OCR Text |
Show ROBERTS' PLEA. SAYS HE IS NOT GUILTY OF CHARGES PREFERRED. Demur to the Right of the CoBmltte tc Try Illm los Not Attempt to Disprove Dis-prove Chitrjfes, but Haaes 111 liefeuae on Legal Gronndl. - Washington, Dec, 12. The conaid eration of the case of Mr. Roberts of Utah was reHumed at 10 o'clock th'n morning. Mi-. Roberts being present pres-ent to answer o-r-tai n specific inter ro atorics. Mr. Roberts was first asked if he conceded con-ceded the existence of the court recorci wherein he pleaded guilty in ISS'.l under un-der tin; Kdmuiuls-Tucker law. Xhif he conceded. He was next asked whether aooir 1S.-S7, or since lS'.Ki, ha had married plural plu-ral wives and had lived with then since as wives. To the whole of thii charge Roberts pleaded not guilty and then demurred to the jurisdiction ol the committee, for the following reasons: rea-sons: First On the ground of violation ol constitutional rights, in that it attempted at-tempted to try him for a crime without presentment of indictment by grant! jury and without due process of law. Second That it was an attempt to deprive him of vested property that he held in the emoluments of an office for the full term. Third That the only evidence that could rightfully be considered in the committee was a court record, and then establishing the guilt, confessed or proven, of the representative-elect, and that the committee has no right to consider any other evidence. Fourth That the crime alleged, namely, unlawful cohabitation, even if proven, would not constitute a sufficient suffi-cient crime to bar a member or deprive him of bis seat, because innocence of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation is nowhere enumerated in the constitution constitu-tion as a qualification for the office of member of congress, nor is it named in any United States law applicable to Utah or any other state. Mr. Roberts argued these points for neariy two hours, referring to law books and answering queries. It was a legal controversy throughout, the facts not being gone into at length. Mr. Roberts concluded by asking that his prima facie right to a seat be at once considered, as the present status denied to a sovereign state representation representa-tion in the house of representatives when injurious legislation affecting that state might take place. |