Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-02-13
SENATOR BERRY's EFFORT.

lily TO exclude any senator ny lnd-
iority vote. He sustained this PROPOSE
ton by further contending that the
senate undoubtedly has the right to
protect itself against criminals, or
against those who would disturb or in
terfere with It's proceedings. Would
he asked, anyone maintain that the
Senate cannot exclude man exhibiting
symptoms Of insanity?
Now, admitting for the sake Of ar
gument, that the Senate has the au-
thority TO exclude, by Il majority vote,
criminals disturbers Of the peace OF
the Senate Iunatics and similar char
acters, what possible bearing can that
have on the case of Senator Reed
Smoot whose character, as even his
enemies admit, Is without stain. as far
rs human vision goes? The Senator
from Arkansas is said TO have cited
the case of Thomas OF Maryland, who
was refused o seat IN the Senate. be-
cause he had committed acts prior to
his election, dIsqualitying him for the
Mace. But how does that effect the
case OF Mr.. smoot, who has not even
been AtGuEtu OF luNlltk AbiAt'+AA'NNf-A N-'-S
such act, except by a perjurerY lie
also quoted the case OF Whittemore,
member of Congress from South Caro-
lima. who was found guilty of some act
OF dishonesty. In the debate IN the
House upon his case 1t was argued that
we cannot say that n member elected
shall be of certain politics or of GER
co 'hn
shall not be a man Of Infamous char
acter?n Again, how does that apply
to a senator whose character will not
suffer from comparison with mat Oh
the Senator from Arkansas. or any
other member OF either division of Con-
gress?
senator Berry's argument is selt-de-
structivo. il does not prove that the
senate can exclude ANYONE by
majority vote II 1t has the force OF
an argument at all, It merely proves
nv precedents that either house OF
Congress can exercise the power OF e%-
Guiding CRIMINALS, but that rs
question entirely foreign to the present
case. If senator Berrys contention is
frfle. the Stlldkt Euil Altti i'N b'F NN
of fun representation. because the ODD
jectionable senator happens to be a
mormon" or a Catholic, or a Hebrew;
or because he has red hair or no
hair or for no cause at all. surely
common sense forbids such nterpreta-
lion of the Constitution
In the case of q senator from Ohio
who was accused OF being associated
with Aaron Burr IN conspiracy
against the government, the inyestisat-
inc committee of which John Quincy
Adams was chairman, laid down this
governing principle;
'NVhen the trust Is elective II IS noI
to be presumed that the cohsuIueIlS
bodv viii commit the deposit 10 nv
keening OF worthless characters. bul
when man whom his fellow citizens
have honored with their confidence on
Tho nledge OF his spotlcss reputation
mas degraded himself by commission
Of infamous crimes which become sud
9enly and unexpectedly revealed 10 me
,yorid affective indeed would be thai
Institution which should be impoteh'
To discard from its bosom the contagloI
Of such a member, which should nave
no remedy Of amputatlon 10 apply nntl
the poison had reached the heart'
II the Senate abides by this principle
here win be no danger of committing
any wrong against any Of the members
sf that body BY excluding n senator
pn account of infamous crimes, the ap'
prevail OF the. entire country will be-
earned. But this has no application L
the present case.
Ia the case % another senator whc
was expelled Tor corresponding will
Jefferson Davis. It was pointed out
Turing the debate. thal
"The general rule ana principle o
Jaw and OF reason and of common sense
IL that whatever disquallnes a memhe
" me senate from the proper discharge
81 his duties. whatever n may be, IL
sufficient, and ought TO be held suih
rlout for his expulsion
These quotations indicate sufficiently
HE principles that have iu tho past OBJ
aimed In tho disposition ot such caseF
The doctrine that the Senate can ex
.ludo anyone by a majority vote, seem'
10 be new. n va It must have hcei
formulated with special reference t.
no case OF Senator against whom
no unworthy net can be oven alleged.
The Associated Press report OF SON
Ator Berry's Grafton rs rather brief bu
II contains at least two glarms mis-
quotations from the testimony Of sen
ator smoot Mr. Berry, # correctl,
quoted, alleged that MI. smoot "ad
nittod' that revelations 10 the earl!
eaders OF the Church not only permit
ted but commanded poygamy. sen
itor Shoots testimony was the YER
opposite OF this. IL WAS as follows:
"Mr. raylcr Was the law command
ne polygnmy "A revelation from Cod"
senator smoot / understand $50.
'Mr Tayler II was just ~ much
revelation
senator Smoot. wait, Excuse mo
do not think there is any revelation
commanding pulygamy,
mt. IaYlcr [ mean the plural-mAr
hage revelation
Senator SmOot II YOU viii say N
ielosiiai marriage or the revelation IN
.ludlng plurality of wives
mt. Tayler | quote rom the Doc
lrine ana Covenants, which describe,
As Doctor Talmage insisted In my ro
nembering, revelation on the olcrnit
y the marriage covenants, includln
plurality OF wives.
Senator Smoot That Is rlght--in
hudins plurality o. wives, / want I