Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-23
Messrs' Tayler and Little6eld Ad'
dress the House.
LARGE ATTENDANCE OF SPECTATORS
Arguments for Exclusion and Ex.
Pulsion.
QUAY REPORTS IN SENATE

Enormous crowds were present today in
the House of Representatives to witness
the opening OF the debate in the case of
MI. ROBERTS Of Utah. Fully three-fourths
Oh the spectators were women. They occu-
pied the reserved galleries tier on tier and
their bright gowns illumined the gloom of
the caVernous recesses about the spacious
nall The diplomatic gallery alone was a
yawning chasm
MT. ROBERTS was in the seat which he has
oeeh occupying on the extreme right of the
nan hait an hour before noon. and every
neck was craned TO catch glimpse of him.
lie appeared conscious of the attention he
was attracting and after looking over
some papers, left his seat and paced up and
down behind the railing which divides the
floor from the lobby. He was attired mod
estly in long frock coat. with a dark tie
He left the hall a few minutes before the
SaVel fell, and was not present when the
cnapiain delivered his Invocation. He re-
turned almost Immediately thereafter, how
ever. -
Nearly every member was in his seat a
1cW minutes later, when Mr.. TayIer (Ohio)
hartman OF the special committee, which
idiaseEs'lgated the case, arose from behind
oesh stacked high with legal authorities
ana manuscript, and called up the case
MT. Iav!er is young man, slight and pal
llu, put with energy and alertness stamped
N'>iS lSsiluIe Oh MS cOuntpnance. He
asked that the agreement made between the
niaJorlt! and minority of the committee,
Ior vote on the case at 1870 D. Thurs
day, be ratified by the House
MI Lacey Qowa) objected unless 1t be
understood that a substitute resolution
which he desired to offer. should also be
considered pending.
To this Mr.. Tayler objected He also
objected to having Mr. I.acey's Droposition
READ, although appealed to by Mr. Bailey
tIeXas) and Mr.. Richardson (TennD
ms proposition, as it subsequently de-
Veloped, was for the expulsion of Mr., Rob
ertS without swearing him in The major
NY resolutions to exclude him and the min
orlty resolutions to permit him to be sworn
IN IN ana then expelled We're laid before the
Rouse, and without any agreement as to a
vote, Mr.. Tayler (Oho) opened in support
OF the majority resolutions. He spoke
clearly and with great earnestness.
W hen he began Mr.. Roberts changed his
position to one near the center aisle on the
democratic side. where he could hear with
more ease Mr.. TayIers remarks are given
in another column
Mr.. T2yler was emphatic in his a assertion
that exclusion was in harmony with prece-
uent; expulsion in violation of it. He am
plfied the three. grounds for Mr. Roberts
exciuslon-trst. because of his violation of
the Edmunds act: second, because he was
living in OPEN fragrant and notorious yio-
latlon OF the statutes of the Congress he
seeks to enter. and third, because his cleo
ton was a violation of the COMPACT by-
which Utah was admitted into the Union
There We're no demonstrations through
out Mr. TaylerS speech, but at the conclu-
sion he was vigorously applauded.
Mr.. LittleGeId Speaks.
Mr.. Littlefeld MeJ, on behalf of the mi
norfty of the committee then arose In sup
port of the minbrity's plan of seating and
then expelling Mr.. Roberts
Mr., Littlefield made a deep impression
upon the House in this, his maiden speech.
He conceded at the outset the integrity,
honesty and ability of the majority Of the
committee, but he could not conceie his
judgment. There was no disagreement as
to fact that Mr.. Roberts was a polysamist
and should not be member of the House
The only issue between the majority and
minority was to whether he should be
excluded or expelled. The constitutional
qualifications, age and inhabitancy Mr.
Littlefield argued. could not be added to-
Ii they could and the House now excluded
member because he was guilty of polvg-
amous practices next year it might ex-
Guide for adultery or because a member
was an attorney for a trust or an "octo-
pus or for any other reason. The right of
a member to his seat a constitutional
right.
Right of House to ExpeI.
He took issue with the majority as to
power of the House to eXpel a member for
acts committed before his entrance into
the House. marshalng case after case in
support of his contention. First he went
back to the case Of John Wilkes, the
famous English champion of free speech,
who was three times excluded and twice
expelled from the house of commons the
second time for an act for which he had
been sent to prison five years before He
quoted from Junius' letters the denuncia-
ton of the "Damnable doctrine that a sin
gle house of parliament could alter Sis
pend or abrogate the law of the land" The
fights for liberty and liberty of press and
speech were supported by this doctrine
and he detied the majority to add TO the
constitutional qualifications of members
in the light of these historical instances
He went back to the constitutional debates
to prove that Congress could not add to the
qualfica lions of members negatively stated
in the Constitution.
After depicting the conditions that sur
rounded the framing of this provision of
the Constitution and quoting the words of
Madison Hamilton and Jefferson he asked
who there was who could shatter the cru
chile of history which surrounded it or
the declaration of the men who framed
it. who would undertake to impeach the
integrity of the men who We're present at
the dawn of our history?
Mr.. Littlefield said it had been the pur-
pose Of the minority to present the facts
and authorities on both sides of the con-
tention in order that the House could in
diligently determine whether the position
of the minority was Well grounded.
Mr.. Roberts Listens Intently.
Mr.. Roberts followed with intense in
terest the points brought out by Mr. Lit
lefield. After reviewing the famous
Wilkes case before the British house of
commons, Mr.. Littlefeld declared that the
majority in the Roberts case were resorting
to the same infamous instrument of out
rage and oppression. 1t was a course then
denounced as "damnable and subversive of
the rights of the. people" and the ma jority
of this committee had the honor, if such it
could be called, of following such a prece-
dent.
There was NO administration or applause
as Mr.. LittletieH proceeded. He continued
to command tiirusual attention, however,
by the emphasis on his presentation. He
took up the cases cited by Mr.. Tayler and
questioned thssf distinctions drawn from
them. 9t ~
Mr. Littlefielti evoked the first applause
by his arcasticGrefarences to the ''authori-
ties cited by the majority, and to the in
fuence which Ohio was exerting through
her jurists and the chairman of this COM
mittee He insisted that the authorities
were largely refereIbSes of writers to the
opinions of others, without the weight of
a court decision.
THE SENATE.