174 



CONGRESS. (NOTEWORTHY ELECTION CASES.) 



" They knew him as an advocate of his religious 

 faith and the defender of his political principles, 

 until every platform in the State rang with his 

 voice in the maintenance of what he believed to 

 be the right. You knew him, also, as a member 

 of the constitutional convention which helped 

 settle this vexed question of polygamy upon the 

 basis of its settlement under that Constitution. 



What do you propose in the rejection of the 

 member from Utah? Why, you propose to teach 

 the inhabitants of the State of Utah a lesson! 

 You propose to discipline them. You propose to 

 .summon thorn before the bar of this House and 

 mlminister a rebuke. 



" These people, however, to whom you have pro- 

 posed to administer this reproof are worthy of 

 better treatment. They are the pioneers pre- 

 eminent of the western half of the United States; 

 they have redeemed a desert and given a State 

 to civilization." 



Mr. Roberts closed with the charge that religious 

 animosity was responsible for the attempt to ex- 

 clude him from Congress: 



" At whose behest are you called upon to ad- 

 minister this rebuke? What is the source of it? 

 Why, three sectarian preachers from the State of 

 I'tah made a formal protest before the last Con- 

 gress, and, I understand, before this House, against 

 the admission of the member from Utah, and then 

 took it upon themselves to run throughout the 

 land and stir up religious prejudice against the 

 .Mormons, until a wonderful petition is rolled in 

 on the floor of this House that makes members 

 quake and tremble with fear in its presence a 

 petition gathered from Sabbath schools, sectarian 

 churches, and societies. Much has been said about 

 interference between Church and state. 



" Suppose that the Mormon Church undertook 

 to defeat the will of the people of a sovereign State, 

 or that the Catholic Church undertook to do the 

 same thing? There would be such warnings ut- 

 tered, there would be such protests pronounced, 

 against such interference of the Church with the 

 state in a purely political matter that we would 

 be made to believe that the very foundation of the 

 Government was in danger. But here, without 

 protest, you permit the Church to interfere with 

 tlio state when the case of a Mormon is involved. 

 1 do not, however, refer to the worthiness of my 

 people and the unworthiness of the assault that 

 is made upon them for the purpose of influencing 

 your action in the matter now pending before you. 

 As I said in the commencement of this discussion, 

 when last speaking upon the floor of this House, I 

 am not here begging the question; I am not here 

 asking for favors; I am not here on my own behalf, 

 but on behalf of my people, to demand for myself 

 and for them our constitutional rights. Clear your 

 vision ; look to the charter that should guide your 

 action; find warrant in it for your proposed action 

 nf exclusion or expulsion if you can; and if you 

 find it. I will walk out without complaint. You 

 an not find it without adding qualifications for 

 membership in this House not enumerated in the 

 < ^institution, and that you have no right to do. 



" If you can not find warrant in the Constitution 

 for either of the proposed methods of unseating 

 the member from Utah, then it becomes your duty 

 under the oath that you have taken and in order 

 to be law-abiding people yourselves, to show re- 

 spect for the highest law of the land, to say that 

 the protecting segis of the Constitution overshad- 

 ows this man. and you can neither exclude him nor 

 x|K>l him without 'doing such violence to the Con- 

 stitution as would menace representative govern- 

 ment. 



" Some of the papers in discussing the Roberts 



case have said, ' Brand this man with shame and 

 send him back to his people.' Mr. Speaker, 1 thank 

 God that the power to brand me with shame is 

 something quite beyond the power of this House, 

 great as that power is. The power to brand with 

 shame rests with each man and nowhere else. The 

 Almighty God has conferred it upon no one else. I 

 have lived up to this day in all good conscience in 

 harmony with the moral teachings of the com- 

 munity in which I was reared and am sensible of 

 no act of shame in my life. Brand me with shame ! 

 Why, if you finally determine either to exclude 

 or expel me, I shall leave this august chamber 

 with head erect and brow undaunted and walk 

 God's earth as the angels walk the clouds, with 

 no sense of shame upon me. And, if in response 

 to the sectarian clamor that has been invoked 

 against the member from Utah, you violate the 

 Constitution of your country, either in excluding 

 or expelling me, all the shame that there is in this 

 case will be left behind me and rest with this 

 House." 



The resolutions, majority and minority, came to 

 vote Jan. 25, 1900. The minority resolution, de- 

 claring Mr. Roberts eligible to admission but open 

 to expulsion on constitutional grounds, was re- 

 jected by a vote of 81 yeas to 244 nays; not voting, 

 29. The majority resolution, refusing admission, 

 was adopted by a vote of 268 yeas to 50 nays ; not 

 voting, 36. A majority of two thirds would have 

 been required to expel Mr. Roberts had he been 

 admitted to membership, but the divisions on these 

 resolutions show that such a vote would have been 

 given in case of the adoption of the minority reso- 

 lution. 



The case of Matthew S. Quay, who claimed to 

 be a Senator from Pennsylvania by the appoint- 

 ment of the Governor of the State, involved an old 

 issue of constitutional interpretation: but it com- 

 manded unusual interest because of the politics 

 opposition to Mr. Quay, who had been made the 

 object of bitter attack by influential members of 

 his own party. He had been appointed after the 

 adjournment of the Pennsylvania Legislature, but 

 the senatorship fell vacant during the legislative 

 session; and so the point to be considered 

 whether the Governor had power to appoint when 

 the Legislature had refused to elect. The Consti- 

 tution gives the Governor power to appoint only 

 when a vacancy occurs during a recess of the 

 Legislature, and the Senate has decided in a suc- 

 cession of cases that no appointment is valid when 

 made after a Legislature adjourns without elect- 

 ing. It was natural, therefore, to expect that Mr. 

 Quay would not be admitted to the Senate, as the 

 precedents were strongly against him ; but certair 

 circumstances not dwelt upon in the discussion 

 gave him unusual sympathy. He had been per- 

 sonally popular in the Senate; he was a leader 

 of his party in a great State: he had been fiercoh 

 attacked and accused of political rascalities and 

 even crimes; and an indictment against him for 

 conspiracy to defraud had been brought to trial 

 during the legislative session, in which the pm-e- 

 cution went to pieces. Without touching on this 

 point, Senator Penrose, of Pennsylvania, in his 

 preliminary statement of facts, suggested the 

 peculiar party conditions that prevailed. He said : 



"The full 'term of the Hon. Matthew Stanley 

 Quay, senior United States Senator from Pennsyl- 

 vania, expired on the 3d day of March, 1S99, while 

 the Legislature was still in session. By the pro- 

 visions of Article II, section 4, of the Constitution 

 of Pennsylvania the General Assembly shall meet 

 at 12 o'clock on the first Tuesday of January 

 every second year, and accordingly the Legislature 

 met "upon the first Tuesday of January. 1899. At 



