The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-21
THE MAJORITY REPORT
IT DECLARES THAT HE SllOC Id
NOT TAKE HIS SEAT.
THE MINORITY ASKS HIS EXPULSION
Declaring That Exclusion Would be Violation
of the Constitution Which Would Estab-
Iish Dangerous Precedent Re-
ports Presented to House.


Washington. Jan. 2O.-The reports of
the special committee of investigation
in the case of Brigham III. Roberts, OF
Utah. were presented TO the House to-
day. The majority report signed by
Chairman Tayler and six of his assoc
ciatcs is voluminOus document. and
is accompanied by summary of the
law and facts. 1t gives the details of
the hearings, the ample opportunities
afforded 10 Mr. Roberts to present his
case. his refusal to testify and the unani-
nous finding .cf facts heretofore pub
lShed. 1t proceeds;
THE MAJORITY REPORT.
The committee is unanimous in its be-
lief that Mr.. Roberts ought not 10 re-
main a member of the House of Repre-
sentativcS. \ majority are OF the opin-
ion that he Ought not TO he permitted 10
become a member: that the House has
he right TO exclude him. y minority are
Of the opinion thar, the proper course
Of procedure is to permit him to be sworn
! in and then cXpcl him by two-tmrdS
vote under the constitutional provision
providing for expulsion.
..Your committee desire TO assert with
the utmost pG@iJvcneSs at this point that
not only Is the propositions of expulsion
as applied To this case against precedent.
| hnt that exclusion Is entirely in accord
with principle. authority and legislative
| precedent, and not antagoniStic 10 any
| legislative action which the House OF
| Representatives has ever taken.
"Fol convenience we present herewith
| before proceeding TO extended 10 argd-
ncnt in support Of the committee resolu-
| tons the following summary:
"Upom the facts stated the majority
! of the committee assert that the claim
ant ought not BE permitted to take Il
| seat in the House of Representatives
| and that the scat to which he was eject
ed ought To be declared vacant.
The minority. on the other hand, as
| sert thar he ought TO he sworn IN in
order that IL happily two-thirds vote
| therefor he, may he expelled.
Three distinct grounds for diSqualiii~
cation are asserted against Roberts
"1.-By reason of his violation of the
! Edmunds law.
BY reason of his notorious ana
| defiant violation OF the law of the land,
Of the decisions Of the Supreme Court,
and OF the proclamationS of the Presl-
dents, holding himself above the law
and not amenabc to IT,
NO government could possibly exist
in the face Of such practices. lie is
in open war against the laws and jn5tl-
| tutions of the country whose Congress
| he seeks to enter Such an idea is
intolerahlc. 1t is upoli the principle as
serted in this ground that all cases or
| exclusion have been based.
"3.-His election rs representative is
an explicit and offensive violation OF
| the understanding 10y which Utah was
admitted as Il State.
After further arguments on these lines
the committee continues:
The interesting proposition is made
! that 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 a dubious pro
ceeding Such action requires the vote
Of two-thirGS Of the members. We ask
if such vote is possible or right. in
favor OF the following observations.
LAW As TO EXPULSION.
THE expulsion clause of the Constitu-
ton is as follows:
Each House may determine the
rules of its proceedings. punish lis mem
berS for discrdcrly behavior and, with
the concurrence of two-thirds. eXpcl Il
member
No lawyer can read that provision
without raising in his own mind the
| question whether the House has amy
power to eXpel, except for some cause
relating to the context? The ableSt law
yers from the beginning Of the republic,
have so insisted.
The report concludes as follows
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 it
prepared to yield up this salutary power
Of exclusion? VIII it declare itself de-
fenseles sand ridiculous?
Nor are those who assert that eXpul-
| sion is the remedy necessarily barred
from voting for the resolution declaring
the seat vacant He must, indeed, be
technical and narrow in his construction
Of the constitution mo will not admit
cant is sustained 10y two-thirds major
ity the constitution is substantially com
piled with. He may not agree with the
committee that a mere majority can ex-
cluGe. Lut he can reserve the right 70
make the point of order that the resolu-
| ton is not carried if two-thirds do not
woe for it.
/. IF the House takes the action which