The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-12-20
Give Evidence Before The House Committee
Investigating the Matter.
Testify as to Their knowledge Of
the Relations Between the Ac-
cused and Mrs. DR.. Roberts, All
Going to Show That the Latter
Was the Wife Of the Congress-
man-E1ect.

WASHINGTON, Dec ia number
Of witnesses from Utah appeared to-
day before the committee of the House
of Representatives which Is investi-
eating the case of Mr.. Roberts. They
included Mrs. DR.. Luella Miles, prac-
ticing physician of Salt Lake City; Mrs.
McDougall, E. L. Mcdaniel and S. L.
Wishard, all of Salt Lake City. Mr..
cross-examination.
Mrs Dr. Miles was the first witness.
She gave her profession as that of
physician at Salt Lake City, and
member of the medical society there.
She gave the details of a call she made
at the house of Mrs. DR.. Maggie Shlpp
Roberts on April II, 1897, relative to
some medical society affairs. She ad-
dressed Mrs. Shipp Roberts as DIR.
Shipp," whereupon, the witness said,
she was interrupted with the request,
Doctor, you can call me DR.. Roberts. =
Mrs. Roberts went on to explain, the
witness said, that she had been mar
ried to Mr.. Roberts for several years.
She asked that the medical society mail
sent her in future be addressed as DR..
Roberts, not as "Dr. Shipp."
Subsequently the witness called at
the house, and after visit, Mr.. Rob-
erts came in and was introduced. She
could not recall whether there was a
specific introduction as husband, or
whether his entry was with such .famil-
iarity as to indicate a marital status.
When Mr.. Roberts cross-examined
the witness, she repeated the same
story.
After the witness had stepped aside,
Mr.. Roberts submitted an objection to
the effect that this testimony related to
1897, whereas the committee had no
jurisdiction over him prior to fis be-
coming a member of Congress.
'Then you contend" said Chairman
Tayler, that the testimony should be
confined to polygamous practices subse-
quent to March 4, 1892"
Il do" answered Mr.. Roberts.
THE objection will be noted" re-
sponded the Chairman.
Rev. S. E. Wishard was the next wit
ness. He gave his business as that of
Superintendent of the Home Mission
airy Work of the Presbyterian Synod,
embracing Utah. He knew Mr.. and
Mrs. DR.. Roberts. and related his first
meeting with the latter in September
1897. This occurred, he said. on the
train at Manti, Utah. He was in the
car with Roberts, and spoke with him.
A lady sat beside him, and he beckon-
ed to her and then introduced her, say
ing:
Mrs. Roberts, Mr.. Wishard."
On cross-examination Mr.. Roberts
brought out Mr.. Wishard's opposition
n fba,, oh
WAS Roberts drunk when he made
this introduction referred tor"
Not that 1 know Of"
Was he insane?"
II do not know"
What possible reason, then" asked
Mr.. Roberts, could Roberts have had
for putting himself in such a position
with one who opposed him?''
The witness said he could not explain
reasons; he repeated that the facts
were as stated
Mrs. Maria McDougall testified that
on July %, 1893. when she was on a
train, Mr.. Roberts and Mrs. DR.. Rob-
erts travelled on the same train. "Onee
heard Mr. Roberts introduce his COM
panion as my wife, testified Mrs Nc
Dougall, land frequently as Mrs. Rob-
erts'"
Edward McDaniels. former manager
OF the Salt Lake Herald" was exam
med at considerable length, mainly on
the politics and convention affairs per-
tanning to Roberts nomination to Con-
gress- In 1896. while managing the
Herald" he had conversation with
Roberts, in the course of which Roberts
told him he had three families Subse-
quently. in 1898, the witness said. there
was another conversation prior to the
nominating convention relative to ru-
mors against Roberts. The latter said
he thought this line of opposition would
not prove effective, as he would court
an attack as to the plurality of wives.
On cross-examination. Mr. McDaniels
said he had opposed the nomination of
Roberts.
Mr.. Roberts asked the witness:
Did not Roberts state at these con-
versatfons that Celia Dibble Roberts
lived out of the State?"
Il do not recall it," answered the
witness.
What Roberts did say" the witness
continued, was that he was not guilty
OF the crime of polygamy as that crime
had been defined by the Supreme Court
as the taking of plural wives, thus