Newspaper Page Text
M THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 12, 1906. . 'I
I he -constitution-tested.
,f 1890.
r 1SS0. wllford
of the Mormon
,? -The Mani
wlnir is a copy:
iion.
, sent for pollil
Clty. which have
e effect that the
:ent report to the
liege tht Plural
nnUed, nnd that
, havo been con
fn.or during the
lie discourses the
tuchU encouraged
t the practice of
,( the Church of
alms, do hereby.
r declare that
arc not teaching
c, nor permitting
.practice, and I
nf other number
irine that period,
nplca or In any
In which the
irrloge wan per
uec. in Salt Lake
but I have not
lormed the core
thU matter was
mfoqm-nco ot this
nent house wns
rn without delay,
been enacted by
marriages, which
constitutional by
oreby declare my
laws nntl to us
: of the church
,o ihoin do llkc
teachlngs to tho
associates during
in be' reasonably
encourage polye
r the church hns
to convey nny
romptly reproved,
that my advlco
to refrain from
orblddcn by the
WOODRUFF,
Jesus Christ of
eral conference
lormon Church,
ber 6. 1S90, tho
s unanimously
a and binding."
aln approved by
f tho church.
I by the general
30. it has been
of tho funda
jrmon Church,
r modified only
conference, .
tanlfeslo on the
f the Mormon
ate ofllclal. to
go wo quote a
James E. Tal
repnretl and ls
of tho church
rd "Articles of
Ivnly sets forth
:h, having been
and published
ifol. HI., pp. 47
ou have used the
e keys" In con
Involving polyg
ofeph Smith. Jr.,
rho held the Iters
me time, or pomo
ild make a plural
illd according to
I right In that?
at time on down
Woodruff Issued
lurch approved In
tme principle ob
plural marriage
S to the law of
ned by tho presl
irlzed by him to
ctly true,
en this revelation
sto came and It
and accepted by
i' away from the
since the 6th of
it the church had
Jral marrlano ac
rnrch. even?
power to author
i one?
If any person has
ural marriage. If
plural wife of a
of October, 1SS0,
the law of the
w of tho land?
! not In tho power
he old eystem so
lural marriage or
o It through the
hurch?
It Is now a rule
wer shall not be
9. but tho exercise
nd a rule of tho
:tloncd 1 equally
ded upon revelo
efore has In one
smuch as ho was
It before the con
)f the conference
ndered that now
uncerned. the action of
! 11 not?
ily S 45, 49.)
Act.
which Utah in
y admitted Into
by Congress on
1071. By section
quired that tho
was authorized
the State gov
wlthout the con
wd the people of
Blloft of religious
and that no In
ever be molested
OWl of his or her
, "Provided. That
Plages are forever
to observe that
condition to tho
that polygamous
ould not be al
any kind was
us cohabitation,
he governed bv
ws of the State
Stato might de
that the dlatlnc
eress In the en
amouB marriages
aUon was Inten
dden by any act
ten years after
revalent In Utah,
er 8till us be
1 Polygamous co
ny was first pro
wling, as presl
urch. until about
was continued
P.ent a Governor
the Edmunds Act
is-Tucker Act of
ous marriages to
eplt mat all the
nrlaqcB prior to
RVeXWo
ri$ crc
9W, W0' Polygamous
PBL 1 not m.anhood and
pjJK.?' Cn v,nl there was a
T4HS "Vgei ; iihiSi lf further
ifB.'5' ixiv, hou,d cease the
MCettUl: , relation!
WKPihr op flo t0 Grated. if
JiJ ' or flauntlngly Cnr-
Tritflmatucd children
SmS1 ' thlrtv lU.?h c,1dren.
SB5a nd JiJeclf mo3t of
T at iI(lal unanimity
VHBSS of th c.ro.m 1,10 time
lZm?1"l on iblate ,nt0 the
ZlMlmy a ""January A, im,
flrMTecute those Jh1"?1 ?lsln'
fim wn had Plural
families born of relations established bo
fore tho manifesto of 1S00.
As a samplo of tho evldenco on this
subject wc refer to tho testimony
of Judge William M. McCartv. ono
of tho associate Justices of tho
supreme cburt of Utah. Ho was assist
ant United SL-ites attorney for tho Terri
tory of Utah from 1SS9 until 19Q2, when
he was elected county attorney of Sevier
Countv .n that Territory. Ho was re
elected In 1SJM. In 1S95 he was elected one
of the district, Judges of tho Stato of
Utah.
He was reelected to that office In 1IXX,
and In 1002 was elected to his present of
fice. He Is a non-Mormon, and hatJ al
ways been an -uncompromising opponont
of polygamy. He conducted somo of tho
prosecutions, for polygamous cohabita
tion between tho date of tho manifesto,
In 1SF0, and tho admission of tho State
Into tho Union In January, lbS6. Ho tes
tified; I prosecuted them before the United States
commli-Moncrn up until ISM, whon tho United
Slates Attorney refused to allow my nccounts
for fervlees for that kind of work, and then
I quit and confined my Investigations before
iho grand Jury In those case?.
And Judge McCarty further testified
that the superior to whom ho referred as
stopping the prosecution for polygamous
cohabitation was John Judd, a Gen
tile. In 1S97 some prosecutions for polyga
mous .cohabitations against mon who
were married before the manifesto camo
bc-foro Judgo McCarty as district Judgj
of the State. Tho accused In those cases
admitted their guilt mid were punished
by a fine only, upon agreeing to ceaso
cohabitation with their plural wives.
Judge McCarty testified that It was after
these prosecutions he obtained the llrst
emphatic expression he had observed as
to the stato of public opinion In Utah at
that time regarding such prosecutions.
Ho said that ho found the press was
against the prosecutions; that the public
prosecutor, whose attention he lnvltod to
the matter, refused tr proceed. Iom
this and other facts which camo to his
knowledge Judge McCarty reached tho
conclusion that tho public sontiment 6Tf
the State was against interfering with
mon In Jhelr polygamous relations who
had married before tho manifesto. (Vol.
2, S52 to S&; 8S9, 916.)
E. B. Crltchlow. a Gentile lawyer, of
Salt Lake City, who prepared the prin
cipal protests In thlR caso and who, during
tho early sittings of the committee, as
sisted Mr. Taylor, counsel for the protest
ants, in presenting their case, testified
as a witness on behalf of the protestants
that after tho manifesto of JSv thcro was
no Inclination on tho part of the prose
cuting officer to "push these matters as
to present cohabitation," "thinking it was
a matter that would Immediately die
out;" that It was well known that Apos
tle John Henry Smith was living in un
lawful cohabitation; that non-Mormons
generally made no objection to it; that
the-y were disposed "to let things go,"
and that hat was the seneral feeling
from tho ilme of the manifesto In 1KM
"down to very recent times pretty nearly
up to date or practically up to date."
Mr. Crltchlow further testified Jhat the
non-Mormons wore disposed to" overlook
tho continuous polygamous cohabitation
of thoso who had taken plural wives be
fore the manifesto, becauso they the
non-Mormons felt satisfied that there
would bo no more plural marriages; that
the thing would work Itself out In tho
future, and that where tho polygamlsts
had their wives in soparate houses and
simply kept up the old relations without
the offensive flaunting of them before tho
public it had been practically passed over.
(Vol. 1. 624. 625.)
Another witness called on behalf of the
protestants was Orlando "V. Powers, a
leading lawyer of Utah, a non-Mormon,
who was ossoclato JUBtlco of tho supremo
court of the Territory of Utah in 1S& and
1SS6, and whose testimony In general
shows his strong feeling against tho
Mormon Church. Ho testified that,
speaking for those who fought the church
party In tho days when It was a power,
they had felt and still feol that lf tho
church would stop new plural marriages,
those who had contracted such marriages
before tho manifesto would not bo Inter
fered with. After Btatlng that tho peo
ple who lived In the East had no under
standing of tho situation In this regard
In Utah, Judge Powers added:
That condition exists. There Is a question
for statesmen to solve. "Wo havo not known
what was bst to do. It has been discussed,
and people would say that such and such a
man ought to bo prosecuted. Then they would
consldor whether anything would bo gained;
whether wo would not delay Instead of haaten
inc tho time that we hope to live to see;
whether tho Institution would not flourish by
reason of what they would term peroecuilons.
And so, notwithstanding a protost has been
sent down hero to you, I will say to you the
people have acquiesced In tho condition that
exists.
Then the witness added that by "Tho
people" he meant the Gentiles. (Vol. 1,
&S4-SS5.)
William J. McConnell, ex-governor of
Idaho and ex-Senator of the United
States from that State, when asked
whether there was any public sentiment
in Idaho In reference to prosecutions for
simply unlawful cohabitation, as distin
guished from new polygamous mar
riages, replied:
It was understood and agreed when we
adopted our State constitution and were ad
mitted to statehood, that these old Mormons
who had plural families would be allowed to
support their wives and children without mo
lestation. It was agreed by all parties. Demo
crats and Republicans alllce, that they should
be allowed to drift along:. "Wo could, under
the law, have prosecuted these people and
perhaps havo sent them to Jail. We could
doubtless havo broken up theso families, but
we felt it better that these mn should be al
lowed to support these old women and those
children than to further persecute them (2;
512) .
This witness was sharply cross-examined
by Mr. Taylor and by the chairman
on this subject, with tho result that he
made his testimony moro emphatic (2,
524. 526). . , , w
On his redirect examination he further
stated that he agreed to the foregoing
testimony of Mr Crltchlow and Mr. Pow
ers (2, 531. 532).
F. H Holzhelmor. a leading lawver of
Idaho, who was practicing his profession
in Utah until November. 1W2. testified
that the Issuing of tho manlfosto pf lbv)
brought about a very peculiar state or
affairs, and that tho question of how to
take care of the problem was ono which
confronted the people of Utah, and which
tho witness did not think they have really
solved
He added:
The consensus of opinion at that time was
that those who had contracted rnarrloces pJor
to tho manifesto should bo left alone. It wsj
not, however, believed that they should openly
violate tho law and unlawfully cohabit with
their numerous wives. I will say that, that
where that has occurred It has been mostly In
Isolated cases. Thcro havo bcon a number of
coscb whoro children havo been born, but In
no case thai I know of has It been dono open
ly. It Ib true It Is nfialnst the law. but It
has not been done In such an open, lewd man
ner au has been Intimated nor has It been
general. And because of tho peculiar stato
of affairs It was tho opinion that tho whole
thing would dlo out; lhat It wan only a mat
ter of a short llmo when the question would
be entirely settled, because there would bo no
now marrloces (2; &7G-576).
Frank Martin, a lawyer of Idaho, testi
fied that ho behoved thoso wlio were liv
ing In polygamous cohabitation in his
State ought to be punished. But he
added:
A majority of our people seem to think that
the best way, rb far as concerns thoso old
fellows who contracted thcoc relatione before
tho manifesto, as lonR as they stop It and
do not take any now wives, or as Ions as no
new wives are taken, Is to lot It go, to lot It
gradually die out. to let the old ones dlo (2;
6't2).
James H. Brady, a Gentllo of Itiaiio,
who operates several irrigation canals In
that Stato and owns a power plant ut tho
American Falls, when asked what Is the
sentiment in Idaho regarding disturbing
or leaving' undisturbed the men who went
into polygamy prior to tho manifesto of
ISM, answered-
To bo absolutely frank In the matter, my
Judcmcnt Is that a majority of the men In
Idaho would favor leavlnjc thoso old men Jo
live their lives-Just as ihey have started In
(2; frl9).
J W. N. "Whltccotton, a lawyer who re
fides at Provo City, whero Senator Smoot
lives, and who Is intimately acquainted in
most of tho Mormon countlos In Utah,
was asked what has boon the Bcntiment
among non-Mormons in Utah In regard to
tho men who had entered into polygamy
prior to tho manifesto of ISM, nnd an
swered; Well, that Is it pretty hurd question to an
Hwor. Tho Gentile in Utah have recognized
that wo have a very hard problem to ileal
with In that respect. It ortcrs many ombar
raoslnc things. There has been u. good deal
wild In this testimony I havo read It about
an understanding., I know nothing of any un
derstanding In regard to that. But I do know
this, that the people generally feel like they
do not, want to stir up this thin and set
it to smelling nny mdri. It ha not a Rood
odor. ,
And thoro In another thlnpr that they have
taKGn Into account In tho neighborhood wheta
.i.iani' at 1",Bt- When wo gft out to punish
this man who Is living In 'polygamy, put him
in prison, they tako Into account somewhat
II? consequences that will cotno to his fam
ily, riow, tho women who went Into polyg
amy In Utah went Into It becauso, although I
think under a delusion, they thought It was a
religious, duty, and they are bound by tho
obligation. They feel thm way.
On his further examination on this sub
ject, tho following occurred:
The Chairman. "What In the sentiment In
regard to those who contracted plural mar
riages before 1S30 nnd aro now living with
their wives and having now children by them
ui to this time?
.Mr. Whltccotton. Tho sentiment In that It
Is an awful condition.
Tho Chairman. That In a lawful condition 7
Mr. Whltccotton. That In an awful con
tlon Tho Chairman. Oh!
Mr. Whltecotton. Leave off thn "l." And '
we wish wo woro out of It. Wo do not know
how to get out of tt.
Tho Chalrmnn. What la tho nentlnient with
respect to that class of people approval or
disapproval?
Mr. Whltccotton. They havo the disap
proval of the people generally, but that docs
not go to the extent of causing a man to
shoulder the responsibility of setting tho law
In motion ngalnst that num.
The fholrmnn. So lhat thit clats of men
ore left without Interference?
Mr. Whltecotton. They are left practlciilly
without Interference. They have our regrctp,
but wo do not know how to get at them.
Senator Fornker. You havo bald that that In
largely becauho of tho regard tho pcoplo have
for the condition In which lh plural wives
and children would bo left In case of success
ful prosecution.
Mr. Whltccotton. Yes. sir. I think thnt
(regard for plural wives and children) In tho
chief cnuso of withholding the hand of prono
cutlon. Thoso wq,men aro human, and so uro
their children, and they ore not much to
blame, either, especially tho children (2; 679-
Hiram E. Booth, a' practicing lawyer of
bait Lake City and ono of tho leading
managers In tho State of the Republican
party, upon being asked to explain why It
s that, if tho people of Utah, Including a
large part of the 'Mormon people, nre so
opposed to polygamy, thoso who are liv
ing In polygamous rolatlons are not Inter
fered with, said-
Welt my explanation of that Is that the
principal tight of the Gentiles han been to
do away with polygamous marring?. While
during many years thcro wero numerous prose
cutions for unlawful cohabitation. It was not
for tho purpose Of punishment so much, those
pcoplo who lived In unlawful cohabitation, aa
It was to bring about cessation of polygamous
marriages. That was tho principle for which
we strove, to stop pcoplo from marrying In
polygamy. Thin wne finally brought about In
1S$0 by tho manifesto of the president of the
church, which was nnlrmed. or sustained, an
they call It. by tho conference on October 6,
1SS0, and again In JS9I. Wo did not accept
that In good faith nt that time.
That Is, wo wore somewhat skeptical about
It; but later wo did. Now. there has been
since that lime a disinclination to prosecute
men and women who live In unlawful co
habitation. One of my own reasons the way
I look at It was this: My sympathy waa with
the plural wife and her children. By these
proef-cutlons sh suffered moro really than
tho husband did. In nearly all of the caws I
may PAy the plural wfo Is a pure-minded
wonvan. a woman who belloved that It was
right according to tho law of Cod for her to
accept that relation, and that she cannot be
released from her obligations when they are
once entered upon.
Mr. Booth. I should say. with Judgo Pow
ers and Mr. Crltchlow. that the general senti
ment among the Gentile people In Utah In a
disinclination to prosecute those cases.
Mr. Worthlngton. If I understand you,
when Senator Smoot was a cnndldatn for Sen
ator, and when he became an apostle, which
was In April, Wi. things had Fettled down In
Utah b ythe general ncqulscejic of the peo
ple that If there would bo no new poylgamous
marrloges the people who had enterpd Into
that relation before the manifesto should not
bo dlnturbkd?
Mr. Booth. Should not bo disturbed; no, sir.
Mr. Worthlngton, And that waa the stato
of opinion thoro when he became an apostle?
Mr. Booth. That won tho stato of opinion
when he became an apostle.
Mr. Worthlngton. And If he had gone
against that state of opinion ho would have
been going against the public sentiment of
the Stnt wmiM h. nnl7
Mr. Booth. Yes.
Mr. Worthlngton. Gentiles and Mormons?
Mr. Booth. Gentiles and Mormons. I would
fay In, that respect that whore polygamous
relations were carried on In such a way ns
to outrage public sentiment. In thoso cases,
of course, a proFccutlon would have ben
demanded f2; "14, "15, 723).
Arthur Pratt, who was doputy United
States Marshal In Utah from 1874 'until
16S2. and again from 1SS6 to 1S00. and who
probably arrested more Mormons charged
with polygamy or polygamous cohabita
tion than nny other man, said that he had
heard Mr. Whltocotton and Mr. Booth
testify on this subject, and that he agreed
with them, for tho reasons stated by
them not out of any pity or sympathy
for tho men. but out of sympathy and out
of the suffering that would be entailed on
the women and tho children (2; 744).
E. D. R. Thompson, a non-Mormon,
who has lived in Salt Lako City since 1SS3.
never been a Mormon, and who has taken
a leading part In Republican politics In
that Stato. testified:
Well, the general Idea has been that this
condition of things would gradually die away
by the lape'j of tlmo. It has been generally
ropugnant to most people who take any posi
tion as against tho Mormons In this matter
which would Imply either prosecution or per
secution. In othor words, they did not care
to bo Informers (2, S01).
Charles De Molsy (a non-Mormon), who
Is a commissioner of tho Stnto bureau of
statistics of Utah, and has nevor been a
Mormon, says, In regard to tho sentiment
among Gentiles In Utah as to the pun
ishment of those who llvo In polygamous
cohabitation where the marrlnges were
celebrated before tho manifesto, "I think
thcro Is a matter of Indifference about it"
that ho himself thinks "the less said
about those things the better" (2; 1003).
m An TVTIIlor A nnn-ATnrmnn whrt woo
United States marshal In tho Territory of
Utah for four nnd a half years, and hnd
been a member of the Stato sonatc for
two years after Utah hnd been ndmlttod
Into the Union, when asked what Is tho
sentiment of Gentiles In Utah In regard to
prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation
between persons who wero married beforo
the manifesto, answered:
Well, there has been a. sentiment against
that, as there has been,, ngalnst any Inform
ing against any of the Infractions ot law
generally. They have felt that It was only
a question of time that tho practice would
die out through tho death of those who prac
ticed It and tho removal of that generation.
(3: 160)
John "W. Hughes, who nns never been a
Mormon, nnd Is the editor of a weokly
paper In Salt Lako City, when asked the
samo question, replied:
Well, tho sentiment has been right along
that these old fellows that nre In polygamy
to let them nlono and they will soon dlo
nut. Very soon none of them will bo left.
Tho great point with tho Gentiles In that
there will bo no new plural marriages (3;
Mrs- Mary G. Coulter, a non-Mormon,
whoso husband Is a physician In Ogdcn,
testified:
Those of us who have witnessed Ihe old
tlmo antagonisms and who aro living and
working for the new growth and progrees do
not bellevo In Inquisitorial method. Wo be
lieve that tho work of education, the estab
lishment of Industries, the dcvoloplng of tho
mining regions, the building of railroads es
pecially, and the Influx of people, owing to tho
colonization schemes which ore succeeding
there, will In tlmo eradicate all of tho old
and objectlonablo conditions (3; 170).
Polygamy in Other Countries How
Dealt With.
A situation analogous to that existing
In Utah after polygamy had been forbid
den by tho law of tho church, as well as
by tho law of tho State, arises In coun
tries whero polygamy Is lawful, when
missionaries have converted polygamlsts
to tho Christian faith. Tho quostlon then
frequently arises whetner polygamlsts
shall be admitted to tho church, and If so
whether thoy shall bo required to put
awav all of their families except ono. In
the argument of tho case, counsel for tho
respondont has referred to certain publi
cations by various Christian churches,
showing tho proceedings that havo taken
place In somo such cases and tho results.
Tho Presbyterian and Roformed Rovlow,
vol. 7, for 196. contains an article on
"The baptism of polygamlsts In non
Christian lands" from which tho follow
ing extracts aro taken:
At the regular mcoilnx of tho synod In In
dia, hold In Ludhlana, November, 1S3 1, iimon;
the most Important questions which camo be
fore tho synod was this: Whether In the case
of a Mohammedan or Hindoo with more than
ono wife, applying for baptism, he should In
all case, as a condition of baptism, bo ro
qulrcd to put away all hln wives but one.
After a very thorough discussion, lasting be
tween two or thrco sessions of the synod,
It was resolved, by a vote of 36 to 10, to re
quest the general assembly, "In view of tho
exceedingly dllflcult complications which often
occur In tho cases of polygamlsts who destrn
to bo received Into the church, to leave the
ultimata decision of all euch cases In India
to the nynod of India." Tho memorialists add!
"It Is the almost unanimous opinion of the
membera of the synod that, under somo cir
cumstances, converts who havo moro than one
wife, together with their entire families,
should be baptized."
Not only Is It thus tho fact lhat more than
four-fifths of the members of the synod of
India, bellevo that It may sometimes bo our
duty, under tho conditions of society In In
dia, to baptlzo a polygamlst without requir
ing him flrot to put away all hln wives but
one. but when the missionary ladles prcsont
during tho sessions of synod, denlroun of as
certaining tho state of opinion among them
selves on this subject, took a volo there
upon, of these 35 ladles, many of them Inti
mately familiar with the Interior of zenana
life for years, all feeling no less hatred of
polygamous marriage than their sisters In
America, all but three signified their agree
ment with the majority of synod, of which
minority of three two had been only a few
days In India and wero therefore without nny
experience touching Ihu pnictlcnl questions In
volved. Nor Is this large majority of our mis
slonarles singular In their belief on this sub
ject. When some years ago the question wns do
haled In tho Panjaq missionary conference.
In which n large number of the missionaries
unci eminent Christian laymon of all denomi
nations took part, ten out of twelve 6t the
pprnkers expressed lh same opinion an that
held by moro than four-fifths of the synod of
India todny. So the Itev. Dr. James J. Lucas
of Sahnranpur snys that the brethren who
maintained the lawfulness of not requiring a
poylgamlst to put away any of his wives as
a prerequisite to baptism "aro not even In a
minority In the missionary body In India."
A few yearn ago the Madura mission voted
In favor of baptizing such, provided they
had contracted their marriages In Ignorance
and there wan no equitable way of securing n
separation. Their action was disapproved by
the American board, but It none tho less Illus
trates again what In tho Judgment of a large
part of those who, living In India, aro In
most lntlmoto relation to tho living tacts, and
who are thun far better qualified lo form a
right decision than can be tho wisest men at
home.
Again, as bearing on the polygamlst's duty.
It should be noted that In the great majority
of cases among tho Hindus tho second mar
riage Is contracted because of tho first wife
having no children. So that when tho general
assembly requires tho polygamlst convert to
put away all wives but tho llrst. It requires
iilm not only to slgnatlzo hln conversion by
violating a contract held valid nllko by his
Christian rulers and a large part of his Chris
tian brethren, but to do this In such a way
as shall Inflict tho greatest amount posslblo of
cruel Injuntlce and suffering, by turning out
of his house thnt wife who Is the mother ot
his children fwho will naturally In most cntn
have to go with her) and denying to her con
jugal rights of protection .and conabltatlon
Which he hod pledged hex.
The wrong Involved Is aggravated under the
conditions of life In India, In thnt It will com
monly be practically Impossible for tho wlfo
turned off. whichever she be, to escape the
suspicion of being on unchaste woman, nnd
she will Inevitably be placed In a position
where, with good name beclouded nnd no law
ful protector, she will be under the strongest
temptation to live nn Immoral life. No doubt
polygamy In wrong; but then. Is not breach
of faith and such Injustice and cruelty to nn
Innocent woman nnd her children also wrong?
If there Is a law against polygamy. In there
not a law also against these things even moro
explicit nnd Induhltahle? In the case sup
posed both can nol be kept. Which shall the
man be Instructed to break?
The general assembly of 1S75 appears to have
Imagined that tho Injustice was done away by
enjoining a man lo "make sultnble provision
for her support that Is put away, and for her
children. If she have any." But this utterly
falls lo meet the case. For tho breach of
faith required remains, since the marriage
contract, both according to Scripture and the
law of all Christian lands, aa well as of Jn
dla, binds the husband not only to support,
but equally to protection und cohabitation.
But by the dellveranco of 1S75 all mission
aries In non-Chrlntlan lands nre directed by
the general assembly to Instruct the convert
that. In order to baptism, ho must keep the
compact an regnrds tho rlrst particular, but
break It as regards the others.
Moreover, the moral end sought will, even
so, not be gained. The wife put nway may
llvo In a separate house nnd nt a distance
but then polygnmlstn sometimes keep different
wives In different homen and It will not be
easy to persuade a Hindoo or Mohammedan
community, especially If the man still con
tinues to give her money as required by the
assembly's law, that cohabitation really
ceases.
In India and Christian Opportuni
ty, a book published In 1001. tho
author of which Is Harlan P. Beach.
M A.. P. R O. S.. in dfnllnc
with the general subjoct of "Problems
connected with new converts," the author
at page 223. says:
1. Polygamy. Ono difficulty In the way of
receiving a professed convert, though afffect
Ing only a small percentage of candidates. Is
a most perplexing one; It Is that of applicants
who have moro than one wife. As Hindoo
or Mohammedan they have entered In good
faith Into marriage contracts with these
wives, and If a man puts away all but one.
what provision shall be mndo for the re
jected, and on whnt principle shall he de
cide as to the one to he retained?
While It Is a question easily answered In
missionary society councils at home. It Is a.
moro serious problem at the front. Some
good missionaries hold that where the hus
band Is living the Christian life In all sin
cerity It In better to receive Into tho church
such a candidate though not cllglblo to any
church office than to require him to give up
all but one wlfo nnd thus broad with Illegi
timacy his children by them, ns well on oc
casion the wives so put away endless re
proach and embarrassments.
In India's Problom. Krishna or Christ,
which was published In 1903. the author
of which Is John P. Jones, D. D., of
southern India. A. B. C. F. M.. tho au
thor. In dealing with this question, says,
on pages 2S9 nnd 250:
In th consideration of -the problem many
things must be taken In mind. None more
Important than the claims to a cordial wcl
como from the church of nny mon who, In
true faith nnd Christian earnestness, seek ad
mittance. If It bo demanded of tho man
that he put away all but one of those wives
taken In heathenism, then we ask whether It
In Christian, or even Just, to cost away one
to whom he was solemnly nnd religiously
pledged nccordlng to tho laws of the land and
with whom he has been linked In love and
harmony for years and from whom he has
gotten children? And If he Is to put away
ono or more of his wives, which ono shall It
be? Shall It bo tho flrnt wife?
Certainly that would not be Christian. Or
phall It be the second wife, who In tho moth
er or his children nnd whom ho probably
married at tho request of the first who was
childless. In ordor that ho might mine seed
unto himself? It In not cn-ny on Christian
grounds to decide Bivh a problem ns this,
nor Is It very Christian to put a ban upon
any woman who, In accordance with their
religion and their country's laws, has formed
this sacrod alliance with a man nnd has lived
with him for yenre. Nor can It bo right to
brand with Illegitimacy the children born of
sneh n. wedlock.
I would not allow such persons, received
Into tho Christian church, to become officers
of the church. But I can not see why there
may nol be an humblo pluce In tho church
of God for such and their families.
Whatever may be our personal views as
to tho propriety of tho conduct of tho
people of Utah, In thus practically over
looking tho continuance of polygamous
relations whoro thoso relations aroso out
of marriages celebrated before the mani
festo of ISM, thcro can bo no doubt thnt
when Reed Smoot, in April, 1M0, became
an apostlo of the Mormon Church. tho
great majority of tho peoplo of tho
Stato. non-Mormons as well as Mor
mons, had practically agrcod that it
would bo unwlso to prosecute thoso who
aro living In such relations, or to In any
wise Intorfero with thorn, unless those re
lations wero flagrantly obtruded upon
public notice.
Heed Smoot Not Responsible for
Polygamy.
Tho charge of tho protestants In this
case, in substance. Is that Reod Smoot
connived at and encouraged, thereby be
coming responsible for, tho polygamous
rolatlons ot certain of tho officials of the
church and of other polygamlsts. Thoro
is no evidence to support this charge
except tho fact that ho acquiesced with
out protest In what tho people of Utah
generally accepted as unavoidable In his
answer and in his testimony, on his
oath, ho has positively denied that he has
ever advised any person to violate the
law either against polygamy or against
polygamous cohabitation.
No witness hns boon produced who has
testified that ho over heard tho respond
ent glvo any such advice, or In any wlso
defend such acts. The most anybody has
attempted to chargo Is that ho has, like
others, both Mormons and non-Mormons,
Ignored tho offense of polygamous cohab
ltatlon both In the church and under tho
laws of the State when such polygamous
cohabitation was in consequence of plu
ral marriages solemnized boforo ISM.
In view o.f tho general situation nnd
tho fact that non-Mormons, even the
most active opponents of tho church, hnd
by common consent adopted tho policy
of acqulesconce as the wisest plan to
pursue as to polygamous cohabitation, re
lying on time and tho course of nature to
euro tho trouble, wo do not think such
passive acquiescence on the part of Mr.
.Smoot can be held lo amount to such an
Indorsement and encourgncment of po
lygamous cohabitation as lo mako hltn
responsible for It.
Polygamous Marriages Since 1890.
It Is further charged that notwithstand
ing tho acts of Congress forbidding
them, and In defiance of the manlfosto of
18M, polygamous marriages havo been
celebrated by tho authorities of tho
church since 18M.
"Wo havo already shown that slnco tho
manifesto forbidding the celebration of
plural marriages became the law of tho
church by being ratified at semi-annual
conference of tho church, neither the
president of the church nor any other of
ficer thereof has the power to celebrate
a plural marriage which would bo any
more binding under the law of tho
church than It would bo undor tho law of
tho land.
Evldenco relating to such plural mar
riages slnco ISM could, of course, he com
petent In this caso only as It might, with
other evidence, tend to show that the re
spondent has advised such marriages, or
In some way connived at or npproved
thorn.
On this point there Is somo evldenco
tending to show, but not In fact showing,
lhat In th period of over fifteen years
which has elapsed slnco the manifesto of
ISM wns promulgated titers may havo been
soino llftoen or twenty enscs In which a
member of tho Mormon Church, has co
habited with a woman as his plural wlfo
with whom ho sustained no such relation
prior to ISM.
In only ono instance has the evidence
shown the actual pcrfonnanco of the
mnrrlago ccrcmOny and that occurred In
Mexico. In that case It appears that a
woman named Kennedy, In the year ISM,
with her mother, on several occasions ap
pealed to Apostle Teasdalo, in Mexico,
to marry her to a man who was alrcndy
married and had a wife tTvlng. and that
the npoatlo, whenever appealed to. refused
to perform tho marrlnge ceremony on the
ground lhat It was forbidden by the
cnurch.
Tho parties then traveled In a wagon
about 75 miles to nn out-of-the-way plnco
where, according to tho testimony of the
woman, Brlpham Young, Jr., another
apostlo, did marry her to the man in
question. At tho tlmo this testimony waa
given Brlgham Young. Jr.. was dead. No
person testified to tho ceremony except
the woman who was married, and she
stated that sho did not tell Brlgham
Young that tho man whom she was mar
rying had a wife living, and that so far
as sho knew he was not Informed of that
fact by any person.
There was no evidence offered tending
to prove that tho respondent had any
knowledgo of tills alleged plural marriage
until it came out In the testimony before
the committee.
Among the cases ot alleged plural mar
riage since 1E90. referred to In tho evl
denco, are those of two of the apostles,
John W. Tayler and Mathlas F. Cowlev.
As to Apostlo Tayler, I,. E. Abbott
gavo testimony tending to show that It
became publlo talk In or about 1S02 that
Tayler had then recently taken two plu
ral wives. As to Apostle Cowley, the
testimony Is exceedingly Indefinite as to
whether he took a plural wife nt all since
1W. nnd lf so, when.
Tho respondent was examined as a wit
ness In his own behalf, after tho testi
mony with reference to the alleged recent
plural marrlags of thoso two apostles had
been Introduced, and on this subject testi
fied that ho know nothing about tho al
leged marrlnges until tho testimony re
lating to them was Introduced hero be
fore the committee. Ho further said that
h would ask that an Investigation bo
made by tho church authorities, and If it
turned out that the charges wero true ho
would not again vote to Bustaln them as
apostles.
Tho taking of testimony In this case
was closed and the caso submitted to the
committee after argument by counsel In
February, 1P03. But at tho beginning of
the present session, it being mado known
to the committee that It was desired to
further testimony was heard on behalf of
th protcstnnto, the caeo was reopened and
further testimony was heard on behalf of
both the protestants and tho respondent.
The testimony was closed tho second tlmo
on March 27, 1003; but. consulting tho con
venience of counsel for tho protestants,
the hearing by tho committee of tho final
arguments of counsel In this caso was
postponed until April 12, 1906.
Dn account of theso delays, for which
neither tho respondent nor his counsel aro
in nnywlso responsible, tho caso was not
finally submitted to the committee for de
termination until after the final confer
ence of tho Mormon Church, which was
held at Salt Lake City on April 6, 190t. At
that conference It waa mado known that
Tayler and Cowloy had resigned from
their positions ob apostles In the preced
ing October, and that the resignations hnd
been accepted. The conference approved
this action, nnd also filled the vacancies
thus created by now appointments.
Wc deem It unnecessary to go at length
Into the evldenco relating to tho other al
leged plural marriages since 1SS0, for the
reason that thcro Is no evidence what
ver In the record which even tends to
show, ns to any such plural mnrrlago, ac
tual or allegod, that tho respondent had
any knowledge that It was Intonded such
marriage should bo celebrated, or that ho
ever countenanced It In any wny. or that,
since It took place, ho has at any time or
In nny way expressed approval of It.
In 1SH). when tho manifesto was pro
mulgated, thoro were In tho Mormon
Church, according to church statistics. In
tho United States somo 2151 polygamous
families. In May, 1902. this number hnd
been reduced to S97 How many arc left
and how mnny of them are In Utah It is
lmposslblo to say; but probably about DOT
would bo a fair estimate Many of the
heads of theso families aro of advanced
ago. The population of Utah at the pres
ent time Is about 600.000.
Theso figures strongly tend to show
that, as a matter of fact, new polyga
mous marriages In Utah, in any consider
able numbers, cannot havo taken placo
slnco 1690. In further ovldence of this
fact, and as showing tho stato of publlo
sentiment as to polygamous cohabitation,
wo Insort hero an extract from the Con
gresslonnly Record of February 5. 190.1.
page 1723 et seq., showing a statement
mado by Senator Dubois, who Ib well
known to have familiar knowledge of this
Hubjoct:
Congressional Record. February 5, 1903. p.
17. et seq.
Mr. Dubois. Various causes oper
ated to causa the Mormons to abandon poly
gamy. Thcro was a feeling among tho young
er mombers of tho Mormon church, and a
very strong feeling, that polygamy should bo
dono away with. So hero was this pressure
within the church against polygamy and the
pretsuro by tho Government from outsldo tho
church against polygamy.
In 1S91. I think it was. tho presldont of tho
Mormon Church Issued a manlfosto declaring
that thereafter there should be no polygamous
marriages anywhero In the Mormon Church.
The Mormons wero thon called together In one
of their great conferences, whero they meet
by tho thousands. This manifesto was Issued
to thorn by tho first prosldenoy, which Is
their authority, was submitted to them, nnd
all tho Mormon people rotlflod and ngreed to
thlH manifesto, doing away with polygamy
thereafter.
The Senator from Malno (Mr. Halo) will
recall that I came hero as a Senator from
Idaho shortly after that, and tho Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. I'latt) will recall bow
bitter and almost Intemperate I was In my
language before hla commlttoo and on the
floor of the othor House In the denunciation
of thoso practices of the Mormon Church. But
after that manifesto was Issued, In common
with nil of tho Gentiles of thnt seotlon who
had mado this fight, we said:
Thoy have admitted tho right of our con
tention nnd say now llko children who havo
been unruly, wo will obey our parents and
those who havo a right to guide us; we will
do those things no more." Therefore, we
could nol maintain our position and continue
punishing them unles It was afterwards dem
onstrated that they would not comply with
their promise.
After a few years In Idaho, whero tho flght
was the hottest and tho thlokest, we wiped all
of those laws from our statute books whloh
nlmed directly at the Mormon peoplo: and to
day the laws on tho statute books of Idaho
ncaliut polygamy and kindred crlu urs less
stringent than In almost any other State In
the Union. I live among those people; and, so
far as I know. In Idaho there has not been
a polygamous marriage celebrated since that
manifesto was Issued, and I have yet to find
a man In Idaho or anywhere else who will
say that a polygamous marrlnge has been
celebrated nnywhero since the Issuance of
that manifesto.
Mr Hale. Then, It must follow from that,
an the years go by and as tho older people
disappear, polygamy n,8 a practice will bo
practically removed.
Mr. Dubois. There Is no question about Hi
and I will say to the Senator, owing to the
active purl which we took In thnt nerce con
test In Idaho, I with others who had made
that flghl thought we wnrp Justified In making
thin promise to the Mormon people We, had
no authority of law, but wo took tt upon our
selves to ossure them that those solde r men
who were living In polygamous relation, who
hnd growing famlllen which they had reared
and were rearing before tho manifesto wan
Issued, and nt a lime when they thought thoy
had a right undor the Constitution to enter
Into polygamouo relation that those, older
men and women and their children nhould not
bo disturbed, that the polygamous mnn should
be allowed to support his numerous wives and
their children
Tho polygamous relatione, of course, should
not continue, but wo would not compel a man
jo turn hln famlllen adrift. We promised that
tho older ones who had contracted these re
lations before the manifesto was Issued would
pot be prosecuted by the Gentile; that tlmo
would bo given for them to pass nwny, but
that tho law would be stronuously enforced
against nny polygamous marriage which
might be contracted In tho future.
Ah further evidence of the snmo char
actor we call attention to tho testimony
ot Judge Charles W. Morse, a member of
the Methodist Church and ono of the
Judges of the third Judicial district of
Utah. In Mny 1903. by his direction, a
special grand Jury was convened at Salt
Luke City for tho purpose of Investigat
ing charges thnt new polygamous mar
riages wero bolng celebrated. This grand
Jury was composed of Mormons and non
Mormons. TtB report will bo found on
pages C7 to 570 of volume 3 of tho testi
mony. Tn their report they say;
We. have Investigated thoroughly all such
cases brought to our attention by tho District
Attorney nnd by cltlrenn who have
appeared before Us, which wero reported
to hove occurred within the Jurisdiction of
this court, nnd have not been ablo to secure
evldenco that a single cose of polygamy has
occurred In this district slnco Utah becamo a
State. Tho rumors of tho commission of
this crime seem to have grown out of In
nocent circumstances, wh)ch In ordinary com
munities' would have created no suspicion or
scandal, but which here, probably owing to a
feature of our territorial hlstorj'i have been
oelred upon and the crime assumed without
evidence, much to tho qh.ngrln nnd Injury of
Innocent citizens, nnd gTeatly to the detri
ment of our Stato nnd Ita reputation through
out the nation. Those who prlzo the fair name
of our State and the rights of our neighbor
should hereafter bo moro careful to t'-cum
facts nnd evidence beforo charging tills crime.
Judge McCartv, whoso testimony has
already been referred to, testified as fol
lows: Mr. Worthlngton. I am coming down to
that question next. What Is your observation
there as to whether, an a matter of fact, the
number of peoplo living In polygamy has de
creased sine 1&50 In Utah?
Mr. McCarty. Oh, the chnge hnn been
phenomenal.
Mr. Worthlngton. Phenomenal?
Mr. McCarty. Tea; phenomenal. There are
only a very few. In the little town In which
I redded there for over twenty years there
wero a large number of polygamlsts. Oh,
there must have been In the neighborhood of
twenty of them, and I can not call to mind
now but three of those old men who are liv
ing. They have all died or moved away.
Two of them procured divorces, either a
church divorce for a plural wife or a divorce
In the courts for the legal wife.
Mr. Worthlngton. Whnt town Is that to
which you refer?
Mr. McCarty. Thnt Is Monroe.
Mr. Worthlngton. So that there polygamy la
practically extinct?
Mr. McCarty. Yes: and what can be said
of Monroe can bo said of most other towns In
tho State.
Mr. Worthlngton. Most other towns In the
Stato?
Mr. McCarty. Tcs. (Vol. 3. S53, SS9.)
The Mormon Church nnd Politics.
As to the chargo that the Mormon
church Interferes In and controls political
affairs in Utah, wo find the facts estab
lished by the evldenco to bo substantially
as follows: "From the time the Mormons
reached Utah, in the summer of 1847. until
IrOl thcro wero no political parties In that
Torrltory In tho sens In which that ex
pression would be used in other parts of
tho United States. There grew up In
tho Territory of Utah during thnt tlmo
two parties, ono known ns the People's
party, which was comprised exclusively
of members of tho Mormon Church and
was controlled by the leaders of that
church, and tho Liberal Party, which was
composed of non-Mormons.
Owing to controversies concerning po
lygamy and other matters not In Issuo
elsewhere In tho United States, these two
parties were not only composed, on the
ono hand, of members of a religious sect
and on the other hand of thoso opposing
that sect, but tho controversy betweon
tho two parties was extremely blttor. It
seems not to bo controvertod that until
the year 1691 the People's Party was not
only dominated by the church, but prac
tically was tho church But aftor tho
manifesto of 1SS0. hereinbefore referred to,
which forbade further polygamous mar
riages, mnny members both of tho Lib
oral Party and of the People's Party con
ceived it to be to the Interests of tho
Territory that tho people should divide
on party Hne3 as thoy wero divided In
other parts of tho country, and that the
Liberal Party und tho People's Party
should be disbanded.
In he course of a fow months thlB pur
poso was carried Into effect. Tho great
majority of the voters of the Territory
of Utah, Mormons and non-Mormons, bo
camo either Republicans or Democrats,
and political controversies in tho Ter
ritory till 1S9G and after that time In tho
Slate havo been waged, as a rule, on tho
lines of the national political parties.
Whllo It Is no doubt true that the habit
which the church and tho members ot
the church had followed for so many
years prior to tho breaking. up of tho old
parties of voters receiving counsel from
officials of the church In regard to the
selection of candidates for ofllco was not
at onco completely broken oft, yet the ev
ldenco further establishes that fife lm
piovemcnt In this regard has nccn very
rapid and that, of late years, tho Mor
mon voters of the Stato adhcro more
closely to party lines than the non-Mormons
do. Wo think tho ovldence estab
lishes the fact that since Reed Smoot bo
enmo an apostlo of tho Mormon Church
on tho 6th day of April, 1900, tho Mor
mon Church has not controlled or at
tempted to control elections In Utah.
It Ib claimed, however, that tho church,
by an Instrument called tho "Political
Rule," has required of Its members hold
ing ofllco In tho church that before they
shall become candidates for any political
position they shall receive tho consent ot
tho church authorities; and that by this
devlco the church has controlled tho elec
tion of Senators of tho United States.
This political rulo will ho found on
pages ICS to 171, Volume I, of tho printed
report of tho testimony beforo tho com
mittee. Tho moaning and effect of this
instrument were very fully considered in
tho ense of Moses Thataher, who in 1S95
was a candidate before the Legislature
of the Stato of Utah for election as Sen
ator of tho United States.
Thatcher, at tho time, was ono of tho
twclvo apostles of tho church, and he did
not Eoek or obtain tho consent of tho
church authorities to this candidacy. For
this ofTonao ho wbb tried beforo a high
church tribunal. The decision of this
tribunal, the acceptance thereof by Moueu
Thotchor, nnd tho acqulcscer.so oy tho
church authorities In tho terms upon
which he accepted tho conclusion of the
tribunal, will bo found upon pages 5G3 to
673 of tho samo volume. Mr. Thatcher
wns a witness boforo tnc committee, and
his testimony cn this subject will bo
found on pages 103S to 1010 of that vol
ume. Tho upshot of It all Is that tho political
rule, as construed by theso proceedings,
left Thatcher, to uso his own words, ab
solutely frco as an American citizen, to
exerclso his rights as such, and left all
tho ofllcors of tho church absolutely free.
In his acceptance of tho decision of tho
council Thatcher oxpresaly stipulated
that in accepting It he violated nono of
tho engagements theretofore entered Into
by him, "under tho requirements of party
pledges rcspocting tho political Independ
ence of tho citizen who remains untrain
olcd, as contemplated In the' guaranties
of the State constitution."
Indeed, in tho political rulo ltnolf, It Is
cxprussly stated that if any olllcer or
tho church wishes to becomo n candidate
for a political ofllco, or to outer Into any
othor engagement which will lntorforo
with tho dutlos of his church office, ho
way do so without soliciting or obtaining
tho consent of the church or its au-
thoritles by resigning his ecclesiastical
position. The whole purport and effect of
the rule seems to bo that high church of-
ficlals, filling positions which require ,
them to glvo their, time to their cccle- vM
slastlcal duties, shall not enter Into any
engagements of any kind, political or oth-
erwlsc, which require them to abandon or
neglect such ecclesiastical duties, without
llrst obtaining the consent of the.authorl-
ties of tho church. i
Thus construed the rule seems to be a
reasonable one; but whether reasonable
or unreasonable It does not seem to us ,
that It Is within tho provinces of the Gen
oral Government to Interfere with It or
punish In any way tho members of tho
church because of Its promulgation,
Tho evidence In the case clearly estab- IH
llshcs that Mr. Smoot, for some tlmo be- IH
foro he became a candldato tor tho Sen
ato and oven beforo he becamo an apos- jM
tie, was ono of tho leaders of tho Re-
Kuolican party In tho Stato of Utah; that
o hnd been frequently spoken of cither
as a candldato for the Governorship of ,
tho State or tho Senate of the United
States; that when ho becamo a candidate
for the Senate he was, In the words of
soino of tho witnesses, tho logical candl- ,
dnto for that ofllco, and that ho waa
elected by the votes of tho Republicans In
the Legislature, Mormons and non-Mor-mans,
and was opposed by the Democrats
In that body, Mormons and non-Mormons. vM
He says, In his testimony, that before vM
formally becoming a candidate, ho went IH
to tho first presidency of the church and
obtained the consent of tho Church to his
becoming a candidate.
As already Intimated. If that consent
had beon refused. It meant no more than
lf he becamo a Senator ho must give up
his npostlcfihlp.
There has been no evidence offered
tending to show that any member of the
Mormon Church has over asked consent
to become a candldato for any office and
been refused.
Tho Endowment Oath. IH
The only other charge made against the
respondent which. In our opinion, merits
attention was made In tho protest signed
by John L. Lelllch. as follows:
That tho oath of office required of and taken
by the uild Rocd Smoot as an apostle ot the
sold church a of ouch a nature and character
that ho In thereby disqualified from taking
the oath of office required of a United States
Senator. (1; 23.)
This same chargo waa In effect made In
tho protest signed by W, M. Paden and
17 others In the following clause ns a do
ductlon from previous statements, rather
than a specific charge in itself:
Wc submit that however formal and regular
may be Apostle Smoot" s credentials of his
qualifications by wuy of citizenship, whatever
his protestations of patriotism and loyalty. It
Is clear that the obligations of any official
oath which ho may subscribe are and of neces
slty must be nn threads of tow compared with
the covenants which bind his Intellect, his
will, and bis affections, and which hold Jilm
forever In accord with and subject to the will
of a defiant and lawbrcaklng apostolate,
In the sworn answer mado bv tho re
spondent to these charges on this subject IH
1 1 'J E.lOi IBBBBH
Aa to the chargo that the respondent Is
bound by somo oath or obligation controlling
his duty and hie oath aa a. Senator, the re- JHl
i spondent cays that ht hia never taken any Bl
such oath or In any way assumed any such HBl
obligations. He holds himself bound to obey
and uphold tho Constitution and laws of tho
United States, Including the condition In ref
erence to polygamy upon which tho State of jVjJ
Utah wns admitted Into the Union; (1; 3L)
During tho examination of the rlrst
witness called by tho protestants, Joseph
F. Smith, a discussion arose In which
Senator Hoar stated that he understood fl
lhat the commltteo had reached a conclu
slon that there were two Issues in tho
case ono whether Reed Smoot had prac- fl
tlccd polygamy, which tho Senator under- JBJJ
stood had been abandoned, and that the
only other one was whether or not as an IBb
official of tho Mormon Church the re
spondent took an oath or obligation that
waa superior in his estimation and In its BVjl
requirements upon him to tho oath or
obligation which ho must take to qualify s
him as a Senator. HjBjJ
Thoreupon Senator Dubois stated that
both these contentions wero set asldo en- ' IBa
tlrely and that It was not contended that
they would be attempted to bo proved by HBb
tho attorneys representing tho protest
ants, fl; 114.) In tho courso of further
discussion a member of tho committee
having stated that ho never knew until IH
Mr. Tayler had stated It that he had
abandoned tho Idea of proving that the HBa
respondent had taken an obligation thnt
Interfered with tho obligations of his
oath, Mr. Tayler replied: JBj
I can not abandon that which I never occu
pled or po&seised. BV
Senator Dubois added, "Ho never al
leged It" (1; 115.)
On a subsequent day. Senator Bevor- IH
ldge, In order, as he stated, to correct IHjBjJ
what he thought was a mistake In the IH
popular mind as to what were the LVjBJJ
charges against tho respondent which the
committee waa considering, said that It
had been charged that tho respondent IBs
was a polygamlst, which charge had been
withdrawn, and that ho had been charged IH
with taking an oath Inconsistent with his jJjVJ
duty us a Senator, which Senator Bovor- IHjBjJ
ldge understood Mr. Taylor to say was
not a charge that had been withdrawn, IHjBjJ
but was such a chargo as had never been IfljBjJ
mado, and thnt. thcrcforo, tho Issue upon IH
which tho committee would proceed from IH
that tlmo on, so far aa tho protestants HjBj
wero concerned, waa whether tho re- tt
spondent was a member of a conspiracy. BjBj
Thereupon Senator Dubois again stated IIJ
that no charge had been mado against
Mr. Smoot of taking nn oath Inconsistent
with his oath aa Senator except tho Lol- IBb
llch charge, which had been abandoned
and repudiated, and that tho attorneys fljBj
for tho respondent "have boon trying to
forco tho protostants to issues which
thov themaelves have never raised." 1
(Vol. 1, p. 126.)
This wns tho state of the record when
the testimony of Joseph F. Smith and
several other witnesses had been taken,
and tho examination of Francis M. Ly
man, ono of the apostles, was progress-
VJlVJ
He was naked by the chairman to state
what tho "ceremony Is In going through
tho endowment house." This being ob
Jected to by tho counsel for rospondent.
tho chairman said: Hjfl
One of the charges In that Mr- Bmoot has
taken an oath or obligation Incompatible with
hln obligation as a Senator. The object of thin
question Is to ascertain from this witness. BJHJJJ
who wont through tho endowment house of jJJ
course. I know nothing about It whether any
such obllratlonn Is taken. JHJJ
Counsel for the respondent having
theroupon stated that they understood
thnt that charge had been expressly dls
claimed by counsel for the protestants,
the chairman replied: JBJJ
Counset stated that thoy did not propose, as
far as they wero concerned, to offer any proof HjHJJj
upon that question, but the chair did not un- JjVjl
derstand that thereforo the committee was
precluded from showing It. (U 43S.)
A little later In tho same session, Mr
Taylor, counsel for tho protestants, again
stated:
it Is In respect of those two things around
which all of this caso gathers polygamy and
the direction ot the peoplo by the apostolate IH
and lf thoso two wore eliminated this hear- IH
lng would not be going on here. (1; t$3.) IH
After the chairman of the commltteo
had ruled as above stated that the wit
ncss Lyman was required to answer the
question, his examination on this subject
proceeded as follows:
The Chairman. Will you please state what
the ceremony In In going through the endow
mcnt house?
Mr. Lyman. I could not do so.
Mr. Worthlngton. I object to that, Mr.
Chairman, on tho ground that It lo Inquiring
Into a mnttcr prior to 1530, and I understood,
or wo were Informed, that tho commltteo had
decided thnt would not be done.
The Chairman. One of tho charges Is that
Mr. Smoot has taken an oath or obligation
Incompatible with his obligations as a Sona
tor. The object of this question Is to ascer
tain from this wltnoes who wont through the
endowment house of course I know nothing
about It whether any such obligation Is taken
Mr Lyman. Is that the question you asked
me. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. No; that waa not my quta
tlon. It wns a statement to counsel.
Mr. Worthlngton. I had understood. Mr
Chairman, that that was expressly disclaimed
by counsel hero the other day.
Tho Chalrmnn. Counsel stated that thoy. did IH
not propose, an far as they woro concerned,
to offer any proof upon that question, but the
Chairman did not understand that therefore
the committee was precluded from showing It
In there any objection to the question?
Mr- Worthlngton. I do object to It for the
reasons already stated: and, further, because
It docs not follow nt all that because the wit
ncsn went through certain ceremonies or took
certnln obligations, If you please. Senator
Smoot took them.
The Chairman. That would not follow of
Itself. If nothing further than this can be
Wb, at caurxa it will hATs no bearing upqn
