The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1900-01-19
Slight Difference Of Opinion Re
garding Proper Mode Of
Procedure.
Majority Report Will Recon-
mend That He Shall Not
Be Seated.

H. Roberts Of Utah, has reached a final
conclusion. On the polygamous status
Of Mr.. Roberts the committee was unan.
imous and agreed upon a formal state
ment Of facts. On the question Of pro.
cedure to be adopted the committee was
divided.
The majority, consisting Of all the
members except Littlefield Of Maine and
De Almond of Missouri, favored exclu.
sion at the outset. Messrs. Littlefield
and De Almond will make a minority
report favorable to seating Roberts OH
his prima facie rights and then expel.
ling him.
The Facts AZ found.
The statement Of facts found by the
committee is as follows:
1--WE find that B. H. Roberts was
elected as representative to the Fifty.
sixth congress from the State Of Utah,
and was at the date of his election above
the age Of % years; that he had been
for more than eve years a na%turalized
citizen Of the United States and was an
inhabitant Of the State Of Utah.
1--WE further find that about 1878 he
married Louisa Smith, his first and law.
full wife, with whom he has ever lived
as such, and who has since borne him
six children.
"About 1856 he married as his plural
wife, Celia Dibble, with whom he has
ever lived as such, and who, since such
marriage, has borne him six. children, Of
which the last were twins, born Aug.
II, 1897.
"That' some years after his marriage
to Celia Dibble he contracted another
plural marriage with Margaret Q. Shipp
with whom he has ever since lived in
the habit and repute Of marriage.
"Your committee is unable to fix the
exact date Of this marriage. 1t does not
appear that he held her out as his wife
before Jan. /, 1897, or that before that
date she held him out as her husband,
or that before that date they were re.
puted to be husband and wife.
"That these facts were generally
known in Utah, publicly charged against
him during his campaign for election
and were not denied by him.
'"That the testimony bearing on those
facts was taken i'll the presence Of MI.
Roberts and that he fully cross-exam-
ined the witnesses, but declined to place
himself on the witness stand"
The eliminating session Of the com
mittee followed many prolonged execu.
tive sessions, which left no doubt as to
the attitude of the several members,
with the exception Of Mr.. Miers Of In
DIANA, who had been out Of the city.
He has now returned, and it was deter.
mined to bring the matter to a direct
issue. Accordingly when the commit
tee met Mr.. MCPHERSON Of Iowa offered
q resolution for the exclusion Of Roberts.
De Almond Proposes = Substitute.
Mr.. De Almond Immediately proposed
a substitute, recognizing the constitu.
tional rights of Roberts to take his seat
on his credentials, and pro viding for his
expulsion.
There was no discussion beyond in.
formal remarks and the vote was first
taken on Mr.. De Almonds substitute,
Mr.. Littlefield joining him in the affirm
alive and the others voting in opposi.
ton. The vote was then taken on Mr..
McPherson's motion to exclude, result.
ing as follows:
Yeas-Taylor. (O.), Frear, Morris and
Mcpherson, Republicans; Lanhan and
Miers, Democrats.
Nays-Littlefield, Republican; De
Almond, Democrat.
Chairman Tayler was authorized to
prepare the majority report. It will be
ready in a few days and the prospects
are that the subject will be brought be.
fore the house early next week. Mr..
De Almond will submit the views Of
the minority. He will include the ex.
haustive review of the law, covering
about 70 typewriter pages, prepared by
Mr.. L~ittlefield. The main point Of this
is that the house cannot add to the re.
quirements provided by the constitution
for admission to the house and that the
only constitutional remedy is to admit
and then expel on the finding Of facts.
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.
Decision OF the supreme Court Makes
the Plan Impossible ia Iowa.
Dies MONIES. Jan. 1s.-The supreme
court has handed down a decision in
the Des Moines municipal electric light
case which is considered by municipal
ownership advocates II severe blow 10
their hopes in this state. The city of
Des Moines contracted for the building
of a municipal electric light plan, and
was enjoined against carrying out the
contract. The contract anticipated the
revenues, providing that payment
should be made each year until the
plant was paid for. when it should be-
come city property. The payments
were no larger than the amount the
city had previously paid annually for
light. The supreme court, however.
holds that a city CANNOT antici ate Its
revenues in this way to provide u plant
III the Total 0f AnticiuAted liability