Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-01-05
THE ROBERTS CASE.
Arguments Commenced BEFORE me
Committee Yesterday.

WASHINGTON, January 4.-The
poharts Investigating Committee re-
c,,med its session to-day for the pur-
nose of hearing arguments and BRING
inc the inquiry to an early conclusion.
| IT was expected that eX-Seeretary John
q Carlisle would be present to sum up
the case against Roberts and That Mr..
Roberts in person would make the ar
onment in his own behalf. Word came
from Mr.. Carlisle, however, that he
had not understood his personal pres
ence was desired, but he was ready to
submit written arguments on any Oh
the questions involved.
Chairman Tayler, (Ohio), stated that
the statement of witness absent IN
Utah had been received, but as Mr..
Roberts declined to admit it in an in
formal manner, the matter would nave
to be taken up later.
Mr. Roberts said he wished TO present
matter tending to show the untrust-
Worthiness of the witnesses appearing
against him. 1t included a published
card signed by Thomas j. Brandon dis
claiming having given out certain in
formation relative to Roberts; also
court records in which Roy Brandon
was a party. Mr.. Roberts also offered
a telegram from the proprietors of the
Salt Lake Herald concerning the testi-
| mony of Mr.. McDaniels. Mr.. Tayler
| excluded the telegram, however, saying
there was no color Of right or proprlety
in receiving a telegram as testimony
in view of Mr.. Roberts refusal to adj
nit the statement of the absent Utah
witness.
Mr.. Schroeder. head of the Gentle
delegation here to oppose Roberts,
then opened the argument against Rob-
erts. The argument was largely tech
nicaI and was divided under three gen.
| eral heads, viz: first, whether or not
the member-elect has the constitution
al qualifications including citizenship;
second, whether or not the constitu-
tional provisions as to citizenship in
cludes one who has impaired his citi-
Zenship by crime or unlawful status,
and whether Mr.. Roberts has so i'm
paired his citizenship; third, whether
member-elect has the statutory quail
ifcations and whether the House has
the power to establish qualifications
beyond those in the constitution. Mr..
Schroeder read from many law books
concerning these propositions.
THE evidence clearly shows" pro-
ceeded Mr.. Schroeder, that since 1880,
Mr. Roberts has been in the status of a
polygamist and the question is as to
the effect of this status" He said that
while Utah was a territory there was
no doubt as to Roberts disfranchise-
ment under the Edmunds and Tucker
act, and when Utah was admitted to
statehood Mr.. Schroeder contended that
Mr.. Roberts citizenship was still i'm
paired. The status of polygamy was
such that Roberts could not relieve
himself from it without some affirma-
tive act AS to the right of the House
to exclude, Mr.. Schroeder said:
Suppose a raying maniac should pre-
sent himself at the bar of the House
and ask admission on proper creden-
tials, could not the House in self pro-
lection deny him admission? Suppose
man afflicted with lepro5y presented
himself, would not the House have
power to keep him out?"
Mr.. Schroeder said Roberts had adj
mitted his relationship with his plural
wives. He had publicly said he would
"be ID if he would give up his wives.
This was an offense against the public
morals as against the laws and Mr..
Roberts should be excluded from a
seat.