The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1899-12-15
10 HOLD PUBLIC SESSION,
Proceedings in the Roberts Case
Are to Be. No Longer
In Secret.
The ACCUSED NAN PLEADS NOT GUILTY.
vestigating Committee Offers
Four Reasons Why Committee Has
No JurisdictiOn in Case-ArEues
for Two Hours.

Washington, Dec. 1.-THE considera-
ton of the case of Mr.. Roberts, of Utah,
was resumed at ten o'clock in the morn
ing by the house Investigating commit
tee, Mr.. Roberts being present to plead
to- certain specific interrogatories
which had been framed. The proceed
ings continued to be behind closed
doors. Mr.. Roberts was first asked if
he conceded the existence of the court
record wherein he pleaded guilty in
1889 under the Edmunds-Tucker 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
the following reasons: * IT.
"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 a. jury and due process Of
law.
"Second-That it was an attempt to de-
prive him of vested property that he held
IN the emoluments Of an Office for the
full term.
"Third-That the only evidence that
| could be rightfully considered in the COM
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 alleged-name-
", that of unlawful cohabitation-even If
proven would not constitute sufficient
crime to bar a 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 it 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. It was
a legal controversy throughout, the
facts not being gone into at length.
Mr.. Roberts concluded by asking that
his prima facie right to a 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 sensation by denouncing
A. T. 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. I object to
| him If he comes as witness, on the ground
| that he is unworthy of confidence and be-
| cause he is common swindler. And I
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.