Show OP or HON GEORGE W JONES OF TEXAS in the lie of woi ne inlay april logli 1882 the house having under consideration the tile butali contested election case I 1 mr jones of texas said mr speaker in the time allowed me I 1 shall not be able to notice or discuss all of the many many pi it fo te resting questions of constitutional law involved in this debate Is I 1 shall therefore select such as seem tb 0 me most salient and give them such consideration as my ability and the limited time will permit it is not denied that mr cannon was duly elected receiving some votes to about somo some 1300 votes vota against him it is not questioned that these votes were le legal al I 1 so that the only qu question estion bof before 0 re the house is whether ho he is laboring under tinder any disability or disqualification on oil account of which he lie is denied or should bo be denied a scat seat on this floor touching the vital inquiry I 1 shall call attention to the qualifications actions established or prescribed by the constitution for members no person eliell bo be a representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty five years and been seven years a citizen of the united states and who shall not when elected bo be an inhabitant of the state in which lie shall bo be chosen it is is admitted in the report of the majority that mr cannon possesses all of these constitutional qualifications twe the rule is familiar to the house that the qualifications thus prescribed by the constitution exclude all others in other words these arc are allia all ic qualifications that can be required for members of th this Is house the old familiar rule the inclusion of the one is the exclusion of the other in in its application to this particular section or clause odthe of the constitution on is is expressly recognized and affirmed by mr story in his treatise on the constitution there is it no question about that it is not pretended that congress ca can n eitler add to or take fr from om these these qualifications it is however or has been in this debate insisted that cengr congress m may in the exercise of its constitutional prerogative to judge odthe of the elections qualifications and returns dofita own members apply other tests or require other qualifications in a Delegat efrom ater congress lias has the prerogative ad or V exclusive privilege eriv elege to judge not to enlarge or to contract or to diminish the qualifications prescribed b by iri the e constitution the power is is cc clearly y one of judgment one of ascertainment and net one of creation the house can neither enlarge or diminish in BO so far as i its members arc are concerned but it is is maintained by some gentlemen that this constitutional provision has li atlo or no application to a delegate coming from a territory why not Is not the reason the same congress cannot certainly require greater qualifications in a delegate in an int inferior brior ill in one occupying a less lem important position upon the floor than a member to do so would in itself be a trav travesty e ty on oil constitutional law you may require less but certainly cannot require more you cannot erect a standard for a delegate different from and more exact exacting 11 than the one by which you propose to be ruled yourselves it not only involves a legal sophism but it involves self reproach for a member of the united states com congress ress to elaud up here bere and bay say 1 I am good enough to depre represent my constituents but some man hailing bailing from a territory is not good enough though as good od as s myself to represent his here ere in that same breath we ire have it that the people in the territories arc are better than those in the states state when it serves your purpose and yet the breath is not cold before you tell us up that the people of the states are really better than those in the territories and ought to have better men to represent them in the united states Con congress greEs and yet gentlemen aftem attempting p t ipg t to 0 ma maintain intrain the sophism by which they sustain themselves in this particular case do not get through their pretended arguments gu ments before they tell us the people in the territories have no rights we are bound to respect now then it being conceded that mr cannon possesses all of these constitutional qualifications let us see if f I 1 he le docs does not possess nil all the qualifications required by the acts of C congress angress in respect to the territory of utah toz gentlemen ent lemen tell us this isi is a I 1 new question as if it were here for the first tint time in its original character for our consideration and yet the very same gentlemen who tell us so go back and trace our legislation for thirty years in res respect act to this very territory and this very question was not this question before congress whan n it passed the organic act of the territory of utah and what is that organic act has il it any binding force or effect upon the people of the united states or upon this congress can you treat it in any other light than a charter government for that people here is an organic act you passed it and that people accepted it it is in the nature of a legislative contract and aud is 13 binding on oll all parties and certainly repe al by neither except with the agreement 0 and by the consent of the other this is no new question in amer icara bist ory georgo III and the B british parliament thought that our fathers when they were nvere living under colonial and charter governments had bad no rights beyond their will but jefferson and madison and washington and others of our early fathers believed and maintained that men are born with inalienable lic li rights of which they can call not be deprived by the usurpation of their rulers this then is not a new question it was before congress in the tile act organizing gan izing the ibe territory of utah con congress incorporated into that act no disqualification as to polygamy they recognized tho the fact then hat that there was in congress an absolute wan want t of power to do so they organized the only government in so far as this particular feature of the case is concerned that in their judgment they had bad the power to organize they recognized the people as having rights to life liberty and property yet gentlemen here would tell us that they have none that we can tax them without representation that we can deny them representation on this floor we ave are told old that delegates represent nobody here liere that they amount to nothing th that a t they cannot vote granted but have wa as americans yet to learn the potency of the right to speak the power of the voice of a representative senta tive who speaks for his people do not gentlemen recognize the fact ft that it is the bulwark of our institutions that the people whether of state or territory may brill bring their cause here and if not heard hear then by way of appeal they can go from congress to the grand tribu tribunal nal of the whole people of the united states yet you would deny them then that right lest in as asserting bertini ser tini their own righta rights they might forsooth i reproach you u 0 for O r t bleir air violation congress did H n not 0 t ili incorporate into the organic act any such stich provisions as are now insisted upon take the Forty third the forty f forth orth the Forty fifth and the forty sixth congresses at it times republican alican 1 and at times de democratic in socratic ocra tic va yet t the right of this I 1 people cople to be represented by a mormon was recognized by all now we are told that the presence of a mormon on this floor will offend the dignity and sensibilities of certain men and women living elsewhere han hence e we must commence a crusade aminat against Morn mormonism ionis m gentlemen are you in earnest in that it is said that you may judge a tree by its fruit now if you are in in earnest and really want to extirpate polygamy the aft way is easy as and the constitutional in method etlou is p plain alai what is that why juat gather together thirty or fl forty orty thousand of you and ga go out there and settle they cannot hinder binder you from doing so 10 and then 3 you ou can settle this aul question S tio n tho the forty third congress had this question before it and the forty fourth foil etli congress and the F forty orty fifth and the F forty orty sixth it has bas passed the crucial test of all of them in a constitutional point of view and they all decided that there was then no ile existing law no such disqualification as polygamy as now contended for by gentlemen on the opposite side of this question congress by acquiescing I 1 escine by receiving the tile delegate Is is now if there can be any such fuch thing upon the unbridled power claimed by this con congress ress aill topped es A from froin interposing and exacting forthe for the first fint time a qualification hitherto unknown either to the constitution to the elaw law orto or to precedent ced eilt the admits that there is is no question on oil that subject why hurry through in liot hot hasto basto at the present congress what is known as a ft mormon imon bill except to reach mr ca camione camions Cam ions case me Every everybody bod y knows that you admit that the law and tho the constitution bus sustain tain mr cannons right to a scat seat on this thi 3 floor and in iti order to overreach him you introduced this bill known as the lie Mor mormon mou bill and passed it in order to accomplish by indirect means what you could not effect directly now is there a lawyer on this floor who does not know that what cannot be accomplished directly cannot be accomplished accomplished indirectly can you eva evade e and thereby defeat the constitution 0 n of the country 7 it is maintained by some gentlemen that this act 0 of f tl this its congress changes materially the attitude of the case it is maintained by the gentleman ent leman from pennsylvania mr bir beltzhoover that from the first time we have poll polygamy amk confessed by mr cannon gow now does not everybody know that it was just as well known by general no notoriety loriet as a thing could bo be known did mr ir cannon ever deny it heretofore and now because the man was too honest li onest too frankio frank to deny the truth but came up boldly in his manhood and aud admit it did not put tho the country to any trouble loto to prove it that is seized upon as conclusive evidence of guilt P 1 it now 0 1 V was ho lie guilty of any any legal luense ense I 1 will in inquire aire about that by aud and by he 11 e had taken liis his wives before the tile act of 1802 1862 mr beltzhoover Beltz boover will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question mr jones of texas certainly mr BeItL hoover lias ilas the gentleman ever read the report of the committee on elections of the forty third congress in the cannon and maxwell case ct e mr jones of texas no sir I 1 have not mr beltzhoover then I 1 would suggest that the gentleman should not make the assertion that mr cannon did not deny that he lie was a polygamist mr jones of ot texas I 1 say that ho lie did not deny it then mr ile did deu deny y it mr jones of texas denied that ho lie ever had been married mr beltzhoover in the contest which chick mr cannon had with mr maxwell in the forty third congress 1874 ho he denied most em emphatically witt hati cally that ho he was living with four wives or living or cohabiting ha habit biting ino with any wives in defiant or willful ua violation of the law of congress of 1862 ho he denied that he was then 44 living or lad ever lived in ill violation of the laws of god man his country decency or civil civilization izat ion or of any law of the U united states stat es these broad denials on the very issue which was the chief one involved in that contest doubt doubtless lesh had a great deal to do with the finding in mr cannons favor mr jones of texas very arery well it is now stated that the case caco has been materially changed that tha t ho admits admits what he ile docs does not admit that lie has violated any law he ile does not admit th that a cheh he has as been convicted of any of rense the fact that ho lie admitted it in the territory where he was directly amenable to alie law and subject to prosecution in case of guilt shows a consciousness ness on his part that lie was not thus liable the fact about it is that his polygamist lyga mist errors or whatever you please lease to term them all took place E before the enactment of the law of 1862 will any gentleman pretend that mr 1 cannon could under that law be convicted and punished for an act which when done lone was not a crime to ie he continued |