The Afro-American advance. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1899-19??, 1900-01-06
ROBERTS. I5ASENEAR. END.
The Closing Arguments Are Begun
Before the Investigating
Committee.
ROBERTS ATTACKS TRUTH OF WITNESSES
Mr., schr"edcr, Head of Gentle Dele
cation, Presents Argument Against
Roberts, LHrReiS an Technical
GroundS-shaws Why lie Is Not I'm
titled To "a sent Ia House.

Washington Jan. ). - The Roberts
Investigating committee resumed it's
sessions Thursday for the purpose of
hcuriug arguments and bringing the
inquiry to an early conclusion. II was
expected that cN Secretary John G..
Carlisle would lee present TO sum up the
case against Roberts, aud that Mr. Rob
erts tu person would make the argu-
mcut m his own behalf Word came
from Mr.. Carlisle, however. that he had
not Understood his personal presence
wns desired, but he was ready TO submit
written arguments en- any of the ques-
tious involved,
Chairman layler tol stated that the
| statement of q witness absent In Utah
had been received, but as MIR Roberts
declined "a admit II Ia an informal
manner, he mntter would have To be
taken up later
Mr.. Roberts said he wished TO present
matter tending to show the un-
| truatwutthiness of the witnesses APP
reariug against him. II included pub
| ishcd card sigutd 10y I homhs j. liran-
don. disclgiminR having given out GER
| tain information relative 10 Roberts;
| also court records ln which Roy Bran
| don was party, Mr., Roberts also Of
fercd telegram from The proprietors
| Of the Salt Lake Herald concerning the
testimony Of Mr. Mechanics Ia, Ter
excluded the telegram. however. snying
there wat TO color Of right or propfiety
IN receiving telegram as testimony In
view 81 Mr.. Roberts refusing 10 admit
| the statement of the absent Utah Wit
ness.
Argument Against nobrrts,
Mr. Schroeder, head of the gentle
delegation here 20 oppose Roberts, then
opened the argument against Roberts.
The argument was largely technical.
and was divided under three general
heads, viz. First, whether or not the
member-ciect has the constitutional
qualifications, including citizenship;
Second. whether or not The eonstitu-
iinrnl proHiAlanR a. 20 eiliaanshlps la-s
ciudr upe who has impaired his citi-
ycuthip by crime or unlawful status.
and whether Mr.. Roberts has 40 i'm.
paired his citizenship; third. whether n
nemhcr-elcct has the statutory quali-
hontipns. aud whether the house has
the power 10 establish qualifications
beyond those In the constitution. Mr..
Schroeder read from many law books
concerning these propositions.
The evidence clearly shows" proceeded
| Mr Schroeder. that since 1850 Mr. Rob
! erts has been IN the status 81 paiYEn-
mist ana the question Is ms 20 the effect
If this status" he said that while Utah
| was territory there was no Goub' -
70 Roberts Acknowledgement under the
| Edwundr ana Tucker net Ana when
! Uiph was admitted to statehood, Mr.
! Fnhrnedgr c0nteHded that air Roberts
| citizenship WAS sim Impaired The status
| " payFumy was such that Roberts could
not relieve himself from - without some
| affirmative act ~ to tho right OF the
bouH. 20 exclude Mr. Schroeder said
! Suppose u rnyinH maniac nhuu a present
/ himasif ~ the bee Of the house and ask
| admission on proper credentials could not
| the house IN kff.ptoifction deny hlm adj
mission Suppose man AFFLICTED with
/ loprosy presented himself would not the
| house have power 10 keep him outg''
! Ar Schroeder said Roberts had admitted
/ hts relationship with his plural wives. lie
! had publicly said be would '.bc d. n
/ no would give up hts wives" This was
| nm ofrcrHe against the public morals "a
| aE1luHt the law, and SIR Roberts should
| b. excluded from ssst
AZ this point recess was taken until
two O'Clock.