Show SPEECH or HON RON LOWNDES 11 DA DAVIS VIS OP or III alft ali ironic of it april lu IV IKS t tiie the having under consideration tha utah contested election c se air mr davis of missouri Hiss sir mr speaker I must acknowledge that I feel somewhat reluctant to di discus escuss this question from froin the fact that it is calculated to place one in a wrong light and in the next place because I do not suppose su pose anybody wishes wiz to hear bear me ta talk about this or any other question it is 13 admitted on all hands that sir mr cannon received a majority of the votes and that ho lie Posse possesses ses all the qualifications of any delegate who sits on oil tills this floor or of any representative from any state but it is ia held that ho lie should not retain a scat sent in this house and this house has bas the right to exclude him upon the tile ground that he lie is is a polygamist I shall limit myself to two points made b by y members who constitute a portion of the majority of the comin cornin committee cittee one by the gentleman fro from tennessee Ann essee mr air pettibone and ta the lc oilier other by the gentleman from indiana diana aMr mr calkins the gentleman from tennessee ee grounds his whole argument upon section of article of the tile constitution of the united states which declares that the house of representatives senta tives shall be composed of members chosen every two years by the people of the several states Hs ile holds that this clearly and explicitly points out who shall be the members of this house that the statement by the constitution of who ho shall be members of the house i is s the tho exclusion ot of all others other and tbt neither congress nor any other power or authority can change this character of this house in other words that no power can eay ey that a man can be a member of this house who is not a representative from a state that the constitution has fixed the membership of this house and the power pon er to pre preserve seive its integrity of membership resides in it and nowhere else now ow there is much force in that po position stion and it demands from froni us serious serious consideration in the interpretation pre tation of a law or a provision of tile constitution we must look to its intention the purpose or object it proposes to tn in order therefore to understand this s section cotlon upon which the gentleman from tennessee relics relies wo we roust must take it in connection with the section immediately preceding it section I of article which declares that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of ortho ali united states which shall consi consist of a senate and house of representatives here then is a grant of what all the legislative power of this government where is it lodged 11 in a senate and house of depre tentatives tenta tives so then this house is is one of the bodies in ill which is lodged all the legislative power of this Gov ern ment then what is the meaning of the section which dimmed immediately ia follows it evidently the meaning is to simply point out who shall exercise this grant of legislative power who shall bo be the tile legislators le of this house that is all it means and ind i nothing more that this branch of the legislative department of this government for legislative purposes shall bo be composed only of members chosen by the people of the several states ans and this is right because this government is 18 i a union union of states and no one outside should be permitted to participate in its legislation but we have another cl class ass of members of this house who are not legislators the delegates from the territories by what autho authority rity arc are they here clause of section of article of the constitution says lays tile congress shall have power pow er to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting tile territory i or other property belonging to tho united states etc remember it says all needful ll 11 rules and regulations who shall bo be the judge of what ia is needful clearly the power authorize to make the rules rule sand and regulations the congress of the united states so then we have a provision of tho the constitution authorizing congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the territories and constituting sti it the judge of what shall be the needful rules and regulations now what has been the policy and legislation of this government under this provision pro vision of the constitution why from the very foundation of the government congress angress on gress has granted ranted territorial representation it has decided it is needful it has decided it is right and proper that th at the territories should be represented in this house Is that act an unconstitutional exercise of power clearly not so then these delegates arc are hero here in accordance with laws constitutionally ution ally made by congress gre and this house lias has no right to grely d deny ly them their seats this house has no right to deny the right ri it of Terri territorial orial representation be ca causo u so congress lias ins declared u under rider tho constitution that JH shall b in represented edund and this house cannot disregard the law ofton of con gross oress so we ire have two alc cs of members of this house under two distinct provisions of the constitution odthe of the united states some comee gentlemen antle make the mistake of supposing that because a delegate id is not a member of tin this s house under section of article of the constitution with the right to vote that lie lias bas no right at all and that tha theand lio and thereby his territory can bo be i ignored I say this cannot be done without a violation of law passed gassed in another ier provision of the constitution and all the constitution must be permitted to stand and not one se section tion to the exclusion of another but there is no conflict between these sections one merely provides that all the legislative power po of this house ahall be exclusively within the hand and province vince of the representatives of the states and the other simply authorizes autho congress to enact laws giving representation to the people of a territory who arc are not people of a state and whose representative has bas no r right ight to vote and of course no right to shape our legislation As I have stated section of article I simply points out wh who shall oshall bo be the legislators of this house that is all it means and nothing more wherein does the representation sen tation of the territory conflict avith alm exclusive prerogative of the representatives of the people of the states wherein docs does the office of delegate impinge upon this peculiar constitutional composition of this house in no possible way because the delegate Delegato basno has no vote and of course no power to shape legislation the legislative composition of this house remains undisturbed no violence is done to the constitution on the contrary all the provisions arc tire carried out in their fullest and freest sense so I say this house has not the high arbitrary power claimed in this case that when a duly elected delegate from a regularly or organized d territory is sent to this house lie anteri not by the grace of the house but by the section of law passed by congress in the constitutional discharge of its duties which law this house lias has 10 do lo right to disregard this brings me to the second poil point it in the report of the majority of the tile committee that is that congress lias has no power to fix the qualifications ficat ions of ofa a delegate Deleza tc the report admits that congress can create the office of delegate but that it cannot fix his qualifications that congress can create an office but can call not say who shall fill it that under the constitution congress can make all needful rules and re regulations gulati ns for the territories shall be the tile judge of what are needful rules and regulations and unde that may create the office of delegate but cannot say that lie shall have the same qualifications as a cpr representative mn from a state the state stats ment of this proposition is its it own refutation but let us test it by what congress has already done As halbern has been read by the gentleman in an from wisconsin P mr hazelton to section 1906 prescribes th the qualification of citizens citi citizenship zeus hip for certain delegates now if it can fix the qualification of citizenship can it not fix other qualifications can carl it not say that he shall have the 06 same qualifications as a representative ti from a state without discussing that point further I shall ask the question which naturally follows and rid is this has congress Cor gress fixed the qualifications of a delegate I say it has it is not necessary essar to discuss c the question as is to whether the constitution as such extends over a territory or as to whether congress has the power to extend the tile constitution as over a territory because it is absolutely certain that it has the tolke and cand has made the tion a martof part of the statutory law of the territory of utah section 17 of the act let of 1850 organizing that declares that the constitution and all tho the laws of the united states arc aro hereby declared to be in force in in and to extend over the tile territory of utah bo so far as the same are or any of their provisions may be applicable aud and what could bo be more applicable than that provision denning defining tho the qualification of members of this house but the majority report says ays r that this will prove too much that jyoti you leold 1101 d to tho the position that tho tile constitution in its provisions and its spirit extends over a territory then you cannot deny a D delegate ele a vote that docs does seem to in roc e to he be very strange dietr doctrine ile and I think no man on sec second ond thought will hold bold that the extension of the constitution over a te as its statutory law hereby destroys or impairs any of the tb e provisions odthe of the constitution the constitution has fixed where re the legislative power of this house resi desand that it is exclusively clu within the hands of the representatives of the tile people of the states but buta a delegate is not riot a representative from a state and hence has no power to to vote and no authority to act as a legislator but it may nay r be said that three qualifications prescribed iu in theaon apply in terms and words to representatives from states that is true but the constitution of the united states also says that no state shall hall pass any ex post pod facto law or any law impairing i i i the obligation of a contract that applies a p nl jes in 10 express terms to a state and yet I sup suppose pae no man will say that a territorial Legisla legislature turo could pass an export facto law or any law impairing the obligation of a contract and why because it would violate the spirit and principles les of the constitution which milich haa has been made the law of the territory in a word all the provisions and nil till the K principles i of tho tile constitution arc are t the laws of the territory as far as they may be applicable and I ask the quei question tion again what cau call bo be more applicable than that provision which says that a member of this house Houses shall ball bo be twenty five years old seven years a citizen of the united states and an hiba inhabitant bitant of the tile state in which he lie id is chosen it is just as if the law had said slid to a territory you may be represented in this house by a man twenty five years old seven years a citizen of the united states and an inhabitant of the ter territory rilo in which lie is chosen and when congress lias has said that that ends the matter and this house has no right to add to or take from these qualifications prescribed by congress Cong but it is claimed as I have said that congress cannot fix the jua qualifications fi i ficat ions of a delegate if that is true then certainly this houseman house cannot fix his qualifications because that would be an act of legislation and the power of legislation does not reside in this house alone but in both houses of congress but let ns us look at thise n another light section 1906 pres prescribes bribes Fr ibes as I have said the qualification of citizenship for certain delegate now suppose that to be qualification prescribed would this house have the theria right ht to add to or take from that qualification certainly not because that would be alteri altering Dg or amending a law on all act of f legislation the power to do which does not rest best in the house alone but in the congrow of the united states if what I have said is true if the argument I have attempted to make has any foundation air mr cannon was entitled to his seat when this house met and lie has been kept I out only by fie c arbitrary power of this house but it is claimed that section of tha the act of 1882 will vill deprive p vo him of the right to told thi N office cc that section says that co no polygamist bigamist or person cohabiting ha with more alinn one woman in an any territory shall be entitled to hold office under the united states or any territory thereof but I suppose that no one will say that I air nir cannou C can call be denied eni the office un until til ho lie is is proven to be a I polar polygamist adlist a bigamist or to have cohabited with more than ono one woman in other words under this law bigamy or polygamy is a disqualification for holding office but I contend you must prove that the disqualification attaches to the particular person before you can deny that particular person the office but it is said that cannon acknowledged that he lie had plural wives and as living with them all right when was that done one year ago but I eay say you cannot apply this law unless you prove that ho lie has been guilty of bigamy or polygamy since the passage age of this act of 1882 why is that so because under the law of f 1862 1802 defining bigamy the punishment was simply fine and imprisonment the disqualification of holding office was not a part of the punishment prescribed by that act of 1862 you therefore cannat apply in this case me the tile law of 1882 why not because it would bo be addina adding a new punishment to an all old offense of lense because it would bo be inflicting a greater punishment than was annexed to the crime when it was committed because it would be inflicting ft a different punishment from that prescribed by the law in force when the offense was committed and the court of the united states has held such action unconstitutional you cannot therefore make this law operate in an unconstitutional way it must apply to the future and not to the past air mr ranney where has bag the supreme court decided that air ir davis of missouri I in wallace united states I reports but I understand the statute of 1862 says that a man who having a wife living I ng shall in a territory marry another woman shall be deemed guilty of bigamy in other words the living with plural wives is not of itself gelfan an ense under that statute lie ile must list have married after its enactment and had another wife living I binm I pay say there was no tes b before C the committee there is no testimony bafo before re this house as to when these plural marriages took place jacc we are therefore unable to decide whether they took place before f ore or after the law was enacted what then has bigamy todo to do with this case absolutely nothing I may iny say that I wish this pc nalty could be applied to this particular case casse but you cannot get my co consent t to do it in an improper way I may say that I would like to have it applied now so that these P people cople understand once fur for all that this tiling shall cease but you ask rao me to deny rep re I n tation to a territory when it has sent a |