The San Francisco call., 1899-12-10

WASHINGTON. Dec e-The House
special committee having in charge the
case of Congressman-elect Roberts of
Utah, who has been denied seat In. the
House on the charge that he is a polyga-
mist. spent the entire day listening to
Roberts presentation of his defense, and
TO the statements of his accusers. The
sensation of the day came in the after
noon, when Roberts bitterly denounced A.
I. Schroeder. one of the Gentle delega-
ton from Utah. as a swindler and a man
unworthy of confidence.
The consideration of the Roberts case
was resumed at 10 o'clock, Roberts being
present TO plead to certain specific inter-
rogatories which had been framed The
proceedings continued TO be behind closed
doors. Roberts was first asked If he con-
ceded the existence of the court record
wherein he pleaded guilty in 1889 under
the Edmunds-Tucker law. This he con-
ceded. He was next asked whether
about 1857 he had married plural wives
and had lived with them since that time
as wives. 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 consti-
tutional rights in that IL attempted 10 try him
Tor crime without presentment OF indictment
by grand jury and without trial before a Jury
and due process OF law.
b ee09dThat on it was an attempt 70 deprive
emoluments OF an office for the full term.
Third-That the only evidence that could be
rightfully considered in the committee was
court record and the establishing OF the guilt.
confessed or proved of the Representative
elect and that the committee has no right to
consider any other evidence.
FOurth-That the crime alleged. namely. that
or unlawful cohabitation-even IL proved
would not constitute sufficient crime TO bar
member or deprive him Of his seat, because
innocence of poygamy or unlawful cohabita-
tion is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution
as qualification Of the Office Of member Of
Congress. nor is it named in any United States
law applicable TO Utah or any other State.
Roberts argued these points for nearly
two hours, referring TO law books and
answering queries. 1t was a legal con-
troversy throughout, the facts not being
gone into at length. Roberts concluded
by asking that his prima facie right TO
seat be at once considered, as the pres
ent status denied 10 a sovereign State rep
resentation in the House at a time when
injurious legislation affecting that State
might take place.
The first of the public hearings in the
Roberts case began at o'clock. At that
hour the committee room was crowded
with members, representatives Of the
press and delegates representing the Cen
tile element of Utah. Roberts sat at the
end Of a long table, with documents piled
up before him. His secretary was near
at hand, bringing him books and other
data of reference. Chairman Tayler an
nounced that persons who had partici-
pated in framing the charges were pres
ent and he asked that they be heard. a.
T. Schroeder, one of the Gentle delega-
tion from Utah, then stepped forward
and was about TO proceed when Roberts
rose hastily and raised his hand in pro-
test
81 object" he said. II object TO this
witness if he comes here as an attorney.
l object to him If he comes as wit
ness on the ground that he is unworthy
of confidence, and because he is COM
mon swindler. And / propose TO estab-
lish by the records of the Supreme Court
of Utah that he is utterly unworthy of
belief"
Roberts said he would present the
tenth Utah Supreme Court report in sup
port of his allegations. Tayler answered
that Schroeder was not present as a wit
ness or as counsel. but merely to give
the committee such information as he