The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-01-06
n)BERTSgASE ARGUED
For the Defendant by the De-
PENDANT Himself.
JOHN G. CARLISLE'S VIEW
Mormon Church Commanded
PoIygamy, Roberts Says.
JOHN G. CARLISLE'S VIEW

| retary Jonn u. carlisle letter giving
| his views on the case. Mr. Carlisle saiC
| he was suffering from a cold and wa!
unable to make an oral argument at thi:
! time. As to the case, he said: 1T seem!
to me that the question of citizenship ha:
been abandoned, or, at least, nothing i:
| said about it in the testimony. The rec
ord of Roberts application and admission
| to citizenship do not comply with the Law
as I unders and il and 1 do not think he
would be allowed to vote in any state
upon a certificte based upon that rec
| ord
The resolution under which the com
| mission directs it to ascertain and re-
port, not only upon Roberts prima facie
right, but upon his final right. This, Mr..
Carlisle discusses on the evidence and
says: "He is at this very moment a
polygamist not having at any time aban-
doned or renounced the relation assumed
by the plural marriages, and cohabita-
ton 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 undoubt-
ed polygamist who justifies the doctrine
and practices of polygamy, shall be al
lowed to hold seat in the house,
1t was determined by the committee
to ask Mr.. Carlisle for his views more
at length on the general right Of con-
gress to exclude a member.
Mr.. Roberts then began his argument.
Mr.. Roberts read a typewriter state
ment reviewing in detail the proceedings
of his case up to date. 1t said in part:
THE questions to be considered are the
prima facie and final right Of B. H Rob
erts, epresentative1elect from Utah, to a
seat in the house of representatives, to
which he was elected in the month of
November, 1885, by the people of Utah;
the electorate of said state gave him a
plurality vote of $685. 1t is a case in
which there is no contest and where it
appears, so far as the proceedings before
the committee is concerned, that, the
ep~esentative-elect possesses all of the
qualifications prescribed by the constitu-
ton of the United States, and where
there is no statute, so far as made to ap-
pear before this committee, either in the
state of Utah or the United States, ap-
plicable to the case, which disqualifies the
epresentative-eIect from Utah for the
Office Of congressman in the lower house
of the American congress-
Mr. Roberts dwelt with special empha-
sis on the right of a constituency to de-
termine on the moral character of a
member. at IS left to those constitu-
ents to determine he said, what shall
be the moral status of the man they wish
to send to congress-"
In support of this he read with en-
phatic and approving comment a con-
gressional report signed by B. F. Butler,
Daniel w. Voorhees, and others, in the
course of which it IS said that "the house
shall be composed of members chosen by
the people of the states, and not by the
representatives of other states, according
to the notion of the necessities of self
preservation and publication which
might suggest themselves TO the reason
or caprice of members from other states,
in any process of 'purgation or purifica-
ton"
Mr.. Roberts declared that Utah, one of
the great silver-producing states, had
been denied representation of late, while
the important financial bill, vitality in
volving Utahs silver mining and silver
industry, was considered and passed.
Mr.. Roberts took up the evidence of the
witnesses who appeared against him and
was questioning some of the statements
when Chairman Tayler interrupted:
Mr. Roberts, IL you want to testify
you ought to go on the witness stand"
This developed some difference of opin-
ion among the members of the commit
tee Mr.. De Almond and Mr.. Littlefield
said the statements were in the line of
legitimate arguments. Mr.. Tayler in
sisted that Mr. Roberts should not be
permitted to make statements Of facts
while not under oath and not subject to
the rule Of perjury. Mr.. De Almond
answered that the hearing had taken
wide latitude and he was sure the COM
mittee could discriminate between Mr..
Roberts arguments and his statements
of fact. 81 am not in such a. state of
mental disturbance" remarked Mr.. De
Almond, las 10 be able tC foresee what
Mr.. Roberts is going to say He added
that he did not see that the interruption
of the chairman was at all called for, in
view of the latitude heretofore allowed.
The incident took an amusing turn
when Mr.. Roberts, being allowed 10 pro
coed, said ne was through on that 5,
ject. and there was a hearty laugh all
round He went on, however. Analysing
the evidence Of other witnesses. and in
general questioning the directness and
conclusiveness of the testimony.
Tt has not even been established"
said he, that B. II. Roberts was ever
married 10 Margaret c. Shipp- Roberts.
II has ben shown that he was seen near
the house, and once in the house, but
there was no testimony Of marriage.
nothing as TO their maintaining marital
relations. nothing as TO their being seen
az the theatre or church. or otherwise
associaung as man and wife.
How do you account for your picture
being found in her house?" inquired
Chairman Tayler.
Y don't know how 10 account for It. +"
answered Roberts
AZ TO the testimony that Re had at
tended the funeral Of a enid q Celia DID
be Roberts. that was. Mr. Roberts said
not remarkable. There was nothing ex-
traordinary ii his attending funeral
ard the inferencs drawn could not be
viewed as proof As - any direct mari
tai relations with Celia D1sbis Roberts.
he said. there was no direct testimony
IN the main, the evidence was as % ger
eral reputs. he consende5. which vas
short CT that conclusive proof required
II. r%zssave,ss ~ rbz-va that Re Had
contracted three posyganous marriage