The Portland daily press., 1900-01-20
Declares Expulsion the
Only Remedy.
Refusal to Admit Contrary to
Constitution.

tive Littieuelu OF maine VIII present MS
views on the law on the Roberts cess In
q written report 20 the House, Saturday
morning. He has gone over the subject
carefully and has lprepsFed one of the
ablest minority reports that has been
presented fer years In an election casa.
Rarely has such . thorough invssti-
cation been made By one man into .
public question. He has not only
searched the procedure In contested cleo
tion cases before the House during over
q century, but he has delvsd into the
debates In the body that framed the
OF the United States; he has
examined the parliamentary laws Of Eng
land; and has searched through the vol
umes written by the greatest oonstitu.
tional authorities OF this country during
the last hundred years. Moreover. he
brings In support Of his argument the
deoisions In large number Of state and
federal courts that In different ways
throw light upon the grave question now
before the National House. The manu-
script embody ing Mr.. .LittlsHeld's views
covers fully go type-written pages. That
represents only q fractional part Of the
and decisions which he
looked up In Investigating the case.
'Is seems to me settled upon reason
and author ity." says Mr.. Littleield,
"that the power of the House to expel Is
unlimited and that the legal prop ositions
involved msy be fairly thus summarized.
The power Of exclusion is matter Of
law to be exercised BY majority vote In
accordance with legal principles ana
only exists when n mem ber-eleot lacks
some of the qualifications required BY
the Con stitution. The power Of expul-
sion 10 made by law purely matter OF
discretion, to be exercised By two thirds
vote, fairly. in tslligsntly. conscientious
ly, with due regard to propriety, and
the honor aud integrity Of the House.
I believe that Mr.. Robsrts has technical
and legal right to be sworn IN as q
member, but the faots are such that
believe that the Houss, in the exercise Of
its discretion. is not only justified, but
required by every proper consideration,
to immediately thereafter expel him."
One notable feature Of Mr.. Littlefeld's
argument is that polygamy In and Of
itself does not constitute any d'squali-
for the holding OF public office.
he cites great many authorities to show
that "the laws of the State Of Utah do
not now, and never have, imposed any
disquAlinoations for holding office by rsa-
son of polyRamy or unlawful oohabita-
tioD." He goes on to say thatEMr Rob-
erts was resident Of the Territory Of
Utah, and since its organization as
state, has been q resident Of the State OF
Utah. "Under these oircuD stances"
says MIR. Littlefeld, 81 do not think that
the disqu ALLEGATIONS imposed BY the Ed
munds act have had any operation as to
him since the organization Of the State
Of Utah. 1t Is settled by an unbroken
line Of decisions that all territorial con-
grefsional legislation 10 superseded by
the adoption Of state constitution and
the organizAtion Of q state"
Repre- sentative Littlefeld says that the
fact that Roberts still resides in the same
place In which h, resided In 1895. though
1t is now state, but then was terri
tory, to which the law applied, undoub-
tedly Is the cause Of some oonfusion. 1t
Is clear that his legal rights are precisely
the same as though since 1896 he hal
been residing In Mains and had been
elected to Congress from that Stata.
cit seems TO me beyond question:"
adds Mr.. Littlsfield. THAT this Edmu nds
act does not apply to Mr.. Roberts. There
is no law, then, which has any applics-
ton to this case that seems to add any
thing to the constitutional qualifications.
This House, by Its Independent action,
cannot make law for any purpose. The
adding by this House acting alone OF
qualification not established by Law,
W would not only be violation Of the law,
but 1t would establish a most dangerous
precedent which would hardly fail to
return to plague th 9 inventor.
A very large part Of his argument 10
devoted to discussion Of authorities
showing the inability Of the House to de-
olare q ssat vacant by q majority vote.
He mentions burgess on political
Science and Constitutional Law" deolar-
ing that either House might reject an
insane person, that is, might r~qute o
s,nity of mind as qualifoationi or
might exclude grossly immoral person,
that IL, might require fair moral char
acter as a qualification.
Another of his authorities is the case
of John Wilkes Esq, in the English
house OF parliament who was arbitrarily
excluded even against the protest Of Sir
Edmund Burke who declared: "You are
going to make . disqualification of a
mem ber to sit In parliament. You are 60
ing to make disqualification CONTRARY to
the unanimous opinion Of the whole
oountry.' Mr.. Litttlefieid quotes these
and other oplpions to show that at that
early date the distinction between exclu-