Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1899-12-12
70 HOLD PUBLIC SESSION.
Proceedings In the Roberts Case
Are to Be No Longer
In Secret.
THE ACCUSED MAN PLEADS NOT GUILTY.
Def>nds His Case Before House In
Nestgnting Committee Offers
four Reasons why Committee Has
NO 1"risilction in Case-Argues
for Two h,urs.

Washington, Dec.11 1.-The considera-
ton of the case of Mr.Roberts. of Utah.
was resumed at ten o'chck in the morn
ing by the house investigating commit
tee, Mr.. Roberts being present. to plead
to certain specific Undergraduates
which had been framed. The lroceed-
ings continued to be behind ,losed
doors. Mr.. Roberts was first askd if
be conceded the existence of the co,rt
record wherein he pleaded guilty II
1889 under the EdmundsTucker law
This he conceded. He was next asked
whether about 1887 or since 1890, he
had married plural wives and had lived
with them since that time as wives.
Roberts Pleads Not Guilty.
To the whole of this charge Roberts
pleaded not guilty, and then demurred
to the jurisdiction of the committee for
the following reasons:
"First-On the ground of violation OF
constitutional rights in that it attempted
TO try him for crime without presentment
of indictment by grand jury, and without
trial before jury and due process OF
law.
"Second--That it was an attempt to de-
prive9him of vested property that he held
in the emoluments of an Office for the
full term.
"Third-That the only evidence that
mittee was court record establishing the
guilt, confessed or proven, of the repre-
sentative-elect and that the committee
has no right to consider any other evil
dence.
"Fourth-That the crime aleged-name-
i1y hat - ,1or ,f,,1 Hob tott
proven would not constitute sufficient
crime to bar member or deprive him of
his seat because innocence of polygamy
or unlawful cohabitation is nowhere
enumerated In the constitution as quail
fication for the Office of member of con-
gress nor is 1t named in any United States
law applicable to Utah or any other state"
Legal Controversy Throughout.
Mr.. Roberts argued these points for
nearly two hours, referring to law
books and answering queries. 1t was
a legal controversy throughout, the
facts not being gone into at length.
Mr.. Roberts concluded by asking that
his prima facie right to seat be at
once considered, as the present status
denied to a sovereign state representa-
ton in the house at time when in
furious legislation affecting that state
might take place.
Public Sessions Hereafter.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Roberts
statement the committee held an exec
utive session and then adjourned until
two p. m. The chairman announced
that subsequent. meetings would be
open and publicity also was given to the
official stenographer's reports of the
morning session.
A sensation.
At the afternoon session of the Rob-
erts Investigating committee, Mr.. Rob-
erts created a sensation by denouncing
"A. L. Schroeder, one of the gentle dele
cation from Utah. Mr.. Schroeder was
about to address the committee, when
Roberts, waving his hand in protest,
said:
II object. object to this witness If he
comes here as an attorney. / object to
him if he comes as Witness on the ground
that he is unworthy of confidence and be-
cause he is Il common swindler And
propose to establish by the records of the
supreme court of Utah that he is utterly
unworthy Of belief
After some explanations, Mr..
Schroeder was permitted to proceed.