| Show THE STATUS OF THIR CAMPP mu oase CASE 83 tn press dispatches last week con buch auch a meagre account of the proceedings in the house of representatives senta tives that no one here could form any definite idea concerning the true status of the dispute over the swearing in of the utah delegate from ther new york herald of wednesday wednesdays we clip the f full ull particulars tic ulars of the debate on the ath dinst mr randall dem of pa pay raised the point of order against mr haskells resolution anit ant demanded that the territorial delegates be sworn in the speaker sustained the point of order and all the delegates except that from utah qualified the speaker then said there is a controversy on the matter of the delegate from utah there are several certificates or at least two held by two different gentlemen and it is a matter as the chair understands der stands it that cannot be determined in advance either by the old clerk or the now clerk and to determine which should go on the roll and be called forthe purpose of being sworn in mr cox demy dem dems of N Y I 1 ask whether the name of a delegate from utah is not on the roll the speaker the chair has hasal basal al ready stated that as at present advised he knows no law that authorizes any clerk to put a delegate on any roll mr randall of pennsylvania there is a gentleman here claiming to be a delegate and this house must take cognizance of this fact it is a question of the highest highe st privilege privileges and must now be determined the speaker the chair Chairl is of the same opinion mr cox why did the chair ask the gent gentleman lemn to step aside the speaker his name has never been called the inquiry is of the house as to whether ho he shall be sworn I 1 in n the tho chair rec ree recognize recognizes es no roll as far as delegates are co concerned n mr air Randall Does the chair decide that it is not the right of a member to ask that the certificates 8 hould should be read the speaker yes until thesues tion is properly before the house i the speaker then recognized mr haskell of hansas kansas to offer a resolution mr air cox by what right did the speaker call theother the other names mr haskell he lias has not called any names I 1 am on the floor by recognition r 0 of ta the io speaker I 1 ag the speaker the chair understands the law to be that the old clerk ia is required to make up a roll of members and not of delegates mr randall does the chair decide that I 1 Is as a representative have no right to call for the reading of those certificates why did you call for the other delegates rhe the speaker because the chair thought he had the right to call the names of those delegates ascertaining mat oat tn at there was no challenge or controversy on those cases mr air cox but tut the speaker cannot make the roll the clerk does that mr haskell Ha after a good deal of CO confusion and noise nose managed to offer his resolution as follows follows resolved that alien allen G campbell delegate elect from utah territory is entitled to be sworn in as delegate to this house on a prima facie case mr cox of new york raised a point of order against the resolution that mr air cannons name was on the rolls and that the chair was bound to recognize that fact mr haskell called for the reading rading of mr air Campb elPs certificate mr randall called for the reading of all the certificates and the chair stated that they should be read mr Campb elPs ellys certificate was read it is signed by the governor of utah and is glyen given to mr campbell because cillie he was the person being a citizen citi zere zerk of the united states over 21 yearb years who had the tho greatest number of votes st mr haskell claimed that this was the only certificate from utah and objected to the reading of any other paper mr mclane dem of md contended that the chair having stated that all the certificates were to be read could not withdraw that ruling mr cox argued in support of his point df order contending con eon tending that under sections 31 and 38 revised statutes the clerk was required to prepare the list of delegates and in i this his opinion he was sustained by mr Ii herbert erbert of alabama mr robeson rep of NJ N J and 1 mr ar reedy reeds reed rep of me took the op osite osito view the latter quoting a decision by speaker colfax that the clerk clere lierk could not put on the rolls the names of delegates the speaker overruled the point of order the whole matter was then ben hen postponed until tomorrow to morrow morning and the members proceeded to the drawing of seats no mention is the utah matter in the report of the proceed ings nga of the house on wednesday or friday so the question was evidently postponed till today to day from the above extract it will that the point of order on which the speaker ruled unfavorably was that raised by mr cox to the effect that mr cannons cannon Can nona s name being on the rolls he was entitled to be sworn in the speaker took the position that the clerk had the right to enroll members but not delegates but this was controvert ed by mr cox coy ano cited sections 31 and 38 of the revised statutes they read as follows sec 31 before the first meeting of each C congress longress the clerk of the next preceding house of representatives shall make a roll of the rep elect and place thereon the names of those persons and of such bach persons only whose credentials show that they were regularly elected in accordance with the laws of the states respectively respective vs or the laws of the united states sec see 38 representatives and del agates elect to congress whose credentials denti als in due form of law jaw have been duly filed with the clerk of the house of representatives in accordance with section thirty one may receive their compensation monthly from the beginning of their term until the beginning of the first session of each congress upon a certificate in the form now in in use to be signed by the clerk of the house which certificate shall have the like force and effect as is given to the speaker but in case the clerk of the house of representatives shall be notified that the election of any such holder of a certificate of bf election will be contested his name shall not be placed upon the roll of members elect so as to entitle him to be paid until ho be shall have been sworn in as a member or until such contest shall be determined determine id 11 from these sections it is clear that mr cox was right not only the names ofAl of members but of delegates elect are to be placed on the tho roll by the clerk indeed all persons whose credentials lais laTs show that they have been duly elected are to be enrolled and draw their pay mr cannon was so enrolled and upon the clerks certificate of such euch enrollment has drawn the monthly per diem because no notice of contest was served on the part of campbell if speaker keifer has not overlooked section 38 in ruling upon this point it Is difficult to perceive how he be can defend his position by law or logic the manner too in which he dodged the pertinent queries of cox and randall was to say the least quite disingenuous As the matter now stands under the ruling of the speaker the question is upon the resolution of mr haskell for the swearing in of mr campbell and in the course of the debate the certificate presented by mr cannon on which the clerk acted must also be read from which it will appear that the certificate held by mr campbell is not in due form and tb that at mr cannon is the person who received the greatest number humber of votes if it were not for the intense prejudice against the mormons Mor mons which has been worked up to fever beat by malice and ignorance com corn is no doubt in the minds of those who understand the law and the usages of congress that mr cannon would take his seat and that his opponent would have no case before a committee to contest the seat having failed to ille file his notice within the time prescribed by law but it Is observable that amid all the hue line and cry raised against mr cannons admission by the pulpit and zend the press that the merits of the case are carefully avoided and the demand is made for mr cannons exclusion not I 1 because because he was not elected not pot because he has no right to the seat but because he ia is a mormon ss and the mormons cormons Mor mons are detested on account of exaggerated and Indor incorrect ideas concerning their marriage marri aee ape relations tho the prejudices not the judgment of congressmen are invoked in this controversy they are asked to vote upon a question of republican government ern ment with their eyes closed to the real point at issue their the are urged to decide upon tile right of the delegate to his hla beati seat under the bias blas of religious and popular ani masities mosi ties ignoring the merits of bf the case has nothing to dw do with the question of the rights of the person having the majority of votes nothing not liing to do with the palpable v violation of law and duty perpetrated by the governor of utah nothing to do with the laws and bulear for the government of the house of representatives yet all the outside influence brought to bear ear ean upon the members is directed to their passions and animosities their dislike of mormonism and their aversion to polygamy si which are as remote from the question of the right to the seat as the habits or manners of any congressman or his views upon tempe temperance the tariff or any other subject today to day the que tion atlon was to be further discussed and we must await the dispatches to learn its progress before th eHouse |
