The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-10

tion of the case of Mr.. Roberts of Utah
was resumed at 10 o'clock this morn
ing by the house investigating commit
tee, Mr.. Roberts being present to plead
to certain specific interrogatories which
had been framed. The proceedings con-
tinued TO be behind closed doors.
% Mr.. Roberts was first asked if he con-
..eded the existence of the court record
wherein he pleaded guilty in 1889 under
the Ednunds-Tucker law This he con-
coded. He was next asked whether,
about 1887, or since 1890, he had mar
ried plural wives and had lived with
them since that time as wives To the
whole of this charge Roberts pleaded
not guilty, and then demurred to the
jurisdiction of the committee for the
following reasons:
First-On the ground of violation of
constitutional rights. in that it attempt
he'd to try him for crime without pre-
sentiment OF Indictment by grand jury,
and without trial by jury, and without
due process of law.
Second-That it was an attempt to
deprive him of vester property that he
held in the emoluments of an Office for
the full term
Only the Court Record.
Third-That the only evidence that
could be rightfully considered in the
committee was court record, and the
establishing of guilt, confessed or
proven, of the representative-elect, and
that the commit tee has no right to con-
slider any other evidence.
Fourth-That the crime alleged
namely, that of unlawful cohabitation,
even if proven, would rot constitute a
sufficient crime to bar a member or
deprive him of his seat, because limo
cence of polygamy or unlawful cohab-
itatiop is nowhere enumerated in the
constitution as a qual1ncauon Tor the
office of member of congress, nor is 1t
named in any United States law apple
able to Utah or any other state.
Mr.. Roberts argued these points for
nearly two hours, referring to law
books and answering queries. 1t was a
legal 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 considered, as the present status
denied to a sovereign state representa-
ton in the house at a time when IN
furious legislation affecting that state
might take place.
Proceedings to the Public.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Roberts
statement the committee held an ex-
ecutive session, and then adjourned I'M
til 2 %. m The chairman announced
that SUBSEQUENT HlOSlllASS ~
open, and publicity also was given to
the official stenographer's reports of
the morning.
These showed that Mr.. Tayler (O)
had submitted the interrogatories. In
the course of these, Mr.. Tayler said:
Charges are made that you were
convicted in 1889 of unlawful cohabita-
ton, and that since then you have been
guilty of the same offenSe; that some
years ago you contracted plural mar
riages, and ever since then have main
tanned polygamous relations with these
wives
Mr.. Tayler also stated, as a basis for
the inquiry: lone of the material facts
to be ascertained is as to whether or
not you contracted. as early as 1881,
plural marriages, and have maintained
ever since polygamouS relations with
..ehese plural wives. The committee in
structs me to say that If you wish 10
make any statement about this or any
other matter which is charged, you
may do so in your own way"
Mr. Roberts replies are also SHOWN by
the affidavits on file, on which the fore
going inquiries were made. His an
swer was substantially as has been
given in the written text submitted by
him, being as follows:
MI. Roberts Replies.
First. Roberts comedies the fact es-
tablished by the records of the Third
United States judicial district court,
in and for the territory of Utah sub
= nitted for his inspection, to-wit: that
in 1889, in the territory OF Utah, he
pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor
charging him of unlawful cohabitation.
Second. in the testimony submitted,
it nowhere appears that there IS any
affidavit or testimony offered before
the committee that Roberts, about 1887
10
contracted plural marriages further
than may be inferred from his confess
sion 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 irregular charges against Roberts,
ii nowhere 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 committee on this subject he
specifically denies that since October,
1880 he has contracted plural marriages.
Fourth. to the charge that ever since
1889 when Roberts pleaded guilty to
unlawful cohabitation in the then ter
ridory of Utah, that he has lived in po-
IygaIaous relations in violation of law,
he pleads not guilty.
Enters Demurrers.
Roberts demurs to the proceedings
instituted by the committee on these
grounds:
First, that the committee has no jul
risdiction over me to try me for the al
legged defense of the offense charged.
Second, Roberts further demurs TO
the evidence and further demurS TO the
evidence and papers upon which the
charge OF continued polygamous living
is based. upon the ground that said pa
pers and facts do not state facts suffi-
Gent TO constitute a charge against me
that is IN any way regular or tenable
or sufficient to deprive me of my
prima facie rights to take the oath
of office and occupy the seat in the
house of representatives to which I
have been duly and legally elected, and
which election and right is not con-
tested.
Third, that said papers and evil
denee are ambiguous, unintelligible
and incomplete and of such charac-
ter as to make the same not worthy
to be considered by the committee and
] ask that my prima facie right to my
>seat be now considered"
Roberts Accuses Schroeder.
The first of the public hearings in
the Roberts case began at 2 o'clock