The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1899-12-12
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE CONTINUES
THE ROBERTS CASE.
Mr.. ROBERTS INTERROGATED

As to Certain Propositions Laid Down
by Him He Denies the Jurisdiction
OF the Committee tn Investigate He
yond the Court Findings ON the
Charges OF Violating the Anti PoIyu-
amy Law-rhe First Public Hearing.
Testimony Against Mr.. Roberts.
sideration OF the case OF Mr. Roberts.
OF Utah. was resumed Mt 10 O'Clock
this morning. by the house investigat-
ing COMMITTEES, Mr.. Roberts being pr s.
ent to plead TO certain specific interrag-
atories which had been framed. The
proceedings continued to be behind
closed doors. Mr.. Roberts was FIRST
asked if he conceded tins existence Of
the court record wherein he pleaded
guilty in 1889, under the Edmunsis-
Tucker law. This he conceded. He
was next asked whether about 1889 or
since 1890, he had married plural wives
and had lived in polygamous relation.
in violation OF law.
To the whole OF this charge Roberts
pA~oANA itOl SdAhss Nlfs-il
to the jurisdiction Of the committee for
the following reasons:
Il On the ground of violation OF
constitutional rights in that IL attempt
ed TO try him for a crime without pre-
sentiment of indictment by grand jury
and without trial before n jury ami due
process of law.
2. That it was an attempt to deprive
him Of his vested property that he held
in the emoluments OF an office for the
fun term
3. That the only evidence that could
be rightfully considered in the commit
tee was court record establishing the
guilt, confessed or proven, of the rep
resentative-elect, and that the commit
tee has no right to consider any other
evidence.
4. That the crime alleged namely,
that OF unlawful cohabftation, even if
proven, would not constitute a SUM-
cient crime to bar member or deprive
him of his seat, because innocence Of
polygamy or unlawful cohabftation is
nowhere enumerated in the constitu-
tion as a qualification for the office OF
member OF congress, nor is Is named in
any United States law applicable TO
Utah or amy other state.
MIR. Roberts argued these points for
nearly two hours. referring to law books
and answering queries. 1t was a legai
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 consd-
cred, as the IKeSeTt status denied 90 -
a sovereign state representation In the
house at time when injurious leEis-
lation affecting that state might take
place.
The first of the public hearings i'm the
began nicslprk Inv
committee room was crowded with
members, representatives OF the pr 81
and delegations representing the gen
tile element of Utah. Mr.. Roberts sat
at the foot of the long committee table
with documents piled up before him.
His secretary was near ut hand bring
ing him books and other data OF refer
ence.
Chairman Tayler announced that
persons who had participated In franz
ing the charges were present and he
asked that they be heard.
MIR. A. T. Schroeder, one of the gen.
tile delegation from Utah, said IL could
be established ttat Mr.. Roberts had
maintained and Is now maintaining the
status OF polygamist; that in 1889
pleaded guilty of unlawful cohablta~
ton and had since that time continued
in that relation. Specifically, Mr.
Schroeder said IT could be established
that there had recently been born chr-
dren to his poiygampus wives. among
them being twins born to Celia Bibble
Roberts, the reputed second wife OF the
congressman elect. These children were
reported TO be born, he said, August IL,
1897, and until this morning, he had
understood were acknowledged by
Roberts as nis. II could also b. shown
that he has Deen holding out DR.. Magic
Shipp Roberts as WIFE and is now
maintaining the status OF husband to
ward her; that during all OF these
times he had a living lawful wife,
Louisa Smith Roberts, who also had
born him children.
IT is understood that the opposition
TO Roberts has suggested that the wives
with whom he is alleged to have main-
tanned polygamous relations be sum-
moned as witnesses. The first wife, it
is said, would be exempt from testify
ing against her husband, as she has q
legal status as wife, but this exemption
would not extend beyond the first wife
The public hearing went over unai
Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock and tire
committee held a private session.
Mr.. Tayier sa@; after the executive
session that the committee was soA-
whether 1t should go to Utah
or have the witnesse come here, and
that no decision had been reached.