The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-25


from the uuly elected representative OF one
of the States. who comes with credentials
in due form, and who is clothed with al
the express qualifications prescribed by the
Constitution. This was done IN accord
ance with what was regarded as the uni
form custom of the House, when grave
charges are made, affecting the vital well
fare Of the Republic. The charges should
be Of a grave character, indeed, and be
most solemnly presented to justify resort
TO such an unusual method OF procedure.
This Republic. in common with all others,
displays its greatest weaknesses In times
Of popular excitement. It's ability TO with
stand the sweeping tides of public feeling
is the best evidence of its stability and
permanency. In all such crises Ii behooves
those occupying responsible official po-
sitions 10 be exceptionally firm and pa
triotic. and 10 conduct the public affairs
in calm. Uignifed and orderly manner.
The charge involved in this case, how
ever, Is of that unusual and serious char
acter that the conduct of the House must
be regarded as just and will be fully vim
dicated with time.
1--WE have the power to exclude the
claimant on the ground that Utah has
disappointed the hopes of the country in
relation TO her policy. We have the ar
bitrary power to expel or exclude any
member of this body and are not
swerable to any tribunal excepting the
people for our conduct, but can We find
justification in the Constitution for such
action? What would be the result If this
body should use its arbitrary power to ex-
pei or exclude members by way of punish
ment TO a State or to coerce a State into
submission to a policy that belongs wholly
TO the State? Who can predict the result?
We could then make State constitutions
and enforce themi dictate the domestic
politics and morals of the States. Once give
the power of expulsion that Interpretation
and the equality OF the States would be
destroyed.
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
'The equality and the independence Of
the States within their spheres is a vital
principal in our scheme of government,
and without 1t the functions of government
could not be performed. 1t would be bet
ter hundred times to give claimant a
seat in this body, however revolving to
the moral instincts of the country that
would be. than TO adopt an expedient so
full of dangerous possibilities. 1 have no
fear of the growth of polygamy in this
country. 1t can not live in this atmosphere.
1t is germ that will wither and die in the
sunlight of the christian virtues Noble
womanhood is too steadfastly enthroned in
the affections, too firmly woven into the
social fabric too securely imbedded in the
religious life of this country to fear any
evil from that execrable system
But, sir, there is ample justification
under the Constitution for the exclusion
or this claimant from a seat in this body
ents and without the hazard of establishing
a dangerous precedent The power of ex-
pulsion Is expressly given to this body,
and ii necessarily includes the power of
exclusion. The charges against the claim
ant In this case do not affect his qualifica-
lions IN the proper sense, but they relate
TO his fitness to be member of the House,
ana they naturally belong to the class call
ing for the exereise of the power of ex-
pulsion. If he could be expelled after adj
mission he certainly can be excluded on
the same grounds, If the facts have been
properly ascertained. and he has been ac-
corded all the privileges in making his de-
Tense that he would have been entitled to
II he had been sworn in the first instance.
II he were sworn and then Immediately ex-
PEELED?
1.-The power of expulsion is more than a
mere disciplinary power. 1t may be used
to preserve the integrity of the House
and to protect il against scandal and re-
proach. If the Constitution were silent
the power of expulsion would exist by
necessary implication, because the express
powers could not be carried into effect
without II. 1t is a power that is inherent in
every independent legislative body, because
IL Is essential to its preservation. This body
may expel traitor to the government It
has done so in some notable instances. The
right OF the States to send representatives
OF their own choice necessarily limits the
right of the House to expel members except
for purposes Of discipline, to protect its dig
its enemies. Expulsion can never be re-
sorted to for purposes of punishment alone.
The criminal courts Of the land must ad-
minister the penal laws according to estab-
lished procedure.
NO LICENSE TO COMMIT CRIME.
THE report of the committee in this
case SHOWS the claimant to be a polyg-
amist not only in belief. but in practice
He believes it to be a divine right and
proper system of social life. He may
entertain whatever belief he chooses in
relation to religion and morals That is
the right of every citizen of the country,
but no one has the right, under the guar
anty of the freedom of conscience and re-
ligious tolerance, to do that which is con-
demned as criminal by the universal senti-
ment of the people. Liberty of conscience
does not mean license TO commit crime
THE principle which justifes his ex-
clusion Is that he is the representative
of system of social and moral life that
Is inimical TO our civilization and de-
structive of society itself. We have the
acknowledged right to expel traitors to
the government from this House. A
traitor is one who would accomplish the
overthrow of the government. Is not one
who would destroy the very foundation
upon which government rests as great an
enemy traitor? Would he not accom-
plish the overthrow of the government?
The way is clear, the duty is plain Let
him be excluded upon this broad ground,
and let the world know that there is no
place under~th American flag where the
avowed polygamist, a propaganda, is
eligible to a seat in this body.
''In conclusion let me say the Christian
homes of this country are the fountain of
every virtue. Keep the homes pure, and
our institutions are secure. but let them
become polluted and the result will be So
cial and political decay.
Mr.. Wilson challenged some of the state
ments made against the Mormon people.
He said he represented thirty thousand
Mormons, and in all that made good citi-
zenship they were the equal of any con-
stituency in the country He affirmed that
the Mormon Church abandoned polygamy
as doctrine in 1890 in good faith, and he
believed they had lived up to their promise.
Upon his responsibility as member he
stated that polygamy was not being en-
tered into in Idaho and the church had re-
Gently issued a proclamation against 1t,
which he had read. He was opposed to
polygamy much any member, and he
repudiated the statement that the church
was teaching. advocating or advising its
practice.
At 5:l5 o'clock p. m. the House adjourned.
t
nnnERTS ygISnUnTEn I.JrTHER