The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-02-23
Again the Smoot Case.

| ed or questioned the right of the Sen
member for reasons sufficient to the
Senate ITSELF 1t is true that the SEN
ate has no power to fix the qualifica-
lions of It's members, for they are fixed
by the Constitution; but after SEN
ator has qualified, IL his conduct be
such as to mako him offensive and OBJ
jectionable to two-thirds OF tho men,
hers, and If they deem his presence
in the Senate contrary to public policy
and against the honor. dignity and
usefulness of the body, they may expcl
him. "Blount was expelled from the
Senate says q writer on the Constitu-
ton. for an offense inconsistent with
public duty, but it was not for a
official character, nor during the ses-
sion of Congress, nor at the scat OF
government. In the case Of Smith, the
motion to eXpel was made against him
for supposed conspiracy in the alleged
treason of Burr. The vote was nine
teen to ten, and he was not expelled,
but 1t would seem that a large ma
Jorlty Of the Senate thought that the
accusation was proper ground for on
spulsion though the act was not done
IN the Senate nor by him as Sem
ator. and the cases above cited, as
we'll as the reason of the provision,
( would Justify the expulsion Of the
member whore his reasonable and
criminal misconduct would show his
/ unfitness for the public trust and duty
| Of member of either House. This
! authority to eXpel had existed in the
| House of Commons and was exercised
1 for misconduct on the part of the men,
i Der during the session of the House.
and was extended to all cases where
the o1rense clearly untitled a member
| for parliamentary duties."
Each House must have power to
| regulate tho conduct of its members
and to cXpel member for cause. Such
! power is not only essential to the
character and discipline of each
| House, but to its very autonomy. In
the Slnoot case several very important
questions were involved. 1t was all
! legged that Mr.. Smoot, while not him
self polygamist, believed in poly
gamy MS religious principle; or at
any rate that he belonged to q church
which taught polygamy and made the
practice OF it q religious duty. It was
4 further alleged, and this to our mind
was one of the most serious questions
4 involved, tl..t Mr. Snoot took an iron
! bound oath of allegiance to tho Nor
mon Church, which. in case Of conflict
between church and State, required
him to obey the laws of the church.
In our former discussion of the sub
jcct we held that If Mr.. Shoots church
made lsolyGamy an article in its creed
and that II Mr.. smoot had taken an
oath Of allegiance to his church. which,
made his allegiance to the government
matter of secondary consideration
he was unfit to be a Senator in Con-
gress.
But on these points Mr.. Smoot testl-
fled that he did not practice polygamy
that he did not believe in polygamy
that he thought that every man who
did practice it should be apprehended
and punished, and he solemnly pro-
tested that he had taken no oath OF
}, allegiance to his church that would ir
any way conflict with Ills duties to his
government; and that he nut his nile
!, glance to his country ahead Of every.
, thing. In View OF these declaration.
the Senate would not have been JUST,
! fled in cxpelling Mr. Smoot.