The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-06-13
THE REASON AND THE FORM.

tenders to put him In the place OF a
criminal at the bar OF the Senate for
trial, can hardly be hattering TO those
of the Mormon hierarchy who retain
any self-respect. The persistent claim
is that judicial processes must be ap-
piled in determining his right to con-
tinuc as Senator OF the United States.
That is the basis of the usual argu-
ment In his defense, and that is dis
tinctly the basis upon which the minor
ity proceeded in the formulation or
their report sustaining his right 10
seat. And yet the distinction between
such case as his and a criminal pro-
cedure was fully pointed out almost q
century ago in the case of John Smith.
n Senator from the State Of Ohio. John
Quincy Adams a great lawyer and al
terward President OF the United States,
drew strong and plain In his report on
the Smith case this line of distinction
between the two processes. After stat
Ing fully the absolute power Of the
Senate to expel a member, and travers-
Ing the points of difference between
such case as that and a criminal pro-
cedure where the accused must have
any reasonable doubt of guilt resolved
in his favor, Mr.. Adams said In his re-
port:
But when a member OF legislative
body lies under the imputatlon Of aggra-
vated offenses and the determination
upon HE cause can operate only to remove
him from a station OF extensive powers
between the interest OF the public and tho
interest OF the individual disappears; if
any disproportion exists, 1t Is OF an oppo-
site kind. 1t is not better that ten trait
orS should he members OF this Senate
than that one innocent man should suffer
expulsion. In either cnse. no doubt, the
would strike at the vitals of the nation;
In the latter It might, though deeply to
be lamented. only be the calamity OF an
individual
Similarly in discussing the case of
Jesse D. Bright OF Indiana In 1862.
Senator Sumner used this language:
But the question may be properly asked
IL this inquiry is to be conducted as in
court of justice, under all the restrictions
and technical rules of judicial proceed
ines? Clearly not Under tho Constitu-
cnt, is the absolute judge, free TO eXer-
else Its power according to Its own en-
lightened discretion, 1t NAV Justly de-
clare Senator unworthy OF a seat In
this body on evidence defective in form,
or on evidence even which does not con-
stitute positive crime II is OBJ
vlous that the Senate may act on any owl
dence which shall he satisfactory 10 show
that one Of Its members is unworthy OF
his seat without bringing II to the test OF
any rules of law. It ls true that the good
name of tho individual Is in question, but
so also Is the good name Of tho Senate;
not forgetting also the welfare Of the
country, and II there are generous pre-
sumptions 9f personal Innocence. so also
are there Irresistible instincts OF self-de-
Tense which compel us TO act vigorously,
not only 10 preserve the good name of the
senate. but also to preserve the country.
And In the same case Mr.. Davis of
Kentucky said.
We are not sitting as court trying the
honorable Senator. There arc some gen
tlemen, able men, very able men, men OF
patriotism, of eminent public
and private virtue that have pursued the
PROFESSION of law so long, either as prac-
titloncrS. counselors and solicitors. or as
Judges, that their minds have become too
for enlarged craftsmanship
and the great principles of policy and
moral justice, upon which governments
ought 10 be administered and upon
which alone they can be wisely admins
tered. They have dwarfeo their minds to
such an extent that they cannot reason
upon, the expansive principle and sentl-
ment and consideration that ought to
guide and control the largest and wtsest
stateSmanship
There is no law which defines any par
Licular class of offenses that shall be suf-
1cient 10 cxpel Senator from his seat.
The common law does not There is no
statute law that does. There are no rules
II evidence establishing technical rules
OF testimony that are To guide and con-
troll and govern this body In getting its
lights and reaching its conclusions when
rule and principle of law and OF reason
and common sense Is that whatever dis
qualities a member of the Senate from the
proper discharge OF his duties, whatever
held sufficient. for his expulsion. and
whatever evidence satisfies the mind rea-
Sonably and according to moral certainty
and truth OF the existence of that cause
IS sufficient evidence without resortinE TO
the technical rules of testimony upon
which TO convict him. That is tho law OF
this country. IT Is the law of England
1t Is the law of Parliament.
The case OF the expulsion OF william
Blount from the Senate in 1877 is then
recited, and Senator Davis concluded:
IT seems, therefore, to be settled by the
Senate, upon fun deliberation, that expul-
sion may be for any misdemeanor which,
though not punished by any statute Is
Inconsistent with the trust and duty of a
Senator.
There Is the touchstone Any conduct,
any opinions any line of action as A SEN
ator which is inconsistent with the duty
of Senator. is a sufficient cause for his
expulsion and ought to be the rule OF
reason and of common sense. - The
principle deduced from the authorities Is
this. There Is no common law. no statu-
tory law: there Is no parliamentary law
that binds the Senate to any particular
definition OF crime or offense in acting In
his or any other case OF the kind. On
the contrary, as these authorities estab-
sh. 1t is matter coming within the dis
'retion OF the tribunal trying the Senator.
To the same effect was the argument
or Senator McDougall on the same side
Of the case. quoted by us yesterday.
These arguments clear Senator Smoot
from all imputations OF standing in the
dock. and relieve his case al
together from a parity with the pro-
ceedinss I'm criminal court We have
never been able to understand why It
was that Senator Smoot and his friends
were so anxious to place his case on