The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-06

| For fully five hours yesterday Repre-
sentatiye-elcct Roberts Of Utah held TIE
close attention of the special committee ap-
pointed TO investigate bis right 10 he sH oru
in as q member OF the House He repli ID
to the argument made on Thursday by Nj.
Schroeder. and also paid his respects to the
testimony given by the two sets Of Wit
uesses who we're heard by the committee
I several weeks ago. The gentleman from
! Utah had not overlooked any point in lis
favor. He made il clear 10 the committee
that he had studied the legal questions in
/ volyed. and for one not lawyer 1t was
! conceded that he haudled his case clCveriy.
] Several times during his argument eXcep-
/ tons we're taken by Chairman Tayier, who
! objected to Mr. Roberts making statement 5
! as to facts about the testimony OF wit
7 resses. There was nothing sensational in
J the days proceedings, nor was there any
thing really new developed. With the ex-
! ception of a brief history CT the Mormon
/ Church there was nothing ncw in. the aTga-
ment advanced by MIR. Roberts the chief
| points at issue were fully covered by him
in his brief filed few days after the ap-
pointment OF the special committee.
II was IL O'Clock when Chairman Tayler
| called the committee TO order yesterday
| morning. The announcement that Mr.
Roberts would speak drew a large crogd
10 The committee room. Before MIR. Rcb-
erts began. Chairman Tayler read letter
he had received from M. Carlisle counsel
for the Social Service League. Commenting
on the naturalization OF Mr.. Roberts, MIR.
Carlisle In his letter said:
1T seems to me that the question Of cit
izenship has been abandoned, or at least
nothing is said about 1t in the testimony.
The record Of Roberts application and al
mission to citizenship does not comply with
the Law. as | understand it, and | do not
think he would be allowed vote in any
State upon a certificate based upon that
record"
Mr.. Carlisle reviewed at length the his
tory Of Mr. Roberts naturalization and
cited the law and precedenis to support his
contention. he said:
The resolution under which the COM
mittee is proceeding directs il to ascertain
and report not only upon Roberts prima
facie right, but upon his final right He
seems to have objected to the evidence un-
less it shows that he was guilty OF unlaw-
ful cohabitation since the 4th of March last,
when he claims 10 have become member
Of the House
Il think the testimony shows. prima ia
Gle. that he has been so cohabiting; but this
is not material in my opinion, even though
the committee had no jurisdiction to en-
quire as to the conduct previous t. the Ilh
of March, 1893. because he is undoubtedly
polygamist and has been polygamist ever
since he married his first plural wife. with
in the meaning of that term as defined by
the Supreme Court Of the United States in
the Ramsey case.
He is at this very moment polygamist,
not having at any time abandoned or re-
nouDced the relations assumed by the plu-
raj marriages, and cohabitation with the
alleged wives is not at all necessary.
The question. therefore. is whether the
committee will decide on the question of
final right that an undoubted polygamist
who justifcs the doctrine and the practice
Of polygamy. shall be allowed to hold a
seat in the House Of Representatives"
Touching the constitutional qualifications
Of a Representative in Congress. Mr.. Car
Isle says: The provision of the Consti-
tuition is no; Affirmative. II does not pro-
vide that all persons possessing the quali- |
fcations enumerated shall be eligible or
may be eligible, but simply that they can
not be eligible unless they do possess these /
essential qualifications"
when Chairman Tayler had concluded !
the reading OF Mr.. Carlisles letter Mr.. /
Roberts was recognized. and the gentle /
man from Utah began his argument. He 4
reviewed the proceedings OF the committee I.
and again went over the ground covered by :
him when he addressed the committee some 1
weeks since. He discussed at length the |
question of the constitutional qualiica
tons Of a member and held that Congress /
had no power to prescribe additional quail |
fcRtion for a member other than those
expressed in the Constitution. The House.
he said was simply the judge of the quail
fcation named in the Constitution.
Mr. Roberts said IL the House had power
TO add qualification for membership there
would be no limit to the number that might
be addea to meet any public clamor He
quoted from the report in the Credit
Mobillier case to show that the House had
no power TO expel member for an act
prior to the election OF such
member. He said that report had a direct
bearing on his case Referring 10 the
question of his naturalization. he said he
had complied with the law, and that there
could be no question az TO his prima facie
right to his seat in the House. He COM
alained that for a month Utah had been
deprived OF representation in the House |
and that during that time n bill affecting
the interests OF his State (the Currency
bilD had passed the House After claim
ing that his certificate OF election was
regular in form, and, as he possessed all
he constitutional requirements he was en-
titled to be sworn in as mcnsber OF the
House, as much so as any member OF the
he took up the question OF
eligibility. which had been raised because
~ had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor
committed in 1889. II was at this point
hat he directed attention to the testimony
1f witnesses who testified, not from per-
sonal knowledge. he said. but hear-say. as
% his polygsmous relations. While criti-
Using the testimony given by one o. the
b. Wishard. who. he said.
vas personal enemy-he was interrupted
Jy Chairman Tayler. who said he was not
n order. that he was giving testimony in-
stead Of argument. He thought the gen
lcman from Utah should go on the stand
4 he desired to attack the testimony OF
witnesses.
The interruption provoked n discussion
lmong the members OF the committee as to
he right of Mr.. Roberts to continue in
hat line of argument. IL was agreed |
however. that he should proceed in his own
way.
Taking up the testimony Of the witness.
Ir Roberts said 1t had not been estab-
ished that B H. Roberts was ever mar
led TO Margaret sbipp Roberts They had
Tot been seen eating together or driving
ogether nor in church together
When asked by Chairman Tayler how it
happened that his picture was in Margaret
;hlpp Roberts room Mr.. Roberts an
,wered. Il don't know" He said the tes-
TO CURE 4 COLD IN ONE DAY
Fake Laxative Bromo Qulnine Tablets All
druggists refund The money if ii faill 10 cure |
I. W. Groves signature is on each box. &c.
IcurIch's as Defender of Pure
Beer.