The Idaho scimitar. [volume], March 21, 1908, Page 4, Image 4

About The Idaho scimitar. [volume] (Boise, Idaho) 1907-1908

Image provided by: Idaho State Historical Society

                
Mr. French Writes.
House of Representatives, Washington, February
29, 1908. Hon. Fred T. Dubois, Editor Idaho Scimi
tar, Boise, Idaho. My Dear Sir: Some little time
ago you published in your paper under the heading
''Keeping the Faith" an editorial purporting to give
a statement from me bearing upon the relation of
the leaders of the party of which I am a member
to the Mormon church. In an editorial of more re
cent date you have seen fit again to attempt to
discredit me with the people of Idaho, and I feel it
my duty to call to your attention the inaccuracies
and unfairness of your statements in this regard. In
one editorial you purport to give a portion of my
testimony before the committee on privileges and
elections of the United States Senate in what is
known as the Smoot case. Your editorial is in
part as follows :
Somehow, during the course of the examination
of Mr. French before the Senate committee, it oc
curred to the chairman of that committee to ask
the Representative from the State of Idaho what
would be the effect upon his political fortunes should
he make complaint against some polygamous mem
ber of the Mormon church, as he would have a
right to do under constitutional and statutory enact
ments, and have him arrested.
Mr. French—I think it would be resented by the
members very generally of the Mormon church. I
think so.
The Chairman—So it is quite necessary, in poli
tics, not to offend the church by such a step as
ff iat o
Mr. French—Well, I think they would regard it
as rather a breach of faith.
Hie Chairman—Yes.
Mr. French—I think they would.
The Chairman—Naturallv.
Mr. French—I do not mean on my part, but a
breach of faith entered into with the leaders of
pohtical parties. ......
ply, but it is not to be presumed that he would
be solicitous over the effect of a breach of faith on
the part of the Democratic party, which has not
been guilty of placing him in Congress. So, accord
features, the leaders of the political party that
opened to Mr. French the doorway to fame entered
into a compact with the Mormon church that would
be violated should one of its party-made officials
invoke the law upon a member of the church and
arraign him before the bar of justice for a palpable
cnme -
While you have quoted my exact language, no
one knows better than you that my language had
no relation whatever to the leaders of any party
at a date later than 1890, when you and other
leaders made certain assurances or pledges to the
Mormon people. No one knows better than do you
that in that portion of my testimony which you
quoted, that I refererd plainly to the agreement
which you referred to in your speech in the Senate
February 5, 1903 (Cong. Rec. 57th Cong. 2nd Sess.
pp. 1729-30). At that time you spoke as follows:
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 wiH say that a polygamous marriage has been
celebrated anywhere since the issuance of that mam
festo.
Mr. (Senator) Hale—Then it must follow from
that, as the years go by and as the older people
removed 1 "' polygamy as a practice will be practically
re Mr Ve Dubois—There is no question about it; and
I will say to the Senator, owing to the active part
which we took in that fierce contest in Idaho, I, with
others who had made the fight, thought we were
justified in making this promise to the Mormon
people. We had no authority of law, but we took
it upon ourselves to assure them that those older
men who are living in the polygamous relation, who
had growing families which they had reared and
were rearing before the manifesto was issued, and
at a time when they thought they had a right under
the constitution to enter the polygamous relation
that those older men and women and their chil
dren should not be disturbed; that the polygamous
man should be allowed to support his numerous
wives and their children. The polygamous relations,
of course, should not continue, but we'would not
compel a man to turn his families adrift. We prom
ised that the older ones, who had contracted those
relations before the manifesto was issued, would not
be persecuted by the Gentiles ; that time would be
given for them to pass away, but that the law would
be stringently enforced against any polygamous mar
riage which might be contracted in the future.
In this speech you refer especially to the "prom
which you said you, with others, were justified
ise
in making.
The testimony which I gave refers exactly to that
agreement, and does not refer to either political
You are as un
j
.
party at a time later than 1890.
reasonable in handling this quotation in my testi
mony as the man who attempted to justify stealing
by the Biblical words "Let him that stole steal," omit
ting the words "no more." You have indeed quoted
my exact language, but you have taken it away
from everything it refers to, as you must know fully
for you were present and heard my testimony.
In a more recent editorial, in speaking of me,
Replying to this statement, which is the gist of
your editorial, I desire to say that your statement
j las no foundation whatever in fact. You have made
, . , , , . , , .
th,s statement doubtless with the idea of discrediting
me in the sections of the State where they are no
Mormon people. You should know, if you do not
know already, that I have never recommended any
, , , . ^ ^ ,
body for appointment to any position because he
was a member of the Mormon church, or so far as
that is concerned, of any other church. I have
never made inquiry as to the religious conviction
r . iT , , .
ot any a PP llcant for an y appointment. I do not hesi
fate to sa.y, however, that at no time in the past
have I refused to recommend an applicant for ap
pointment to any position upon the ground that he
member of the Mormon or any other church,
an< h frankly, I shall follow the same course in the
future, because I believe it is absolutely right,
In closing, I would call to your attention the
c ' ? a . °" February 13 > 1903 > in the
Senate of the United States (Appendix Cong. Rec.
57tb Cong. 2nd Session, page 101) :
He (Mr. French) is an enthusiastic tithe pro
moter. Whenever he can fling a fat postoffice into
the saintly lap he does not hesitate or bungle. Some
one who can read his title clear* to a polygamous
brotherhood gets the job.
As one of the representatives of a State where
the Mormons are one-fourth of the people I join
with the Senator from Utah, who is in part a rep
resentative of a State where'three-fourths are Mor
mons > saying that there is no polygamy, that is,
doubt^f''the'gi'ntlemcn on the'otter side 1
in quibbling over this proposition,
I believe you were right then and I commend
words of that day to your present consideration.
Very truly yours
_Rnrtnn T
q,, , , f -
Tl >* above letter from Congressman French is
Printed exactly as it was received. We will be glad
,? 0ther rephes °! ,he Congressman, for he
re P resentatlve of Idaho m 'he popular branch
°* Congress.
^ speech which was delivered in the Senate on
February 5, 1903, by Senator Dubois is made to do
service again, or rather some portions of it
- • ... ... , ,
speech P roves nothing, in the light of subsequent
events, except that Senator Dubois was mistaken,
deceived and betrayed by the Mormon leaders
accepted the manifesto of President Woodruff and
pleas for ^nesty signed by the authorities of
* 1C clurc i , anc * the ratification of the manifesto by
the Mormon people themselves in two semi-annual
conferences, as being sincere The entire churrb
are sincere
your
The
He
j„ evcrv ronceivnhU W1 wi . ,
? conceivable way, had pledged that there
' voui( be no more new polygamy, no more living
* n tlle polygamous relation by the older polygamists,
after 1890, the date of the issuance of the manifesto'
Senator Dubois made the speeclt in the' Senate
. , , . . 1 ie oenate
a Ut two ^ ears before the testimony in the Smoot
case > wb en the leaders of the church, under oath,
before the Senate committee and in the hearin« of
Senator Dubois, who was a member of the con
... . t le . com ~
, ' s 1 ' C , . that ^ ley _ were stl11 bving in the
Polygamous relation. I he Senator was compelled to
admit that he was mistaken and deceived as to the
facts stated by him in his speech of more than a
year previous. Congressman French seems to
look the absolutely saving clause in the
February 5, 1903.
over
speech of
After saying that the older po .
lygamists would be allowed to live out their li ves
and care and provide for their wives and children
The polygamous relations!
of course, should not continue, but we would not
compel a man to turn his families adrift,
gressman French sat in the committee
this language was used :
Con
room be
tween the leading Mormon officials of Idaho, Presi
dent William Budge, and one of the chief Mormoi
of the church, Apostle John Henry Smith, of Utah
He heard each of them testify that their plural wives
had borne them children since the manifesto and
that they did not intend to abandon their polyga
mous practices. Congressman French knew, as Sen
ator Dubois and every one else did, that numbers
of Mormons, including Apostles Abram H. Cannon
an< ^ J°bn W. Taylor, of Utah, anc ^ Matthias F. Cow
e Y> ot irreston, Idaho, had entered into new po
lygamy since the manifesto. The sworn testimonv
is
of Mormons themselves in this hearing before the
Senate committee showed that four out of the
twelve apostles of the Mormon church had entered
into new polygamy since the manifesto, namely:
Abram H. Cannon, George Teasdale, John W. Tay
lor and M. T. Cowley. The president of the church
testified, in the presence of Senator Dubois and
Congressman French, that each of his five wives
had borne him children since the manifesto. Eight
of the twelve apostles either testified themselves
it was admitted for them that they had continued
their polygamous relations with their plural wives
after the manifesto, i. e., after each and
ot them had given his solemn pledge, over his sig
nature, that there would be no more polygamous
living.
or
every one
, .
to Mormon 1 e enate that his opposltl
T° m0n practlces would destroy him politically.
^"fessman French prefers to sustain the Mor
ns tl ' eir Polygamous living and domination in
£ tlcs ' Senator Dubois prefers to oppose their
11011 ot cllurcb an d state and polygamous practices,
Congressman French knows that the Mormon church
donates the Republican
It is not a matter of much concern to the people
what Senator Dubois thought or said about polyg
amy and polygamous living among the Mormons in
the years following their pledges, but it is a mat
ici of deep concern to the people what Senator Du
bois did
in his representative capacity, after the
Laders of the church testified under oath that tbev
veie living in violation of their pledges and in
\ iolation of the laws of the land and of the laws
of God. It will not suffice for Congressman French
to answer by saying the people have expressed thei
selves by electing him to represent them, and re
fusing to elect Senator Dubois.
ii
Congressman
French testified before the commit! î" himself and
under oath admitted, in substance, that *t
destroy him politically if he opposed the polygamous
practices of the Mormons.
would
Senator Dubois stated
on
party of Idaho and that
it uses its political power to protect its polygamous
members from punishment,
combination between the Republican party and the
Mormons in Idaho has debauched and disgraced the
State administration and forced the Republican
pait\ in the Legislature to violate its solemn plat
form pledges to the people.
1 he Congressman is content with the alliance and
lends his sympathy and
He knows that this
An assemhIW ^ r r ,
. ' . assemblin g of the war craft of the nations at
tbe little Island of Hayti announces the existence
of another revolution in that region of perpetual
disturbance The shins 8 P y
foreigners and their
reward satisfies his conscience, he should at least
be manly enough to defend his allies,
not insult the intelligence of the people by relying
for his sole defense on a speech of Senator Dubois,
which
He should
proves nothing, excepting that Senator Du
bois was deceived
the speech.
as to the facts when he made
are there to protect the
property.