The Washburn times. [volume] (Washburn, Wis.) 1896-1976, 1900-01-24
CASE OF Mr.. ROBERTS.
Arrangement Of Member of Con-
gress from Utah.
MAJORITY TO REJECT.
A yiolatOr of the Constitution and
Laws of the Land Has No
Place in Congress.

erts OF Utah were presented to the House
today. The majority report signed by
Chairman Taylor and six of his asso-
ciates, is voluminous document, and is
accompanied by summary of the law
and facts. 1t gives" the details of the
hearings. the ample opportunities afford
ed to Mr. Roberts to present his case, his
refusal to testify and the unanimous find
ing of the facts heretofore published. 1t
proceeds:
The committee is unanimous in it's belief
that Mr.. Roberts ought not to remain a
member of the House of Representatives
majority are of the opinion that he ought
not to be permitted to become a member;
that the House has the right to exclude
him minority are of the opinion that
the proper course of procedure is to permit
him TO be sworn in and then expel him by
twO-thirds vote uncer the constitutional
provision providing for expulsion.
Your committee desire to assert with the
utmost posltiveness at this point that not
only IS the proposition of expulsion as APP
piled TO this case against precedent but
that exclusion is entirely in accord with
principle, authority and legislative prece-
dent, and is ret antagonistic to any legis-
sentatives has ever taken.
For convenience we present herewith,
before proceeding to extended argument in
following summary:
Upon the facts stated, the majority of the
committee assert that the claimant ought
not to be permitted to take q seat in the
House of Representatives and that the seat
TO which he was elected ought to be de-
clared vacant.
The minority, on the other hand, assert
that he ought TO be sworn in order that if
happily, tWo-thirds vote therefor he may
be expelled.
Three distinct grounds of disqualification
are asserted against Roberts:
j. BY reason of his violation Of the Ed
munds law.
violation of the law of the land, of the de-
cislons OF the Supreme court and of the
pr0clamatiOns of the Presidents. holding
himself above the law and not amenabe to
No government could possibly exist in the
face of such practices. He is in open war
against the laws and institutions of the
cCCntry whose Congress he seeks to enter
Such an idea is intolerabe It is upon the
principle asserted in this ground that all
cases OF exclusion have been based.
.. His electlon as representative is an eX-
plicit and offensive violation of the under
standing by which Utah was admitted as
state.
The objection is made to the refusal IN
admit Roberts that the constitution excludes
the idea that any objection can be made
TO his coming in if he is % years of age
has been seven years a citizen of the United
States and was an inhabitant of Utah when
elected. no matter how odiOus or treason
able or criminal may have been his life
and practices. To this we reply:
provision. the history of its framing in the
constitutional convention and it's context
clearly show that it cannot be construed
TO prevent disqualification for crime.
2. That the overwhelming authority of
textbook writer's on the constitution is to
the effect that such disqualification may be
imposed by the House and no commentator
on the constitution specifically denies it,
3. The courts of several of the states. in
constituting analogous provisions have with
practical unanimity declared against such
+. n ItHI1 tfr,1 nj
provisions
4. The House of Representatives has new
er denied that it had the right to exclude
q member-elect even when he had the three
constitutional provisions.
). In many instances it has distinctly as
serted its right so to do in cases of dis
loyalty and crime.
6. 1t passed in 1862 the test oath act.
which imposed real and substantial dis
qualification for membership in Congress.
disqualifying hundreds of thousands of
force for twenty years and thousands of
members of Congress were compelled to
take the oath it required.
Z. The House In 1869 adopted q general
rule of order providing that no person
should be sworn in as a member against
whom the objection was made that he was
not entitled to take the test OATH and if
upon investigation such fact appeared, he
was to be permanently debarred from en-
trance.
s. The interesting proposition is made
that the claimant he sworn in and then
turned out. Upon the theory that the pE.-
pose is to permanently part company with
Mr.. Roberts this is a dubious proceeding.
Such action requires the vote of two-thirds
of the members. We ask if such vote is
possible or right, in view of the following
observations:
The expulsion clause Of the constitution
is as follows:
Each house may determine the rules of
It's proceedings. punish its members for dis
orderly behavior and, with the concurrence
n of r6 a 1h0T
No lawyer can read that provision without
raising In his own mind the question wheth-
cr the House has any power to expel. except.
for some cause relating to the context. The
abIest lawyers from the beginning of the
republic have so Insisted. and their rea-
sitions are established namely:
]. Neither house Of Congress has ever ex-
PEELED member for acts unrelated to him
as a member or inconsistent with his public
trrst and duty such.
>. Both houses have many times refused
to eXpel where the guilt of the member
was apparent: where the refusal to expel
was put upon the ground that the House or
Senate, as the case might be. had right
to expel for an act unrelated to the member
as such, or because it was committed prior
to his election.
The report concludes as follows:
If there is any fact apparent in this case.
1t is that the constituents of Mr.. Roberts
knew all about him before his election
Can there be room to doubt the proper ac-
ton of the House? Is it prepared to Weld
mp this salutary power of exclusion? VIII
it declare itself defenseess and ridiculous?
Nor are those who assert that expulsion 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 which
will not admit that if a vote to declare the
seat vacant Is sustained by two-thrds ma
jority the constitution is substantially com
piled with. He may not agree with the
committee that mere majority can exclude.
but he can reserve the right to make the
point of order that the resolution is not car
ried If twO-thlrds do not vote for it,
If the House takes the action which the
minority of the committee insists it ought
to take. it Will for the first time in it's his
tory part with a most beneticent power
which it has often eXercised-a power 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 fol-
lowing resolution:
Resolved, that under the facts and cir
cumstances of this case. Brigham H Rob
erts. representative elect from the state of
Utah ought not to have or hold a seat in
the House of Representatives, and a seat
to which he was elected is hereby declared
vacant.
ROBERT w TAYLER
CHARLES Il. lands
PAGE MORRIS
ROBERT H. FREER
SMITH MPHERSON