The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-12-13
The Investigating Committee Holds
A Secret Meeting
To Discuss Matters Relating 10 Future
Procedure In the Matter.
The Actual. Hearing Of Witnesses
to Begin To-Day's Session Of the
Committee-Robert Files
Lengthy Legal Argument
Against the Rights of the Conn
mittee to Hear the Case.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1.-THE Rob-
erts Investigating Committee resumed
its session to-day behind closed doors.
This, it was explained, was to permit
the committee to receive and discuss
reports on procedure, form OF subpoena,
ETC.
Meantime, Mr.. Roberts himself and
gathering of Mormons and Gentiles
stood outside the committee room door
awaiting admission. Mr.. Roberts was
prepared to continue his argument on
the demurrer to the right of the COM
mittee to try him. The Gentle delega-
ton was more numerous, including the
white haired Rev. DR.. Tiff, Mr.. Schroe-
der, to whom Roberts interposed rather
sensational objections Saturday, and
the others who have come from Utah
to direct the proceedings against him.
The committee remained in private
session until noon, when an adjourn
ment was taken until 10 o'clock to-
morrow, when the actual hearing of
witnesses will begin. Mr.. Roberts
saw Mr.. Taylor as soon as the commit
tee adjourned and submitted his brief.
Mr.. Roberts brief is lengthy legal
argument against the rights of the
NOiiiililtlSS. LIZ III 6co lii<'l lliC SchoeA-
ution gives protection against trial
without the process of law; also against
taking property such as the salary Of
an office without due process of the
law. Mr. Roberts summary is as fol-
lows:
From the foregoing established doc
trines and rights of members OF Con-
gress, it follows:
Nf
this committee would be subversiSe to
the rights of the member from Utah.
q. That he is to be adjudge1 guilty
of crime without due process of law.
go. That he is to abjudged disquali-
fed by disabilities created by enact
ments of Congress and applicable 10
the old Territory of Utah, but not ap-
plicable to the State of Utah, which
disabilities have been removed ta) by
amnesties of two Presidents; fb) by the
Enabling Act passed by Congress; tc)
by the transition of Utah from Ter
ritorial condition to that of Statehood
49, 1t further appears that the crime
alleged against the Representative from
Utah does not constitute a disqualif-
cation for member of Congress, unless
the House and it's committee are pre-
EdTeu 10 assert lIlelT power anu ilSit
to add to the qualifications prescribed
ty the Constitution Of the United
States.
a. And further, the proposed pro-
ceedings by this committee would de-
prive the member from Utah of the
constitutional right to a trial by a court
of competent jurisdiction and by jury
of his peers within the State and dis
I,.,x
been committed, and would deprive
him of property and rights without due
process of law. The member from
Utah, therefore, asks the committee to
stop its present proceedings, and con-
slider the prima facie right of the Rep
resenta tive from Utah to be sworn in
as member of the House of Represen-
tatives of the Fifty-sixth Congress"
AS to the protests by certain sectar-
ian ministers from Utah, Roberts holds
that the committee ought not to consid-
err them, for the reason that affidavits
presented by them bear dates as fol-
lows Thomas P. Brandon, February
Is, 1899; Ray T. Bandon, Februa y ~,
1892 Luella P. Miles, February 81,
1899; Mrs. Marie E. McDougall, May
81, 1899; all dates being several months
prior TO the departure Ol inc cSptS-
sentative from Utah for the East.
More than a year after the charges
began to be made against him, the
member from Utah was in ard about
Salt Lake all the time. and seven
months after the BandoI affidavits
were drawn up by A. T. Schroeder;
and, therefore, said protestants had
ample time to institute proceedings be-
fore the courts of Utah, which were
and are open for the prosecution of the
charges made in the past. If the pro-
testants have sufficient evidence, they
should have established the guilt Of
the member from Utah as to misde-
meanor charged, and come here with
court record and bring their charges,
although the question would be debat-
able as to whether the misdemearor
alleged, if proven, would be sufficient to
bar him from the House, and or that
subject the member from Utah has al
ready expressed his belief and present.
ed arguments. The member from Utah
asks that he be allowed to take the
oath of office"