New-York tribune., 1920-01-21

themselves with credentials sufficient
on the face as to whose election by
plurality there was no question: have
been excluded from the House
Roughly speaking, we may designate
them as the cases arising from the
Civil War, the Roberts case (Which is
in class by itself), and a very recent
instance, so frequently quoted in this
connection-the Berger case, which is
likewise in class by itself"
In reference to Civil War cases, Mr..
Hillquit pointed out that Congress ex-
PEELED former rebels by a constitutional
amendment, applying only to those
former military or civil Federal officials
who had broken their oath Of Office by
bearing arms against tie United
States.
ut did not occur to the House," he
continued, "to say: we are the judges
Of the qualifications Of our members,
hence we contend that a member-who
had fought with the Confederate forces
is not qualified No, they frankly ad-
mitted the qualifications referred to by
the Constitution were expressed con-
stitutional qualifications, and in order
to secure such power they had to have
an amendment to the Constitution
Hillquit Reviews
The Roberts Case
"Then came the Roberts case, which
was somewhat similar case and very
much different from the case at bar.
Roberts was an admitted polygam-
lst. He not only admitted it. but re-
fused to promise to discontinue the
practice. He was unseated on the
ground that he had violated the very
organic compact between the state of
Utah, which he assumed to represent,
and the United States, in the Con-
gress Of which he sought seat. He
was disqualified on the ground that
the law-the Edmonds law-which
made polygamy illegal carried its own
provision to the effect that any poly
gamist shall be disqualified from hold
ing such Office, and, gentlemen, even
IN that case, so exceptional, so strong,
so different from ours, it was not by
unanimous action that the House pro-
posed to expel Roberts.
po AND then comes the latest case, the
not want you to infer for one moment mt
that we would hold the expulsion or
the exclusion of Victor Berger from the
House Of Representatives as justifiablc
Dy law, on the contrary, we think that
1T established very dangerous. prec-
cedent.
Il think that was an act done in
the heat of partisan passion, which
only now begins to mature in these
proceedings before this Assembly.
But, with all that-iniquitious, illegal
as 1t was, the proceeding Of the House
IN the Berger case, compared with your
proceedlng-why gentlemen, it is the
very quintessence of law and constitu
tionality, because what was the state
of affairs there? Victor Berger pre-
sented himself with a sentence of
twenty years imprisonment for vio-
latlon of a Federal law, the espionage
law.
"They invoked against Bereer-bear
that in mind-a provision of the Con-
stitution of the United States. They
said: 'We admit we cannot exclude YOU
except for definitely formulated consti-
tutional reasons, but they said, you
have been q member Of this House be-
fore; you have taken the oath of office
to support the Constitution of the
United States on that occasion.
1T is charged that you have since
given aid and comfort to the enemy,
and upon this charge, and this charge
alone, we shall try you. Had you not
been member of Congress before, or
had not that particular amendment to
! the Constitution applied to your case,
we should have had no power to ex-
clude you'
No Analogy to Case
Against Victor Berger
"Now, then. gentlemen, none of these