Show THE DEBATE Continuation of the Cannnn Campbell Contest in tltc House 1IR BAK2TKY Continued from Saturdays Daily Mr Banney said Mr Speaker The committee were all gave one agreed in this that contestant was duly elected and returned nd en tilled to the certificate election at the hands of the governor instead of Mr Campbell It has been proYed satis factorily that he was a naturalized citizen citi-zen over twentyone years of age and for many years a resident of Utah It ia conceded that he therefore possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the acts of Congress and the statutes of Utah as the conditions of eligibility By an examination ex-amination of these acts and statutes it will be seen teat the organic acts passed by Congress Revised Statutes sections 1860 1862 provide that the qualifications of voters and of holding office shall be such as may be prescribed by the Legis lative assembly of each territory subject to certain restrictions as to citizenship and age and that the statutes of Utah approved by Congress Compiled Statutes Sta-tutes of 1876 p 87 88 bava prescribed qualifications accordingly in conformity thereto and that contestant in his nerson answered all these requirements of law Section 1862 provides in effect that every such delegate shall have a seat in the House of Representatives with the right of debating but not of voting In this state of the facts and the then existing statutes it appeared to me that the right of conteetant to a seat followed as a conclusion ot law and that the question of final right submitted to the committee was thus determined and their duty under the resolution of submission sub-mission discharged It appeared however in the record that contestant was a polygamist and it was claimed and held by a majority of the committee that this was a disqualification disqualifica-tion aad should exclude him from the seat as an unworthy person while others including myself held that this was a fact afiecting only the personal character of the contestant and furnishing only r ground for expulsion in accordance with the practice of this House and as was determined after full consideration and mature deliberation in the Forty third Congress in the case of Maxwell vs Cannon The case stood thus in its firet aspect Since the report was made however an act of Congress has been passed and approved ap-proved by the Executive which expressly provides that a polygamist shall not be eligible for election to or entitled to hold any public office of trust etc And if this act applies to the present contest and disposes of it the questions of law which divided the committee become of no consequence con-sequence save as abstract principles or in so far as they may affect the validity and operation of the eighth section of this act in the future I may be permitted to say that so far as I am concerned I believe the new act does apply to this case and that Mr Cannon being a Selfconfessed polygamist must be denied his seat As I felt bound by the statutes as they stood before so I feel bound by the provisions of the new act with this difference in feeling only before I obeyed the behests of duty alone now my pleasure and duty concur I do not propose to discuss the evils of polygamy That discussion has been had and exhausted and we are all agreed upon that point The sentiment ot the country is against it and should be But I believe that the moral and religious people who feel so strongly about it would not have asked this House to violate the statutes themselves in order to rebuke others for doing that thing They are a lawloving and a lawabiding people I believe and they with me will rejoice at the change made in the law I Can there be any serious question about the application and effect of the act referred re-ferred to and approved March 23 18821 It has taken effect now It says in effect that a polygamist shall not be entitled to hold the office of delegate Contestant is not jet inducted into office and stands as a petiiioner before this House asking for a seat with no certificate entitling him to one prima facie even and we hive only to deny his request The act does not require any conviction for a criminal offense in order to work the disqualification disqualifica-tion provided but the proof needs only to show that contestant practices or maintains main-tains the lawfulness ot polygamy in order to make him out a polygimiet according to the ordinary meaning of that word as defined by Webster The same state of things confessed in the written admission ef ecord must be presumed to continue to this time in the absence of any proof to the contrary according to a wellsettled rule of loic and of evidence and the rule dOe no violence here because the polygamous relations admitted are of a permanent character The admission was given as proof in the issue raised to be used for the purpose of this contest until ended and an amendment of the law meanwhile so that polygamy becomes a disqualification disqualifica-tion instead of a causafer expulsion cannot can-not be properly held to diminish its effect as proof All prior irregularity in the introduction of this issue into the contest may be waived and the previous proceedings proceed-ings now adopted by the House I do not ceo how it can be justly contended that any vested rights of property are destroyed de-stroyed For I take it to be well fettled or if not as sound law that a public office ia not property but only a trust or privilege and is subject to legislative control unless some constitutional provision pro-vision is in the way Whether it would not have been more fair and wiser to allow al-low a delegate elected under the law as it stood then to serve out his term is not now an open question as no such reservation or exception is incorporated in the act Contestant seems not to have been disposed dis-posed to heed statutes of this class for after the aot of 1882 making polygamy a crime he appears to have married his fourth wife in defiance of the same So we can hardly be said to be harsh in not waiting to see whether he is disposed to yield to the law as amended I grant that those who assent to the doctrine of the majority of the committee do not need this new statute and may do as they please even now So far as I am con cerned0bwever > this disposes of the present pres-ent contest and I am ready to vote for the resolutions pending But before doing so I may be pardoned for saying that I dissent still and if possible with more firmness of conviction than ever from the views of the majority so far as they hold that Congress cannot by u I statute define or prescribe the qualifications qualifica-tions for delegates and that this House hs power when that is done to disregard the samo and fix them themselves admitting r I or rejecting the elected in their discretion and for any reason deemed sufficient in every individual caie And I may be psrdoned for saying with all respect for my honored associates that I regard this doctrino as contravening contraven-ing all l authority and precedent unsound In principle and mischievous in practice Objection is made or intimated that the new act is expose facto But the objector ob-jector j must have forgotten that the inhibition inhibi-tion against that class of legislation relates re-lates only to laws affecting crimes It is said that statutes must be construed as propective only in their operation unless they are clearly designed to be retroactive retroac-tive I admit the rule of law to be so But the eighth section is prospective so far as it says that a polygamist etc shall not be eligible for election but when it says Ior be entitled to hold these four word bring the present case within that rule If the delegate was in his teat the words would have their prospective pros-pective effect the same as if bereatter was in it It is now a part of the hereafter here-after since the act was passed Under the act an occupant would be required to vacate his seat Much more can we say that an applicant shall not be permitted to take a teat whfch he could not rightfully right-fully hold Whether it be harsh to unseat un-seat a man who had been duly elected under a prior law the requirements of which be answered is not the question That was an argument proper to be urged I against the bill before it became a law It was urged in the Senate and a vain attempt was made to amend it h i that regard re-gard on the expressed construction that t j other wi 6 it would exclude a delegate already al-ready elected The whole policy of the act was to strike a blow upon the institution of polygamy and that presently on the theory that the evil was present and pressing and that it WAS a case demanding an effectual and severe remedy The subsequent sections of the act indicate ao intention that incumbents in-cumbents of office are to vacate at once Hence the intention is plain that the act should take effect now it is not necessarily neces-sarily by way of punishment and a pain or penalty giving it the nature of a bill attainder as is urged but only adds another disqualification like saying that a delegate should be a man of good moral character and if net he must vacate his seat It may be partly by way of rebuke re-buke to a vicious institution it is true but may properly be regarded only as a safeguard for the good of the offices and the territories Within the ordinary province of such legislation Congress is supreme in a case like this and may exercise ex-ercise an arbitrary power if it wills The whole argument made by our friends upon the other side against the doctrine of the majority of the committee is that Congress has power to fix qualifications and that statutes passed for that purpose are binding on this House And so far I agree with them But strange to say when another statute has been passed in the same line of legislation fixing another an-other qualification they proceed to aitacs that and say they will not heed it resorting re-sorting to arguments which seem to me less tenable than the grounds assigned by the majority the committee as an argument to get rid of the effect of the prior statute Every statute passed by constitutional authority is binding on this House and the courts as much as on the humblest citizen as is admitted in the views of the chairman and if tne statutes fixing the qualifications of delegate have the force of law this House has no right to disregard disre-gard them nor any part of them The power of Congress to erect territorial governments and secure the right of representation re-presentation by the creation of the office of delegate and providing that he shall have a seat in the House of Representatives Representa-tives is not denied but conceded by the majority And if this is conceded I do not see why it does not follow as surely as night follows day that the general I power conferred to create the office and to regulate the election of a del gate embraces em-braces within its scope as one of its natural na-tural and proper elements an authority to fix conditiona of eligibility such as citizenship age and residence They are a part of the needful rules and regulations regu-lations of the office and they were when fixed in the Constitution for full l mem barsBut But if this concession is not accepted by the House and any member is disposed dis-posed as strict constructional or whatnot what-not to contend that Congress bad no pov er under the Constitution to impose by statute the presence of a delegate upon this House or any future House if they did not wish to receive him whoever who-ever or whatever he might be that is i quite a different question and if maintained main-tained it would lead to the result reached by a majority of my associates This question sir is not new and the committee com-mittee could hardly find warrant for maintaining such a proposition It was suggested and urged by Mr Swift in the Third Congress when James Madison was a member of the House and voted down It was involved in a contest for a seat by a delegate in the Fourteenth Congress Con-gress when Daniel Webster was a member mem-ber of the House and the rights and position po-sition of a delegate as a member of the House and the rights and position of a delegate as a member or otherwise were discussed and found no favor It appears that the celebrated ordinance ordin-ance of July 13 1877 provided for a delegate to Congress with the same rights as given now that it was in force under the confederation when the Constitution Con-stitution was adopted and one of the first things done in the Fifth Congress was to adapt it to the Constitution 1 Stat 50 eh 8 with no demur or pretense that its provisions conflicted with it in any respect In the act of March 3 1817 the office was further regulated without I any such claim being made and made applicable to all present and all future acquired Territories The provisions provis-ions of the said ordinance the other ordinance relating to the Territory south of the Ohio Rive the said statutes and all others amendatory or supplementary have been observed and kept to this day securing rights and not aspersuasivea > on this House In three cases of contested elections which oecured in 1850 or thereabout in themaUerkof Doty vs Messervyand Bab bit respectively the whole subject was elaborately examned and considered in three several reports written and presented pre-sented by Mr Strong then a member of the committee on elections in this House and since a distinguished and able ju3ge for so many years npon the bench of the United States Supreme Court and now I in honorable retirement tj which said reports re-ports as adopted show that the right of i a Delegate to a seat rests upon the Constitution Consti-tution and laws of Congress and not on any discretion of the House alone It h true that a distinguished member It Hoar in the from rn7 own State E Fortythird Congress in the case ef Maxwell vs Cannon expressed himself as troubled in mind on the question and raised a query on the subject by a pointed suggestion But after the same had been answered in the discussion by other legal gentlemen he did not attempt to maintain his suggested position and we are left to infer by his filunce and the subsequent action of the House that his doubts were removed or certainly that they gotno lodgmen in the minds of the members of the House very generally If contemporaneous interpretation acquiescence ac-quiescence and longcontinued practice for nearly A century with an unvarying line of numerous and uniform precedents preced-ents in election cases in this House amount to anything as evidence upon 1 the proper construction to be put upon the Constitution we have them all hereIn here-in a marked degree They are very potent and it will take a bold lawyer to gainsay the doctrine which they indicate But besides and in addition to all these we have deciions of the Supreme Court of the United States which lead to the same result in legal effect It cannot now be denied that Congress has a supreme sup-reme power over the territories both those which existed at the time when the Constitution was adopted and also those subspquently acquired That power was conferred expreasly by or inheres in the Constitution and has no restriction save that wisdom and good faith imposed and of which Oongres itself is the sole judge It is best stated in the opinion of Chief Justice Waite in National Blink vs County of Tankton 101 United States Reports 133 It must ba apparent to all that unless the acts of Congress impose upon the House a reciprocal obligation to receive the delegate and give him a seat they can in nowise be said to secure to territories the right of representation The representative principle is embodied and inheres in the very theory of this government and to assert at this late day that it cannot be granted by Congress Con-gress and secured to the people of the territories in the limited and qualified form appearing in the original ordinance of July 13 1787 and in all the organic acts since is to predicate what will or should get little credence or favor When it ts asserted that a delegate exists ex-ists ex gratia only it is belittling the office unless we add that it is by the grace of Congress and not of the House alone It is hardly just or fair to c < Ul it grace when we consider what this country coun-try did and said about the right of representation repre-sentation when they were themselves colonies of Great Britain The people embodied its principles in the very spirit and letter of the Constitution and have acted them out ever since and it is too late now to go back on them in reference to our territories which are part or the dominion of this country That this House has heretofore regarded the tttus fixing the qualifications of delegates as binding upon them is apparent when we look at the various attempts which have been made at different times to change them so as to disqualify a polygamist and all without success until the present session Even now if the dec trine of the majority sound the present act obtained after so long a struggle and hailed with HO much joy throughout the country and which does that thing is nugatory as law and not binding as a rule of the Houso It was wholly unnecessary un-necessary for the purposes ofthis contest It will come up to plague the iriends of this act in the future and serve to hoist them as by their own petard in the possible pos-sible event of a chiDge occuring in the complexion of the majority I beg leave to notice one other phase of the views of the majority for they do not agree altogether among themselves Some of them concede all that I have claimed in regard to the power of Congress and that this House in judging of the election returns and qualifications of Delegates are acting under the clause of the Constitution Consti-tution relating to members In order to reach their result they have resorted to an apparent popular idea as to what judging of the qualifications means to wit tnat the House has a right in each case to say what they shall bo and abridge or enlarge those prescribed by Constitution or the statutes While tLe main report does not assent to this doctrine doc-trine so far as members are concerned but admits that the House cannot add or take from the qualifications fixed by the Constitution for them yet he contends con-tends that the statutes fixing the qualifications qual-ifications for Delegates aranot obligaiory upon thoHouse and a different rule of law prevails Now sir I am not ready for one lo contravene and reverse the doctrine as laid down by Story Kent and other eminent jurists and the long line of uniform precedents found in the history of Congress and say as is written on page 25 of the report that they are chiefly valuable on account of their age and uniformity and that this House should if it could reverse them and hold to the contrary If anything can be sid to be settled on principle and authority it is this When we come to the statutes proscribing pro-scribing the qualifications for Delegates we find that Congress attempted and intended to do aa to them just what the Constitution had done in that regard for members towit adopt the Representative Represent-ative principle fix the qualifications deemed to be primarily essential and leave all else to the electors and allow them to select their own Representative Congress does this very thing only it allows the legislative assemblies to add others subject to its approval The Constitution and laws of the United States except so far as locally inapplicable are extended by statute over the Territory If these statutes are valid they must be interpreted according to their intention If the purpose is manifest to enumerate the qualifications prescribed and to exclude all others by implication and to leave the rest to the electors or to the Legislative Assembly to determine they the Constitution must ba so interpreted as stitution was because the rule of construction con-struction under which this was done applies ap-plies to statutes as well as to the Constitution Consti-tution S ° dg wick on Con of Statutes c page 31 note Such was the intention of Congress most manifestly It is apparent from the language of the same it ia i according to the policy of the Constitution and inconsonance In-consonance with the genius cf the government gov-ernment The Constitution and laws of the United States are made bv statute the constitution and fundamental law of the territory It was never intended clearly to leave the admission of the delegate subject to the discretion caprice or what not of the House but to regulate this office by some rules of law Otherwise there would be nothing to guide the electors in then choice and the office would become I the House a floating waif on the billows bil-lows of excitement and possibly occasionally occa-sionally lead to the exercise of caprice Under the specious appearance of merited resentment At the next Congress a polygamist nay appear again as delegate and yet he can be admitted notwithstanding the recent act Or his politics religion or what not may not suit the majority and he may be rejected although made elig u ible by statutes and elected in good faith and in full reliance on the same by the electors It seems to me that the provisions of the Constitution in regard to judging of the election returns and qualification of members And as to their expulsion are the ones under which this House are to act in relation to delegates and that the same course of proceecing ia to be adopted ad-opted by analogy Such has been the decision of this House heretofore in the case of Maxwell vs Cannon and such its practice always The law regulating contested election cases applies in terms to members only and yet it baa been used in the case of delegates Ifit does not apply the whole prior proceedings in this case have been irregular and were unauthorized by law While a delegate is not a member Strictly ho has always been treated as a member sui generis While not a Constitutional Con-stitutional officer in the sense which a full member is he is still the creature of the Constitution through the medium of a statute authorized by that instrument he has been given powers and rights which are EO guarded as not to infringe upon the prerogatives of a member or endanger the rights of the states Both have been elevated to equal dignity and honor save in the power to vote The power of the House to regulate its own proceedings has cot been impaired or abridged and the House has always succeeded suc-ceeded in adopting its rules to the law and member and delegate have each hitherto enjoyed their rights and privi leges in Perfect harmony It is too late now toittempt to antagonize them and reduce one of them to the position of a suppliant at the doors of the House for the courtesy of a real and a dependent upon the sovereign grace of an omnipotent Hbuse for all he has Rather let both be treated as legal creations of the Constitution directly or mediately and with rights privileges and powers defined and secured by law I submit therefore that it is better not to resort to any doubtful rules of law even and especially one which ia so subversive sub-versive of all prior authority ani prece dent and which will involve so much peril for the future but to exclude Mr Cannon distinctively on the grounds hich the new act furnishes and which are etable and sure MR BURROWS Mr Burrows of Michigan said Jr Speaker The issue between the House of Kepreaentatives and the polygamists polyg-amists of Utah is at last made up At the beginning of the present Congress George Q Cannon and Allen G Camp i bell presented themselves at the bar of I this House as rival claimants for a s tin t-in the Fortyseventh Congress as delegate from the Territory of Utah Mr Camp bell claimed the right of admission by virtue of a certificate of election Mr Cannon contested h3 prima facie case and affirmed that he Cannon was in fact duly elected In reply Campbell asserted that if for any reason his prima facie title should be held defective Mr Gannon could not be seated for the i reasons First That he di1 not receive a majority majo-rity of the votes legally cast Secondly That he was an unnatural ized alien and Thirdly That he was a polygamist living in open violation of the laws of the United States Pending tha discussion of the prima facie case of Mr Campbell and before I its determination the whole matter was by order of the House referred to the committee on elections for their examination examin-ation and report thereon After investigation that committeo conclude and report to the House upon the first proposition as follows We therefore find that the evidence establishes that Mr Cannon received 18568 votes that Mr Campbell received re-ceived 1357 votes and that there were scattering eight votes Mr Cannon therefore received a majority of all the votes cast At the November election of 1880 and is duly elected a delegate from the territory of Utah sinless he is disqualified dis-qualified from holding a seat for one or more of the reasons alleged in the answer an-swer of the contestee Upon the second proposition the committee com-mittee report We therefore hold that Mr Cannon is a naturalized citizen of the United States and that he is not disqualified on the ground of alienage from holding his seat as delegate Thirdly that he is a polygamist This fact appears from the following admission ad-mission lilt George Q Cannon contestant pro i testing cat the matter in this paper contained con-tained is not relevant to the issue do admit ad-mit that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints commonly called Mormons that in accordance ac-cordance with the tenets of said church I have taken plural wives who new live with me and have so lived with me for a number of years and borne me children I I also admit that in my public addresses as a teacher of my religion in Utah territory I ter-ritory I have defended said tenets of said church as being in my belief a revelation revela-tion from God GEORGE Q CANJTOX It is conceded on all hands that George Q Cannon possesses all the constitutional qualifications required for a representative representa-tive in Congress A delegate certainly does not require other or higher qualifications qualifica-tions The simple and single issue in the case ia whether this House has the constitutional constitu-tional power to refuse admission to Mr Cannon upon the ground that he is a polygamist While I am in fall accora with the views of those who hoffl that a delegate ia not a member within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution Con-stitution and that our powers touching the exclusion of a delegate are greater than those over a member yet in my view of the case I do not think the establishment estab-lishment of this principle necessary to the determination of the matter I affirm af-firm that if a representative from any of the states should demand admission to this House under the same circumstances 83 those surrounding Mr Canncn it would be within our constitutional power to deny him admission If that position be correct the importance of the diatinction between a representative and a delegate disappears In standing upon this ground I am aware of that provision of the Constitution which prescribes the qualifications of representatives and that other provision which confers upon each House the right to judge of the elections and qualifications of ua own members Nor do overlook the long and unbroken line of decisions that it is not within the constitutional power of Congress nor of the states to add to or ia any way modify these constitutional requirements But it will be observed that the Constitution Con-stitution does not undertake to specify those things which disqualify a man for membership The doctrine is well u I1 1 i i 1 settled that to entitle a peraon to a seat ha this House he must notonly possess those Ir I affirmative qualifications mentioned ia I i t the Constitution towH age residence t and citizenship but he must be free t to j ii from those things which bycommon common par Iii j j liamentary law disqualify In other II I rJ words a representative though duly ft elected citizen I a and of proper age would not be entitled to membership un I 1 less free from personal disqualification 4 An idiot or II madman would not be en 1 titled to membership though duly J elected and possessing all the constitu i j i II i tional qualifications We would deny f i admission to a person infected with I i contagious disease and would justified i in so doing Should a memberelect after he was chosen be arrested and convicted f con-victed of some infamous offense and 1 punished by imprisonment in the state r 1 j prison would it be contended that if he > should present himself at the bar of this j 1 Ig i House at the expiration of his term of i i I imprisonment and demand to be received j I j into membership that it would not be f within the constitutional power of this l I bod7 to refuse him admission Instances of personal disqualification might be f1 1 I multiplied indefinitely This is sufficient ti I however to illustrate my point i t I hold that George Q Cannonjby ii fessing himself in this tribunal and in l j 1 this contest guilty polygamy an offense I punishable by imprisonment in the state I prison has that personal disqualification I which renders him ineligible and a tit I subject for the exercise of our constitu I tional power of exclusion I could fortifv I this position by long citation of author I ities but will detain the House with only f a single caseIn j case-In 1870 B F Whittemore a member of Congress from the state of South Caro i lina was charged with selling a cadetship I E cadet-ship in vfolatian of Jaw He admitted I the charge but pleaded in extenuation of i the offense that he used the money for charitable purposes in his district He was about to be expelled from the Forty I j first Congress when and the day before he expected the vote to be taken he resigned re-signed and ousted the House of Representatives Repre-sentatives jurisdiction to expel I I A new election was ordered and Wbiltemoro was returned a member to the Congress in which he committed the j offense The House refused to receive Shim S-him by a vote of 130 to 24 Now he I 1 bad not been convcted of any crime but i S the House to which he reelected was + j fil j t in possession of his own confession that S IJ he had done that which was an offense f i I S I agaiLst the law of the landand for which I II iJI j i he might be imprisoned und it exercised I H what I conceive to be its I 1 common parliamentary H parlia-mentary right to decline to receive hixza j ft into membership Other and numerous t cases might be cited sustaining the same > 1 principle So in this case Oanncn i cornea into this presence and solemnly admits his great crime even in his speech E S just cloued does not avoid but rather f justifies and seeks to shield himself undee I I f J i that broad mantle of religious toleration 1 I f f I I benoath which all religions in this country t coun-try have ever found tho amplest shelter r I regret sir that he should have sough i 1 S f Ito I-to justify his crime by appealing to Holy I Writ and claiming that the inspired 5c I S word of God sanctioned this monstrous II S crime The words of the poet come to 1 t j my lips ifI If I Just Father what must be thy look I When such a wretch before thee stands I I 1 Unblushing with thy sacred book U l Turning the leaves with bloodit am edl hands it i 1 And wresting from its page sublime I i His creed of just and hate and crime f I repeat the issue is made up Brig S f ham Young once declared in his owr I t t peculiar and uncouth phrase I wil I I I send a rolygamist to their Congress and j H II j cram polygamy down the throat of thfc Ji J American nation It was in execution L of this Audacious menace that he commanded ffl j com-manded the election of George Q Cannon ij f Can-non to the Fortythird Congress sinee fl which time the representative of polygamy I Hi 4 1 i polyg-amy has sat unchallenged in this half i I Hitherto Mr Cannon has effected bin f I i entrance into this chamber through the l instrumentality of a certificate of election j S elec-tion that potent instrument against Iff i which it is difficult to interpose a successful tR q Ii success-ful barrier He fever f presents himself bow i ever at the door of the Fortyseventh j I i Congress disarmed of this weapon confessing f I con-fessing himself guilty of an offense made i Il I S by law a felony but challenges the constitutional I it I con-stitutional power of Congress to deny Ii Shim S-him admission for that cause And BO j the issue is squarely made up and we I J II i S are now to see whether the constitutional Ii i power of a living Congress is sufficient to l i i cope with and overcome the infamous i S t edict of a dead priest I trust that the S S report of the majority of the committee h twill t-will receive the unanimous support of I f I S this House that the Fortyseventh Congress Con-gress may place its seal of condemnation i S j I I upon this relic of barbarism The r American people have long enough endured J S en-dured the shame of having seated in their f S high council a man who offend public I t S decency disturbs social order defies J 1 national authority and outrages the j 1 moral sense of all Christendom Let S the humiliation end now and forever M J I |