The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1900-01-20

Then follows reference to the most no.
table cases which have come before the
Senate and House Of Representatives, in
GLIDING that Of George @ Cannon. former
Delegate from Utah OF that case, the re-
port says;
80 In the case OF George o. Cannon,
delegate from Utah in the FOrty-third
Congress, 1874 and 1875. we find series
OF events suggesting, In the light OF this
case how history repeats itself.
Cannon's seat was contested by Max
well. who had received but a handful OF
votes. and had no right whatever to the
seat. even il Cannon was not entitled TO
II. 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 1867.
IL he had not. he had violated no law
A resolution was adopted declaring that
he entitled to the seat as delegate
the claim being made that be might be
proceeded against in expulsion proceed
ings- Whereupon. on the same day May
II. 1874. committee was appointed to in
Nestigate the question Of Cannon'S poly
gamy and the right Of the House to ex-
pei II reported In January. 1875. that
Cannon was polygamist. and brought in
a resolution OF expulsion. vigorous
minority report was filed. in which the
right OF expulsion was combated on three
grounds.
First That the House had already de-
clared that Cannon was entitled TO the
seat. The force OF the argument was ap-
pareut. 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 IL would send
fo~ a .
to complain that Mormon had come 10
the House.
Third. That a graYeT ground OF cb-
lection existed The question is said the
report, whether the House ought as a
matter OF policy. or 10 establish pre,e-
dent. eXpel either a Delegate OF Member on
account Ct alleged crimes or immoral prac-
tees uncOunected with their duties or obi
cations as Members or Delegates, when the
Delegate or Member possesses all the
qualifications TO entitle him to his seat
The reasoning OF the committee and the
cogcnt 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 70 take up the case and il was
never heard of again.
Thus ended the first campaign TO con-
hrm a polygamist in his seat in the fond
nope that he might later be expelled.
l. The next Is the case of Schumacher
an King in connection with the China
mail service August 9. 1875 The Commit
Tee on the judiciary submitted a report
IN The course Of which IL asserted thar the
House OF Representatives had no authority
20 take jurisdiction OF violations Of law or
offences committed against a previous
Congress. Referring 10 the constitutional
ION ..F linz Ii
This power is evidently given to en-
able each house TO exercise its constitu-
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 on the power Of this House Ito
eXpell arising from the circumstance of
particular cases and the relations OF this
House to the constituency Of an accused
member; therefore. as will be seen. the
undersigned need not 90 further I'm this
ease than to assert Jurisdiction. because
the offences complained Of were not Known
TO the constituents Of the members in
question until after their election
Pertinent Questions.
IF there is any fact apparent in this
case it is that the constituents Of Mr.
Roberts knew all about him before his
election.
Can there be room to doubt the proper
action Of the House? Is il prepared ia
yield up this salutary power OF exclusion
VIII IL declare itself defenceless and H.
diculous2
Nor are those who assert that eNDuI-
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 II vote IN
declare the seat vacant is sustained by a
two-thirds majority the Constitution is
substantially complied with He NAV nor
agree with the committee that a mere ma
Jority can exclude. but he can reserve the
right 10 make the point OF order that tn.
resolution Is not carried il two thirds do
not vote for IL.
II the House takes the actlon which
the minority OF the committee insists IN
ought to take, il will. for the first time
IN Its history. part with a most beneiceut
power which it has often exercised DOW
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 Reprrscn-
tative-elect from the State OF Utah. ought not 10
have or hold a seat in the House of Representa-
tivcs, and that the seat 10 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 qualifications
mentioned in the Constitution The re-
port says.
Finding that Mr.. Roberts has been and
Is now a pOlygamist. unlawfully cohabi-
tating with plural wives. il the House of
Representatives Is for that reason of the
opinion that he ought not TO be. mem
Der thereof, what course should il right
fully pursue under the Constitution. the
supreme law OF the land-exclude him or
eXpel him? II he is to be excluded 1t
must be because he is for such reason le-
gally ineligible or disqualified. The pur-
pose is 70 consider the question of consti-
tutional right. not Of arbitrary power. as
IL is conceded that the House has that
power 10 exclude. with or without reason
right or wrong. The exercise OF such a
power, without constitutional warrant.
would simply be brute force a tyrannous
exercise OF power, Unbelievable by any
tribunal"
Touching on the power OF expulsion the