Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-19
Testimony Before the Committee
Resumed.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Accused Pleads Statute of Limi-
tation.
DENIAL OF JURISDICTION

The special committee appointed to in
vestigate the case of Mr.. Roberts of Utah
reassemb}ed in the room of the House COM
mittee on elections this morning to hear sew
eral witnesses who had come from Utah to
testify. Mr.. Roberts was present.
The meeting was short and the testimony
brief, but very much to the point. 1t de-
veloped that Mr. Roberts had introduced
one Mrs. Roberts as his wife, while an
other Mrs Roberts was still living; that
one of the plural Mrs. Roberts acknowl-
eyed her marriage, and that even Mr..
Roberts had not denied his plural marital
relations, but had contended that they did
not constitute the crime of polygamy, but
of unlawful cohabitation.
Mr.. Roberts did not make much Roadway
at today's hearings. For one thing he tried
to divest himself of responsibility for one
of the Mrs. Roberts assuming his name.
1t was not proven that she took it at his
direction.
ing was Mr.. Roberts plea of the statute
/ of limitations. He fell back upon this, the
last ditch, after the testimony as to his
family relations had been given, and he
offered 1t to wipe out the testimony.
Testimony of Mrs. DR.. Miles.
Mrs. DR.. Luella Miles of Salt Lake City
was the first witress. She had resided in
been physician since 1893. She was sec
| rotary of the Medical Society of Salt Lake
City, and III that capacity had called, April
L. 1897. upon Mrs. Maggie Ship,
L addressed her as DR.. SnIpp several
times. and finally she said. DR. Miles, you
can address NE as DR.. Roberts
Why, you We been changing your name
l said
DR.. Maggie Shipp Roberts said yes she
llad charged her name, and supposed l
might have suspected it. She said she had
married Mr. Roberts and had been married
for seven years. She had been married be-
lcre the manifesto. l was introduced to Mr.
Roberts, who came in about that time
In response to question Dr. Miles said
that Mr.. Roberts came in with the manner
of the man of the house,
Mr. Roberts questioned the witness. He
asked her if Mrs. Maggie Shipp had changed
Piled in the negative.
Did she tell you personally" asked Mr.
Roberts: that she was married to B. H
Yes" answered the witness emphatic
ally.
jurisdiction of the Committee.
AT this point Mr. Roberts submitted that
the line Of evidence was such as the COM
mittee had no jurisdiction over, because
the alleged events occurred prior to his he
coming member of Congress-
That is to say" queried Chairman Tav-
Ter, you object to the competency of any
testimony which exhibits your polygamous
relations practiced prior to March 4, 1893"
Il do"
Your objection will be noted on the rec
ord said the chairman.
Mr.. Roberts then entered a formal pIea
OF the statute of limitations, as follows:
Roberts submits that no testimony
should be considered a. which concern acts
now beyond the limits fixed by the statutes
of limitations. The member from Utah in
a criminal prosecution would be protected
from the consideration of acts barred by
the United States statutes of limitation:
now much more then ought the limita tons
to be invoked to bar the consideration of
alleged acts in this proceeding.
United States statute of limitation is
found in section 104i, No person shall be
prosecuted, tried or punished for any Of
tense not capital, except as provided In sec
ton 1O46, unless the Indictment is found or
the information is instituted within three
years next after such offense is committed
Section 1916 alluded to relates to reve-
nue. offenses, where the limits are extended
to five years
AS the authority of this committee over
the member from Utah even if given the ut
most stretch of It's latitude, only extends
to the time of his membership viz: From
March 4, 1899 he asks that the inquiry as
to evidence before this committee shall be
limited to that time"
Rev. DR.. Wishard on the Stand.