The San Francisco call., 1899-12-13
ROBERTS READY
WITH HIS BRIEF
Reasons S Why He Should
Be Seated.
ENTITLED TO A LEGAL TRIAL
PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
CHALLENGED.
Congressman-Elect Declares That if
BE Were Guilty His Foes Should ;
Have Prosecuted Him in
the Courts of Utah
ENTITLED TO A LEGAL TRIAL
PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
CHALLENGED.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12.-The Roberts
investigating committee resumed its ses-
sion to-day behind closed doors! This, II
was explained, was to permit the commit
tee 10 receive and discuss reports on pro-
cedure. form Of subpoena, etc. Meantime
Roberts himself and a gathering OF Nor
mons and gentiles stood outside the COM
mittee door awaiting admission Roberts
was prepared to continue his argument on
the demurrer 10 the right of the commit
tee TO try him. The gentle delegation
was more numerous, including the white
haired Rev. DR.. Tiff Schroeder. to whom
Roberts interposed rather sensational OBJ
jections on Saturday, and the others who
have come on from Utah TO direct the pro-
ceeedings against him.
The committee remained in private ses-
sion until noon. when an adjournment was
taken until 10 o'clock tomorrow, when
the actual hearing of witnesses Will begin.
Roberts saw Tayler as soon as the COM
mittee adjourned and submitted his brief.
Roberts brief is lengthy legal argu-
ment against the rights of the commit
tee. He urges that the constitution gives
protection against trial without the pro-
cess OF law; also against taking property,
such as the salary of an office, without
due process of law. Roberts summary
is as follows:
From the foregoing established doctrines and
rights OF members Of Congress it follows:
That the proposed proceedings OF this COM
mittee would be subversive of the rights OF the
member from Utah
!. That he is to be adjudged guilty OF crime
without due process Of law.
2 That he Is 10 be adjudged disqualified by
disabilities created by enactments of Congress
and applicable To the old Territory OF Utah
but not applicable 10 the State Of Utah. which
disabilities have been removed (a) by amnesties
OF Two Presidents: tb) by the enabling act
PASSED by Congress; (c) by the transition OF
Utah from the territorial condition to that OF
statehood.
). Ii further appears that the crime alleged
against the representative from Utah does not
constitute disqualification for member OF
Congress. unless the House and it's committee
are prepared to assert their power and right
TO add 10 the qualifications prescribed by the
Constitution Of the United States.
J. And further, the proposed proceedings by
this committee would deprive the member from
Utah OF the constitutional right TO trial by a
court Of competent jurisdiction and by a jury
OF his peers within the State and district where
the crime Is alleged 10 have 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 consider the prima
facie right of the representative from Utah to
be sworn in as member Of the House OF Rep
resentatives OF the Fifty-sixth Congress.
AS to the protests by certain sectarian
ministers from Utah. Roberts holds that
the committee ought not to consider them
for the reason that affidavits presented by
them bear dates as follows: Thomas j.
BaRdon. February sB. 1899; Ray T Ban
don. February 13, 1899; Luella p. Miles,
February q. 1899; Mrs. Marie E. McDou-
gall May q, 1899: all the dates being sew
eral months prior TO the departure of the
Representative from Utah for the East.
He continues:
More than year after the charges began 10
be made against him the member from Utah
was in and about. Salt Lake all the time and
seven months after the Bandon afadavits were
drawn up by a. T. Schroeder: and. therefore,
said protestants had ample time to institute
proceedings before the courts OF Utah which
were and are open for the. prosecution OF the
charges made in the past. II the protestants s
have sufficient evidence they should have es-
tablished the guilt OF the member from Titan
as 70 the misdemeanor charged and come here
with a court record and bring their charges
although the question would be debatable as
TO whether the msdemeanor alleged IL proved
would be sufficient TO bar him from the
House; and on that subject the member from
Utah has already expressed his belief and pre-
sented arguments. The member from Utah
asks that he be allowed TO take the oath OF
office.