Show I f IT l LI LIf E on 00 tho Roberts Roberta Caso Ch of 01 H HO o speech of 01 Representatives Jan 23 1000 2 In the tho p o luJe ery to bo I 1 I If It IJ It vI manY thIn tl are ft gol Jany We WeI WeI f U t the th I e In Maine but 8 You do nt nOt stOP atop ji I st limitation p The on Is 13 the minI I Upon not fbi thell 1 I lt You then go O to tot tOI J t I I te S oan b lo the Titer Them I Ihl is who of the men hl but tiLe 11 them themI hl p to limit ile tb ii f lAughter 3 thero I ShIrt art f NeW pV thre t r In 11 the tane law a iR ft limitAtIon t O 0 beyond 1000 not at tI tjI t r tY Stcl bili art dL if New I g IJ go fn fl at that C M r the thAt thiS tle to this case 11 tw flO DO son In Maine ant and fl 1 II a QU 1 JrP Jerle New W ew ewIel f of f MW e r take care of these corpora Iel dO n Cre Ut tj fr 1 0 moment t In effort there nn thai L the pate sut af of taino 11 to get I a char charIF In of the Ice trust J the IF tor fr of If Tho They ap S till on judi J n who ho Is rt jt r Jf 1 members ot of the c of f the ite member of oft ofelt fe was a party The he elt t It dOIn down was wasa It tur WInt to New JeT Jer a I UI and rt Ot I a charter harter HC CO C OJ OF STATEHOOD t Is wih with contract contract Is not of I or ne Idea I that exIst the relations pr ih and the general gov lb In the tho Tl Th do not Ba IP partIes Th The con conon of f partes luon on u which Utah was IS to become me meI u ful fully performed hM she I 1 ta elte e a Stale The Enabling ct IU nu the to determine te the tt n was VAS performed lie 11 tihit dut duty found that the v hue n a com compiled l ith and that no I longer ner exists t did requIre h by the A Ait Simply said con conta ta provIde by ordinance Irre ete tr and the convention dId b oMe that it waS a required to do It Itus t tIu us Iu a UIn the performance d bleb tY by thA the ad ot of depended d Ha purpose II III 5 UI 19 gone and na as I it teases t In No power J rP in n Act nor noral chi al 57 1 b found In the ConstitutIon of tu l l il I Con ConJ nt 10 t Ii tb h J n fl to the IA or t tbs t at ite f Iah because the thee I Ct e ot of or unlawful ha has nut nit ben exterminated In r th h Is the warrant to be ben beShi Shi n fr the IhA of thIs power This theory is 15 a evolved for th Ih purposes or of c Is without precedent 4 b bat MI len even the conjecture or oria C ia of 01 any an wrier writer to stand upon that the case of Tex TexI I sir n Walace Wallace iO aid aidI I t this Idea I respectfully 1 It stopping to analyze the theU U tut that I it Is based u upon on other rn and the term but once nce It h is then men for th that t nut nt a term to describe the thes theas as s existing behen the tho State Slate c el te the federa government As ts the uld page fag ln therefore Texas became one I 1 tIthe States she entered Into u Al Mi the obliga Cu tat of pr perpetual dual union and al all the of republican government In e eo attached at once to the tho rJ Patt The act which consummated her bet allon Into the tho Union was lomo 1 than a compact I It WI wan the of a new member Into the f U b body and I it was final The te l Texas and the tho other t a as a as com complete I as perpetual u U is as tIm the union be Il th the StateS State There WIS woos h J e tr fr or iLl except throuGh revolution or ucb ot of the States I n fl 1 W tor fr n a tew Cew moments t to fe ide up th Ih ns as to hether this 1 RIe le I or r l i rot nt without remedy In C azo lr ha has the oath adminis Id t hun I r I with lois hla ful full t though that ton hl has no relation to thi th I have hae been discuss 1 iL i lilt depend upon the Con Coto auton Atton an and the they are to be so deter r j or of what the bT b I dl dj fot nut klow know how others may f toot is relation to theIr constItuents I on red ready to go back to my con t ent 11 in lae Iane and pa say I have acted my cOnstruction 0 t t the tte t un t regardless of the I h b M AI UI thIs pint I 1 advert to what I my y mint il a significant cIrcum t I rie In a matter In the recent rt If the house I During the ace ses Eoj ti pt f the a I I c whom the party Lu l delIghted d to 10 I honor who ho now flOW I l ii t Or tle the of lIr thIs IUS Wih with so 10 muth ease grace dIg 1 inch and ilg I C 0 1 abl aR ot of the g C ot of 1 ij passing upon the tho I e to Ce hero Oen W hr ler hat thu gallant t lit I her of tw ers who ho l t Wit b by hi hIs herlo heroic In In the the war tar ot of the re C IWI and aM laler In the wa Against t C VAl around himself the himsel I of the American asel j A great grent of sympathy lt t up 1 lp Over Oer be count kimI that country It top RP I tha the gaIlan I c general ltd bad left tte I lel this house Houfe ott at the tho CIU call of COuntry rams rsm back and the ques ID te or not under the tho he return to hIs seat embr I hlo have no doubt the tho of f that h could hear ot of the great at AmerIcan oi t with Ith tenor fervor fe e the th surges ot of the t bye waVe WAre Ih ITe ah I but swept over oer tate thu chat dId he say le He HeI t taa of ti that declaration ns as chair j iO 1 it t 0 sentiments should I tU of the to 10 too the plaIn lan Ian I h n It ii I I that the Houle hait lol no ha I Io ho Ur SIr Hobel I cannot nOt I bl that fact f I rt I if Q H be a fact hu baa 4 Crate t tendency to th thin t that this j I ha has an un right It tI n expel el hIm even for tor I Tt t to him s a member l majority py hI f conduct hs must be I vl IA hl bi public trust and anitta 1 quote from the re report rt of the I and nd In ti of tart see e whether their do o or nul IndIcate that the tho from fram t itah freon their stand h D nt hh hll gUity of Ic incon tach j I Public treat and duty from fron th I cn can satisfy An the tho t f d wt I the th they y ar that he Is f u Application ot of the thet tr M fur tor i tha In the 1 gOV fae Of can JI pos I luch such that i I th With tel I wih 18 dut ti n such luch U Jy Say hp In Ci at I r against C ot of his Country thich hleb he Seeks to en U LI LIW 11 U U U U Uter ter Woul Would that be wih s ith his public trust and duty as such I IC It Is nt not In heavens heaven name ore they going to exclude hIm for tor I It If toil aU these terrible things are not In inconsistent I consistent wih with his trust and his duty as fuch auch do they exclude him for Cor then theft et he cannot be They further sw say You have hae solemnly enacted certain lal laws you have havo Into the wi will of tho sovereign people I bid delance to your our law 1 wi will nt not recognize nize I It I hero here Ind and now before your our wr very eyes do tie the inge you say I shall i inot not flat do I recognIze a higher II law than your our manmade law of yours OUI cal can relieve 00 me from Crom the obligations which I thus take In defiance of your our The only thing I promie promise not to do I Is to take a fourth wie rIfe The case ot of a brIbe taker or ot of n a burglar or ot ofa murderer Is trivial is II n a amere mere mer ripple on the CIte Surface of things compared wih with this dep deep rte rooted audacious lawlessness I will 1 ask this Jouse house In aU all candor I Iam am assuming the tho committee have made their report JudiciouslY cooly coolly not b bye Is not that Inconsistent wih with his trust and duty as such luch or orIs Is 18 U ii consistent with It it I have hae thought It is inconsistent wih wIth I it Now here again agal they say Tho acts or of Roberts are essentially disloyal The They deny the sovereign they repudiate the lawful government Lk at them from whatever point you ou wi will they are arc of govern goern mont ment The They do not merely breed anar anarchy chy they are aro Anti And this Is 18 asserted not so ao much for reasons to the member membership of the Jouse house al toe because I It goes to the very Integrity of the house Houle and the Ito He as suc such h No on Is that Inconsistent wih with his public trust and his dut duty al as such 1 Jt If not what would ber be Looking nt at them form torm whatever point you OU wi will they say what what That they are subversive or of government Can It be said with without out being ridiculous that when a man manIs Is In here whole acts are aro subversive of the tho government that that Is not Inconsistent with his public trust And his duty as such They are anarchy 1 Is that consistent with his public trust 1 I sUbmit that It the acts aclA of nr are such 1 as Is suggested It to one me that upon their standard ther there Is ample justification for Cor his ex expulsion This spirit cled called b by them from tho asly deep fades away avay when their charges are u to 10 the legal Igal us as they Itao state them I If we abjure fervor and think coolly the result II Is the The fhe of eJ expulsion Is however unlimited and not confined to acts reo to to the trust or dut duty ot of 1 a member The They insist the contrary In order td Id frighten the Ule Into exclusion ro fo exclude the tho majority read Into the clause relating to qualifications new Provisions To Do narrow the right of ex cx expulsion they read new conditions Into that section I take lake both Clauses as the they stand I neIther Add to nor take taka from This Precise queston question has ben been determined but once In this country The he opinIon ot of the court In that case al nil authoritative construction of this thle clause or of the tho Constitution wal vae written Ly by Chief Justice Sh conceded to be beon on one of the greatest Judges that ever Sat Mat MatIn SatIn In al any court coUrt In any land at any time The constitution of Massachusetts contaIned no provision authorizing the expulsIon or of 1 a member ot of the tho houle house of representatives Joseph 1 hills waS cx I Veiled b by the tho house upon the gound ground ex that his conduct on a committee ft at Lowell was highly improper and dIe graceful both to himself and to thIs body ot of whIch he I is 1 a member ThIs WAS not disorderly disorder conduct In the house and I it Is J significant that the facts that made It Improper and disgraceful Were ere not disclosed by the case 18 Bias after Ils his ex expulsion was arrestS ed cd tt lit the instance of one of his coed on mesne meene press process and committed cr to Jai jail Je He brought 1 a pelton petition for hn ha habeas beas corus corpus on the gound ground that lie he was wasa 1 a member of the houle house of at tes ties mind as such Ruch privileged from at ar arrest rest This raised the precise question of the legality of his expulsion and through Chief Justice Shaw the court among other The question la is whether the house of representatives have the tho to expel a member After adverting to thin tho tact fact that the constitution dil did not In terms authorize expulsion ho he says las There Ii lH nothing to show that the framers ot of the constitution Intended to withhold this power I It Ina may have been blon gen given In other States either ex cx cautela or for tor the of limiting I majority It b by a vote ole or of more thal than U a In the tho Constitution of the United States Slates I it wa was given ghen evidently for the purpose of limiting I it as a vote ote Arain Is required 1 The Tho power of expulsion I is n a nees lary sary and Incidental power to enable the bouso to Us Its hIgh functions and Is II necessary to time the Biret safety of the State Slate J It Is a power of protection A member may be mentally Or morally wholly unfit he may be inflict inflicted ed wih with n a contagious disease or Insane or noisy vIolent disorderly or In the habit of at usIng profane obscene and abusive J it is II necessary to put extreme cases to test teat a principle le leIt It If the exists the house must 1 be tie the sole JUdge of the exl gency ency whIch may justify and require Its exercise After ter having halg fully examIned the law lawand and practice of 10 iou sas But there thero Is another consideration which seems to render I it proper to look Into the la lass and practice of Parlament Parliament to lome some extent I ar non strongly inclined to belee believe nl as Above Aboe intimated that the to commit and expel Its member members Was not given to the houle house and senate respectively gIn because I it was regarded as asand Inherent incidental and necessary and must ex exist st In every n and tie de hod bOd In fri order to the Of Il Its functions and because without I it luch such bod body would be powerless to no ac the of Ia Its constitution tion and therefore an any attempt to ex cx or define It would rather I an strengthen I it ThIs b being so ao the and usage of other legislative boles exercIsing the tho same functions under and the reason realon and grund grounds existing In the limo nature of things upon which their rule rules and practice have havo been founded may serve as al an example and IS as some guide to limo tho adoption of at good rule rules when time the exl arIse under our constitution nut But independently of parliamentary mind our legislative houses have the power to protect them I by the punishment und and expulsIon of a I It Is urged that this court urt wl will In InquIre quite quIre Whether th the petitioner has been trIed lut It If the hou house e hare hae jurisdiction ton tion for tor any caust cause to epel expel and a curt court of nt justice find that the they have hae In fact ex expelled Jed lie Ho then hed held their nelon action was a ron con elusive And dismissed the petton petition 18 hiss ye S Bartlett 3 Gray Oray 46 I It Is instructive on thIs point to note that this paragraph of the Constitution us 81 orIginally drawn read Each house determine the rules ot of I Its may Ia its members for tor disorderly behavior and may mar a m member I a distinct clauses ed b by olon eliminating the Idea that the tho words WOrl have any elet effect in limiting the power to expel which appear appears In time the clause im immediately mediately following ThIs from the records ot of the debates In the l Federal Convention shows wy 1 the t prOS pro vision Islon was oas cearl In the ex expulsion pull Ion clause Mr Madison observed that the right of expulsion Article V Vi seton section 6 wa was too important to be exercised by a bare majority ot of a quorum and In erner emer of factIon mIght be dangerously obus abused le lie moved t at wih with the con concurrence currence of might be In Inserted inserted Lehn beten may anti and expel Mr Randolph and Nt Mr Mason ap approved proved the Idea Mr power may be satel safely trusted to a majority A Afew few tew ien men from motes motives may many keep In 1 a member who ought to be ox ex polled Mr Ir thought that the concur concurrence tepee rence of two thirds nt at leas least ought to tobe tobe be required On the queston requirIng requiring In cases of expelling 1 a member ten States Were In time the affirmative lenn sylvania divided section C 6 ns as thus amended wile 08 then agreed to nem con Journal of Constitutional Convention Madison V page 50 I 1 think thi this hiss case etab beyond successful controversy the tho power of expulsion as aa discretionary and unlimited It is II proper to note that n no decided ca case e or elementary f wrier writer mUllahs against I It I give al alt that I haYe found on time the question In thIs Queston question the court courtIn In sai said State vs S Jersey City 25 N J Li L 39 The power vested ested In time the two houses of Congress by the thc Constitution Article I se lon 6 5 paragraph 2 II i In different phraseology It Is that each house mo may determine the tho rles rules or of Is its proceed Ings punIsh Its member members for disorderly behavIor and with the concurrence ot e expel el Q a member Under this power time the Senate In 1197 1107 expelled a member ot of that bou boly for jon n offense not committed In his character as al a member nor during a a session of Congress nr nor the member was I at atthe atthe the seat of government cue case Storys CommentarIes on the ton ion chapter chaer 1 12 paragraph But Dut It ItIs itis Is not clear that the power to expel Is |