The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-06

axk Mr. Carlisle for his views more at
length on the general right of Congress to
exclude member.
Then Mr. Roberts began his argument.
He read typewriter statement, review
Ing in detail the proceedings IN his case up
TO date. IL said in part: THE questions 10
be considered are the prima facie and
final right Of Bishop H. Roberts, repre-
sentative-elect from Utah. TO a seat in
the House of Representatives, 10 which he
was elected in the month OF November,
1S96, by the people OF Utah: the electorate
OF said State gave him plurality vote OF
$3.50 1t is a case in which there is no con-
tests, and where IL appears, so far as the
proceedings before the committee is con-
cerned, the representatiye-elect possesses
all the qualifications prescribed by the Con-
stitution of the United States, and where
there Is no statute so far as made to APP
pear before this committee either in the
State Of Utah, or the United States, appli-
cable to the case, which disqualifieS the
representative-elect of Utah for the office
Of congressman in the lower house OF the
American Congress.
Mr. Roberts dwelt with special emphasis
on the right of constituency to determine
on the moral character OF a member. 1T
Is left TO those constituents TO determine,
he said, which shall be the moral status
OF the man they wish TO send TO Congress
as their representative. and not 10 the
House OF Congress" In support of this.
he read with emphasis and approving COM
ment. a congressional report signed by
H. r. Butter. Danlel W. voorhees,
Others in the course OF which IL is said
the House Of Representatives shall be COM
posed 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
sclf-purification," which might suggest
themselves to reason or caprice Of members
from other States. in any process or purga-
ton or publication.
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, If you want TO testify you
ought to go on the witness stand.
This developed some difference of opinion
among the members of the committee. Mr..
Dearmond and Mr. Littlefeld said the
statements were in the line Of legitimate
argument.
Mr.. Tayler insisted that Mr.. Roberts
should not be permitted 10 make state
ments of fact while not under oath and not
subject TO the rules of perjury
Mr.. Dearmond answered that the hearing
had taken wide latitude and he was sure
the committee could discriminate between
Mr. Robertss arguments and his state
ments of fact 81 am not in such state
Of mental disturbance" remarked Mr.. De-
armond. "as TO be able to foresee what
Mr.. Roberts is going to say" He added
that he did not see that the interruption
of the chairman was at ali called for in
view Of the latitude heretofore allowed.
The incident took an amusing turn when
Mr.. Roberts being allowed to proceed. said
he was through on that subject and there
was hearty laugh all around. He went
on. however, analyZing the evidence of
other witnesses and in general questioning
the directness and conclusiveness of the
testimony. 1T has not even been cstab-
hshed." said he. that b. III. Roberts was
ever married TO Margaret G. Shipp Rob-
erts." Ii has been shown that he was seen
near the house and once in the house But
there was no testimony of marriage. moth
Ing as 10 their maintaining martial rela-
ff0nS. being a
the theater church or otherwise asso-
ciating as man and wife.
How do you account for your picture
being found in her house?' inquired Chair
man Tayler.
II don't know how to account for it,
4 answered Mr.. Roberts
AS to the testimony that he had attended
the funeral of child of Celia Dibble Rob-
erts. that was. Mr.. Roberts said, re-
markable. There was nothing extraor-
binary in his attending a H. eral and the
inference drawn could not be viewed as
proof AS to any direct marital relations
with Celia Dibble Roberts, he said, there
was no direct testimony
Mr. Roberts challenged the charge that
ne had contracted three polygamous mar
rfages.
Mr.. TayIer said he had never heard of
SUCH charge, as three polygamous mar
riages would mean four marriages in all.
Il challenge this said Mr.. Roberts. be
cause 1t Is one of the charges on which ex-
element has been worked up."
When Mr.. Roberts sought to read pub
lished comment tending to show the motive
OF the crusade and cause" against him
Chairman Tayler stopped him. The COM
mittee had nothing to do with any cru
SADIE, Mr.. Tayler said. but was trying to
ascertain one fact. namely, whether Mr..
Roberts is a polygamist. The chairman
said Mr.. Roberts's line of procedure was
irregular. There was some difference of
opinion in the committee as to the course
to pursue.
LET US settle it here and now" said Mr..
Iittlefield. las far / concerned
am ready to hear anything he wants TO
say"
Mr.. Tayler said he wished to enter this
protest against bringing questions of fact
into the argument as both improper and
ridiculous.
Mr. Roberts vehemently exclaimed
against those who had bounded him.
They were not the bankers, merchants.
lawyers and other substantial citizens of
Utah, but they were 10 the main Eastern
missionaries who had gone to Utah to OPP
pose Mormonism-
AT one point Representative Mcpherson
asked: Under your faith was the taking
of plural wives merely allowable or was
IL required"
'It wits mandatory" replied Mr.. Roberts,
according to the view of leading Mormon
authorities" ~
Mr.. Roberts continued until 4:30 D. m,
when he asked that the hearing go over.
He had then spoken five hours. The COM
mittee thereupon adjourned until 10 a.. m.
tomorrow. when Mr.. Roberts will con-
clude.