OCR Text |
Show DELEGATE CANHON'3 CASE. j ine enemies of delegate Cannon, it seems, have doubta whether under die rulea of the house they have so clear a cn for his expulsion as was at first eunpostd. For instance, the con-titLition requires a two-thirds vote fur the expulsion of a member, and if a territorial dcleo;ito id a legal member of the hou.it;, a majority vote will not be sufhcieiH to expel him. A correspondent saya that question has been submitted to aoine of the best parliamentarians in iho house, and they have some diflioulty in arriving at a conclusion. Another point will be miaed that there is no authority to dttprive a people of a state or territory terri-tory of a representative on account ol immorality of the representative or delegate. But as no immorality under the laws of the United States has been found agjinst delegate Cannon, bofjre a pudieial tribunal, (tor which the law against polygamy provides) the report of the oommittec must be regarded as assuming the criminality of the delegate. The question of hi guilt is ouo for the courts, not for u cotnmittea of congress, to determine, and when a jury of his countrymen have declared liim guilty of a violation viola-tion of the law of the land, it will be liino fur the house, should, he then claim a seat thwrein, to take cognizance cogniz-ance of the action of the courts. Theru is no posiible mctliod .for the house of representatives to expel Mr. Cannon legally on the ground taken by tho majority of the committee, bull that is not saying that the majority ol t'no house might not tako tho responsibility respon-sibility of such' action, though we do not believe that any sorious attempt will be made to unseat our delegate by the present congreis. Such attempt at-tempt could not fail to provoko a lengthy debate, for which there is little time remaining before the 4th of March. |