172 



CONGRESS. (NOTEWORTHY ELECTION CASES.) 



" I lay that proposition down as absolutely 

 sound and as not contradicted anywhere; and 

 both Houses of Congress have in many instances 

 refused to expel members where the proof of guilt 

 was absolutely clear, because the acts complained 

 of were unrelated to the members as such, be- 

 cause the acts complained of were not inconsistent 

 with the trust and duty of the member as such. 



" Neither House has ever expelled a member for 

 any other cause. So I say this here and now: To 

 exclude is to be in harmony with principle and 

 precedent; to expel is to do violence to principle 

 and precedent. There is no precedent in the House 

 against exclusion. There is no precedent in the 

 American Congress for expulsion under such cir- 

 cumstances as exist here. 



" Three reasons are asserted why this man 

 should not be permitted to enter the House of 

 Representatives : 



" First, because of his violation of the Edmunds 

 law and the disqualification created thereby. 



" Second, independent of any statutory ineligi- 

 bility, independent of any joint action of the two 

 Houses in the passage of a law, but because of the 

 inherent power of the House, by that inherent 

 power which in all cases of exclusion has been in- 

 voked and the House has never excluded for any 

 other reason except for that which it itself declared, 

 independent of any statute law that this man was 

 a defiant violator of law; his declarations, words, 

 and acts that he was above the law, that the law 

 did not speak to him, in the very necessity of 

 things, made him ineligible; and 



" Third, because the State of Utah was admitted 

 into the Union under the express understanding 

 that polygamous practices were at an end and 

 would not be renewed. And now it sends as its 

 Representative the most conspicuous example, the 

 most conspicuous practitioner of the very thing 

 the abandonment of which was the condition pre- 

 cedent to its admission into the Union." 



Mr. Littlefield, of Maine, in charge of the mi- 

 nority resolution, while holding that the Ed- 

 munds act, made for a Territory, could not bind 

 a State, and that a condition imposed on the ad- 

 mi-sion of a Territory to statehood could not limit 

 it- equality of rights in the sisterhood of States, 

 nevertheless made his main argument on consti- 

 tutional grounds. He said: 



" We believe that the House of Representatives 

 is now sitting under the clause of the Constitution 

 which makes it the judge of the election, the re- 

 turn, and the ' qualifications of ' the gentleman 

 from Utah. We believe that it is the duty of the 

 House of Representatives to now sit as a judge, 

 to determine what qualifications are required and 

 whether or not the gentleman from Utah possesses 

 those qualifications. We do not believe, when this 

 House sits as this great constitutional court, that 

 it sits here to legislate and create disqualifica- 

 tions. We believe it sits here to ascertain and 

 determine, to ascertain what qualifications are 

 prescribed by the Constitution, to determine 

 whether or not the gentleman from Utah possesses 

 these qualifications. 



"The qualification! prescribed by the Constitu- 

 tion are age, citizenship, and inhabitancy. 



" No person shall be a Representative who shall 

 not have attained to the age of twenty-five years 

 and been seven years a citizen of the United 

 States, and who shall not, when elected, be an in- 

 habitant of that State in which he shall be 

 elm-en.'- (Constitution, Article I, section 2.) 



' The report of the committee finds that the 

 gentleman from Utah possesses these qualifica- 

 tion-. Here the majority and the minority part 

 company. The majority hold that this 'House 



sitting here, alone, of its independent action, can 

 add to the qualifications mentioned in the Con- 

 stitution. The minority hold that they can not 

 add to them. The minority hold that when this 

 House sits as this great constitutional court and 

 ascertains the qualifications required, and ascer- 

 tains that the gentleman from Utah possesses 

 these qualifications, that it is its duty under the 

 Constitution to render a judgment in accordance 

 therewith, no matter what the consequences may 

 be, because we believe the Constitution to be ' the 

 supreme law of the land.' 



" I call attention to the several propositions re- 

 lied upon by the majority, in order that we may 

 understand at the outset the questions which 

 divide us. 



" The majority state, first, that they propose to 

 exclude the gentleman from Utah 



"'By reason of his violation of the Edmunds 

 law.' 



" Second and this is the main ground 



" ' By reason of his notorious and defiant viola- 

 tion of the law of the land, of the decisions of the 

 Supreme Court, and of the proclamations of the 

 Presidents, holding himself above the law and not 

 amenable to it. No government could possibly 

 exist in the face of such practices. He is in open 

 war against the laws and institutions of the coun- 

 try whose Congress he seeks to enter.' 



" This proposition, stripped of its verbiage and 

 rhetoric, simply means that this House of Repre- 

 sentatives, here and now, can create and impose 

 qualifications or disqualifications not mentioned 

 in the Constitution, by its own independent, indi- 

 vidual action. 



" This is the proposition of which, as I under- 

 stand, the majority are principally enamored. 



" They say, on page 40 of their report : 



" ' The principles underlying the second main 

 ground of disqualification, hereinbefore asserted, 

 have already been fully discussed, but the ground 

 is appropriately restated at this point. 



" ' We assert before the House, the country, and 

 history that it is absolutely and impregnably 

 sound, not to be effectively attacked, consonant 

 with every legislative precedent, in harmony with 

 the law and with the text-books on the subject.' 



" This is the first proposition to which I propose 

 to address myself. It involves the construction of 

 the Constitution and transcends in gravity and 

 importance all other questions. Reflect for a mo- 

 ment. Let us see what the proposition is. This 

 House by its own independent action can add a 

 disqualification or a qualification not mentioned 

 in the Constitution. 



" At this time it is proposed to add the disquali- 

 fication of polygamy. At a future time it may 

 be proposed to add the disqualification of adul- 

 tery, of fornication. At another time it may In- 

 proposed to add the disqualification of membership 

 in a trust or an octopus, or the attorney of a 

 trust or an octopus, or any misdemeanor or ob- 

 noxious conduct, and so on ad inflnitinn. 



"No man when he is elected to this House un- 

 der this proposition, suggested by the majority. 

 can ever tell whether he possesses the qualifica- 

 tions, or is affected by the disqualifications, thai 

 are thus to be asserted. Tt is only when he stands 

 at the threshold of the House and knocks at the 

 door, that he discovers that the House of Repre- 

 sentatives, in the exercise of its w T isdom. deeming 

 him obnoxious, then creates and declares the dis 

 qualification that may exclude him. No constit- 

 uency can know whether its choice is eligible: 

 in fact, between the election and organization 

 popular excitement may demand the imposition of 

 a disqualification, before unthought of, and their 



