Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1900-01-24
Roberts Has No Right Of
Membership.

NANAAAOSA oAiPs
That Brigham H. Roberts will be
denied participation in Congressional
proceedings is beyond doubt. That he
should be is beyond debate. On those
points the special House committee
named to investigate the case Of the
polygamous member is in perfect ac.
cord. There is difference only as to
procedure. The committee makes re-
port of unanimlty of opinion that Mr..
Roberts ought not to remain a mem
ber of the House OF Representatives
A 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. A minority are Of the
opinion that the proper course of pro-
cedure is to permit him to be sworn
in and then eXpel him by a two-thlrds
vote, under the constitutional provis-
ion for expulsion.
The majority maintain that not only
is the proposition of expulsion. as ap-
piled to this case, against precedent,
but that exclusion is entirely in accord
with principle, authority and legisla
tive precedent, and net antagonistic
to any legislative action which the
House of Representatives has ever
taken. In this connection, three dis
tlnct grounds OF disqualification are
asserted against Mr.. Roberts, in behalf
OF the majority position. First, his
violation of the Edmunds law; second,
his notorious and defiant violation of
the law of the land Of the decisions
OF the Supreme Court and of the proc
lamations of the President, holding
himself above the law and not amen
able to it. The committee holds that
mo government could possibly exist
in the face of such practices. He is in
open war against the laws and institu
tions OF the country, whose Congress
he seek sto enter. Such an idea is in
tolerable. 1t is upon the principle as
serted in this ground that all cases of
exclusion have been based" The
third ground offered in support of the
policy of expulsion is that his election
as Representative is an explicit and
offensive violation of the understand
ing by which Utah was admitted as a
State.
The minority, in objecting to this
method, assert that the constitution
precludes the idea that any bar can be
made to his coming in if he is 25 years
Of age, has been seven years citizen
of the United States and was an in
habitant of Utah when elected, no
matter how cdious, or reasonable, or
criminable, may have been his life
and practises.
In controversion of this the major
ity makes reply at length, holding that
the language Of the constitutional pro-
vision, the history Of its framing in
the constitutional conveitnon and its
context clearly show that it can not be
to prevent disqualification
for crime; that the overwhelming au-
thority of textbook writers on the
is to the effect that such
disqualification may be imposed by the
House, and no commentator on the
specifically denies it; that
the courts of several of the States, in
analogous provisions, have
with practical unanimity declared
against such narrow construction of
such constitutional provisions; that
che House Of Representatives has new
er denied that it had the right to ex-
clude a member-elect, even when he |
had the three constitutional provis- |
ions, and that in many instances it |
las distinctly asserted its right so to |
10 in cases of dlsloyalty and crime.
Citation is made Of the passage in
1862 CT the test oath act and of the
adoption, in 1869. of a general rule
that no person should be
sworn as a member against whom the |
objection was made that he was not
entitled to take the test oath.
Popular opinion overwhelmingly ia
5ors the purging of Congress from
his polygamous member. There has
'een some question in the public mind
Is to how best to proceed. The ma
ority report OF the committee clears
lp any cloud that may have hung over
he constitutionality Of exclusion.
That doubt dispelled. the rest is plain.
dr. Roberts has no place in the Fed
,ral House OF Representatives Keep
lin out!-Cincinnati Commercial