The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-10
HAS NO JURISDICTION
Roberts Demurs to the Evidence
Presented.
HELD A SECRET SESSION
He Insists That Not Sufficient Facts
Have Been Produced to Deprive
Him OF His Right to His
Seat in Congress.

Washington, Dec. 9.-The considera-
ton Of the case of Mr.. Roberts of Utah
was resumed at 10 o'clock this morning
by the house investigating committee
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-
ceded the existence of the court record
wherein he pleaded guilty, in 1883, un-
der the Edmunds-Tucker law. This he
conceded. He was next asked whether,
about 1887, or since 1887, 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 was at
tempted to try him for a crime with
out presentment 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 vested property that he
held in the emoluments of an office tor
the full term.
Third--That the only evidence that
could be rightfully considered i'll the
committee was a court record and the
establishing of the guilt. confessed or
proven, of the representative-eleet and
that the committee has no right to con-
slider any other evidence.
Fourth-That the crime alleged,
- ,,,J. ,F,,l rnI,o ot>i t,t ti<v,
even if proven would not constitute a
sufficient crime to bar a member. or
deprive him of his seat, because inno-
cence of polygamy or unlawful col bi-
tation is nowhere enumerated II the
constitution as a qualification fh" ohe
office of member of congress, nor is 1t
named in any United States law ap-
plicable to Utah or any other state.
Mr.. Roberts argued these points for
nearly two hours, referring to law
books and answering questions. 1t was
a legal controversy throughout, the
facts not being gone into at length
Mr.. Roberts concluded by asking that
his prima facie rights to seattbe at
once considered, as the present status
denied to sovereign state representa-
ton in the house at time when injur-
ious legislation Affecting that state
might take place.
At the conclusion of Mr. Roberts
statement the committee held an ex-
ecutive session and then adjourned un-
til 2 pm. The chairman announced
that the subsequent meeting would be
open and publicity was also given to
the official stenographic reports of the
morning. These showed that Mr.. Tay-
lor of Ohio had submitted the inter-
rogatories.
In the course of these Mr.. Taylor
said:
"Charges are made that you We're
convicted in 1889 of unlawful cohab-
itation, 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" -s
Mr.. Taylor also stated as basis for
the inquiry "one of the material facts
to be ascertained is as to whether or
not you contracted, as early as 1887.
ever since polygamous relations with
these plural wives. The committee in
structs me to say that If you wish to
make any statement about this or any
other matter which is charged, you
may do so in your own way"
Mr.. Roberts was also shown the aft1-
davits on file, on which the foregoing
inquiries were made. His answer was
substantially as has been given in the
written text submitted by him, being
as follows:
"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, submit
ted for his inspection. to-wit: That in
1889, in the territory of Utah, he pleaded
guilty to the misdemeanor charged
against 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, CT
previous to October. 1890, or since cen
tracted plural marriages further than
may be inferred from his confession to
the misdemeanor Of unlawful ',nhabita-
ton in 1889, as set out in the court rec
ords, and therefore on that point he
enters no plea because there IS nc
charge or testimony alleging it.
"Third-In the papers submittcd
which are supposed to sustain the loose
and irregular charr,s against Roberts
it nowhere appears that there is any
affidavit or testimony that Roberts
ether before or since 1890 contracted
plural marriag IS, but as TO the inquiry
of the commit Oh this subject he
spec,a lily denies tha: s'nta October, 1880,
he contracted plural marriages.
"Fourth-To the charge that ever
since 1889, when Roberts pleaded guilty
to unlawful coha bitation in the then
territory of Utah, that he has lived in
polygamous relations in violation OF
law. he pleads not guilty"
Roberts demurs to the proceedings
instituted by the committee on these
grounds:
'First-That the committee has no
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 facts do not state
facts sufficient to constitute a charge
against me that is in any way regular
or tenable or sufficient to deprive me
of my prima facie right to take the
oath of office and occupy the seat in
the house of representatives to which
/ have been duly and legally elected
and which election and right is not
contested.
"Third-That said papers and evil
dence are ambiguous, unintelligible and
incomplete, and of such a character as
tn la ha