Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-12-20

Woman Had Asked to be Called
Mrs. Roberts-Mr. Roberts OBJ
jected to Evidence Which Ante
dated March 4.
WASHINGTON, December ia
number of witnesses from Utah appear
ed to-day before the committee of the
House of Representatives which is in
vestigating the case OF Mr.. Roberts, OF
Utah. They Included Mrs. DR.. Lucille
Miles, a practicing physician of Salt
Lake City. Mr.. Roberts was present
and conducted the cross-examination.
Mrs. DR.. Miles was the first witness.
She gave her profession as that of a
physician at Salt Lake City and a mem
gave the details of a call she made at
the house of Mrs. DR.. Maggie Ship
Roberts on April IL, 1897, relative to
some medical society affairs. She adj
dressed Mrs. Shipp Roberts as "Dr.
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 married
to Mr.. Roberts for seven years. She
asked that the medical society mail
sent her in future be addressed as "Dr.
Roberts," not "Dr. Shipp." Suisse
quently the witness called at the house
and Mr.. Roberts came in and was IN
troduced. She could not recall wheth-
er there was a specific introduction as
husband or whether his entry was
with Such Familiarity
as to indicate a married status. When
Mr.. Roberts cross-examined the wit
ness 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 his be-
coming a member of Congress.
Then you contend" said Chairman
Tayler, shat the testimony should be
confined to polygamous practices sub
sequent t O March 4, 1892"
81 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 missionary
work of the Presbyterian synod IN
bracing Utah. He knew both Mr.. Rob-
erts and Mrs. DIR. Roberts, and related
his first meeting with the latter in Sep
TENDER, 1897. This occurred, he said,
on the train at Manti, Utah. He was
in the car with Roberts and spoke to
him.
A lady sat beside him and he beck
oned to her and then introduced her,
saying:
Mrs. Roberts, Mr.. Wishard."
On cross-examination, Mr.. Roberts
brought out Mr.. Wishard's opposition
to Mormonism, and then asked:
"was Mr.. Roberts Drunk
when he made this introduction refer
red to-"
mot that l know Of"
"Was he insane?"
81 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 ex-
plain reasons; he repeated that the
facts were as stated.
Mrs. Maria McDougall testified that
on July %, 1898, she was on the train
and Mr.. Roberts and Mrs. DR.. Roberts
travelled on the same train. "Once I
heard Mr.. Roberts introduce his COM
panian as My wife," testified Mrs.
McDougall, land repeatedly as Mrs.
Roberts"
Edwin McDaniels, former manager
of the Salt Lake Herald, was examined
at considerable length, mainly on the
politics and convention affairs pertain
ing to Roberts's nomination to Con-
gress. In 1896, while managing the
Herald, he had a conversation with
Roberts, in the course of which Roberts
told him he had three families. Sub
s%equently, 1898, the witness said there
was another conversation prior to the
nominating convention, relative to the
rumors 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.. HcDaniels
said he had opposed the nomination of
Roberts. Mr.. Roberts asked the wit
ness:
Did not Roberts state at these con-
versations that Celia Dibble Roberts
lived out of the State?'
q do not recall it," answered the
witness.
What Roberts did say, the witness
continued, was that he was no guilty