The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-01-05
ROBERTS INVESTIGATION


Appears Roberts Admitted Plural
ity Of wives, and Said He Would
"Re ID If he Would Give Up
his Wives"
WASHINGTON, D. c., Jan, 4.-The
Roberts investigating committee re-
sumed its sessions to-day for the pur-
pose OF hearing arguments and bring
Ing the inquiry to an early conclusion.
1t was expected that ex-secretary
John G. Carlisle would be present to
sum up the case against Roberts, and
that Mr.. Roberts in person would make
the argument in hlasown behalf. Word
came from Mr.. Carlisle, however that
he had not understood his personal
presence was desired. but he was ready
to submit written arguments on any Of
the questions involved
Chairman Tayler Cohlo), stated that
the statement Of a witness absent in
Utah, had been received, but as Mr..
Roberts declined to admit 1t in an In
formal manner, the matter would have
to be taken up later.
Mr.. Roberts said he wished to present
matter tending to show the untrust-
worthlness Of the witnesses appearing
against him. 1t included published
card signed by Thomas ]. Brandon,
dIsclaImlng having given out certain
information relative to Roberts: also,
court records in which Roy Brandon
was 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. say
ing there was no color Of right or pro-
priety In receiving a telegram as testl-
nony, in view of Mr.. Roberts refusal
to admit the statement Of the absent
Utah witness.
Mr.. Schroeder, head OF the Gentle
delegation here TO 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-eIect has the constitutional
qualifications including cltizenship;sec-
ond. whether or not the constitutional
provisions as to citizenship includes
one who has impaired his citizenship
by crime or unlawful status, and
whether Mr.. Roberts has SO impaired
his citizenship; third, whether a mem
ber.elect has the statutory quallaca-
tIons, and whether the house has the
power TO establish qualifications be-
yond those in the constitution. Mr..
Schroeder read from many law books
concerning these propositions.
"The evidence clearly shows" pro-
ceeded Mr.. Schroeder, "thnt since 1850
Mr.. Roberts has been in the status of
nolvpam,st. and the question is as to
the effect of this status" He said that
while Ijtnh was a territory. there was
no doubt as to Roberts dIsfranchtse-
ment under the Edmunds and Tucker
act. And when Utah was admitted to
statehood, Mr. Schroeder contended.
that Mf, HOpGTA CltISSN"AP '''&" N''a
impaired. The status of polygamy was
such that Roberts could not relieve
himself from 1t without some afirmaA
tive act. As to the right Of the house
to exclude, Mr.. Schroeder said;
Suppose ravIng maniac should
prcsent himself at the bar Of the heuse
and ask admission on proper credenf
tlnls. could not the house, in self pro-
lection, deny him admission? Suppose
man AFFLICTED with leprosy presented
himself, would not the house have
power 10 keep him out?"
Mr.. Schroeder said Roberts had ad'
mltted his relationship with his plural
wIyes. He had publicly said he would
,bc d-d' Il he would give up his
wives. This was an ofense ngainst the
public morals az against the laws and
Mr.. Roberts should he excluded from a
seat
At this point u recess was taken until
. o'clock,