The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-12-10
HEARING Of ROBERTS CASE.
He Denurs 70 the JurisaiotieA Of
ne Observation-Disclosures 70 Aanit
He u . Polysanist, aAa wit
nesses WIN Have - ~ Dseu9At.

WASHINGTON. Dec. a-Ths consider
alton OF the case OF Mr.. Roberts. OF
Utah, was resumed at 10 o'clock this
morning by the house investigating COM
mittee. Mr.. Roberts being present to
plead to certain specific interrogatoriss
which had been framed. The proceedings
continued to be behind closed doors.
Mr.. Roberts was first asked II 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. or since 1857. he had married plural
wives and had lived with them since
that time as wives.
roberts objects 90 Jurisdiction.
To the whole OF this charge Roberts
pleaded not guilty and then demurred 70
the Jurisdictionso Of the committee Tor the
Following rcasons:
s'First-on the ground Of violation Of
constitutional rights In that II attempted
to try him for crime without present.
ment or indictment by grand jury. ana
without trial by jury ana without due
. Sso ii was an attempt to de-
prive him Of vested property that he held
IN the emoiunients OF an once OF tho fuh
";Tiihiird--That the only evidence that
could be rightfully considered IN the
sSSishins ne Gss quit S confessed Or proven
81 the Observation-Disclosures ana that the
COMMITTEES has no right TO consider any
sFourth-That the crime alleged. name
~, that Of unlawful cohabitation-eveu Il
proven--would not constitute suificient
crime to bar q member. or dep r ,s,y n,m
my or unlawful cohabitation 10 nowhere
enumerated in the constitution as quail
ification for the once q member ol.e ses
States law applicable to Utah or any
ctEer state
Argue. ON Technical Points.
Roberts argued these points for nearly
two hours. referring to law books and
answering queries. 1t was q legal con-
troversy throuehout. the facts not being
Roberts e.t Concluded by asking that his
prima facfc rights to a seat be at once
considered as the present status , d IL ts,a
house at a time when Injurious leEisla-
tion affecting that state might take place.
Al the conclusion Of Roberts statement ta;ar
and then adjourned until p. m.
Meetings VIII BE Public.
The chairman announced that subse-
qusnt meetings would be open and pub
licity also was given to the onncial stem
ogaphIc reports Of the n nS'a Ssa These s,S
lnitted the interrogatories.
Roberts Questioned by Taylor.
In the course OF these Taylor said:
.sChargcs are made that you were con-
y.cted in 1889 Of unlawful cohabitaticn,
and that since then you have been guilty
CT the same offense; that some, years ago
you contracted plural marriages, and ever
since then have maintained polygamous
relations with these wives
Taylor also stated as a basis for the in
curry: ssOne Of the material facts to be
ascertained is as to whether or not you
+ y
riages, and have maintained ever since
polygamous relations with these plural
wives. The committee instructs me to say
that II you wish to make any statement
about this or any other matter which Is
y charged. you may DC 80 In your own way"
Roberts Makes Evasive Answer.
Roberts was also shown the affidavits
On file. on which the foregoing inquiries
were made. His answer was substantially
as has been given. the written text sub
m.tted by him being as follows:
sFirst-Roberts comedies tho fact estab-
lished by the records Of the Third United
States judicial district court In and for
the territory OF Utah. submitted for his
territory Of Utah. he pleaded guilty to the
misdemeanor charged against him of I'm
4 lawful cohabttation.
'Second-1n the testimony submitted 1t
nowhere appears that there Is any affida-
Wit or testimony offered before the COM
mittee that Roberts, about 1887 or previous
TO October, 1880. or since, contracted plu-
raj marriages further than may be inferred
from his confession to the misdemeanor
OF unlawful cohabitation in 1889, as set out
in the court records, and therefore on that
point he enters no plea, because there Is
no charge or testimony alleging It,
Third-In the papers submitted, which
are supposed to sustain the loose and If
regular charges against Roberts, II no
where appears that there Is any affidavit
or testimony that Roberts either before
or since 1890 contracted plural marriages,
but as to the inquiry Of the COMMITTEES on
this subject he especially denies that since
October, 1880, he has contracted plural
marriages.
"Fourth-To the charge that ever since
1889. when Roberts pleaded guilty to un-
lawful Capitalization In the then territory