Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-09
Demurs to Jurisdiction Of the Tayler
COMMITTEE.
DELIVERS "A LONG ARGUMENT
Future Meeting. viii Be Open to
thes,Pubiic.
u It
NJ r. Ia YL ER's CHARG Es

The consideration Of the case of Mr.. Rob-
erts OF Utah was resumed at 10 o'clock this
morning by the House Investigating COM
mittee. Mr.. Roberts being present to plead
to certain specific interrogatories which
had been framed. The proceedings centin-
ued to be behind closed doors.
Mr.. Roberts was first asked If he con-
coded the existence Of the court record
wherein he pleaded guilty in 1889 under the
tidmunds-Tucker law. This he conceded
he was next asked whether since 1880 he
hao married plural wives, and had lived
with them since that time as wives.
To the whole Of this charge Mr. Roberts
pleaded not guilty, and then aemurred to
ene jurisdiction of the committee. o.
Two Hours' Argument.
Mr.. Roberts argued these points for
nearly two hours, referring to law books
and answering queries. 1t was a legal con-
troVersy 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 oenled to sovereign state represen-
tatioh In the House at a time when iIiu-
tl9us cessation affecting that state might
Meeting to BE Public.
AT the conclusion Of MIR. Roberts state
raent the committee held an executive ses-
sion and then adjourned until pm The
chairman announced that subsequent meet
lnss would be open, and publicity also was
given to the official stenographers' renorts
OF the mornings proceedings. These show
ed that Mr. Tayler Ohio had submitted
me lnterrogatories. In the course of these
Mr. Tayier said: r.Charges are made that
you were convicted in 1889 of unlawful CO.
habltation. and that since then you have
peen guilty of the same offense; that some
years ago you contracted plural marriages
ana ever since then have maintained poIyp-
amo'ls relations with these wives"
MT. Iayier also stated a basis for
the inquiry: One Of the material facts to.
De ascertained is as to whether or not you
contracted as early as 1887 plural mar
riages, and have maintained ever since
poiygamous relations with these plural
Wives The com.,.ittee instructs me to say
that II you wish to make any statement
about this or any other matter which is
charged you may do so in your own way
MIR Roberts was also shown the affidavits
on ME, on which the foregoing inquiries
We're MADE. HIS answer was as follows:
First Roberts comedies the fact es-
tablished by the. records Of the third United
States judicial district court in and for the
territorr of Utah; submitted for his in
spection. to wit: That in 1889. In the ter
ritory of Utah. he pleaded guilty to the
misdemeanor charged against him of I'M
lawful cohabit9tion.
Second. In the testimony submitted 1t
nowhere appears that there is any affidavit
or other testimony offered before the COM
mittee that Roberts, about 1887. or pre-
vious to october, 1890, since, contracted
plural marriages, further than may be in
ferred from his confession to the INSIDE
meanor of unlawful cohabitation in 1850, as
set out In the court records, and therefore
on that pointIhe 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 ir-
regular charges against Roberts, It no.
r1,Nra - 49,
or sother testimony that Roberts, either be-
fore since 1880. contracted plural mar
riages; but as to Stfe ffquiry of the com
mittee on this subject. he specifically de-
tracted any plural ma rriages
Fourth. To the charge that ever since
1889. when Roberts pleaded guilty to I'M
lawful cohabitation in the then territory of
Utah. that he has lived in polygamous re-
lations, in violation OF law. he pleads not
guilty.
Roberts demurs to the proceedings in
stituted before the committee on the
ground that: 9 81.
First The committee has n, jurisdiction
over me to try me for the alleged defense
or the offense charged.
Second. Roberts further demurs to the
evidence and papers upon which the charge
of continued polygamous living is based
upon the ground that said papers and evf2
dence do not state facts sufficient to con-
stftute charge against me that Is in any
prive me of my prima facie right 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 contested
Third. That said papers and evidence
are ambiguous, unintelligibe and irlcoru-
petent and of such character as to make
the same not worthy TO be considered by
the committee; and ] ask that my prma
facie right to my, seat be now considered"
First Open Session.
The first open session of the Roberts
committee was held late this afternoon. On
the committee being called to order at 215
o'clock contention began.
The chairman invited some one repre-
senting the delegation protesting against
Roberts to stare to the committee the
their charges against Roberts
Attack on Schroeder.
Mr.. Schroeder. representing the delesa
ton of Utah gentiles, then addressed the
chair
Instantly Mr.. Roberts arose in his nIace
and said that whether Mr.. Schroeder an
peared as counsel or as witness, he pro-
tested against his appearance before the
committee on the grounds that he was not
worthy of the confidence of the committee
as he (Roberts) would undertake to prove
to the committee by presenting a transcript
from the records of the supreme court of
Utah zl.x
The chairman replied to this that Mr.
Schroeder appeared neither as attorney nor
as witness, but merely to inform the com
mittee where evidence in support of cha rpes
made could be found.
Mr. Roberts said that he protested against
his appearing in any capacity before the
committee.
Mr.. Schroeder was permitted to appear.
and sugs ested to the committee the names
of Understanding them the family Of
Mr. Roberts. al g1sr,