Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1899-12-11
ROBERTS, FIGHT
To Save His Seat in House
of Representatives.
Makes 2 Hours Speech, Saturday, Be-
fore Investigating Committee.
TayIer Of Ohio Outlines Charges and Taking
Of Evidence Begins.

alton of the case of Mr.. Roberts o.
Utah was resumed at 10 y. NJ, Satur
day. by the House investigating com
mittee, Mr. Roberts being present K
plead to certain specific interrogatorie:
which had been framed. The proceed
ings continued to be behind clOset
doors.
Mr.. Roberts was first asked if he con
coded the existence Of the court recorr
wherein he pleaded guilty in 1890. under
the EdmundsTucker law. This he con
coded. He was next asked whether
about 1870, or since 1880, he had married
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 reason:
First, on the ground of violation of
constitutional rights, in that it at
tempted to try him for a crime with
out presentment Of Indictment by grand
jury, and without trial before a jury
and due process of law.
Second, it was an attempt to de-
prive him of vested property that he
held. in the emoluments of an office for
the fun term.
Third. that the only evidence that
could be rightfully considered in the
committee was a court record estab-
fishing his guilt, confessed or proven.
of the representative-elect and that the
committee had no right to consider any
other evidence.
Fourth. that the crime alleged. name
~, that of unlawful cohabitation, even
if proven would not constitute a suffi-
cient crime to bar a member or deprive
him of his seat, because innocence of
polygamy or unlawful cohabitation is
nowhere enumerated in the Constitu-
tion as qualification for the office Of
member Of Congress, nor is it named
in any United States law applicable to
Utah or any other state
Mr.. Roberts argued these points for
nearly two hours. referring to law
books and answering queries 1t was
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 4 sovereign state representa-
ton III the House. at time when in
furious legislation effectng that state
might be enacted.
1t is understood that the opposition
to Mr.. Roberts has suggested that the
wives with whom he is alleged to have
maintained pOlygamous relations be
summoned as witness The first
wife. ii is said. would be exempt from
testifying against her husband. as she
has legal status as wife. but this
exemption would not extend beyond thu
first wife.
A subcommittee consisting Of Messrs.
Morris. Littletield and Meyers has been
to get up forms of sub
pOenas. etc. in connection with the
summoning of witnesses.
At the conclusion of Mr. Roberts
statement the committee held an exec
utive session and then adjourned I'M
til p. NJ. The chairman announced
that subsequent meetings would be
open and publicity also was given to
the official stenographer's reports of
the morning proceedings.
These showed that Mr. Tayler. (Ohio)
had submitted the heterogeneous. In
the course of these Mr.. Tayler said:
Charges are made that you were
in 1889 of unlawful cohabi-
tation and that since then you have
been guilty of the same offense: that
some years ago you contracted plural
marriages and ever since then have
maintained polygamous relations with
these wives"
Mr. Tayler, o.. also stated as a basis
for the inquiry: "One of the material
acts to be ascertained is as to whether
pr not you contracted as early as 1887
plural marriages and have maintained
ever since polygamous relations with
hese plural wives. The committee in
structs me to say that if you wish to
make any statement about this or any
'ther matter which is charged you may
10 so in your own way"
Mr.. Roberts was also shown the affi-
lavits on file, on which the foregoing
inquiries We're made. His answer was
as heretofore given. the |
written text submitted by him being as
'ollows:
First, Roberts comedies the fact es- |
abliShed by the records Of the Sd Il. s. |
judicial district court in and for the |
erritOry of Utah. submitted for his in |
pectiOn. to wit, that in 1889 in the ter |
itory of Utah, he pleaded guilty to the |
charged against him Of !
unlawful cohabitation.
Second, in the testimony submitted |
nowhere appears that there is affida- |
lit of other testimony offered before
he committee that Roberts. about 1887
II previous to October, 1890 or since |
Contracted plural marriages. further
han may be inferred from his con
ession to the misdemeanor of unlawful
,ohabitation in 1889. as set out in the
Ourts records, and, therefore. on that
Joint he enters no plea because there
s no charge or testimony alleging it,
Third, in the papers submitted
which are supposed to sustain the loose
nd irregular charges against Mr.. Rob-
rts it nowhere appears that there is
my affidavit or other testimony that
Roberts. either before or since 1890.
plural marriages. but as to
he inquiry Of the committee on this
ubject he specifically denies that since
october. 1880, he has contracted any
,lural marriages.
Fourth. to the charge that ever since
Continued on page 80