Show ROBERTS FW tt f ppp W p t d k JL 111 i C f RETiRES I TUURSDAYo J 1 S1 S 4L 11 d i 0V V I I t Polygamist will be Kicked Out of the HUSeV of Representatives that t l t j r > t I 0 I a 1 r ay Ji ti I JitI i tI ICJ A i t < v w Creature that Has Defied the Law the I U S Supreme Court the President the Country by His Sen V A sual Interpretation of a Sensual Doctrine to be Thrown from Among Decent Men 1 i i TRIBUNE BUREAU > h KOI Fourteenth street L Washington D C Jan 20 1900 The Roberts case will be finally settled set-tled In the House of Representatives I next week and by Thursday night there will be a formal decision which In effect will be that Utah hus no Representative Repre-sentative in the House in the present Congress Three days will be given for debate beginning Tuesday Monday being District day The discussion will be participated In by the members of the committee as follows TAYLER WILL OPEN Judge Tayler and Mr McPherson to discuss the entire subject all points raised In a general way Mr Landis will take up the compact com-pact between Utah and the United States when the Territory was admitted admit-ted Mr Morris will discuss Roberts as a polygamist Messrs De Armond and LIttlefield signers of the minority report re-port will go over the whole ground the same as will Tayler WILL NEVER HAVE PARALLEL Judge Lanham will discuss the constitutional consti-tutional questions taking the ground that the case will probably never have a parallel that it should be settled upon Its merits that while the Constitution Consti-tution prescribes qualifications for membership there Is noreason whywthc House or either body of Congress may not reject an objectionable applicant for a seat that the House may decline to swear In a murderer or other known violator of law or a leper should either present himself to be sworn In TWO HOURS FOR ROBERTS Mr Roberts will be given two hours for his presentation and Judge Freer of West Virginia will follow him In defense de-fense of the majority report A question to be debated Is whether or not Congress may add to the constitutional consti-tutional qualifications for membership the provision constitutionally being that no person shall be eligible who Is not 25 years of age etc EXCORIATES THE POLYGAMIST Ho Mincing of Words Regarding the Defiant Lawbreaker Washington Jan 20The full report re-port of the majority of the committee elaborates tho summaries and In some parts uses strong language against Mr Roberts As to his plural marriages It says Prior to 1S82 B H Roberts had married one Louisa Smith She has I borne him six children and Is still living liv-ing About 1SS5 when Utah was fairly ringing with the blows of the Edmunds i act of 1SS2 while numerous prosecutions prosecu-tions were going on and after the Supreme court had passed upon the I validity of the act when the American people supposed polygamy had received i Its deathblow when no man of the many whose cases went to the United I StateD Supreme court pretended tho provisions against polygamous mar J I rlagcs were Invalid with all these facts j Insistently before him Brigham H I i Roberts took another wife his first polygamous wife Cella Dibble byname I by-name who In the following twelve years bore him six children t SPAT UPON THELAW j This second wife he married in defiance de-fiance of the Edmunds law He spat I upon the law he declared by his act I that he recognized no binding rule I upon him of a law of Congress he declared I de-clared by It that he recognIzed a higher t law CONGRESS OBJECT OF CONTEMPT I The Congress of the United States 1 was to him an object of contempt The J Supreme court of tho United States might declare the law 1 for others but not for him He laughed at its futile I decrees and spurned its admonitions The Executive which had declared in solemn message its gratification that polygamy seemed gone forever he defiled I de-filed and despised Of what consequence to him were j the laws of Congress and declarations I j of the highest court and proclamations j I of Presidents In his sensual interpretation i interpre-tation of a sensual doctrine j TRAMPLES UPON LAW And all the time the Edmunds law r declared not only polygamy but cohabitation co-habitation with more than one woman unlawful Roberts not only bigamously bigamous-ly I marries a second wife but he persists per-sists In violating and defiantly trampling tramp-ling under foot every other provision of he act CONTEMPT FOR SUPREME COURT I But he had not yet sufficiently proclaimed pro-claimed his utter contempt for the Supreme Su-preme court for Congress and Its most I solemn enactments A few years later lie took a third Wife I From the time of his second marriage mar-riage to the third he cohabited with I date of his thhd two women Froru bo tt o tn1 0 marriage down to his election and we doubt not to the present time he hag been cohabiting with three women POLYGAMIST DEFINES POSITION As recently as December 6 1S99 ho defined his position as follows These women have stood by me They arc good and true women The law has said that I shall part from them My church has bowed to the command of Congress and relinquished the practice prac-tice of plural marriages But the law cannot free me from obligations assumed as-sumed before It I spoke No power cano can-o that Even were the church that sanctioned these marriages and performed per-formed the ceremonies to turn Its back upon us and say the marriages are not valid now and that > I must give these good and loyal women up Ill be damned If I would HIS AUDACIOUS ASSUMPTION In this statement he adheres to the audacious assumption that the law of 1SS2 did not speak to him and that ho did not recognize It as a rule of conduct to him We assert before the House the country and history that It Is absolutely ab-solutely and Impregnably sound not to De effectively attacked consonant with every legislative precedent in harmon with the law and with the textbooks on the subject INELIGIBLE UNFIT UNWORTHY That Brigham H Robertss persistent persis-tent notorious and defiant violation of one of the most solemn acts ever passed by Congress by the very body which ho now seeks to enter on the theory that ho is above the law and his defiant de-fiant violations of the laws of his own State necessarllyrenderhlmJnftUglble I disqualified unfit and unworthy to be a member of the House of Representa i j II tives And this proposition is asserted I j not so much for reasons personal to the membership of the House as because I j be-cause it goes to the very integrity of I the House and the Republic as such how how Is that for a Tribune editorial I torial Editor Tribune WHAT MAJORITY FIND f Report is Voluminous Giving Sum j mary of Law and Facts I Washington Jan 20Thc majorIty I report signed by Chairman Tayler and j six of his associates is a voluminous t document and Is accompanied by a I summary of the law and facts It I gives the details of the hearings the ample opportunities afforded to Mi Roberts to present his case his refusal to testify and the unanimous finding of facts heretofore published It proceeds pro-ceeds UNANIMOUS ON ONE POINT I I The committee Is unanimous In Its l belief l that Mr Roberts ought not to I remain a member of the House of Rep I rescntatives A majority are of the opinion that he ought not to be permitted 1 permit-ted to become a member that the House has the right to exclude him A I minority are of the opinion that the proper course of procedure is to permit him to be sworn In and then expel him I by a twothirds vote under the constitutional consti-tutional provision providing for expulsion I ex-pulsion I PRECEDENT FOR EXCLUSION I Your committee desires to assert with the utmost posltivencss at this point that not only Is the proposition of expulsion as applied to this case against precedent but that exclusion Is entirely In accord with principle authority and legislative precedent and not antagonistic to any legislative action which the House of Representatives Representa-tives has ever taken I CASE SUMMARIZED For convenience we present herewith here-with before proceeding to extended argument ar-gument In support of the committees resolution the following summary Upon the facts stated the majority of the committee assert that the claimant claim-ant ought not to be permitted to take a seat In the House of Representatives and that the seat to which he was elected ought to be declared vacant The minority on the other hand assort as-sort that he ought to be sworn in In order that If happily twothirds vote therefor he may be expelled GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION DISQUALIFICA-TION Three distinct grounds of disqualification disquali-fication are asserted against Roberts FII tBy reason of his violation of the Edmunds law Second By reason of his notorious and defiant violation of the law of the land of the decisions of the Supreme court and of tho proclamations of the Presidents holding himself above the law and not amenable to It AT WAR AGAINST LAW I No government could possibly exist In the face of such practices Ho Is In J open war against the laws and Institutions Institu-tions of the country whose Congress hegel to enter Such an Idea is intolerable In-tolerable It Is I upon the principle asserted as-serted In this ground that all cases of exclusion have been based Thlid Hio election as Representative Representa-tive is an explicit and offensive violation viola-tion of the understanding by which Utah was admitted aState OBJECTIONS ANSWERED The objection i8 i made to the refusal to admit Roberts that the Constitution t t excludes the Idea that any objection can be made to his coming in If he b 25 years old if he has been seven years a citizen of the United States and was an Inhabitant of Utah when elected no matter how odious or treasonable or criminal may have been his life and practices To this we reply FirstThat the language of thC constitutional provision the history of Its framing in the Constitutional convention con-vention and its content clearly show that It J cannot be construed to prevent disqualification for crime Second That the overwhelming authority au-thority of textbook writers on tho Constitution is to the effect that such disqualification may be imposed by the House and no commentator on thu Constitution specifically denies It Third The courts of several of tho States In construing analogous provisions provi-sions have with practical unanimity declared against such narrow construction construc-tion of such constitutional provisions POWER OF THE HOUSE Fourth The House of Representatives Representa-tives has never denied that It had the right to exclude a memberelect even when he had the three constitutional provisions Filth In many Instances It has distinctly dis-tinctly asserted its right so to do Incases In-cases of disloyalty and crime SixthIt passed In 3S3 the test oath act which Imposed a real and substantial disqualification for membership mem-bership in Congress disqualifyingnun dieds of thousands of American citizens citi-zens un remained In force for twenty v years and thousands of members of Congress were compelled take thr V I oath It required i GENERAL RULES OF ORDER Seventh The House in I860 adopted a general rule of order providing that no person should be sworn as a member mem-ber against whom the objection was made that he was not entitled to take the test oath and if upon investigation such fact appeared he was to be permanently per-manently debarred from entrance DUBIOUS PROCEEDING Eighth The interesting proposition is made that the claimant be sworn In and then turned out Upon the theory that the purpose Is to permanently part company with Roberts this is a dubious proceeding Such action requites re-quites the vote of twothirds ot tho members We ask if such a vote In possible or right in view of the following follow-ing observations EXPULSION CLAUSE CITED The expulsion clause of the Constitution Consti-tution is as follows Each House may determine the rules of Its proceedings punish its members for disorderly behavior be-havior and with the concurrence of twothirds expel a member J No lawyer can read that provision without raising In his own mind tho question whether the House has any power to expel except for some causo relating to the contest 1 PROPOSITIONS ESTABLISHED The ablest lawyers from the beginning begin-ning of the Republic have so insisted and their reasoning has been 30 cogent that these propositions arc established namely I First Neither house of Congress has ever expelled a member for acts unrelated to him as a member or Inconsistent I In-consistent with his public duty aa such SecondBoth houses have many t limes refused to expel where the guilt + of the member was apparent z i hero the refusal to expel was put upon tho I ground that the House or Senate np the ease might be had no right to expel 1 ex-pel for an act unrelated to the member as such or because it was committed prior to his election CONSTITUENTS KNEW ROBERTS The report concludes as follows If there Is any fact apparent In tills case It is that the constituents of Mr Roberts Rob-erts knew all about him before his I election Can there be room to doubt the proper action of the House Is It prepared to yield up this salutary power pow-er of exclusion 7 Will it declare itself defenseless and ridiculous SHOULD SUSTAIN MAJORITY Nor are those who assert that expulsion ex-pulsion is tho remedy necessarily fI barred from voting for the resolution i declaring the seat vacant Ho must Indeed be technical and narrow In his construction of the Constitution who will not admit that If a vote to declare the scat vacant is I sustained by a two thirds majority the Constitution is I substantially complied with He may not agree with the committee that a mere majority can exclude but he can reserve the right to make the point not car of order that the resolution Is ried If twothirds do not vote for IU AS TO MINORITY SUGGESTIONS which If the House takes the action the minority of the committee Insists It ought to take It will for the first time In Its history part with a moat beneficent power which it has often ex rarely to t erclseda power I that ought be exercised but which the House has never declared It did not possess DECLARE SEAT VACANT Mindful of the gravity of the question ques-tion and realizing the responsibility tho Imposed up us we recommend adoption of the following resolution Resolved That under the facts and circumstances of this case Brlshjm Representativeelect from H Roberts tho State Utah ought not jto have or hold a seat In tho House ot Rcbresohi r I IIl tatlvcfi and that tho scat to which he p was elected is I hereby declared vacant I ROBERT W TAI LEfl CHARLES B LANDIS PAGE MORRIS i ROMEO II FREER SMITH MPnRRSON j SAMUtfry W L LANITAM x > J ROBHRT W MIEnS I WILL COME TJP TUESDAY Chairman Taylor to Call Case on l That Day Washington Jan 201n the House today Mr Tayler of Ohio chairman of the special coimnlUco t investigate I the case of Representatlverolect 1 H Roberts presented the majority report In favor of the exclusion of Mr Robertn i and tfavc notice that hu would call the case up on Tuesday Mr Llttlcfield of Maine presented the minority report In favor of seating Mr The Roberts and then expelling him minority report wau signed by ll Ltttlcllcld Rep and Mr DC Armond Djjn Five thousand copies of the reports re-ports were ordered printed for general distribution Mr Roberts was In his seat during these proceedings hut made no effort to address the House J At 1 oclock the House suspended business and listened to tributes to the memory of the late Representative Danford of Ohio Tho following members mem-bers delivered eulogies Messrs GUI Ohio Tayler Ohio Grosvenor Ohio Norton Ohio Lenta Ohio McColl Massachusetts Kerr Ohio and Gordon Ohio At 210 p m as a further mark of respect the House adjourned OPINION OF MINORITY Believe Roberts Should be Admitted Then Expelled Washington Jan 20he minority report signed by Messrs Littleficld and Do Armond Bays The undersigned members of the special committee appointed ap-pointed to Investigate and report on the prima facie llnal right oC Brigham H Roberts to a scat in tho House as the Representative from Utah being unable to agree with the conclusions of the committee as to the constitutional questions involved very respectfully ubmJ our views EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION Assuming Gmt Mr Roberts hud been and is now a polygamist unlawfully cohabiting with plural wives and the House pf Representatives Is for that reason of the opinion that he ought not to bo a member thereof what course chould It rightfully pursue under the1 Constitution the supreme law of the land exclude him or expel him I he is to be excluded it must b because he is for suoh reason legally Ineligible or disqualified Tho purpose Is to consider the question of constitutional right not of power as It Is conceded that the House has the power to exclude with or without reason right or wrong The exercise of such a power without constitutional con-stitutional warrant would simply be brute force a tyrannous exercise of eCcse power unrevJewable by any tribunal CANNOT MAKE LAW After citing the constitutional provision pro-vision as to the qualifications of a RepresentatlvcJn Congress the report proceeds Is it seriously contended that this House can of Its own motion by Its own Independent action create for the purposes of this case 0 legal disqualification This House alone cannot can-not make or unmake the law of the land I Is quite clear that the House by Its Independent action cannot if it would make for this case any disqualifying dis-qualifying regulation that would have the force of law REVIEWS LAW ON CASE The report then extensively reviews the law and precedents bearing revews case The main heads are as follows First It Is a grave question as to whether Congress can by a law duly enacted add to the qualifications qualfcalons negatively nega-tively stated in the Constitution There Is no decision of the United States Supreme Su-preme court directly or Indirectly construing con-struing this provision There is no decision point de-cision oC any State court directly In EDMUNDS ACT Second If the right to add a disqualification dis-qualification by law is assumed the disqualification Imposed by the Ed munds act does not apply to a mem ber of Congress and therefore does not affect Mr Roberts The only portion porton of lle section that can be said to havo any application to a member of the House of Representative is that which declarcg that no polygamist etc shall be entitled to hold any ofllce or place of public trust honor or emolument emolu-ment under the United States I Unless 3 member of the House holds an office under the United States within the meaning of the Constitution and the law there is no disqualification disqualifica-tion WHAT WOULD ESTABLISH Continuing the report says This House by Its independent action cannot can-not make law for any purpose The adding by this House acting none of a qualification not established by law would not only be a violation of the Constitution and the law but It would establish a mOlt dangerous precedent which could hardly fail to return to plague the inventor You cannot feel that the grave moral and social aspects of this case al lowed you to Wrest onco tho law to your authority uthorly To do a great right do a little wrong FEARS FOR CONSTITUTION Rut what warrant have you when the barriers of the Constitution arc once broken down that there may not come after us a House with other standards stand-ards of morality and propriety which will create other lualificatlons with no rightful foundation that In the heat and unreason of partisan contest since there will be no definite standard by which to dutermine the existence oC qualifications add anything that may bo necuasary to accomplish the de Hired result Exigency will determine the fiulllcionc3r I would no longer boa bo-a government of laws but of men To thus depart from the Constitution and oubstltute force for law is 1 to embark upon si trackless sea without chart or compass with almost a certainty of direful shipwreck certlnty IN CASE OF EXPULSION The report concludes as follows A Email partisan majority might render the desire to arbitrarily exclude by a majority vote In order to more securely Intrench itself I in I power irresistible Honca its exercise Is controlled is controled by legal rules In case of expulsion when tho requisite twothirds con be had the motive for the exercise of arbitrary power no longer exists as C twothirds partisan majority Js sufficient for every purpose Hence expulslpn has been safely left In the discretion of tho House and the safety of the members docs not need the protection of legal rules SUMMARIZING PROPOSITIONS I seems to us settled upon reason and authority that the power of the House to expel Is unlimited and that the legal propositions Invohcd may be thus fairly summarized The power of exclusion Is a matter of law to be exercised by a majority vote In accordance with legal principles princi-ples and exists only when I member elect lacks some of the qualifications required by the Constitution The power of expulsion Is made by the Constitution purely n matter of discretion discre-tion to bo exercised by a twothirds vot < rally Intelligently conscientious ly with a due regard to propriety and the honor and Integrity of the House and the rights of the Individual mem iber For thaabuHn of tills discretion lii liii we are responsible only to our consti tuents our consciences and our God CONCLUSION OF MINORITY Wo believe Dial JrKofocrts has the legal constitutional right to be sworn In ns n member but the facts are such that wo further bMIcve the House In the exercise of Itt i discretion la not only Justified but required bv every proper consideration Involved to expel him promptly after he becomes a member SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION Wo recommoiiij the following as a I substitute for the resolution proposed by the committee I Resolved That Brigham H Roberts having been duly opctc I d a Kcpresimtn I tire in the Fiftysixth Congress from I the Slat of Utah with the qualifications qualifica-tions requisIte for a mission to the House ns such Is entitled by constitutional constitu-tional right to take the oath of office prescribed for memberselect ofce hil status as a polygamist unlawfully co iULlI ting with plural wives affording constitutional ground for expulsion but I not for exclusion from the Ilouse And if the House shall hold vrlth us and swear in Mr Roberts as a member WI shall an soon as recognition can be i had offer a resolution to expel him a a I polygamlst plural wives unlawfully cohabiting with II I C E LITTLEFIELD r DAVID A DE ARMOND I |