority report did not combat the
position OF the majority, in so far as this
case is concerned. They say that
They do not deny but that there are
limitations or the power cf this House Ito
eXpell arising from the circumstances of
particular cases and the relations of this
House to the constituency Of an accused
member, therefore as viii be seen. the
undersigned need not go further In this
case than to assert Jurisdiction. because
the offences complained of were not Known
to the constituents of the members in
question untn after their election.
Pertinent Questions.
''If there is any fact apparent in this
case it is that the constituents Of Mr.
Roberts knew ali about him before his
election
Can there be room to doubt the proper
action OF the House? Is it prepared to
yield up this salutary power of exclusion -
win il declare itself defenceless and IL
diculous2
Nor are those who assert that eKpul-
sion is the remedy necessary barred from
voting for the resolution declaring the seat
vacant he must indeed be technical and
narrow in his construction of the Consti-
tuition who will not admit that If a vote 10
declare the seat vacant is sustained by a
two-thirds majority the Constitution is
substantially complied with He NAV not
agree with the committee that a mere ma
jority can exclude, but he can reserve the
right TO make the point of order that the
resolution is not carried il two thirds do
not vote for it.
If the House takes the action whicn
the minority of the committee insists IL
ought to take, it will, for the first time
in its history. part with a most benefcent
power which it has often exercised pow
er that ought rarely to be exercised. but
which the House has never declared it did
not possess
Mindful Of the gravity Of the question
and realizing the responsibility imposed
upon us. We recommend the adoption OF
the following resolution:
Resolved. That under the facts and circumstan-
ces of this case, Brigham II. Roberts, Represen-
tatye-elect from the State of Utah. ought not 10
have hold seat in the House of Representa-
tives- and that the seat to which he was elected
is hereby declared vacant.
The Conclusions of the Minority.
The minority report is most exhaustive
1t covers all the legal questions involved
and goes into detail on all the constitu-
tional points at issue. The report bristles
with citation of authorities to show that
the House cannot legally exclude Mr.
Roberts, who possesses the qualifca tions
mentioned in the Constitution. The re-
port says:
Finding that Mr. Roberts has been and
is now a polygamist unlawfuIly cohabi-
tating with plural wives. if the House of
Representatives is for that reason of the
opinion that he ought not to be mem
ber thereof what course should il right
fully pursue under the Constitution. the
supreme law OF the laDd-eXclude him or
eXpel him? If he is to be excluded. it
must be because he is for such reason le-
gally ineligible or disqualified The pur-
pose is to consider the question of consti-
tutiunal right, not of arbitrary power as
it is conceded that the House has that
power TO exclude. with or without reason
right or wrong. The exercise of such
power. without constitutional warrant
would simply be brute force. a tyrannOus
exercise of power unreviewable by any
tribunal" q"
Touching on the power Of expulsion, the
report adds:
"A small partisan majority might rem
der the desire to arbitrarily exclude, by
a majority vote. in order to more securely
entrench itself in power, irresistible.
ifE iC oil 1Iad bx-