Show i ON S DEFENSE i II to the tho J 1 r r sl r r I t I ot IC hO member flO flOI 1 I I V Il se t tI I Mr r I 1 ro It rt rt r bur ur 1 II II to tor I I 1 to h lc n In h sir 1 M Ir itI Ye nd Oi OU to I II I tl I Ith covers VuC rih th IJ t a of Ih tI 4 1 No N ir 10 II tM th right to I IM M 11 n I tt if m my hint rIght Fa T r being l II I IJ tte bing J j Y sir air or 01 to b be ad u ur IF W r r h 11 n Whole Ye ot Of my mym In rr m II Ia In the prop prof profI fl b I 7 st It ced to consider I vr bo boW b 1 the question W M r tn In beth rAY S It betl ou thU Ih t In and the theft ilie th 10 rn I b I and ex CI CIc Ii r uni NII c un VJ ou POW noW to l rOcel roce I t part An ot Cf the tIC I 5 I the Not Ot queston tr I understand It the thet th Cf t t I t exclude m me The fhe ti entering Into In o Is 18 my II III I r I t IU eat r It Ihal be b bO m tOr O o r cIUi pie me or expel mo nt attl t Ih whole V cu oIe Q Thi rhia part pm queston It Ii JI With Iii r 1111 or oC Cf I 0 I a ot or Thil part ot l te e Que U I ent ot or coure denI wIth tho Iii nY argi Tho rho 1 t which qU j me Irom from the seat eat to IS 3 to I t e It Ii II caime I baul I and that hat would all I a of Ihl the tact rd of oC my iii the th C guIlty to the tl I f unlawful In I iL r whICh wa attended by dI J holding ot of tor or voting Ind q I alit that Cram ruIn that his r I alo until now I h have ve 11 tow law I coul coulto in YI 1 of the lh to 10 II the allence ot ota 0 n utI 1 Schroeder ho hoc hould ii c a for tile the oth othO uld be ced the O b the J jeIn ln to th the to the committee lee leef q f te paid d It over In I sup SUII supe e he le e pUI 80 50 I lauJe he took look It IL Cor to fate It II established the charo rAj al J had since 1859 lve lived In III oi tb This I stI n 11 M hi I tiresome Is the only oni III I shall have to enter Into tnt I I n before tm S ot IfF lute this heI n sIty J I mut si shah Corl a moment the th mO c hal of oC the fact ot of i guilty lu to I a In 18 lj tk up tie the that ha hab ha han b en i n nn by the before this S I the testimony ot of thee the thet hal roup t r rather group the th reference to their lea tes I 1011 group of 01 C T r rc c 1 rn Ir T P C if Re Rev G 0 W V lor tn HD 1 anI ar I Ite Itc E n H They Theyan an IL t i 1 to 10 the tho general rep tt In Utah ot of r a 1 r n myself and the II r i Cu it n Ii wih the exception of 01 Ur Hr rUt l hO testified that he hat bet betS S kJ 1 up Un cPr the one Dr t a at I 8 In thu thuI n I t nis and had ben answered by byone b bin in toe one nho ho aid eald he be wa was D 11 H 11 Rob Hob erl erlA A As ft Ii that hut I take I It the Oral r solely to toSI n aI SI r In III the Stat C 0 lid I dl hat D 13 I H I relations the women womer n i ho he cn rp I fl In fl of the second group 01 ot i to the b 1 1 I h I I and one OM Dr C CI I t These were Dr Drw DrI w I J Pr Dr Luelen P MIles and Irs t I Mr r Wilhard on nfl the he da day of 01 De Demb I I mb I 1 99 on an Ir In InaM I aM S 1 ft stating In that thai thaia a as 11 Dr JI ireI Holert I dont know ha le 0 L 1 te with the tho he hod nn thought Il to go to tc h to Jn out I It Wil wua true ot or ort t S t ho dl go to a j ih bk t its In claimed tl t Me u U n the tho Dr Roberta B BI I ad fund UN out Ut that he wa ns thC tho thoI I y hr ho had been n Introduce Introduced to toe 10 e Scars eus upon the traIn at atU U D rr Wishard came Iame belor before the commit II an WM questioned upon that sub jt J l I h that the tk place on lin a train leaving the cly city t c ManU dantI He WIS the queston the Introduction on tl the part of ci M 11 was Thia Is Ie my wife Cr I Irs Roberts an and the Ken gen genI Ima I as not quie quite t r hii hi oen b n used I 1 In that thaI I it I Ia tr very try doubtful Ie Iee I e hr br t ut was waa Ule used lie He one rr or he of the tho forms of Intro dut I question both of them ani td I f ras ii The man IDd iod bl L I In mar sn any without exaggeratIon Jenty eltIy to the tho member from Crom fromI Ith I ah n a number ol 01 ear We Were re by y M 03 frIends Our reb r I ns strained attained I had regarded 1 h i L s an au of oC my people 1 fl Hou If you want to 11 J git ht to goon go on the stand II and lr Mr H berA bera I am not I II I ant toni rom Use Ule testimony Mr 11 tat eld You ar are arguIng that thata a that I Is not by an any kd t i 81 a a alight not to b be be e 11 r I t it Mr Ir Fert Vh t 1 is that that Ir I understand that you youa ou I a rl that a 1 statement not de Ce dene ne lIed I iy anby as a ht to b b Ur hr r 1 bert birts I It the character ot 01 tho thor IO Ir r jr arl S such that It renders I It m h bl Mr Ir l I it I IM That I Ii a legitimate I 1 M ft Wrt That wa al what I was as t g The Th harman i nut But you o are Ir ILg f 3 r to him from your our Ilir It ItI Ot lip I J 3 rt Y Th h irman That I I as tel tea tL WI c elst elso Ib I l 1 It field I J It S take It as Th Tb Tea urman 1 1 I Odd We do not take taka I it Ur I the statement as ii a t n Ur 1 1 I I it Ils Is leglU Ti Tb 1 trman Fr him to describe t kI 1 p r k aI f with IUt the St 11 T r Yea Arod Yel I T h I I I t I o OUr pron portion would certainly be ruled t tI s I m MI Mr Ir l i The latitude that I a I I low In case hI ben been rr rest tat and the commIttee I thin Il s rl between en and ril at I think I know ani one on lb I Y to do so soT soI so soI T 7 tI t But I do not under I I I 1 1 I It Is Ia Possible th that t a r u aie can Undertake to gln gie I f Url Ind and at 5 to hIt hh personal at I t J tg toward a witness whose r F h Is and i I upon let al 4 tha under oab oath Ir r t t Un As the te 0 d between argument and cv 1 Ln t fe Je tha that ther there I II any oh ob ohIs if Is a kit rag ng bl his In makinI making tie tile he r n Amond Armor I it 1 Is not so 10 Import h the tile 81 thU we do 1 t l lell No It I Is slot I far r as 81 he comes s san ie 1 bIt thin It or of the n an all that thai r g b t but U he Phe e Cn cn not go o e oE C 1 I the tho thol hr t open Ila that t l h were tere asked Mr that amounted to ft rOUt out tL tIe U Ut Ut UI us usa usI a t I t I this the pronounced tint ex ci Isted Mr Morris reading rain tl the of He 1 8 QI you ou tot nol been en very pronounced Ye Yea sir I Iha ha ben vry ry l In my IC Q Did you ou not nol join with other min mU Iter of oC your church In III the celled Ien ln reasons ns why not fellowship I Yes sir Q You promInent part In oIl a athose those tho things out Yes That Is In the t I Mr It fl Is further alor tn in the testimony that I aske the tho gel n at that Ihal time It I t I WO was drunk on c the occasion of 01 the tho Introduction or orI 1 I was insane nt at that particular tim anti for tor the reason that I knew bIt t to be a and could not have hae Introduced h n to the It lady under thoP thoe ur would not have done so 80 The fhe ChaIrman ask Judge Do De At Ar Armond mend mond l na n a lawyer It If that Is II a proper prop statement Not that thai I CAre about Jt particularly hut ut us as I a matter of oC Procedure Mr tr Roberts sos says I 1 knew kne Mr tr to be n a personal enemy c of mine ergo I could not have hae said that I It Is alleged I PaId said to him tr Ir Do De mond I View Slew is 18 this In I lew of oC th the vIde range thc has examInation and the It there Is not cr lOg In the ln lIne ot of argument that Ihl this Genteman gentleman ma Inay make who Is n a layman byrne nn arid not n a lawyer that ought to dice the tho mInds minda of 01 the commIttee nl ii matter what loe line ot of argument ho he may ma choo e to Pursue The lie he hOB baa to I Igo HO go upon the witness stand Il lie to submIt himself to examination Now No Notie tie he In to tate fact taets cosing closing hIs either lher I to a 0 tian for Cor perjury It If Ito he not be 1 ton telling the truth j I our ur right to cros crOM examine him Therefore hI he Is Ie not In Inthe I Ithe the position of oC n a parson ron ordinarily ar arIng log Ing lien her and using those weapons the that argument makes proper hut Dut lie he do de his with thIs thi man re ot of that character reciting a ahel tact hel relating to that not covered by Li anythIng that Ir dr Whan Ir was wat not on friendly per with Mr Roberts un therefore It was wal impossible Mi Ir hIm Roberts should hove have sold said to Mr De dont know wha lr ald Id upon that point but butay bu buby ay by un eta Is I that In arguing a ose case nn an of 01 thC man who Is i a as to n ft thing of oC that kind can ca cabe b be allowed to be used for his purpose and the committee wi not be b bound 11 b hi his Im impressions r but wi will be b 1 theIr own judgment uni nod wi tile crImInate between what Is 18 and what II Ia no not 1 testImony rho you OU mean to fo eo Judge that we are to permit hIm to t proceed here and lay say I deny this foci fact I len deny that this Is n a fact and that th other thing Is a fact and ald that we or aN going to undertake later Inter on to tinte between what II is proper and what wha is 18 to snake make notes note of 01 those thole things he ht denies proper those things which he denies im imProPerly ProPerly Ir Do am prepared to tosa t tsay sa say that thai I 1 can do It ery enl easily He 11 line has not testified ed nt at 11 all and my under understanding standing Is that we f wil wilt have hare no test mony to 10 consider from Crom Mr Roberte Therefore I wi will have havo no trouble In dif dlf between that whIr which Is are ar and ond thet which I is no ar Um The Tho m my part I eha object to his facts fact which ur en ot of which lit ho docs present al alt evidence upon Uon hil his own owr I If ho he desIres to be sworn reo re moton relations with Ith Mr Ir WI har r b Mi has 1 i rIght to Ie be sworn 1 I she haU us ns r riot nor thai thaia a important but because It hi 8 I i he be Intends to continue along that ln lInt to certain thIngs that lr nr ot of statements of at fact by b I dont dont think wo we have q to be dIsturbed men lull by the constanty alleged facts brought out Ir fl argument by Mr whIch he to testify to under Oh oath Ir dr D Dc am not In thaI ot of mental that I rm ani b by what lie he I Is going to sa saI ay I dont know that hat he 18 to cay ia I r do not find myself able to anticIpate hI be Is Ia going to lo l nay I cn can not s sInto ee Into nto hIs argument so 80 far os as the chair chairman nan man c can n apparently see I do not now whether r what Mr Is nr ar cuIng mn may be authorIzed b by the lest many nony or not because I 1 dont know hoW SOW far Car the examination went Even Een It f 1 it be not nol authorized by the testimony I t dols does ot s seem m to me that thIs rr corn tills this he In Clue wi table to b be controlled by the tho oC if beleC that Mr Robert RobertS Is testifying when clion ho he certainly has hns not ell Now os If Mr Roberts had testified and andI If I ho he were making nn an argument mixing testimony and ond in inS 1 S way that might be cn confusing I can how some han harm mIght be belone lone but nothing that comel comes from hUn hIm II It he ha has n nit t test net led at a tal all The he to make statements ot of fact ad Mr Do De proposition Ito I Ido do to not understand to l be before us at atal atil il al The Is the tho ion I ho have up for I attach n no Sr to the particular thIng he e Is now stating I understand that edge De Aronds Armonda statement II Ic that we ie are a 0 committee ot of nil acute lawer and when h he makes ot of fact ber hero wt wu kiO know they alo ie not te testimony Ind and that We wi will ox ex ludo clude from our minds because of our cuteness and discrImInation what et ef tet ct that may have hae produced upon them themy by y his statements or of acts Mr Do De I would not put It L that vay a I do not 10 lay Iny any special emphasis upon the acute proposition ly I Idea ea Is that even enn an obtuse lawyer 1 ought to 10 ho able to discriminate be what hat Is caid In argument and hat Is said In testimony when the per peron eon on has not test testified ld nt at 11 all To The he II In nt at liberty to stae tate an any mater matters of f fact Mr Dt De not nt at al all ty y yIew of It I Is us as to 10 the particular sub jet et that was waR UI that he ma may bp be outsIde of the record and I do lot not ay mt he hc Is not I do not leo see how han harm harman an como come from It I and I do not see that tho lie interruption b by the tho chairman If I Imay may le be pardoned was at aU alt coiled for do not nol wIsh to criticise but ut I do not noto o how the chairman can do I it I can canot nt ot do It it The Tue argument has been en one oner of r gral great latitude I It nIght have bave een fn yesterday for when I the c argument went on or an hour or orAn ora An a hour ansi a half os as to the compact I Utah the lie United ittes mt the compact be found Cound In the art act und lle the constitution ot of Instead ot of and and testimony ikei r years ar before When Ihen tl re 1 a lot Of hit hittite the tite Union and none nono ot of Ic st The ot of wet lr matters of 01 uhl record Mr Ie De WI was no n question raised l by the oth r an anthe the gentleman was as to his hla own on argument M My Ide Idea la is who the Is abut about I a contract we should IN go frt first to the j hot hat we o did not have Next Nox lf It there Is any part of oC the which yo WU not un WI w should go to outside circumstances and an taets We e had an hour a n half ot r outside anti facts dO day and nothing ot of tle the contract should have huu object 1 e Ott I If the hat undertaken to I introduce uc anything except wal we public record of 01 Congress printed by b of oC tongres Mr there b be no objection 10 the remarks let us cross caI U Ule bridge when we COIO coma to It it Mr you ou nolo not a rIght rig to that we ought nl riot p 9 ss Why can he not argue I I that ever every on one ot of tle these wi ne nesses I s Hot ot entItled to 10 belief and then the whether we ve take any dok toek In his hla mint ment Is for Cor Us to decide Mr Do De I cont contention ts that there thero II is 10 no danger In tie the world ot t his argument wih with b u e hI he has given Shen no t testimony and au hi h Ia 19 on an argument Mr h he has hns the U to toke take the grund ground that every ono or of 01 these heu lne cs Is not ele to cre on Cit di Mr Is competent far Cor him to comment upon th the to I Ithe the weight of the testimony given ly lylha L thu ln 5 The Tue ao Mv Mr Do Roberts Is not a lawyer lawer ant and lie he 13 may comment In 1 a way We limit a 1 yer would not hot Te The me for tor ruffling but lie he I of 01 a lawer to 10 know that he has no right to 10 tato taI rat matters rf of oC fact within his own knowledge only as bearIng upon It weight that the testimony ought to I have hai AI Au I said some tte tune Igo ago I it 19 this mat mal not important upon tor of Dr but bul thIs Indicates 1 that thai he la is entering upon thor he wi will do so or not I can not 6 M Mr Ir Do 10 certain certainly can not notT no T The e I it hi i better u 0 should hn some lomo understanding about abot it at this hs than to I it raise raise later Mr De further remark romar 0 as the latitude gIve In dU c slon The ho lad lady who addressed us 1 yesterday esterla afternoon did It upon tipon the theory that thc she for Jor tle the ladle ot of the United and while her dU culon wa was u a most molt interesting one I wa almost absolutely outside ot of the tt record Nobody lint hall tny any disposition to makl make any objection to her argument and I do not suppose anyone Is wih with the Ideo idea that what she said Wil Wi telmon testimony Mr think Mr under understands stands the tho suggestion Lt Let hIm go a ahead Mr I must mm soy a I though thought I WI was within matters that the were clearly indicated to le me at 01 loas In the ot of Ir Dr In regard to the relative position ot C hImself ansi me and I was through and there I is no other case ot of this tie de Uon that I know of 01 to arise arlee Mr Ir Is In the record Q Mr dr Roberts has known you OU o I Iman 1 man bitterly opposed to the Moron Mormon |