The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-01-23

Vote-It Questions Right to EXpel
After rAdmission-Minorit Insists on
Admission and Then Expulsion,
Which Must be by a Two-Thirds Vote
Washington, January 20-The reports
OF the special committee Of investiga-
tion in the case of Brigham III. Rob-
erts, of Utah, were presented to the
house today. The majority report
signed by Chairman Tayler and six of
his associates, is a voluminous docu-
ment, and is accompanied by a summa-
~ Of the law and facts. 1t gives the
details Of the hearings, the ample op-
portunities afforded to Mr.. Roberts to
present his case. his refusal to testify
and the unanimous finding of facts
heretofore published. It proceeds:
The committee is unanimous in it's
belief that Mr.. Roberts ought not to
remain a member of the house of rep
resentatives. a majority are of the
opinion that ne ought not to be permit
ted to become a member; that the
house has the right to exclude him. A
minority are of the opinion that the
proper COuISt VI PROCEDURE IL 20 per
INIT him to be sworn in and then eX-
pei him by a two-thirds vote under the
constitutional provision providing for
expulsion.
Your committee desire TO assert
with the utmost poSitiveness at this
point that not only is the proposition
OF expulsion as applied TO this case
against precedent, but that exclusion
is entirely in accord with principle, au-
thority and legislative precedent, and
not antagonistic to any legislative ac-
ton which the house Of representatives
has ever taken.
For convenience we present here
with. before proceeding to extended ar
gument in support of the committees
resolution the following summary:
Upon the facts stated, the majority
Of the committee assert that the claim
ant ought not to be permitted to take
z seat in the house of representative
and that the seat to which he was
elected ought to be declared vacant.
The minority on the other hand, as
sert that he ought to be sworn in in
order that if happily two-thirds vote
therefor he may be expelled.
Three distinct grounds for disqual-
ification are asserted against Roberts.
Il. By reason of his violation of the
Edmunds law.
-. BY reason OF his notorious and
defiant violation of the law Of the land,
of the decisions of the supreme court,
and of the proclamaItions Of the presi-
dents, holding himself above the law
and not amenable to it.
mo government could possibly eX-
ist in the face of such practices. He is
in open war against the laws and in
stitutiOns of the country whose con-
gress he seeks to enter. Such an idea
is intolerable. 1t is upon the principle
asserted on this ground that all cases
of exclusion have been based.
''3. His election as representative is
an explicit and offensive violation of
the understanding by which Utah was
admitted as a 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
Fubious proceeding. Such action re-
quires the vote of two-thirds of the
members. We ask if such a vote is pos
sible or right in view of the following
observations:
THE expulsion clause of the consti-
tuition is as follows:
Each house may determine the
rules Of its proceedings, punish it's
members for disorderly behavior and,
with the concurrence Of two-thirds
No lawyer can read that provision
without raising in his own mind the
question whether the house has any
power to expel, except for some cause
relating to The context. The ablest
lawyers from the beginning of the re-
public 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 ito doubt
the proper action of the house? Is It
prepared to yield up this salutary pow
er of exclusion? Will 1T declare itself
defenSelesS and ridiculous?
Nor are those who assert that eX-
pulsion is the remedy necessarily barr
ed from voting for the resolution de-
claring the seat vacant. He must, in
deed, be technical and narrow in his
construction of the constitution who
Will not admit that if a vote to de-
clare the seat vacant is sustained by
twO-thirds majority the constitution is
substantially complied with. He may
not agree with the committee that a
mere majority can exclude, but he can
reserve the right to make the point
OF order that the resolution is not car
rled If two-thirdS do not vote for it.
IF the house takes the action which
the minority of the committee insists
1t ought to take, it will for the first
time in its history part with a most
beneficent 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
THE MINORITY REPORT.
The minority report is signed by Mr.
Lfrtleheld, republican, of Maine, and
Mr.. DeArmond, democrat, of Missouri
1t says in part:
Assuming that Mr. Roberts has
been and is now a polygamist, unlaw-
fully cohabitating with plural wives,
and the house of representatives is for
that reason of the opinion that he
ought not to be a member thereof,
what course should 1T rightfully pur-
sue under the constitution, the SUI
preme law of the land-exclude him or
expel him? If he is to be excluded 81
must be because he is for such reason
legally ineligible or disqualified. The