The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-26

the Speaker said. he agreed; and in the
consideration of il, the House had pur-
sued constitutional methods. The point Of
order was sustained.
. Mr.. LACEY appeal from the decision
of the chair.
Mr.. Tayler-And move 10 lay that ap-
peal on the table.
The Speaker appointed Messrs. Lacey and
Tayler as tellers, saying he would not
count vote upon sustaining his decision.
There was a congestion Of members in
the pit. as they came down to pass the
tellers and be counted in favor uf laying
the appeal on the table. and in moment.
seeing the mass bearing down upon him,
Mr.. Lacey announced that he would With
draw the appeal.
The Voting.
a vote was then taken on the substitute
resolution, reported by the minority. to
swear in Roberts and then expel him
soon as recognition could be obtained
for that purpose and it was rejected by i
vote of pa 10 81. more than three to one.
Mr.. Tawney of Minnesota, the Repub-
lican whip. announced that owing to the
n-pclitical character Of the matter. he
had been unable to obtain pairs for the
following absent Republicans who wanted
to be paired in favor of the majority reso-
luton: Clarke of New Hampshire, Boutelle
of Maine. Cushman of Washington Roden-
berg OF Illinois, Bromwell and Kerr OF
Ohio. and Weymouth OF Massachusetts.
Mr.. Underwood made a similar statement
In behalf of absent Democrats. The fol-
lowing pairs were announced: Linney and
Bellamy of North Carolina, Harmer of
Pennsylvania and Davey of Louisiana.
Bingham of Pennsylvania and Riofdan of
New York. The pair of Mr. Alexander of
New York and Mr.. Mccall of Massachu-
sets against the resolution was announced.
The vote on the adoption of the minority
substitute practically ended the fight, and
after expressing their satisfaction over the
result many of the occupants of the gall
leries left so that when the final vote was
announced. the applause was not SO great
as ii might have been. The usual motions
to reconsider and TO lay that motion on the
table were made by Mr.. Tayler to give the
parliamentary clinch to the question, and
al $50 the House adjourned.
The Exit of Roberts.
During the roll call on the minority
resolution Mr.. Roberts, who had been an
Interested listener TO the debate. arose
from the seat he had occupied during the
day. and, with his hat in his hand and his
overcoat thrown across his arm. left the
House. disappearing through the north
door He took a car and went to his hotel.
The clerk there asked him what the re-
suit of the vote was. He said he did not
know. as the roll call had not been COM
pleted when he left the House, but he
presumed he would be excluded.
From II o'clock in the morning until
$3.50 in the evening the galleries of the !
House were crowded. Some of the spec
tators brought their lunch. for they knew |
it would be next to impossible to regain |
their seats if they once vacated them.
Final Arguments.
The days debate was opened by Mr.. |
Sims of Tennessee, who made a strong \
argument in support of the minority re-
port He said that the House could not ,
add to the qualifications prescribed by the |
Constitution. He was followed in the
same line by Mr.. Johnston of West Nir
ginia. who said il was conceded by the
majority that at the time of his election !
Mr.. Roberts possessed every qualification
for membership, and it was not now
claimed that he had lost any Of these
qualifications. Mr.. Roberts. the speaker
declared had been a member OF the
House since the 4th of March. 1893. and to
expel him would be entirely within the
Constitution.
MIR. Brosius Of Pennsylvania supported |
She majority report. and argued that Mr..
Roberts should be excluded.
Mr. Grout of Vermont said 1t was within
the power of the House 10 exclude Mr.. /
Roberts He criticised the minority re- l
pert because il admitted that the gentle
man from Utah ought not 10 be member. |
but was willing to admit Mr.. Roberts and |
then eXnel him.
Mr.. Talbert of South Carolina wanted /
Mr. Roberts excluded. and. he said. the
quicker il was done the better. He was
not worried over constitutional questions.
because the moral sentiment of the coun-
try demanded the exclusion of the gentle
man from Utah.
Mr. Adamson OF Georgia made strong
argument in behalf of the minority report |
He believed in the Constitution, which pre-
scribed the qualifications for a member OF
the House OF Representatives. Mr. Rob-
erts. he said. had prime facie right TO
his seat and ought to be sworn in. Then
IL within the power of the House 10
expel as laid down in the Constitution.
There was no doubt in his mind but that
more than two-thirds OF the House would
vote to expel the gentleman from Utah
after be should have been sworn in.
Mr. Ray of New York was severe In hi.
denunciation of Mr.. Roberts. who he said.
stood indicted for polygamy when he pre-
sworn in.
Mr.. Freer of West Virginia. a member
OF the committee. said the majority report
had declared the law governing the case OF
Mr. Roberts, and clearly defined the power
of the House. He said he would vote TO
exclude the gentleman from Utah because
he was an open violator Of the law.
Mr.. Griffith of Indiana said there was no
doubt but that the people of the United
States wanted Mr. Roberts kent ont of Com |
gress. but they wanted it done in accord
ance with law. This could be done by de-
msnding a two-thirds vote.
Mr. Moody of Massachusetts, said he had
read both reports and had studied the ques-
ton for himself. He was satisfied the
House had the right to exclude Mr. Roberts
and would so vote
Mr.. Gibson OF Tennessee said he was
sa tisfed the Constitution gave the House |
power TO exclude a ;nember-elect and |
would support the majority report.
Mr.. Grosvenor paid a handsome tribute
TO the argument made by Mr.. Littiefeld |
lie announced, however. that he would vote |
for the majority report.
Mr.. Norris Views.
The next member OF the committee 10
speak was Mr.. Morris Of Minnesota He
said be had Investigated the charges pre-
ferred against Mr.. Roberts without bias
and he believed the House had the right
to exercise the power of exclusion.
Mr. Morris argued that the House had
power TO add qualifications not mentioned
IN the Constitution. In conclusion. having
had bis time extended by the House. Mr..
Norris said he protested against the seat
ng Of Roberts in behalf Of the Constitution
~ otfr opttn+rv- in behaif nf tho law of tho |