OCR Text |
Show ROBERTS' DEFENSE. UTAH CONGRESSMAN'S PLEA BEFORE COMMITTEE. Constituents Competent Judges of Moral Status of a Representative Claims Er-Ideuce Er-Ideuce Ioes Not Sustain Charges. Washington, Jan. 7. Mr. Roberts of Utah began his plea on his own behalf yesterday, speaking in all about five hours. The committee adjourned before be-fore he had concluded. At the openiugof the session a letter was received from John O. Carlisle, arguing against the citizenship of Mr. Roberts, aud stating it was his belief that Mr. Poberts would not be allowed to vote in any state in the union on the showing made. Mr. Roberts said: "The questions to be considered are the prima facie and final rightof B. IT. Roperts, representative-elect from Utah, to a seat in the house of representatives, repre-sentatives, to which he was elected in the month of November, 1808, by the people of Utah; the electorate of said state gave him a plurality of vote of 5,005. It is a case in which there is no contest and where it appears, so far as the proceedings before the committee are concerned, the representative-elect possesses all of the qualifications prescribed pre-scribed by the constitution of tho United States aud where there is no statute so far as made to appear before the committee either in the state of Utah or the United States applicable to the case which disqualifies the repre" sentativc-clect from the office of congressman con-gressman in the lower house of the American congress. "It is left to those constituents to determine," said he, "what shall be the moral status of the man they wish to send to congress as their representative, representa-tive, and not to the house of congress." Mr. Roberts took up the evidence of the witnesses who appeared against him and questioned some of their statements. state-ments. "It has not 67en been established," said he, "that. B. II. Roberts was ever married to Margaret 0. Shipp Roberts. It has been shown that he was seen near the house aud once in the house. But there was no testimony of marriage, mar-riage, nothing as to their maintaining martial relations, nothing as to their having been seen at the theatre or at the church, or otherwise associating as man and wife." As to the testimouy that ho had attended at-tended the funeral of a child of Celia Dibble Roberts, that was, Mr. Roberts said, not remarkable. There was nothing extraordinary in his attending a funeral acd the inferences drawn, could not be viewed as proof. As to any direct marital relations with Celia Dibble Roberts, he said, there was no direct testimony. In the main the evidence was as to general repute, he contended, which was short of that conclusive proof required. re-quired. He challenged the charge that he had contracted three polygamous marriages. Mr. Ta3'ler said he had never heard of such a charge, as three polygamous marriages would mean four marriages in all "I challenge this," said Mr. Roberts, "because it is one of the charges on which excitement has been worked up." Mr. Roberts vehemently exclaimed against those who had "hounded" him. They were not the bankers, merchants, lawyers and other substantial citizens of Utah but they were in the main eastern missionaries who had gone to Utah to oppose Mormonism. At one point Representative Mo" Pherson of the committee asked: "Under your faith, was the taking of plural wives merely allowable or was it required? " "It was mandatory," replied Mr. Roberts, "according to the view of leading Mormon authorities. Mr. Roberts continued until 4:30 p. m., when he asked that the hearing go over, having spoken almost five hours-. |