The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-10
1T WILL BE PUBLIC.
Roberts Case to Be Heard In Open
Sessions.
HE MADE ANSWER TO CHARGES
And Denied Committees Authority 10
Try Him.
DEMURRED TO SEVERAL COUNTS.
He Asked that PrIma Facle Right to Seat
Be First Decided.
FIRST SESSION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
Hearing upon Which the Eyes OF
America Are Turning Has Conn
menccd--Legal Argument.
He Asked that PrIma facle Right to Seat
Be First Decided.
FIRST SESSION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
Hearing Upon Which the Eyes OF
America Are Turning Has Com
menccd--Legnl Argument.

Grafton OF the case OF Mr.. Roberts of Utah
was resumed at 10 o'clock this morning
BY the house investigating committee. Mr..
Roberts being present to plead to certain
special anterrogatorios which had been
framed. Tho proceedings continued to be
behind closed doors. MIR. Roberts was
first asked IL he conceded the existence OF
the court record wherein he pleaded guilty
In 1889 under the Edmunds-Tuckcr law.
This no conceded.
uc was asked whether about 1887 or
since 1890 no had married plural waves ana
had lived With them since that time as
wives. To the whole of this charge Rob
erte pleaded not guilty and them demurrea
TO the jurisdiction of the committee for tue
following reasons:
1. On the ground OF violation OF const-
.utional rights in that II attempted TO try
him for crime without presentment of
indictments ny grand jury ana without
trial before a jury and due process of law.
Q That It was au attempt to deprive
him of vested properly that he hold III
the emoluments of an office for the iu'
term.
,. That the only evidence that could DO
r,ohtsuIly considered IN the committees
was a court record establishing the suis
contested or proven of the representative
| clcc, and that the committee has no risht
| ia conslder any other evidence
| A. That the crime alieEed---parntis. tp'is
OF unlawful cohab!tatlun~-eVen II proven
would not constitute sulhclent crime I"
| bar a netnber or deprive him OF his seae
bocausn Innocence OF polygamy or unia~.
| ful cohnbitation is nowhere enumerateu
&, .be constitution as a qualification ioE
the office OF member OF congress nor ~ ~
named in any United states law applicanie
to Utah or any other state.
mir. Roberts argued these points for
nearly Two hours referring 10 law DOORS
and answering questions IT was iesa.
controversy throughout. the iacls NOT
belng gone into at any length MI hoo-
hrts concluded by asking that his prima
fncle right to n seat be at once eonsia-
cred. as the present status denied to
sovereign state representation In the mouse
M a time whom injurious legislation Affect
ing that STATE might take place
AT the conclusion OF Mr. Roberts state
mont the committee hold an executive ses-
sion and then adjourned until .. m.
Tho chairman dDNOuuill iuht oh1SSfeN'N
meetings will be open and publicity aipo
waa given 10 the official stonographsrs re-
ports OF tho morning session.
These showed that Mr.. Taylor tohSol
had admitted the interrogntor1es. In tue
course of these, Sir. Taylor said: Charges
nre ,nade that you were convicted IN 1908
of uuiawfnl cohabitation ana thnt SINGS
then you have been guilty oil me Sans
| ofganes: that some years ago you con-
/
| then have maintained polygamous relaT
lions with these wives.
| Mr. Taylor also stated as basis LOT
| the inquiry: zone Of the nlaterlai iacts
| 10 he asoertaned Is as To whether or nov
YOU contracted as early as 1881 piural
marriages and have maintained ever since
polygamous relations with tnese piul"i
| wives. Tho committee instructs me 10 BAY
that II you wish TO make any statstnen-
about this nr any other matter when ~
charged YOU may do so in your own way.
Mr. Roberts was also shown the atnda-
! villa nm file on which the foregoing M
ouiries were made. His arSwer was SUD
stantially as heretofore given IN the writ"
ten texts submitted by him, being as toi-
llows: .,,.a.
hv tbe records OF the Third United states
judicial court IN and for the Territory OF
/ ,Tl,nh submitted for his inspection, TO-
| wit. That in 1880, In the Territory OF
lIiab he pleaded guilty OF the Inisdemea'
nor charged against him OF unlawful CO.
lhabitatinn.
Q. In the Testimony submitted now
here appears that there is an afIdavit
! or testimony offered before the comajt-
tee that Roberts about 1877 or previous 10
I1fao or since. contracted plural marriage.
further than may be Inferred from his
confession 10 the misderneanor OF unlawiai
rehabilitation In 1889. ms set out IN me
court records. and therefore on that point
he enters no plea because there - no
charge or testimony alleging IT,
| 3. In the papers submitted. which are
supposed to sustain the loose and irregular
charges against Roberts II nowhere Ap-
pears that there Is any affidavit or any
other Testimony that Roberts either pe-
fore or since 1890 contracted plural mar
lrlages. but as 90 the inquiry OF 1he COM
lmittee on this subject he specifically der
mics that since October, 1890, he has con-
traoted any plural marriages III
T. To ihe charge that ever since isS.l
when Roberts pleaded guilty Of unlawful
Rehabilitation In tho then Territory Of utah
Ithat he has lived In pclygan,ous relations
lin violations Of law. he pleads not Ruiity.
Roberts demurred to the proceedings IN
Istituted before the committees on fhs
; ground that
/. Tho committee has no Jurisdiction
!, over me to try me for the ALLEGED defense
. or the otfense charged
n 2. Roberts further demurs - the eys-
} ldenee and papsu upon which the charge
Of continued polygarnous iiyi9g - heqee.
!. upon the ground that said peperq ma ey1v
; ldcnca do not state facts sufdeinH4 - epne
lstitutp 4 chsgee ssalnst ne khef = -; AlS!9