Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate : in the matter of the protests against the right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a senator from the state of Utah, to hold his seat [Jan. 16, 1904-April 13, 1906]

O.N.TOOMEY.

BANCROFT

LIBRARY

<•

THE LIBRARY

OF

THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA

i

PROCEEDINGS
C.N.TOOMEY.

BEFORE THE

OF THE

UNITED STATES SENATE

IN THE MATTER OF

THE PROTESTS AGAINST THE RIGHT OF HON. REED

SMOOT, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE

OF UTAH, TO HOLD HIS SEAT.

VOLUME I.

WASHINGTON:

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1904.

U

BANCROFT
LIBRARY

PROTEST IN THE MATTER OF REED SMOOT, SENATOR-ELECT
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH,

To the President and Members of the Senate of the United States:

We, the undersigned, resident citizens and qualified electors of the
State of Utah, do hereby most respectfully protest:

That Apostle Reed Smoot, Senator-elect from the State of Utah, to
whom, on or about the 21st day of January, 1903, a certificate of elec-
tion was issued in due form by the governor of said State, ought not
to be permitted to qualifiy by taking the oath of office or to sit as a
member of the United States Senate, for reasons affecting the honor
and dignity of the United States and their Senators in Congress.

We protest as above upon the ground and for the reason that he is
one of a self-perpetuating body of fifteen men who, constituting the
ruling authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
or "Mormon" Church, claim, and by their followers are accorded the
right to claim, supreme authority, divinely sanctioned, to shape the
belief and control the conduct of those under them in all matters what-
soever, civil and religious, temporal and spiritual, and who thus, unit-
ing in themselves authority, in church and state, do so exercise the
same as to inculcate and encourage a belief in polygamy and polyga-
mous cohabitation; who countenance and connive at violations of the
laws of the State prohibiting the same regardless of pledges made for
the purpose of obtaining statehood and of covenants made with the peo-
ple of the United States, and who by all the means in their power pro-
tect and honor those who with themselves violate the laws of the land
and are guilty of practices destructive of the family and the home.

In support whereof we do further show as follows:

I.

The Mormon priestlwod, according to the doctrines of that church, is
vested with supre7)ie authority in all things temporal and spiritual.

Men who hold the priesthood possess divine authority to act for God, and by pos-
sessing part of God's power they are in reality part of God. * * Men who
honor the priesthood in them honor God; and those who reject it, reject God. (New
Witnesses for God, by B. H. Eoberts, p. 187.)

All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.
(Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 107, v. 5.)

I would just as soon think of heaven ending in chaos and the throne of God being
shaken to its foundations as to think that the priesthood had gone wrong in its
authority or that the Lord would permit such a thing. * ' It is a dreadful

thing to fight against or in any manner oppose the priesthood. (Apostle George Q.
Cannon in a sermon delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, April 5, 1897. )

The priesthood gives them the right to advise and instruct the saints, and their
jurisdiction extends over all things, spiritual or temporal. (Sermon by Doctor Gowans,
reported in the Logan Journal, May 26, 1898. )

The Lord has not given the members of the church the right to find fault with dr
condemn those who ho;d priesthood. (Apostle George Q. Cannon in the Juvenile
Instructor, No. 29, p. 746. )

2 TCEED SMOOT

The priesthood holds the power and right to give laws arid commands to individ-
uals, churches, rulers, and nations of the world; to appoint, ordain, and establish
constitutions and kingdoms; to appoint kings, presidents, governors, and judges.
(Key to Theology, p. 70.)

The priesthood has the legitimate rule of God, whether in the heaven or on the
earth, and the only legitimate power that has a right to rule on the earth; and
when the will of God is done on earth as it is in heaven, no other power will be
or rule. (Apostle John Taylor, afterwards president of the church. See Journal of

Discourses, vol. 5, p. 186.'
The question with

question with me is * when I get the word of the Lord as to who is

the right man (to vote for) will I obey it, no matter whether it does come contrary
to my convictions. (President Joseph F. Smith. Sermon in Salt Lake Tabernacle,
reported in Deseret News, December 6, 1900.)

If a man should offer me a bribe to vote for him I should be inclined not to vote
for him unless directed to do so by the prophet of the Lord. (Apostle Brigham
Young, jr. Sermon in Logan Tabernacle, 1901.)

Speaking of politics, Elder Cowley (apostle) made the remark that he deemed poli-
tics an essential feature of the building up of God's kingdom on earth; but first of
all he believed we should obey the scriptural injunction to seek first the Kingdom of
God, etc. The priesthood was placed on the earth for the guidance of the saints in
all things, whether religious or political, and he deemed it justifiable for the elders
to counsel the people in political matters. (Logan Journal's report of Tabernacle
service, issue of October 11, 1898. )

II.

The first presidency and twelve apostles are supreme in the exercise and
transmission of the mandates of this authority.

Since of necessity there are presiding officers growing out of the priesthood, there
is a president appointed from the high-priesthood to preside over that priesthood.
He is called the president of the high-priesthood of the church, or presiding high
priest over the high-priesthood of the church. This president of the high-priesthood
also presides over the whole church. * * * Two other high priests associated
with the president of the high-priesthood as counselors * * • • form the quorum
of the first presidency of the church.

The president in his quorum is to be like unto Moses; therefore he is the prophet
and lawgiver unto the church — the mouthpiece of God unto it. (See Doctrine and
Covenants, chap. 107, and Roberts' s Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, p. 368.)

The twelve apostles are the traveling presiding high council, and have the power
to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the first presidency
of the church, to build up the church and regulate all the affairs of the same in all
nations. * * *

These twelve apostles form the second general presiding quorum in the church,
and are equal in authority and power to the quorum of the first presidency. (See
Doctrine and Covenants, chap. 107, and Roberts' s Outlines of Ecclesiastical History,
p. 368.)

If Brother Brigham tells me to do anything, it is the same as though the Lord told
me to do it; this is the course for you and every other saint to take. (Late Apostle
Heber C. Kimball; see Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 161.)

No man need judge me. You know nothing about it, whether I am sent or not;
furthermore, it is none of your business; only listen with open ears to what is taught
you. (President Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 341.)

Wilford Woodruff is a prophet, and I know that he has a great many prophets
around him, and he can make scriptures as good as those in the Bible/ (Apostle
John W. Taylor, conference at Salt Lake City, April 5, 1897.)

The living oracles (words of the first president and apostolate) are worth more to
the Latter-Day Saints than all the Bibles, etc. (Apostle Mariner W. Merrill, con-
ference at Salt Lake City, October, 1897.)

Compared with the living oracles these books are nothing to me. (The late Pres-
ident Woodruff, conference at Salt Lake City, October, 1897. )

Whatever I might have obtained in the shape of learning by searching and study
respecting the arts and sciences of men; whatever principles I might have imbibed
during my scientific researches; yet, if the prophet of God should tell me that a
certain theory or principle which I might have learned was not true, I do not care
what my ideas might have been, I should consider it my duty, at the suggestion of
my file leader, to abandon that principle or theory. (Apostle Wilford Woodruff,
afterwards president of the church; Journal of Discourses, vo.. 5, p. 83.)

REED SMOOT. 3

About 1890, when the people of the Territory of Utah were consid-
ering" the question of dividing on national party lines to the exclusion
of church issues, it was decided by the president and apostolate of the
Mormon Church that men holding the higher orders of priesthood
should refrain from entering- into politics personalty, because of the
influential positions which they held in the church. Accordingly, a
rule was promulgated requiring the higher grades of Mormon officials
to decline leadership in the political parties.

Apostle Moses Thatcher and others showed a disposition to violate
this rule, claiming that the presidency and main body of the apostles
were not observing it, and refused to " take counsel" as to what course
they should pursue in political matters. The first presidency and apos-
tolate thereupon made a rule that leading* officials in the church must
receive permission before accepting political nominations That rule
was set forth in a manifesto which was signed by the first presidency,
the twelve apostles (excepting Moses Thatcher), and other leading
officials of the church. The rule, as found in this manifesto, reads as
follows:

Concerning officers of the church themselves, the feeling was generally expressed
in the beginning of the political divisions spoken of that it would be prudent for
leading men not to accept of office at the hands of the political party to which they
might belong. * * *

We have maintained that in the case of men who hold high positions in the church,
whose duties are well defined, and whose ecclesiastical labors are understood to be
continuous and necessary it would be an improper thing to accept political office or
enter into any vocation that would distract or remove them from the religious duties
resting upon them without first consulting and obtaining the approval of their asso-
ciates amd those who preside over them. * * *

It has been the constant practice with officers of the church to consult, or to use
our language, to "counsel," with their brethren concerning all questions of this kind.
They have not felt that they were sacrificing their manhood in doing so, nor that
they wrere submitting to improper dictation, nor that in soliciting and acting upon
the advice of those over them they were in any manner doing away with their indi-
vidual rights and agency, nor that to any improper degree were their rights and
duties as American citizens being abridged or interfered with. They realize that in
accepting ecclesiastical office they assumed certain obligations; and among these was
the obligation to magnify the office which they held, to attend to its duties in pref-
erence to every other labor, and to devote themselves exclusively to it with all the
zeal, industry, and strength they possess, unless released in part or for a time by
those who preside over them. Our view — and it has been the view of all our prede-
cessors— is that no officer of our church, especially those in high standing, should take
a course to violate this long-established practice. Rather than to disobey it and
declare himself independent of his associates and his file leaders, it has always been
held that it would be better for a man to resign the duties of his priesthood; and we
entertain the same view to-day. * * *

In consequence we feel it to be our duty to clearly define our position, so there
may be no cause hereafter for dispute or controversy upon the subject.

First. We unanimously agree to, and promulgate as a rule that should always be
observed in the church and by every leading official thereof, that before accepting
any position, political or otherwise, which would interfere with the proper and com-
plete discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, and before accepting a nomination or
entering into engagements to perform new duties, said official should apply to the
proper authorities and learn from them whether he can, consistently with the obliga-
tions already entered into with the church, upon assuming his office, take upon him-
self the added duties, labors, and responsibilities of the new position. To maintain
proper discipline and order in the church we deem it absolutely necessary; and
in asserting this rule we do not consider that we are infringing in the least degree
upon the individual rights of the citizen. Our position is that a man having accepted
the honors and obligations of ecclesiastical office in the church, can not properly, of
his own volition, make those honors subordinate to or even coordinate with new
ones of entirely different character; we hold that unless he is willing to counsel witri
and obtain the consent of his fellow-laborers and presiding officers in the priesthood,
he should be released from all obligations associated with the latter before accepting
any new position.

4 EEED SMOOT.

There was appended to this document the names of the first presi-
diMH-v of the apostles (with the exception of Apostle Lund, who was
then "in England), of the first seven presidents of the seventies, and so
on, 24 names in all, representing the authorities of the church.
Apostle Thatcher refused to join in the manifesto, and his name was
dropped out of the list of apostles to be sustained at the April confer-
ence of 1896. He was dropped from the quorum of the twelve
apostles at the October conference of that same year.

Apostle George Q. Cannon said, in defining the course of the church
authorities:

When I respect and honor Wilford Woodruff 1 bow to God; He has chosen him.
* * * If I listen to Wilford Woodruff, if I look to him to see how the spirit of
God moves upon him; if I ask his counsel and take it, it is because God has com-
manded me. God has given him the keys of authority. Let anybody try it and see
what effect their action would have. When Joseph F. Smith obeys Wilford Wood-
ruff he does it upon the same principle. We reverence him as the prophet of God,
and as our leader. We listen to him and are guided by his slightest wish. It is
because we know that he is the servant of God, chosen by the Almighty to fill that
place, and that he holds the keys of the priesthood to this generation on the earth
at the present time. I can say truthfully that we strive to consult his slightest wish,
and honor him in his position, because we know that God has chosen him. And
who are we that we should withstand God? Who are we that we should question
that which God reveals? Does this sacrifice our independence? Not in the least.
And these twelve apostles are in precisely the same position. When they accept
the counsel of the first presidency they do it because they believe the first presi-
dency to be chosen of God. They may have different views on many things; but
when the first presidency gives counsel every man that has the spirit of God accepts
that counsel. (Reported by the Deseret News, October 4, 1896.)

At the same conference President Woodruff said:

My brethren and sisters, there is something pressing upon my mind that I want to
say. We have arrived at the point here with regard to circumstances that it is my
duty to take up as the president of the church. The first presidency and twelve
apostles were never more united as a body than they are to-day. * We

believe together, -we work together, we pray together, and we believe in each other
because we are all trying to do the will of God. This is the case with all of us with
one exception. That exception is Brother Moses Thatcher. * * * Now I want
to say that neither Moses Thatcher nor any other man on the face of the earth can
stand in the wray of this church. We have had almost whole quorums of the apostles
that have been in the road, and they have had to be moved out of it, because the
kingdom of God can not stop for anybody — for Wilford Woodruff, for Moses Thatcher,
or for anybody else. Unless we work with the saints of God, with the priesthood
of God, and with the organization of His chufch we can not have any power or influ-
ence. (Reported by Deseret News, October 5, 1896.)

At the same conference Apostle Lorenzo Snow, at that time presi-
dent of the quorum of the twelve apostles and afterwards president of
the church, said:

Now there is a certain document which you have heard talked about a srood deal.
Brother Young and myself took that document to Brother Thatcher. His physical
condition was not very promising, and I asked him if 1 should read it to him. He
said he preferred to read it himself, and he read it — read it very deliberately. He
said he did not feel then to approve it altogether, he wished it to remain for a while.
We granted him his wish. • Of course it was rather singular. There were

appended to that document the names of the first presidency of the apostles (with
the exception of Brother Lund, who was then in England), of the first seven presi-
dents of the seventies, of the patriarchs, and of the presiding bishopric — twenty-four
names in all — representing the authorities of the church; but he did not feel inclined,
he said, to put his name to the document.

I am reminded of a little anecdote I heard of Brother Erastus Snow, which illus-
trates a principle: Brother George A. Smith was speaking to an ''outside" audience
one night and Brother Erastus fell asleep. When he got through preaching he
elbowed Brother Erastus and requested him to bear his testimony. It was thought
that Brother Erastus had scarcely heard a word, but he arose and said: "My friends,

REED SMOOT 5

every word my brother here has said is God's truth." Now, why did he say so?
There was a reason for this. Why, he knew Brother George A. Smith; he had
heard him preach a hundred times, and he knew that he was a man of inspiration,
and would never say anything but that was true. Well, I think when a man is so
well acquainted with the first presidency, with the apostles, with the bishopric,
with the presidents of the seventies, with the presiding bishops, he ought to have
some confidence in the positions of these brethren; and if that brother is rather low
in his mind, and does not really feel confident to judge in the matter, he ought to
have confidence in brethren. (Address reported by Deseret News, October 5, 1896. )

Apostle John Henry Smith expressed himself as follows at the same
conference:

I have recognized the fact that there must be an explanation made to the Latter-
Day Saints in connection with the subject upon which the president of the church
and the presid nt of the council of the apostles have treated. I fully understand
that within three days after Brother Moses Thatcher declined to sustain his associ-
ates he would have been dealt with for his fellowship and standing in the council of
the apostles but for his physical condition.

The presidency of the church and the council of the apostles, in their deliberations
upon all questions that affect the well-being and interest of the cause, are as candid
and frank in their consultations and expression of views as any body of men could
possibly be. But when a conclusion has been reached as to the course that should
be pursued it is expected that every man will give in his adherence to the course
marked out, and with unfaltering voice and fixed determination, so that these coun-
sels may prevail so far as may be possible among the whole people. (Address
reported by Deseret News, October 5, 1896. )

Apostle Brigham Young put himself on record at this same confer-
ence, as follows:

I can not see a man rise up and stand in open rebellion to his brethren in defiance
of the pleadings of his quorum, and feel that he has the spirit of God in him,
which I witnessed previous to my departure in 1890, for I saw Brother Moses stand
in open rebellion to his quorum. * * * Where, brethren and sisters, will you
get the channel of communication opened up between you and the powers that reign
over the earth?

The God that sits in the heavens and the angels and saints that visit us, through
what line of communication do they come? God has placed these authorities here
to guide his people, and when a man cuts that thread for himself, then the channel
of revelation is destroyed, so far as that man is concerned. If you and I ever con-
sider that we can reach God and get his mind and will in relation to this great work
without receiving it through the channel of those men who stand at the head, then
all I have to say to you or myself is, we have cut the thread between us and the
spirit of God, and we are left to wander in by and forbidden paths. One channel,
one organization. And no man can rise against that and expect that he will be
favored of the Lord or permitted to enjoy his spirit. (Address reported by Deseret
News, October 5, 1896.)

Apostle Joseph F. Smith, now president of the church, gave coun-
sel as follows at the same conference:

It is written somewhere in the laws of God that "the Lord requireth the heart and
a willing mind, and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion"
in these last days. Now, if a man has given his heart unto the Lord and is willing
and obedient unto God in his requirements, that man I love and that man has my
sympathy. But when he turns away from the love of God and steels his heart
against the laws of God and the counsels of his priesthood, then amen to the author-
ity and power of that man, and to my love and sympathy for him in his wrong-
doing. * * * He may go his own road and I will go mine. I love my own
brother; I love my sister; I love my wife and children; but when my brother
or my sister or wife or child turns away from God and raises the heel against the
Almighty and turns his or her ear to their own selfish desires and whims, they are
no more to me than the heathen; but they are unbelievers and they are not my
brother nor my sister in the covenant of the gospel, and that covenant is stronger
than all other covenants and all other ties that bind the Saints together.

The man that will abide in the covenant is my brother and my friend, and has my
sympathy and love and I will sustain him. But the man who raises his heel and
his voice against the servant of God and the authority of the priesthood on earth is

0 REED SMOOT.

not my friend, and he has not my sympathy nor my love. Mercy has done its work;
patience has endured long enough, and all'lsrael must know that a man, whether
he is an apostle or high priest or a seventy, that will not hearken to the voice of
God, that will not give his heart unto the Lord, that is not obedient, must cease to
be fellowshipped by the people of God. It is a matter concerning the gov-

ernment of the church and the authority which God has instituted to direct and to
guide. (Address reported by Deseret News, October 5, 1896.)

Apostle Joseph F. Smith had previously spoken on the same sub-
ject at a priesthood meeting at Logan. There need be no question as
to the accuracy of the report, for it is thoroughly substantiated and
may be read in full in the Salt Lake papers of May 10 and 11, 1896. t

Joseph F. Smith was the next speaker. He said that Moses Thatcher's attitude
all through the political fight in Utah could not be justified; that he had been the
one apostle who had refused to take counsel as to how the people should be divided
up; that the first presidency and all the twelve but Thatcher had decided upon a
certain policy to get the relief they needed from the Government, but Thatcher had
stood out against them; that he had been opposing his brethren ever since the divi-
sion on party lines, and had not been in harmony with his quorum.

Joseph F. Smith said further that the meeting called in the Gardo House to con-
sider the advisability of disbanding the People's Party was attended by many of the
authorities, stake presidents, and leaders of the People's Party.

It was plainly stated at this meeting that men high in authority who believe in
Republican principles should go out among the people, but that those high in
authority who could not indorse the principles of Republicanism should remain
silent. Their counsel was obeyed by all the apostles and high authorities except
Moses Thatcher, who talked to the people contrary to the wishes of his brethren.
If it had not been for his condition Moses Thatcher would have been called to
account for his declaration in the opera house, and if he ever became able he would
have to answer for that as well as other things they proposed to charge against him.

In the end Apostle Thatcher was deposed from the apostolate,
defeated in his contest for Senatorship in trie legislature, and only per-
mitted to retain his membership in the Mormon Church upon penitent
recantation of his words and expressed penitence for his course of
action. (See Church Chronology, pp. 213, 214, 215.)

III.

As this body of men has not abandoned the principles and practice oj
political dictation, so also it has not abandoned belief in polygamy and
polygamous cohabitation.

Section 132 of the doctrine and covenants is still a part of the faith
of this body and is published as such without footnote or explanation.
The manifesto authorizing the suspension of plural marriage has
not been added to the published revelations acknowledged as stand-
ards by this body.

Section 132 of the doctrine and covenants, entitled "Revelation on
the eternity of the marriage covenant, including plurality of wives,"
is still an essential belief to the first presidency and twelve apostles.

For, behold! I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant [this refers to
the eternity and plurality of marriage relations], and if ye abide not that covenant
then ye are damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter
into My glory. (Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 132, v. 4.)

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood:

If any man espouse a virgin and desire to espouse another, and the first give her
consent, and if he espouse the second and they are virgins, and have vowed to no
other man, then is he justified; he can not commit adultery, for they are given unto
him; for he can not commit adultery with that which belongeth to him and to no
one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law he can not com-
mit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him, therefore is he
justified. (Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 132, 61-62.) ,,..
~w«*w«d TWT*»C-O^. m^v*. iw* *.W.«*

REED SMOOT. 7

When, in 1869, Mr. Cullom, of Illinois, introduced into the House
a bill aimed at polygamy, Delegate Hooper, representing Utah and
the Mormon Church, summed up his objections to it as follows:

First: That under our constitution we are entitled to be protected in the full and
free enjoyment of our religious faith.

Second: That our views of the marriage relations are an essential portion of our
religious faith.

Third: That in conceding the cognizance of the marriage relation as within the
province of church regulation we are practically in accord with all other Christian
denominations.

Fourth : That in our view of the marriage relation as a part of our religious belief
Are are entitled to immunity from persecution under the constitution if such views
are sincerely held; that if such views are wrong their eradication must be by argu-
ment and not by force. (Quoted by W. A. Linn in his Story of the Mormons, p.
5«2.) .

The following extracts from an epistle from the first presidency to
the officers and members of the Church, dated October 6, 1885, will
sufficiently illustrate the attitude of the church organization:

The war is openly and-undisguisedly made upon our religion. To induce men to
repudiate that, to violate its precepts, and break its solemn covenants, every encour-
agement is given. The man who agrees to discard his wife or wives and to trample
upon the most sacred obligation which any human being can enter into escapes
imprisonment and is applauded, while the man who will not make this compact of
dishonor, who will not admit that his past life has been a fraud and a lie, who will
not say to the world, "I intended to deceive my God, my brethren, and my wives
by making covenants I did not intend to keep," is, besides being punished to the
full extent of the law, compelled to endure the reproaches, taunts, and insults of a
brutal judge. * * * We did not reveal celestial marriage. We can not with-
.draw or renounce it. God revealed it, and he has promised to maintain it and to
bless those who obey it. Whatever fate, then, may threaten us, there is but one
course lor men ot uod to take; that is to keep inviolate the holy covenants they
have made in the presence of God and angels. For the remainder, whether it be
life or death, freedom or imprisonment, prosperity or adversity, we must trust in
God. We may say, however, if any man or woman expects to enter into the celes-
tial kingdom of our God without making sacrifices and without being tested to the
very uttermost, they have not understood the gospel. * * *

Upward of forty years ago the Lord revealed to his church the principle of celes-
tial marriage. The idea of marrying more wives than one was as naturally abhor-
rent to the leading men and women of the church at that day as it could be to any
people. They shrank with dread from the bare thought of entering into such rela-
tionship. But the command of God was before them in language which no faithful
soul dare disobey. "For, behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant;
and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this
covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." * Who would suppose

that any man, in this land of religious liberty, would presume to say to his fellow-
man that he had no right to take such steps as he thought necessary to escape dam-
nation; or that Congress would enact a law that would present the alternative to
religious believers of being consigned to a penitentiary if they should attempt to obey
a law of God which would deliver them from damnation. (Quoted in the Story of
the Mormons, by W. A. Linn, p. 597. )

The following is quoted from the Salt Lake Telegram of January
16, 1903:

Apostle Smoot, who is in Provo, was cross-examined over the telephone ny the
Telegram to-day. Here is what happened:

"You state in a morning paper that you are not a polygamist, and as a Mormon
and as an apostle have never been asked to practice polygamy 01 preach it, or advise
others to practice it. Will you answer another question?

"Do you believe in polyg - ?"

"I will not. I will not. I won't," broke in Mr. Smoot before the reporter could
finish the question.

"Will you not answer the plain question: Do you believe in polygamy?"

"I will not answer any question that is not submitted in writing. I have been
misquoted and my statements misconstrued by Salt Lake papers, and thereby injured
in Washington," the apostle declared, as he hung up his telephone.

Qeo. Q. Co-nvi

8 REED SMOQT.

IV.

That this is the attitude of the first presidency and apostolate, even
since the suspensory manifesto < f 1890, is evidenced l>y their teachings
since then.

At a conjoint conference of the Young Men's Mutual Improvement
Association and Young Women's Mutual Improvement Association,
held at Castledale, Utah, in June, 1898, Mrs. Freese, of Salt Lake
City, took for her theme the subject, Polygamy, and defended the
practice as not only being right, but as a divine command of God.
Apostle Wilford Woodruff, jr., and Mr. Holt, also took up the matter
and stated that the belief in polygamy was as much a part of the faith
of the Mormon Church to-day as it ever was, and that while in defer-
ence to the laws of the United States plural marriage was not practiced
at the present time, it was nevertheless believed to be right, and. the
Government was condemned for suppressing it. It was impressed
upon the minds of the young people that they could not deny this part
of the Mormon belief without at the same time denying the prophet
Joseph Smith, on whose advice it was first practiced. (Reported in
Salt Lake Tribune, June 15, 1898; see also Salt Lake Herald, same
date.)

At a meeting of the quarterly conference of Cache Stake, held in
Logan tabernacle January 28. 1901, Apostle Mathias S. Cowley is
reported as saying:

, Jfane of the revelations of the prophets either past or present have been repealed.
The United Order (of Enoch), though suspended now, has never been repealed. If
you have a man in the priesthood who does not acquaint himself with all the doc-
trines of the church nor teach the same both by example and precept to the families
of his district, if you have a teacher in your Sunday schools who would encourage
the young to disregard or disrespect a single doctrine of the church — plural marriage
and all — turn them out; they have no right in the priesthood. Parents, you must
teach the whole doctrine to your children or they will apostatize and be damned.
These revelations received by our prophets and seers are all of God, and
an not repeal or disannul them without making God out a liar, and God can not

3t Jt ' iT' "" ~ ' "^ ' "" •" "" _*•— •'•- ii. ,,,.!•• ,n i • i iH^t i, ,^*JJ**"t -<-** i vm^mmmm*^^

I wish to remind you of a certain revelation given you through President Taylor.
The command was given to set our quorums and houses in order, and the promise
was that if we should obey the command God would fight our battles for us; but we
did not obey the command, so God did not fight our battles for us. If we had
obeyed that command and revelation given through President Taylor there would
have been no manifesto.

You may think me too enthusiastic and too zealous, but I wish 1 was as zealous as
in my younger days. I once held a political office in this State, the only political
office I ever had the honor to hold in my life. I was not elected but appointed to
the office, and the reason I was appointed was because there was a better man than
I in the office. He had two wives and the law of the government said that all such
must be turned put. Well, I got the appointment, and when I received my papers
I just put them in my pocket and kept them there and never asked the brother to
turn over the books or relinquish the office at all, but allowed him to continue as
before until the end of his term. That was the way I did when I was younger, and
I believe in the same old Gospel still. (Reported by one who was present at this ^,
meeting held January 28, 1901.) /f

In a signed article written by Brigham H. Roberts, the Representa-
tive-elect from Utah to the Fifty-sixth Congress, now one of the first
seven presidents of the seventies of the Mormon Church, in The
Improvement Era, an organ of the first presidency and twelve
apostles, through which they reach the Young People's Mutual
Improvement Association, the following statements are made at the
conclusion of an argument on the righteousness of polygamy:

EEED SMOOT. 9

Therefore, I conclude that since God did approve of the plural-marriage custom of
the ancient patriarchs, prophets, and kings of Israel, it is not at all to be wondered
at that, in the dispensation of the fullness of time, in which He has promised restitu-
tion of all things, that God should again establish that system of marriage. And the
fact of God's approval of plural marriage in ancient times is a complete defense of the
righteousness of the marriage system introduced by revelation through the Prophet
Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith received a commandment from the Lord to introduce that order of
marriage into the church, and on the strength of that revelation, and not by reason
of anything that is written in the Jewish scriptures, the Latter-Day Saints practice
plural marriage.

Polygamy is not adultery, for were it so considered then Abraham, Jacob, and the
prophets who practiced, it would not be allowed an inheritance in the kingdom of
heaven, and if polygamy is not adultery then it can not be classed as a sin at all.
It appears to the writer that modem Christians must either learn to tolerate polygamy
or give up forever the glorious hope of resting in Abraham's bosom. That which he
approves, and so strikingly approves, must be not only not bad, but positively good,
pure, and holy. (Improvement Era, May, 1898, pp. 472, 475, 478, 482.)

At the Sanpete Stake Conference, September, 1899, George Q. Can-
non, first counsellor to President Snow, stated:

The people of the world do not believe in breeding, but we do. So the people of
the world will die out and we will fill the whole earth. I admit that those raising
children by plural wives are not complying with man-made laws, but in the sight of
God they are not sinning, as there ir; no sin in it.

Apostle Joseph F. Smith, now president of the church, said in 1896,
at the dedication of a meetinghouse in Pay son, Utah:

Take care of your polygamous wives; we don't care for Uncle Sam now.

In an address to a conference of young ladies in Mammoth, Utah,
about two years ago, Mrs. Susie Young Gates, the daughter of Brigham
Young, and an editor and lecturer not unknown in the East, said:

Girls, do not forget polygamy; you can not practice it now, but keep it alive in
your hearts; there are four girls to every boy in Utah.

At Beaver, Utah, a few months ago, Elder S. O. White said:

Yes, we believe a man should have one wife to-day and five to-morrow, if he
wants them.

These doctrines and teachings and this attitude of the church is the
same as at the time of the trial of the Escheat case. One of the
findings of the supreme court of Utah, affirmed by the United States
Supreme Court, is as follows:

That certain of the officers of said religious sect regularly ordained, and certain
preachers and teachers of said religious sect who are in good standing, and who are
preachers and teachers concerning the doctrines and tenets of said sect, have, since
the passage of said act of Congress of February 19, 1887, promulgated, taught,
spread, and upheld the same doctrines, tenets, and practices, including the doctrine
of polygamy, as were formerly promulgated, taught, and upheld by the said late
corporation, and the said teachings of the said officers, preachers, and teachers have
not been repudiated or dissented from by said voluntary religious sect, nor have
their teachings and preachings or their actions created any division or schism in
said voluntary religious sect. (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United
States, 136 U. S., 1.)

^ This ~body of officials, of whom, Senator-elect Smoot is one, also prac-
tice or connive at and encourage the practice of polygamy and polyga-
mous cohabitation, and those whom they have permitted to hold legisla-
tive office have, loithout protest or objection from them,, sought to pass -a
law nullify ing enactments against polygamous cohabitation.

At least three of the apostles have entered new polygamous relations

10 BEED SMOOT.

since the manifesto of President Woodruff. We refer to Apostle
Abraham H. Cannon (whose polygamous marriage President Joseph
F. Smith is said to have solemnized), Apostle John W. Taylor, and
Apostle George Teasdale. Charles H. Merrill, son of Apostle Mar-
riner W. Merrill, is guilty of the same crime, of which offense his
father has criminal cognizance. That other polygamous relationships
have, since statehood, been consummated within the church is just as
certain, and in a monogamous community could easily be proven.

Polygamous cohabitation is almost universal among those who have
a plurality of wives. All but three or four of the twelve apostles are
known to be living in violation of our State statutes against polygamous
cohabitation. At least six apostles have had children born to them of
plum I wives since the manifesto. Joseph F. Smith, the president of
the church, is living in polygamy. The whole presidency of the Salt
Lake City Stake, a body of officers directly under the eye of the twelve
apostles and consisting of Angus M. Cannon, Joseph E. Taylor, and
Charles Penrose, editor of the Deseret News, the official organ of the
first presidency and the twelve apostles, is living in violation of the
laws of the State and the marriage code of the civilized world. Even
to refer publicly to these facts — much more to instigate or countenance
criminal prosecutions for these offenses — is regarded as evidencing the
greatest hostility to the Mormon people and their religion and subjects
the persons so offending to practical ostracism in an}^ Mormon com-
munity.

B. H. Roberts, since the refusal of Congress to accept his credentials
as Representative-elect from Utah, has continued his polygamous rela-
tions, as is evidenced by a second pair of twins born to his plural wife
last August. This event was noticed in the Salt Lake Tribune as follows:

Friends of B. H. Roberts and Mrs. Celia Dibble Roberts will be interested in
knowing that their Centerville home has again been blessed by the arrival of twins,
both being boys this time. Georgiana and Johanna, the girl twins who were born
to the couple in 1896, became probably the most extensively advertised infants in
the United States, but it is scarcely probable under present circumstances that the
newer babies will achieve a like fame at the same early age. The twin boys were
born Jast Monday, but the information, while it became more or less general in Cen-
terville early in the week, did not reach Salt Lake until yesterday. The twins are
said to be a fine pair of boys, who give every promise of growing to robust manhood.

The Ministers' Association of Salt Lake City, in a protest dated
November 24, 1902, published in the Salt Lake papers and afterwards
printed and sent to the members of the Utah legislature, made the
following statement:

The Mormon apostolate stands as one man before this community as directly or
indirectly encouraging or conniving at the continuance of polygamous relations
throughout the Mormon Church. The vigorous and rigorous execution of a law7 like
the Edmunds-Tucker law in this State would drive the president of the Mormon
Church and the majority of his apostles into exile or throw them in prison within
twelve months, and Apostle Smoot dare not oppose such polygamous conditions.

The only fair attempt to reply to this challenge was made by State
President Angus M. Cannon. We give it as found in the Salt Lake
Telegram of November 25, 1902:

Mormons are subject only to State laws in these matters. (Angus M. Cannon.)
President Angus M. Cannon, of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion, is nothing if not can-
did, and has always been one of the men in the Mormon Church who has stood by
his convictions at all times. Regarding the charge of the ministerial association,
that if the Edmunds-Tucker law were enforced President Joseph F. Smith and a

REED SMOOT. 11

majority of the apostles of the Mormon Church would be driven into exile or put in
prison, President Cannon says: "The Edmunds-Tucker law can not be enforced.
That law was enacted for the Territory. Utah is now a State, and we are subject
only to State laws in these matters. We never agreed to abandon our families. I .
never agreed to do it and I never will do it."

In an interview given to the Salt Lake Telegram, January 6, 1903,
Apostle Reed Smoot, at that time candidate for election to the United
States Senate, evaded the above and declared: "I am not a 'polyga-
mist; if I am a polygamist, I ought to be in the penitentiary."

On the following day the Ministers' Association of Salt Lake City
publicly challenged Apostle Smoot through the same paper, saying:

The ministerial association would be glad to hear Apostle Smoot say, "If I am
guilty of the practice of polygamous cohabitation I ought to be in prison." The
ministerial association is glad to hear that Apostle Smoot agrees with it in that if he
be guilty of polygamy he ought to be in the penitentiary. Will Apostle Smoot say,
"If I myself or any others of the twelve apostles are guilty of polygamy or polyga-
mous cohabitation as denned in articles 4208 and 4209 of the State statutes, we are
covenant breakers and law breakers and ought to be in prisoner penitentiary?"
Apostle Smoot has not yet met this challenge.

The president of the senate of Utah at the legislative session of 1901
was Abel John Evans, a high priest and one of the counselors of the
Utah stake. There were many other bishops of the- church members
of the legislative assembly, among whom may be mentioned Bishop
Garner, Bishop McKay, a polygamist, Bishop McMillan, and Rulon S.
Wells, president of a quorum of seventy. The members of the Mor-
mon Church composed the large majority of this legislature. Not long
prior to the convening of this session a correspondent of an eastern
paper had published many articles indicating the prevalence of the
practice of polygamy , and had caused the prosecution of Apostle Grant
and President Angus M. Cannon. For the avowed purpose of nulli-
fying the statute (Revised Statutes of Utah, sec. 4209) under which
actions for polygamous cohabitation must be commenced, and of com-
mitting to the members of the church the prosecutions for such offense,
President Evans introduced and supported a bill known as the u Evans
bill." It passed the senate March 8, 1901, by a vote of 11 to 7, and a
few days later passed the house by a vote of 25 to 17.

As finally amended and passed it was as follows:

SEC. 1. That section 4611 of the Revised Statutes of Utah, 1898, be, and the same
is hereby, amended to read as follows:

4611. Every person who has reason to believe that a crime or public offense has
been committed may make complaint against such person before some magistrate
having authority to make inquiry of the same: Provided, That no prosecution for
adultery shall be commenced except on complaint of the husband or wife, or rela-
tive of the accused within the first degree of consanguinity, or of the person with
whom the unlawful act is alleged to have been committed, or of the father or mother
of said person, and no prosecution for unlawful cohabitation shall be commenced
except on complaint of the wife or alleged plural wife of the accused; but this pro-
\ iso shall not apply to prosecutions under section 4208 defining and punishing
polygamous marriages.

This act aroused a protest throughout the country, and on the 14th
of March Governor H. M. Wells vetoed the bill. We call attention
to the following sentence from his veto message:

I have every reason to believe its enactment would be the signal for a general
demand upon the National Congress for a constitutional amendment directed solely
against certain conditions here, a demand which, under the circumstances, would
assuredly be complied with.

12 EEED SM001,

VI.

The supreme authorities in the church, of whom Senator-elect Reed
'Smoot is one, to wit, the first presidency and twelve apostles, not only
connive at violations of, but protect and honor the violators of the laws
against polygamy and polygamous cohabitation.

President Joseph F. Smith, in the authorized report of an interview
given to the Associated Press December 2, 1902, not only acknowledged
the continuance of polygamous relations, but confesses that in May,
1902, he had official knowledge of 897 heads of families so living. We
quote from his interview as published in the Salt Lake Tribune Decem-
ber 3, 1902:

When the prohibition of polygamy was proclaimed by the president of the Mormon
Church there were many persons who had contracted plural marriages, and that
relation has been continued in many instances. * * In May, 1902, a complete
and thorough inquiry showed that the original number in 1890 had been reduced
leaving then only 897.

The authorities of the church, the first presidency and the twelve
apostles, have not shown disapprobation even in notorious cases of
new polygamy. Apostle Cannon's plural wife, Lilian Hamlin, to whom
he was married in 1896, was after his death elected to a professorship
in the Brigham Young Academy of Provo, of which Apostle Smoot is
leading trustee. The president of that academy is living in polygamy
Apostle George W. Teasdale, in spite of his new plural marriage to
Marion E. Scoles, and in spite of his outrageous divorce from his legal'
wife, Lilian Hook Teasdale, and his marriage almost immediately
thereafter to a young woman aged 23, by Apostle Marriner W. Merrill,
holds all his honors as an apostle of the church.

Apostle Heber J. Grant, who was forced to plead guilty of polyga,
mous cohabitation in the Salt Lake courts in 1899, and President
Angus M. Cannon and Counselor Joseph E. Taylor, who plead guilty
and paid small tines in the same year on similar indictments, have not
been called to account for their criminal conduct.

J. M. Tanner, a practicing polvgamist, who was obliged by the
Government to resign his position as president of the agricultural col-
lege at Logan, has been appointed and is now acting as superintendent
of Sunday schools for the Mormon Church throughout the world.
Charles Kelly, of Brigham City, Utah, when convicted about the same
time for potygamous cohabitation, was almost immediately promoted
by the church from the position of stake counselor to the office of
stake president, an office which he still holds though continuing his
polygamous life.

We give below the complaint sworn to by C. M. Owen against
President Angus M. Cannon as a fair sample of some sixt}^ informa-
tions made by Mr. Owen during the year 1899:

C. M. Owen, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident and taxpayer of the city
and county of Salt Lake. That he is informed and verily believes that on or about
the 15th day of April, 1899, one Martha Hughes Cannon, State senator of the legisla-
ture of Utah, was delivered of an "illegitimate" child; that the aforesaid Martha
Hughes Cannon is by common habit and repute in the community the plural v/ife of
Angus M. Cannon, president of the Salt Lake stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, and the aforesaid Angus M. Cannon is the father of the said child,
contrary to the provisions of sections 4209 and 4910 of the Compiled Laws of the State
of Utah, 1898.

That he cites as witnesses in support of the above charges F. S. Bascom; Sarah J.
Cannon, wife of Angus M. Cannon; Martha P. Hughes Cannon; Lorenzo Snow,

REED SMOOT. 13

president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Heber M. Wells, gov-
ernor of Utah; George Q. Cannon, counsel of the first presidency; Joseph F. Smith,
Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor, and John Henry Smith, apostles; Charles Penrose,
editor of the Deseret News; John M. Cannon; Wilhelmina Cannon; William P. Pres-
ton; John K. Winder; Aquilla Nebeker, president of the State senate; James T.
Hammond, secretary of state; Joseph S. Rawlins, county commissioner; Mrs. Anna
Cannon; Clara C. Cannon; Mary E. Cannon, and Mary M. Cannon.

C. M. OWEN.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of July, 1899.

E. W. TAYLOR, Notary Public.

President Cannon appeared in court, pleaded guilty, and was fined
$100. Some dozen others whose cases were brought into court also
pleaded guilt}7. In most cases, however, the courts refused to prose-
cute, and some 30 of such complaints are now pigeonholed in one
office in 'Cache County, Utah.

Under the pressure of certain charges made during the investiga-
tion which ended in the exclusion of Representative-elect B. H. Roberts
for Congress, Lorenzo Snow, then president of the church, wrote a
letter on the subject of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, which
he signed and published in the Deseret News January 8, 1900. In this
letter he said:

I feel it but just to both Mormons and non-Mormons that, in accordance with the
manifesto of the late President Wilford Woodruff, dated September 25, 1890, which
was presented and unanimously accepted by our general conference on the 6th day
of October, 1890, the church has positively abandoned the practice of polygamy, or
the solemnization of plural marriages, in this and every other State. And any mem-
ber or officer thereof has no authority whatever to form a plural marriage or enter
into such relation. Nor does the church advise or encourage unlawful cohabitation
on the part of any of its members. If, therefore, any member disobey the law either
as to polygamy or unlawful cohabitation he must bear his own burden; or, in other
words, be answerable to the tribunals of the land for his own action pertaining thereto.
(Lorenzo Snow, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Salt.
Lake City, January 8, 1900.) v

The clause in this letter which caused the most comment was that
which dealt with polygamous cqhabitation. In view of the wording
of the clause, the question naturally arose as to whether or not the
church would be inclined to discipline members who continued to
disobey the law in this regard, or whether or not the standing of a
member would be affected by conviction for the offense.

For the purpose of securing individual views on the question a
number of high church officials were seen and asked for an expression
of opinion by representatives of the Salt Lake Tribune. Many abso-
lutely declined to discuss the question at all, while others handled it gin-
gerly. Angus M. Cannon, president of the Salt Lake Stake, was one of
the few who discussed the matter unreservedly. President Cannon is
of the opinion that the law against unlawful cohabitation is unconstitu-
tional and was incorporated into the code through inadvertence, and
that the church authorities would never have the right to discipline
a member of the"church for its violation, even though they felt so
inclined, __ President Cannon also expressed fear that "some sneak-
ing whelps might use the declaration of President Snow as a pre-
text for deserting some of their wives, and if they do," he declared,
"they are the fellows that should be disciplined."

Charles W. Penrose, editor of the Deseret News, and counselor to
President Angus M« Cannon, of the Salt Lake Stake, was of the^opin-
ion that no church member would suffer, so far as his standing in the
church was concerned, because he had been convicted; it was the busi-

14 EEED SMOOT.

ness of the courts to prosecute all violations of the law. * * * Mr.
Pen rose was not read}7 to say what might be done in case a man was
complained against in church circles after he had been convicted of or
had pleaded guilty to unlawful cohabitation. No one had ever yet
lost religious prestige because he had been convicted in a criminal
court, and so far as he knew no complaint looking to that end had ever
been lodged with the proper authorities.

Elder George M. Cannon, cashier of Zion's Savings Bank, said:

I could not say what President Snow's ideas in the case may be. I read the letter
as it came. I believe he means what he says. He does not encourage any violation
of the law; true neither does he discourage it, leaving the question of punishment, if
any, to the man against whom the law is directed. I do not believe that any man
who entered into polygamous relation prior to the manifesto should be disturbed in
those relations by the church or any member of the same. I do not believe any
man who continues such relations is guilty of moral turpitude. I, speaking individ-
ually, can see no reason why a man holding an office in the church should be disci-
E lined by that body, because he had been convicted of living with his wives which
e had taken by arid with the consent of that church. It is not a matter of church;
it is a question for the courts.

If a man continues to live with more than one woman after the church has taken
the attitude it has, then he must take the consequences. President Snow, it appears
to me, is very plain on that point. (Published in Salt Lake Tribune, January 10,
1900.)

A few weeks previous (December 6, 1899) Brigham H. Roberts, a
high official of the Mormon Church, while awaiting exclusion from
Congress on the charge of living in polygamy with three women,
defined his position as follows:

A seat in Congress does not mean much to me personally, though I will do my
duty in asserting and demanding recognition of the rights of my State, but my ties
and obligations as an honorable man mean everything. Whatever sacrifice may be
required will be made now as before. It is demanded that I shall put away my
wives. Consider that these women came to me in the bloom of their youth. They
were moved largely by religious feeling, as I was. They have been mine and I theirs
these years. Their life and my life has been one. * * * These women have
stood by me. They are good and true women. The law has said that I shall part
from them. My church has bowed to the power of Congress and relinquished the
practice of plural marriage. But the law can not free me from obligations assumed
before it spoke. No power can do that. Even were the church that sanctioned
these marriages and performed the ceremonies to turn its back upon us and gay that
the marriage is not valid now, and that I must give these good and loyal women up,
I'll be damned if I would. (Reported by Arthur McEwan of the Philadelphia
North American and quoted in part in case of B. H. Roberts, of Utah, p. 13. )

Apostle Heber J. Grant is on record in a similar vein. We quote
from the Salt Lake Tribune, September 8, 1899:

Yesterday morning we imputed these words to Apostle Heber J. Grant: "I am a
law breaker; so is Bishop Whitney; so is B. H. Roberts. My wives have brought
me only daughters. I purpose to marry until I get wives who will bring me sons."

Last night the News had from Apostle Grant the following denial: "I have never
made these remarks at any time, either in public or private, in writing or by word of
mouth." The proof of the fact that Apostle Grant said what we charge him with
saying is easy. The remark was made by him in the Herald office in this city, in
the presence of E. A. McDaniel, Alfales Young, and J. H. Moyle, all good Democrats,
and two of whom at least will never deny it. The remark was substantially as we
gave it, and of so remarkable a character that it was taken down in writing and signed
by two of those who heard it. Apostle Grant's denial is unquestionably through
perversity or because of a failing memory. The record will establish its complete
falsity. (Tribune, September 8, 1899.)

It was to prevent such public expression of opinion on the subject
of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation that President George Q.
Cannon gave the following "counsel" in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on

KEED BMOOT. 15

Sunday afternoon, January 28, 1900. After skirmishing on the edge
of his subject for some twent}r minutes, President Cannon reached his
main point:

Then comes the doctrine of marriage. We have had revelations from God con-
cerning marriage. We have been taught by the Lord that marriage can be solem-
nized on the earth for time and for all eternity, and that when man and woman
receive their highest glory they will be joined together as husband and wives. I
need not dwell on all the features connected with this principle; you are familiar
with them. I need not say to you how extensive our belief is in relation to this
matter, for it is a matter that has been talked about until it has become at least par-
tially understood. I now only say that the Latter-Day Saints believe, because God
has revealed it to them, that there is an authority and a power that can unite them
together for time and for eternity. I mention this to bring to your minds, my
brethren and sisters, how much we have lived the truth and how desirous we have
been to obtain a knowledge of the truth. We have been willing to make sacrifices
for the truth; we have not only prayed and taught with our lips concerning the
truth, but we have actually obeyed the truth as far as we have known it. For this
reason we have been persecuted.

All truth has not been revealed. Paul once said he knew a man who had ascended
into the third heaven and bad heard things that were not lawful for a man to utter.
That has been a good deal the case with us. Many things have been revealed to us
that if we had taught men would have sought to kill us, so entirely opposed would
they have been to the prevailing religious sentiments. This has been the case even
with the smaller amount of truth which we have taught. We dare not tell all the
truth we know, because it would not be lawful to utter some things which God has
revealed. That which we teach and which has enabled us to progress to our present
position sometimes gets us into trouble when we attempt to deliver it. It arouses
hatred and prejudices, and the class that manifest this hatred are, strange to say,
those who profess to be the followers of Jesus Christ and ministers of His word.
They can not bear it. I do not know what they would have done with Paul if they
had lived in his day and he had told them some of the truth which was " not law-
ful for him to utter." No doubt they would have done with him as was done with
the Prophet Joseph Smith. It was the truth he told that caused them to slay him.
* * * He told the truth; and they killed Joseph Smith because of this truth
they would not receive.

Our elders in going out to preach the Gospel have to be exceedingly cautious lest
they should give strong meat to people who are only prepared to receive the milk of
the word. If they give strong meat persecution is raised immediately. For this rea-
son they have to reserve eternal truth with which they are familiar, or the people
would do with them as they did with Jesus and as they have done with all the
prophets who have declared truth which the people would not receive.

The Saviour had to caution his disciples at this very point in the following lan-
guage: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you."

New truths are unwelcome and you have to lead men by degrees to comprehend
the truth. (Quoted from his own report of the address as published in the Deseret
Evening News. )

The following is from a sermon reported to have been delivered by
the late President Brigham Young in the Salt Lake Tabernacle July

12,1875:

Do not be discouraged by your repeated failure to get in the Union as a State.
We shall succeed. We shall pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and
make them swallow Mormomsm, polygamy and all. We shall drop the old issue
between the Mormons and Liberals of Utah, ally ourselves with the great national
parties, divide ourselves about equally, so as to fall in with the one in power. We
do not know and we do not care about the issues. We must be at peace with them
in order to get into the Union. After that we can snap our fingers in their faces,
restore the good times when we dwelt undisturbed in the valleys of the mountains,
and cast out devils as we used to dp. (Quoted by E. A. Folk, editor of the Baptist
and Reflector, in Story of Mormonism. )

The policy of equal division was inaugurated and carried out later
by George Q. Cannon.

The attitude of the first presidency and twelve apostles as leaders of
the Mormon Church toward the Government of the United States and

16 REED SMOOT.

its institutions is, and for fifty years has been a matter of history —
history which is not yet complete. It was declared by the United
States Supreme Court, through Justice Bradley, in the Escheat case
(136 U. S., 1):

It is unnecessary here to refer to the past history of the sect, to their defiance of
the Government authorities, to their attempt to establish an independent commu-
nity, to their efforts to drive from the Territory all who were not connected with
them in communion and sympathy. The tale is one of patience on the part of the
American Government and people, and of contempt of authority and resistance to
law on the part of the Mormons. Whatever persecutions they may have suffered
in the early part of their history, in Missouri and Illinois, they have no excuse for
their persistent defiance of law under the Government of the United States.

One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the practice of polygamy,
or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious belief and therefore under the protec-
tion of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. This is altogether a sophis-
tical plea. No doubt the thugs of India imagined that their belief in the right of
assassination was a religious belief, but their thinking so did not make it so. The
practice of suttee by the Hindoo widows may have sprung from a supposed religious
conviction. The offering of human sacrifices by our own ancestors in Britain was no
doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious impulse. But no one on that account
would hesitate to brand these practices now as crimes against society, and obnoxioui
to condemnation and punishment by the civil authority. * * *

Then, looking at the case as the finding of facts presents it, we have before us
Congress had before it — a contumacious organization wielding by its resources an
immense power in the Territory of Utah, and employing those resources and that
power in constantly attempting to oppose, thwart, and subvert the legislation of
Congress and the will of the Government of the United States. * * *

Notwithstanding the stringent laws which have been passed by Congress, notwith-
standing all the efforts made to suppress this barbarous practice, the sect or commu-
nity composing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints perseveres in defiance
of law, in preaching, upholding, promoting, and defending it.

It is a matter of public notoriety that its emissaries are engaged in many countries
in propagating this nefarious doctrine and urging its converts to join the community
in Utah. The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization. The
organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a meas-
ure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civ-
ilization which Christianity has produced in the western world. The question,
therefore, is whether the promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so
repugnant to our laws and to the principles of our civilization, is to be allowed to
continue by the sanction of the Government itself.

Army officers in their reports, Territorial governors and commis-
sions in their oificial communications, Presidents in their messages to
Congress, Senators and Representatives on the floor of Congress,
political parties in their platforms, have times without number through
these years made public their suggestions, warnings, and reproofs
against the dominating lawlessness of the leaders of this people.

At least twice the character of the organization has been a subject
of judicial inquiry, and testimony has been given and judgments ren-
dered showing the treasonable nature of some of the oaths adminis-
tered by it.

All this and the experience of every resident of this State and of
every impartial historian and writer on social science leads us to affirm
with confidence that the leaders of this church of whom Senator-elect
Reed Smoot is one are solemnly banded together against the people of
the United States in their u endeavor to baffle the designs and frus-
trate the attempts of the Government to eradicate polygamy and polyg-
amous cohabitation, and especially to set at naught the law against
the latter offense, which, as the Supreme Court of the United States
has said, ' seeks to prevent a man from flaunting in the face of the
world the ostentation and opportunities of a bigamous household, 5?:
(United States v. Cannon, 116 U. S., 55.)

REED SMOOT. 17

All the matters and things in this petition we affirm to be true accord-
ing to our information and belief, and all of them, if they be denied,
and more we stand ready to prove.

And we do further say and protest that the beliefs, conduct, teach-
ings, and practices in respect to the matters herein complained of ever
have been, and now are, and furthermore are by said first presidency
and apostolate well known to be-
First. Contrary to the public sentiment of the civilized world.
It is evidenced by the public address of Governor Heber M. Wells
(himself a Mormon), delivered at the Salt Lake Theater on the eve of
election, November i, 1898, as follows:

I realize that this is a subject that ought not to belong to politics; that it has no
part in national politics; but in view of the pledges which the people have made
here, and which the nation understands, and in view of the pledges which I have
made myself, I can not shut my eyes to the consequences that will come if Mr.
Roberts shall be elected to Congress. It is unnecessary to refer to the solemn assur-
ances of the people on this question, we all understand that they were made, and
that Mr. Roberts, as much as any other public speaker, has frequently expressed
himself as appalled and astonished that the sincerity of the people of Utah should
be questioned in regard to the abandonment of old conditions and their acceptance
of the new conditions imposed by statehood.

In my inaugural address, as well as at various other times in public and private, I
have given my personal assurance that the question of polygamy, as affecting the
people of Utah, was a dead issue, and that I believed that it would not return again
as a public question to vex us, having faith as I had and still have in the manifesto
of President Woodruff and its subsequent adoption by the people.

Now, it is not alleged that the people have receded from their position in this
matter; but a man who does not deny that he is living in violation of the laws of the
State has accepted a nomination for office, and very great publicity has been given
to his domestic relations, and, if elected, all these facts will be known by Congress
when he presents his credentials to the House. I am unable to tell what Congress
may do in the matter, as to whether he will be seated or not, but I feel sure that the
agitation of the question will be a very great detriment to the State of Utah, and to
every interest of the people. Every financial interest here will suffer; every indus-
trial enterprise of the State will be more or less retarded; the interests of the domi-
nant church itself will be injured, and the liberties of the very class to which Mr.
Roberts belongs will be placed in jeopardy.

Were every other objection to his candidacy removed I could not therefore cast
my ballot for Mr. Roberts, and whether his supporters realize it or not a vote for the
Democratic candidate is a vote against Utah, against her progress, against her vital
interests, a vote to invite further persecution (sic) of the Mormon people. Now I
hope I am understood upon this matter. To vote for the Democratic candidate vindi-
cates no principles, subserves no-good or worthy purpose, but invites disaster, because
it is an open invitation to Congress and the nation to renew the warfare (sic) against
the Mormon people, which we all hoped and prayed was ended forever.

It is further evidenced by the action of the House of Representa-
tives of the United States in excluding from a seat in that body Rep-
resentative-elect Brigham H. Roberts, a practicing polygamist, to whom
permission had been given by the first presidency and apostolate to
accept an election to that high office.

Second. Contrary to express pledges given in procuring amnesty.

On September 26, 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, the official
head of the Mormon Church, issued a manifesto in the words following:
To whom it may concern :

Press dispatches having been sent out for political purposes from Salt Lake City,
which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their
recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, alleges that plural marriages are stil»
being solemnized, and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in
Utah since last June, or during the past year; also that in public^ discourses the
leaders of the church have taught, encouraged, and urged the continuance of the
practice of polygamy, I, therefore, as president of the Church of Jesus Christ of

s 2

18 REED SMOOT.

Latter-Day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges
are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any
person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number
of plural marriages have, during that period, been solemnized in our temples or in
any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported in which the parties alleged that the marriage took
place in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the spring of 1889, but I have
not been able to learn who performed the ceremony. Whatever was done in this
matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the
Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages,
which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby
declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the mem-
bers of the church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the church, or in those of my associates, dur-
ing the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage
polygamy, and when any elder of the church has used language which appeared to
convey any such teachings he has been promptly reproved. And now I publicly
declare that my advice to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any
marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

*in 1891 the president and apostles of the church prepared and pre-
sented to the President of the United States the following petition,
accompanied by statements signed by Chief Justice Zane, Governor
Arthur L. Thomas and other non-Mormons, to the effect that to their
full belief the petition was sincere, and if amnesty were granted good
faith would be kept.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

We, the first presidency and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, beg to respectfully represent to Your Excellency the following facts:

,We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or celestial marriage as com-y
manded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man's'
highest exaltation in the life to comeTT

That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our president, the late Brigham Young,
forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-Day Saints
up to September, 1890. Our people are devout and sincere, and they accepted the
doctrine, and many personally embraced and practiced polygamy.

When the Government sought to stamp out the practice, our people, almost with-
out exception, remained firm, for they, while having no desire to oppose the Gov-
ernment in anything, still felt that their lives and their honor as men was pledged
to a vindication of their creed, and that their duty toward those whose lives were a
part of their own was a paramount one, to fulfill which they had no right to count
anything, not even their owrn lives, as standing in the way.

Following this conviction hundreds endured arrest, trial, fine, and imprisonment,
and the immeasurable sufferings borne by the faithful people no language can
describe. That suffering in abated form still continues.

More, the Government added disfranchisement to its other punishment for those
who clung to their faith and fulfilled its covenants.

According to pur creed, the head of the church receives from time to time revela-
tions for the religious guidance of his people. In September, 1890, the present head
«f the church in anguish and prayer cried to God for help for his flock, and received
permission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended.

At the great semiannual conference, which was held a few days later, this was
submitted to the people, numbering many thousands and representing every com-
munity of people in Utah, and was by them, in the most solemn manner, accepted
as the future rule of their lives. They have since been faithful to the covenant
made that day.

At the late October conference, after a year had passed by, the matter was once
more submitted to the thousands of people gathered together, and they again in
the most potential manner ratified the solemn covenant.

This being the true situation, and believing that the object of the Government was
simply the vindication of its own authority and to compel obedience as to its laws,
and that it takes no pleasure in persecution, we respectfully pray that full amnesty

' vxW, V. 13. r. jqu

REED SMOOT. 19

may be extended to all who are under disabilities because of the operation of the so-
called Edmunds-Tucker law.

Our people are scattered, homes are made desolate, many are still imprisoned,
others are banished or in hiding. Our hearts bleed for these. In the past they fol-
lowed our counsels, and while they are thus afflicted our souls are in sackcloth and
ashes.

We believe that there is nowhere in the Union a more loyal people than the Latter-
Day Saints. They know no other country except this. They expect to live and die
on this soil.

When the men of the South who were in rebellion against the Government in 1865
threw down their arms and asked for recognition along the old lines of citizenship,
the Government hastened to grant their prayer.

To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow-citizens
who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the Government and peo-
ple, our people have yoijontaril^ put aside something which all their lives they have
beliey/d to be a sacreoTprmciple.

Pd^ve they not the right to ask for such clemency as comes when the claims of both
Jaw and justice have been fully liquidated?

As shepherds of a patient and suffering people we ask amnesty for them and pledge
our faith and honor for their future.

Arid your petitioners will ever pray.

SALT LAKE CITY, December, 1891.

Upon the representations so made there was issued the following:

AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.

WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 4, 1893.

Whereas Congress by a statute approved March 22, 1882, and by statutes in fur-
therance and amendment thereof, defined the crimes of bigamy, polygamy, and
\mlawful cohabitation in the Territories and other places within the exclusive juris-
diction of the United States, and prescribed a penalty for such crimes; and

Whereas on or about the 6th day of October, 1890, the Church of the Latter-Day

church to obey the laws of the United States in reference to said subject-matter; and

Whereas it is represented that since the date of said declaration the members and
adherents of said church have generally obeyed said laws, and have abstained from
plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation; and

Whereas by a petition dated December 19, 1891, the officials of said church, pledg-
ing the membership thereof to a faithful obedience to the laws against plural mar-
riage and unlawful cohabitation have applied to me to grant amnesty for past offenses
against said laws, which request a very large number of influential non-Mormons
residing in the Territories have also strongly urged; and

Whereas the Utah Commission, in their report bearing date September 15, 1892,
recommend that said petition be granted, and said amnesty proclaimed under proper
conditions as to the future observance of the law, with a view to the encouragement
of those now disposed to become law-abiding citizens; and

Whereas^ during the past two years such amnesty has been granted individual
applicants in a very large number of cases, conditioned upon the faithful observance
of the laws of the United States against unlawful cohabitation, and there are now
pending many more such applications:

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, by virtue of
the powers in me vested, do hereby declare and grant a full amnesty and pardon to all
persons liable to the penalties of said act by reason of unlawful cohabitation under
the color of polygamous or plural marriage, who have, since November 1, 1890,
abstained from such unlawful cohabitation; but upon the express condition that they
shall in the future faithfully obey the laws of the United States hereinbefore named,
and not otherwise. Those who shall fail to avail themselves of the clemency hereby
offered will be vigorously prosecuted.

BENJAMIN HARRISON.

By the President:

JOHN W. FOSTER, Secretary of State.

On September 25, 1894, President Cleveland issued a proclamation

20 EEED SMOOT.

wherein, after reciting the facts contained in the proclamation of Presi
dent Harrison, he concludes as follows:

Whereas upon the evidence now furnished me I am satisfied that the members
and adherents of said church generally abstain from plural marriages and polygamous
cohabitation, and are now living in obedience to the laws, and that the time' has now

proclamation,
under the provisions of said act:

Now, therefore, I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, by virtue of
the powers in me vested, do hereby declare and grant full amnesty and pardon to all
persons who have, in violation of said acts, committed either of the offenses of polyg-
amy, bigamy, adultery, or unlawful cohabitation under the color of polygamous or
plural marriage, or who, having been convicted of violations of said acts, are now
suffering deprivation of civil rights in consequence of the same, excepting all persons
who have not complied with the conditions contained in said Executive proclamation
of January 4, 1893.

GROVER CLEVELAND.
By the President:

WALTER Q. GRESHAM, Secretary of State.

Third. Contrary to express conditions upon which escheated church
property was returned.

By act of Congress of March 3, 1887, the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints was dissolved and much of the property held by
the church was escheated to the United States, such action being taken
on the ground that practices in violation of law were enjoined by that
church; but, on the solemn assurance of the church authorities that
such practices had entirely ceased, Congress, in 1893, gave back such
property to the church, as the following extracts from its records
show:

Joint resolution No. 11, providing for the disposition of certain personal property and money now in
the hands of the receiver of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, appointed by the
supreme court of Utah and authorizing its application to the charitable purposes of said church.

Whereas the corporation of tho Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was
dissolved by act of Congress of March 3, 1887; and

Whereas the personal property and money belonging to said corporation is now in
the hands of a receiver appointed by the supreme court of Utah; and

Whereas according to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States the said
property, in absence of other disposition by act of Congress, is subject to be applied
to such charitable uses, lawful in their character, as may most nearly correspond to
the purposes for which said property was originally destined; and

Whereas said property is the result of contributions and donations n\ade by mem-
bers of said church, and was destined to be devoted to the charitable uses thereof
under the direction and control of the first presidency of said church; and

Whereas said church has discontinued the practice of polygamy, and no longer
encourages or gives countenance in any manner to practices in violation of law, or
contrary to good morals or public policy; and if the said personal property is restored
to said church it will not be devoted to any such unlawful purpose: therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That the said personal property and money now in the hands
of such receiver, not arising from the sale or rents of real estate since March 3, 1887,
be, and the same is hereby, restored to the said church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints, to be applied under the direction and control of the first presidency of
said church, to the charitable purposes and uses thereof; that is to say: For the pay-
ment of the debts for which said church is legally or equitably liable, for the relief
of the poor and distressed members of said church, for the education of the children
of said members, and for the building and repair of houses of worship for the use of
said church, but in which the rightfulness of the practice of polygamy shall not be
inculcated. And the said receiver, after deducting the expenses of his receivership
under the said supreme court of the Territory of Utah, is hereby required to deliver
the said property and money to the persons now constituting the first presidency of
said church, or to such person or persons as they may designate, to be held and
applied generally to the charitable uses and purposes of said church as aforesaid.

Approved October 25, 1893,

REED SMOOT. 21

In further proof that the church leaders declared that polygamous
relations had ceased, we append extracts from sworn testimony of
President Woodruff and other high officials, given before the master in
chancery when it was sought to secure the restoration of the church
property.

At the hearing, which was hcid before Judge C. F. Loofbourow,
the master in chancery, on October 19 and 20, 1891, a number of promi-
nent church leaders testified as to the sources from which the fund had
been derived, as well as the disposition which had theretofore been
made of it. Among the witnesses who testified at this hearing were
Presidents Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith, Apos-
tles Lorenzo Snow and A. H. Lund, and others. They were subjected
to a searching cross-examination by United States Attorney C. S.
Varian, with respect to the exact meaning of President Woodruff's
manifesto suspending polygamy, and particularly with respect to
whether or not the manifesto referred to polygamous relations already
formed with the same force that it referred to and controlled the
entering into of polygamous relations thereafter.

The examination was most thorough, and, as the witnesses were all
under oath, their testimony as to the scope and meaning of the mani-
festo is of great interest.

The Government was represented by United States Attorney Varian
and Joseph L. Rawlins, the receiver by John A. Marshall, and the
church by Franklin S. Richards, W. H. Dickson, and Le Grand Young.

WOODRUFF'S TESTIMONY.
By C. S. VARIAN:

Q. Did you intend to confine this declaration (the manifesto) solely to the forming
of new relations by entering new marriages? — A. I don't know that I understand the
question.

Q. Did you intend to confine your declaration and advice to the church solely to
the forming of new marriages, without reference to those that were existing — plural
marriages? — A. The intention of the proclamation was to obey the law myself — all
the laws of the land — on that subject, and expecting the church would do the same.

Q. Let me read the language, and you will understand me, perhaps, better:
"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, I
hereby declare," etc. Did you intend by that general statement of intention to
make the application to existing conditions where the plural marriages already
existed? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. As to living in the state of plural marriage? — A. Yes, sir; that is, to the obey-
ing of the law.

Q. In the concluding portion of your statement you say: "I now publicly declare
that my advice to the Latter Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage
forbidden by the law of the land." Do you understand that that language was to be
expanded and to include the further statement of living or associating in plural mar-
riage by those already in the status?— -A. Yes, sir; I intended the proclamation to
cover the ground— 4o keep the laws — to obey the law myself, and expected the people
to obey the law.

By Mr. DICKSON, of counsel for the church :

Q. Your attention was called to the fact that nothing was said in the manifesto
about the dissolution of existing polygamous relations. I want to ask you, President
Woodruff, whether, in your advice to the church officials and the people of the
church, you have advised them that your intention was and that the requirement
of the church was that polygamous relations already formed before that should not
be continued — that is, there should be no association with plural wives — in other
words, that unlawful cohabitation, as it is named, and spoken of, should also stop, as
well as future polygamous marriages? — A. Yes, sir; that has been my view.

APOSTLE (LATER PRESIDENT) SNOW'S TESTIMONY.

Q. Do you believe that the association in plural marriage by those who are already
in it is forbidden by the manifesto? — A. Well, I can not say what was in the mind

22 REED SMOOT.

of President Woodruff when he issued that manifesto touching that matter, but I
believe from the general scope of the manifesto that it certainly embraced the plurr.l
marriage, because it is clearly an intention, as indicated in that manifesto of Presi-
dent Woodruff, that the law should be observed touching matters in relation to
plural marriage.

Q. You mean now the law of the land? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you understand now that the manifesto covers that prohibition— the prohi-
bition against the association in plural marriage between those who had already

intention and scope of that manifesto was expressing President Woodruff's mind in
regard to himself and every member of the church, and that was, that the law should
be observed in all matters concerning plural marriage, embracing the present condi-
tion of those who had previously entered into marriage. Is that a plain answer?

APOSTLE LUND'S TESTIMONY.

Q. How is it as to the people who have already formed those relations, is it right
for them to continue to associate in plural marriage with their wives? — A. The mani-
festo does not expressly state it, but the president has said it was not.

Q. Was that the first time you understood that it was included? — A. I understood
his advice for the church from the presidency was to obey the law of the land.

JOSEPH F. SMITH'S TESTIMONY.
By FRANKLIN S. EICHARDS:

Q. Do you understand that the manifesto applies to cohabitation of men and women
in plural marriage where it had already existed? — A. I can not say whether it does
or not.

Q. It does not in terms say so, does it? — A. No. I think, however, the effect of it
is so. I don't see how the effect of it can be otherwise.

Fourth. Contrary to pledges given by the representatives of the
church and the Territory in their plea for statehood.

We copy from the speech made by Mr. Rawlins, Delegate from the
Territory, in a debate in the House of Representatives on the admission
of Utah, December 12, 1903:

They elected him (Mr. Cannon) in years gone by. I am not denying, my dear
friend, that in 1853, or 1860, or 1875, or 1880 polygamy was practiced in Utah. I am
not denying that the people of that Territory elected" polygamists to office in those
old days. But the gentleman does not seem to know that the world does progress.
[Applause.] There is nothing under the sun that is not changeable and subject to
alteration, and, that being so, the gentleman himself had better be careful.

Governor West in his report, which I have in my hand, one of the chief men who
opposed it, perhaps more violently than any other, says:

" The practice of polygamy has been abandoned by the church and the people.
Polygamous marriages are forbidden by the authorities of the church. The people's,
or church, party has been dissolved, and the conditions existing in the Territory are
now in no wise "different from those in vogue in the States of the Union."

Now, when polygamy was yielded, as it was in fact yielded in 1887, when the
question was eliminated, there was no reason any longer for the Mormon people to
stand together.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to proceed, I would like to do so for a
few moments without interruption. A case was tried in Idaho about 1886 in which
a large number of witnesses were called who testified that polygamy in that Terri-
tory as early as 1884 had been forbidden by the church. Testimony was given in
a case as early as 1888 that in Utah the Mormon authorities had in reality forbidden
the practice of polygamy or the contraction of polygamous marriages as far back as
1886, and that after that time the practice had not existed. In 1888 the legislature
of the Territory of Utah passed what is entitled "An act regulating marriages." It
will be found in 2 Compiled Laws of Utah of 1888, page 92. The second section of
that act provides that marriage is prohibited and declared void where there is a hus-
band or wife living from whom the person is not divorced.

I understand well enough that there is a sentiment among certain members of the
House that there ought to be in the enabling act a provision that the constitution o-
the State shall make polygamy punishable as a crime. There is no substantial objecf

REED SMOOT. 23

tion to that. In 1888 the people of the Territory of Utah proposed to insert such a
provision in their constitution. The only objection that there is to it does not come
from the Mormons or the Mormon people. The Territory has enacted stringent laws
for the suppression of polygamy. There are other provisions to which I might refer
relating to the methods by which these laws shall be enforced.

Now, the laws to which I have referred, enacted by the Territorial legislature, will
by the operation of this provision of the enabling act be continued in force under the
State government. It is true that the legislature of the State might, if it saw fit,
repeal or modify those statutes, but polygamy would be unlawful. Polygamous
marriages would be invalid, by force of these Territorial statutes, upon the passage
of this enabling act, without any provision in the constitution or in the enabling act
other than what I have read providing against polygamy.

This objection which I have, as I have already stated, to the definition of the
offense of polygamy in the constitution is that if that provision be adopted by Con-
gress it will leave the matter in an unsatisfactory condition, for the reason that it will
repeal, for instance, the statutes that I have read, enacted by the legislature of the
Territory, because the definition of " polygamy," as contained in the amendment of
the minority, is inconsistent with these statutes; it rather tends, in my judgment, to
prevent the exercise of the full authority on the part of the State powers to prevent
any revival of this obnoxious practice, and we do not intend — the people of Utah do
not intend, in my belief — that it shall be revived.

There is, I think, nobody in the Territory at this time who has any desire what-
ever to revive it. The leaders of the Mormon Church have solemnly professed and
pledged their faith and honor and the faith and honor of the people — the entire peo-
ple of the Mormon Church — that they will not revive this practice. They did it in
the petition for amnesty addressed to the President, and all the leading Federal
officers in the Territory joined in a statement that they believed these men were sin-
cere in asking the President to exercise his clemency in their behalf in accordance
with the petition.

There have been no Mormon polygamous marriages in Utah,, so far as known
within the last eight or ten years, with few exceptions, and the public declaration of
the Mormon Church is that there has been a discontinuance of the practice. The
legislature has enacted every law required for the prevention of the revival of this
practice, and in view of these facts no provision is necessary, in my judgment, although
I am unwilling to consent that the amendment proposed by the gentlemen from Ver-
mont, which has been read, may be adopted.

Now, the people of Utah have more at stake upon this question than gentlemen
who represent other constituencies. I have traveled among these people, met them
in every locality, discussed questions with them, civil and political; I know them as
well as any man can know a people, because I have been with them all my life. I
think I understand the sentiment that prevails among those who are uppermost in
the councils of the political parties in the Territory of Utah, and who would be likely
to dominate its affairs in case it be admitted as a State, and I am prepared to say,
upon my conscience, that I believe these people can be safely intrusted with the full
measure of self-government which would be accorded under statehood.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me say that a change has taken place in Utah. How that
change may be brought about may be interesting to gentlemen who are not familiar
with its history. The making and enforcement of laws by Congress has had some- '
thing to do with it. There is no question about that. But there has also been
developing for many years past in the Territory of Utah a sentiment among the
people who have been"born and brought up there which has had a great deal to do with
this change. The eradication or discontinuance of polygamy is perhaps first due to
external pressure, but still more largely to the efforts of people within the Mormon
Church itself to bring about the reform of the organization in that respect. (See
H. E. Doc. Roberts case.)

Fifth. Contrary to the pledges required by the enabling act and
given in the State constitution.

The enabling act approved July 16, 1894, contains the following
provisions:

And said convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable without the consent
of the United States and the people of said State:

"First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that
no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account
of his or her mode of religious worship: Provided, That polygamous or plural mar-
riages are forever prohibited,"

24 REED SMOOT.

Pursuant to the said act a constitutional convention was held at Salt
Lake City, of which convention Apostle John Henry Smith was pres-
ident and Apostle Moses Thatcher a member, and the following pro-
visions were and are a part of the constitution framed by that conven-
tion and adopted by the people:

ARTICLE III. — Ordinance.

The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United
States and the people of this State:

First. Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of
this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode
of religious worship, but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

ARTICLE XXIV.— Schedule.

SEC. 2. All laws of the Territory of Utah now in force not repugnant to this con-

titution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations or are altered

or repealed by the legislature. The act of the governor and legislative assembly of

or repealed Dy trie legislature, rne act 01 tne governor ana legislative assembly or
the Territory of Utah entitled "An. act to punish polygamy and other kindred
offenses," approved February 4, A. D. 1892, in so far as the same defines and imposes
penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to be in force in the State of Utah.

The binding force of the pledges thus given to the people of the
United States was recognizecf by the leaders of the Mormon Church
for the reason that when Utah sought admission into the Union in 1888
it offered a constitution containing such a condition in respect to the
practice of polygamy as is now incorporated in the enabling act and in
Utah's constitution. Hon. Jeremiah M. Wilson, a distinguished law-
yer, was then employed by the dominant church of Utah, and made
an argument before a Congressional committee. While urging state-
hood under the constitution so tendered, he said:

Nebraska was admitted into the Union, and Nebraska was required to enter into a
compact that slavery should never exist in that State without the consent of Con-
gress. Nobody has ever doubted the propriety of entering into such compact, nor
has anybody ever doubted the binding character of that compact. Congress has
never asked for guaranties that the compact wrould be kept by the State.

There can not be any doubt as to the right to enter into such a compact. Congress
has been acting upon such a right for more than three-fourths of a century — has
admitted many States upon compacts precisely similar in principle. It is too late to
dispute it now.

But that is not the objection urged. The question I am now considering is whether
Congress can enforce it if made. If it may be made, then the right to enforce it fol-
lows by necessary implication. It is idle to say that such a compact may be made
and then when the considerations have been mutually received — statehood on the
one side and the pledge not to do a particular thing on the other — either party can
violate it without remedy to the other.

But you ask me what is the remedy, and I answer that there are plenty of reme-
dies and in your own hands.

Suppose they violate this compact; suppose that after they put this into the con-
stitution, and thereby induce you to grant them the high privilege and political right
of statehood, they should turn right around and exercise the bad faith which is
attributed to them here — what would you do? You could shut the doors of the Sen-
ate and House of Representatives against them; you could deny them a voice in the
councils of this nation, because they have acted in bad faith and violated their solemn
agreement by which they succeeded in getting themselves into the condition of state-
hood.

You could deny them the Federal judiciary; you could deny them the right to use
the mails — that indispensable thing in the matter of trade and commerce of this coun-
try. There are many ways in which peaceably, but all powerfully, you could com-
pel the performance of that compact. Congress could reach such a case and not put
a tithe of the strain on the Constitution that it was subjected to when the act was
passed authorizing the attachment and arrest of a witness who had not been sub-

REED SMOOT. 25

poenaed, and forfeiting the property of this church and commanding the courts what
kind of a judgment to render. After these, Congress can not doubt its ability to
devise means to meet the emergencies or its courage to grapple with troublesome
questions.

Sixth. Contrary to a provision of the constitution of the State which,
in view of the conditions which have existed for more than fifty years,
is peculiarly binding upon the leaders of the Mormon Church.

The constitutional provision to which, we refer is contained in
Article I, section 4, as follows:

There shall be no union of church and state, nor shall any church dominate the
state or interfere with its functions.

Seventh. And contrary to law.

At the time said constitution was framed there had been, since 1892,
a law of the Territory of Utah providing penalties for the offenses of
bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, adultery, and fornication.

In 1897 a revision of the laws of Utah was made and the law of 1892,
above referred to, was reenacted without change, and now appears in
the Revised Statutes of Utah as sections 4208 and 4209.

And we, your protestants, do further say and do earnestly and sol-
emnly declare that we are moved hereto by no malice or personal ill-
will toward Apostle Smoot nor toward the people whom he seeks to
represent in this high position.

We wage no war against his religious belief as such. We do not to
the slightest extent deny him the same freedom of thought, the same
freedom of action within the law, which we claim for ourselves.

We accuse him of no offense cognizable by law, nor do we seek to
put him in jeopardy of his liberty or his property. We ask that he
be deprived of no natural right nor of any right which under the Con-
stitution or laws of the land he is fitted to exercise. With watchful
jealousy we claim for him, whether as private citizen or as church
official, as for ourselves, all the rights, privileges, and immunities safe-
guarded by the Constitution.

What we do deny to him is the right, either natural or political, to
the high station of Senator of the United States from which to wage
war upon the home — the basic institution upon whose purity and per-
petuity rests the very Government itself.

However broad the grant by Federal enactments to the State of
Utah or its citizens, the enjoyment of the privileges of statehood must
depend upon the observance of the sacred compact upon which state-
hood was secured. The rights thereby granted are not inalienable,
and we do insist that he is and ever must be unfitted to make laws who
shows himself unalterabty opposed to that which underlies all law.

We submit that however formal and regular may be Apostle Smoot's
credentials or his qualifications by way of citizenship, whatever his
protestations of patriotism and loyalty, it is clear that the obligations
of any official oath which he may subscribe are and of necessity must
be as threads of tow compared with the covenants which bind his
intellect, his will, and his affections, and which hold him forever in
accord with and subject to the will of a defiant and lawbreaking apos-
tolate.

We ask in behalf of ourselves, and, as we firmly believe, in behalf of
thousands of the members of his faith, that the high honor of a Senator-
ship be not accorded this man, though temporarily released from some
T)f the active duties of his ecclesiastical office; that the people of this

26 REED SMOOT.

State be not put to an open shame, and that the apostolate of the Mor-
mon Church be not permitted to succeed in this their supreme test of
the forbearance of the American people.

We ask that in the exercise of your high prerogative to see that no
harm come to the Republic, you do halt this man at the door of the
Senate that he may be there inquired of touching the matters we have
herein set forth.

Dated at Salt Lake City,' January 26, 1903.

W. M. PADEN.

P. L. WILLIAMS.

E. B. CRITCHLOW.

E. W. WILSON.

C. C. GOODWIN.

W. A. NELDEN.

CLARENCE T. BROWN.

EZRA THOMPSON.

J. J. CORUM.

GEORGE R. HANCOCK.
W. MONT. FERRY.
J. L. LEILICH.
HARRY C. HILL.
C. E. ALLEN.
GEORGE M. SCOTT.
S. H. LEWIS.
H. G. MCMILLAN.
ABILL LEONARD.

To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: As the representative of citizens and electors of Utah,
who are your protestants in the matter of Reed Smoot, Senator-elect
from Utah, I urgently pray you that the said Reed Smoot, Senator-
elect from Utah, be not allowed a seat as a Senator; and, as the rep-
resentative of and as one of }rour protestants in the matter aforesaid,
I pray you that your protestants be granted a hearing in the said case,
and an opportunity to prove —

First. The existence of an organization known as the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whose headquarters are in Utah,
but whose missionaries are world-wide, and whose objects and aims in
the past and to-day are to subvert the aims and ends of the United
States Government.

Second. That all of the representations, assurances, promises, obli-
gations, vows, and oaths of the first presidency and the quorum of the
twelve apostles of the said church, confirmed and ratified and made
binding by the unanimous confirmation of the common Mormon people
upon two definite and specific occasions, in semiannual conference
assembled, thereby approving and making complete and binding the
acts of the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles
relative to the suspension of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation,
in a manifesto issued by President Woodruff of the said church, in
order that any and all moral objections to the reception of Utah into
the sisterhood of States be removed, all of which representations,
assurances, promises, obligations, vows, and oaths, made by the first
presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles of the said church

HEED 8MOOT. 27

have been deliberately, maliciously, and in violation of their most
sacred and solemn compact and covenant, broken, and have been made
void by the major portion of the first presidency and the quorum of
the twelve apostles in practice, and by all in connivance and "winking
at" known violations of flagrant wrong-doing relative to polygamy
and polygamous cohabitation, including every president of the said
church since the demise of President Woodruff.

That Presidents Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith have had children
born to them by their ' ' plural wives " since statehood, and also a number
of the apostles have had children born to them by their "plural wives,"
in violation of their most sacred and solemn covenant made by them,
as the leaders of the Mormon people, to the United States Government
as a condition of statehood.

That President Lorenzo Snow lived and died in the practice of
polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and that his "plural wife,"
Minnie Jensen Snow, bore him a child as late as the winter of 1896-97.

That President Joseph F. Smith, the president of the Mormon
Church, is living in open polygamy to-day, and has had a child born to
him by his "plural wife" as late as 1898.

That the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles have
not ceased to exemplify in person, by their own personal violations of
the statutes of Utah, but have violated and do continuously violate
their covenants, obligations, compacts, and oaths made to the United
States Government and its laws.

That Elder C. W. Penrose (counselor to Angus M. Cannon, presi-
dent of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion), editor of the Deseret News, the
official organ of the Mormon Church and the authorized mouthpiece of
the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles, of world-
wide circulation and authority, is living in open polygamy.

That the men who made these covenants and their successors in office,
believing, teaching, and practicing the same teachings, are in control of
affairs in Utah to-day.

Third. That polygamous marriages have been contracted since the
manifesto of President Woodruff and the admission of the Territory
of Utah to statehood.

Fourth. That said Senator-elect Smoot is a polygamist and is one of
a self-perpetuating body of fifteen men who, constituting the ruling
authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or
Mormon Church, claim, and are accorded by their followers the
right to claim, supreme authority, divinely sanctioned, to shape the
belief and control the conduct of those under them in all matters
whatsoever, political, civil and religious, temporal and spiritual; and
who, thus uniting in themselves authority in church and state, do so
exercise the same as to inculcate and encourage a belief in polygamy
and polygamous cohabitation; who countenance and connive at viola
tions of the laws of the State prohibiting the same, regardless of
pledges made for the purpose of obtaining statehood and of covenants
made with the people of the United States; and who, by all the means
in their power, protect and honor those who, with themselves, violate
the laws of the land and are guilty of practices destructive of I/he
family and the home.

Fifth. That Mr. Reed Smoot, the first presidency and the quorum
of the twelve apostles, are responsible for the practice of polygamy
and polygamous cohabitation, in that they connive and "wink at"

28 BEED SMOOT.

known violation of all law forbidding the same; that they are respon-
sible for the nonenforcement of the law forbidding the said polyga-
mous marriages and polygamous cohabitation, upon the part of the
first presidency, the quorum of the twelve apostles and stake presi-
dents, bishops of wards, and the common people following the leader-
ship of their "file leaders."

That the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles, of
whom Senator-elect Smoot is one, in the face of their most solemn
compact and covenants with the United States, have connived at all
polygamous marriages, and have not disciplined any of their people
for entering into "plural marriages" since the manifesto suspending
the same. That they have looked with complacency upon the birth of
illegitimate children born to them since statehood; the new polyga-
mous marriages, and the birth of numerous illegitimate children to
them (the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles as
well as stake presidents and bishops of wards) plainly shows the insin-
cerity of the Mormon leaders.

Sixth. That they, the first presidency and the twelve apostles, are
responsible, in that they are the custodians of the only marriage
records of plural marriages, which are necessaiy to the enforcement
of law.

Seventh. That the Mormon Church denies the right of private judg-
ment, demanding of its eveiy member obedience to the priesthood,
as the vice-gerants of Almighty God, denying to all the exercise
of the right of private judgment in matters religious and political,
which rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
and by the covenants of said church made to the people of the United
States when the Territory of Utah sought admission into statehood.

Eighth. That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
insist that all of its members shall take " counsel" of the priesthood
before entering upon a candidacy for any political office.

That because Apostle Moses Thatcher refused to do so he was
"unfrocked" and deposed from his apostleship, was labored with, and
after a long time was finally driven into conformit}r to the thought
and will of the priesthood.

That in religious and political matters the members of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints follow the dictates of their
leaders.

That President Joseph L. Smith, in a sermon in the Tabernacle in
Salt Lake City, Utah (see Deseret News, December 6, 1900), said:

The question with me is * * * when I get the word of the Lord as to who is
the right man (to vote for), will I obey it, no matter if it does come contrary to my
convictions?

Apostle Brigham Young, jr., sermon in Logan Tabernacle, 1901,
said:

If a man should offer me a bribe to vote for him I should be inclined not to vote
for him unless directed so to do by the prophet of the Lord.

Ninth. That the oath of office required of and taken by the said
Reed Smoot, as an apostle of the said church, is of such a nature and
character as that he is thereby disqualified from taking the oath of
office required of a United States Senator.

Tenth. That when Utah was seeking admission into the Union the
Hon. Jeremiah M. Wilson, a distinguished lawyer and jurist, was
employed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints of

REED 8MOOT. 29

Utah, and in his argument before the United States Commission, said,
in part, speaking to the question as to whether Congress could enforce
any compact which it might require as a condition of statehood upon
the part of Utah:

But you ask me what is the remedy, and I answer that there are plenty of reme*
dies and in your hands.

Suppose they violate this compact; suppose that after they put this into the con-
stitution and thereby induce you to grant them the high privilege and political
right of statehood they should turn right around and exercise the bad faith which is
attributed to them here — what would you do? You could shut the doors of the Sen-
ate and the House of Representatives against them; you could deny them a voice in
the councils of this nation, because they have acted "in bad faith and violated their
solemn agreement, by which they succeeded in getting themselves into the condition
of statehood.

You could deny them the Federal judiciary; you could deny them the right to use
the mails — that indispensable thing in the matter of trade and commerce of this
country. There are many ways in which peaceably, but all powerfully, you could
compel the performance of that compact. Congress could reach such a case and not put
a tithe of the strain on the Constitution that it was subjected to when the act was
passed authorizing the attachment and arrest of a witness who had not been sub-
poenaed, and forfeiting the property of this church and commanding the courts what
kind of a judgment to render. After these, Congress can not doubt its ability to
devise means to meet the emergencies or its courage to grapple with troublesome
questions.

Eleventh. That, although the enabling act declares "that polyga-
mous or plural marriages are forever prohibited," and although the
laws of the State make it a criminal offense to practice polygamy or
polygamous cohabitation, and although polygamous cohabitation is
practiced by a majority of the first presidency and the quorum of the
twelve apostles, and by other prominent leaders of the church afore
said, yet the said Reed Smoot connives at the practice of said polyga-
mous cohabitation and uses his official position to withhold and hide
the evidence of such cohabitation and shield from criminal punishment
those who practice it.

Twelfth. That the election of said Reed Smoot* to the Senate was in
express violation of the pledges required by the enabling act and given
in the State constitution and those made before and after by the offi-
cers and representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, as set forth in the protest of W. M. Paden, and other citizens
and electors of the State of Utah, which protest was filed in the United
States Senate February 23, 1903, and is hereby adopted, and it is
requested that it be considered as a part hereof.

Thirteenth. That the said Reed Smoot is a polygamist, and that
since the admission of Utah into the union of States he, although then
and there having a legal wife, married a plural wife in the State of
Utah in violation of the laws and compacts hereinbefore described,
and since such plural or polygamous marriage the said Reed Smoot
has lived and cohabited with both his legal wife and his plural wife in
the State of Utah and elsewhere, as occasion offered, and that the only
record of such plural marriage is the secret record made and kept by
the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
which secret record is in the exclusive custody and control of the first
presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles of the said church,
of which the said Reed Smoot is one, and is beyond the control or
power of the protestants. Your protestants respectfully ask that the
Senate of the United States or its appropriate committee compel the
first presidency and the quorum of the twelve apostles and the said

30 EEED SMOOT.

Reed Smoot to produce such secret record for the consideration of the
Senate. Your protestants say that they are advised by counsel that it
is inexpedient at this time to give further particulars concerning such
plural marriage and its results or the place it was solemnized or the
maiden name of the plural wife.

Wherefore we ask that, in the exercise of your constitutional power
to be the exclusive judges of the elections and qualifications of your
members, you shall advise yourselves of the substantive facts set forth
in these protests by investigation or otherwise, and if the same be
found substantially true you refuse to accept the said Reed Smoot as
a member of your body from the State of Utah, he not being possessed
of the necessary qualifications.

JOHN L. LEILICH.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:

J. H. Leilich, of lawful age, being duly sworn, deposes and says that
he has read the foregoing protest and knows its contents; that he is a
citizen and elector of the State of Utah, and that his coprotestants are
all citizens and electors of that State, as are those whose names are
signed to the protest against Reed Smoot which was filed in the Senate
of the United States February .23, 1903, and that he is informed and
verily believes that the matters and things set forth in the protest to
which this affidavit is attached are true in substance and in fact.

JOHN L. LEILICH.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of February, A. D.
1903.

[SEAL.] J. R. YOUNG, Clerk,

By R. J. MEIGS, Jr.,

Assistant Clerk

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

In the matter of Reed Smoot, Senator from the State of Utah.

Answer of the respondent, Reed Smoot , to the protest of W. M. Paden
and seventeen others, dated at Salt Lake City, January 26, 1903, and
the protest of John L. LeilicTi, dated February *25, 1903.

This respondent is advised and avers that but two of the charges
made against him in said protests, either directly or by implication, are
such as, if true, could legally affect his right to hold his seat in the
Senate. These two charges are:

1. That the respondent is a polygamist.

2. That he is bound by some oath or obligation which is inconsistent
with the oath required by the Constitution, which was administered to
him before he took his seat as a Senator.

Both these charges respondent denies.

As to the charge that he is a polygamist, the respondent says that
he was married on the 17th day of September, 1884:, to Alpha May
Eldridge. She is still his wife, and is the mother of all his children.
He has never had any other wife, and has never cohabited with any
other woman.

As to the charge that the respondent is 'bound by some oath or obli-
gation controlling his duty under his oath as a Senator, the respondent
says that he has never taken any such oath, or in any way assumed
any such obligation. He holds himself bound to obey and uphold the
Constitution and laws of the United States, including the condition in
reference to polygamy upon which the State of Utah was admitted
into the Union.

The respondent now moves to strike out and eliminate, separately,
from said protest, each and every matter and thing therein contained,
except the two charges above mentioned.

While the respondent is advised and avers that the other matters
referred to in said protests are such as can not legally or properly be
considered as affecting the right of the respondent to retain his seat in
the Senate, nevertheless the respondent now proceeds to answer the
same, submitting the question of the relevancy of the same, not waiv-
ing his said motion but insisting thereon.

The respondent denies that he is one of said alleged self -perpetuating
body of 15 men, or that there is any such body of men; or that
the followers or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints, or any of them, accord the right to said alleged body to
claim supreme authority, either divinely sanctioned or otherwise, to
shape the belief or control the conduct of those under them in all or
any matters, civil or temporal, or that said church or such alleged body
claims or exercises any such alleged rights; or that said church, or said

31

32 KEED SMOOT.

alleged body of men, or either them, unite either in one body or in all
of them, the authority of church and state, or of the State; or that said
church, or said alleged body, or any person or body exercises any
authority or power either so" or at all as to inculcate or encourage a
belief in the practice of polygamy or belief in or practice of polyga-
mous cohabitation, or that either countenances or connives at any vio-
lation of the laws of the State of Utah or of the United States, either
regardless of pledges, or pledge, or otherwise at all, either made for
the said alleged purpose, or otherwise, or at all, or of any covenants,
or covenant, or otherwise, either made with the people of the United
States or any other person or body; or that said church, or any per-
son or body, by all or any means whatsoever, either protects or honors
persons, or any person, who is or may be guilty of said alleged prac-
tices, or any practice, either destructive of the family or the home or
otherwise; or that said alleged body, or any of them, violate any law
of the land, or is guilty of any of said alleged practices; and this
respondent for himself in particular denies that he is one of said
alleged self-perpetuating body of 15 men, or that there is any such
body; or that said church, or any part thereof, or any person therein,
inculcates or encourages a belief in the practice of polygamy or belief
in or practice of polygamous cohabitation; and this respondent denies
that he is guilty of polygamous cohabitation, or that he is a polyga-
mist, or that he ever has been a polygamist, or that he has ever prac-
ticed polygamous cohabitation.

This respondent further denies that he has ever countenanced or
connived at any violation of any -law, either of the State of Utah or of
the United States; or that he has ever protected or honored any per-
son or persons who may have violated the laws of the land. And this
respondent denies that he is guilty of any practices, or any practice,
destructive either of the family or the home. On the contrary, this
respondent alleges that he honors and respects and obeys all of the
laws of the State of Utah and of the United States, and has never been
guilty of any offense against either. And this respondent further
alleges that the president of said church and his two counselors consti-
tute the first presidency and is the highest governing body in said
church, and the same has control of the spiritual and temporal affairs
of said church, but not of the temporal affairs either of the State or of
any members of said church; that the next highest governing body in
said church is the twelve apostles, consisting of twelve members of said
church, who "are under the direction of the first presidency;" and said
apostles, on the dissolution of the first presidency, for any reason
whatsoever, then and not otherwise have authority equal to such first
presidency.

Respondent further alleges that since the manifesto of President
Wilford Woodruff was issued in 1890, neither a belief in, nor a prac-
tice of, polygamy or polygamous cohabitation has either been taught
or encouraged.

I.

Answering 1 of said protest, respondent denies that the said alleged
Mormon priesthood, either according to the doctrines or doctrines of
said church, or otherwise, is vested with supreme authority in all
things or in anything either temporal or spiritual; but this respondent
admits that the first presidency of said church is vested with

KEED SMOOT . 33

supreme authority in all things spiritual and in all things temporal,
so far as temporal things pertain to the affairs of said church, and not
otherwise. The quotation under said 1 from the Doctrine and Cove- ,
nants, so far as the same is quoted, is correct.

The respondent denies each and every other allegation and statement
contained under said 1, except as admitted or alleged in this answer.

II.

Answering II of said protest, this respondent denies that said first
presidency or twelve apostles are supreme in the exercise or transmis-
sion of said alleged mandates, or of any mandate of said alleged
authority, except as admitted and alleged in this answer.

Further answering this respondent alleges that the only accepted
standard works of said church are the Bible, namely. King James's
version, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doc
trine and Covenants, together with a manifesto of President Wilford
Woodruff, dated 1890; and so far as quotations are made from any of
the above and correctly quoted this respondent does not deny but
admits the same, but he denies the construction placed upon the same
by protestants, and all other quotations from any other source in
whatever protests contained are denied, so far as the same are either
alleged or claimed to be authority, as such quotations contain only
the opinions of men.

This respondent denies that said twelve apostles are equal in author-
ity concurrently with the said first presidency, but admits that said
twelve apostles are equal in authority successively, that is, on the
dissolution, for any reason, of said first presidency; and said church
is not fully organized except when said first presidency is organized,
and since respondent has been one of such apostles, the first presidency
has only been dissolved once, and that for only about .fourteen days.

This respondent admits that said church made a rule in regard to its
leading officials taking part in politics, but denies that such rule is
fully or correctly set forth in said protest. The respondent admits
that Moses Thatcher was deposed from the twelve apostles and defeated
in his contest f or senatorship in the legislature; but respondent denies
that said Moses Thatcher was deposed, either solely or mainly, on
account of his alleged opposition to said rule. This respondent admits
that remarks were made by George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff,
Lorenzo Snow, John Henr}^ Smith, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith
on the subject of such deposition, but denies that such remarks are
correctly quoted in said protest.

This respondent denies each and every other allegation and statement
under said II. except as admitted and alleged in this answer.

III.

Conies now the respondent and answering III of said protest, denies
that said alleged body of men or any of them ever assumed either the
principles or principle or practice of political dictation, and on that
ground denies that said alleged body of men or any of them has not
abandoned either the principles or principle or practice of political
dictation; and said respondent denies that said alleged body of men or
any of them has not abandoned belief in the practice of polygamy and
belief in and practice of polygamous cohabitation.

s — a

34 REED SMOOT.

This respondent alleges that since the manifesto of President Wil-
ford Woodruff of 1890, the practice of polygamous cohabitation by
those who were polygamists theretofore has been abandoned by many,
'but continued by some for a time, and where continued it is on the
sole responsibility of such persons, and subject to the penalties of the
law. Said manifesto has not been added to the Doctrine and Cove-
nants in the sense that the same has been published within the outer
covers of such book, but the same has been published, distributed, and
disseminated among the members of said church. The Doctrine and
Covenants, except where an appendix appears, contains only the reve-
lations to or through Joseph Smith, and the said manifesto has not
yet been added as an appendix to such book. The members of said
church are required to obey the laws of the land, as set forth in section
58, verse 21, page 219, of the Doctrine and Covenants, to wit:

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath
no need to break the laws of the land.

The quotation from 4CThe epistle from the first president to the
officers and members of the church " is substantially correct so far as
the same goes, but only a part of such document is quoted.

This respondent denies each and every other allegation and state-
ment contained in said III, except as admitted and alleged in this
answer.

IV.

This respondent, answering IV of said protest, denies that "this,'1
or any part thereof, either is the attitude of said first presidency or
any of its members, or of said twelve apostles, or any of them, since
saic! manifesto of 1890, or at any other time, or at all, except as admit-
ted and alleged in this answer; or that the same, or any part thereof ,
is evidenced by either their or any of their teachings, either since then,
or at any time, or at all, except as admitted and alleged in this answer.

This respondent alleges that never at any time did he either teach,
practice, advise, or encourage polygamy or polygamous cohabitation.
This respondent admits that part of the quotations from said alleged
article of Brigham H. Roberts, which is quoted in said protest, is cor-
rect, but alleges that the same is garbled and incomplete, and given in
an arrangement contrary to the original, and if it is considered mate-
rial, or if this respondent is deemed responsible, which he denies, for
such article, the same in full will be tendered in evidence.

This respondent admits that the quotation is correct from the case
of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints v. United States (136
U. S., 1).

The respondent denies that said alleged body of officials, or any of them,
or that this respondent is one of said alleged body, either practices or
connives at, or encourages the alleged practice, either of polygamy ot
polygamous cohabitation; or that said alleged bod}^ of officials, or any
of them, permitted or permits anyone to hold legislative office, or in
any manner meddles or interferes therewith", or that said alleged body
of officials, or any of them, either with or without protest or objection
from them or any of them, or otherwise, or at all, sought to pass a law
nullifying said enactments or any enactment against polygamous cohab-
itation. This respondent denies that he in any manner whatsoever, at

REED SMOOT. 35

any time or place, ever had anything to do, directly or indirectly, with
any of such alleged matters.

This respondent admits that said Abel John Evans was president of
the senate of Utah at the legislative session of 1901, and that a large
majority of such legislature was Mormons; and this respondent alleges
that some of the members of said Church voted against the passage of
said bill. This respondent admits that said bill passed said legislature,
and that the same was vetoed by the governor, and alleges that such
veto was sustained by the legislature.

This respondent denies each and every other allegation and state-
ment contained in said IV, except as admitted and alleged in this
answer.

VI.

Comes now the respondent, and answering VI of said protest, denies
that the supreme authorities in said church, or any of them, or that
this respondent is one of such supreme authorities, or that the first
presidency and twelve apostles constitute such supreme authorities, or
that said first presidency or any of its members, or said twelve apostles,
or any of them, either connive at alleged violations or any alleged vio-
lation of any laws, either against potygamy or polygamous cohabita-
tion, or protect or honor the said violators, or any of them, of any law
either against polygamy or polygamous cohabitation.

Respondent admits that he is and has been for some time last past a
director (trustee) of Brigham Young Academy, of Provo, but alleges
that as such director he is not familiar with the details of the employ-
ment of professors and instructors, nor knows all the professors and
instructors employed. Respondent further admits that Heber J. Grant
pleaded guilty to polygamous cohabitation in the Utah courts in 1899;
also that Angus M. Cannon and Joseph' E. Taylor pleaded guilty to a
like offense and were fined; also that J. M. Tanner is superintendent
of Sunday schools for said church; that Charles Kelly is a stake pres-
ident; also that the complaint sworn to by C. N. Owen is substantially
as stated in said protest; also that Angus M. Cannon appeared in court,
pleaded guilty, and was fined $100; also that about a dozen others also
pleaded guilty; also that the letter of Lorenzo Snow, dated January
8, 1900, is substantially as stated in said .protest; also that the parts
quoted from an address of George Q. Cannon, given January 28, 1900,
are substantial^ correct so far as quoted; also that the quotation from
136 U. S., 1, is correct so far as quoted; also that Heber M. Wells is
governor of the State of Utah, and a Mormon; and that the part of
his speech quoted in said protest is substantially correct; and respond-
ent alleges that some time after the delivery of said speech the said
Heber M. Wells was reelected governor of the State of Utah.

Respondent also admits that Brigham H. Roberts was excluded as a
Congressman from the House of Representatives; also that on Sep-
tember 26, 1900, President Wilford Woodruff, the official head of said
church, issued the said manifesto contained in said protest; also that in
1891 the president and apostles of said church prepared and presented
to the President of the United States a certain petition, accompanied by
a statement signed b}7 Chief Justice Zane, Governor Arthur L. Thomas,
and other non-Mormons, which petition is contained in said protest:
also that the amnesty proclamation was granted by President Benjamin
Harrison, as appears in said protest; also that an amnesty proclama-

36 KEED SMOOT.

tion was granted by President Grover Cleveland, as appears in said
protest; also that by act of Congress of March 3, 1887, the said
church was dissolved, and much of its property escheated to the United
States, and that the unexpended part of said property so escheated was
given back to said church, and that such resolution was given on the
statement of the authorities of said church that its members and adherents
generally abstained from plural marriage and polygamous cohabitation
and were living in obedience to the laws, and that it no longer encour-
aged or gave countenance in any manner to practices in violation of
law or contrary to good morals or public policy; also that said joint
resolution is correctly quoted as set forth in said protest; also that at
the hearing before Judge C. F. Loof bourow, at the time alleged, a
number of prominent church leaders testified, to wit, the persons
mentioned, and the parties thereto were represented by counsel, as
alleged; and this respondent admits that they gave the testimony
quoted in said protest, subject, however, to the right on the part of
this respondent to put in other evidence of said witnesses on such sub-
ject and also to correct the testimony as set forth in said protest, if it
be found on examination and comparison that the same is not substan-
tialty correct; also admits that Joseph L. Kawlins delivered the speech
as contained in said protest; also that the quotation from the enabling
act as set forth in said protest is correct; also that John Henry Smith
was president of said constitutional convention, and Moses Thatcher
was a member thereof, and that the parts quoted from said constitu-
tion, as appears in said protest, are correct.

The respondent admits that the said church intended that all pledges
.and representations that it has given or made should be carried out by
its members. Respondent also admits that, in substance, the Hon.
Jeremiah M. Wilson made the remarks attributed to him as contained
in said protest. The respondent also admits the quotation from the
State constitution of Utah as contained in said protest; also, at the
time said State constitution was framed there had been, ever since
1892, a law of Utah providing penalties for the offense of bigamy,
unlawful cohabitation, adultery, and fornication; and that in 1897 a
revision of the laws of Utah was made, and the said law of 1892 was
reenacted without change, and now appears in the Revised Statutes of
Utah as sections 4208 and 4209.

This respondent admits that some of said protestants are not moved
by malice or personal ill will toward this respondent nor toward the
people he represents, but denies all such allegations as to several of the
said protestations. This respondent denies, as to several of said prot-
estants, that they do not wage war against the religious belief, as such,
of this respondent, but admits such allegations as to some of said prot-
estants. This respondent denies, as to several of said protestants,
that they do not deny to this respondent the same freedom of thought,
the same freedom of action, within the law, which the}7 claim for them-
selves, but admits such allegations as to several of said protestants.

This respondent admits that said protestants accuse him of no offense
cognizable by law, but denies that said protestants do not seek to put
him in jeopardy of his liberty or property. This respondent denies
that said protestants ask that this respondent be deprived of no nat-
ural right, nor of any right which under the Constitution or laws of
the land he is fitted to exercise, and also denies that said protestants,
either with watchful jealousy or otherwise, claim for this respondent,

REED SMOOT. 37

whether as private citizen or as church official, all or any of the rights,
privileges, or immunities safeguarded by the Constitution.

This respondent admits that said protestants deny him the rights,
either natural or political, to the high station of Senator of the United
States, but this respondent denies that from such station, or any other
place, or at all, war would be waged upon the home, and respondent
admits that the home is the basic institution upon whose purity and
perpetuity rests the very Government itself; and this respondent
alleges that he has as sacred a regard for the high station of Senator,
and of its duties, and of the lo}^alty that a Senator should have, as the
most patriotic could desire; and that the home is just as sacred to him
as to any of said protestants or to the most lo}^al citizen.

This respondent admits that the enjoyment of the privileges of state-
hood must depend upon the observance of the sacred compact upon
which statehood was secured; also admits that the rights thereby
granted are not inalienable, but denies that he is, or was, or ever or at
all must be, or ever will be, unfitted to make anj^law; and respondent
denies that he shows himself unalterably, or at all, opposed to "that"
or to any of "that" which underlies all law.-

This respondent denies that the obligations or obligation of any offi-
cial oath which he may have subscribed or taken are or is, or of neces-
sity or otherwise must be as thread of tow compared with the covenants
or covenant which it is alleged bind his intellect, his will, or his affec-
tions, or which hold him forever, or at all, in accord with or subject to
the will of an alleged defiant or an alleged law-breaking apostolate.

This respondent denies that any of his protestations of patriotism or
loyalty are other than the most sincere and earnest, or that any obliga-
tion of an official oath, or otherwise, that he has taken or may take,
is not of the very strongest, and bind most willingly his intellect, his
will, and his affections; and respondent alleges that he holds his patriot-
ism and kn-alty to the United States, at all times and places, of the
very highest and strongest.

This respondent denies that said protestants make said protest on
behalf of any of the members of said church. Respondent further
denies that said State, or any of the people of said State, would be put
to open or any shame by the retention of this respondent of the high
office of United States Senator; and respondent denies that the said
twelve apostles, or any of them fis such, seek to be permitted, or desire
to succeed in having this respondent retain his seat in the United States
Senate, or that, if this respondent should retain such seat, it would be
either a supreme or any test of the forbearance of the American people.

This respondent denies each and every other allegation and state-
ment contained in said VI of said protest, except as admitted and
alleged in this answer.

This respondent, now answering the alleged protest made by John L.
Leilich, and which is not incorporated in the protest of W. M. Paden
and others, admits, as stated in said "First," that there is an organi-
zation known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
which has its headquarters in Utah; and admits that, as stated in the
"Second," certain of the representatives, promises, and obligations of
the first presidency have been confirmed and ratified in semiannual
conference of said church, thereby approving and making complete
and binding certain acts of the said first presidency relative to the

38 REED SMOOT.

suspension of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation as appears in
the manifesto issued by President Wilford Woodruff.

This respondent, answering the tk Ninth" of said Leilich protest,
denies that any oath of office is required of or taken by this respondent
as an apostle of said church, and denies that either as a member of or
as an apostle of said church there is either required of or taken by
said respondent any obligation or covenant, of whatsoever kind or
nature or character, or that he is thereby or otherwise, or at all, dis-
qualified from conscientiously taking the oath of office required of a
United States Senator. On the contrary, this respondent alleges that
neither as a member of nor as an apostle of said church, or otherwise,
is he required to take nor has he taken any oath or covenant or obli-
gation, of any nature or character, that, in any wa}r whatsoever,
disqualifies him from conscientiously and without mental reservation
taking the oath of office required of a United States Senator, or from
discharging his full duty and obligation to the United States as
required by the very highest standard of patriotism and loyalty.

This respondent, answering the ' ' tenth " of said Leilich protest,
admits the remarks were made in part as quoted by the Hon. Jeremiah
M. Wilson.

This respondent, answering the "thirteenth" of said Leilich pro-
test, denies that he is a polygamist, or that he has ever been a
polygamist, or that he is living or ever has lived in polygamous
cohabitation, or that since the admission of Utah into the Union of
States, or at any time, or at all, either then or there having a legal
wife, or otherwise, or at all, married a plural wife, either in the State
of Utah or any other place, or at all, either in violation of any of the
laws or compacts hereinbefore described, or otherwise, or at all, or
that since, or at any time, or at all, of such alleged plural or polyga-
mous marriage, this respondent has either lived or .cohabited with any-
one whomsoever except his legal wife, either in said State of Utah or
elsewhere, or at all, either as occasion offered or otherwise, or at all,
or that the only record of such alleged plural marriage is a secret or
other record made or kept by the authorities of said church, or any of
them, or that said alleged secret or other record is in the exclusive or
other custody or control of said first presidency or any of them, or of
the said quorum of twelve apostles, or any of them, or that this
respondent is a member of said first presidency, or that any such
record exists or ever has existed, or that there is any such record,
secret or otherwise, of any polygamous marriage whatsoever, or that
there have been any polygamous marriages since said manifesto of
1890 was issued.

This respondent further answering said Leilich protest, hereby
denies each and every other allegation and statement therein contained
which is not hereby specifically denied, except as may be admitted or
alleged in this answer.

Further answering, this respondent alleges:

In 1890 the returns of subordinate officers of said church showed
that in the United States there were 2,451 polygamists. In 1899, in
like manner, it was found there were 1,543 polygamists. In 1902, in
like manner, it was found there were 897 polygamists. In February
of 1903, in like manner, it was found there were 647 polygamists;
and this respondent alleges that according to his best judgment,
founded on the facts aforesaid, there are not over 500 polygamists

REED SMOOT. 39

Iving at the present time; that all of said persons, as hereinbefore
stated, have been advised by the lirst presidency of said church, as
appears by the said manifesto of President Wilf ord Woodruff of 1890,
and of the said testimony given by the said President Wilf ord Wood-
ruff and others in interpreting said manifesto, to keep all the laws of
the land; and many have kept such laws and said manifesto, while some
have failed to keep sucli 1 ,ws, just as some of the members of said
church keep other laws thereof, while some of its members do not keep
all of such laws.

This respondent states and alleges that he has never advised any
person, either directly or indirectly, either to go into polygamy or to
continue the practice of polygamous cohabitation.

This respondent states and alleges that in May, 1902, he announced
that he would be a Republican candidate for United States Senator
from the State of Utah at the legislature to be next elected, and in
making such declaration this respondent made the same on his own
judgment. That the Democratic papers in said State of Utah, in
opposing the candidacy of this respondent, stated over and over again
in prominent headlines and in strong editorials that a vote for the
Republican ticket meant just that much toward the selection of this
respondent as the next Republican United States Senator from the
State of Utah; that the members of the legislature were nominated
and elected on this issue, and your respondent was the choice, by a
large majority, of such legislature as the Republican United States
Senator from the State of Utah, and most of the Gentile Republican
legislators voted for this respondent for such office. At the same
time all of the Democratic Mormon legislators opposed his nomination
to such office and voted for another candidate.

That of the present elective and appointive State officers for the
State of Utah there are eight Mormons whose yearly salaries amount
to $15,700, and there are nine non-Mormons whose yearly salaries
amount to $26,400; and that of the elective and appointive city officers
for Salt Lake City, Utah, for the years 1902-3, excluding members of
the city council, six were Mormons drawing salaries amounting in the
aggregate to the sum of $9,460, and nineteen non-Mormons whose
yearly salaries aggregate a sum exceeding $25,900; there were fifteen
members of the city council of Salt Lake City, Utah, and during
1902-3 ten were Mormons and five were non- Mormons, and each
received a salary of $420 per annum.

This respondent in conclusion alleges that he comes to the high office
of United States Senator as a Republican, and was nominated as such
by the legislature of the State of Utah on issues clearly made up and
perfectly understood by all; that he stands here now with the highest
and keenest regard for the patriotism and loyalty expected and de-
manded from every United States Senator.

Wherefore it is prayed that the protests filed herein may be given
such hearing as may be proper; but this respondent protests against
evidence being introduced on all or any of those issues which are irrel-
evant, immaterial, and impertinent to the question of the qualifica-
tions of this respondent and his right to retain his seat as a United
States Senator from the State of Utah.

Respondent further prays that said protests may be adjudged of no
effect.

REED SMOOT,

40 REKD SMOOT.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

District of Colombia, ss:

Reed Smoot, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the fore
going protest and answer are true of his own knowledge, except as to
the matters therein stated or denied on information and belief, and as
to those matters he believes it to be true.

REED SMOOT.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4th day of January, A. D.
1904.
[NOTARIAL SEAL.] R. B. NIXON,

Notary Public.
A. S. WORTHINGTON,
WALDEMAR VAN COTT,
. W. E. BORAH,

Counsel for Respondent.

COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS,

UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D. (7., January 16, 190 J^.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), McComas, Beveridge, Dil-
lingham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Overman.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is advised that the protestants and
the respondent in the pending matter are represented by counsel.
The Chair will inquire if anyone appears for the protestants at this
time.

Mr. ROBERT W . TAYLER. I appear for the protestants.

The CHAIRMAN. Who appears for the respondent, the junior Senator
from Utah?

Mr. A. S. WORTHINGTON. 1 appear for him, Mr. Chairman, and so
does Mr. Waldemar Van Cott.

Mr. THOMAS P. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman, I appear for the
National Reform Association, one of the organizations which has been
protesting against the seating of Mr. Smoot.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you represent the original protestants ? •

Mr. STEVENSON. We are original.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you speak for any of the signers to the protest
now under consideration ?

Mr. STEVENSON. We filed a protest last spring, at the time Senator
Smoot took his seat.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask your residence ?

Mr. STEVENSON. In Philadelphia.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will say to counsel representing the prot-
estants and the respondent, that before entering upon any inquiry into
the subject-matter involved in this controversy, it was deemed expe-
dient by the committee to request the protestants, by their attorneys,
to appear and advise the committee in a general way of the testimony
intended to be submitted in support of the protest, or any part thereof,
and the legal contentions connected therewith.

It was also deemed advisable that the junior Senator from Utah (Mr.
Smoot), by himself or his attorney, should, if he so desired, advise the
committee what part of the contention of the protestants' counsel it

REED SMOOT. 41

was proposed to controvert. Such a course it was believed would
have a tendency to define the issues and mark the scope of the inquiry.
Mr. Tayler, the committee will now hear you in behalf of the prot-
estants.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May I ask, before the counsel begins, whether
I am to understand from the statement of the chairman that it is
intended now merely to present the points to be argued, or are we to
argue them.

The CHAIRMAN. Simply the points upon which the protestants and
the respondent intend to rely.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. TAYLER.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
represent the protestants who filed the first protest, or the protest
signed by W. M. Paden and others, that appears first in the printed
document which the committee has issued. I do not disavow, in so far
as J would be able to do so, the representations of the party interested
in the supplemental protest. I merely say, respecting the charge
made in the supplemental protest,. that I do not know, and therefore
can not say to the committee, that proof will be made sustaining the
charge of what is called the Leilich protest, to the effect that
Mr. Smoot is a polygamist.

1 have no desire, and the committee, I gather, has no desire, to hear
any argument, at this time at least, upon the question of their power
to act in a case of this sort, or the legal effect of the things which it is
claimed will be proved.

The Senators are as familiar as anybody could be with the provi-
sions of the Constitution respecting the power of the Senate to judge
of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members, and also
its power to expel! I need only say that there is absolutely no limit
upon the right or the power of the Senate in regard to these two pro-
cedures, except that the exclusion of a member or the declaration of
the vacancy of a seat, on account of a claim that the applicant is dis-
qualified, must of course be sustained by a majority vote of the Sen-
ate, and his expulsion must be sustained by a vote of two-thirds of the
members of the Senate. Beyond that there is no limit to the power
of the Senate.

Of course, a question of propriety would arise; a question of ethical
right might arise; but as to the parliamentary or legislative right or
power, the legal right or power, there is no limit whatever. If one
of the Senators should introduce a resolution in the Senate on Monday,
"Resolved, that Reed Smoot be expelled as a member of the Senate,"
and the Senate should thereupon, with or without debate, adopt that
resolution by a two-thirds vote, it would be absolutely lawful and
entirely within the power and the legal right of the Senate.

The question of propriety would be another question. The answer
that the individual Senators might make to their constituencies would
be another thing. But there can be no legal wrong where there is no
remedy, and there would be no remedy, no matter how unjust or arbi-
trary or outrageous might in fact be the action of the Senate in such
a case. Its legal right could not be questioned in any court, and the

42 REED SMOOT.

individuals who would he affected adversely hy its action must simply
submit, because the Senate would be acting- within its power. So it is
not a question of power; it is a question of propriety.

Now, 1 think I can say in live minutes all that needs to be said in
connection with the suggestion of the committee as voiced by the
chairman.

What we expect to prove in respect to this controversy is this: It is
amplitied and in some places different!}" phrased in the protest, but it
expresses, as 1 gather it, the case. I do not disturb the committee
with any preliminary history either of the church or of the questions
that are involved here, or what has occurred in Congress, and the char-
acter and basis of the public interest in it, apart from any mei»> senti-
ment. I shall not deal with this as representing any hrysteria, but
wholly upon the question of its effect upon government and the right
and the pi >riety of the Government intervening to defend its own
dignity and protect its own integrity.

First, then, the Mormon priesthood, according to the doctrine of that
church and the belief and practice of its membership, is vested with,
and assumes to exercise, supreme authority in all things temporal and
spiritual, civil and political. The head of the church claims to receive
divine revelations, and these Reed Smoot, by his covenants and obliga-
tions, is bound to accept and obey, whether they affect things spiritual
or things temporal. That is the first proposition.

Senator McCoMAS. I wish you would restate that proposition.

Mr. TAYLER. The Mormon priesthood, according to the doctrine of
the church and the. belief and practice of its membership, is vested
with and assumes to exercise supreme authority in all things, temporal
and spiritual, civil and political. The head of the church claims to
receive divine revelations, and these Reed Smeot, by his covenants and
obligations, is bound to accept and obey, whether they affect things
spiritual or things temporal.

Second, the first presidency-
Senator BEVERIDGE. Is that the. first proposition upon which you
base your contest against the respondents

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. His membership in the Mormon Church ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir; exactly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I am merely asking for information; but would
or would it not mean that no member of the Mormon Church has a
right to hold office?

Mr. TAYLER. I think that is true. Of course the committee will
understand that as a practical and as a public question there is a very
marked and proper distinction to be made between a layman in the
Mormon Church and one who is in high official position, who is him-
self authorized to receive revelations and impart them to his inferiors,
who must obey those revelations thus imparted.

Second. The first presidency and twelve apostles, of whom Reed
Smoot is one, are supreme in the exercise of this authority of the
church and in the transmission of that authority to their successors.
Each of them is called prophet, seer, and revclator.

Senator HOPKINS. That applies to the apostles as well as to—

Mr. TAYLER. As well as to the first president and his two council-
lors.

Third. Is shown by their teaching and by their own lives, this body

REED SMOOT. 43

ol' men hits not abandoned belief in polygamy and polygamous cohabi-
tation. On the contrary—

(a) As the ruling authorities of the church they promulgate in the
most solemn manner the doctrine of polygamy without reservation.

I mean by that statement that it has always been declared that the
Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and tho
Pearl of Great Price are the inspired standards of the Mormon Church,
controlling the lives of its people. In the answer of the respondent
there is an added standard, while admitting that these four are the
standards inspired by God, and that is the manifesto of 1890, in which
the head of the church, claiming to have wrestled with the Almighty,
had received a revelation, and the Almighty had graciously permitted
the direction to go forth that the command to take polygamous wives
was thenceforth suspended. Of course it is a matter of argument
what the meaning of those words is.

At any rate, that manifesto declared the Divine direction to be that
the revelation received by Joseph Smith, commanding men to take
plural wives, was suspended. We will show by the proof that though
men, if they acted upon that revelation, did not feel upon them the
command to take plural wives, yet they did not find within it any pro-
hibition on taking plural wives, and did take them.

The Doctrine and Covenants — perhaps it is Doctrine and Covenants,
for I do not know whether it is plural or singular in the first word—
the Doctrine and Covenants contains the revelation received mainly by
Joseph Smith, almost altogether by Joseph Smith, and one of the
chapters contains the revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1843,
but not proclaimed until 1852, permitting, and in certain instances
commanding, the taking of plural wives.

I say that that doctrine, permitting and commanding the taking of
plural wives, is still promulgated by the Mormon Church and its
officials in this: That the Doctrine and Covenants, containing word
for word the commands and the arguments and" the revelation respect-
ing the taking of polygamous wives, is still printed, published, circu-
lated by the Mormon Church, the last edition having been made in
1901, without emendation or expurgation, without explanation or foot-
note or appendix, without any reference to any manifesto, without
any sign to anyone who may read this inspired book that there is an}^
qualification upon the command thus given to the people of the
Mormon Church.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand you to say that you expect it to appear
that in this latest edition of the Mormon doctrine-
Mr. TAYLER. The Doctrine and Covenants.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no reference to the manifesto?

Mr. TAYLER. There is not the slightest reference at all, between the
covers of that book, to any qualification of that doctrine, which still
goes out to their people and to the world as the divinely revealed duty
of the people.

In a little book that is published by the official publishers of the
Mormon Church (1 do not recall its exact title, but it is intended for
the use of the missionaries of the Church and Scripture students),
published within the last year or two, which has been scattered all
over the world, is the argument in favor of plural wives, excerpts
from the Divine revelation as given out by Joseph Smith, and still
published in this book of Doctrine and Covenants, and with marginal

44 REED SMOOT.

marginal notes along with comments and extracts from the Doctrine
and Covenants and Scripture citations sent out by the Morman Church
among its people and to its missionaries all over the world.

Under this head that it is shown by their teaching and by their lives
that this body of men, of whom Mr. Smoot is one, have not abandoned
belief in polygamy and polygamous cohabitation —

(b) The president of the Mormon Church and a majority of the twelve
apostles now practice polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and some
of them have taken polygamous wives since the manifesto of 1890.
These things have been done with the knowledge and countenance of
Reed Smoot. Plural marriage ceremonies have been performed by
apostles since the manifesto of 1890, and many bishops and other high
officials of the church have taken plural wives since that time. All of
the first presidency and the twelve apostles encourage, countenance,
conceal, and connive at polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and
honor and reward by high office and distinguished preferment those
who most persistently and defiantly violate the law of the land.

That is the concrete charge against this individual.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Will you read that again, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLEK. Certainly.

(b) The president of the Mormon Church and a majority of the
twelve apostles now practice polygamy and polygamous cohabitation,
and some of them have taken polygamous wives since the manifesto of
1890. These things have been done with the knowledge and counte-
nance of Reed Smoot. Plural marriage ceremonies have been performed
by apostles since the manifesto of 1890, and many bishops and other
high officials of the church have taken plural wives since that time.
All of the first presidency and the twelve apostles encourage, counte-
nance, conceal, and connive at polygamy and polygamous cohabitation,
and honor and reward by high office and distinguished preferment
those who most persistently and defiantly violate the law of the land.

The manifesto of 1890 is referred to as merely fixing the period of
great occurrences when this revelation of which I have spoken was
received and after which an appeal was made to the President of the
United States for amnesty, the Federal authorities having prosecuted
with great vigor persons who had been violating the act of 1882 against
unlawful cohabitation. Representations were made in that appeal
to the President that that practice had been wholly abandoned. The
interpretation of those papers by officials high up in the church, that
it included not only an abandonment of the practice of entering into
plural marriages, but of unlawfully cohabiting with those with whom
plural marriages had been contracted prior to the issue of the mani-
festo of 1890; the appeals that were made to Congress as the result of
which Utah was admitted into the Union in 1896 — all these things one
must be familiar with in order to understand the cogency of the cir-
cumstances which I fyave just described as occurring.

Fourth. Though pledged by the compact of statehood and bound
by the law of their Commonwealth, this supreme body, whose voice is
law to its people, and whose members were individually directly
responsible for good faith to the American people, permitted, without
protest or objection, their legislators to pass a law nullifying the
statute against polygamous cohabitation.

REED SMOOT. 45

The text of that law is set out in the protest. The legislature,
overwhelmingly Mormon, passed a law which provided that no prose-
cution should be instituted under the law forbidding polygamous
cohabitation unless it was done %'on complaint of the husband or wife,
or a relative of the accused, within the first degree of consanguinity,
or of the person with whom the unlawful act is alleged to have been
committed, or of the father or mother of said person; and no prosecu-
tion for unlawful cohabitation shall be commenced except on complaint
of the wife or alleged plural wife of the accused."

Senator DILLINGHAM. From what page do you read?

Mr. TAYLER. Page 11.

Senator HOPKINS. Is that statute in force now ?

Mr. TAYLER. "But this proviso shall not apply to prosecutions
under section 4208 defining and punishing polygamous marriages;"
which, of course —

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hopkins asked you if you expect to show
that that statute is in force now ?

Mr. TAYLER. I had not finished my statement respecting it.

Senator HOPKINS. Oh.

Mr. TAYLER. Now that law, which passed the two houses of the legis-
lature by an overwhelming majority, passed without protest, without
a sign of a ripple on the surface of the Mormon sea officially ; but the
governor, himself a Mormon, assigning the reason why he did it, that
it would arouse public sentiment in this country so vigorously against
the Mormon people that it would destroy them, vetoed the bill.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What has the respondent to do with that law?

Mr. TAYLER. The respondent?

Senator BEVERIDGE. What has that law to do with the respondent?

Mr. TAYLER. I have said only that the respondent —

Senator BEVERIBGE. What has he to do with the passage of that
law?

Mr. TAYLER. I have said only that the respondent was one of the
ruling officers of the church, and that he entered no protest against
nor did he undertake to prevent this nullification of the law.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You do not assert that he had anything to-do
with the passage of the law, one way or the other?

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, no.

Senator McCoMAS. I understand Senator Smoot was an apostle at
that time— 1901.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir. He was an apostle at that time.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You do not charge that he personally advo-
cated the passage of the law, or anything of that kind ?

Mr. TAYLER. No, 1 do not know that he did.

Now, gentlemen, those are the things we expect to prove, and upon
them ask the opinion of the committee and the Senate as to its duty.

Senator McCoMAS. Before }rou take your seat, 1 wish to ask you a
question. Was any other legislation in that direction either attempted
}r enacted thereafter ?

Mr. TAYLER. No, I think not.

Senator OVERMAN. When was that legislation passed?

Mr. TAYLER. In 1901.

Senator McCoMAS. March 8, 1901.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smoot became an apostle in 1900.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you charge the respondent himself with
violating the law of the United States in reference to polygamy ?

46 REED 8MO01.

Mr. TAYLER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. He stated that in the beginning — before yon came in.
Senator BEVERIDGE. I was not then here.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now hear Mr. Worthing ton, for
the respondent.

STATEMENT OF A. S. WORTHINGTON.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it will be perceived
chat the formal statement of the charges which are here made against
Senator Smoot, as they have been reduced to writing and read by my
friend, Mr. Tayler, differs very materially from the statement of the
charges against the Senator made in the protest itself. While we are
Drepared now to respond in a general way to those charges and to
xnrorm the committee as to what we have to say about them, we will
ask the privilege of the committee, within a few days, of reducing to
writing our answer to this formal statement, so that the committee
may have it for consideration in connection with the statement itself.

Senator MX^COMAS. I trust that will be done.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, it will be so ordered.

Senator SMOOT. Two days will be plenty. We can answer it by
Monday, if the committee wants it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. First, as to the questions of law which will arise
here, and as to which Mr. Ta}^ler has said very little. He refers to the
general language of the Constitution in reference to the expulsion of
Senators and Members of the House, and says there is no limit to the
power. 1 agree with him, Mr. Chairman, that there is no limit to
the power of the Senate in that regard. I do not agree with him that
there is no limit to the jurisdiction of the Senate. I think it will be
shown, when we come to investigate these questions of law, that the
proposition is well settled at both ends of the Capitol that neither
House has jurisdiction to consider a charge made against a Senator or
a Member of the House as to any offense alleged to have been com-
mitted by him before he was elected, unless it is something which
relates to the election itself, as that it was obtained by bribery or
something of that kind. It so happens that that question-
Senator PETTUS. Do you maintain that no moral quality in a Senator
or Member would authorize either body to expel him or refuse him a
seat?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No, Senator, I did not say that. I say for
offenses committed before he was elected.

Senator PETTUS. I mean before he was elected.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Senator PETTUS. Your proposition, as I understand, is that no
matter what a man may have done or said prior to his eiccuon, his
election purified him so far as that body is concerned?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is exactly the proposition.

I was about to say that that question was most thoroughly considered
in the House of Representatives when Mr. Roberts was sent here as a
Representative from the State of Utah. It was charged that he was
a polygamist, not in theory only, but in practice; that he was defying
the laws of the State and the compact under which the State was
admitted into the Union. He was not allowed to take his seat, and
the question of his qualification was referred to a committee, of which

REED SMOOT. 47

my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, was chairman. A very elabo-
rate and able report was prepared and submitted by the majority of
the committee, including Mr. Tayler, in which all the precedents are
gone over and in which that conclusion was reached, and that conclu-
sion was sustained by the House of Representatives by a very large
majority.

A minority of the committee, composed of two of the nine members
who reported on the matter, stated that in their opinion the House
was bound to admit Mr. Roberts because he possessed the constitu-
tional qualifications — he had the requisite age, the requisite citizenship,
and he was an inhabitant of the State — and that was all you could look
into; that they must admit him, and after being admitted they could
turn him out, and he ought to be turned out. So the question was
fairly presented, and it was conceded by everybody — I think there was
no dissent in the House or in the committee — that he could not occupy
his seat because he was a polygamist; but it was decided by the com-
mittee and by the majority of the House that if they seated him they
could not expel him, because the charge involved something that had
been committed in the past, and that therefore he must be prevented
from taking his seat.

The same question came before the Senate, I think in 1893 or there-
abouts, in the case of Senator Roach, of North Dakota. He was
elected and took his seat here without question or objection. Soon
afterwards the press throughout the country published charges against
him to the affect that while he was cashier of the Citizens' National
Bank of this city, some years before he went to North Dakota, he
embezzled funds of the bank to a very large amount, and that he was
not prosecuted, but had made some settlement with the bank and had
gone West and started anew.

That charge was true and it never was denied, and a resolution was
introduced for his expulsion and this same question was raised in the
Senate. It was debated. The side of the question which we raise
here in this case, that the Senate had no jurisdiction to consider the
matter because it was something Mr. Roach was charged with having
done before he was elected Senator, was presented by Senator Yoorhees
and Senator Mills, and they both said that they spoke for the entire
body of Democrats in the Senate, who then were in the majority in
the Seriate. The opposing side of the question was argued by Senator
Chandler and by Senator Platt, of Connecticut, and in a measure by
Senator Hawley, who, so far as appeared, spoke for themselves.

There was a great deal of debate, and all the precedents were gone
over, so that he who reads the debates in the Roberts case and the
debates in the Roach case will discover that there is very little infor-
mation that he can acquire elsewhere which will help him in considering
the matter. But the charges against Senator Roach were dropped.
There was no formal vote taken on the matter. But it does appear
clearly by the debate that a majority of the Senate was in favor of the
proposition that the Senate had no jurisdiction in that matter.

The CHAIRMAN. I have forgotten the circumstances and you seem
to be familiar with the case. Did Senator Roach resign ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No, he did not; his term expired; he stood his
ground. He himself offered a resolution that the matter be referred
to a committee and investigated. He did not deny the charge, but
offered that resolution. Senator Gorman submitted a substitute, that

48 REED SMOOT.

this committee be directed to inquire and report whether it had any
jurisdiction in the matter. Those resolutions were debated, but no
action was ever taken by the Senate.

1 am not going- to take up the time of the committee in referring
to the precedents in either House of Congress or in England, which
are all referred to and discussed in those debates, but whatever might
be the position which Senator Smoot might desire to take here as
representing himself, he is also here as the representative of a sov-
3reign State in the Union; and he is about —

Senator HOPKINS. Before you leave that point, what do you say to
this proposition ? Assuming, for argument, that the points made by
Mr. Tayler are sufficient to exclude Mr. Smoot from the Senate, what
do you say as to whether or not they are of a continuing character, if
Mr. Smoot still continues to be an apostle ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 should say he certainly would be brought
within the jurisdiction of the Senate. And I was about to come to
,^hat point.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Your argument thus far goes to the exclusion
yf everything that occurred before he was elected Senator. Is that it?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, except as it might bear upon the ques-
tion-
Senator BEVERIDGE. Of its continuance ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The question of his status when he became a
Senator. I will refer to that in a moment. I will say that of any-
thing which consists simply of a charge that he did something before
he was elected Senator, you have no jurisdiction; and I was about to
say that I have been unable to see just how it could play a very material
part in this case.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If you will permit me, that being the position
which you. take as a matter of law, as a matter of fact do you claim he
did anything different before he was elected from what he does now?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We do not.

Senator BEYERIDGE. Then the proposition does not have any prac-
tical moment.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It has practical moment, because, while we claim
that his position is not different from what it has been, the charge may
be made against him, and evidence may be offered to prove it, that his
status before was different from what it is now, and they may bring
here evidence, which may be false or may be true, tending to show
that he did objectionable things in the past, but can not show and will
not undertake to show that he has done them since he was elected a
Senator or since he has taken his seat in this body.

Senator PETTUS. Will you. allow me to ask you. a question ? Do you
contend that Mr. Smoot is not one of the apostles, and has not been
one of the apostles since his election?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We will not contend that he is not an apostle.
I am dealing with the selected question of law first.

Now, when we come to the specific charges, while it seems to have
been disclaimed by the distinguished gentleman, in response to a ques-
tion from a member of the committee, it was distinctly and positively
charged in so many words in one of the protests, the one which is
signed by but a single person, that Senator Smoot has taken a plural
wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course, you understand that I do not seek to

KEED SMOOT. 49

embarrass that protestant or anybody else or the committee by any
more than a disavowal of my representation of that claim. It may or
may not be true. I know nothing about it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That amounts to not making it.

Mr. TAYLEK. So far as I am concerned.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Yes.

Senator HOPKINS. And so far as concerns the parties you represent.
There are other parties, I understand, who do make it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So far as Mr. Tayler is concerned, he does not
make the charge.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler said that he does not appear for the party
making that charge.

Senator McCoMAS. And he is not here to support that allegation.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Senator HOPKINS. No.

Senator DUBOIS. Nor to deny it, either.

Mr. TAYLER. No.

Senator BEVERIDGE. He does not deny it; but if a man neither asserts
nor denies a thing it amounts to not making it.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not represent everybody in this matter. That is
the point.

Senator DUBOIS. As I understand Mr. Tayler, if Mr. Leilich should
appear here at the next meeting and say he could prove those charges,
Mr. Tayler does not want to prejudice his case.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Of course not.

Senator DUBOIS. Or have an}Tthing to do with it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 understand the situation. But the formal
charge is made here that Senator Smoot is a polygamist in practice;
that he has a plural wife. There is nobody here to-day to state that
evidence will be offered on that subject.

Senator McCoMAS. We may clarify the situation. Mr. Chairman,
1 should like to ask if anybody is present here now who appears to
support the allegation of polygamous practices on the part of Reed
Smoot ? Does anyone appear here among these gentlemen ? [A pause.]
There appears to be none.

The CHAIRMAN. No one seems to appear for the gentleman who
made the charge, nor do I understand that the affiant, who made the
charge, is present.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me say, notwithstanding, Mr. Chairman,
that if anybody should come here and attempt to offer evidence upon
that subject, it is to be understood that Senator Smoot absolutely and
positively denies that the charge is true or that there is any founda-
tion at all for it. He states that most solemnly upon his oath; that
he married one woman, whose name is stated in the answer, and the
date of his marriage; that he has lived with her, as American citizens
generally live with their wives, in the pure and exalted state of matri-
mon}^; that he has brought up children by her; that he has never con-
ceived the idea of marnang another; that he has never cohabited with
any other woman in his life; and if any evidence shall be offered here
tending to show that he has at any time been guilty of that offense, we
denounce it in advance as false and perjured.

As to the question of law involved there, we do not for a moment
contend that if evidence to that effect could be brought here, and if it

8--

50 REED SMOOT.

could be shown that Senator Smoot has a plural wife or has had at
any time since he was elected a Senator, or since he was admitted to
this body, he ought not to be expelled.

There is another charge which is made in distinct terms in this same
single protest. It is not made in specific terms nor is it made at all in
the general protest by those whom Mr. Tayler represents, nor as 3
have gathered from the reading of the formal charges which he pre-
sented this morning, has he distinctly charged it. The charge to
which J refer is that \vhen Senator Smoot became an apostle in the
Mormon Church, which was in the year 1900, he took an oath as an
apostle which is incompatible with the oath he took when he was
admitted to his seat in this body, the oath required by the Constitution.

He took here the oath thiit he would support the Constitution of the
United States and bear true faith and idlegiance to it, and that he took
that oath without any mental reservation. I do not recall the exact
words of the oath. It is charged ;i the protest, signed by but one per-
son here, that he had previously t:\!icn an oath as an apostle which
bound him to stand by his obligations to that oath, in respect of his
duties to the Mormon Church, as against any oath he might take there-
after, and that he is here with a mental reservation, not intending to
support the Constitution and laws of the United States, and particularly
the law which is a part of the compact between the State and the United
States under which the State was admitted into the Union.

Now, as to the question of fact there, Senator Smoot just as posi-
tively and emphatically denies that he ever took any such oath, or that
in any way he was under any obligation when he took the oath as
Senator, which is inconsistent with his oath as a Senator. And he
demands proof in that regard.

If the Senate should be satisfied that when he took that oath and
stated that he had no mental reservation, he, as a matter of fact, did
have a mental reservation; that he intended all the time to do what he
could to support polygamy, then he ought to be expelled. We make
no question about that, because you will perceive it would be some-
thing which would affect his loyalty^ and would put him in the position
of having obtained entrance into the Senate by a lie. If there is any
proof as to that, let them produce it.

Now, I want to present some matters which lead up to the situation
in Utah at the time Senator Smoot was elected, some of which have
been referred to by Mr. Tayler and others of which the members of
this committee ought to know, I think, at the outset of this investiga-
tion, so as to be able to consider properly how far the inquiry shall go
as to the organization and tenets of the Mormon Church, and as to the
practices and connivances, if there be any, of its members, including
its apostles, of whom Senator Smoot is one.

It is a fact that the doctrine of polygamy was promulgated by Joseph
Smith, founder of the Mormon Church, in the year 1843, at Nauyoo,
111. Almost within a year after that the exodus from Nauvoo to Utah
began, and the Mormons became settled in their new quarters in or
about the year 1847.

It is also true that early in the fifties the doctrine of polygamy was
publicly and formally promulgated by the church, and that it was
practiced from that time down to the year 1862, a period of about ten
years, when it was not in violation of any law. There was no law,
either of the United States or of that jurisdiction, prohibiting it. In

REED SMOOT. 51

fche year 1862 Congress passed a law, which was afterwards carried
into the Revised Statutes, which punished bigamy— made it a peniten-
tiary offense. There was nothing in the statute against polygamous
cohabitation, by which I mean—

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1862.

Senator DUBOIS. Was that the Poland law?

Mr. VAN COTT. The Poland law was in 1876, I think.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There was nothing about polygamy in the act
of 1862.

In 1882 there was passed by Congress what is known as the Edmunds
Act. It did punish polygamous marriages and polygamous cohabi-
tation with more than one woman. It also authorized amnesty by
the President for prior offenses, and it made legitimate the issue of
polygamous marriages born before January 1, 1883.

So Congress, on the 22d of March, 1882, not only authorized the
President to grant amnesty to all who had committed the offense of
polygamy or polygamous cohabitation before that time, but Congress
took care to legitimatize the children of polygamous marriages there-
tofore contracted, who might be born up to nine months and nine
days after the passage of the act.

Then there came in February, 1887, a law which is known as the
Edmunds-Tucker Act. It makes additional provisions for the prosecu-
tion of polygamy, and in three of its sections it authorizes the Attorne}^-
General to institute proceedings to forfeit and escheat to the United
States the property of the Mormon Church on the ground that it
was being used for the promulgation of polygamy or polygamous
practices. That was the act of February 19, 1887. It was not the
Edmunds-Tucker Act, by the way. The Edmunds-Tucker Act was the
act of March 3, 1887, passed shortly afterwards, which made the first
wife a competent witness, which was forbidden before; punishes adul-
tery and defines it; punishes fornication; provides for recording mar-
riages in courts, and punishes violation of the section.

In 1878 the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of
Reynolds^. United States (98 U. S., 145). The Mormons contended
that the law prohibiting plural marriages was unconstitutional because
it was in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution, which
prohibits any interference with religious beliefs, and that the belief in
polygamy was a part of their religion, and therefore Congress had no
right to interfere.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Reynolds,
laid down very strongly and emphatically the contention which the
Mormons made that Congress could not interfere with a man's belief,
no matter what he believed; that so far as he confined it to a belief,
Congress could not interfere with it; but that when, in pursuance of
that belief, he undertook to violate any law he was outside the protec-
tion of the Constitution and must be punished.

Senator McCoMAS. Give me the reference to that case.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Reynolds v. United States (98 U. S., 145).

Then came the case of Murphy v. Ramsay (114 U. S., 15), in which
the court held that section 8 of the act of March 22. 1882, disfranchis-
ing polygamists, was not void as being an ex post facto law, because
the court says it applies to the status of the man when he undertook
to vote.

52 KEED SMOOT.

Then came the case of Davis v. Beason (133 U. S., 333), which is
known as the Idaho case. The legislature of Idaho, then a Territory,
passed a law which was more stringent than any that had gone before,
because it not only prevented a potygamist from voting and holding
office, but it also put up the bars against any man who counseled of
aided or abetted others to commit polygamy, and still further pre-
vented the voting or holding of office by any man who was a member
of a church which encouraged or aided or abetted the practice of
polygamy. It was contended that the act went further than the legis-
lature had any power to go, and in this case, in 133 U. IB. , the Supreme
Court sustained that law.

Then came the case of the Mormon Church v. The United States.
(136 U. S. 1.) In that case the Federal court had found the facts as
required by the law in all cases originating in the Territoriea and
coming up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has i.othing to
do with the question of facts, but they are found and tabulated by the
court below. That court found in that case that about, and only
about, 20 per cent of the marriageable Mormons at that time were
practicing polygamy — in 1887 — and that since the act of 1887 that
some ministers or preachers of that church in good standing had con-
tinued to inculcate the doctrine of polygamy, and the court sustained
the law, which forfeited the property of the Church and all the prop-
erty which had been held by a corporation for the Church.

It was this series of judicial decisions which finally brought the
Mormon Church to realize the fact that they were compelled to obey
the law. Perhaps I put that more strongly than I should, because as
early as 1884, and certainly as early as 1887, the great bod}^ of the
Mormon people had recognized the fact that they would have to obey
the law against polygam3T, and there was, possibly from 1884, and
•certainly from 1887, very little recognition of that practice by any-
body, and none by the church.

Then came this paper called the manifesto. It is known in the
history of the Mormon Church as the manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1890?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was promulgated by the president of the
church on the 25th or the 26th of September, 1890, a nd what Mr. Tayler
did not state is that on the 6th of October following, in one of the
semiannual meetings of the whole body of the church, which was held
in the Tabernacle at Salt Lake (a meeting which corresponds to town
meetings in New England; all the people who have a voice come
together), and where there were — how many thousands can it seat?

Senator SMOOT. Ten thousand.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This manifesto was there presented, and it was
formally ratified by the unanimous vote of the Mormon people.

That great manifesto, after certain recitals, proceeds:

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages,
which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby
declare my intention to submit to those laws and to use my influence with the mem-
bers of the church over which I preside to have them do likewise. * * '' I pub-
licly declare that my advice to the Latter Day Saints —

The name by which the Mormons call themselves —
is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

REED SMOOT. 53

Therefore, so far as positive action taken by the church itself can
go, in the fall of 1890, not only the leader, the head of the church,
speaking for the organization, but the great body of the church by
unanimous vote resolved that polygamy must go, and that they would
abide by the law of the land in that regard.

Now, there are some very important documents to which the atten-
tion of the committee should be called. On February 14, 1893, Presi-
dent Harrison issued an amnesty proclamation. He had been specifically
authorized, you will remember, by the act of 1882 to do that. This
proclamation recites that act, and then recites the manifesto, and then
proceeds:

Whereas it is represented that since the date of said declaration the members and
adherents of said church have generally obeyed said laws and have abstained from
plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation; and

Whereas by a petition dated December 19, 1891, the officials of said church,
pledging the membership thereof to a faithful obedience to the laws against plural
] mrriage and unlawful cohabitation, have applied to me to grant amnesty for those
offenses, r*.c.

It then proceeds to refer to a certain report of a Congressional com-
mia:ioii, known as the Utah Commission, and announces that he grants
pardon to all who have, since November 1, 1890, abstained from
such unlawful cohabitation on condition that they obey the laws
against -polygamy . So the offense of ever}7 member of the Mormon
Church, you v/.ill perceive, was then wiped out, except as to those who
had lived in polygamous relations after the 1st of November, 1890, or
those who subsequent to the date of the proclamation should violate
the law in that regard.

Senator DUBOIS. The manifesto of September 25 or 26, which was
afterwards twice, I think, ratified, although you mentioned but one time,
was signed by whom?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was signed by Wilford Woodruff, president
of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. The amnesty proclamation was issued by President
Harrison in response, I believe you said, to a petition or the manifesto ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Both.

Senator DUBOIS. Or documents by the church, signed in December,
1891?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. A petition dated December 19, 1891.

Senator DUBOIS. Who signed that document on which amnesty was
granted ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was signed by a number of the leading officials
of the Mormon Church; I do not remember their names.

Senator DUBOIS. Was it not signed by the first presidency arid twelve
apostles?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think it was.

Senator SMOOT. I rather think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was.

Senator DUBOIS. That is what I thought.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But no matter who signed it, it was intended to
make manifest to the President that those who had the right to speak
for the church, and did speak for it, pledged themselves to him to obey
the law.

Senator DUBOIS. The second document was stronger than the tirst.

Mr, WORTHINGTON. Yes.

54 REED SMOOT.

Next in order comes the net of Congress of October 25, 1893. This
is a finding- of this body:

Whereas said church has discontinued the practice of polygamy, and no longer
encourages or gives countenance in any manner to practices in violation of law or
contrary to good morals or public policy, and if said personal property is restored to
the said church it will not be devoted to any such unlawful purpose.

Then it directs the receiver, who had been appointed by the court
in Utah to take charge of all the property of the church, real and per-
sonal, to turn over to the church for certain specified charitable uses,
set forth in the act itself, all of the personal property in his hands.
It left the real estate in his hands.

Then came the act of July 16, 1894 (28 Stat., 107), which is known
as the enabling act, in its general features like other laws under which
Territories have been admitted into the Union as States. But in view
of the peculiar situation in Utah, this law provided, by section 3, that
the State convention which was to be called should provide —

By ordinance irrevocable, "without the consent of the United States and the people
of said State —

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no
inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of
his or her mode of religious worship: Provided, That polygamous or plural mar-
riages are forever prohibited.

Observe, Mr. Chairman, that the condition upon which the State
was admitted into the Union, whatever this may amount to, much or
little, is that u polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohib-
ited." There was no condition annexed to the act that those who had
previously married plural wives should not continue to live with
them.

Next in order comes another amnesty proclamation by President
Cleveland, on the 25th of September, 1894 (28 Stat., 1257). This
proclamation recites the act of March 22, 1882, and the manifesto of
October 20, 1890; also the proclamation of President Harrison of
September 14, 1893, and proceeds —

Whereas * * * I am satisfied that the members and adherents of the said
church generally abstain from plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation.

And then he proceeds to pardon all except those who have not
complied with the conditions of the previous proclamation.

The CHAIRMAN. Who issued that proclamation?

Mr. WORTHIXGTON. President Cleveland. He pardoned everyone
except those who had not complied with the previous proclamation.

Finally came another act of Congress, passed on the 28th of March,
1896, which directed the receiver appointed Irv the court in Utah to
turn back to the church all the real estate and all the rents, issues, and
profits thereof which had accumulated in his hands.

So Congress by repeated acts, the President by two proclamations,
had decided that the Mormon Church had complied with the laws,
except as to some specific individuals who were excluded from the
benefits of the proclamation, and that the church might take back all
that she had owned, real and personal. 1 said that was the final step.
There was one thing more — that the people of Utah did comply with
the conditions which Congress had put into the enabling act.

The convention adopted as a part of the organic act of Utah the
condition of the enabling act exactly in the words of the enabling act.
Thereupon President Cleveland issued this proclamation on the 4th of

EEED SMOOT. 55

January, iStKj. It recites compliance with all the provisions of the
enabling act, and then declares:

Now, therefore, I, * * * do hereby declare and proclaim that the terms and
conditions prescribed by the Congress of the United States to entitle the State of
Utah to admission into the Union have been duly complied with, and that the crea-
tion of said State and its admission into the Union on an equal footing with the
original States is now accomplished.

That was the final act by which the Government of the United States
decided that the State of Utah had done everything that was required
of her to admit her into the Union, and she came in, so far as this
matter is concerned, simply upon condition that plural marriages
should be prohibited, and forever prohibited.

The CHAIRMAN. Utah was admitted in 1896.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In 1896. Congress ratified that by admitting
her Senators and Representatives here, and they have sat ever since.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Worthington, do you insist that these declara-
tions, made by an act of Congress, are conclusive on the fact as to
whether or not these practices have been abandoned?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It would seem to me so.

Senator PETTUS. Conclusive ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It would seem to me so. I was going to say
that in view of the situation, what had gone before — the provisions of
the enabling act and of the proclamation of the President admitting
the State into the Union — that the inquiry here, if you are going into
the matter of the Mormon Church to see what it as a church and as a
body has done, it seems to me should be limited to the period since the
State was admitted into the Union; and that if since then the provisions
of the enabling act have been complied with, it certainly would not be
a ground for denying the State representation in Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you expect to show in answer to the charge
that since the State has been admitted into the Union the governing
body of the church, to wit, the first presidency and twelve apostles,
practice and live in polygamy ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was just about to say that I had concluded
the statement of our case, so far as it devolved upon me. There is
associated with me here Mr. Van Cott, who is a member of the bar of
Salt Lake Cit\r, and a Gentile, let me say, and a man who in the past
has been very hostile to the Mormon Church. As he lives in Utah
and is familiar, more familiar than I am, of course, with the facts in
that regard, it had been arranged, if the committee will permit, that
he should state our position in that respect.

1 was about to close what I had to sa}r by suggesting to the commit-
tee this inquiry: If the position and the question be whether Utah has
complied with the enabling act, and whether, for not complying with
it, with the condition upon which it was admitted, her Senators and
Members should be excluded, is that not a question or a proceeding
as to which the State should be a party ?

Senator HOPKINS. Will you state that again ?

Mr. WTORTHINGTON. Whether that should not require a proceeding
as to which the State should be a party.

Senator HOPKINS. Is not the State a party if its agent is the one
who is directly interested?

Senator BEVERIDGE. The proposition Mr. Worthington is? making
would exclude anybody elected as a Senator from Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, exactly.

56 REED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. No matter whether or not he believed in the
Mormon Church or believed in anything —

Senator HOPKINS. Yes.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Upon the ground that the State has not com-
plied with the terms upon which it was admitted —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Exactly. If the ground be taken, and it has
been taken here, that Senator Smoot -

Senator BEVERIDGE. Regardless of his religious belief or anything
like that.

Senator HOPKINS. It would apply to Senator Kearns as well as to
Senator Smoot.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Because the State committed the offense.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The proposition has been made here squarely
that Senator Smoot should be excluded because the State has not com-
plied with the conditions upon which it was admitted.

Senator PETTUS. I do not understand that any such proposition had
been made here.

Mr. TAYLER. No such proposition has been made by me.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I understand Mr. Worthington to say that if
the State has not lived up to the terms upon which it was admitted,
anybody who may have been elected might, simply because the State
had not lived up to the terms upon which it was admitted, be excluded.
He did not say that he would so hold, but that that would be the
logical result; and he contested it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In my opinion, Senator Smoot could not be
excluded upon that ground, but it must be for some offense which he
has committed.

Senator PETTUS. I do not suppose any one would insist upon that
contention.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I had gathered that whoever wrote the memo-
rial had that in mind, and that is the reason I presented it.

STATEMENT OF WALDEMAR VAN COTT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I
am sorry I was not able to grasp the entire meaning of Mr. Tayler's
statement and to remember it, so as to give the committee the benefit
of replying to it at this time. However, we will do so in writing
Monday. There are some things that I carry in mind and to which I
can refer very briefly.

Mr. Tayler said there was a bill introduced in the legislature pro-
viding in regard to polygamy, that the complaint could only be made
by the husband or wife or the party who was wronged or relatives within
the first degree of consanguinity; that the legislature was overwhelm-
ingly Mormon, which is true, and that it passed without a ripple.
In that statement Mr. Tayler, not having been in Utah, is violently
mistaken. It did make a ripple. It made big waves, and there was
a great deal of talk, not only by Mormons but by Gentiles, over any
such proposed legislation. It was not a ripple; it was violent.

The act went to a Mormon governor. He vetoed it. It went back
to the Mormon legislature. They could have passed it over his veto.
They sustained his veto. If we go into that question in the evidence
will be reasons shown, which I would rather not state now, as to

REED SMOOT. 57

; : \ probably that act was introduced. I will say this brie% from my
.standpoint. In the Mormon Church there are men who are wise and
men who are very unwise, just as there are in other churches, just as
there are in all parties and in all bodies. The Mormon Church is by
no means free of its foolish men, and from my standpoint that was
an exceedingly foolish measure. But if we go into the matter it will
be found that Senator Smoot had nothing to do with it.

Going on briefly to another matter or two, Mr. Worthington has
laid down the legal proposition that the committee has no right to
inquire into Senator Smoot' s acts before the time when he was elected.
That we adhere to as a legal proposition ; but as a matter of propriety
we throw down the bars to this committee. So far as Senator Smoot
is concerned, you can go into his whole life as to polygamy, as to
polygamous cohabitation, or as to his ever having been a bigamist at
any time, and if it is proven that he ever was, 1 think his counsel will
walk out of the committee room, and will refuse to represent him
further.

In regard to his moral character, in regard to his character as a good
citizen, and as a man, the bars are down for the protestants to go into
it as fully as they may desire. If Senator Smoot has ever taken an
oath which is inconsistent with his oath and obligation as a United
States Senator, and as a good citizen, the bars are down for investigation,
so far as he is concerned.

Senator McCoMAS. If }^ou will permit me, without diverting you,
if Senator Smoot, as an apostle, has taken oaths, are those oaths
matter of public notoriety ? Do you understand the matter of allega-
tion here to be that there are secret oaths ? You have read this protest.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; I understand. Of course, I can not speak
from my own knowledge, because I am not a member of the Mormon
Church, but as having been advised as counsel, and from the informa-
tion I have sought I may state that it will appear positively and con-
clusively to the committee that the apostles take no covenant, no
oath, and no obligation. It may be —

Senator DUBOIS. How about the elders ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I was going to say that persons who take their
endowments take a covenant, but that is not the charge here. It is
that he has taken an oath as an apostle. As to the other oath, or any
oath which it is alleged Senator Smoot has ever taken, we will show
he has never taken any such obligation.

Now, Mr. Tayler suggested that the committee had unlimited power,
and, in a general way, I have no dispute with that proposition; but he
did suggest the question of propriety, and there are two questions
that I want to mention to the committee particularly in regard to pro-
priety as affecting the scope of this investigation. I do it because, if
we are going to go over certain matters, it will probably consume
weeks, if not months, of the committee's time to investigate them.

The first proposition I make, as a matter of propriety, is this: We
say that this investigation should be confined to Senator Smoot, and
that it should not be extended to others. For instance —

Senator PETTUS. One moment, that I may understand you clearly.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Senator PETTUS. Do you mean that we could not investigate the con-
duct of his associate apostles ? You have limited it to the period since
his election. Do you mean that we could not investigate the conduct

58 EEED SMOOT.

and habits and practices of his associate apostles and of the head of the
Church?

Mr. VAN COTT. If you will pardon me, I will restate the proposition,
because I can not answer it either yes or no. Mr. Tayler made the
proposition that the power of the committee in regard to the scope of
the investigation is practically unlimited.

Senator PETTUS. No; 1 am not talking about power. I understood
Mr. Tayler to qualify that by the question of propriety or justice.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; I was coming to that point.

Senator PETTUS. 1 want to inquire of you whether the committee in
justice, doing right, could not investigate the association of the Senator
with the other apostles, and what the other apostles did, and what his
conduct has been in reference to their conduct.

Mr. VAN COTT. May I state the whole proposition, Senator, please?

Mr. Tayler, as I understand, stated the proposition that the power
of the committee is practically unlimited. As to that, we agree in
general terms that the power of the committee is practically unlimited.
Now, as to the matter of propriety, we say that it should be confined
to Senator Smoot, but if the committee desires, as the Senator asks
whether it can go into other matters, I say yes; it is within its power
to do so. The question [ shall argue briefly is as to the propriety of
going into other matters.

If Mr. Smoot stood at the bar of justice charged with an offense,
you would not convict him of bigamy or polygamy, or polygamous
cohabitation by proving that John Doe or Richard Roe had entered
into that relation.

Senator HOPKINS. This is not exactly a law suit.

Mr. VAN COTT. I was coming to that just briefly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. May I ask a question ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you admit the jurisdiction of this com-
mittee to inquire into the practices and lives, etc., of other men with
whom Senator Smoot is associated as an apostle of the Church?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think the committee can do about as it pleases.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You admit the jurisdiction ?

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 have not said a word about that. The point was,
that while I recognize that this is not a court, yet I was simply saying,
as an illustration, that if Senator Smoot was charged with an offense,
if he was charged with aiding or counseling or abetting the violation
of airy law, you would not prove that, and you could not prove it by
going to some stranger, to some person wrho was not connected with
Senator Smoot, some person with whom he was not advising and was
not counseling, for the purpose of charging him with it. That is the
first proposition.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Then upon what ground do you admit the
jurisdiction of the committee to examine into the lives of his associates ?

Mr. VAN COTT. It was simply as to the power. The committee has
the power.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I am not asking about the power; 1 am asking
about the jurisdiction. There was an argument here, and a very full
one, about jurisdiction.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is simply as to the power of the committee; that
it has the power to do it.

Now, in this connection it is pertinent, and I wish to say that we

HEED SMOOT. 59

throw down the bars to the protestants to show that Senator Smbot
ever, at any time and under any circumstances, has encouraged the
violation of any law, either against polygamy or polygamous cohabita-
tion, by any person.

The CHAIRMAN. Ma}7 I ask what answer }^ou expect to make to the
charge that the first presidency and the apostles, or a majority of
them, are to-day living in polygamy? What do you expect to prove
on that point?

Mr. VAN COTT. Shall I answer right now?

The CHAIRMAN. At any time. That is one of the charges made.
Take your own course, but before you get through I wish you would
indicate your purpose in this regard.

Mr. VAN COTT. I have spoken briefly of the power of the commit-
tee, and what we think is the propriety with respect to the scope of
the investigation. As a corollary to that, I want to make this propo-
sition: If the committee should conclude, inasmuch as the Senator asks
as to the power of the committee, to go into the matter of what the
associates of Senator Smoot have done — that is, in regard to polygamy
or polygamous cohabitation, in regard to the conduct of members of
the Church, then we say that as a matter of propriety the inquiry
should be limited either to the date of statehood or the issuance of the
manifesto.

I wish to state the reasons why I think, as a matter of propriety, it
should be limited either to the issuance of the manifesto or to the time
when Utah became a State, if you are going to enlarge the scope of
the inquiry and go into the conduct of the apostles, of the first presi-
dency, and of members of the church. The reasons, and I will state
them briefly, although there are a great many of them, are these:
When the manifesto was issued or when Utah became a State, certain
acts had taken place which we think the Senate Committee ought not
to go behind, and 1 will state why.

In Utah there was first the antipolygamy law of 1862, and I will pass
that over. There was next the law of 1882. That was the Edmunds
bill, which was introduced and passed in regard to polygamy. In that
were defined polygamy and polygamous or unlawful cohabitation.

I will then skip along to 1886, when Senator Edmunds, and I believe
Representative Tucker, of Virginia, had passed what is called the
Edmunds-Tucker act. That bill was very drastic in its provisions.
When it came before the Senate committee and the House committee,
evidence was taken in regard to what the Mormons had done, in regard
to their first presidency, in regard to the twelve apostles, in regard to
the members of the Mormon Church generally.

At the hearing which was had before the Senate committee (and the
documents are now on file here), Mr. Baskin, a very prominent Gentile
of Utah, and others, Governor West, I think, of Utah, also a Gentile,
and many others came before the committee. In that hearing the mat-
ter of the oaths which the Mormons were charged with taking was
gone into fully. The Mountain Meadow massacre was gone into fully.
The killing of some people in Salt Lake City and other places, and which
had been charged to the Mormons, was gone into fully. The power of
the church over its members was gone into fully. In fact everything,
I think, that I have ever heard or the Gentiles have ever heard of in
the State of Utah that could be charged against the Mormon Church
was brought up in that hearing.

60 REED SMOOT..

The CHAIRMAN. What hearing was that?

Mr. VAN COTT. A hearing before the Senate committee and the
House committee in 1886, and again in 1889.

The reason wiry I mention this is to show what Congress had before
it up as late as 1889. 1 think, if I remember correctly, Senator Dubois
made full statements at both times in regard to the Mormons and their
practices and the crimes they were charged with, and everything of
that kind.

Senator DUBOIS. That is correct. And in this connection I will say
I took the same position that Baskin and the other gentlemen you
have mentioned did, and I took the same position that they did after-
wards in advocating Utah's admission as a State on the ground that
these conditions had passed away, in our judgment.

Mr. VA.N COTT. That was as late as 1889. The reason I am men-
tioning all this so fully is to show to the committee why there should
be a time when you should stop going backwards, because these pro-
tests embrace charges back to 1843, and even before that.

In 1890 for the Gentiles of Utah was the first rift in the clouds,
and that was the manifesto which was issued wherein the Church gave
up polygamy and wherein President Woodruff advised its members in
all their marriages to obey the law of the land. That was in 1890, as
I say. In 1891 the parties commenced to divide on party lines. We
had never had national parties or national politics in Utah up to that
time. In 1892 what was called the Liberal party — the Gentile party-
was entirely dissolved; what was called the People's party — the Mor-
mon party — was entirely dissolved; and the people were divided on
party lines. That matter then went along until 1892, when the people
in Utah, Mormons and Gentiles, thought they ought to have more
rights in the way of selecting and electing their officers to govern over
them.

In that hearing H. W. Smith came down here before the committee
of the House. H. W. Smith, I know, is well known to Senator
Dubois. Mr. Smith is reputed to have drawn the Idaho test law
which was referred to by Mr. Worthington. In that hearing Mr.
Smith advocated the passage of this bill., as the old conditions had been
done away with in Utah. Governor West, a prominent Gentile, at that
time took the same position. Other Gentiles came here and advocated
the same position. That was in 1892, and in 1893 it was recognized
by the petition which was sent in from the Mormon people and
indorsed by most or many, I will put it, of the prominent Gentiles
(and, as I understand, there was no protest from anyone), that
amnesty should be granted and that those who had obeyed that manifesto
should not be disfranchised longer. That amnesty was granted by
President Harrison in 1893.

In the next year, 1894, President Cleveland granted amnesty again
to all those who had obeyed the law, and I think that that dated from
the amnesty granted by President Harrison.

That matter then went along until 1894, when the constitutional
convention met in Utah for statehood. In it were represented polyg-
amists, some of the apostles of the Mormon Church, some bishops,
many members of the Mormon Church. There were represented
prominent Gentiles in Utah, men who for years had been fighting the
Mormon Church. That convention adopted a constitution, and on
January 4, 1896, Utah was admitted into the Union as a State.

KEED SMOOT. 61

Now, the point 1 make first is this: Congress had before it all of
these charges and all of this information of everything that had ever
been known which could be charged against the Mormon Church. We
had fought it out, and the Mormons had come to our standard in
regard to monogamy. Now, when it was fought out down to that
time, I maintain that if the committee is now going to investigate that
matter, it ought not to go behind the point where Congress cut it off.

Senator BEYERIDGE. That is, with the admission of the State?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes. sir. That is a matter of propriety. 1 say as
a matter of propriety if you go into the acts of the apostles, the first
presidency, and the Mormon Church, it ought to be since Utah became
a State, because up to that time everything had been investigated, the
account had been settled; it had been balanced; it had been paid off,
and Utah had become a State. That is the contention, briefly, on that
point.

Now, there is another point in connection with the question of pro-
priety as to what the committee should investigate, which I suggest to
the committee with much deference, and it is this: In the act of 1882
there were two crimes defined; first, polygamy; that is, taking more
than one wife. There was another crime defined, because there were
many persons living in polygamy before that law was passed. So
there was another crime defined in the act, and that is what is known
as unlawful cohabitation or polygamous cohabitation. It is the hold-
ing out to the world of more than one woman as your wife. Before
Utah became a State it was known to every layman in the State of
Utah — it was well known to Congress — that these two crimes existed.
There was the actual condition of people who had been living in
polygamy.

Now, the question is, should this committee investigate cases of
unlawful cohabitation or simply cases of polygamy ? As a matter of
propriety, I say they should investigate only cases of polygamy and
not of polygamous cohabitation, with one proviso, which I will state a
little later. I want to state the reason why the committee, I think, as
a matter of propriety, should do that. It is this: In the enabling act —
and I will have to furnish the committee later with those references if
it desires, because I see the books are not here, so that I can refer to
them — in the constitutional convention, and I will start there, because
that is the natural place to begin, there was present Mr. C. S. Varian,
a very prominent Gentile. He had been assistant United States dis-
trict attorney and also United States district attorney in the prose-
cution of polygamy cases and unlawful cohabitation cases, and had
been very vigorous and had been very successful. I have no doubt it
was largely through his efforts that the condition came about where
the Gentiles united with the Mormons. He was in the constitutional
convention. When the proposed constitution was reported to the con-
vention, the language of the constitution was simply like the language
of the enabling act — u polygamous or plural marriages are forever pro-
hibited." That is all there was in the proposed constitution, and that
is just like the enabling act.

I wish to call your attention to the significance of it. It is not
"unlawful cohabitation and polygamous cohabitation and polygamy
are forever prohibited," but that " polygamy is forever prohibited in
the State of Utah." When that was reported to the convention Mr.
Varian called attention to the fact that that provision was not self-

62 REED SMOOT.

executing; that it would take legislation for the purpose of backing
it up, and therefore he proposed an amendment to the effect that a
certain act of the legislature of Utah, which punished polygamy, be
engrafted right into the constitution, so that it would be self-executing
in its provisions.

In the discussion of that, Mr. Varian called attention to the act.
He said it should be engrafted into the constitution so far as polygamy
was concerned, but so far as unlawful or polygamous cohabitation was
concerned, adultery was concerned, and those things, they should not
go -in to the constitution.

I call your attention to this because all of them had in their minds
right then that what they were striking at was polygamy, and they
were not striking at the polygamous cohabitation which might exist
with certain people who before that time had formed these polygamous
relations. Now, that is the enabling act and the Constitution. That
was in 189t>.

To go a little before that, I wish to call the attention of the commit-
tee to the first amnesty which was granted by President Harrison, and
to the significance of what President Harrison said in it, and also to
call the attention of the committee to the fact that President Harrison
knew there were some people who were living in polygamous cohab-
itation, but determined that Utah was not to be deprived of statehood
and all her citizens penalized because there were some people who could
not be made to obey that law.

I will go back a little further than that. In 1892, when Mr. H. W.
Smith, whom I have mentioned (we always called him Kentucky
Smith), was before the committee here, and I can call }7our attention
to it in the report of the committee proceedings, he stated to the
committee that there were some old fellows out there who were living
in unlawful cohabitation whom }TOU could not chop off; and I suspect
that was true — you could not chop them off; and some Gentiles recog-
nized that fact.

When this matter came before President Harrison in 1893, I wish
to call your attention first to his " whereas," where he says that gen-
erally the law is obeyed; and he says, without reading all of it, under
date of January 4, 1893:

Whereas it is represented that since the date of said declaration the members and
adherents of said Church have generally obeyed said laws, and have abstained from
plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation —

Then going to the end of his amnesty I read this part:

I * * * do hereby declare and grant a full amnesty and pardon to all persons
liable to the penalties of said act by reason of unlawful cohabitation under the color
of polygamous or plural marriage who have since November 1, 1890, abstained from
such unlawful cohabitation.

President Harrison recognized that there were some people there
who were living in polygamous cohabitation and that you could not
stop them.

In the same way, without stopping to read it, a }Tear later, I think
in September, 1894, President Cleveland makes practically the same
recital and grants pardon to those who had obeyed the laws since
President Harrison's amnesty was issued.

I mention this for the purpose of showing that in the enabling act,
in the Constitution, in the hearings before the committee, in the

REED SMOOT. 63

amnesty granted by President Harrison and in the amnesty granted
by President Cleveland, it was polygamy that was struck at and not
polygamous cohabitation. The reason was that they recognized that
with the small number of men who were in polygamy it was only a
question of time when it would die out, and they would not deprive
Utah of statehood simply because there were some of those people
who could not be brought to obey the law.

Now, the one qualification which I wanted to make to that proposi-
tion is this: If the committee should find, and I have no doubt of it in
my own mind, that there are some people living in polygamous cohab-
itation in the State of Utah, the inquiry ought to be directed, if you
go into the question, to those who obeyed the law when Utah became
a State, obeyed the law when the amnesty was granted, and who have
since violated it. It ought not to be directed to those who did not
then obey the law and who since have not obeyed it, because it was
well known by the President, it was well known by Congress, that
there were some who were not obe\dng it.

Senator OVERMAN. Let me ask you a question for information.

Mr. VAN COTT. Certainly.

Senator OVERMAN. What do you mean by "polygamous cohabita-
tion '( " Is there any difference between that and the usual crime of
fornication, denounced in the States as " fornication" and " adultery ?"

Mr. VAN COTT. It is just the same with one exception, if you will
let me explain.

In Washington and other places, I suppose, there is not a man who
comes up and says that he has two wives. So, if he lives with a woman
not his wife, he is guilty of fornication or adultery. In Utah a man
comes out and says: "A is my wife; B is my wife; C is my wife."

Senator OVERMAN. He announces it publicly. That is the difference ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Practically.

Senator PETTUS. I ask if marriage is not a part of " polygamous
cohabitation ? "

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you mean polygamous marriage?

Senator PETTUS. Is not marriage a part of the definition of "polyga-
mous cohabitation ? "

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; exactly.

Senator PETTUS. A second marriage ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; it presupposes the marriage. That is the
difference.

Senator McCoMAS. You have there a document. Please give the
number of it and whether it is a House or Senate document.

Mr. VAN COTT. This is the protest, and here I have the hearings
before the Committee on Territories.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a reference to the document to which the
Senator from Maryland refers ?

Senator McCoMAS. 1 see he has not.

Mr. VAN COTT. If the committee desires I will make up a list of
these documents and furnish it to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to have you do so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Therefore we say that if the committee goes into
the matter of unlawful cohabitation, it should go into it as to those
who obeyed the law when Utah became a State and have since violated
it, and should not go into it as to those who were disobeying it at the
time and were known to be disobeying it, as it would not throw any

64 KEED 8MOOT.

light on the inquiry. I mention it because it would probably take
very long to go over the matter.

Let me speak veiy briefly as to the point stated in the protest repre-
sented by Mr. Tayler; and this is one reason why we have made the
argument we have in regard to the propriety of what the committee
should go into. On page 25, speaking of Senator Smoot, it says:

We accuse him of no offense cognizable by law.

If that is true, then it is simply an investigation into other matters
and into his associates.

Senator BEVERIDGE. A minute ago, Mr. Van Cott, I understood you
to admit — my attention was directed to it because of the argument of
Mr. Worthington — that in the investigation into the qualification of
Mr. Smoot to sit as a Senator of the United States it is within the
jurisdiction of this committee to inquire into the practices of his asso-
ciate apostles. The last part of your argument has been directed far
beyond that — to the question, not whether some other people in Utah
are practicing polygamy, but polygamous cohabitation.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you also admit, in deciding the question of
the qualification of the respondent to sit as a Senator of the United
States, the jurisdiction of the committee to examine into that?

Mr. VAN COTT. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Not only his associate apostles, but any crime
of the kind you have mentioned existing elsewhere in Utah ?

Mr. VAN COTT. No, sir. I want to restate the proposition. The
proposition I made first was that as a matter of propriety we thought
the committee should only go into Senator Smoot's life and conduct.
Then if the committee thinks it will go into other matters, I argued
the proposition that it should only investigate polygamy since state-
hood. Does that answer the question, Senator Beveridge?

Senator BEVERIDGE. I think it does.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was the proposition.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I understood your proposition, in answer to the
question of Senator Pettus, to be that in examining into the qualifica-
tions of the respondent to sit as a United States Senator, not only his
own life and conduct might be examined into, but also the life and
conduct of his associate apostles; and I understand now that }^ou go
further and say that in examining into the qualifications of the respond-
ent to sit as a Senator the offenses of other people, somebody else in
Utah, may also be examined.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was only upon the qualification, if the committee

foes into those things, that it ought to be limited to a certain date,
did admit, as Senator Beveridge says, that as to what Senator Smoot
has done we throw down the bars. As to other people and other
things, we think they should be excluded, but if they are gone into,
that then it should be as to polygamy and only since statehood.

The chairman asked me a question in regard to the first presidency
and twelve apostles, I believe, as to whether they are polygamists and
practicing unlawful cohabitation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Passing over all preliminaries to the manifesto
in 1890 and the admission of the State in 1896, I Avant to know what
answei is proposed to be made to the charge that the governing power
of the church, to wit, the presidency and twelve apostles, are to-day
living in polygamy.

REED 8MOOT. 65

Mr. VAN COTT. Of course I am not advised right on the inside of
those things, and I am not supposed to be, and I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not advised as to what evidence will be pre-
sented on that point?

Mr. VAN COTT. I was going to say that so far as my personal
knowledge goes

Mr. WOKTHINGTON. I am requested by Senator Smoot to interrupt
Mr. Van Cott for a moment to say that the chairman assumes what
Senator Smoot understands is not the fact at all; that is, that the apos-
tles are a part of the governing body of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Omitting that, take the three individuals consti-
tuting the presidency, and -the twelve making up the apostles, what is
expected to be shown in answer to the charge that any or all of those
people are to-day living in polygamy ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Answering you, Mr. Chairman, when you said the
" governing body "

The CHAIRMAN. I omit that.

Mr. VAN COTT. I understood you; and I was going to pass that
over without making any correction, because I understood the meaning.
In regard to the others mentioned, frankly speaking, I know nothing
about whether they are living in polygamy or not. I have inquired.
Of the first presidency, composed of Joseph F. Smith, John R.
Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, I will say that Anthon H. Lund, one of
the first presidency, I have always understood, was a monogamist;
that he has never gone into polygamy; that he has never advised it or
encouraged it. In regard to John R. Winder —

The CHAIRMAN. I do not care about the details. What, if any-
thing, do you propose to show upon that point generally ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I am stating it because I can not answer yes or no.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. VAN COTT. In regard to John R. Winder, 1 understand with-
out a doubt — I know him intimately — that he is a monogamist. He is
not practicing unlawful cohabitation.

Senator DUBOIS. That is admitted by Mr. Tayler. There is no con-
tention over that at all. I listened very attentively to his statement —

Mr. TAYLER. My understanding is that two first councilors to the
president of the church are not polygamists. At least we make no
such claim and make no proof of it.

Senator DUBOIS. But that a majority of the apostles are?

The CHAIRMAN. How about the president?

Mr. VAN COTT. I was coming to him. As to the president, I under-
stand by repute, and I believe it, that he is a polygamist. I inquired,
long before I was connected with this case, as to whether he was living
in polygamy, and I have been informed both ways. I have been told
that he was not obe}ring the law. I have been told that he was. As to
that I have no proof, and I do not know, and Senator Smoot does not
know, and if he did I should give the information to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you a question in this connection ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Certainly.

t The CHAIRMAN. How many wives is it reputed he has ?
; Mr. VAN COTT. I do not remember, and could not state.
i The CHAIRMAN. Now as to the apostles.

Mr. VAN COTT. In regard to the apostles, 1 know several of them,

66 REED SMCOT.

and my present recollection is that there are six or seven who are
polygamists, and the others never have been polygamists.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you mean by " polygamists "—living
with polygamous wives?

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 say "polygamists." I mean by that that they had
married more than one wife.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It does not mean polygamy.

Mr. VAN COTT. In regard to polygamous cohabitation, there is not
one of these apostles that I know of who is living in polygamous
cohabitation. I have heard, as to several, that they have obeyed the
law strictly ever since the manifesto of President Woodruff in 1890.
If there is one of them who has been living in polygamous cohabita-
tion since the manifesto I have not personal knowledge of it, and I do
not know of it, so far as the proof is concerned.

Senator McCoMAS. I understand the statement of Mr. Tayler in sub-
stance on that point to be this. He claimed that the protestants expect
to prove that the president and a majority of the apostles believe in
and practice polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and that these
things are done with the knowledge, connivance, and countenance of
the others — the president and the apostles — and with the knowledge
and countenance of Senator Smoot, one of the apostles. I think that
is it in substance.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And that that constitutes a disqualification.

Senator McCoMAS. And that that is a ground of disqualification in
the Senator.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am glad Senator McComas has called my atten-
tion to it, as I might have overlooked it. I want to reply to that.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 understand you are not prepared to say what
proof you will submit in answer to that charge.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; but my understanding is that we will submit
proof that it is absolutely untrue.

The CHAIRMAN. Is a man by the name of Heber J. Grant one of the
apostles ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is he?

Mr. VAN COTT. I suppose from the newspapers that he has gone to
England in connection with the Mormon Church.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether he is a po\y gamist ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I know that he is a polygamist. Whether ne is
living in polygamous cohabitation I only know from the newspapers.
They say he is, but outside of that I do not know.

Now, coming to the question mentioned by Senator McComas, if I
grasp what the meaning is — is it written out, Senator?

Senator McCoMAS. No; but I will restate it. Mr. Tayler's statement
of his third point was that the president and a majority of the apostles
believe in and practice polygamy and continue polygamous cohabita-
tion, and that these practices continue, and such things are done with
the knowledge, connivance, and countenance of the president and
apostles, and among them, with the countenance and connivance and
knowledge of Apostle Reed Smoot, a Senator from Utah, who is the
respondent, and that that constitutes, with other things, a disqualifica-
tion of him for Senator.

Mr. VAN COTT. In regard to the first part of the proposition, I have
answered it to the very best of my ability in responding to the chair-
man's question.

REED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What do you say as to the legal point; does it
constitute a disqualification ? It is true we are not taking testimony
this morning, but we are considering legal propositions.

Mr. VAN COTT. To answer that, first, my opinion is strongly that
where the associates of Mr. Smoot commit breaches of the law, commit
violations of the law which subject them to punishment, but where he
does not do it himself, where he does not encourage the breaking of
any law, in any way by any person, it does not disqualify him for
being a Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Would your judgment or opinion be the same if the
knowledge of it was brought home to the Senator?

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you mean if he knew of it?

The CHAIRMAN. If he had knowledge of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; it would be just the same. Tf , for instance,
he had good reason to believe that some persons were disobeying the
law and he did not go to them and remonstrate my answer would be
the same. It would not be the same if he went to any person and
encouraged him to commit a violation of the law. Then my answer
would be " no; that he is disqualified by that."

The CHAIRMAN. I think we understand you.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Assuming that the Senate has jurisdiction of
things done before he was elected.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is the whole question.

Mr. VAN COTT. In regard to the knowledge and connivance of these
people, it may be that there are some who know it. I do not know,
and I am not in a position to know, because I do not belong to the
church, and never have. So far as Senator Smoot is concerned, we
say most positively that he has not connived at it; that he does not
know it; that he has not encouraged it in any way.

Senator McCoMAS. Do you further say that he has protested against
that violation of the spirit of the manifesto and that he has discounte-
nanced such things, if they have happened among his associates in the
apostolate and the presidency?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; and so as not to be misunderstood —

Senator McCoMAS. I am only asking in order to get your views.

Mr. VAN COTT. I understand. I will state it a little more fully. I
understand that over and over again, since the manifesto was issued,
Senator Smoot has advised everyone to obey the laws of the land,
meaning by the laws of the land every law passed by Congress or the
legislature which has not been declared unconstitutional — every law.
I believe that answers the question.

Now, I am through with everything I had in mind to state, but I
would esteem it a favor to read briefly to the committee from the hear-
ing before thq Senate Committee on Territories. At the hearing which
was had before the Senate committee in 1892, appeared Judge John W".
Judd, who had been appointed by President Cleveland as one of the
judges in the Territory of Utah. Judge Judd is in the room; he was
from the State of Tennessee. Judge Judd came down here after all
the trouble and fight in Utah and made a statement before the commit-
tee in regard to the conditions there, and one statement which Judge
Judd made to the committee on that occasion I deem it pertinent to
read to this committee, because it shows just the state of mind that
Reed Smoot had at that time — in 1892 — years before statehood, and
many years before he aspired to be a United States Senator.

68 REED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you introduce this in the nature of testi-
mony ?

Mr. VAN COTT. No, I merely wish to read it as a part of my state-
ment. Judge Judd, on page 41 of this Senate document, said:

"I began then to talk to the younger men and the younger women,
and to see if I could discover whether there was back of that an abso-
lute sentiment in favor of polygamy. I had been told, and the esti-
mates demonstrated beyond doubt, that there was probably not over
2i or 3 per cent of the male population in polygamy. The settlement
of Utah was 40 or 45 years old, and many of the men and women born
there were grandfathers or grandmothers. I could not understand
how it was that those people were consenting to such continual attacks,
to such deprivations, and to such odium in the estimation of their
fellow-citizens in the United States, in this condition of things. And,
gentlemen, I discovered as clearly a marked line between those who
favored polygamy and those who did not as the banks of the Missis-
sippi River.

"The younger people would come to me in my room in private and
talk to me about it. I could give names and incidents of Mormons
high in life, some of whom the chairman of this committee is acquainted
with, who came to me and urged me, saying, 'Judge, for God's sake
break this thing up. We have had enough trouble. We have had all
we can possibly stand of it. We have had one right after another
taken from us. We have been put in an awkward attitude before our -
fellow-citizens of the United States, and for God's sake break it up.'
Others said to me — notably Reed Smoot, son of the president of a
stake and the Republican candidate for mayor, and himself the prod-
uct of a polygamous marriage — 4 Judge, we can not stand this thing,
and we will not stand it; it must be settled.' And I know whereof I
affirm when I say before this committee that when the Mormon Church
made its declaration of the abandonment of polygamy it was^done as
much from a force within as from a force without."

That is the reason why I have suggested the propriety of a limita-
tion of the scope of the inquir}^, provided that anything is to be
investigated except the personal conduct of Senator Smoot.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you one question ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you expect to show, in answer, if an
answer is necessary, to the statement that the manifesto is omitted in
the book of doctrine and covenants of the church ?

Mr. VAN COTT. It was a surprise to me when the statement was
made. I have not had an opportunity to investigate it. I will have
to investigate it before I can make an answer to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any other gentleman desire to be heard?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May I add one word about matters that have
been discussed between Mr. Van Cott and members of the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF A. S. WORTHINGTON.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Van Cott has lived in Utah so long and has
known these things and they are so much a part of him that 1 think
perhaps he takes it for granted that, as they are in his mind, they are in
the minds of the members of the committee and in my mind.

REED SMOOT. 69

Speaking especially with reference to the question propounded by
Senator Pettus, I did not gather clearly from what Mr. Van Cott said
what is really the fact. It may be that the members of the committee
were impressed as I was. He makes a distinction between c c polygamy "
and u polygamous cohabitation." Polygamous cohabitation consists
in living together with or in having plural wives or those w,ho had
been married before — let us say before the manifesto.

There can be no such thing as an increase of polygamy without new
marriages which would constitute polygamy. The action of Congress,
the action of the Presidents in accepting the fact that there were some,
as Mr. Van Cott sa}7s, who could not be made to obey the law — refer-
ring to those who had been married before and had plural wives — does
not mean necessarily continual cohabitation with those wives. If a
man had two or more wives before it was a crime, before 1862, as in
the case of old men who had married plural wives and had children
when it was not against the law at all, and as in the case of others
whose children were made legitimate by act of Congress, they would
acknowledge those as their families and support them. That was
polygamous cohabitation. But it does not follow because a man had
other wives, because he had more than one wife and had children by
them, that he was living with them and continuing to cohabit with
them.

That is important, because of the question which has been raised here
in reference to the president and the apostles. We have to deal here,
of course, with Senator Smoot. Senator Smoot does know, as Mr.
Van Cott has admitted, that some of the apostles and the president had
plural wives way before the manifesto. He does not know now, and
he never has known, that any one of those men is living in cohabita-
tion with any more than his lawful wife. The charge made here is that
they are living, cohabiting with more than one wife, and that Senator
Smoot is encouraging it and conniving at it.

In reference to that, 1 understand Mr. Van Cott to say that it would
be within the jurisdiction of the Senate. But it would be only in case
the Senate should hold, what it has heretofore denied and what the
House of Representatives denied in the Roberts case, that you have a
right to go back of a man's election to see what offenses he has com-
mitted. For instance, take the leading case in all these matters, the case
of Humphrey Marshall, who was a Senator from Kentucky about a hun-
dred }^ears ago. He was charged by two judges, before whom he had
been connected in a lawsuit, with having committed some gross fraud
on persons with whom he had business dealings and with having
committed perjury in the course of the trial. The charge was pre-
ferred against him that he was unfit to be a Senator for that reason,
and after very full consideration the Senate refused to entertain it at
all. It said it had no jurisdiction.

Jf Senator Smoot was charged in 1890 or 1893 with having been
guilty of fraud or perjury, or, as in the Roach case, with haying com-
mitted embezzlement, we should say you have no jurisdiction, no
matter what the crime was, whether adultery or what not. If other
persons committed perjur}r or embezzlement and Senator Smoot had
advised and counseled them in the act, we all know that under the
common law he is guilty of the offense just the same as they are. If
it is undertaken to show here that some of the apostles and the presi-
dent are actually cohabiting with more than one wife, and he knowing

70 REED SMOOT.

it has encouraged it or connived at it, directly or indirectly, then he
would be guilty of an offense, and the only question would be whether
you have jurisdiction to consider an offense committed before he was
admitted into the Senate.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. STEVENSON.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stevenson, do you desire to be heard?

Mr. STEVENSON. Very briefly, if it is your pleasure.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you represent?

Mr. STEVENSON. The National Reform Association, which has sent
here a very large proportion of the memorials which have reached the
Senate. The association I represent is composed of Christian citizens,
of men and women of all branches of the church, whose object is
to maintain and promote the Christian features of the American
Government.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you propose to state what testimony you will
offer in support of the protest?

Mr. STEVENSON. We presented a formal protest last spring, before
the admission of Senator Smoot to the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. But the protest before the committee, let me say,
is the one signed by some nineteen citizens of Salt Lake City.

Mr. STEVENSON. I judge that our protest is also before the com-
mittee, for a letter from the chairman of the committee informed me
that it had been received and would be laid before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; all the protests have been laid before the
committee.

Mr. STEVENSON. Pardon me; this was a formal protest and re-
quested the privilege of presenting reasons in support of it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do }^ou propose to state to the committee
this morning what evidence you expect to adduce before the committee ?

Mr. STEVENSON. Rather the considerations upon which we expect to
rely.

Senator BEVERIDGE. It is not a presentation of the evidence in sup-
port of your protest, but an argument.

Mr. STEVENSON. It is simply what arguments we propose to present,
and it is not the purpose to present the argument in full at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you understand the purpose of this
meeting. We have before us the formal protest, as I said, from gen-
tlemen residing in Salt Lake City, and we have protests from every
State in the Union and every Territory, I think. It is impossible for
the committee to hear all the protestants.

Senator McCoMAS. If you hear one you must hear all.

The CHAIRMAN. If we hear you in regard to your protest we shall
have to hear everybody else. Unless you can confine yourself to a
statement of the evidence you propose to adduce in support of your
protest, I think the committee perhaps would—

Senator BEVERIDGE. The argument might come later, when we have
the regular hearings.

Senator McCoMAS. There are many thousands of memorialists, and
what they say and who they are, will, of course, be considered very
carefully by this committee. But in order that we may proceed in an
orderly fashion, it would seem, in justice to Senator Smoot and the
Senate, that the matter involved in this printed document, this pro-

REED SMOOT. 71

test and all the protests filed, and then the answer thereto, which we
have called upon the Senator to make, should be the subject of con-
sideration here. If new matter may be brought in by one memorial
or another, Senator Smoot would have no opportunity to answer that
matter. 1 can see no harm in memorialists submitting to the com-
mittee arguments in writing on this matter, but the hearing here, if
it be a hearing, should be confined to the protest and the answer
thereto.

Senator BEVERIDGE. The hearing this morning.

Senator McCoMAS. This morning.

Senator HOPKINS. I suggest that Mr. Stevenson be permitted to
address the committee for a few moments. He is here and we are
here. What effect it may have upon us is another question.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If the Senator will permit me, it occurs to me
that it is the usual proceeding before committees that when finally the
hearings are held the arguments are had, and the gentleman might
then make his argument. But as I understand from the chairman,
and the rest of the committee can inform me whether I am right or
not, this morning was set apart for the attorneys for the protestants
and the respondent to state what their propositions were and what
testimony they proposed to adduce in support thereof. Then the com-
mittee would determine what it was going to do. Afterwards, within
the scope with which the committee goes into the case, I think no mem-
ber of the committee would object to any person making an argument,
if he had something to submit. But it is not within the scope of the
meeting this morning to hear arguments.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not. It is confined to this specific protest.

Senator DUBOIS. Until the issue is joined.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Of course.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is any particular point to which the gentle-
man wishes to address himself, I have no doubt the committee will
hear him.

Mr. STEVENSON. If you will pardon me, I acquiesce cheerfully in.
the wish of the committee. I wish to say, however, that the National
Reform Association is one of the associations that has been active in
the presentation of this matter before the American people, and it has
sent here a very large number of memorials. In addition to that, we
sent at the very beginning a formal protest in the name of the associ-
ation.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Does that protest present anything addi-
tional to, or any allegation that is not covered by, the protest which is
printed ?

Mr. STEVENSON. That I have not had an opportunity to examine.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You understand, Mr. Stevenson, that you are
not cut off, but the meeting this morning was called for a specified
purpose, and when the hearings are held the committee will be glad
to hear you.

Mr. STEVENSON. Other organizations which have been active in this
matter are represented by counsel. We have sent our general secre-
tarv. If we had sent counsel, would we have had an equal opportu-
nity*

Senator McCoMAS. Who is the secretary ?

Mr. STEVENSON. I am the secretary.

Senator McCoMAS. Who is the president?

72 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Scoville, of the Wooster (Ohio) University.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you prepared to state what evidence you pro-
pose to, offer in addition to that suggested in support of the protest?

Mr. STEVENSON. No, sir. We have no evidence covering other
points than those presented. I wish merely to present certain con-
siderations—

Senator BEVERIDGE. An argument?

Mr. STEVENSON. Rather indicating the argument we should like to
present at the hearing.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What you would like to do is to present an
argument ?

Mr. STEVENSON. Rather to indicate what the argument will be.

Senator McCoMAS. I understand that the matters you are concerned
about are fully covered by the protest which the committee has before
it for consideration ?

Mr. STEVENSON. So far as the evidence is concerned.

Senator McCoMAS. You merely desire at this preliminary hearing to
present an argument before the hearing progresses?

Mr. STEVENSON. Rather to indicate the line of the argument, not
the argument itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Later on, if an investigation is ordered, we may be
very glad to hear you.

Mr. STEVENSON. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 understand Mr. Tayler desires to say a word.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. TAYLER.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish to say only one
word, and then to refer the committee to the sources of authority on
the subject of the jurisdiction of the Senate as determined by its prac-
tice and the precedents of the Senate and the House concerning the
right to consider a thing that occurred prior to a Senator's election as
'furnishing the basis for his expulsion.

Precedents are valuable only when they are well grounded and well
considered and when we know the reasons that lie back of them. The
House of Representatives in the Roberts case did not pass on the
question whether or not Roberts could be expelled. Of course that
question was argued in the report, but the House did not consider it.
It considered whether it had a right to exclude him before he got in.
If there was a stray mind which was affected in its determination of
the question by a fear that the House could not expel him later on
if he went in, such minds were very rare and did not operate on the
general result.

But it is always within the power of the Senate to do justice in
respect to such a matter as this, or in respect to the right or propriety
of any member retaining his seat. Where the thing complained of is
isolated, independent, and has, and properly sustains, no relation to him
as a member of the Senate, wisdom has said, and the Senate and the
House have generally declared, that it ought not to be ground for
expulsion.

I am very familiar with the Roach case, because I had to go through
it, as I did every other case that touched on that subject, a few years
ago. The Roach case was at best but trivial as regards this situation.
The thing had occurred some years before. It was a fact accomplished.
There was a question as to whether there was any guilt at all, and 1

REED SMOOT. 73

think it would have been unwise and unsound, speaking from the
impression made upon my mind at the time I read the case, for the
Senate to have gone on and expelled him.

But where the thing is in its nature of a continuing character, or
where the thing relates to the Congress of which he is a member, then
it is a subject proper to be considered and given such weight as it may
be entitled to.

In the Oakes Ames case a resolution for expulsion was presented by
the committee and favored by it, notwithstanding the fact that the
crime or the action complained of against Oakes Ames had occurred
in the second Congress, I believe, previous to that in which the reso-
lution was presented. But in that case they said the effort to bribe a
member — we will say in the Forty-first Congress — by a member like
Oakes Ames, with respect to a subject of continuing legislation like
the Credit Mobilier and the Pacific railroads, was not intended merely
to end with the Congress during which the attempt to bribe was made,
but was intended to continue during the succeeding Congresses, for it
was a subject which continued before it.

Senator HOPKINS. While that subject would be before Congress.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely. Of course when the Senate wants to get
the fullest information, and the committee wants to get the fullest
information, they have only to read my report in the Roberts case on
that proposition.

Now, there was another matter suggested by Mr. Van Cott to which
I will refer for just a moment. Senator Pettus adverted to it as not
understanding me to say that the right existed as against the State on
account of the violation of any compact. That is true. I made no
such claim. The word " compact " appears in the last paragraph of
my statement, and that only in so far as it is intended to connect these
individuals with the condition of things that now exists. 1 will read
it, as it is very brief, so that it may be understood:

" Fourth. Though pledged by the compact of statehood and bound
by the law of their Commonwealth, this supreme body, whose voice is
law to its people, and whose members were individually directly respon-
sible for good faith to the American people, permitted, without protest
or objection, their legislators to pass a law nullifying the statute against
polygamous cohabitation."

That was the connection in which that reference was made. In my
opinion no right of expulsion exists against the State as such.

Now, as to the scope of this investigation with respect to time, I
think that can be safely left with the committee. There is no res
adjudicata about this. Nor is the church in general to be investigated
except in so far as it affects the propriety of Mr. Smoot being here.
Mr. Smoot may be under obligations that he does not understand; I
do not know; but we can not understand his status here, his relation
to this body here, his duty here and at home as well as his obligation
or his responsibility for the conditions which exist at home amongst
his colleagues, who are themselves grossly, defiantly violating the law—
I say we can not understand what he is here for, what he stands for,
whether, for instance, there is a supreme authority over their people,
temporal and spiritual, without understanding exactly what the church
to-day stands for. And we can not tell what the church stands for by
using a microscope.

If Brigham Young, or Wilford Woodruff, who was one of the signers
of the manifesto, in so many terms has published, in the official publi-

74 REED SMOOT.

cations of the Mormon Church, that they did have authority, temporal
as well as spiritual, not merely over temporal aft'airs of the church as
an ecclesiastical organization, but over the temporal affairs of its indi-
vidual members, then I want to know what has become of that policy
and canon and doctrine of the church now. Those are things which
the committee and the Senate will need to inquire into, let them amount
to what they may.

I am sure that all that I want to see done is exact justice, and that
is all the committee wants to see done. But if the statement that was
made by Judge Van Cott, as to the responsibility of Mr. Smoot for
this situation and his liability to expulsion in the event of his having
knowledge of, and countenancing these acts, justifies his expulsion,
then I say, gentlemen, we will prove that, in my opinion.

Effort has been made not to go back beyond 1890. and by a logic
that I think I comprehended, that we should not consider those who
were unlawfully cohabiting, except those who said they were not
unlawfully cohabiting in 1890 and have taken it up since. Well, I do
not care whether we split hairs on that or not. Six of the apostles
who signed the prayer to the President of the United States for
amnesty, with their virtuous and solemn declarations of obedience to
the law and of love for their country, are to-day living in polygamy.
That is all, gentlemen.

Senator McCoMAS. Do you assert the same thing of the president?

Mr. TAYLER. The president? He was not president at that time,
and that is why [ did not put him in that form. Woodruff was presi-
dent.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And that these things were done with the
knowledge and encouragement of the respondent?

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly.

Senator McCoMAS. Do you expect to- prove that six apostles and
the president are now practicing unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. TAYLER. More than that. I say that the first president and
five of the apostles now practicing polygamy signed the prayer to the
President of the United States for amnesty.

The CHAIRMAN. Did Apostle Grant sign it?

Mr. TAYLER. He did.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is he?

Mr. TAYLER. I understand he is a fugitive from justice. At any
rate a warrant is out for him for a violation of this law.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he one of the apostles ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir; he is one of the apostles.

ADDITIONAL ANSWER OF HON. REED SMOOT.

The following additional answer of Hon. Reed Smoot was subse-
quently filed with the committee:

ANSWER OF REED SMOOT TO THE FOUR REVISED AND AMENDED
CHARGES PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND
ELECTIONS OF THE SENATE ON THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1904.

I am advised and aver that none of the matters contained in these
aevised and amended charges, even if the same were true, are such as
to furnish any legal ground for my expulsion from the Senate. Insist-
ing upon this objection to the jurisdiction of the Senate, and renewing

REED SMOOT. 75

and applying to these new charges the motion to strike out heretofore
made in reference to the original charges, I answer as follows:

As to the first charge —

1 deny that the Mormon priesthood, according to the doctrine of
the church or the belief or practice of its membership, is vested with,
or assumes to exercise, supreme authority in all things temporal,
spiritual, civil, and political. I admit that the first presidency of the
church has supreme authority in things spiritual and in things tem-
poral relating to the property, business, and affairs of the church itself.

I admit that the head of the church claims to receive divine revela-
tions. I admit and aver that 1 am bound to accept and obey such
revelations so far, and so far only, as they relate to things spiritual,
or to the propert}T, business, or affairs of the church itself. And I
especially deny that I am, or can be, bound in any way to obey any
such revelation when such obedience would be a violation of the Con-
stitution or laws of the United States or of the State of Utah.

As to the second charge —

I admit that I am one of the twelve apostles of the church, and that
the members of the first presidency and the twelve apostles are sus-
tained (or voted for) in the general conference of the church, as proph-
ets, seers, and revelators. Under the rule and practice of the church
the president only is recognized as authorized to receive revelations
for the church.

I admit and aver that the president and his two counselors, consti-
tuting the first presidency, and they onty, are supreme in the exercise
of the authority of the church on all ordinary occasions; and that
when the first presidency is disorganized by a vacancy in the office of
the president, and then only, is such supreme authority vested in the
apostles. This has happened only once since I became an apostle,
and such exigency lasted about fourteen days.

As to the third charge:

I deny that, as shown by their teaching or by their own lives, said
alleged body of men has not abandoned belief in the practice of polyg-
amy and potygamous cohabitation, except that I admit that the practice
of polygamous cohabitation by some who were polygamists before the
manifesto has been abandoned, but continued for a time by others,
and where continued it has been on the sole responsibility of such per-
sons and subject to the penalties of the law.

(a) I deny that, as the ruling authorities of the church or otherwise,
the first presidenc^y and the apostles of the church promulgate solemnly,
or otherwise, the doctrine of polygamy. It is true that the doctrine
an d covenants containing the revelation of Joseph Smith on the sub-
ject of polygamy is still published and circulated by the church, just
as the Bible, containing declarations on the same subject is published
and circulated. But in the case of the doctrine and covenants, as in
the case of the Bible, all that is contained therein on the subject of
polygamy is superseded b}T later authoritative teachings, known to all
Mormons, instructing the members of the church, and especially its
missionaries, that the practice of polygamy is suspended, as set forth
particularly in the manifesto of President Wilford Woodruff of Sep-
tember 25, 1900.

In illustration of the teachings of the church on the subject of
polygamy since the manifesto, I refer to a publication, the title page
of which is as follows:

76 REED SMOOT.

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH, A SERIES OF LECTURES ON THE PRINCIPLE
DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,

[By Dr. James E. Talmage. Written by appointment and published by the church.]
[The Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1901.]

This book was copyrighted by entry in the Library of Congress,
March 20, 1899. The lectures which it contains were delivered by an
elder of the church, who delivered them under the instruction of the
first presidency. After their delivery the manuscript was submitted
to and revised by a committee appointed by the first presidency, the
committee consisting of Elders Francis M. Lyman, Abraham H. Cannon,
Anthon H. Lund (who were then apostles of the church), Elder George
Reynolds, one of the presidents of the presiding quorum of seventy;
Elder John Nicholson, and Dr. Karl G. Maeser. After such revision
the lectures were published by the church, and have ever since been
used everywhere as a text-book of the church.

This book contains, first, ' ' The articles of faith of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." There are thirteen such articles,
and article No. 12 is as follows:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and mag-
Crates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

9n pages 435 and 436 of the book is the following paragraph:
' 33. An illustration of such suspension of divine law is found in
^nt action of the church regarding the matter of plural or polyg-
amHis marriage. The practice referred to was established as a result
°/ direct revelation, and many of those who followed the same felt
Yiat they were divinely commanded so to do. For ten years after
polygamy had been introduced into Utah as a church observance no
law was enacted in opposition to the practice. Beginning with 1862,
however, Federal statutes were framed declaring the practice unlawful
and providing penalties therefor. The church claimed that these
enactments were unconstitutional, and therefore void, inasmuch as
they violated the provision in the national constitution which denies
the Government power to make laws respecting any establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Many appeals were
taken to the national court of final resort, and at last a decision was
rendered sustaining the antipolygamy laws as constitutional and
therefore binding. The church, through its chief officer, thereupon
discontinued the practice of plural marriage and announced its action
to the world, solemnly placing the responsibility for the change upon
the nation by whose laws the renunciation had been forced. This
action has been approved and confirmed b}^ the official vote of the
church in conference assembled."

At the end of the foregoing paragraph is a footnote referring to
" Note 4." This note is on page 440 of the book, and is as follows:

"4. Discontinuance of plural marriage. — The official act terminating
the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-Day Saints was the
adoption by the church, in conference assembled, of a manifesto pro-
claimed by the president of the church. The language of the docu-
ment illustrates the law-abiding character of the people and the church,
as is shown by the following clause: 'Inasmuch as laws have been
enacted hy Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have
been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I (Presi-
dent Wilford Woodruff) hereb}^ declare my intention to submit to

EEED SMOOT. 77

those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the church
over which I preside to have them do likewise.' In the course of a
sermon immediately following the proclaiming of the manifesto, Pres-
ident Woodruff said, regarding- the action taken: 4I have done my
duty, and the nation of which we form a part must be responsible for
that which has been done in relation to that principle (i. e., plural mar-
riage).'"

(0) On information and belief I deny that the president of the Mor-
mon Church era majority of the twelve apostles now practice polyg-
amy or polygamous cohabitation. I admit, however, that the president
and some of the apostles had plural wives prior to the manifesto and
continue to recognize the women whom they married subsequent to
their first and legal marriage as being still their wives. On informa-
tion and belief 1 deny that either the president or any of the apostles
of the church has taken a polygamous or plural wife since the mani-
festo of 1890. I deny that either the president or any of the twelve
apostles has at any time practiced polygamy or polygamous cohabita-
tion, with my countenance or with my knowledge, except as herein-
above set forth. On information and belief I den}^ that any plural
marriage ceremony has been performed by any apostle of the church
since the manifesto of 1890, and deny that many or any bishops or
other high officials of the church have taken plural wives since that
time. I deny, except as hereinabove admitted, in the answer to this
third specification, that all or an}^ of the first presidency or the twelve
apostles encourage, countenance, conceal, or connive at potygamy or
polygamous cohabitation. 1 deny that the first presidency or the
twelve apostles honor or reward by any office or preferment those
who most persistently and defiantly violate the law of the land.

Except as hereinabove admitted I deny the allegations of the third
charge.

As to the fourth charge:

There is nothing in the language of this charge to clearly indicate
the statute to which it refers. But assuming, as counsel for the
protestants stated orally in submitting it? that it refers to an act of
the legislature of Utah passed in the year 1901 affecting prosecutions
for polygamous cohabitation, 1 deny that I "permitted" or in any
way connived at the passage of that act, and aver that on the contrary
I opposed it. The governor of the State vetoed it, and it was not
passed over his veto, and never became a law.

I have no knowledge that any member of the first presidency of
the church or any of the apostles in any way "permitted" the passage
of that act.

EEED SMOOT.

A. S. WORTHINGTON,
WALDEMAR VAN COTT,
W. E. BORAH,

Counsel for Respondent.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, the committee will now
hold an executive session.

At 1 o'clock and 20 minutes p. in. the committee went into execu-
tive session.

78 REED SMOOT.

WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 1, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), McComas, Foraker, Dilling
ham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senatoi
Smoot; also John G. Carlisle and Robert W. Tayler, counsel for the
protestants, and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is ready to proceed with the hearing.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, we ask for a postponement of the
hearing until to-morrow morning, and I wish to state the reasons for
the request.

Mr. A. S. Worthington, of this city, is the leading counsel for Sen-
ator Smoot, and he has been since it was known that there would be
an investigation. Mr. Worthington unexpectedly is compelled to be
in the court of appeals of this District. He represents General Tyner,
and Mr. Worthington wishes me to say to the committee that General
Tyner is an aged man, is considerably worried about his case, Mr.
iVorthington has had charge of it, and General Tyner expects him to
present it to the court of appeals. Mr. Worthington takes up that
matter this morning. So it is well-nigh impossible for him to be here
unless he can make some arrangement with the court.

In addition to that, Mr. Worthington has been trying a will case
wherein a witness refused to answer certain questions. A writ of
habeas corpus was taken out, which also comes up before the court of
appeals to-day. In one way Mr. Worthington represents the court,
Judge Wright, in that proceeding, because the witness was committed
for contempt for not answering certain questions.

That being the situation, we are here this morning without the lead-
ing counsel in the case, which we very much regret, and yet we feel
it is no fault of ours. With that exception we are ready to proceed.
By to-morrow morning Mr. Worthington can be here, so we can then
proceed. We feel that asking this indulgence is not out of the way
when the circumstances are considered. Senator Smoot's counsel
endeavored for some time to arrange to have the case set, as the chair-
man knows, but for one reason and another it was postponed. At one
time Senator Carlisle was engaged; I think Mr. Tayler at one time
could not be present. So the matter has gone on. When the case was
set it was set ahead three weeks, if I remember correctly. That meant
that 1, one of the counsel for Senator Smoot, had to go to my home
in Salt Lake City, Utah, and then return for this hearing.

Under these circumstances we ask that the case go over until any
time to-morrow that the committee may see fit to fix, as we feel that
it would not be right, and Senator Smoot does not wish to proceed, and
neither do we, because Mr. Worthington is the leading counsel in the
case.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask for information whether Mr. Worthing
ton would be at liberty this afternoon if the committee should decide
to meet at 2 o'clock, say?

Mr. VAN COTT. I asked him about that. I think he would be at
2.30. 1 asked Mr. Worthington if he could be present this afternoon
if the committee should sit. He said that by 2.30 o'clock he could get
here, by missing his lunch; that he would be in court until 2 o'clock,
and if he missed his lunch he could be here at 2.30. But of course he
prefers that the matter should go over until to-morrow morning on

REED SMOOT. 79

account of the importance of the cases he is arguing before the court
of appeals to-day.

The CHAIRMAN. Do counsel on the other side desire to be heard on
the request?

Mr. TAYLER. Only for a moment, Mr. Chairman. I do not think
it is necessary for me to appear to put myself in an ungracious posi-
tion by arguing against the reason which has been presented by Mr.
Van Cott for the adjournment of this case until to-morrow. I do not
think the committee will find it possible to consider engagements of
counsel, however important they may be in the trial of their side of
the case, at any stage of this proceeding.

But I have this to say, that I understand the witnesses who have
been subpoenaed to come from Utah are not yet here, except Mr.
Critchlow, and I do not think we are quite in a position where we are
ready to put Mr. Critchlow on the stand. The witness we desire to
put on the stand first is not here. So it occurs to me that perhaps the
interests of this investigation and of all parties concerned will be best
ministered to by an adjournment until to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN. If no member of the committee objects, the chair
will grant the request and the hearing will be adjourned until to-morrow
at 10 o'clock, instead of half past 10. I desire to say that it is the
wish of the committee that the investigation shall proceed daily and
close as soon as possible, so far as the hearing here is concerned.

Mr. Worthington wrote me, and I told him that there was some
difficulty about it; that witnesses were here from a distance and attor-
neys were here from a distance. Yet, in view of the statement of
counsel for the respondent and that of Mr. Tayler that the protestants
are not quite ready, the committee will stand adjourned until to-morrow
morning at 10 o'clock.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 8, 1904.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, McComas, Foraker,
Depew, Beveridge, Dillingham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and
Overman; also Senator Smoot; also John G. Carlisle and Robert W.
Tayler, counsel for the protestants, and A. S. Worthington and Wal-
demar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, are* you ready to proceed?

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed I should like to
have it appear in the record, and also to possess the knowledge myself,
as to the number of witnesses who have been subpoenaed and responded,
and what, if an}T, information the chairman possesses respecting those
who have been subpoenaed and are not here.

The CHAIRMAN. From the return of the Sergeant-at-Arms it appears
that subpoenas have been served upon Mabel Barber Kenned}T, Mrs.
Charles Mathews, Ogden Hiles, Andrew Jenson, John Henry Smith,
Hyrum M. Smith, Thomas H. Merrill, Charles E. Merrill, Alma
Merrill, Lorin Harmer, Moses Thatcher, Marriner W. Merrill, Joseph
F. Smith, and Francis M. Lyman. The chairman is not advised which
ones or how many of these witnesses are present.

Mr. TAYLER. I am ready to proceed, Mr. Chairman, if the com-
mittee is.

80 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is.

Mr. TAYLER. We should like to have Joseph F. Smith take the stand.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Joseph F. Smith present?

Mr. JOSEPH F. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRANKLIN S. RICHARDS. I have been requested by Mr. Smith
and some of the other persons who have been subpoenaed as witnesses
to be present in case any question should arise upon which they might
require legal advice. I therefore appear as counsel for Mr. Smith
and also for some other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be noted. May I ask your full name 1

Mr. RICHARDS. Franklin S. Richards.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, will you be sworn ?

Mr. SMITH. I prefer to affirm, if you please.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH.

JOSEPH F. SMITH, having duly affirmed, testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. I live in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there?

Mr. SMITH. Since 1848.

Mr. TAYLER. I believe you were born of parents who were mem-
bers of the Mormon Church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. So that all your life you have been in that church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position do }^ou now hold in the church?

Mr. SMITH. I am now the president of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there any other description of your title than mere
president?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you prophet, seer, and revelator?

Mr. SMITH. I am so sustained and upheld by my people.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you get that title by reason of being president or
by reason of having been an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. By reason of being president.

Mr. TAYLER. Are not all the apostles also prophets, seers, and rev-
elators ?

Mr. SMITH. They are sustained as such at our conferences.

Mr. TAYLER. They all have that title now, have they not?

Mr. SMITH. Well, they are so sustained at the conferences.

Mr. TAYLER. I want to know if they do not have that title now.

Mr. SMITH. 1 suppose if they are sustained they must have that
title.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they sustained as such now ?

Mr. SMITH. I have said so twice, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Who were your predecessors in office as president of
the church?

Mr. SMITH. My immediate predecessor was Lorenzo Snow.

Mr. TAYLER. And his predecessor ?

Mr. SMITH. Wilford Woodruff.

Mr. TAYLER. And his?

Mr. SMITH. John Taylor.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; go on back through the line.

KB ED SMOOT. 81

Mr. SMITH. Brigham Young.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. And Joseph Smith.

Mr. TAYLER. You are possessed of the same powers that they were
possessed of ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I am supposed to be possessed of the same author-
ity that they were.

Mr. TAYLER. You believe yourself to be, do you not?

Mr. SMITH. I think I do believe so.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 do not know that there is any significance in your
use of the word "think," Mr. Smith, but one hardly thinks that he
has a belief. He either knows or does not know that he has a belief.

Mr. SMITH. J think I do.

Mr. TAYLER. According to the doctrine of your church, you have
become the successor of your several predecessors as the head of the
church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And are supposed to be endowed with all the powers
that they were possessed of ?

Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding.

Mr. TAYLER. What is your business ?

Mr. SMITH. My principal business is that of president of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. In what other business are you engaged?

Mr. SMITH. I am engaged in numerous other businesses.

Mr. TAYLER. What?

Mr. SMITH. I am president of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Insti-
tution.

Mr. TAYLER. What kind of an institution is that?

Mr. SMITH. A mercantile institution.

Mr. TAYLER. Has it a capital stock?

Mr. SMITH. It has.

Mr. TAYLER. How large ?

Mr. SMITH. I think it is a little over a million.

Mr. TAYLER. Without having time to go into it, is that corporation,
through its directorate, controlled by officers of the church?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is controlled by directors.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes. I am not speaking of any churchly control of
it, but I mean are the directors or a majority of them officers also in
the church, just as you are an official and a director?

Mr. SMITH. I hardly think a majority of them are officials of the
church.

Mr. TAYLER. Of what other corporations are you an officer ?

Mr. SMITH. I am president of the State Bank of Utah, another
institution.

Mr. TAYLER. What else ?

Mr. SMITH. Zion Savings Bank and Trust Company.

Mr. TAYLER. What else?

Mr. SMITH. I am president of the Utah Sugar Company.

Mr. TAYLER. What else?

Mr. SMITH. I am president of the Consolidated Wagon and Machine
Company.

Mr. TAYLER. What else ?

Mr. SMITH. There are several other small institutions with which 1
am associated.

82 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you associated with the Utah Light and Powei
Company ?

Mr. SMITH. lam.

Mr. TAYLER. In what capacity ?

Mr. SMITH. I am a director and president of the company.

Mr. TAYLER. A director and the president?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you that in mind when you classified the others
as small concerns ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I had not that in mind.

Mr. TAYLER. That is a large concern?

Mr. SMITH. That is a large concern.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you an officer of the Salt Lake and Los Angsles
Railroad Company?

Mr. SMITH. I am.

Mr. TAYLER. What?

Mr. SMITH. President and director.

Mr. TAYLER. That is a large concern ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is a very small concern.

Mr. TAYLER. Of what else are you president ?

Mr. SMITH. I am president of the Salt Air Beach Company.

Mr. TAYLER. The Salt Air Beach Company?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What else, if you can recall?

Mr. SMITH. I do not recall just now.

Mr. TAYLER. What relation do you sustain to the Consolidated Light
and Power Company ?

Mr. SMITH. That is the same institution that you have mentioned,
sir — the Consolidated Light and Power Company. That is now consoli-
dated. It is the Utah Light and Railroad Company now.

Mr. TAYLER. The Utah Light and Railroad Company ?

Mr. SMITH. The Utah Light and Power Company is the same
thing-
Mr. TAYLER. They have been consolidated into the Light and
Power Company ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; the Consolidated Light and Railway Company.

Mr. TAYLER. The Consolidated Light and Railway Company ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do those corporations furnish the electric light and
urban traction in the city of Salt Lake?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Altogether?

Mr. SMITH. I believe they do.

Mr. TAYLER. What relation do yon sustain to the Idaho Sugar
Company ?

Mr. SMITH. I am a director of that company and also the president
of it.

Mr. TAYLER. Of the Inland Crystal Salt Company ?

Mr. SMITH. Also the same position there.

Mr. TAYLER. The Salt Lake Dramatic Association?

Mr. SMITH. I am president of that and also a director.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you president of any other corporation there?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know. Perhaps you can tell me. 1 do not
remember any more just now.

REED SMOOT. 83

Mr. TAYLER. It would seem that the number has grown so large
that it would be an undue tax upon your memory to charge you with
naming them all.

Mr. SMITH. It is rather sudden and unexpected to me. 1 perhaps
might have prepared myself for it.

Mr. TAYLER. What relation do you sustain to the Salt Lake Knitting
Company? Did I ask you about it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; you did not.

Mr. TAYLER. The Salt Lake Knitting Company ?

Mr. SMITH. I am president of it, and also a director.

Mr. TAYLER. What relation do you sustain to the Utah National
Bank?

Mr. SMITH. None, whatever.

Mr. TAYLER. You are not a director?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The Union Pacific Railway Company?

Mr. SMITH. 1 am a director.

Mr. TAYLER. The State Bank of Utah? You have already testified
respecting it ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you an official of any mining companies?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What?

Mr. SMITH. I am the vice-president of the Bullion, Beck and Cham-
pion Mining Company.

Mr. TAYLER. Any others?

Mr. SMITH. No; 1 think not; not now. I have been in times past,
but not now.

Mr. TAYLER. What relation, if any, do you sustain to any newspaper
or publishing house or company ?

Mr. SMITH. I am the editor of the Young Men's Mutual Improve-
ment Association, a periodical; the Improvement Era, and also the
Juvenile Instructor.

Mr. TAYLER. The Deseret News ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You have no business relation with that?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, what other business connections have you, Mr.
Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Really, I think I should have to go over the list again
to see if I have omitted any.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not recall any others ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not recall any others at present.

Mr. TAYLER. W^ith respect to the Zion's Cooperative Mercantile
Institution, respecting which I inquired of you a moment ago, let me
ask you if I correctly read the names of the directors of that concern?
Joseph F. Smith, H. J. Grant, J. R, Winder, H. Dinwoodey, P. T.
Farnsworth, J. R. Barnes, John Henry Smith, F. M. Lyman, Anthon
H. Lund, William H. Mclntyre, Reed Smoot, and T. G. Weber. They
are all directors, are they ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; they are all directors.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the name of that concern?

Mr. TAYLER. Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution. There are

84 REED SMOOT.

quite a number of those whose names I have read who are apostles 01
the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; there are a few of them; quite a number of
them.

Mr. TAYLER. Grant, Winder, yourself, John Henry Smith, F. M.
Lyman, Anthon H. Lund, and lleed Smoot are all either members of
the first presidency or of the quorum of the twelve apostles ?

Mr. SMITH. That is right; that is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. I want to ask you a few questions, because it will
enable us to get along more rapidly, and because }^ou can speak con-
cisely upon the subject, and we will understand where we are so much
the better. I do not want to limit you, except that we do not want
to take a great deal of time about it. You will understand, therefore,
the purpose of the questions as I put them, as separated from the
independent character of the question itself. I do not want to put
words into your mouth respecting it.

As I understand, the Mormon Church was started by Joseph Smith, jr. ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he a relative of yours ?

Mr. SMITH. He was my uncle.

Mr. TAYLER. And it was he who found, or through him that the
plates were found, upon which were recorded what was afterwards
translated and published in the form of the Book of Mormon ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, that occurred about seventy-five years ago, did
it not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; or a little more.

Mr. TAYLER. Later Joseph Smith, from time to time, received reve-
lations ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And he himself died in 1844?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. To his power and authority in the church Brigham
Young, as you have stated, succeeded ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. TAYLER. What are the standards of authority in the Mormon
Church?

Mr. SMITH. Do you mean the books ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; the written standards.

Mr. SMITH. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and
Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the last one?

Mr. SMITH. The Pearl of Great Price.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you repeat that last answer?

Mr. SMITH. I am asked what are the standard works of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I answered: The Bible, King James's translation; the
Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl
of Great Price.

Mr. TAYLER. Those are all of the written books which are authori-
tative and controlling upon the body of the church, are they ?

Mr. SMITH. They are the only books which 1 know of that have
been accepted by the church in general assembly as the standard works
of the church.

REED SMOOT. 85

Mr. TAYLER. Are they all considered of equal authority?

Mr. SMITH. I presume they are.

Mr. TAYLER. The Book of Mormon came into existence in the man-
ner you have already described ?

Mr. SMITH. Which you have already described.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, 1 did not mean to be unfair about it. I mean
it came through Joseph Smith?

Mr. SMITH. 1 think you stated it very correctly, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The Doctrine and Covenants — the book so entitled —
is made up chiefly of revelations made through Joseph Smith, jr., or
expositions, or declarations, or prophecies made by him, and perhaps
one or two revelations there printed made through Brigham Young ?

Mr. SMITH. One, I think.

Mr. TAYLER. So much for the origin of those. What is the origin
of the Pearl of Great Price?

Mr. SMITH. That also contains revelations through Joseph Smith.

Mr. TAYLER. And anybody else?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not that I know of, except that some of it is
a translation of ancient manuscript by Joseph Smith.

Mr. TAYLER. I see.

Mr. SMITH. Joseph Smith is really the author.

MR. TAYLER. Then it is belived by the people of the Mormon
Church to have the same divine authority that the other three have?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That the other three documents are supposed to have
also?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, these various publications containing the
inspired word have been, by authority of the church, from time to
time construed and discussed, have they not?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know, sir, that I understand the nature of your
question. They are accepted.

Mr. TAYLER. They are accepted?

Mr. SMITH. By the church.

Mr. TAYLER. By the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean by that that the exposition of it has been
accepted by the church ?

Mr. SMITH. What exposition ?

Mr. TAYLER. Any.

Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any expositions that you may refer to.

Mr. TAYLER. Take this work by Dr. James E. Talmage.

Mr. SMITH. That is an exposition of the articles of our faith.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. Issued by what authority ?

Mr. SMITH. It is issued by James E. Talmage as the author of it.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes. ^ And is he alone responsible for the expression of
opinion and the construction of the various laws and ordinances of the
Mormon Church?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not think you understand my question.

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not think I did understand it.

Mr. TAYLER. I will ask the stenographer to read it.

The reporter read as follows:

And is he alone responsible for the expression of opinion and the construction of
the various laws and ordinances of the Mormon Church?

86 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. As given in that book?

Mr. SMITH. I think he is.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 only desire, Mr. Smith, to authenticate, as far as
it rightfully may be done, this book and its construction and exposi-
tion of the doctrines of the Mormon Church. I find in the preface to
this book, which was published b}^ the Deseret News in 1901, the fol-
lowing opening sentence:

The lectures herewith presented have been prepared in accordance with the
request and appointment of the first presidency of the church.

Is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. And further on:

The author's thanks are due and are heartily rendered to the members of the com-
mittee appointed by the first presidency, whose painstaking and efficient examination
of the manuscript prior to the delivery of the lectures has inspired some approach
to confidence in the prospective value of the book among members of the church.
The committee here referred to consisted of Elders Francis M. Lyman, Abraham H.
Cannon, and Anthon H. Lund, of the quorum of the twelve apostles —

And so on, naming others.

The lectures are now published by the church, and with them goes the hope of
the author that they may prove of service.

And so on.

Mr. SMITH. The church bought the copyright of the book from Mr.
Talmage.

Mr. TAYLER. And caused its publication ?

Mr. SMITH. The Deseret News published it, and the Deseret News,
of course, is selling the book.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that?

Mr. SMITH. It is selling the book — disposing of the book. It is
really the property, so far as the expense of publishing is concerned,
of the Deseret News. The profits do not go to the church. They go
to the Deseret News Company, or the Deseret News publishers.

Mr. TAYLER. The lectures were delivered by the instruction of the
first presidency ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not by the instruction; by the permission and
acquiescence of the first presidency.

Mr. TAYLER. Then-
Mr. SMITH. Let me say this: By the solicitation of some friends
Doctor Talmage consented to deliver a series of lectures on the articles
of faith of the church, and before doing so he consulted with the
presidency of the church and received their permission and sanction
to do it. Those are the facts i-n the case.

Mr. TAYLER. Is the Deseret News the organ of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I suppose it is in some sense the organ of the
church. It is not opposed to the church, at least.

Mr. TAYLER. It is not opposed to it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. It has for years published, has it not, at the head of
its columns, that it is the organ of the church, or the official organ of
the church ?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Not that you know of?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. It has been called that, it is styled that.

Mr. TAYLER. It is styled that, but you do not recall ever having

EEED SMOOT. 87

seen, at the head of any page or on any page, in a conspicuous place
in the Deseret News, the statement that it was the organ of the church,
or the official organ of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not recall that I ever saw it.

Mr. TAYLER. You read that paper regularly, do you ?

Mr. SMITH. As much as I have time to read it.

Mr. TAYLER. I can appreciate now the significance of that answer.
How long have you been reading the Deseret News ?

Mr. SMITH. I think it was started in 1851 or 1852; somewhere along
trie re. I believe it was established somewhere along in the early fifties,
and I have read it more or less ever since.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know who own it?

Mr. SMITH. How is that?

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know who own it?

Mr. SMITH. I know who owns the building that it is in.

Mr. TAYLER. Who owns the building in which it is published?

Mr. SMITH. The church.

Mr. TAYLER. The church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Tell us what you know about the owners of that
newspaper.

Mr. SMITH. It has been for a number of years past owned by a
company — an incorporated company.

Mr. TAYLER. What is the name of the company?

Mr. SMITH. The Deseret News Publishing Company.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know who its officers are?

Mr. SMITH. Now, it is not owned by that company.

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, it is not?

Mr. SMITH. No; it is not.

Mr. TAYLER. What do you know-
Mr. SMITH. But I say for years it was owned by a company of that
kind.

Mr. TAYLER. What do you know about its present ownership ?

Mr. SMITH. I presume that the present ownership is in the church.

Mr. TAYLER. You suppose the present owner is the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, we have referred to the work of Doctor
Talmage and its origin. Was Orson Pratt —

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, before you go to that subject, it was
impossible to hear what Mr. Smith said in relation to the ownership
of the Deseret News.

Mr. CARLISLE. He says the church owns it now.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that your answer?

Mr. BEVERIDGE. The paper and the building both.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. His exact answer was, "I presume the church
owns it."

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to get the answer. Is that your answer,
Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That you presume —

Mr. SMITH. It is the present owner of the Deseret News.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not want to have any misconstruction put upon
your use of the word " presume." Do you use the word " presume"
because you do not know that it is so owned?

88 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. I really do not know so that I could tell you positively.

Mr. TAYLER. Who would know?

Mr. SMITH. I presume I could find out.

Mr. TAYLER. Could you find out before you leave Washington?

Mr. SMITH. Perhaps so.

Mr. TAYLER. Perhaps so ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there anybody in Washington who knows?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know of anybody, unless my counsel can tell
you.

Mr. TAYLER. Was Orson Pratt an authoritative writer in the church ?

Mr. SMITH. He was in some things, and in some things he was riot.

Mr. TAYLER. Is Brigham H. Roberts an authoritative writer in the
church ?

Mr. SMITH. Well-
Mr. TAYLER. Of course, I understand that no man who writes of his
own motion, however truly he may write, thereby becomes authority.

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. TAYLER. But has he been constituted, in any work that he has
written, authority ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not that 1 know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Has he written anything which is in terms sanctioned
by the church as declaring its doctrine and policy ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 have never heard any of B. H. Roberta's writings
called in question by the church.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 would not want to intimate that that answer is not
candid, Mr. Smith, but I put the question in another form: Whether
or not some of. his writings have not been, in terms, approved by the
Mormon hierarchy, if I may use that expression ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think so.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall a book entitled " Mormonism; its Origin
and History," by B. H. Roberts?

Mr. SMITH. I do. That is his own work.

Mr. TAYLER. That is his own work?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. By whom was it published?

Mr. SMITH. I think by the Deseret News, but I am not sure.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it not published by the church ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it not copyrighted by Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. I think likely it was, because we bought his copyright
from him.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it not copyrighted by Joseph F. Smith for the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

Mr. SMITH. My recollection is the church bought the copyright of
Roberts.

Mr. TAYLER. And published the book?

Mr. SMITH. The Deseret News published the book.

Mr. TAYLER. Did the church publish it? The Deseret News may
have printed it; but did not the church publish it?

Mr. SMITH. Well, perhaps it did. 1 am not posted.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me read you the title page of this book

Mr. SMITH. All right.

EEED SMOOT. 89

Mr. TAYLER. I will read it:

Mormonism. The relation of the church to Christian sects. Origin and history
of Mormonism. Doctrines of the church. Church organization. Present status.
By B. H. Roberts. Published by the church. Deseret News print. Salt Lake City.

On the other side of this sheet:

Copyrighted by Joseph F. Smith, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day

Saints.

Both of those inscriptions which I have read correctly recite the
facts?

Mr. SMITH. So far as I am aware they do.

Mr. TAYLER. And, Mr. Smith, the opening sentence of this little
work is as follows:

This brochure is issued under the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints.

Is that correct .

Mr. SMITH. I think it is. If it says so, it is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. The next sentence is:

It is therefore an authoritative utterance upon the subject of which it treats — the
relation of the church to Christian sects; its origin; its history; its doctrines; its
organization; its present status.

That is true, is it not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think likely it is.

Mr. TAYLER. Then this work is to be distinguished, is it not, as
respects its authority, from all other works that have been written by
other persons unless they were such as were written under inspiratiop
or other revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know when this work was published ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, about how long ago ?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you.

Mr. TAYLER. I notice on page 65 the following:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was organized on the 6th day of
April, 1830, with six members. In six months it had increased its membership to
about seventy. It now (1902) has a membership in the organized Stakes of Zion of
several hundred thousand and more than fifty thousand in the various missions.

You have no disposition to dispute the date of that?

Mr. SMITH. Not at all. I am not posted in regard to the date of it;
that is all.

Senator HOAR. 1 did not hear the last phrase.

Mr. SMITH. I am not posted in regard to the date of the work.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, your church organization is composed, as
I understand, of the first presidency, consisting of yourself and two
councilors, three in all; that is, three in the first presidency and next
to that the twelve apostles.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And from that on down the line are the various offi-
cials in the framework of your church organization?

Mr. SMITH. Quite correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you able to state with any degree of approximate
accuracy the number of officials in your church organization ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, I did not quite understand whether

90 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. Smith stated that the twelve apostles were in addition to the first
presidency.

Senator BEVERIDGE. He said, " Quite correct,"

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He said the}^ were next in order.

Mr. SMITH. They are the next in order to the first presidency.

Senator HOAR. Are the three officials whom you named apostles
also, or are they in addition ?

Mr. SMITH. The three officials are three presiding high priests over
the church.

Senator HOAR. They are not called apostles ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The twelve apostles are in addition to the first presi-

Senator DUBOIS. They are not necessarily apostles?
Mr. SMITH. They are not necessarily apostles.
Senator DUBOIS. They may or may not be apostles?
Mr. SMITH. They may or may not be apostles.
Mr. TAYLER. Are the three constituting the first presidency in
fact apostles?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You yourself testified that you -
Mr. SMITH. Have been.
Mr. TAYLER. When did you become an apostle?

- Mr. SMITH. I think it was in 1867, as near as I can remember.
Mr. TAYLER. You continued to be an apostle until you became

president?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I continued to be an apostle until 1 became
the second councilor to John Taylor, president of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. And from that did you go to the presidency?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I succeeded in the same position to President
Woodruff and also in the same position to President Snow, and after
the death of President Snow I succeeded to the presidency.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me understand you. You became a councilor -- -

Mr. SMITH. To President Taylor.

Mr. TAYLER. President Taylor ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Then what did you become?

Mr. SMITH. The same.

Mr. TAYLER. You remained a councilor to the several succeeding
presidents ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Until you became first president ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think the word "remained" is correct. I was
chosen.

Mr. TAYLER. Chosen?

Mr. SMITH. By each succeeding president as councilor.

Senator DUBOIS. Is it not the fact that the president appoints his
two councilors?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

• Mr. TAYLER. He said that at the close of the sentence.
Senator DUBOIS. I. beg pardon.

Mr. TAYLER. He said that he was chosen; that the word " remained"
which 1 had used was inaccurate and that he was chosen by each sue
ceeding president as councilor.

REED SMOOT. 91

Mr. SMITH. Correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Perhaps it is proper for me at this point to state, as
it incidentally arises as we go along, that I did not intend to pursue
the inquiry into the organization, the mere organization of the church,
as a machine, any further. If any members of the committee feel
that they desire further information upon that point I think this
would be a proper time to ask for it. I was going on now to the
question as to the power and authority of the president and the
apostles.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You have asked a great many preliminary
questions concerning those books as authority of the church. I
assume by that that you expect to make some point on the contents of
the books.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir; exactly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If that is true — I make this by way of sugges-
tion, Mr. Chairman — I think enough of those books oughf to be sup-
plied so that we could all have them at hand and intelligently follow
you, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. I think they can be obtained.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You spent a great deal of time fixing the
authority of the books.

Mr. TAYLER. All I intended to do was to read a few extracts from
the books and, of course, to offer the books in evidence after the testi-
mony has been introduced respecting them. We have here one or two
copies, for instance, of Doctor Talmage's work, and I presume the
other side have some copies of it. It is referred to in the answer of
Mr. Smoot.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Let us get enough copies.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I would suggest that before the direct exami-
nation of this witness is closed the parts of these books which counsel
intend to rely upon or to use shall be read, or introduced into the
record in some way, so that counsel for Senator Smoot can determine
whether they care to make any cross-examination about it, and if so,
to what extent.

Mr. TAYLER. I intend to do so. I want to have appear in the body
of the examination of this witness as largely as possible, without tak-
ing up too much time, the substance of all our testimony respecting
the things that he testifies concerning.

Senator McCoMAS. I should like to ask one question. You say that
the councilors are appointed by the president of the church. How are.
the apostles selected ?_

Mr. SMITH. In Ihe first place they were chosen by revelation. The
council of the apostles have had a voice ever since in the selection of
their successors.

Senator McCoMAS. Had a voice?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. Have they had the election of their successors
to perpetuate the body of apostles since the first revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that I understand your question.

Senator McCoMAS. You say the first apostles were selected in ac-
cordance with revelations.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
\ Senator McCoMAS. Revelations to whom ?

Mr. SMITH. To Joseph Smith.

92 EEED SMOOT.

Senator McCoMAS. And the twelve apostles were then first named ? .)

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what
body were the vacancies in the twelve apostles filled?

Mr. SMITH. Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body,
the twelve themselves, by and with the consent and approval of the
first presidency.

Senator HOAB. Was there a revelation in regard to each of them?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean
in the beginning?

Senator HOAR. I understand you to say that the original twelve
apostles were selected by revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Through Joseph Smith ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator HOAR. Is there any revelation in regard to the subsequent
ones?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has been the choice of the body.

Senator McCoMAS. Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession
by their own act and the approval of the first presidency ?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, will you state-
Senator BAILEY. Mr. Tayler, before you proceed I should like to
ask the witness a question.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

Senator BAILEY. Could the first president prevent a selection which
had been made by the apostles to fill a vacancy in their number ?

Mr. SMITH. I think the twelve would be very reluctant to insist upon
the election of a man to whom the president was opposed.

Senator BAILEY. I would understand that as a matter looking to har-
monious relations between the first president and the apostles. But it
is not a question of that. It is a question of power. If the apostles
chose to do so, could they elect a man over the protest of the president?

Mr. SMITH. I presume they could; but I do not think they would.

Senator BAILEY. But they liave the power ?

Mr. SMITH. They have the power if they chose to do it; but 1 do
not think they would do it.

Senator BAILEY, ^hp^ selects th^firstj^resident?

Mr. SMITH. The first presidency~was chosenlnlEhe same way. They
are elected

Senator BAILEY. I believe the presidency consists of the president
and two councilors.

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Senator BAILEY. I do not refer to the councilors. You have already
said that the president chooses or designates them. Who chooses or
elects the president? For instance, who elected you to your present
position ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 was nominated by the twelve apostles and submitted
to the whole church and sustained by the whole church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Explain what you mean by the word u sus-
tained" in that technical sense.

Mr. SMITH. That is, voted upon.

Senator BAILEY. I understand that. As a matter of fact, the apostles

REED SMOOT. 93

nominate the president and the church elects him. Do I understand
that to be the case ?

Mr. SMITH. Well, yes, sir; that has been the case. And then, again,
the senior apostle, through custom of the church since the death of
Joseph Smith, has been recognized on the death of the president as the
legitimate successor to the president.

Senator BAILEY. It is a question of succession rather than of election ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. Has that the force of law ?

Mr. SMITH. Still he is elected, just the same.

Senator BAILEY. Has that the force of law or has it merely the per-
suasion of custom?

Mr. SMITH. Merely a custom. There is no law in relation to it. It
does not of necessit}^ follow that the senior apostle would be or should
be chosen as the president of the church.

Senator BAILEY. And if they did not elect him it would do no vio-
lence to the church or the organization?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in the least.

Senator McCoMAS. You say the church elects the president?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. At that election there is but one nomination for
the election?

Mr. SMITH. There is only one. There has been only one. There
never has been more than one that I know of.

Senator DUBOIS. The name of the president is presented to the con-
ference, and they are asked if they desire to sustain the selection to
hold up their hands. I believe that is the custom?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. That is all there is of it.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask if, within your knowledge, a vacancy
in the list of the twelve apostles has ever been filled in opposition to
to the wishes of the first presidency?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think such a case has ever occurred.

Mr. TAYLER. Has anyone of the first presidents after Joseph Smith
been appointed to his place in consequence of revelation?

Mr. SMITH. I was not present on the selection or choice of President
Young to succeed Joseph Smith, but I have been led to understand by
the history of the church that it was by the spirit of revelation that he
was chosen to be president of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, was any successor of his in like manner chosen?

Mr. SMITH. We believe that there is inspiration in all those things.

Mr. TAYLER. And you believe therefore that all of the first presi-
dents from Joseph Smith down have been chosen through inspiration
or revelation?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That there has been actual divine interposition in that
choice?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I believe that.

Mr. TAYLER. Affecting that particular circumstance as such ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The church teaches that, does it not?

Mr. SMITH. That is held as a principle by the church.

Mr. TAYLER. By the church?

94 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, we have somewhat touched upon the next
point which I wished to cover in the later questions and answers.
Joseph Smith was chosen head of the church by revelation, as you
have stated?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Will you state briefly with what powers and authority
Joseph Smith and all of the first presidents succeeding him are endowed?

Mr. SMITH. ^ly understanding is that they are endowed with the
authorit}7 of the holy priesthood.

The CHAIRMAN. The authority of what?

Mr. SMITH. The holy priesthood, which gives them authority to
preach the gospel and administer in all the ordinances of the gospel
by authority from God, the gospel being a gospel of repentance of
sin, fakh in God and in Jesus Christ, his Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
and baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, by one holding
authority from God to baptize and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the
laying- on of hands. This is the authority that is exercised and held
by the president of the church, as we believe.

Mr. TAYLER. "As we believe." You have stated that as your
understanding. That is the church doctrine and belief?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is the church doctrine.

Senator HOAR. I do not quite understand one kind of phrase which
recently appears in Mr. Smith's answers. He says " I presume," "My
understanding is," "I believe," "Not that I know of," "So far as I
am aware," "I think likely." Now, I wish to understand if in regard
to these matters of faith as to which you have been asked you mean
to express yourself doubtfully, as an ordinary man might, or whether
they are things which you yourself know to be true by divine revelation.

Mr. SMITH. If you please, when I speak in reference to defined
principles and doctrines of the church I speak from my heart, without
any uncertainty on my part.

Senator HOAR. As of knowledge?

Mr. SMITH. But when I speak of things that I may be at fault about
in memory, that I may not be thoroughly posted about, I may be
excused, perhaps, if I use the words "I presume," etc. But on prin-
ciples of the doctrines of the church I think — now I say I think — I do
think I can speak positively.

Senator HOAR. You know ?

Mr. SMITH. I know as well as any man can know; at least as well
as I can know. I do not wish —

Senator HOAR. For instance, on being asked whether one of the
presidents, perhaps the second president, "was appointed by a divine
revelation, you replied that you were not present, but you thought so.
Is that one of the things of which you have an ordinary, human knowl-
edge, or is it a thing of which you have an inspired knowledge — that
the president of the body was chosen by revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. To me it is a matter of certainty. 1 believe it with all
my heart.

Senator HOAR. 1 do not wish to interpose in the examination, but
this has been said so often that J desired to understand whether Mr.
Smith's form of language meant to imply doubt. I do not mean doubt
in the human sense, for there are a great many things that we all feel
confident of in our religious faith, whatever it is, or in our political

REED SMOOT. 95

faith, or any other faiths. But I want to understand if, in regard to
what you have told us or are about to tell us is the religious faith of
your church, you mean to express doubt in the sense that you may
possibly be mistaken and that other men are likety to be as right as
you are, or if you mean to have us understand that you know from
divine inspiration ? I understand you now that in all matters in regard
to the faith of your church you, its president, speak from an inspired
knowledge ?

Mr. SMITH. I believe — yes, sir; I do.

Mr. TAYLEK. With reference to your power as president of the
church, let me ask you if you believe that it is stated as it is in verse 4,
section 68, of the Doctrine and Covenants ? Let me paraphrase it to
apply to you.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What page is that?

Mr. TAYLEK. Page 248.

That whatsoever you shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be
scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the
word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I believe that doctrine, and it does not apply
only to me, but it applies to every elder in the church with equal
force.

Mr. TAYLEK. With equal force?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That applies only when moved upon by the Holy
Ghost?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you understand that that is intended to cover the
case of inspiration or revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is every elder of .the church, according to the belief
and practice of your organization, likely to receive revelations directly
from God?

Mr. SMITH. When he is inspired by the Holy Ghost"; yes.

Mr. TAYLER. I am coming to the subject of revelation in a moment.
But does anybody, except the head of the church, have what you call
revelations binding upon the church?

Mr. SMTTH. Yes, sir; everybody is entitled to revelations.

Mr. TAYLER. Has any person, except a first president of the church,
ever received a revelation which was proclaimed and became binding
upon the church ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. No?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. The revelations for the government and
guidance of the church come only through the head. But every
elder of the church and every member of the church is entitled to the
spirit of revelation.

Mr. TAYLER. I suppose—

Senator OVERMAN. Do 3^011 mean entitled from God or through the
presidency?

Mr. SMITH. From God.

Senator OVERMAN. To receive it direct from God ?

Mr. SMITH. From God.

Senator OVERMAN. Has an}7 revelation ever been received from God
to the members or elders of the church except through the president?

96 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Let me say that we hold that every member
of the church receives a witness of the spirit of God of the truth of the
doctrine that he embraces and he receives it because of the testimony
of the spirit to him, which is the spirit of revelation.

Mr. TAYLER. Then any elder in the church may receive a revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. For his own guidance.

Mr. TAYLER. For his own guidance ?

Mr. SMITH. For his own guidance.

Mr. TAYLER. Then Mr. Smoot may do so?

Mr. SMITH. For his own guidance.

Mr. TAYLER. For his own guidance?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He may then come into direct contact with God in
the form of a revelation to him for his own guidance?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the answer to the question ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; the same as any other member of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not know that there is any significance in your
use of the word "member" now and the word "elder" then. Are all
members of the church elders?

Mr. 'SMITH. Pretty nearly all. All the male members are — nearly
all of them; 1 would not say all of them were.

Mr. TAYLER. You have already touched upon the subject of revela-
tion, and if you have anything further to say about it I think this
would be as good a time as any, as to the method in which a revelation
is received and its binding or authoritative force upon the people.

Mr. SMITH. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given
through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authorita-
tive upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the
church and accepted by them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you mean by being presented to the
church ?

Mr. SMITH. Presented in conference.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean by that that the church in conference
may say to you, Joseph F. Smith, the first president of the church,
"We deny that God has told you to tell us this?"

Mr. SMITH. They can say that if they choose.

Mr. TAYLER. They can say it?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; they can. And it is not binding upon them
as members of the church until they accept it.

Mr. TAYLER. Until they accept it?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Were the revelations to Joseph Smith, jr., all sub-
mitted to the people ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Does it require a majority to accept or must it
be the unanimous voice?

Mr. SMITH. A majority. Of course only those who accept would
be considered as in good standing in the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. Has any revelation made by God to the first
president of the church and presented by him to the church ever been
rejected?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that it has; not that I know of.

Senator HOAR. That answer presents precisely the question I put to

EEED SMOOT. 97

you a little while ago. "Not that I know of," you replied. Do you
know, as the head of the church, what revelations to your predecessors
are binding upon the church ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 know, as I have stated, that only those revelations
which are submitted to the church and accepted by the church are
binding upon them. That I know.

Senator HOAR. Then the counsel asked you if any revelation of the
head of the church had been rejected.

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of. I do not know of any that have
been rejected.

Senator HOAR. Do you mean to reply doubtfully upon that question,
whether some of the revelations are binding and some are not?

Mr. SMITH. There may have been; I do not know of any.

Senator HOAR. That then is not a matter in which you have an
inspired knowledge ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But you do not know of any instance where the
revelation so imparted to the church has been rejected ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not by the whole church. I know of instances
in which large numbers of members of the church have rejected the
revelation, but not the body of the church.

Senator OVERMAN. What became of those people who rejected it?

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

Senator OVERMAN. What became of the people who rejected the
divine revelation; were they unchurched?

Mr. SMITH. They unchurched themselves.

Senator OVERMAN. Oh, yes. They were outside the pale of the
church then ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They unchurched themselves by not believing?

Mr. SMITH. By not accepting.

Mr. TAYLER. Then if you had a revelation and presented it to your
people, all who did not accept it would thereby be unchurched ?

Mr. SMITH. Not necessarily.

Mr. TAYLER. Not necessarily?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I should like to have you distinguish between this
answer and the one you just gave.

Mr. SMITH. Our people are given the largest possible latitude for
their convictions, and if a man rejects a message that I may give to
him but is still moral and believes in the main principles of the gospel
and desires to continue in his membership in the church, he is per-
mitted to remain and he is not unchurched. It is only those who on
rejecting a revelation rebel against the church and withdraw from the
church at their own volition.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Smith, the revelations given through you and
your predecessors have always been from God?

Mr. SMITH. 1 believe so.

Senator HOAR. Very well. As I understand, those persons who
you say reject one of your revelations but still believe in the main
principles of the church are at liberty to remain in the church. Do I
understand you to say that any revelation coming from God to you
is not one of the main principles of the church? Does not the person
who rejects it reject the direct authority of God?

98 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; no doubt he does.

Senator HOAR. And still he remains a member of the church'-.'

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. In good standing, if a moral man ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Although disobeying the direct commandment of
God?

Mr. SMITH. Would you permit me to say a few words?

Senator HOAR. Certainly. We shall be glad to hear you.

Mr. SMITH. I should like to say to the honorable gentlemen that the
members of the Mormon Church are among the freest and most inde-
pendent people of all the Christian denominations. They are not all
united on every principle. Every man is entitled to his own opinion
and his own views and his own conceptions of right and wrong so long
as they do not come in conflict with the standard principles of the church.
If a man assumes to deny God and to become an infidel we withdraw
fellowship from him. If a man commits adultery we withdraw fellow-
ship from him. If men steal or lie or bear false witness against their
neighbors or violate the cardinal principles of the Gospel, we withdraw
our fellowship. The church withdraws its fellowship from that man
and he ceases to be a member of the church. But so long as a man or
a woman is honest and virtuous and believes in God and has a little
faith in the church organization, so long we nurture and aid that per-
son to continue faithfully as a member of the church, though he may
not believe all that is revealed.

I should like to say this to you, in point, that a revelation on plural
marriage is contained in that book. It has been ascertained by actual
count that not more than perhaps 3 or 4 per cent of the membership
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ever entered into
that principle. All the rest of the members of the church abstained
from that principle and did not enter into it, and many thousands of
them never received it or believed it; but they were not cut off from
the church. They were not disfellowshipped and they are still mem-
bers of the church; that is what 1 wish to say.

Senator DUBOIS. Did I understand you to say that many thousands
of them never believed in the doctrine of plural marriage?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir —

Senator DUBOIS. You misunderstand me. I do not undertake to say
that they practiced it. I accept your statement on that point. But
do you mean to say that any member of the Mormon Church in the
past or at the present time says openly that he does not believe in the
principle of plural marriages?

Mr. SMITH. 1 know that there are hundreds, of my own knowledge,
who say they never did believe in it and never did receive it, and
they are members of the church in good-fellowship. Only the other
day I heard a man, prominent among us, a man of wealth, too, say
that he had received all the principles of Mormonism except plural
marriage, and that he never had received it and could not see it. I
myself heard him say it within the last ten da}7s.

Senator HOAR. Is the doctrine of the inspiration of the head of the
church and revelations given to him one of the fundamental or non-
fundamental doctrines of Mormonism?

Mr SMITH. The principle of revelation is a fundamental principle
to the church.

EEED SMOOT. 99

Senator HOAK. I speak of the revelations given to the head of the
church. Is that a fundamental doctrine of Mormonism?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Does or does not a person who does not believe that
a revelation given through the head of the church comes from God
reject a fundamental principle of Mormonism?

Mr. SMITH. He does; always if the revelation is a divine revelation
from God.

Senator HOAR. It always is, is it not? It comes through the head of
the church?

Mr. SMITH. When it is divine, it always is; when it is divine, most
decidedly.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand that — "when it is divine."
You have revelations, have you not?

Mr. SMITH. I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have
received revelations. I never said I had a revelaton except so far as
God has shown to me that so-called Mormonism is God's divine truth;
that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that was shown to you by God ?

Mr. SMITH. By inspiration.

The CHAIRMAN. How by inspiration; does it come in the shape of a
vision ?

Mr. "SMITH. "The things of . God knoweth no man but the spirit
of God;" and I can not tell you any more than that I received that
knowledge and that testimony by the spirit of God.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not mean that you reached it by any process
of reasoning or b}7 any other method by which you reach other con-
clusions in your mind, do you?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I have reached principles; that is, I have been
confirmed in my acceptance and knowledge of principles that have
been revealed to me, shown to me, on which I was ignorant before, by
reason and facts.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not know that 1 understand your answer. Mr.
Stenographer, will you please read it.

Senator BAILEY. Before we proceed any further, I assume that all
these questions connected witn the religious faith of the Mormon
Church are to be shown subsequently to have some relation to civil
affairs. Unless that is true I myself object to going into the religious
opinions of these people. I do not think Congress has anything to
do with that unless their religion connects itself in some way with
their civil or political affairs.

Now, if that is true, if it is proposed to establish that later on, then
of course it is entirely pertinent.

Senator HOAR. I suppose you will make your statement with this
qualification or explanation, that unless what we might think merely
civil or political they deem religious matters.

Senator BAILEY. Then of course it would be a matter addressing itself
to us with great force.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair supposed that this was preliminary.

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly.

Senator BAILEY. I have assumed that it was and have said nothing
up to this time. But so far as concerns what they believe, it does not
concern me unless it relates to their conduct in civil and political
affairs.

100 EEED 8MOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly, that is correct. Mr. Smith, in what
different ways did Joseph Smith, jr., receive revelations?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know, sir; I was not there.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you place any faith at all in the account of Joseph
Smith, jr., as to how he received those revelations?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. TAYLER. How does he say he got them?

Mr. SMITH. He does not say.

Mr. TAYLER. He does not?

Mr. SMITH. Only by the spirit of God.

Mr. TAYLER. Only by the spirit of God ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did Joseph Smith ever say that God or an angel
appeared to him in fact?

Mr. SMITH. He did.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what I asked you a moment ago.

Mr. SMITH. He did.

Mr. TAYLER. Did Joseph Smith contend that always there was a
visible appearance of the Almighty or of an angel ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; he did not.

Mr. TAYLER. How otherwise did he claim to receive revelations?

Mr. SMITH. By the spirit of the Lord.

Mr. TAYLER. And in that way, such revelations as you have received,
you have had them ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The revelation concerning plural marriages was re-
ceived by Joseph Smith ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; it was.

Mr. TAYLER. And was published by him, was it not —

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. To some members of the church?

Mr. SMITH. It was.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, if you will pardon me, it is now about
time for the committee to take a recess, and we will do so before you
enter upon that branch of the examination.

Mr. TAYLER. It is a good time so far as the examination is con-
cerned.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now take a recess until 2
o'clock p. m.

Thereupon (at 11 o'clock and 45 minutes a. m.) the committee took
a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

•

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. You may resume the witness chair, Mr. Smith.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Continued.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Smith's examination pro-
ceeds 1 would like to understand as we go along one statement which
he made this morning. I understood you to say, Mr. Smith, that the
revelations which came to the president of the church, before they

KEED SMOOT. 101

were established as a part of the faith of the church, were accepted or
submitted to the vote of the entire church.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. And that if it should happen, as I understood you
to state, that a majority rejected such a revelation, although this never
had happened and was not likely in your judgment to happen, in that
case it would not become a part of the established faith ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. •

Senator HOAR. In counting that majority, are the votes of women
counted, or only the votes of men ?

Mr. SMITH. Women and men.

Senator HOAR. Both ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, you may proceed.

Mr. TAYLER. You were speaking just before the recess, Mr. Smith,
about the revelation respecting plural marriages. This revelation,
which was given to Joseph Smith in 1843, was publicly promulgated
by Brighani Young in 1852?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The Mormon people were then in Utah; that is, their
headquarters was in Utah?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And most of the Mormon people were there at that
time, I assume ?

Mr. SMITH. No, I do not think so; though they may have been.
I could not tell }^ou as to that.

Mr. TAYLER. When did the practice of taking plural wives begin,
as a matter of fact?

Mr. SMITH. There were a few who received the doctrine under the
direct teaching of Joseuh Smith and entered into it at that time, before
his death.

Mr. TAYLER. And for the few years which elapsed between his
reception of the revelation and the departure of the people of that
church for Utah the practice was carried on to some extent, was it not?

Mr. SMITH. To a limited extent; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. To a limited extent?

Mr. SMITH. To a very limited extent.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the answer?

Mr. SMITH. To a limited extent.

Mr. TAYLER. From the time you reached Utah until 1862 I believe
it has always been claimed, and 1 suspect the fact to be, that there was
no local law controlling the subject of the marriage relation?

Mr. SMITH. None that 1 know of.

Mr. TAYLER. In 1862 was passed the first law making bigamy, or
the taking of more than one wife, an offense.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I believe it was always contended, or for many years
contended, by the people and leaders of the Mormon Church that
that law was unconstitutional, as being an infringement upon the
right of people to worshir) God according to the dictates of their own
consciences.

Mr. SMITH. Our people took the ground that it was an unconstitu-
tional law.

102 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. And do you remember when the Supreme Court of the
United States declared that law constitutional ?

Mr. SMITH. No; I could not tell you exactly the date. I think it
was somewhere in 1889.

Mr. TAYLER. In 1878, was it not?

Mr. SMITH. Was it in 1878 ? I could not tell you, sir, from memory.

Mr. TAYLER. It was declared constitutional 'in the Reynolds case,
was it not? «

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I think it was appealed. That is to say, the
Reynolds case was decided, 1 believe, by the Supreme Court of the
United States.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. But that the question of the law was not decided until
a later date, is my understanding" of it.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not think, then, that the —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, why should we take up time in
discussing when a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
was rendered ? That decision was rendered in 1878 and did hold the
law to be constitutional. What is the use of taking up time with it?

Mr. TAYLER. It enables us to get along vei}7 much more easily — and
I am doing it in the interest of speed — if we understand these historical
facts. I am glad we get it from the mouth of counsel, anyhow.

Did the church accept that decision of the Supreme Court as con-
trolling their conduct?

Mr. SMITH. It is so on record.

Mr. TAYLER. Did it?

Mr. SMITH. I think it did, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is to say, no plural marriages were solemnized
in the church after October, 1878?

Mr. SMITH. No; I can not say as to that.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, if the church solemnized marriages after that
time it did not accept that decision as conclusive upon it, did it?

Mr. SMITH. 1 am not aware that the church practiced polygamy, or
plural marriages, at least, after the manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, I know; but that was a long, long time after that.
1 am speaking now of 1878, when the Supreme Court decided the law
to be constitutional.

Mr. SMITH. I will sa}T this, Mr. Chairman, that I do not know of
any marriages occurring after that decision.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Tayler, will you permit me to ask }^ou to
what point these questions are addressed — what issue they are to sus-
tain? This deals with something that occurred twenty years ago,
apparently^ I do not know what issues have been decided upon here,
but I assume them to be whether Mr. Smoot is a polygamist, on the
one hand, or whether he has taken an oath inconsistent with Jbis duty
as a Senator of the United States, or belongs to an organization-
Senator HOPKINS. I do not think counsel ought to be required to
disclose what his purpose is, if he can state to the chair that the testi-
mony is for the purpose of sustaining his position here. It frequently
happens that a lawyer, in the examination of a witness, takes a course
to develop a certain fact that may not, to those uninitiated, appear to
be directly in point, but when it is developed it discloses the reason-
ableness of the entire examination.

KEED SMOOT. . 103

Senator BEVEI^DGE. It may be, Mr. Chairman; but as far as I, as a
member of the committee, am concerned, I listened very attentively to
the testimony, and I have the desire and the right to know just exactly
to what issue these questions are addressed, because, very frankly, I
do not see the pertinence of this question.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, I can readily understand that the
Senator can not see the pertinence of it, in view of his interpretation
of the purpose of this inquiry, for I have stated here more than once
that I was not undertaking, and should not undertake, so far as I was
concerned, to offer proof respecting the polygamy of Reed Smoot,
nor have I ever intimated that I was going to prove that he took any
oath. I do not know anything about that; but the grounds upon
which I did place this inquiry are grounds for the establishment of
which exactly the line of testimony which I am now pursuing is neces-
sary. Surely the status of Reed Smoot — because it is a personal
question, in the last analysis, as respects his right to be a Senator of
the United States — under a claim that he holds supreme allegiance to
the sovereignty of this Government, is largely to be determined by
precisely what it is, as exhibited by the law of the church of which
he is an orthodox member, he declares he must stand for, and which
the church, through its history, as exhibited by its acts, stands for.

We can not understand whether Mr. Smoot's statement is to be
taken as really expressive of his state of mind or as indicating a knowl-
edge upon his part of what his real obligation is to this church, until
we have really examined, not on the surface, but in the depths, pre-
cisely what the church and its leaders stand for; and if Mr. Smoot
wants to wholly differentiate himself from his church and his people
and the doctrine and life and living of those people, then that is for him
to determine; but I do assert, and that is the heart of this thing, that
he must do that or else declare himself subject to this church of which
he is a member.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I understand you to state, then, that the history
of the church discloses what its real spirit and purpose is?

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I have no objection to these questions whatever,
but I was necessarily absent this morning part of the time and did not
catch the pertinence or drift of them except by the statement you have
made.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This examination, Mr. Chairman, is directed to
things as to which the facts are admitted in the pleadings in this case,
and 1 submit it is simply a waste of time. He is asking this witness
about the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which
we lawyers practically know by heart, and which every member of the
committee knows by heart. The Supreme Court of the United States
did, in 1878, hold the law constitutional that a man's religious belief
would not be a defense in a criminal action against him for having two
wives. There was a series of decisions, all of which are set forth in
the printed papers here, the last of which was in 1889, and it was
delivered in 1890; and in September, 1890, the manifesto referred to,
which was what purported to be a revelation from God to the Mormon
people, was adopted by them in conference assembled, and potygamy
was renounced; and afterwards, in 1894, the State was admitted into
the Union upon the condition that thereafter polygamy should not be
practiced.

104 KEED SMOOT.

It does seem to me that we are taking up time uere about matters
which can have no pertinency, and that we ought to come down at
least to things that happened after the State was admitted to the
Union. I have made no objection. I have felt as the Senator who
asked these questions did, that nearly everj^thing asked here is irrel-
evant, and that very many of the questions which have been asked are
questions that ought never to be asked of any man in any tribunal in
this countiy. I am not his counsel, however, and he does not refer to
Reed Smoot; but if I were on the stand and asked as to communica-
tions I had had from the Almighty and what I believed of them, or
thought of them, I should take the judgment of the court of last resort
before I should answer it. I submit he ought not to be asked what
his private beliefs and convictions are, as was suggested here by
another Senator who is not here to-daj^, because some intimation was
given that that might have an effect upon this business.

Reed Smoot is not charged with polygamy. Nobody has ever
appeared to sustain that charge. If it is charged he has encouraged
polygamy, or encouraged unlawful cohabitation in others, I submit
that is the thing to which we should come.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand the Senator from Indiana withdraws
his objection?

Senator BEVERIDGE. I made no objection, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Or rather, no objection was made.

Senator BEVERIDGE. No objection was made. I asked a statement
of the point to which these questions were addressed, so that I could
intelligently understand them.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler, as rapidly as possible.

Senator FORAKER. Let the stenographer read the last answer.

The stenographer read as follows:

Mr. SMITH. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that I do not know of any marriages
occurring after that decision.

Senator FORAKER. You mean plural marriages, 1 suppose ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is what we mean, plural marriages.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, in order that I may understand that last
answer of yours, I will ask you this: We have fixed the date of this
decision as the fall of 1878; am I correct in my understanding of your
statement that, so far as you are aware, no polygamous marriage has
been performed with the sanction of the church since the fall of 1878?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not wish to be understood that way. I
said after —

Mr. TAYLER. What is the fact?

Mr. SMITH. What I wish to be understood as saying is that I know
of no marriages occurring after the final decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States on that question, and it was accepted by
our people as the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you do know of marriages occurring after the
decision of 1878 in the Reynolds case?

Mr. SMITH. I think likely I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean, Mr. Tayler, plural marriages?

Mr. TAYLER. Of course I refer to plural marriages.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. What is the date of the final decision, 1889?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The final decision was in 1890.

Senator FORAKER. January, 1890?

HEED SMOOT. 105

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No; I have the exact date here. It was May
19, 1890.

Mr TAYLER. 1 want to interpolate here, n regard to final decision.
Of course there was lots of litigation, but the word u final" has no
significance at all. In 1878 the Supreme Court of the United States
declared the law-
Mr. SMITH. The law of 1862.

Mr. TAYLER. Which made plural marriages unlawful constitutional
in every respect.

Senator FORAKER. I understand; but the witness said he knew of
no plural marriages subsequent to the final decision and the acceptance
of it by his church.

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Senator FORAKER. I only wanted to know the date of the accept-
ance. Did that follow immediately after this decision of May 19, 1890 ?

Mr. SMITH. Soon after.

Senator FORAKER. Is that the date you refer to ?

Mr. SMITH. The September following. That is the date I refer to.

Senator FORAKER. Pardon me for interrupting, Mr. Tayler; I was
not here during the first few minutes of the examination and did not
hear the questions.

Mr. TAYLER. In 1890 what has been called the manifesto of Presi-
dent Wilford Woodruff was issued. Is that right?

Mr. SMITH. I think it is right, sir. I could not say positively from
memory.

Mr. TAYLER. That manifesto, I believe, is printed in this protest, or
in the answer, is it not?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What purports to be a copy of it begins at
page 17.

Senator FORAKER. The date of that is given here as September 26,
1890.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I was looking at the language of that manifesto,
so far as it affected this question of polygamy. I find in that manifesto
these words:

We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to
enter into its practice. * * *

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages,
which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby
declare my intention to submit to those laws and to use my influence with the
members of the church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

You recall the issue of that manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And that was taken as implying what?

Mr. SMITH. As implying that plural marriages would stop in the
church.

Senator HOAR. That is rather a vague question. You say, "That
was taken." Taken by whom?

Mr. SMITH. Ity the church.

Mr. TAYLER. By the people of your church and by your church.
What was the answer?

Mr. SMITH. I have given the answer.

Mr. TAYLER. In the prayer for amnesty of December, 1891, which
is found on page 18, you and others signed that application for amnesty,
did you not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; we did.

106 HEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. I merely want to call your attention to the language
of this injunction respecting polygamy. I read—

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you read from?

Mr. TAYLER. I read from about the seventh paragraph, on page 18,
of the application or prayer for amnesty:

According to our creed, the head of the church receives from time to time revela-
tions for the religious guidance of his people. In September, 1890, the present head
of the church in anguish and prayer cried to God for help for his flock and received
permission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended.

The orthodox members of the Mormon Church had accepted the
revelation of Joseph Smith respecting plural marriages as laying down
a cardinal and fundamental doctrine of the church, had they not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Not Joseph Smith ?

Mr. TAYLER. 1 mean Joseph Smith, jr.

Mr. SMITH. That is right."

Mr. TAYLER. And as is often stated in these papers, plural marriages
in consequence of that had been entered into ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. This manifesto was intended to reach through all the
world wherever the Mormon Church operated, was it not?

Mr. SMITH. It is so stated.

Mr. TAYLER. It is so stated?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, where?

Mr. SMITH. In the investigation that followed.

Mr. TAYLER. Then the fact is

Mr. SMITH. Before the master of chancery, I suppose.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let him finish his answer, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. It is not an answer to say that it is stated somewhere,
unless it is stated in some document.

Mr. SMITH. It is stated in a document.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that the fact?

Mr. SMITH. Let me hear your question.

Mr. TAYLER. That the suspension of the law commanding polygamy
operated everywhere upon the Mormon people, whether whithin the
United States or without?

Mr. SMITH. That is our understanding, that it did.

Mr. TAYLER. Did this manifesto and the plea for amnesty affect also
the continuance of cohabitation between those who had been previously
married?

Mr. SMITH. It was so declared in the examination before the master
in chancery.

Mr. TAYLER. I am asking you.

Mr. SMITH. Well, sir; I will have to refresh my memory by the
written word. You have the written word there, and that states the
fact as it existed.

Mr. TAYLER. I want to ask you for your answer to that question.

Mr. SMITH. What is the question ?

Mr. TAYLER. The stenographer will read it.

The stenographer read as follows:

Did this manifesto and the plea for amnesty affect also the continuance of cohabi-
tation between those who had been previously married?

REED SMOOT. 107

Mr. SMITH. It was so understood.

Mr. TAYLER. And did you so understand it?

Mr. SMITH. 1 understood it so; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The revelation which Wilford Woodruff received, in
consequence of which the command to take plural wives was suspended,
did not, as you understand it, change the divine view of plural mar-
riages, did it?

Mr. SMITH. It did not change our belief at all.

Mr. TAYLER. It did not change your belief at all ?

Mr. SMITH. Not at all, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You continued to believe that plural marriages were
right?

Mr. SMITH. We do. I do, at least. I do not answer for anybody
else. I continue to believe as I did before.

Mr. TAYLER. You stated what were the standard inspired works of
the church, and we find in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants the
revelation made to Joseph Smith in 1843 respecting plural marriages.
Where do we find the revelation suspending the operation of that
command ?

Mr. SMITH. Printed in our public works.

Mr. TAYLER. Printed in your public works?

Mr. SMITH. Printed in pamphlet form. You have a pamphlet of it
right there.

Mr. TAYLER. It is not printed in your work of Doctrine and Cove-
nants ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; nor a great many other revelations, either.

Mr. TAYLER. Nor a great many other revelations ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many revelations do you suppose —

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you how many.

Mr. TAYLER. But a great many ?

Mr. SMITH. A great many.

Mr. TAYLER. Why have they not been printed in the Book of Doc-
trine and Covenants?

Mr. SMITH. Because it has not been deemed necessary to publish or
print them.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they matters that have been proclaimed to the
people at large?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in every instance.

Mr. TAYLER. Why not?

Mr. SMITH! Well, I don't know why not. It was simply because
they have not been.

Mr. TAYLER. Is it because they are not of general interest, or that
all of the people need to know of?

Mr. SMITH. A great many of these revelations are local.

Mr. TAYLER. Local?

Mr. SMITH. In their nature. They apply to local matters.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, exactly.

Mr. SMITH. And these, in many instances, are not incorporated in
the general revelations, and in the Book of Doctrine arid Covenants.

Mr. TAYLER. For instance, what do you mean by local?

Mr. SMITH. Matters that pertain to local interests of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course the law or revelation suspending polygamy
is a matter that does affect everybody in the church.

108 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And you have sought to inform them all, but not by
means of putting it within the covers of one of your inspired books ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. The various revelations that are published in the Book
of Doctrine and Covenants covered twenty-five or thirty years, did
they not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And as new revelations were given they were added
to the body of the revelations previously received?

Mr. SMITH. From time to time they were, but not all.

Mr. TAYLER. No; but I mean those that are published in that book?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You have, I suppose, published a great many editions
of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And as recently as 1903 you have put out an edition
of that book ?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I can not say that from memory.

Mr. TAYLER. No; but within the last year, or two, or three?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I think, likely, it is so.

Mr. TAYLER. As the head of the church, have you given any instruc-.
tion to put within that book of Doctrine and Covenants any expression
that the revelation of Joseph Smith has been qualified?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The revelation of Joseph Smith respecting plural
marriages remains in the book?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And in the last editions just as it did when first
promulgated ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And it remains now without expurgation or note or
anything to show that it is not now a valid law?

Mr. SMITH. In the book?

Mr. TAYLER. In the book: exactly.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And in connection with the publication of the revela-
tion itself.

Mr. SMITH. But the fact is publicly and universally known by the
people.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one thing I do not understand that I want
to ask about. This manifesto suspending polygamy, I understand,
was a revelation and a direction to the church?

Mr. SMITH. I understand it, Mr. Chairman, just as it is stated there
by President Woodruff himself. President Woodruff makes his own
statement. I can not add to nor take anything from that statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you understand it was a revelation the same as
other revelations ?

Mr. SMITH. I understand personally that President Woodruff was
inspired to put forth that manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. And in that sense it was a revelation?

Mr. SMITH. Well, it was a revelation to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Most emphatically.

EEED SMOOT. 109

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and upon which you rely. There is another
revelation directing plural marriages, I believe, previous to that?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And I understand you to say now that you believe
in the former revelation directing plural marriages in spite of this
later revelation for a discontinuance ?

Mr. SMITH. That is simply a matter of belief on my part. I can
not help my belief.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you adhere to the original revelation and dis-
card the latter one.

Mr. SMITH. I adhere to both. I adhere to the first in my belief.
I believe that the principle is as correct a principle to-day as it was
then.

The CHAIRMAN. What principle ?

Mr. SMITH. The principle of plural marriage. If I had not believed
it, Mr. Chairman, I never would have married more than one wife.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Senator HOAR. I understand that this second revelation is not a
revelation discontinuing polygamy, but that it is a revelation that the
law commanding it is suspended.

Mr. SMITH. Is stopped.

Senator HOAR. That is the same thing.

Mr. SMITH The same thing.

Senator HOAR. The word "suspended," 1 think, is used.

Mr. SMITH. It is used subsequently to the document itself.

Senator HOAR. So that I understand, if I get it right, that your atti-
tude is that while it was originally a divine command to practice it,
and so of course it must be a thing innocent and lawful and proper in
itself in the nature of things, yet that the obligation to do it as a
divine ordinance is now discontinued, and therefore, there being no
divine command to do it, yoiu* people submit themselves to the civil
law in that particular. Is that your idea?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, Senator.

Senator FORAKER. I understood you to say this morning that at all
times prior to any of these decisions and prior to this manifesto there
was only a small per cent of the membership of the church that did in
fact practice polygamy.

Mr. SMITH. Not to exceed 3 per cent, Senator.

Senator FORAKER. And that they were not required, and the revela-
tion was not construed to be a requirement that every member of the
Mormon Church should practice plural marriage?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it was in the nature of permission rather than
mandatory.

Senator HOPKINS. That is the way it was originally, as you under-
stand it?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is the original revelation.

Mr. TAYLER. You have stated, as I recall it, that you were one of
those who signed the plea for amnesty in 1891.

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. With you were all of the leading officers of the church-
that is to say, the first presidency and the twelve apostles — who were
in the country or available to sign that plea. Is that correct?

Mr. SMITH. Is the question that all who were available signed it?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

110 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I believe so. 1 think their names are there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are you referring to the plea of 1891, Mr.
Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; the plea of 1891. They are not attached to the
oopy I have before me; that is why I asked the question.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is on page 18, just above the quotation.

Mr. TAYLER. I think there was one who did not sign it, because he
?as absent.

Senator SMOOT. He signed it afterwards, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. That plea for amnesty, besides pledging the abandon-
ment of the practice of taking plural wives also pledged the signers
of that petition and all others over whom they could exercise any con-
trol to an obedience of all the laws respecting the marriage relation?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr, TAYLER. Did you know, in his lifetime, Abram H. or Abram M.
Cannon ?

Mr. SMITH. Abraham H. Cannon — I knew him well.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position did he occupy ?

Mr. SMITH. He was one of the twelve.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. I believe he was. 1 do not know much about his family
relations.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not know whether he had more than one wife
or not?

Mr. SMITH. I could not say that 1 know that he had, but I believe
that he had.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At what time are you speaking of?

Mr. TAYLER. During his lifetime, of course.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That would be highly probable. The question
is whether it was before or after the manifesto.
«, Senator FORAKER. When' did he die ? .

Mr. TAYLER. He died in 1896, I believe. Did you know any of his
wives?

Mr. SMITH. I have known some of them by sight.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know Marian Scoles Cannon ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 mean Lillian Hamlin. Did you know her?

Mr. SMITH. 1 know her by sight; yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know her now ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I know her now.

Mr. TAYLER. Was she his wife?

Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding, that she was his wife!

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know when he married her?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. Did }^ou marry them?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did you know her?

Mr. SMITH. My first acquaintance with her was in June. The first
time I ever saw her was in June, 1896, I believe, as near as I can
recall.

Mr. TAYLER. What year, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. IP 1896. Some time in June, 1896,

Mr. TAYLER. Where was she living then ?

REED 8MOOT. Ill

Mr. SMITH. I am not aware of where she was living. I think her
home was in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that where she was when you became acquainted
with her?

Mr. SMITH. That is where I first saw her, in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you see her after that ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where?

Mr. SMITH. 1 have seen her a number of times since then, in Provo,
in Salt Lake City, and elsewhere.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not see her in California about that time ?

Mr. SMITH. I did, most distinctly.

Mr. TAYLER. Where?

Mr. SMITH. In Los Angeles.

Mr. TAYLER. With whom was she there?

Mr. SMITH. She was with Abraham Cannon.

Mr. TAYLER. Was she married to him then?

Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was she married to him when you saw her shortly
before that?

Mr. SMITH. That is my belief. That is, I do not know anything
about it, but that is my belief, that she was his wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Your belief is that she was then his wife, when?
When you first saw her and knew her?

Mr. SMITH. When I first saw her. The first time I ever saw her, if
the chairman will permit me to tell the facts, was some time in June—
I do not remember the date— 1896. 1 was at that time president of the
Sterling Mining and Milling Company. At that time I was not the
president of so many institutions as I am now. Abraham Cannon was
the manager of those mines. We had a gentleman employed by the
name of Gillespie as foreman of the mines for a number of months,
but we were losing money and matters did not move satisfactorily,
and Mr. Gillespie made a proposition to Mr. Cannon to lease the
mines and the mills. There were two 10-stamp mills established at
the mines. I was asked by the board of directors to accompany
Abraham H. Cannon to Los Angeles, where we met Mr. Gillespie and
entered into a contract with him to lease the mines to him, and there,
as the president of the company, I had to sign a number of notes and
to sign a contract, he being the manager. 1 accompanied Abraham
H. Cannon and his wife on that trip, and had one of my wives with
me on that trip.

Mr. TAYLER. How intimately had you known Abraham H. Cannon
before this? For years you had known him well, had you?

Mr. SMITH. I had known him a great many years.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you first learn that Lillian Hamlin was his
wife?

Mr. SMITH. The first that 1 suspected anything of the kind was on
that trip, because I never knew the lady before.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, if Lilliam Hamlin, within a year or two years
prior to June, 1896, was an unmarried woman, how could she be mar-
ried to Abraham H. Cannon or Abraham M. Cannon ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, we object to the assumption that
Mr. Tayler makes in that question. 1 think it is improper that he

112 EEED SMOOT.

«

should make any assumption in putting the question. I ask to have
the question read.

Mr. SMITH. I can say that I do not know anything about it.

Mr. VAN COTT. If he knows nothing about it, I expect that does
away with the objection.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know that Lillian Hamlin was not his wife ir
1892?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not know anything about it, sir. I did not know
the lady, and never heard of her at all until that trip.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know that she was engaged to be married to
Abraham H. Cannon's brother?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I did not know that.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know George Teasdale?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I know George Teasdale.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you known him?

Mr. SMITH. I have known him ever since 1863.

Mr. TAYLER. He is one of the apostles ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long has he been one of them ?

Mr. SMITH. That I could not tell you from memory.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, about how long?

Mr. SMITH. I should think over twenty years.

Mr. TAYLER. How often do the first presidency and the apostles
meet?

Mr. SMITH. We generally meet once a week.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he a polygamist?

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, we object to this question for the
reason that it is entirely immaterial and irrelevant in the inquiry
affecting Mr. Smoot's right to be a Senator, as to any offense that
may have been committed by any other person. Of course this objec-
tion was one that was mooted at the time of the preliminary matter.
Our position was stated by us, and as I remember at that time Mr.
Tayler stated his position. There are several Senators around the
table at this time who were not present at that time, and in making
the objection 1 wish to refer just briefly to the matter, so as to bring
the history up to this time.

The chairman at that time stated that he would like our views on
certain matters. One of them that was mooted and discussed at some
little length was whether it was material to inquire into anything except
what affected Reed Smoot. Reed Smoot is claiming his seat as United
States Senator. If he has committed any offense, as polygamy, if he
has taken any oath that is inconsistent with good citizenship, of course
that can be inquired into; but it was claimed by counsel for the pro-
testants at that time that they would go into offenses that they alleged
had been committed by other persons than Reed Smoot, and the ques-
tion is whether that is material. It was discussed at that time before
some of the Senators present, but not decided, it being announced
afterwards, as I understood, that that matter would be decided and
passed upon when we came to the introduction of testimony.

At that time 1 made the statement, and I repeat it, that if this were
in a court of justice, to introduce testimony tending to show that A,
B, and C were guilty of an offense for the purpose of convicting
Reed Smoot would not be thought of nor offered by any attorney and
would not be received by any court, because it would be opposed to

REED SMOOT. 113

our fundamental sense of justice to introduce any such testimony or
consider any such testimony in a court. As Senator Hopkins said at
that time, this is not a court; but 1 know there are many eminent
lawyers here, who are Senators, at this table and on this committee
listening to the testimony. From my standpoint, I see no more dis-
tinction as to its being in opposition to fundamental justice to intro-
duce testimony as to Teasdale, as to A. H. Cannon, and as to A, B,
and C for the purpose of afi'ecting Reed Smoot than it would be in a
court of justice.

Suppose that the testimony should be introduced, and the committee
should receive it, that A, B, and C have violated the law of the mar-
riage relation. \^hen it is received, are you going to deny Reed
Smoot a seat in the United States Senate on* that proof? If you are,
then you might as well stop here, because the answer admits that some
people who were polygamists before the manisfesto have kept up
their relations; that is, the relation of living with more than one wife,
so that it is unnecessary to go on if that is all that is required. If, on
the other hand, that class of testimony is not going to deny Mr. Smoot
a seat in the Senate, then it is immaterial and irrelevant and should
not be received here.

The Senators will observe that when they pick up this protest and
read through all these charges, there is not, from cover to cover, one
charge in it except academic questions. There is not one charge in it
that the voters in Utah were not free to vote as the}^ pleased. There
is the academic question whether theoretically the church might not
have controlled some of those votes; but there is no charge that the
church did control them or did attempt to control them.

So, in the same way, when you look through those charges, there is
not one charge nor one hint nor one insinuation that the election of
Reed Smoot to the Senate of the United States was not the result of
the free expression of voters. If that is true, it seems to me utterly
illogical to say that this class of testimony can go in unless the com-
mittee is going to say that on that Reed Smoot is going to be charged
with and convicted of something that A, B, and C have done.

Senator HOAR. Suppose this were the charge. I do not wish to be
understood now, by putting a question, to mean that a particular
answer to it ought to be made. 1 do it in order to bring a matter to
your attention. Suppose that Mr. Smoot belonged to an association
of counterfeiters. I will not say Mr. Smoot particularly, but suppose
some other member of the Senate were charged with belonging to an
association of counterfeiters and it were proved that he was one of a
body of twelve men, f requently meeting, certain to be very intimate
with each other from the nature of their relation, all of whom except
himself had formerly believed that counterfeiting was not only lawful
but, under certain circumstances under which they stood, was duty,
and it was sought to be proved that all these persons whose opinion,
way of life, and practice he was likely to know continued in the prac-
tice of counterfeiting down to the present time; would or would not
that be one step in proof that he himself thought counterfeiting lawful,
and, connected with other testimony which might be introduced here-
after, that he practiced -it?

That last suggestion, however, would not be applicable to this case,
because he distinctly disclaims that he is a counterfeiter himself; but
the point is that it is claimed, as I understand, that he belongs to an asso-
s 8

114 REED SMOOT.

elation which still practically, though covertly, inculcates and permits
counterfeiting in people at large. Without intimating the least opin-
ion that this fact is 'true, is it not a view of the case which authorizes
the pursuit of this branch of inquiry as to these other men?

Mr. VAN COTT. If 1 understand the question of Senator Hoar cor-
rectly, the question of practice is eliminated?

Senator HOAK. Yes.

At this point the committee took a recess for ten minutes.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the* recess.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Continued.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Cott, in your statement just made, I think
I either misunderstood you, or the statement is not exactly accurate.
You say:

The chairman at that time stated that he would like our views on certain matters.
One of them that was mooted and discussed at some little length was whether it was
material to inquire into anything except what affected Reed Smoot. •

The chair did not make that statement, but simply said:

The chair will say to counsel representing the protestants and the respondent that
before entering upon any inquiry into the subject-matter involved into this contro-
versy it was deemed expedient by the committee to request the protestants, by their
attorneys, to appear and advise the committee in a general way of the testimony
intended to be submitted in support of the protest, or any part thereof, and the legal
contentions connected therewith.

It was also deemed advisable that the junior Senator from Utah (Mr. Smoot), by
himself or his attorney, should, if he so desired, advise the committee what part of
the contention of the pVotestants' counsel it was proposed to controvert. Such a course
it was believed would have a tendency to define the issues and mark the scope of the
inquiry.

The chair was not aware that he invited attention to any particular
subject, but stated in a general way that the counsel might outline the
bounds of the testimony.

Senator HOAR. I understood, Mr. Chairman, that the conclusion
reached by the committee was, stated briefly, that there were two issues
stated by the protestants and the respondent. One was Avhether or
not Reed Smoot had practiced polygamy, and that, I understand, has
been abandoned. Therefore there is only the other one, which was
whether or not, as an official of the Mormon Church, he took an oath
or an obligation that was superior, in his estimation and in its require-
ments upon him, to the oath or obligation which he must take to qualify
as a Senator. Those I understood to be the two issues, of which only
the one is remaining.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to bear my testimony as to
what occurred. Both of those contentions were set aside entirety. It
was not contended that they should be attempted to be proven by the
attorneys representing the protestants. Those two questions being
entirely eliminated, the counsel for the protestants announced what he
would attempt to prove, which is set forth in- the proceedings of, the
committee, and on that the hearing was ordered. It was not ordered
at all either upon the charge that Mr. Smoot was a polygamist or that
he had taken an oath incompatible with his oath as a Senator.

REED SMOOT. 115

Senator BEVERIDGK. Then, just what is the issue?

Senator DUBOIS. If the Senators had been at the meetings they would
have known, but not having been at the meetings —

Senator FORAKER. 1 want to say that I was called out of the city
and I was not present, and I was not present at the meeting at which
counsel made the statement to which the Senator from Idaho refers.

Senator DUBOIS. The statement of the Senator from Idaho will not
be made by any Senator who was at the meetings.

Senator FORAKER. I say I was not at the meeting. I understood
that the committee reached the conclusion I have stated at the meeting
when I was present. I did not know that the issue was afterwards
changed. If it has been changed, I would like -somebody to state it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So should I.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me clear this away, Mr. Chairman.

Senator FORAKER. 1 never knew until Mr. Tayler stated it a while
ago that he had abandoned the idea of proving that Mr. Smoot had
taken an obligation that interfered with tne obligation of his oath.

Mr. TAYLER. I 'can not abandon that which I never occupied or
possessed.

Senator DUBOIS. He never alleged it.

Senator FORAKER. Bear with me a minute. There will be plenty
of time to reply. The charges of the protestants alleged it.

Senator DUBOIS. I beg your pardon. The charges of the protestants
did not allege it.

Senator FORAKER. I so understood it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That was the charge of a gentleman named
Leilich.

Senator DUBOIS. That was a plural marriage.

Senator BEVERIDGE. No; as to Mr. Smoot being a polygamist.

Senator FORAKER. I say that charge was made by some one. I
understand that Mr. Tayler never professed to press that charge.

Mr. TAYLER, Nor the protestants.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Tayler, may 1 read, before you proceed, one
sentence of your offer of proof, made the other day ? It was admitted
that Mr. Smoot is one of the twelve apostles. This statement is on
page 4A:

All of the first presidency and the twelve apostles encourage, countenance, con-
ceal, and connive at polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and honor and reward
by high office and distinguished preferment those who most persistently and defiantly
violate the law of the land.

That, while it is in perhaps rather superlative phrase, is the sub-
stance of what was left of Mr. Tayler's offer of proof. That is the
way I understood it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is that correct, Mr. Tayler?

Senator FORAKER. I was not present when Mr. Tayler made the
offer, but I was present when we made the issues. The information I
want is what is the issue? I can then better understand the testimony
as it is offered.

Senator BEVERIDGE. May I ask if the sentence read by the Senator
from Massachusetts is the issue on which you now stand \

Mr. TAYLER. It is one of the issues.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is that the issue to which your questions and
the testimony adduced this morning was directed?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

116 KEED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If that was the issue to which the testimony
adduced this morning was directed, I am very glad I asked the ques
tion I did ask in the midst of it, because I can not see how any of the
testimony adduced this morning goes to the issue stated in that sen-
tence— u encourage, countenance, conceal, and connive at polygamy
and polygamous cohabitation, and honor and reward by high office,"
etc. How the conduct of a man by the name of Cannon twenty or
thirty years ago can affect that issue now, I can not see.

Mr TAYLER. If I may have the attention of the committee for a
moment —

Senator BEVERIDGE. 1 do not wish to be understood as objecting to
the issue }7ou make. I only want to understand it. I understand it
is proposed to prove that his relations to people who do violate the
law are of such a character, so far as this is concerned, that he ought
to be debarred.

The CHAIRMAN. I will make this suggestion, Mr. Tayler, that as
Mr. Van Cott was stopped in the midst of his statement, he shall con-
clude the statement of his objection and then you will have the oppor-
tunity to reply to it.

Mr. TAYLER. Very well. I only rose, of course, because the request
was made for a statement as to what the issue was, and I can make a
statement of that from the record in a moment.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear you further on your objection, Mr.
Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will ask Senator Hoar to pardon me for not answer-
ing his question at this time, so that I may answer the chairman's ques-
tion and statement first.

The chairman has stated that I made a certain statement about com-
ing here to ascertain the issues. It is true, as the chairman says, that
the particular remarks that I attributed to him are not in print; but
the chairman will remember that Senator Smoot, Mr. Worthington,
myself, and other gentlemen came here repeatedly when the committee
was not in session for the purpose of getting a hearing and understand-
ing about these issues. It was at those times that the statement was
made that I have referred to. It does not seem to me of much moment
either way, but that is when the statement was made.

Now, coming to Senator Hoar's question, the Senator has put a
question that I can answer neither yes nor no. I have to analyze it;
but as it goes to the heart of the objection that I made and the argu-
ment I had in mind it will be exactly appropriate to what I wish to say
on the subject.

I asked Senator Hoar just before the short recess was taken a few
minutes ago whether he eliminated practice in his question in regard
to counterfeiting, and I understood him to say yes, but I think he must
have misunderstood me.

Senator HOAR. I thought you asked me whether the charge that Mr.
Smoot was guilty of the practice of polygamy was eliminated from
this hearing. I thought you were speaking of that and I said yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. I understand. It seems to me that the Senator was
eliminating nearly everything in the question if he eliminated practice.

As I understand the question, I have to add one element to Senator
Hoar's question. That is the element of religious belief, because that
is the thing we have before us. There is a band of men or women who
believe in counterfeiting. It is an extreme case, but they believe in

REED SMOOT. 117

counterfeiting. They believe it as a religious belief. They believe it as
a religious duty, but they perform no act outside of their mere abstract
belief. The first question is, is that material ; and I have to segregate
the question and put it into two parts. I say no, it is absolutely
immaterial, according to my judgment, and I will state why.

In the first place, a body of men can believe that the "burning of
witches or the burning of the unorthodox is right. They can believe
it all they please, and the State never interferes with them. It has no
right to interfere with them. It protects their belief. It does not
make any difference what they believe. It does not make any differ-
ence how fallacious their belief is. It does not make any difference
how dangerous the tendency of their belief is. Their belief, as an
abstract belief, is protected, and no court and no law under the Con-
stitution has the right to interfere with it.

Let us just see a moment. Senator Hoar very pertinently put the
question to Mr. Smith on the witness stand, because it comes in as an
appropriate illustration, as to whether, when the first revelation was
given as to plural marriage as a matter of belief, he believed it. He
said yes. He was asked whether he believed that by the manifesto
the practice was stopped. He answered yes. I understood Senator
Burrows to put the question as though it were inconsistent. 1 say
no, they are not inconsistent; that a man has a right to believe that,
or to believe that counterfeiting is right, and his belief is protected.
It is the act, it is the practice, that you have the right to reach.

Now, to make myself clear, the case of Reynolds v. The United
States, involving this question of polygamy, went to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and the decision was rendered by Chief
Justice Waite. In the course of that decision he took up this ques-
tion of religion and discussed the Virginia act that was before the
people in Virginia that it was proposed to pass, and which Thomas
Jefferson and others opposed. It is on that that the Chief Justice is
speaking. I read from 98 United States, 163, to prove what I say in
regard to this question of belief, that no matter how bad it is, no
matter how fallacious it is, no matter how dangerous its tendencies
are, as to the belief, the people are protected.

This brought out a determined opposition. Among others, Mr. Madison prepared
a "Memorial and remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in
which he demonstrated ' ' that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator, ' ' was not within
the cognizance of civil government. (Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix.) At
the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another "for establish-
ing religious freedom," drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. (1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2
Howison, Hist, of Va., 298.) In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat., 84)
religious freedom is defined; and after a recital "that to suffer the civil magistrate to
include his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propaga-
tion of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which
at once destroys all religious liberty." * * *

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you understand that anybody is contending
here that this committee or anybody else has a right to inquire into
the belief of anybody ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have been doing that all the morning.

Mr. VAN COTT. We have been doing it all the morning, but if Sen-
ator Beveridge will excuse me, 1 will proceed with the end quotation.
It goes on :

It is declared "that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government
for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace
and good order." In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what
properly belongs to the church and what to the state.

118 REED SMOOT.

So, answering Senator Hoar and putting in that element of religious
belief, if this band of counterfeiters believe it is proper for them to
counterfeit money-
Senator HOAR. I do not think you quite understand my question,
if I may be permitted to state it without anticipating the final decision
at all, if we come to any final decision in this case. 1 do not believe —
I can only speak for myself — that any member of the committee will
be found questioning the general statement that you make. Certainty
I do not believe I ever shall. I have made a public statement on that
question quite recently in regard to anarchy. That is, I suppose we have
no right to deal, in determining Mr. Smoot's case, with any article of
religious faith of his, and f suppose further — now, I speak only for
myself — that I have no right to impute to him what 1 think may be
the logical deduction from his beliefs, but which he himself does not
accept. He is not obliged to be judged by my logic as to what is the
result of his creed.

That is the great source of all religious persecution and t}Tranny in
this world. But, on the other hand, suppose he believes that it is a
religious duty, or at any rate a right, whether a duty or not, to dis-
obey a law of the land and belong to an association organized for the
purpose of persuading other people to disobey that law of the land, to
persuade other people that it is not a religious duty to do it, or at any
rate their right to do it. Suppose at the outbreak of the civil war in
some Northern State an association had been formed who believed that
it was their own right and duty to join the ranks of the 'confederates.
There are a great many men who believed that the confederacy was
entirety right, as far as it was concerned in the doctrine of secession;
but suppose that they believed it was their right and duty to join the
ranks of the confederacy and they formed an association to urge their
fellow-citizens to join the ranks of the confederacy. Now, that is the
question — an association formed for the purpose of instigating unlaw-
ful action in other people.

I understand that Mr. Tayler, in these four lines which I have read
just now, makes, among other things, this offer of proof, that there is
an association or body of men known as the presidency and the twelve
apostles of this church who are organized, among other things, for
that very purpose, to inculcate polygamy and to persuade other people
to practice it, and he proposes to show it by showing that Mr. Smoot
is so connected and intimate with them that he must know their pur-
poses and practice and that their practice is itself a violation of the
law, and, whether Mr. Smoot violates it or not, all these other men do;
that he must know it and that, having joined their association, he must
have joined it for the purpose of helping them promote that doctrine.
1 do not mean in the least to imply a suggestion that that thing
either has been proved or that there is any step yet taken toward
proving it, but that is the theory on which it has occurred to me this
line of inquiry might be supported, and it seems to me, speaking only
for one, with great deference to my associates on the committee, that
we had better go along a little while and hear Mr. Tayler, and we can
see whether practically he is doing anything to establish that propo-
sition. So far the evidence has not gone a great way, if it has gone
at all, toward establishing that proposition; but Mr. Tayler has been
interrupted by members of the committee, or by me at any rate, as I
wanted him to understand my proposition.

REED SMOOT. 119

Mr. VAN COTT. Senator Hoar, as I had nearly finished my state-
ment, probably my answer had better be completed, and then it can be
determined.

Senator HOAR. Very well.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think I apprehend Senator Hoar's question cor-
rectly, although I had not finished my entire answer to it. I was just
coming to the question that Senator Hoar last discussed, this question
of practice. Taking the illustration of these men actually counter-
feiting money, and of their encouraging, aiding, and abetting others
to counterfeit money, where it comes to acts themselves, of course
that is not protected as a matter of belief. We all know that, and
that is outside of this case.

That brings us right down to the concrete question suggested by
Senator. Hoar and by his question. What is it that Mr. Tayler is
asking? He is asking in regard to the polygamous relations of George
Teasdale. The question is what bearing has that on Senator Smoot?
Bear this in mind, that in this protest the protestants in print charge
this, speaking of Reed Smoot:

We accuse him of no offense cognizable by law.

There is the statement, on page 25. If they charge Reed Smoot
with no offense cognizable by law, they do not charge him with the
overt act of encouraging some person to commit a crime.

Now, answering the further question that I thought Senator
Beveridge had in mind, and that Senator Hoar has suggested — that is,
suppose you are going to prove that Reed Smoot has encouraged
people to disobey this law against going into polygamy. We have
not objected to that kind of proof. They have not asked that question.
They are simply asking now what George Teasdale has done. There
is not a whisper nor a sign that they are inquiring or making any
effort to show that Reed Smoot ever encouraged that to be done; and
that is the point to which the objection goes.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, the committee will notice, upon an
examination of the two protests, and there were two filed against the
continuation of Mr. Smoot in his seat in the Senate, that one of them
is signed by J. L. Leilich, and the other is signed by some 19
different gentlemen in the State of Utah. Mr. Leilich has not been
here, and has not been represented by counsel. I represent the other
protestants, 19 in number, who signed the protest which any-
one who reads it will discover is a carefully prepared document
intended to set out a certain legal cause of action, if that word or
expression is proper in this connection. In that main protest, signed
by these 19 people, there is not a word about Senator Smoot being a
polygamist. There is not a word about his having taken any oath;
and nobody appears before the committee making any claim upon
those two propositions. But the answer which Mr. Smoot filed selects
and emphasizes and makes conspicuous these two charges in the Lei-
lich case as if they were all the charges made, and proceeds then to
demur to the allegations of the main petition and remonstrance, which
is the only one which is here now for consideration.

When I appeared before the committee to outline the case we pro-
posed to make I produced, as it were, the claims made by the protest-
ants whom I represented, to some extent recasting the charges, but
in no material sense changing* them, and 1 then distinctly disavowed
any relation with the charge of polygamy by Mr. Smoot and made no

120 EEED SMOOT.

reference at all to any oath that it was said had been taken under the
Leilich charge. So 1 have pursued the line of inquiry all the time
that is set out in the several heads which were distinctly made in the
opening remarks before this committee.

I think the whole paragraph ought to be considered in that connec-
tion; that is to say, not only the last section which Senator Hoar read,
but this, on page 44, paragraph b:

The president of the Mormon Church and a majority of the twelve apostles now
practice polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and some of them have taken
polygamous wives since the manifesto of 1890. These things have been done with
the knowledge and countenance of Reed Smoot. Plural marriage ceremonies have
been performed by apostles since the manifesto of 1890, and many bishops and high
officials of the church have taken plural wives since that time.

Then follows the last sentence, which has been read. It all covers
that.

Now, there is no need of mystery- about it. Whatever individual
Senators' views may be as to their duty or as to the conclusions to be
drawn if certain testimony is to be given, that charge means just this,
that the president of the church, notwithstanding his and his associates'
promise to abandon polygamy and polygamous cohabitation ; notwith-
standing the fact that the law of the land declares against it; notwith-
standing the fact that they declare by words that it is a violation of the
law of the church to unlawfully cohabit, the president of the Mormon
Church, the daily associate and superior of Heed Smoot, has been con-
stantly living in polygamous cohabitation with at least five wives; and
the same thing is true of a large majority of Reed Smoot's weekly
associates, to put it no stronger, on this body, organized upon the
basis, among other things, as a fundamental proposition believed in
to-day by the president of the church as a divine order temporarily
suspended, that plural marriage was right.

Now, it may be that a just interpretation of all the facts which we
shall endeavor to prove and lay before this committee may induce the
committee and the Senate to believe that Mr. Smoot ought not to be
held to any responsibility on account of the acts of those in association
with him in the kind of a church which has the kind of revelation and
the kind of authority which the head of the church has declared him-
self to possess. It may be, I say, that no interpretation can properly
be made that will affect the right of Reed Smoot to his seat in the
Senate; but that is what we propose to prove, and the illustration
that Mr. Van Cott used about witchcraft, or belief in witchcraft, is
most apt and appropriate here. Just substitute the words " witchcraft
and its practices " for the words ' ' polygamy and polygamous cohabita-
tion," and where would Mr. Smoot tye?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you propose to prove, in connection with
what you have just said in connection with the practice of these other
apostles, that the presidency and the apostles constitute a propaganda
of polygamy ?

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. At the present time '4

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly they do.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is quite pertinent and proper, if it is
true. That gets to an issue.

Mr. TAYLER. How can the ruling order of a church, the large
majority of it, proclaim their belief in polygamy as divine, which has

EEED SMOOTH 121

been merely temporarily suspended in its practice, they say, by law,
and who themselves are in daily practice of that habit and not consti-
tute a propaganda?

Senator BEVERIDGE. My question is whether, in connection with
what you have just stated, you propose to prove that the high priests
of this body of men, the apostles, constitute a present propaganda of
polygamy ?

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, we made no objection to any
question that was asked until this one, not because we conceded that
the evidence which was introduced here was pertinent to the issues, or,
whether pertinent or not, could in any wise reflect upon Reed Smoot
to his seat in the Senate. Although we are lawyers practicing daily
in the courts we know that it is impossible to proceed by having objec-
tions made to testimony as it comes along and ruled upon at the time,
as would be done in a court of justice; and we have made no objection
until we come to a point which we think is fundamental and important,
and upon which we ought to have the ruling of the committee before
we go an}r further. That being had. we shall, of course, submit and
proceed with the case upon such adjudication as the committee may
make as to what are the issues it is to determine here and what is com-
petent evidence upon those issues.

1 have been very much surprised to hear my brother, Mr. Ta}^ler,
announce this morning that he never charged and never represented,
as 1 understand him, anybody who did charge that Reed Smoot had
taken an oath which is inconsistent with his obligation as a Senator.
He does represent the nineteen protestants who filed the first protest,
and I find, by looking at the conclusion of that protest, on page 25, this,
which he now vouches for as one charge that is to be made here, as I
understand:

We submit that however formal and regular may be Apostle Smoot's credentials
or his qualifications by way of citizenship, whatever his protestations of patriotism
and loyalty, it is clear that the obligations of any official oath which he may sub-
scribe are, and of necessity must be, as threads of tow compared with the covenants
which bind his intellect, his will, and his affections, and which hold him forever in
accord with and subject to the will of a defined and law-breaking apostolate.

Mr. TAYLER. Barring the rhetoric, that is a fact.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 do not know what, barring the rhetoric, that
means if it does not mean that Reed Smoot came to the Senate under
some obligation which is inconsistent with the oath which he had to
take as a Senator, and that the previous obligation binds him now and
not the oath which he took as a Senator.

Mr. TAYLER. We stand there now; but, of course, an obligation
may occur without formal words which bind him to something which
Is in terms unlawful and unpatriotic.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well. When we came before the com-
mittee in the first instance there was a revised set of charges made by
the counsel representing these same protestants. Those charges are
found on pages 42, 43, and 44. 1 will not take time to read them;
but that charge is not repeated in an}^ form whatever, and is aban-
doned. Now counsel, I understand, are revising their revision. He
now informs us he does insist on his original charge.

Mr. TAYLER. We never abandoned that. That is an inference from
all of it. The obligation that he, as a member of this hierarchy, must
be under, whether he ever took a formal oath or not, constitutes that

122 REED SMOOT.

relation and brings about that result. We do not abandon a word of
the charge made in this paper.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then you do charge that he was under an obli-
gation when he took the oath as Senator which was inconsistent with
his oath as Senator?

Mr. TAYLER. I say his obligation as a member of that hierarchy
was, as this article says, supreme.

Senator FORAKER. I understood, as one member of the committee,
that that was the essence of the whole charge, aside from the charge
of plural marriage.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. WThen we filed our answer to the first set of
charges by tlie 19 protestants and the other individual protestant, we
set forth that our judgment of the situation was that in all this
rhetoric there were the two charges which could in any wise constitu-
tionally afi'ect the right of Senator Smoot to retain his seat: One, the
charge that he was a polygamist, which was made by Leilich and was
not made by the nineteen, and this other, that he was bound by some
oath or obligation which is inconsistent with the oath required by the
Constitution, and which we understood to be made b}^ both protests;
but Senator Smoot, while he said that, went on and asked the com-
mittee to decide that nothing else was pertinent. He went on and
answered fully as to the other charges. So when these revised charges
were made we answered them in the same way, so far as they made
any charge which we considered to be pertinent.

The only thing that is before the committee to-da}T is this charge
which is contained on page 44, which is simply in substance this: That
Reed Smoot is not a polygamist but he has encouraged others to be
polygamists— to take plural wives and to live in cohabitation; that he
has encouraged others to do it. That, now, is modified into this state-
ment, as suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts and as prac-
tically adopted by the counsel for the respondent, that the first
presidency and the apostolate of the Mormon Church composed of 15
people, are a body which is organized for the purpose of — let me quote
the language of the Senator, "to inculcate polygamy and to encourage
others to practice it."

Let me say, in the first place, it has not yet been shown to the com-
mittee when Reed Smoot became an apostle. As a matter of fact he
became an apostle in the year 1900, and we have testimony here
about the plural marriage of a man who died in 1896. 1 do most
respectfully submit that the fact that a man was a polygamist and died
in 1896 is not pertinent to a charge that in 1900 Reed Smoot joined a
conspiracy to perpetuate polygamy thereafter.

I say further that if it be shown here, if the counsel can show it to
the committee and to the Senate, that Reed Smoot did belong to this
organization and that it was an organization to inculcate polygamy and
encourage others to practice it, and that is the situation to-day, he
ought to be put out of the Senate, and nobody would deny it, because
he would be engaged then in a criminal conspiracy to violate the law
of the State and the ordinance of agreement under which Utah was
admitted into the Union. It would not be necessary, Mr. Chairman
and Senators, to go one step further and to show that anybody had as
a matter of fact ever acted under that advice and had taken plural
wives, because if he sat around a table with the others, as you gentle-
men sit around this table, and entered into the conspiracy that they

REED SMOOT. 123

would endeavor to have the law violated and have people enter into
polygamy, the evidence is complete, and it is a very serious charge.

I say, therefore, that the evidence before the committee should be
directed to the proof as to that conspirac}^, to show that they are a
band of conspirators; and not, 1 respectfully submit, that some of the
members of the organization to which he belonged committed the
crime to which it is said they were organized to inculcate and
encourage.

Let me suggest a matter myself which I take it is a little different
from these other illustrations. Suppose Reed Smoot was a member
of the vestry of an Episcopal Church in this city composed of twelve
persons, and it was charged against him that he belonged to that
vestry and it was organized for the purpose of encouraging and incul-
cating the theory and practice of adultery and improper sexual rela-
tions generally. When he was brought to bar would it be evidence,
in the first place, to show that some member of that vestry had been
in the habit of committing that offense, or that two or three of them
had been? I submit not, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HOAR. No. But if they all believed it was a religious duty
to do it, and that had been proclaimed as one of the tenets of their
church, and the question was whether that religious belief and dut}^
to do it had been abandoned, would you hold it to be immaterial that
all the other eleven of the twelve members you speak of continued to
do it?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the first place, there is no offer by anybody
to prove that all the other members did.

Senator HOAR. But I understand there is an offer to prove a very
considerable number did.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is said a majority of them. The counsel has
not yet stated how many.

Mr. TAYLER. We do not propose to limit ourselves to the size of
the majority.

Senator PETTUS. 1 will ask counsel this question: Supposing all he
has said to be correct, can you not prove the most solemn facts in the
courts by mere circumstances ?

Mr. W'ORTHINGTON. Assuredly; and so may a conspiracy be proved.

Senator FORAKER. In a charge of cbnspirac}% however, the rule is
you must show the conspiracy.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is exactly what I was going to suggest.
This is practically a charge of conspiracy, that these fifteen men
entered into a conspiracy to encourage the practice of polygamy.
The evidence that has gone in so far is that they believed in the theory
and practice of polygamy up to a certain date, and after that date,
which was in 1890, they not only expressly but really modified their
belief and their practice.

Senator HOAR. Is not this evidence competent on the question
whether they really modified their belief and their practice ? That is
the point.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think not. I think it is not competent to
show by the overt act of one of the alleged conspirators that the con-
spiracy existed. We have just finished in our court a long trial for
conspiracy, and 1 think nobody in that case controverted the ruling
which was made and which is uniformly made in our court— I know
not what it may be in other jurisdictions — that where parties are on

.

124 REED SMOOT.

trial for conspiracy you must prove the conspiracy first, and then you
must prove the overt act by some of the conspirators, and they are all
bound by it if done in pursuance of the conspiracy. But here is
evidence which, if it establishes anything, establishes that there was
no conspiracy, and they are offering evidence of the overt act. I sub-
mit the committee should hold that the counsel should offer evidence
which they claim tends to show conspiracy, and when they have offered
that, then the committee can decide whether it makes out a case and
whether it is necessary to proceed any further.

The question is asked whether a certain Mr. Teasdale was a polyga-
mist. Let us see where this will lead. Mr. Teasdale, it turns out, was
an apostle. It is stated in the first answer that was filed here that at
the time of the manifesto there were some two or three thousand
polygamists in Utah; that the number had dwindled down until at the
time the answer was filed there were about five hundred. Would it
be competent to prove, these men being scattered all over the State of
Utah, that down in the southwest corner of Utah some one was having
plural marriages and up in the northeast corner of the State some
other man was having plural marriages, and go on, as counsel chose,
to select all the five hundred people?

If you had proved there were 500 people and every one of them had
a dozen wives, you would not have advanced the case one step, because
the question would come back, Did these people who met around this
board, and who are called the first presidency and the apostles, organ-
ize for the purpose of encouraging and pursuing that thing? Are
they encouraging the 500 who are living with the wives they married
before the manifesto or are they representing the hundreds of thou-
sands of people who are living in monogamy, as civilized people gen-
erally do?

It does seem to me this is an important and vital point, and the com-
mittee ought to give it careful consideration and decide before we go
on to this boundless sea to which counsel are taking us. and as to which,
if they should succeed in proving there were 500 polygamists and 2,500
plural wives, it would not, as to Reed Smoot, advance the cause a
particle, and would not even call upon us to reply.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest to the committee that we have an execu-
tive session, as there are some matters to be considered, and that the
committee ask all persons except members of the committee to leave
the room.

The committee will adjourn at the expiration of the executive ses-
sion until tomorrow morning at half -past 10.

At 4 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m. the committee went into executive
session.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 3, 190 J^.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, Foraker, Beveridge,
Dillingham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, and Overman; also Senator
Smoot; also Robert W. Tayler, counsel for the protestants; A. S.
Worthington and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent;
and Franklin S. Richards, counsel for Joseph F. Smith and other wit-
nesses.

EEED SMOOT. 125

The CHAIRMAN. At the time of the adjournment of the committee
yesterday, objection had been made by counsel for the respondent to
a certain question put by counsel for the protestants, as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. Do you know George Teasdale?

"Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; 1 know George Teasdale.

1 ' Mr. TAYLER. How long have you known him ?

"Mr. SMITH. 1 have known him ever since 1863.

"Mr. TAYLER. He is one of the apostles?

"Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

"Mr. TAYLER. How long has he been one of them?

"Mr. SMITH. That I could not tell you from memory.

"Mr. TAYLER. Well, about how long?

"Mr. SMITH. 1 should think over twenty years.

"Mr. TAYLER. How often do the first presidency and the apostles
meet ?

"Mr. SMITH. We generally meet once a week.

"Mr. TAYLER. Was he a polygamist?"

To which latter question counsel for the respondent objected. In
order that counsel may understand the limit of this investigation as
nearly as possible, the committee will permit counsel for the protes-
tants, as bearing upon this charge in the protest, namely:

" This body of officials "-

Meaning the first presidency and the twelve apostles —

" Of whom Senator- elect Smoot is one, also practice and connive at
and encourage the practice of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation."

As bearing upon that charge, the committee will permit counsel to
inquire into the teachings and practice of the president and the twelve
apostles in this regard since the 26th day of September, 1890, the date
of the Woodruff manifesto. Mr. Tayler, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. TAYLER. We are.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word.

I think it important, as a matter of justice to the committee, that
we should see just where we are at this juncture.

I think it is pretty generally understood by the country, and i was
understood even by three or four members of this committee up to
yesterday, that objection was made to Mr. Smoot being a United States
Senator on the ground that he is a polygamist. Now we find, not that
that charge is withdrawn, but that the attorney for the protestants
declares he never made it. So as to the popular notion that Mr.
Smoot is being tried as a polygamist, not only is that not asserted,
but, so far as this investigation is now concerned, it is conceded by
protestants that his life in that particular is as correct as that of any-
one else.

Second. That he was charged with having taken an oath inconsis-
tent with his oath as a Senator of the United States. I understand
Mr. Tayler to say, also, that not only is that charge not withdrawn,
but that it never was made so for as his clients are concerned. There-
fore, at this juncture we find that Mr. Smoot is not being tried as a
polygamist, for it is conceded that that condition does not exist, and
that his life is correct, and, on the other hand, it is not charged and
we are not t^ing him upon the ground that he has taken an oath
inconsistent with his oath as a Senator of the United States. Hence,
the issue to which this is reduced, and upon which we are proceeding
and shall proceed from now on, and upon which, so far as the protest

126 REED SMOOT.

ants are concerned, Mr. Smoot is being tried, as it were, is the one
stated by the chairman, in substance, that he is a member of a
conspiracy.

1 think it is fair to make this statement, because I think it is pretty
generally understood in the popular mind that we are proceeding here
to try — I use the word " try " in a broad sense — Mr. Smoot for being
a polygamist and for having taken an oath inconsistent with his oath
as a United States Senator, neither one of which is true.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Chairman, I desire to enter my dissent. There
was no member of this committee, unless it may have been the Senator
from Indiana —

Senator BEVERIDGE. The Senator from Ohio.

Senator DUBOIS. And possibly the Senator from Ohio.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And the Senator from Vermont.

Senator DUBOIS. No; I do not include the Senator from Vermont,
who thought that we were trying Mr. Smoot upon the charge of his
being a potygamist, or of his having taken an oath as an apostle which
was incompatible with his oath as a Senator. That charge was not
preferred by the committee of 19 from Salt Lake City, Utah. That
charge was preferred by an individual named Leilich, and was repudi-
ated instantly by telegram from the protestants — the 19 — and no one
ever appeared here, and it was stated in the first meeting, in answer
to a direct question, that no one was present to press those charges.

The committee understood, if I at all rightly interpret the committee,
and I have had the pleasure of being present at every meeting, that
the respondent was being tried upon the charges preferred by the com-
mittee of 19, which struck at the polygamous practices of this hierarchy,
and the control, the absolute control, which this hierarchy exercises in
temporal and political affairs.

For the first time in fifty years this committee understood, if I
understand the committee rightly, that the relations of this organiza-
tion to the United States were to be investigated at this meeting.
There was no disposition upon the part of anyone represented here in
person, or b}^ counsel, to tr}r Mr. Smoot on the charge that he was a
polygamist, or that he had taken an oath as an apostle which was
incompatible with the oath he has taken as United States Senator,
while constantly the attorneys on the other side, arid people not repre-
senting the protestants, have been trying to force the protestants to
issues which they themselves have never raised.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Then we agree. Those two issues are elimi-
nated, and those are not the things upon which we are trying him.

Senator DUBOIS. Those are not the things upon which we are trying
him, and it was not within the mind of the committee that we were.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Chairman, 1 protest against this debate.

The CHAIRMAN. We will proceed with the case.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, will you take the stand?

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Continued.

JOSEPH F. SMITH, having previously affirmed, was examined, and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Before proceeding with the line of questioning respect-
ing Apostle George Teasdale, Mr. Smith, 1 desire to recur for a moment
to the subject of Abraham H. Cannon. At the time of his death he
was an apostle?

REED SMOOT. 127

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long had he been an apostle, or about how long?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Had he been for some time; some years?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; some years.

Mr. TAYLER. At the time of his death he was a polygamist, you
stated, I believe?

Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You knew several of his wives?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I can not say I knew them, except that I have
seen them.

Mr. TAYLER. You have seen them ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; and they were reputed to be his wives.

Mr. TAYLER. And they were reputed to be his wives?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about it.

Mr. TAYLER. Prior to June, 1896, you had never heard of Lillian
Hamlin being his wife ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Nor had you known her prior to that time?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you see them at Los Angeles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you out in a boat from there?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand the date.

Mr. TAYLER. June, 1896.

The CHAIRMAN. 1896?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did you go with them in a boat?

Mr. SMITH We went to Catalina Island.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you go from there anywhere out in the water?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Your journey through the water was merely from the
mainland to Catalina Island?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Was there any talk, or did anything occur while you
were aboard that boat, respecting the marriage relations of Abraham
H. Cannon —

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And his wife?

I Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. No reference was made to the subject at all?
Mr. SMITH. Not to me.
Mr. TAYLER. Not to you?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. To whom was any reference made? ,
Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Nothing was said in your presence or to your knowl-
edge about that subject?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. The i^rst I heard of it was years afterwards
through the public prints.
Mr. TAYLER. Through the public prints?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. That is, that you had married them aboard that vessel?

128 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. That is what I heard in the public prints.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what you heard?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any talk on that journey or after you
left Salt Lake — after you first heard or learned that Lillian Hamlin was
the wife of Abraham Cannon — as to when they were married?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any talk with either of them?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least.

Mr. TAYLER. Not in the least?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least, sir; and no one ever mentioned to me
that they were or were not married. I simply judged they were
married because they were living* together as husband and wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly.

Mr. SMITH. That is all I know about it.

Mr. TAYLER. And your knowledge of any status which may have
existed between them was not due to anything they told you ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not at all.

Senator FORAKER. Before he gets away from that subject, is there
any objection to stating what he read in the newspapers — the story to
which you have referred?

Mr. TAYLER. I did put that in. I asked him if he had married them
aboard the steamer.

Senator FORAKER. That is what you saw in the newspaper ?

Mr. SMITH. That is what I read in the newspaper.

Senator FORAKER. And there was no truth in that?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it a regular passenger steamer that you went
over on ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; a regular passenger excursion steamer.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you take any other trip down there with them?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you say anything by way of criticism to Abraham
Cannon?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. For going about with this wife?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. TAYLER. Is the law of the church, as well as the law of the
land, against the taking of plural wives ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I will say-
Mr. TAYLER. Is that the law ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 would substitute the word " rule" of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Rule?

Mr. SMITH. Instead of law, as you put it.

Mr. TAYLER. Very well. Then to take a plural wife would be a
violation of a rule of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. It would.

Mr. TAYLER. Would it be such a violation of the rule of the church
as would induce the church authorities to take it up like the violation
of any other rule would do ?

Mr. SMITH. It would.

Mr. TAYLER. Is the cohabitation with one who is claimed to be a
plural wife a violation of the law or rule of the church, as well as of
the law of the land?

REED SMOOT. 129

Mr. SMITH. If the committee will permit me, I could not answer the
question yes or no.

Mr. TAYLER. You can not answer it yes or no ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. I should like to explain that matter.

Mr. TAYLER. I surely have no objection mvself to your doing so.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted 2

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly; but be as brief as you can. You have a
right to make your own answer.

Mr. SMITH. In regard to the status of polygamists at the time of
the manifesto, it was understood for some time, according to the inves-
tigation before the master in chancery, that they would abstain from
associations with their families, and I think as a rule — of course I am
not familiar with it and could not say from my own knowledge — that
was observed. But at the time, at the passage of the enabling act for
the admission of the Territory as a State, the only provision that was
made binding for the admission of the State was that plural marriages
should cease, and there was nothing said in the enabling act prohibit-
ing the cohabitation of a man with his wives at that time.

Senator HOAR. I do not want to interrupt you, but you mean, I
suppose, with wives previously married?

Mr. SMITH. That is what I mean. It was understood that plural
marriages had ceased. It has been the continuous and conscientious
practice and rule of the church ever since the manifesto to observe
that manifesto with regard to plural marriages; and from that time
till to-day there has never been, to my knowledge, a plural marriage
performed in accordance with the understanding, instruction, conniv-
ance, counsel, or permission of the presiding authorities of the church,
or of the church, in any shape or form; and I know whereof I speak,
gentlemen, in relation to that matter.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all of your answer?
; Mr. SMITH. What was your question?

The CHAIRMAN. Now let the reporter repeat the question.

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me; I think I have the thread: Was it contrary
to the rule of the church ? It was.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was ?

Mr. SMITH. That is, the association of a man, having married more
than one wife previous to the manifesto, abstaining from association
with them.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you understand the question. Let
the reporter read it.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. Is the cohabitation with one who is claimed to be a
plural wife a violation of the law or rule of the church, as well as of
the law of the land?"

Mr. SMITH. That was the case, and is the case, even to-day.

Mr. TAYLER. What was the case; what you are about to say ?

Mr. SMITH. That it is contrary to the rule of the church and contrary
as well to the law of the land for a man to cohabit with his wives.

But 1 was placed in this position. I had a plural^ family, if you
please; that is, my first wife was married to me over thirty-eight years
ago, my last wife was married to me over twenty years ago, and with these
wives I had children, and I simply took my chances, preferring to meet
the consequences of the law rather than to abandon my children and
their mothers; and I have cohabited with my wives — not openly, that
s 9

130 REED SMOOT.

is, not in a, manner that I thought would be offensive to my neighbors —
but I have acknowledged them; 1 have visited them. They have borne
nie children since 1890, and I have done it, knowing the responsibility
and knowing that I was amenable to the law.

Since the admission of the State there has been a sentiment existing
and prevalent in Utah that these old marriages would be in a measure
condoned. They were not looked upon as offensive, as really violative
of law; they were, in other words, regarded as an existing fact, and
if they saw any wrong in it they simply winked at it. In other words,
Mr. Chairman, the people of Utah, as a rule, as well as the people of
this nation, are broad-minded and liberal-minded people, and they
have rather condoned than otherwise, I presume, my offense against
the law. I have never been disturbed. Nobody has ever called me in
question, that I know of, and if I had, 1 was there to answer to the
charges or any charge that might have been made against me, and I
would have been willing to submit to the penalty of the law, whatever
it might have been.

Mr. TAYLER. So that obedience to the law is perfectly satisfied,
according to your view of it, if one is ready to pay the penalty for its
violation ?

Mr. SMITH. Not at all. I should like to draw a distinction between
unlawful cohabitation and polygamy. There is a law prohibiting
polygamy, plural marriages.

Senator HOAR. You mean now a law of the State of Utah ?

Mr. SMITH. I mean the law of the State, and 1 mean that this is in
the constitution of our State. It is required by the enabling act.
That law, gentlemen, has been complied with by the church; that law
has been kept by the church; and there never has been a plural mar-
riage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the
church since the manifesto.

The law of unlawful cohabitation is another law entirely, and relates
to the cohabitation of a man with more than one wife. That is the
law which I have presumed to face in preference to disgracing myself
and degrading my family by turning them off and ceasing to acknowl-
edge them and to administer to their wants — not the law in relation to
plural marriage. That 1 have not broken. Neither has any man broken
it by the sanction or approval of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. You say that there is a State law forbidding unlawful
cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding.

Mr. TAYLER. And ever since. that law was passed you have been
violating it?.

Mr. SMITH. I think likely 1 have been practicing the same thing
even before the law was passed.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Long years before it was passed.

Mr. TAYLER. You have not in any respect changed your relations
to these wives since the manifesto or since the passage of this law of
the State of Utah. I am not meaning to be unfair in the question, but
only to understand you. What I mean is, you have been holding your
several wives out as wives, not offensively, as you say. You have
furnished them homes. You have given them your society. You
have taken care of the children that they bore you, and you have
caused them to bear you new children — all of them.

REED SMOOT. 131

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, su.

Mr. TAYLER. That is correct?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, since that was a violation of the law, why have
you done it?

Mr. SMITH. For the reason I have stated. I preferred to face the
penalties of the law to abandoning my family.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you consider it an abandonment of your family to
maintain relations with your wives except that of occupying their beds?

Mr. SMITH. I do not wish to be impertinent, but I should like the
gentleman to ask any woman, who is a wife, that question.

Mr. TAYLER. Unfortunately, or fortunately, that is not the status
of this examination at this point.

Mr. SMITH. All the same; it is nry sentiment.

Senator FORAKER. I do not see how investigation along that line is
going to give us any light. What we want are facts. The witness
has testified to the fact. This is all a matter of argument and discus-
sion— the effect of it, or what his opinion is about it. It is our
opinion we are concerned about.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, confine yourself to the question of fact.

Mr. TAYLER. Will the Chair permit a word ?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not know whether the inference to be drawn
from the state of facts is sufficiently clear, or whether it would be
proper to pursue it further. But I take it that it is to the last degree
important to understand what lies at the foundation of the acknowl-
edged and professed and defiant violation of the written law of the
land, coupled with a mere expression of willingness to accept the con-
sequences of that violation. That is all. That was contended for by
Joseph F. Smith prior to 1890, and by the long line of saints that
preceded him.

Mr. SMITH. 1 beg your pardon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Just a moment, Mr. Smith.

Mr. TAYLER. And therefore it strikes me that an explanation from
this man who is the spiritual head of the church, the immediate supe-
rior of Senator Smoot, the man who receives divine revelations
respecting the duty and conduct of the whole bo<ty of the church, as
to why he thus defiantly violates that law, is pertinent and important.

Senator BEVERIDGE. But he gave his explanation.

Mr. TAYLER. If that- is all of his explanation of course I can not
complain, but I do not think it is.

Senator FORAKER. This is the only point of the objection. The
witness stated the fact that he is cohabiting still with plural wives
notwithstanding the law, and he told us why. Now, it seems to me,
we should not enter into a discussion as to whether or not that is good
morals, or whether or not that is faithful allegiance to the law. That
is something which the committee will determine.

Senator DUBOIS. May I ask a question?

Senator HOAR. May I make a motion, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator HOAR. It is that this inquiry be not allowed at present, and
that if it shall appear to the committee hereafter that there is doubt
about the truthfulness of Mr. Smith's statement, which he has already
made, as to the discontinuance of the actual practice of new plural

132 REED SMOOT.

marriages, the counsel be permitted to renew his application to put
the question at a later time. I suggest, therefore, that the question be
not allowed now and that the committee will take it up under a
changed condition of things hereafter.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to be permitted to ask the witness
one question, which I think will not provoke any controversy. Was
it not understood and stated by the judges and those in authority, and
was it not understood by all living in that country — Utah and Idaho
and Wyoming, etc., where these practices existed — that it was the
duty of polygamists to continue to provide for and support their
polygamist wives and children after the manifesto was issued ?

Mr. SMITH. That was generally understood.

Senator DUBOIS. We all — I, for one, at least — understood that it
was their duty to provide for and take care of their wives and children
in a material way.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, proceed.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What becomes of the motion of the Senator
from Massachusetts ?

Senator FORAKER. It was more in the nature of a suggestion in the
Senator's mind that counsel be not allowed to ask the question now,
because of the present state of evidence, and that if, because of a
change in the state of the evidence, the committee should deem the
question pertinent, the counsel could recall the witness.

Senator HOAR. I suggested it in order to save time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, suppose you withdraw the question.

Mr. TAYLER. I withdraw the question for the time being.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to say, in refer-
ence to the question asked by counsel as to what the witness might do
with his wives without violating the law, that in the case of Cannon v.
The United States and in the case of Snow v. The United States, which
came before the Supreme Court, the Cannon case in 1885, that court
decided

Senator HOAR. My suggestion was made with a view of stopping
this discussion.

The CHAIRMAN. We will never get through if it is to continue.
Mr. Tayler, will you proceed with the examination of this witness ?

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, how many children have been born to }^our
several wives since the manifesto of 1890 ?

Mr. WORTHNGTON. I object to that. He professes that he has been
living with them. What difference does it make whether it is one
child or three?

Mr. TAYLER. Of course it will be important as showing how con-
tinuous, how notorious, how offensive, has been his conduct in this
respect.

Senator FORAKER. The committee must necessarily infer from what
the witness stated that this cohabitation has been continuous and unin-
terrupted.

Senator BEVERIDGE. He so stated.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely; but not how well advertised, how offensive,
how instructive it has been to his people; how compelling.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I understood the witness to say that he had
children born to him since that time.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That has already been stated.

EEED SMOOT. 133

Mr. TAYLER. But it makes a great difference whether it is 2 or 22.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, I wish to ask 3^011 a question prelimi-
narily. I understood you, in response to a question of counsel, to
state that you married your first wife at such a time, and the second
wife at such a time, both before 1890?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The last wife, I mean. Were there any inter-
mediate marriages 1

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many ?

Mr. SMITH. There were three besides the first and the last.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you have five wives ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, what is your question?

Mr. TAYLER. My question is, How many children have been born to
him by these wives since 1890 ?

The CHAIRMAN. The chair thinks that question is competent.

Mr. SMITH. I have had 11 children born since 1890.

Mr. TAYLER. Those are all the children that have been born to you
since 1890?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; those are all.

Mr. TAYLER. Were those children by all of your wives; that is, did
all of your wives bear children?

Mr. SMITH. All of my wives bore children.

Mr. TAYLER. Since 1890?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand, since 1890.

Mr. SMITH. Since 1890. 1 said that I have had born to me 11 chil-
dren since 1890, each of my wives being the mother of from 1 to 2 of
those children.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, proceed.

Mr. TAYLER. None of them has borne more than two children to
you?

Mr. SMITH. None that I recollect now. I could not tell you without
I referred to the dates.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think that is material.

Mr. TAYLER. That was not intended for information so much as it
was for my guidance with respect to another question which I do not
care to ask.

Senator FORAKER. It is very evident that there must have been two
children by four of the wives, and three by one, which would make
eleven.

Mr, TAYLER. That is very true. You of course understand that I
might have difficulty in locating the mother of some of the children,
as Mr. Smith himself is not quite sure-
Mr. SMITH. You will not have any difficulty so far as I am concerned.

Mr. TAYLER. I have no doubt if you could recall the particular
situation, but you said you were not sure but that one might have
borne you three children.

Mr. SMITH. I rather think she has.

Mr. TAYLER. You rather think ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 1 could tell you a little later by referring. 1 can
not say that 1 remember the dates of births of my children — all of
them.

134 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. This answer to my question justifies the difficulty I
stated to Senator Foraker 1 was in at this juncture. You attended
some of the opening exercises of the world's fair at St. Louis?

Mr. SMITH. I did, sir, by invitation of the chairman.

Mr. TAYLER. By the invitation of the chairman ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you accompanied there by one of your wives?

Mr. SMITH. I was.

Mr. TAYLER. By which one of them ?

Mr. SMITH. By Edna.

Mr. TAYLER. A plural wife?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; a plural wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Was Senator Smoot with you?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He was not at St. Louis with you at that time ?

Mr. SMITH. He was at St. Louis, but not with me.

Mr. TAYLER. He was present in the company of yourself and your
wife, was he not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; he was in another car entirely.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he at St. Louis in company with you and your
wife?

Mr. SMITH. I met him there several times at the hotel.

Mr. TAYLER. At any other place ?

Mr. SMITH. Only at the hotel, that I now remember.

Mr. TAYLER. Was your wife in your company at the time?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He knew she was your wife, did he not?

Mr. SMITH. I think he did. I can not say what he knew.

Mr. TAYLER. There was a photograph taken of the group ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where the Utah Building was to be?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. And you and your wife, Edna Smith, were there?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And Senator Smoot was with you?

Mr. SMITH. And a great many others.

Mr. TAYLER. A great many others?

Mr. SMITH. The governor of the State of Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. The governor of the State of Utah and a number of
others.

Senator PETTUS. I should like to ask a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler,. please wait a moment. Senator Pettus
wants to ask a question.

Senator PETTUS. I should like to ask Mr. Smith, if he pleases, to
state, in a general way, where these various wives live, in what place,
and the general way of living?

Mr. SMITH. I will state, Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question,
that each of my families has a home of its own. They live near to
each other, not very far away from each other, in their own homes.

Senator HOAR. In the same city ?

Mr. SMITH. In Salt Lake City.

My custom has been to live with my first wife in her home, and I
have lived with her exclusively ever since that time, and I am living

REED SMOOT. 155

•

with her still; but I have, as I said before, visited my other families
and provided for them and their children, for their schooling, etc.

Mr. TAYLER. You were present at a reception given to the Presi-
dent of the United States in Salt Lake?

Mr. SMITH. I was.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have one of your wives there?

Mr. SMITH. I did.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it the same wife that you had in St. Louis?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it was not.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you in 1895 take the test oath required by those
who voted at the election ?

The CHAIRMAN. Before you come to that, I wish to ask a question
for my information.

Mr. TAYLER. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. Was Senator Smoot present at the reception which
you attended with your wife?

Mr. SMITH. I am not very clear, but I think he was, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Senator HOAR. I presume it would be conceded by the counsel for
the respondent that Senator Smoot knew — it might save some time in
various questions — of this attitude of My. Smith which he has stated,
it must have been a matter of general public knowledge, of course.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. May I be permitted —

Senator HOAR. No; I was asking the counsel. I suppose the general
knowledge by Mr. Smoot of this opinion and attitude of Mr. Smith
will probably be conceded by you?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think not.

Senator HOAR. Very well.

Mr. VAN COTT. We would rather put Senator Smoot on the stand
and let him state the fact as to what he does know. Mr. Taylor, was
it brought out where this reception in Salt Lake was held?

Mr. TAYLER. At Senator Kearns's, 1 believe?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; at Senator Kearns's residence.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the stenographer read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"Did }^ou, in 1895, take the test oath required for those who voted
at the election ?"

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if Mr. Tayler has any
such oath he should, following the custom, show it to Mr. Smith —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not understand that there was any such
test oath.

Mr. VAN COTT. Instead of asking him that kind of a question—

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you the oath?

Mr. TAYLER. I have somewhere a copy of it. There is a law on
the subject, and J want to know if this witness voted and if, as a con-
dition precedent to that voting, he took the oath which the law
required. I submit that would make it competent without reference
to the oath itself. If he did not take it, of course then it is unim-
portant.

Mr. VAN COTT. I simply asked for information. If you have it, it
is only fair to show it.

Mr. TAYLER. That is true.

Mr. RICHARDS. In behalf of Mr. Smith, and as his counsel, I say it

136 REED SMOOT.

is only fair that he should be confronted with the oath that it is sug-
gested he took, and we ask that he be not required to answer the
question until the oath is presented.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean the original oath that Mr. Smith may
have subscribed?

Mr. RICHARDS. No; not the original oath which he subscribed, but
a copy of the oath that you say he took, if you claim that he took any
such oath.

Mr. TAYLER. I have not made any claim about it. I am asking this
witness if he took the oath that the law required.

Senator FORAKER. It would be in order to point out the require-
ments of the law.

Mr. TAYLER. I presume it would, but I believed it was a simple
matter, and 1 was asking him about the fact.

Senator FORAKER. There was no objection to that until it was
objected to, and then there is objection.

Mr. TAYLER/ 1 am asking him if he took an oath at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. You said the test oath.

Mr. TAYLER. The oath required. The law, as I understand, required
an oath to be taken before

The CHAIRMAN. You may ask him the question whether he took an
oath at that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the question to which we object.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Suppose he took an oath, and suppose when he
took the oath he perjured himself. That would establish the fact that
he was a perjurer, but what would that have to do with establishing
the conspiracy which it is alleged existed ?

Mr. TAYLER. 1 do not know what it might have to do —

Senator BEVERIDGE. It would simply prove that he was a very
bad man.

Mr. TAYLER. It would have a great deal to do with the general
outlines of this case.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is what I am asking.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you the test oath there ?

Mr. TAYLER. I have it somewhere. I will withdraw the question
for the time being.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I made the objection because I am told there is
no such test oath.

Mr. TAYLER. Surely, then, there can be no objection to asking the
question.

The CHAIRMAN. As soon as you have a copy of the oath you will be
in condition to present it to the witness and ask him if he took it.

Senator OVERMAN. Did Senator Smoot ever advise you to desist
from polygamous cohabitation with your plural wives?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of. I do not think that Mr. Smoot
has ever attempted to interfere with my family relations. I do not
know that he knows anything about them, except what I have told you
here to-day.

Senator OVERMAN. Did he ever discuss the matter with you in any
way?

Mr. SMITH. Never to my knowledge.

I should like to repeat, in connection with this question, that it is a
well-known fact throughout all Utah, and I have never sought to dis-
guise that fact in the least, or to disclaim it, that I have five wives in

REED SMOOT. 137

Utah. My friends all know that — Gentiles and Jews and Mormons.
They all knew that I had fivre wives.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not doubt it at all.

Mr. SMITH. Whether they knew that I was living- with them or not
I can not say. 1 did not inform them of that. I did not acknowledge
it to them, because they never asked me nor interrogated me on that
point at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler proceed.

Senator OVERMAN. Are the apostles your advisers ?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Senator, I receive advice and counsel from any and
every good man.

Senator OVERMAN. Do they have any special authority ?

Mr. SMITH. No more than any other member of the church, except
as a body or a council of the church.

Senator OVERMAN. Did any of the apostles ever advise you or ask
you to desist from this conduct?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, just one question. Do you know
whether Mr. Smoot has visited at your house or houses?

Mr. SMITH. I do not believe he ever did. I have no recollection
whatever that he was ever in my house.

The CHAIRMAN. Or any one of your residences ?

Mr. SMITH. Or any one of them. I will modify that if you will
allow me, please?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. I will say that I met Mr. Smoot in my present residence,
my official residence, if you please, some two or three times, I think.
He dropped in to talk with me about something, some private matters,
in my present residence.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where you live with your first wife?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; where I live with my first wife.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, referring to George Teasdale, is he a polyga-
mist?

Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment. I object to the question unless you
mean now, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. The word " is " has a present tense, of course.

Mr. VAN COTT. If it is confined to the present I have no objection
to make.

Mr. SMITH. He is not now a polygamist.

Mr. TAYLER. Has, he been within recent years ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object, unless it is confined to the date of the
manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. Since 1890?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the question?

Mr. SMITH. I have been twice in all my life in the residence of
George Teasdale, and but twice. He lives at Nephi, a hundred and
some odd miles south of Salt Lake City, and I do not visit at his home.
I am not familiar with his family relations, and never have been. All
I know is that Mr. Teasdale is a member of the council of the twelve,
and we meet together, not with his family, but as an individual and
as a member of the council. I do not know anything about his polyg-
amous status or the status of his familv.

138 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Until two or three 3rears ago he was reputed to bo a
polygamist, was he not 2

Mr. SMITH. I can only give you my opinion of it.

Mr. TAYLER. What is that? ;

Mr. SMITH. My opinion—-
Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment. I do not believe it is a proper sub-
ject-matter to give an opinion on. Suppose he should give an opinion
that he either was or was not a polygamist without knowing anything
about it. It would not give the committee any light.

The CHAIRMAN. Ask him what he knows.

Mr. TAYLER. It is proper to show what his repute was. That is one
of the questions here — how far knowledge of that sort has been car-
ried home to Senator Smoot.

Mr. VAN COTT. You can ask Senator Smoot, I submit.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 know; but we have to make this proof otherwise.
I did not understand what the ruling of the Chair was.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the stenographer read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. Until two or three years ago he was reputed to be a
polygamist, was he not?

' c Mr. SMITH. I can only give my opinion of it.

" Mr. TAYLER. What is that?

"Mr. SMITH. My opinion—

The CHAIRMAN. Give your opinion. Answer the question.

Senator FORAKER. That was followed by a question calling upon
him for his opinion.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course he used the word "opinion" there. I do
not think the witness by the use of the word "opinion" varies the
legal status of my question.

Senator FORAKER. I do not want to split hairs about it. I want to
call attention to the question last put to the witness, which was one
calling for an opinion.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The usual question is whether the witness
knows what the reputation of the person concerned is, and then if he
does, to ask him what it was.

Mr. SMITH. Until a number of years ago — I could not tell you how
long ago, but it is a long time ago — 1 supposed that Mr. Teasdale had
two wives. That is all I know about it. I never saw them. 1 never
met with the ladies in my life that 1 know of. Mr. Teasdale lived for a
number of years in England, and for a number of years he had charge
of our colonies in Mexico, and during the time of his incumbency of
the Mexican mission I did not visit him and did not know his status
at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is John W. Taylor?

Mr. SMITH. With what reference do you ask the question ? Who is
he ? What do you mean ?

Mr. TAYLER. Is he one of the apostles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Has he been an apostle for many years ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; for many years; a number of years.

Mr. TAYLER. He seems to be the fifth .in order on the list. Would
that indicate the chronological order of his elevation as an apostle—
the order in which the names are generally given ?

REED SMOOT. 139

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. Well, now; he is reputed, I think, to be a polygamist.

Mr. TAYLER. He is reputed to be a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. I could not say to you that he was. Of my
own knowledge I could not say that he is a polygamist.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you the slightest doubt of it?

Mr. SMITH. I have not very much doubt of it.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is he now?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not know, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. 'I do not mean what, at this particular instant, his
location is, but I mean officially he is away somewhere.

Mr. SMITH. The last 1 heard of him he was sent as a commissioner
to investigate a certain tract of land which was offered for sale to our
people by the Great Northern Railroad Company and that is some
weeks ago. Since then I have not heard of him and I do not know
where he is.

Mr. TAYLER. When you say "offered for sale to our people," what
do you mean by " our people? "

Mr. SMITH. Our colonists.

Mr. TAYLER. When land is to be purchased, one of the apostles goes
to see about it, does he ?

Mr. SMITH. He does when he is sent. In this case he was sent
by me.

Mr. TAYLER. By you?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; at the request of the railroad authorities.

Mr. TAYLER. The purpose being, having purchased the land, if you
should do so, to plant a colony there. Is that right?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, what?

Mr. SMITH. The purpose was to investigate as to whether it was
eligible for a colony or not, and it was extremely problematical, even
if it was, that we should attempt to place a colony there.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is his home?

Mr. SMITH. In Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. You have been at his house?

Mr. SMITH. Once.

Let me state, Mr. Chairman, that I have never been in the home in
which he now Jives but once in my life. He has lived there, I sup-
pose, some four or five years.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator DUBOIS. Could an apostle be a polygamist without your
knowledge?

Mr. SMITH. 1 hardly think he could.

Senator DUBOIS. Then what is the use of saying "I think;" "I do
not know?"

Mr. SMITH. Because 1 never saw a woman married to him in my
life.

Senator DOBOIS. Could an apostle be a polygamist without your
knowledge? Can they go out and enter into polygamy without your
knowledge ?

Mr. -SMITH. No, sir; not that 1 know of. 1 say " not that I know of."

140 REED SMOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. Then an apostle could not be a polygamist unless
you knew it?

Mr. SMITH. Unless he violated the rule of the church without my
knowledge, and I do not think he would do that.

Mr. TAYLER. Apostle M. W. Merrill is one of your—

Mr. SMITH. One of our twelve.

Mr. TAYLER. One of your twelve. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. He has that reputation.

Mr. TAYLER. How many wives is he reputed to have?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean you have never heard? •

Mr. SMITH. I have never heard.

Mr. TAYLER. He has a large number?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean that you have no idea?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least — any more than you have, and perhaps
not as good.

Mr. TAYLER. Only that he is a potygamist?

Mr. SMITH. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does he reside, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Merrill resides in Richmond, Cache County, in the
northern part of the State of Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How far from Salt Lake City ?

Mr. SMITH. In the neighborhood of a hundred miles 1 should judge,
on an offhand guess. I do not know the exact distance, but it is nearly
a hundred miles from Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. Heber J. Grant is one of the twelve apostles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. He so acknowledged, 1 believe, a few weeks ago.

Mr. TAYLER. He so acknowledged?

Mr. SMITH. I believe so. It was so reported in the public prints.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that all you know about it?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I know that I have seen two ladies who are
reputed to be his wives.

Mr. TAYLER. You have stated that an apostle could not be a polyg-
amist without your knowledge.

Mr. SMITH. I have not denied that he was a polygamist.

Mr. TAYLER. No.

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The witness said an apostle could not be a
polygamist without his knowledge, unless he violated the rule of the
church.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is Heber J. Grant now?

Mr. SMITH. He is in Europe.

Mr. TAYLER. For the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you call his mission an important and honorable
one?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know which of his wives, if either, went with
him.

Mr. SMITH. I am not posted.

Mr. TAYLER. You are not posted?

REED SMOOT. 141

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know, then ?

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know which one of his wives went with
him?

Mr. SMITH. 1 could not say that 1 know positively, but I believe
that it is his second wife.

Mr. TAYLER. That is, }7ou mean his second living wife?

Mr. SMITH. That is what I mean.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many wives he has?

Mr. SMITH. Who?

The CHAIRMAN. Grant.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Grant?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. 1 think he had at one time three, but his first wife, then
living, died.

The CHAIRMAN. How many has he now ?

Mr. SMITH. Only two that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Only two ?

Mr. SMITH. Only two. Pardon me for saying "that I know of,'7
Mr. Chairman. I am like all other men; I only know what I know.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, the committee understand.

Mr. TAYLER. John Henry Smith is an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. He has two wives. I am pretty well acquainted with
his folks. He is a kinsman of mine.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he one of the apostles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You, as the head of the church never undertook to
apply any more rigid rule of conduct to him than you applied to
yourself ?

Mr. SMITH. I certainly could not condemn him when 1 was in the
same practice.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 suppose not.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does he reside, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. He resides in Salt Lake City.

The CHAIRMAN. With his two wives?

Mr. SMITH.. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know whether he has had children by these
wives since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you about that. I do not know any-
thing about it.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not know anything about whether he has had
children since —

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said he lived in Salt Lake City. You do
not mean in the same household with his wives?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; they each have their home.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall that when he was a member of the con
stitutional convention a child was born to him by a plural wife?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not know anything about it.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not remember about it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not know anything about it.

142 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. M. F. Cowley is one of the apostles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist ?

Mr. SMITH. He is reputed to have two wives.

Mr. TAYLER. Where does he live?

Mr. SMITH. He lives in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is he now ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I mean in a general way.

Mr. SMITH. In a general way, the last I heard of him he was mak-
ing a tour of the northern missions of the church in Idaho and Mon-
tana and Oregon; that he started out some weeks ago on that line. I
do not know where he is to-day.

Mr. TAYLER. What information have you as to his children, born
to a plural wife since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. I have no knowledge of his family at all. I never was
in his house.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you any information respecting it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. None at all ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Rudger Clawson is an apostle?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How do you know?

Mr. SMITH. Because he was at one time, but his wife left him, and
he has but one wife.

Mr. TAYLER. When was that?

Mr. SMITH. When did his first wife leave him?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you as to the date. I think it was some-
time in the eighties.

Mr. TAYLER. You mean that he has not had two wives since the
manifesto ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; he has not.

Mr. TAYLER. You are positive of that?

Mr. SMITH. I am quite positive of it. I am quite intimate with him.

Mr. TAYLER. Is your information to the effect that men are not
polygamists so much more definite than that they are polygamists —

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That you can use language of such positiveness in the
one case and not in the other?

Mr. SMITH. I happen, sir, to be very well acquainted with Rudger
Clawson. At one time he was the second councilor to President Snow
with myself. He lives as a neighbor to me, and we sit in the same
office together from day to day, and I am very intimate with Rudger
Clawson and with his family.

Mr. TAYLER. F. M. Lyman is an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What position does he hold respecting the apostles

Mr. SMITH. He is the president of the twelve.

Mr. TAYLER. The president ?

HEED SMOOT. 143

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLEK. And is, according to the experience of the church, in
the line of succession to you?

Mr. SMITH. That is the understanding.

Mr. TAYLER. That is the understanding?

Senator OVERMAN. What is his name?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Lyman.

Mr. SMITH. F. M. Lyman.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Lyman is here, would it not be
proper for him to answer the question himself?

The CHAIRMAN. If you know you had better answer it.

Mr. SMITH. I know only by reputation. He is reputed to have two
wives.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Smith, I should like to ask you a ques-
tion, with the permission of the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Has any of these men about whom Mr. Tay lei-
has asked you married plural wives since the manifesto ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not one of them.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Then the wives that you refer to were wives
married before the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Before the manifesto for years.

Senator PETTUS. They were married before ?

Senator BEVERIDGE. I was asking whether any have taken wives
since.

Mr. SMITH. Let me say to you, Mr. Senator — I have said it, but I
repeat it — there has not any man, with the consent or knowledge or
approval of the church, ever married a plural wife since the manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Mr. Smith, do you remember a few years ago
the death of the wife of George Teasdale ?

Mr. SMITH. I have some recollection of being at a funeral.

Mr. TAYLER. Was that the funeral of Marion Scoles ?

Mr. SMITH. I believe it was, although 1 was not- acquainted with
the lady.

Mr. TAYLER. George Teasdale was an apostle ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You are the head of the church?

Mr. SMITH. I am now, but at that time I was not.

Mr. TAYLER. No. I am making your knowledge now the predicate
for this question which I want to ask you in good faith. If Marion
Scoles never heard of George Teasdale or saw him, and lived in
another county prior to 1893, how could she have become his wife
if he had another wife living at that time?

Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment, Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I object
to the question. The witness is asked a hypothetical question on some-
thing that is entirely immaterial and irrelevant. If Mr. Smith knows
any facts, ask him about the facts, but do not ask him a question of this
kind. I should like to have the stenographer read the question. It is
entirely immaterial to ask him to give his opinion in a matter of this
kind.

The CHAIRMAN. The question asked him was how a certain person
could become this party's wife — I suppose the counsel means under the
practice of the church; how that could be done.

144 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. When she was in another country.

Mr. VAN COTT. I should like to have the question read, just to show
that it is a supposition instead of asking for a fact.

Senator HOAR. In the first place, the witness has stated his belief
about this gentleman; then he stated that no person, with the knowl-
edge of the authorities of the church, with their consent or approval,
has contracted a plural marriage since the manifesto. Now, it seems
to me fair, as testing the accuracy of Mr. Smith's understanding, to
call his attention to this condition and ask him how it could have been
brought about.

The CHAIRMAN. Answer the question, Mr. Smith.

Mr. VAN COTT. May we have the question read?

The CHAIRMAN. Let the stenographer read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"If Marion Scoles never heard of George Teasdale, or saw him, and
lived in another country, prior to 1893, how could she have become
his wife, if he had another wife living at that time? "

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about the lady. I do not know
whether she lived in another country or not. I never saw the lady but
once before her funeral in my life. I do not know anything about his
marrying her — when or where or in what way.

Senator HOAR. The question, as I understand it, is whether there is
any way known to the witness by which a person not in this country
prior to 1893 could have been married to the party inquired of before
the manifesto. That is the substance of the question.

Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any way by which it could have been
done. May I state this, Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN. That answers the question, but if you wish to pro-
ceed you may do so.

Mr. SMITH. That answers the question. I wish to clear up one point,
so far as my understanding goes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. SMITH. That is, at the time, whenever it may have been, as I
have heard Mr. Teasdale say, when he married Marion Scoles he did
not understand that he had any wife living at all.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, are you going to adjourn about 12
o'clock?

The CHAIRMAN. A few minutes before.

Senator HOAR. I should like leave to put a question now, if nobody
objects, on an entirely different branch of the subject. I should like
to have the question propounded.

Senator FORAKER. Would it not suit the Senator from Massachu-
setts as well to do that when we reconvene — it is only 5 minutes to
12 now — especially if the question is on an entirely different subject?

Senator HOAR. If any member of the committee objects, I will not
put it. For some reasons I wish to submit it now.

Senator FORAKER. Very well.

Senator HOAR. 1 merely wish to ask him this question for my own
personal information.

When your agents meet, converse with, or solicit persons to join
your church, in other parts of the world than Utah, do they not urge,
as you understand it, the rightfulness of polygamy from a religious
•point of view?

EEED SMOOT. 145

Mr. SMITH. Never.

Senator HOAR. To-day ?

Mr. SMITH. To-day, never. Only when they are forced into a
defense of their belief. They do not advocate nor teach the doctrine
nor inculcate it in any Way, shape, or form.

Senator HOAR. That is, if anj^body should raise the question, which
has been applied to you, with the agent, the agent would' answer as
you have answered, perhaps. But what I want to know is, whether if
you employ a man to go to England or to Massachusetts, or anywhere
else, to solicit converts or adherents to the Mormon Church, to come
to Utah and join you, whether or not those agents are instructed now,
to-day, to preach — 1 do not speak of its lawfulness in regard to the
statutes or acts of Congress — the rightf ulness of polygamy as from a
religious point of view. I understand you to negative that in the full-
est degree ?

Mr. SMITH. In the fullest degree?

Senator HOAR. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. And let me add, Mr. Senator, that in every instance our
elders who are sent out to preach the gospel are instructed not to
advocate plural marriage in their ministrations. It is a thing of the
past.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now take a recess until 2 o'clock.

Thereupon at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m., the committee took a
recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. You may resume the stand, Mr. Smith. Proceed
Mr. Tayler.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Continued.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, just before the recess of the committee
you were asked a question by Senator Hoar, as to whether your mis-
sionaries, and those who were sent out by you to preach your doc-
trines, inculcated or declared the doctrine of polygamy. Somewhat
in substance I think that was the inquiry, and you answered that they
did not.

Mr. SMITH. I did answer that they did not, and 1 further said that
they were invariably instructed, before they left their homes, not to
teach that doctrine and not to engage, if they could avoid it, in any
discussions of that doctrine; and I would add to that that they do not
enter into any discussion of that doctrine except where they are com-
pelled to defend their belief.

Mr. TAYLER. The belief of your missionaries is that polygamy is a
divinely ordained relation?

Mr. SMITH. I can not say what the belief of our elders is on that
subject.

Mr. TAYLER. You can not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; they have their own individual beliefs.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you familiar with a little book published by the
Deseret News entitled "Ready References; a Compilation of Scripture
Texts," etc. ?

s 10

146 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. "Designed especially for the use of missionaries and
Scripture students ? "

Mr. SMITH. I am acquainted with it.

Mr. TAYLER. That is a book that is used by your missionaries?

Mr. SMITH. 1 suppose it is used more or less by them.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, it is correctly described on its title page as
designed for their use, is it not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there a chapter in that on the subject of polygamy?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. An argument in favor of polygamy and its propriety ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there any qualification within the covers of that
book of that doctrine and belief in plural marriage ?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of. That book, I may say, was pub-
lished, as will be seen if you will give the date, a great many years
ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

"Mr. SMITH. And it has been in existence a great many years. I
do not know anything about recent editions of it, whether that has
been continued in it or not.

Mr. TAYLER. I notice this, in the preface of the third edition

Senator DILLINGHAM. What is the date of that edition, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. I am about to read it so as to get in its order as it is.
The latter part of this preface is as follows:

"Some improvement has been made in the arrangement of the
references, and a few passages have been added. Otherwise this
edition is similar to the former. That the work may prove acceptable
to the public and great good result from its more extensive publication
is the earnest desire of the publishers.

"Salt Lake City, October 12, 1902."

Do you recall the statement in this little book, under the head of
"Patriarchal marriage," the declaration, "Polygamy implied in the
Savior's promise?"

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the page, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Page 135.

Mr. SMITH. My recollection-
Mr. TAYLER. Do you recollect that? I do not want to interfere
with any statement you want to make.

Mr. SMITH. Not specifically; no. I would like to say that that chap-
ter in the book is devoted entirely to Scriptural references and historical
references with reference to the principle of plural marriage, extending
back in the da}Ts of Judea, and all the way down — simply Bible refer-
ences and historical references in respect to that principle. That is
my recollection of it.

Mr. TAYLER. There are a large number of references here besides
those taken from the Bible.

Mr. SMITH. I understand ; from history.

Mr. TAYLER. Quite a discussion of the subject.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Following the extracts from the Bible?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

REED SMOOT. 147

Mr. TAYLER. Running down to modern times. Do you recall the
marginal description of the text in these words, "Polygamy right in
the sight of God?"

Mr. SMITH. From a scriptural standpoint, yes. I would like to add
that according to my best understanding the use of that book by our
elders is almost entirely abandoned, it having been set forth to them
that it is better for them to take the Bible and the standard works of
the church as they are, independent of all auxiliary writings or books.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, what authority do these missionaries
take with them in their missionary work?

Mr. SMITH. They take an elder's certificate —

The CHAIRMAN. I mean of teachings?

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. What teachings?

Mr. SMITH. They take the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine
and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price — the standard works of
he church.

The CHAIRMAN. Those four are the authorities they take with them
in their missionary work ?

Mr. SMITH. That is quite right.

The CHAIRMAN. One other question. I understood you to say they
were instructed before the}r go on their missions. By whom?

Mr. SMITH. By the apostles and by the first presidents of seventies,
whose duty it is to give special instructions to missionaries before
they leave their homes.

The CHAIRMAN. That duty rests especially on the apostles?

Mr. SMITH. And the seven presidents of seventies.

The CHAIRMAN. Not on the president?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; they have too much else to do, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether they are provided with any
other doctrinal declarations except the four books you have mentioned?

Mr. SMITH. None whatever except at their own choice.

The CHAIRMAN. At their own choice ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not then, to your knowledge, provided
with the manifesto of 1890 suspending polygamy?

Mr. SMITH. Every member of the church—

The CHAIRMAN. Are they supplied with that document, to your
knowledge ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; they are not supplied with any documents.
They supply themselves with their own documents, their own books.

The CHAIRMAN. And the 4 volumes you have just spoken of as being
the documents or authorities the missionaries take with them — they
take them or not, just as they are —

Mr. SMITH. These are the standard works of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know, Mr. Smith, whether they take
them with them or not?

Mr. SMITH. They do.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do they always take the manifesto with them ?

Mr. SMITH. I could not say that they do or do not, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. SMITH. But I would like to add this, that every man that goes
out understands what the manifesto is.

148 EEED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; of course.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Smith, I want to ask you a question, please,
in regard to the officers of the church, as these gentlemen have not
been mentioned before. The first seven presidents of seventies rank
next in authority in your church to the apostles, do they not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; in missionary matters.

Senator DUBOIS. Well, in general aft'airs in the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; as standing ministers in the church they come
next.

Senator DUBOIS. They come next to the apostles ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLEK. In 1892, Mr. Smith, how many wives did you have?

Mr. SMITH. In 1892?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I had five.

Mr. TAYLER. Who was your first wife? You spoke of her this
morning.

Mr. SMITH. Mrs. J. L. Smith.

Mr. TAYLER. Mrs. J. L. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What was her name ?

Mr. SMITH. Her name was Lamson.

Mr. TAYLER. What was her first name ?

Mr. SMITH. Julina.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have a wife Levira?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. When did she die?

Mr. SMITH. Many }Tears ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Many years ago ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many years ago?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you that.

Mr. TAYLER. You can not remember the year in which she died ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. She is the only one of your wives who has died, is
she?

Mr. SMITH. She is the only one who has died.

Mr. TAYLER. And have you no idea when it was she died ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I have not, for this reason: 1 will state before
the committee that she was divorced from me many years before she
died, and I lost track of her.

Mr. TAYLER. How was she divorced?

Mr. SMITH. By the fourth judicial district court of San Francisco,
I believe, as near as I recollect.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you obtained a church divorce from her?

Mr. SMITH. I had.

Mr. TAYLER. Prior to that time?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; she obtained a church divorce from me prior
to that time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This seems to have been twenty years or more
prior to 1890, the date of the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. It was a long time before the manifesto, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the Chair understands that. What is the pur-
pose of this, Mr. Tayler?

REED SMOOT. 149

Senator BEVERIDGE. Inasmuch as the witness has testified to this
extent, 1 think he should be allowed to speak further.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection, then.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, if you please, that
it is very embarrassing and trying to me to publicly announce my
private domestic affairs before this committee.

Mr. TAYLER. As far as I am concerned, I do not care so much about
that. You can proceed as you please.

Mr. SMITH. 1 do it very reluctantly, simply because I am required
to do so by this honorable committee. I regret it very much, and I
wish to say that much to the committee, because my statements and
testimony here are going to the world, and I do not want it understood,
being compelled, as I have been, to give information and to make state-
ments of opinion in relation to my friends, that I am in any sense a
spotter or an informer. If there is anything, gentlemen, that I despise
it is an infamous spotter and informer, and I am not one of those. I
wish to state that in order that it may go down on record.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. One of the often-declared principles of your church
is, uMind your own business," is it not?

Mr. SMITH. You are correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, did you not, along about 1896 or 1897, claim
that Levira had not been divorced from you and that you were entitled
to share in the property of which she was possessed at the time of her
death?

Mr. SMITH. I will make a statement of that fact.

Mr. TAYLER. I would like to have you answer categorically, if you
can.

Mr. SMITH. I prefer not to say yes or no.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, proceed.

Mr. SMITH. An attorney, a friend of mine —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One moment, Mr. Smith; I object to that as
having no possible connection with the inquiry before the committee
here.

Senator HOAR. Let the question be repeated.

Mr. TAYLER. He said he had five wives, and I want to see if he has
not claimed that he had six at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the question be read.

The stenographer read as follows:

" Mr. TAYLER. Now, did you not, along about 1896 or 1897, claim
that Levira had not been divorced from you, and that you were entitled
to share in the property of which she was possessed at the time of her
death?

" Mr. SMITH. I will make a statement of that fact.

"Mr. TAYLER. I would like to have you answer categorically if
you can.

" Mr. SMITH. I prefer not to say yes or no."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, what is the object of that testimony?

Mr. TAYLER. As I stated, to find out if he did not have six wives
instead of five at the time of the manifesto.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, she was divorced from me many years
before that in California.

The CHAIRMAN. That seems to dispose of the matter, so far as that
is concerned.

150 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand; but 1 want to know if that was his view
of the fact.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that was my view of the fact all the while.

Mr. TAYLER. Then, you did not claim to be interested in her estate
as her widower?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it was claimed for me.

Mr. TAYLER. For you?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; not by me at all.

Mr. TAYLER. We will let it" go at that. Did you get any money out
of it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Tayler, what is the relevancy of the question
whether he had five wives or six ?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Or whether he got the property out of the
estate of one of his wives ?

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know Brigham H. Roberts?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position does he hold ?

Mr. SMITH. He is one of the seven presidents of seventies.

Mr. TAYLER. How long has he held that position ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist ?

Mr. SMITH. He is reputed to be. I am not an informer, sir, on Mr.
Roberts.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you able to state about when he became one of
the first presidents of the seventies ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; 1 can not state it.

Mr. TAYLER. It was after he was elected to Congress, was it not*

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about it, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What other position does he hold besides that of first
president of the seventies ?

Mr. SMITH. One of the first.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; one of the first presidents of the seventies.

Mr. SMITH. He is sustained by the voice of the conference as an
assistant historian.

Mr. TAYLER. Upon whose nomination was he appointed to that
place ?

Mr. SMITH. On the nomination of the church historian.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is the church historian '(

Mr. SMITH. Anthon H. Lund.

Mr. TAYLER. He is one of the counselors to the first president?

Mr. SMITH. He is one of my counselors.

Mr. TAYLER. And therefore one of the first presidency?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, what relation does your organization sus-
tain to temporal affairs?

Mr. SMITH. Advisory.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Tayler, will you allow me to ask Mr. Smith a
question before you go to that?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Is Mr. Roberts one of the first presidents of
seventies now?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. How is he appointed?

EEED SMOOT. 151

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you just how he was appointed. The
seven presidents of seventies are generally nominated by somebody
and put before the general conference and sustained by them as such.

Senator HOAR. What do you mean by that word " sustained? "

Mr. SMITH. Why, sustained by vote.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He means, Senator, what we mean by con-
firmed. A nomination is confirmed or sustained.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; confirmed by the vote of the people. That is what
I mean by sustained.

Senator DUBOIS. That is not quite clear to me. How does his name
get before the conference ?

Mr. SMITH. Somebody nominates him.

Senator DUBOIS. Who?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know; whoever wants to nominate him.

Senator DUBOIS. Anyone from the outside?

Mr. SMITH. Anyone may nominate him or anybody else.

Senator DUBOIS. For instance, twenty-five or thirty gentlemen can
stand up, like they do in an ordinary convention, and each nominate
one man for first president of the seventies, and then you would choose
between them?

Mr. SMITH. It is not usually that way. It is usually done in councils
of the priesthood.

Senator DUBOIS. Explain that to us.

Mr. SMITH. In this case, in the case of the seventy, it would unques-
tionably be done— that is, it would be done by a council of the seven-
ties, and the name of the individual recommended to the first presidency
and twelve, and then put before the general conference and voted upon
to be sustained.

Senator DUBOIS. Put before the general conference by whom?

Mr. SMITH. By the presidency of the church, or of the twelve
apostles.

Senator DUBOIS. That is exactly what I was trying to come at.

Mr. SMITH. . That is right.

Senator DUBOIS. Then what follows ?

Mr. SMITH. It follows that they either sustain him or do not sus-
tain him.

Senator DUBOIS. How do they sustain him ?

Mr. SMITH. By uplifted hands; by voting for him.

Senator DUBOIS. Suppose any apostle should refuse to hold up his
hand, and say " I object," what then?

Mr. SMITH. Nothing; only that he would be entitled to his opinion.

Senator DUBOIS. Would there be a vote taken, or would the apostle
have to state his reasons for objecting?

Mr. SMITH. He might have the privilege of stating his reasons after-
wards in council, but not in any public assembly.

Senator DUBOIS. As a matter of fact, did any apostle ever object,
by holding up his hand or otherwise, to the sustaining of Brigham H.
Roberts as one of the first presidents of the seventies since Congress
refused to give him a seat here because he is a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. I have no knowledge of anything of the kind.

Senator DUBOIS. You would have knowledge if any apostle had done
it, would you not?

Mr. SMITH. No; I hardly think I would. It is possible I might.
I do not remember anything of the kind:

152 REED 8MOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. Would you not have known it, do you not think?

Mr. SMITH. Not necessarily.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you not think the newspapers would have men-
tioned the fact after Mr. Roberts was refused a seat here that one of
the apostles had refused to sustain him for this high office ?

Mr. SMITH. I should rather incline to the belief that the newspapers
would have mentioned it, but I might not have seen the newspaper.
I do not see all the newspapers.

Senator DUBOIS. As a matter of fact, has any apostle, or has any
one of the first presidency objected to the sustaining of Mr. Roberts
in this high ecclesiastical position since the action of Congress in his
case?

Mr. SMITH. If I might be permitted to ask a question of the
Senator —

Senator DUBOIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH. 1 would ask wiry should they?

Senator DUBOIS. Well, there are several answers which I could give
to that which would be very pertinent, but I am not on the witness
stand.

Mr. SMITH. 1 see. Let me say to you then, Mr. Senator, thatB. H.
Roberts is in the same status that I am in myself, and I could not
object to him with any degree of consistency myself, and I do not
think any other man in the priesthood or connected with the presiding
authorities could do so any more than I could myself.

Senator DUBOIS. Then you regard all of those in the priesthood
among the presiding authority as in the same category with yourself?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator FORAKER. Do you mean to say that all who are associated
with you in the priesthood have plural wives?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; 1 do not mean to say anything of the kind.

Senator FORAKER. I think your answer was open to that meaning.

Mr. SMITH. No; I do not mean to say that at all.

Senator FORAKER. You said all were in the same category with
yourself.

Mr. SMITH. Those are the gentleman's words, and I merely ac-
quiesced.

Senator FORAKER. Those were his words, and you adopted them ?

Mr. SMITH. I did not intend to convey that idea, Mr. Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. I will go over it again, then.

Senator FORAKER. What did you mean when you said they were all
in the same category?

Mr. SMITH. Those who are in the status of polygamy, as I stated
before.

Senator FORAKER. That is, you mean all who have plural wives?

Mr. SMITH. Plural wives, and of course who took them before the
manifesto.

Senator FORAKER. But you do not mean that those who do not have
olural wives are in the same category with yourself?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. I have no objection to your asking the question,
Senator Foraker, but I am not through.

Senator FORAKER. I beg your pardon. I did not wish to interfere
with vou.

BEED SMOOT. 153

Senator DUBOTS. Did any apostle who is not in polygamy object to
sustaining- Mr. B. H. Roberts in this high position-?

Mr. SMITH. I have never heard of any of them objecting.

Senator DUBOIS. Would you not have heard if any of them had
objected?

Mr. SMITH. Possibly I would.

Senator DUBOIS. Is it not quite probable you would?

Mr. SMITH. It is very likely I would, but I have not heard of any-
thing of the kind. Consequent! j- I can not say that they have posi-
tively, from my knowledge, or that they have not.

Senator DUBOIS. There would have been a trial of some kind either
before he was finally sustained or after he had been sustained, if any
apostle had objected, would there not?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not think necessarily there would have been. 1
can state an instance, if you please. On one occasion an objection, a
contrary vote, was offered against one of the apostles, not by one of
the apostles, but by a member, an elder of the church. It was done
in open conference, and after the conference was over he had the
opportunit}r of stating his objection to the apostle before the proper
tribunal of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. W hat was the proper tribunal ?

Mr. SMITH. The proper tribunal was the presidency of the stake
of Zion in which the objector resided.

Senator DUBOIS. Would not summary proceedings have been taken
in regard to Mr. Roberts if any apostle of the church had objected to
sustaining him as one of the first presidents of the seventies?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman —

Senator DUBOIS. Would they not have taken it before the president
of seventies, or the apostles, or somewhere ?

Mr. SMITH. I have stated this morning, and I will repeat in sub-
stance what I said this morning, that there is a sentiment prevailing,
an all-pervading sentiment, in Utah, among Mormons and Jews and
Gentiles, not to interfere with men's families who entered into that
plural status before the manifesto was issued and before statehood;
and consequently we do not expect that an apostle or any member of
the church, or anyone having any voice in these matters, would object
to a man because he was a polygamist before the manifesto. We do
not expect any such thing. We do not look for any such thing, and
no such thing, to my knowledge, has ever occurred.

Senator DUBOIS. Is it not an extremely rare thing, when the men
for these high positions are preferred to the conference and it is asked
of the conference that they sustain them, for anyone to refuse to hold
up their hand?

Mr. SMITH. It is a very rare thing, because the people are generally
very well united.

Mr. TAYLER. Speaking of this matter of sustaining, do you recall a
dissenting voice at some kind of a meeting or conference held about
a year ago, when a man named Tanner was nominated for some
position ?

Mr. SMITH. I remember it.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you present?

Mr. SMITH. No; I was not present.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember that the 3roung man who dissented

154 REED SMOOT.

was disciplined because he had not previously brought it to the atten-
tion of other church authorities?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not?

Mr. SMITH. I do remember, if you will permit me —

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. That the young man had an opportunity to make his
complaint and his statement and show his evidence before the proper
tribunal of the church, and he failed absolutely to demonstrate and
prove his position — absolutely failed. That I do remember.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you hear this ?

Mr. SMITH. I heard so.

Mr. TAYLER. You were not present ?

Mr. SMITH. No; that I remember as being stated.

Mr. TAYLER. But you know it just the same?

Mr. SMITH. I know it was so stated.

Mr. TAYLER. I did not want to know anything about the merits of
the controversey, but only as to the method that was then followed.
Was it after or before the conference that he had this hearing before
the church authorities?

Mr. SMITH. It was after the conference.

Mr. TAYLER. One question that I ought to have asked you before:
At the time this protest was filed, something over a year ago, Brigham
Young, jr., I believe, was living and an apostle of the church, was he
not?

Mr. VAN COTT. Just a minute, Mr. Smith. Did you say this pro-
test, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Of course, when 1 use the word "protest" I mean
this one unless I indicate something else.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the protest signed by the nineteen ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Tayler raised the paper in his hand, and 1
thought he was speaking of that address.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. SMITH. What is the question?

The CHAIRMAN. The reporter will read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. One question that I ought to have asked you beiore:
At the time this protest was filed, something over a year ago, Brigham
Young, jr., I believe, was living and an apostle of the church, was he
not?"

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about the date of the publica-
tion of this protest at all, nor do 1 just now remember the date of the
death of Brigham Young.

Mr. TAYLER. About how long ago did he die?

Mr. SMITH. Well, 1 really do not know, but I think it is nearly two
years ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there anybody here who knows?

Mr. VAN COTT. I can find out.

Mr. SMITH. I could not say.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was some time probably last year — 1903.

Mr. SMITH. I do not remember anything about the date of his death.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was April, 1903.

REED SMOOT. 155

Senator FORAKER. What is it about that date? What occurred
then?

Mr. TAYLER. The death of Brigham Young, jr., one of the apostles.
Was he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. I understand that he was.

Mr. TAYLER. You have already testified, Mr. Smith, about the vari-
ous concerns to which you sustain official relations. Are your relations
to those various corporations and interests due to your own personal
holdings in them?

Mr. SMITH. Largely, to my own personal holdings, and largely
because 1 am selected and sustained in those positions by my friends
who are stockholders and interested in those institutions.

Mr. TAYLER. Does the church have any interest in them?

Mr. SMITH. In some of them it does.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you propose, Mr. Tayler, to connect the
holdings of these properties and his position as director of them with
the question of the church being a propaganda of polygamy? Has
the question anything to do with that? If it has, I think it is perti-
nent. Otherwise I do not see the point to your question.

Mr. TAYLER. I will have to read from the protest and from the
claim we make.

Senator BEVERIDGE. It is not necessary to make any point about it.
You understand the point of my question.

Mr. TAYLER. We claim the church is controlling in spiritual and
temporal affairs, and controls and dominates all of its members when
necessary. I want to show that that is one of the habits of the church
conduct, historically and now.

Senator DILLINGHAM. What do you mean by temporal affairs ? How
broad is that?

Senator BEVERIDGE. I do not see how you connect this business
matter with it. 1 want to get the point how you connect the business
matter with your claim.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely. Suppose the church was controlling all
sorts of enterprises and interests, individually and churchly, control-
ling, in so far as it could be possible for any organization, the material
and spiritual interests of its people. I propose to show that this
church is, among other things, founded upon that idea and has per-
sistently carried it out. Polygamy is not the only charge that is made
here. There are other independent and clearly defined charges.

Senator FORAKER. That there is a domination in things temporal
and things spiritual.

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You propose to connect it either with the
church's political control of its members or with its propaganda of
polygamy ?

Mr. TAYLER. Independent of the propaganda of polygamy.

Senator BEVERIDGE. But as indicating control of its members ?

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely; a control over the temporal affairs of ts
members, so as to define their action as a class.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that the purpose of this testimony — I see it
now — is to connect the church with the control of the political rela-
tionship of its members?

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely.

156 REED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Otherwise the control of property and things
of that kind would not seem to be pertinent.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 would like to suggest also to the Senator from
Indiana, if he will pardon me, that the witness is the recognized head
of this entire organization, whose authority is paramount. Therefore
some latitude, I should think, ought to be allowed in the questioning
of the recognized power of the Mormon organization.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I have no objection if this tends to establish
the proposition that the church exercises a political power over its
members. I do not, of course, just see how business affairs would do
that. Maybe it will.

Mr. TAYLER. I want to say — because I have been careful in stating
what we claim and have endeavored to keep it within the limits of
that which we understood and believed to be the fact and that could be
shown — that we do not believe, in the light of all the testimony that
will be offered and that will be presented to the committee, document-
ary and otherwise, in public documents, for instance, that Senator
Smoot could by any possibility put himself up against the command
of his associates.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean in his vote as United States Senator ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; in his vote as Senator; and that is an inference
which can not be escaped from in view of all these facts.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I asked the question as to how broad you
used that term, from the fact that I know that Senator Smoot in his
answer says that he is bound by the revelations not only as they relate
to things spiritual, but to the practical business or affairs of the church
itself. He makes that distinction.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. I am very glad to have the question
answered, so that I may say what we claim.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I only want to know what you claim.

Mr. TAYLER. Our claim is that it covers practically everything;
that things that we call temporal — such as, for instance, the civil mar-
riage, which is governed by the laws of this country — are controlled
by their church; that it has been and is the subject of revelations, and
that when they use the term u spiritual" and things pertaining to the
church it will be very difficult, as we view it, to discern anything
that we call temporal that can not be construed to be spiritual accord-
ing to the designation of the church and their practice respecting
them, as I shall indicate in a moment in the proof.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Tayler — pardon me at that point — you say
it is your position, and you expect to prove it, that the church exer-
cises supreme control over the material affairs of its members as well
as over their political affiliations, even to a vote in the United States
Senate?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do I understand you to say that if the church
were to order Mr. Smoot to give up his private property and deed it
to anybody else he would have to do it?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I can say that. I have not sought to prove it,
but I will.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And therefore, by analogy, if he would have
to give up his private property to some person else, if he was told to
vote a certain way he would have to do it ?

Mr. TAYLER. That is, if he obeyed the commands that Joseph Smith
requently made upon his people.

REED SMOOT. 157

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; he would do it if he obeyed it.

Mr. TAYLER. If he obeyed it, of course.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I understand Mr. Tayler's contention to be that
he would have to.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly, or else he could not be a member of that
church.

Senator DUBOIS. Or else give up his apostleship.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course these things are not to be proven by one
sentence, or in one minute, or by one circumstance. That is the only
observation I desire to make about it; but I want the committee to
remember that I ask no question idly nor for the purpose of taking
time, but desire to proceed most expeditiousJy; and perhaps I ought
not to go along as rapidly as I do, but I think I would rather err on
that side.

The CHAIRMAN. There does not seem to be any question pending.
Mr. Tayler, you may go on.

Mr. TAYLER. You are a stockholder in many of these corporations
as trustee in trust? I believe that is the term descriptive of your
capacity.

Mr. SMITH. I am not a stockholder in any of these concerns as
trustee in trust.

Mr. TAYLER. You are not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I own property in every one of these institu-
tions in my own right, and by virtue of my own ownership of that
property I hold the directorship in them.

Mr. TAYLER. So I understood you to say; but do you not hold
interest in it as trustee for the church?

Mr. SMITH. Well, as trustee of the church, of course if it came to
voting on the stock I would vote as trustee on the stock.

Senator HOAR. 1 would like to ask one question there, if I may.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Senator HOAR. I do not wish you to understand that I am asking
about any court or anything of that sort. 1 am speaking now of the
general law. Suppose you were to die to-morrow, where would this
property go in the absence of a will of yours?

Mr. SMITH. Do you mean church property?

Senator HOAR. This property which you hold in various corpora-
tions and institutions, which Mr. Tayler is asking about?

Mr. SMITH. My own property would go to my heirs?

Senator HOAR. Who would be your heirs ?

Mr. SMITH. My family; and the trustee property would descend to
my successor as trustee in trust.

Senator HOAR. 1 misunderstood you. I thought you said you did
not hold any property in those.

Mr. SMITH. 1 beg your pardon. 1 hold property in my own right
in every one of them.

Senator HOAR. W7ould that property which you say you hold in your
own right go to the same persons to whom it would go if you had
resigned all your public functions in the church and were there as an
ordinary citizen ?

Mr. SMITH. The same, precisely. It is my own property; and I
would like to say to the chairman —

The CHAIRMAN. One moment, Mr. Smith. How is it as to the prop-
erty you hold in trust?

Mr. SMITH. The property 1 hold in trust belongs to the church, and

158 REED SMOOT.

when I am no more the title to the property that I hold in trust for
the church will go to my successor as trustee in trust. My own indi-
vidual holdings —

The CHAIRMAN. That is, to the next president?

Mr. SMITH. To the next president or the next trustee in trust. It
does not follow always that the president is the trustee in trust.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Does that property on the books of the cor-
poration stand in the name of the church or in the name of an indi-
vidual as trustee?

Mr. SMITH. It stands in the name of an individual as trustee in trust.

Mr. TAYLER. In what form does your church have title to the
Deseret News property ?

Mr. SMITH. It owns the deed.

Mr. TAYLER. I am speaking now of the newspaper, not the building.

Mr. SMITH. The press; yes. I would like to state that when I was
asked that question before, Mr. Tayler, I was not aware of the fact
that I have since learned from my counsel here that during the trustee-
ship of Lorenzo Snow the Deseret News plant was transferred from
the Deseret News Company to Lorenzo Snow, trustee, in trust. 1
was not aware of the fact, Mr. Chairman, when that question was
asked me yesterday, 1 believe it was. I have since learned that that
is the fact and that my counsel, who is here, made out the papers for
the transfer.

The CHAIRMAN. That correction will appear, of course.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLER. So that it is now in you as trustee in trust?

Mr. SMITH. Now I own it as trustee in trust. Furthermore, I will
say that I have discovered since yesterday that there is published on
the second or third page of the Deseret News the statement that it is
the organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and it
is such in this capacity that when the church has any proclamation to
make public they print it in the Deseret News. The business depart-
ment of the Deseret News is run precisely on the same business prin-
ciples that any and every other newspaper enterprise is run upon.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Are its editorials supposed to bean expression
of the church opinion ?

Mr. SMITH. Not at all; and the church is not responsible for the
editorial expressions unless they are issued over the signatures of the
presidency of the church.

Senator Beveridge. If any editorial appears in that paper advising
the leaders to take a certain political course is that in any wise an
authority of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least. It is as independent as any news-
paper in Utah in its expressions and publications.

Mr. TAYLER. As independent as any newspaper could be of its
owner.

Mr. SMITH. As independent as any paper in Utah, sir. I make no
exception whatever.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, who is the editor of the paper?

Mr. SMITH. Charles W. Penrose.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he connected with your church?

Mr SMITH. Yes, sir; he is an eider in the church.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is he a _
The CHAIRMAN. He is not one

polygamist?

e of the apostles.

REED SMOOT. 159

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. I understand that he is.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he one of the first presidents of the seventies ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; he is not.

Mr. TAYLER. What is he besides what you have described him to
be, if anything, oflicially ?

Mr. SMITH. He has been until recently the second councilor to the
president of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he appointed and sustained to that place just as
other officials are?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He is selected by the first president, I suppose, just as
your councilors are selected ?

Mr. SMITH. For the presidency of the stake, do you mean?

Mr. TAYLER. No; I understood you to say he was councilor to the
president of the stake.

Mr. SMITH. Yes. He is selected in precisely the same way as the
rest.

Mr. TAYLER. You have the same form of selection where an analo-
gous line of duties occur?

Mr. SMITH. The same thing.

Senator DUBOIS. Will you excuse me a moment, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. I simply want to ask this question, so that the mem-
bers of the committee may understand the gradations of authority in
the church. Who comes 'next in authority to the seven presidents of
seventies ?

Mr. SMITH. The general authorities of the church consist of three
first presidents, twelve apostles, or twelve high councilors, if }^ou please,
seven presidents of seventies, and three presiding bishops. These are
the general authorities of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. That is right. Then come the presidents of stakes ?

Mr. SMITH. Then come the presidents of stakes.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Penrose is a councilor to a president of a stake ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. I wanted to get their order.

Mr. SMITH. He is a councilor to one of the fifty-odd stakes of Zion
that are organized.

Senator BEVERIDGE How long has the Deseret News been published ?

Mr. SMITH. I can not remember, Senator, exactly the date of its
inception, but it was in the early fifties. I think it was in 1850, but 1
am not right positive about that.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How long has the present editor been the
editor?

Mr. SMITH. He has been the editor for quite a number of years.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Ten years?

Mr. SMITH. No; I think not as long as that. Let me saj- that many
years ago he was the editor and there was a change. Under the
administration of the company — that is, the Deseret News Company
owned the property. They leased it to another company called the
Deseret News Publishing Company. Under the regime of the Deseret
News Publishing Company Penrose was not the editor. After it was
transferred again to the trustee in trust Penrose was put in. I think
it is not more than three or four years ago.

160 REED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Both the chairman and myself asked you
whether this editor is a polygamist. You said he was.

Mr. SMITH. He is reputed to be.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Has he taken any wives since the proclamation ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. He was one of those who, like yourself, were
in that relation prior to that time?

Mr. SMITH. Prior to the manifesto; and many, many years prior,
too.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How old is he ?

Mr. SMITH. He is a man nearly 70 years of age. I think perhaps
he is 70 or over. Seventy- two I am informed. I did not know his
age.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Tayler, let us go along.

Senator FORAKER. When you say a president of a state do you refer
to a State of the Union ?

Mr. SMITH. No; a stake.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is stake, not state, Senator.

Senator FORAKER. I thought from the context it must refer to some
kind of a church.

Mr. SMITH. 1 would like to state, for the information of the Senator,
that our church is divided geographically into stakes, as they are
called, and then each stake is divided into wards.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How many stakes are there in Utah?

The CHAIRMAN. Do the stakes usually correspond with the county?

Mr. SMITH. They have heretofore usually corresponded with the
county, but on account of the increase of population, a number of the
stakes that formerly covered a whole county have been divided into
two or three or more stakes.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not important. I simply want to know gen-
erally.

Mr. SMITH. All I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, is there are consider-
ably over 50 stakes. I do not know just how many.

Senator FORAKER. Do you mean there are over 50 in Utah ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Over the whole country ?

Mr. SMITH. That is, in all the intermountain States.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to get a little information out of this. You
speak of the quorum of seventy.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How is that quorum made up? Who are the sev-
enty ? I do not mean their names.

Mr. SMITH. A quorum of seventy consists of seventy elders. Seven
of that seventj^ preside over the other sixty-three as the seven prssi-
dents of that quorum. Then there is a general council of seventies
which preside over all the seventies— that is, the church presidents.

Mr. TAYLER. There are presidents of seventies and first presidents
of seventies?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The first presidents being over the consolidated seven-
ties, as it were?

Mr. SMITH. Over the entire number of seventies.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. The prophet, Joseph Smith, jr., received a great many
revelations pertaining to temporal affairs, did he not?

REED SMOOT. 161

Mr. SMITH. I would hardly say a great many, but he did receive
some revelations with regard to temporal affairs.

Mr. TAYLER. They were received by the people, were they?

Mr. SMITH. They were accepted generally by the members of the
church.

Mr. TAYLER. And the}7 are recognized now as having been revela-
tions from Almighty God, are they not?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Just as binding upon the conscience of those who
receive them as any other revelation that Joseph Smith received ?

Mr. SMITH. Just as binding on the conscience of members of the
church as baptism for the remission of sins and the laying on of hands
for the Holy Ghost.

Mr. TAYLER. And polygamy ?

Mr. SMITH. And 1 will say to the gentlemen of the committee that
there is not, and can not be, any possible restraint held over the mem-
bers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints except that
restraint which people themselves voluntarily give. Every man and
woman and member of the church is as free to belong to the church
or to withdraw from it as any other man or woman-in the world, and
there is no restraint over them except their voluntary wish.

Mr. TAYLER. Then the Almighty does not speak by revelations
directly to them?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; but men obey it or not as they please. They
are at liberty to obey or not, just as they please.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly.

Mr. SMITH. And the}7 disobey if they wish with perfect impunity.

Mr. TAYLER. In your conception of God, then, He is not omnipotent
and omniscient?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes; I think He is.

Mr. TAYLER. But do you mean to say you, at your pleasure, obey
or disobey the commands of Almighty God?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Communicated to you?

Mr. SMITH. I obey or disobey at my will.

Mr. TAYLER. Just as you please?

Mr. SMITH. Just as I please.

Mr. TAYLER. And that is the kind of a God you believe in?

Mr. SMITH. That is exactly the kind of a God I believe in.

Mr. TAYLER. I wanted you to define him.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. I could quote to the gentleman—

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, Mr. Tayler. If we are to have an
address upon every question on all the subjects we will never get
through. If you will confine yourself to answers, Mr. Smith, you
will have plenty of opportunity to explain anything you may desire
to explain.

Mr. SMITH. I will try to confine myself to answers.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I do not think questions as to what are his
conceptions of God, or his private, personal duty, are competent.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think they are either.

Senator FORAKER. I do not understand this to be, anyhow, any-
thing but the doctrine of free moral religion which every good
Methodist believes in.
s 11

162 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall the revelation made to Joseph Smith in
1811; that is, do you recall that it is in your Doctrine and Covenants,
respecting the building of a boarding house?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What page is that?

Mr. TAYLER. Page 136.

Mr. SMITH. In Nauvoo; yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you define that as pertaining to spiritual or tem-
poral affairs?

Mr. SMITH. I define it as pertaining to temporal affairs.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall the revelations instructing his people to
organize a corporation ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What page is that?

Mr. TAYLER. Page 137. And limiting the amount of stock which
anybody could take to $15,000, and not less than than $50.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And that nobody should get his stock until he paid
for it?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I recollect that. That is, I know the revelation,
and furthermore that it was stated somewhere in the revelation that
certain persons were privileged to take stock if they chose to take
stock, or not, as they desired, and that was optional with every man
just the same as any other institution.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that true of all the revelations of Joseph Smith
where he directed things to be done?

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely true.

Mr. TAYLER. That is, that they were free to do as they pleased ?

Mr. SMITH. Free to do absolutely as the}^ pleased.

Mr. TAYLER. Is the authority of the church or its power exercised
respecting legislation in the State of Utah ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in the least.

Mr. TAYLER. Not in the least?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least.

Mr. TAYLER. You are absolutely wholly a nonparticipant in every
way?

Mr. SMITH. In every way as to the church.

Mr. TAYLER. As to the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; as to the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you intervened, yourself, respecting it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you pay any attention to the course of legislation
there?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. None at all ?

Mr. SMITH. None, whatever, except as a citizen of the United States.
I read the papers when I can, and of course some measures I take more
of an interest in than others, as an individual.

Mr. TAYLER. Take the bill that was offered in the legislature, known
as the Evans bill. Do you recall that?

Mr. SMITH. I recall that.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember when it was pending in the legis-
lature?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not remember the date of it. I remember the cir •
cumstance and the bill, and some provisions of the bill,

REED SMOOT. 163

Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall any action you took respecting it?

Mr. SMITH. 1 recall the fact, Mr. Chairman, that I was in favor of
the bill heartily.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that bill, let me ask 2 I do not recall it.

Mr. TAYLER. Perhaps 1 had better read it. It is short, and then it
will be in the record.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What is the date of the bill?

Mr. TAYLER. The date of the bill is 1901. It passed the Senate
March 8, 1901. It is on page 11 of the protest.

"Every person who has reason to believe that a crime or public
offense has been committed may make complaint against such person
before some magistrate having authority to make inquiry of the same:
Provided, That no prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except
on complaint of the husband or wife, or relative of the accused within
the first degree of consanguinity, or of the person with whom the
unlawful act is alleged to have been committed, or of the father or
mother of said person, and no prosecution for unlawful cohabitation
shall be commenced except on complaint of the wife or alleged plural
wife of the accused; but this proviso shall not apply to prosecutions
under section forty-two hundred and eight defining and punishing
polygamous marriages."

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is your question, Mr. Tayler? I under-
stand the witness favored that bill.

Mr. SMITH. I remember the bill, and I favored it.

Mr. TAYLER. How did you give expression to your favor of that
bill?

Mr. SMITH. To friends that I was intimate with.

The CHAIRMAN. Friends in the legislature, do you mean ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I had nothing to do, Mr. Chairman, with any
member of the legislature.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not communicate your wishes to any member
of the legislature?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; none whatever.

Mr. TAYLER. You have a rule, Mr. Smith, respecting the candidacy
of persons for office, have you not — members of your church or offi-
cials of your church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, we have; that is, active officials of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Active officials of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you adopt that rule?

Mr. SMITH. It is a. rule that has been in existence since the church
was organized.

Mr. TAYLER. And has not been emphasized in any way since its
origin ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes; it was emphasized later.

The CHAIRMAN. What rule is that? We do not understand.

Mr. SMITH. This is the rule, Mr. Chairman. The rule is that—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The rule is in writing or in print, is it not ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I think it is somewhere published here. I am not
sure about that.

The CHAIRMAN. A rule of what — of the church?

Mr. SMITH. It is a rule of the church in regard to its official mem-
bers, and the rule is that no official member of the church, such as the
president of a stake, one of the twelve apostles, one of the first presi-

164 REED SMOOT.

dency, one of the seven presidents of seventies, or a presiding bishop
or ordinary bishop, shall engage in any business whatever that will
take him away from the functions and exercise of his ecclesiastical
duties without first getting the sanction and approval of his superior
officers in the church. That is the rule.

Senator HOAR. Does that number of officials you have mentioned
include apostles ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I mentioned apostles.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Does that include also any political occupations
of these people, or business occupations 2

Mr. SMITH. It includes anything that will take an official member
of the church away from his official duty in the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Whether it be business or ecclesiastical work?

Mr. SMITH. Whether it be ordinary business, political business, or
any other business.

Senator DUBOIS. I ask that the rule be read.

Senator HOAR. Let me ask one question right there. When was
that official consent, if ever, given to Mr. Smoot to come here as Sen-
ator of the United States? How; in what form?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did he have to get your consent?

Mr. SMITH. He did. He applied to his associates for their consent
for him to become a candidate before the legislature for Senator of the
United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom do you mean by his associates?

Mr. SMITH. His associates, the apostles.

The CHAIRMAN. The twelve?

Mr. SMITH. The twelve apostles; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And the first presidency ?

Mr. SMITH. And the first presidency; and he obtained their unani-
mous consent to become a candidate if he chose.

Mr. TAYLER. Did anybody else obtain their unanimous consent to
become a candidate at that time for that office ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that any official member of the church
was a candidate at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. Then nobody else whose duty it was to obtain consent
to run for that office asked?

Mr. SMITH. There was no one else a candidate who was an official
member of the church.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Under what conditions was that consent given?

Mr. SMITH. Under what conditions ?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were any conditions attached to the consent?

Mr. SMITH. None whatever. We simply released him from his
duty as one of our number to become a candidate and to attend to the
duties of the Senatorship if he was elected.

Senator BEVERIDGE. 1 understand you then to say he does not attend
to the duties of the apostolate?

Mr. SMITH. Not while he is here; he can not.

Senator DUBOIS. Did anyone else ask your consent to be a candi-
date for the United States Senate at that time?

Mr. SMITH. Not at that time, because there was no official member
of the church a candidate at that time.

Senator DUBOIS. No one else of either party or any other citizen of
Utah received your consent, except Apostle Smoot, to become a candi-
date for the United States Senate?

REED SMOOT. 165

Mr. SMITH. I wish to be understood that no one else, so far as my
knowledge extends, who was a candidate for that position was an
official member of the church. That is what I wish to convey.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, I desire to ask you who made this request;
Mr. Smoot himself?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Smoot himself.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it in writing?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it at a meeting of the apostles and the president?

Mr. SMITH. 1 think not. If I mistake not, he asked these people
individually.

Senator OVERMAN. Were any minutes kept of the meeting where he
was released?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not that I am aware of.

Senator BEVERIDGE. It is not as formal a matter as that, then?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is simply a consent on the part of his associ-
ates to yield their claim upon his services in the church to become a
candidate before the legislature.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is it anything more than a leave of absence?

Mr. SMITH. That .is all. It is practically that.

Senator BEVERIDGE. One or two questions were asked you by Sen-
ator Dubois, Mr. Smith, which suggest something to me. Did the
fact that you gave consent to Mr. Smoot to be a candidate for the
United States Senate in any wise interfere with your giving consent
to any other member of the apostolate, if they had asked it?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Would you have given consent to more than
one?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; if they had asked it.

Senator HOAR. Was a similar consent given to Mr. Cannon when
he came to the Senate?

Mr. SMITH. How is that?

Senator HOAR. Was Mr. Cannon, when he came to the Senate,
'given official consent?

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you which Cannon you mean.

Senator HOAR. The only one who came to the Senate.

Mr. VAN COTT. Frank J. Cannon.

Mr. SMITH. He is not and never has been an official member of the
church, in a,ny sense or form.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by an initial member?

Mr. SMITH. I said an official member.

The CHAIRMAN. I misunderstood you. Was he not at one time an
elder in the church?

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is not an official position at all. Nearly every
male member of the church, Mr. Senator, is an elder.

Mr. TAYLER. There was something said here about this written rule
of application.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Here it is. There is some memoranda there,
which is no part of it, but that we understand to be that rule.

Mr. TAYLER. I have seen it printed several times.

Mr. VAN COTT. If you do not find it we will furnish you with a
printed copy.

Mr. TAYLER. In relation to this subject of consent, what would have
happened to Mr. Smoot if he had persisted in running for the Senate
without the consent of the apostles and the first presidency?

166 HEED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. He would no doubt have been considered in poor stand-
ing with his brethren.

Mr. TAYLER. He would have been deposed from his apostleship,
would he not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not necessarily.

Mr. TAYLER. Not necessarily?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. He would have been out of harmony with his
quorum.

Mr. SMITH. That is all.

Mr. TAYLER. Your quorums are generally in harmony?

Mr. SMITH. They are generally in harmony.

Mr. TAYLER. It is very rare, indeed, that you are not a unit?

Mr. SMITH. I am very happ}7 to say, sir, that is the fact.

Mr. TAYLER. And that all the twelve and the three agree, as a rule ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; as a rule.

Mr. TAYLER. And i+ is seldom it has ever been otherwise ?

Mr. SMITH. Quite so; although, let me add, Mr. Tayler, it has been
so. It has not always been unanimous. There are exceptions to that
rule.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. Can you give us a recent exception to that
rule?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. In what case?

Mr. SMITH. In the case of Moses Thatcher.

Mr. TAYLER. What was the trouble with him?

Mr. SMITH. He was not in harmony with his council for a great many
years.

Senator FORAKER. Did he remain an apostle all the while?

Mr. SMITH. All the while.

Mr. TAYLER. He did not remain all the while, did he?

Mr. SMITH. He remained all the while for years.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; until—

Mr. SMITH. Until final action was taken on his case by his quorum.

Mr. TAYLER. And they deposed him ?

Mr. SMITH. They deposed him.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he have a formal trial?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He was present ?

Mr. SMITH. That is to say, let me say to you, a time, an appoint-
ment for a trial was set, and he was urged to appear, and notified to
appear by his council.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What was the occasion of his being out of har-
mony with his quorum ?

Senator HOAR. Let him finish his answer.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Very well.

Mr. SMITH. And he refused to appear, and absented himself from
the council, declining to answer or respond to the call to be there.

Mr. TAYLER. Were charges formulated against him ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He has not yet finished his answer.

Mr. TAYLER. Very well, I thought he had.

Mr. SMITH. And long prior to this circumstance he had been out
of harmony with the other members of the quorum, and had absented
himself from their meetings many times in succession.

REED SMOOT. 167

Mr. TAYLER. But you asserted the right at that time, and so pro-
claimed, did you not, that you had the right — that is to say, the first
presidency and the remaining eleven apostles had the right — to depose
him at any time without trial and without hearing?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; we never do that.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you not on record as so stating ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no.

Mr. TAYLER. That he was not entitled to be heard; that it was your
right to depose him ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I think there is no such record.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The practice in our courts is, that if a man is
asked if he has signed a writing or has done something by writing, the
paper should be produced.

Mr. TAYLER. That is so technical that I do not think it is worth while
discussing it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. My friend says he does not consider it worth
discussing. I would like to know the opinion of the chairman and the
committee about it.

Senator FORAKER. The witness has answered the question anyhow,
without hesitation or qualification.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Tayler, if you have it I would be obliged to
you if you would read that rule of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. It is in the protest.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Extracts of it are in the protest, but the larger
portion of it is carefully omitted.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a controversy about that, Mr. Smith.
Can you furnish the rule?

Mr. SMITH. I could, Mr. Chairman, if I had the time. I think I
would have to send home for it, unless it could be found here.

Mr. VAN COTT. WTe have a copy of it.

Mr. TAYLER. My recollection is that it is as Mr. Smith has given
it, in substance; but I think we had better geta copy of it and put it
in the record. I understand he has stated the substance of it correctly,
as I recall it, at least.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I confer with the witness a
moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainty.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, we are inquiring as to a rule of the
church of its head, and it seems to me it is hardly worth while, when
the head of the church is stating what he understands to be its rule,
to trouble ourselves too strictly about producing a written document.
If there is a call for it, it can be put in later.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a rule of the church.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith is now prepared to offer
a copy of the rule.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that there is here a copy
of that rule.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you examined it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I have not examined it.

The CHAIRMAN. So you can not say whether it is a copy or not?

Mr. SMITH. 1 could not say at present.

Senator HOAR. It can be put in and corrected afterwards if mistakes
are found in it?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; it is understood it was furnished by the historian's
office to Mr. Smoot.

108 REED PMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. It has been frequently published, and we have here a
printed cop}^. It ma3T not be accurate, but we will get it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the rule, or what purports to be the rule, go
into the record, and then if it is erroneous it can be corrected.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he examine it
to-night and produce it to-morrow in his testimony, when it can go in
the record.

Senator DUBOIS. I suggest that the counsel agree as to what they
shall put in.

Senator FORAKER. Let us understand that the rule will be inserted
at this point.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. The witness and the counsel agree to the existence
of the rule, and that is the substance of it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is the substance of it. Now, let Mr.
Smith go over it, and if he finds it correct, let it go in.

The rule referred to is as follows:

TO THE SAINTS.

To the officers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints, in general conference assembled:

DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTERS: Every Latter-Day Saint will recog-
nize the value of union, not only in action but in matters of faith and
discipline. As to the rights and authority of the priesthood of the Son
of God, it is of the highest importance that there should be no differ-
ence of opinion among the officers and members of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Feeling the necessity of a correct
understanding of this principle, we deem it proper, at this sixty-sixth
anniversary of the organization of the church in these last days, to
prepare and present a statement on the subject, embodying the doc-
trine which has always prevailed in the church and our views upon it.
We are prompted to adopt this at the present time because of events
which have happened during the late political contest. A great diver-
sity of opinion on the subject has been expressed, and even by leading
elders in the church, which latter fact has naturally led, in some
instances, to considerable division of sentiment.

It is of great importance that we understand each other and that there
be harmony in our teachings. It is especially important that these
teachings shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations and
doctrines which have been taught and which have prevailed from the
beginning until the present time, having not only the sanction of undis-
puted usage, but the approval of all faithful leaders in the church and
of Him in whose name and by whose authority they act.

In the late exciting contest, to which reference has been made, the
presiding authorities in some instances have been misunderstood. In
other instances they have been misrepresented, which has led to a
wrongful conception of their real views. It has been asserted too
freely, and without foundation, that there has been a disposition on
their part to interfere with individual liberty and to rebuke in some
men a course which was applauded in others. In a word, that they
have appeared to desire to assert and maintain an unjust and oppres-
sive control over the actions of the members of the church, and in thus
doing have endeavored to effect a union of church and state.

REED SMOOT. 169

In the heat of political discussion assertions have been made and
arguments used conveying to the public mind a false idea concerning
the position of the officers of the church and leaving the impression
that there has been and was now being made an attempt to accomplish
the union above referred to. Now that the excitement has passed, and
calmer reason has resumed its sway, we think it prudent to set forth,
'so that all may understand, the exact position occupied by the leading
authorities of the church.

In the first place we wish to state in the most positive and emphatic
language that at no time has there ever been any attempt or even
desire on the part of the leading authorities referred to to have the
church in any manner encroach upon the rights of the state, or to unite
in any degree the functions of the one with those of the other.

Peculiar circumstances have surrounded the people of Utah. For
many years a majority of them in every portion of the Territory
belonged to one church, every reputable member of which was entitled
to hold and did hold some ecclesiastical office. It is easy to see how, to
the casual observer, it might appear singular that so many officers of the
church were also officers of the State; but while this was in fact the case,
the distinction between the church and the state throughout those years
was carefully maintained. The president of the church held for eight
years the highest civil office in the community, having been appointed
by the National Administration governor of the Territory. The first
secretary of the Territory was a prominent church official. An apostle
represented the Territory in Congress as a Delegate during ten years.
The members of the legislature held also offices in the church. This
was unavoidable, for the most suitable men were elected by the votes
of the people, and, as we have stated, every reputable man in the entire
community held some church position, the most energetic and capable
holding leading positions. This is all natural and plain enough to those
who consider the circumstances; but it furnished opportunity for those
who were disposed to assail the people of the Territory to charge them
with attempting to unite church and state. A fair investigation of the
conditions will abundantly disprove the charge and show its utter
falsity.

On behalf of the church, of which we are leading officers, we desire
again to state to the members and also to the public generally that
there has not been nor is there the remotest desire on our part or on
the part of our coreligionists to do anything looking to a union of
church and state.

We declare that there has never been any attempt to curtail indi-
vidual libertj- — the personal liberty of any of the officers or members of
the church. The first presidency and other leading officers did make
certain suggestions to the people when the division on party lines took
place. That movement was an entirety new departure, and it was
necessary, in order that the full benefit should not be lost which was
hoped to result from this new political division, that people who were
inexperienced should be warned against hasty and ill-considered action.
In some cases they were counseled to be wise and prudent in the polit-
ical steps they were about to take, and this with no idea of winning
them against their will to either side. To this extent and no further
was anything said or done upon this question, and at no time and
under no circumstances was any attempt made to say to voters how
they should cast their ballots. Any charge that has been made to the
contrary is utter ly false.

170 REED SMOOT.

Concerning officers of the church themselves, the feeling was gen-
erally expressed in the beginning of the political division spoken of
that it would be prudent for leading men not to accept of office at the
hands of the political party to which they might belong. This coun-
sel was given to men of both parties alike, not because it was thought
that there was any impropriety in religious men holding civil office,
not to deprive them of any of their rights of citizenship, but because
of the feeling that it would be better, under all the circumstances
which had now arisen, to avoid any action that would be likely to create
jealousy and ill feeling. An era of peace and good will seemed to be
dawning upon the people, and it was deemed good to shun everything
that could have the least tendency to prevent the consummation of the
happy prospect.

In many instances, however, the pressure brought to bear upon effi-
cient and popular men by- the members of the parties to which they
belonged was of such a character that they had to yield to the solicita-
tion to accept nomination to office or subject themselves to the suspi-
cion of bad faith in their party affiliations. In some cases they did
this without consulting the authorities of the church; but where
important positions were held, and where the duties were of a respon-
sible and exacting character, some did seek the counsel and advice of
the leading church authorities before accepting the political honors
tendered them. Because some others did not seek this counsel and
advice ill feeling was engendered, and undue and painful sensitive-
ness was stimulated; misunderstanding readily followed, and as a
result the authorities of the church were accused of bad faith and made
the objects of bitter reproach.

We have maintained that in the case of men who hold high positions
in the church, whose duties are well defined, and whose ecclesiastical
labors are understood to be continuous and necessary, it would be an
improper thing to accept political office or enter into any vocation
that would distract or remove them from the religious duties resting
upon them, without first consulting and obtaining the approval of
their associates, and those who preside over them. It has been under-
stood from the very beginning of the church that no officer whose
duties are of the character referred to has the right to engage in any
pursuit, political or otherwise, that will divide his time and remove
his attention from the calling already accepted.

It has been the constant practice with officers of the church to con-
sult— or, to use our language, to "counsel" — with their brethren
concerning all questions of this kind. They have not felt that they
were sacrificing their manhood in doing so, nor that they were sub-
mitting to improper dictation, nor that in soliciting and acting upon
the advice of those over them they were in any manner doing away
with their individual rights and agency, nor that to any improper
degree were their rights and duties as American citizens being abridged
or interfered with. They realize that in accepting ecclesiastical office
they assumed certain obligations; that among these was the obligation
to magnify the office which they held, to attend to its duties in prefer-
ence to every other labor, and to devote themselves exclusively to it
with all the zeal, industry, and strength they possessed, unless released
in part or for a time by those who presided over them.

Our view, and it has been the view of all our predecessors, is that
no officer of our church, especially those in high standing, should take
a course to violate this long-established practice. Rather than disobey.

BEED 3MOOT. 171

it, and declare himself by his actions defiantly independent of his asso-
ciates and his file leaders, it has always been held that it would be
better for a man to resign the duties of his priesthood; and we enter-
tain the same view to-da}^.

In view of all the occurrences to which reference has been made,
and to the diversity of views that have arisen among- the people in
consequence, we feel it to be our dut}^ to clearly define our position,
so there may be no cause hereafter for dispute or controversy upon
the subject:

First. We unanimously agree to and promulgate as a rule that
should always be observed in the church and by every leading official
thereof that before accepting any position, political or otherwise,
which would interfere with the proper and complete discharge of his
ecclesiastical duties, and before accepting a nomination or entering into
engagements to perform new duties, said official should apply to the
proper authorities and learn from them whether he can, consistent!}7
with the obligations already entered into with the church upon assum-
ing his office, take upon himself the added duties and labors and respon-
sibilities of the new position. To maintain proper discipline and order
in the church, we deem this absolutely necessary; and in asserting this
rule we do not consider that we are infringing in the least degree upon
the individual rights of the citizen. Our position is that a man, having
accepted the honors and obligations of ecclesiastical office in the church,
can not properly of his own volition make these honors subordinate to,
or even coordinate with, new ones of an entirely different character.
We hold that unless he is willing to consult with and obtain the consent
of his fellow-laborers and presiding officers in the priesthood he
should be released from all obligations associated with the latter before
accepting any new position.

Second. We declare that in making these requirements of ourselves
and our brethren in the ministry, we do not in the least desire to dic-
tate to them concerning their duties as American citizens, or to inter-
fere with the affairs of the State; neither do we consider that in the
remotest degree we are seeking the union of church and state. We
once more here repudiate the insinuation that there is or ever has
been an attempt by our leading men to trespass upon the ground occu-
pied by the State, or that there has been or is the wish to curtail in
any manner any of its functions.
Your brethren,

Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith,
first presidency; Lorenzo Snow, F. D. Richards, Brig-
ham Young, Francis M. Lyman, John Henry Smith,
George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, John W. Taylor,
Marriner W. Merril, Abraham H. Cannon, apostles;
John Smith, patriarch; Seymour B. Young, C. D.
Fjeldsted, B. H. Roberts, George Reynolds, Jonathan
G. Kimball, Rulon S. Wells, Edward Stevenson, first
council of seventies; William B. Preston, R. T. Bur-
ton, John R. Winder, presiding bishopric.
SALT LAKE CITY, April 6, 1896.

NOTE. — The reason the signature of Apostle Anthon H. Lund does
not appear in connection with those of his quorum is because, he is
absent, presiding over the European mission. He, however, will be
given the opportunity of appending his signature when he returns
home.

172 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, what was the immediate occasion of the
controversy with Moses Thatcher at the time of his deposition ?

Mr. SMITH. The immediate, that is, the principal, circumstance which
led to the final investigation of his status was his becoming a candidate
for a political office without consulting with his associates. That was
the beginning of the investigation.

Senator DUBOIS. What office was that, did you say?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you now what office it was. I think he
was a candidate for Senator, or something of that kind.

Mr. TAYLER. United States Senator?

Mr. SMITH. I am not sure, but I think that was the case.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, do you recall a document published by the
DeseretNews, entitled u The Thatcher episode : A concise statement of
the facts in the case. Interesting letters and documents and review of
M. Thatcher's claims, pleas, and admissions?"

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I recollect the journal.

Mr. TAYLER. Published in 1896?

Mr. SMITH. I remember.

Mr. TAYLER. That was intended, was it not, to give the church's
side of that controversy ?

Mr. SMITH. The church had nothing to do with it.

Mr. TAYLER. I understood you to say that Moses Thatcher —

Mr. SMITH. With the publication of this book, I mean.

Mr. TAYLER. It was published by the Deseret News, was it not?

Mr. SMITH. That is very true, but it was done for the author.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know who was the author?

Mr. SMITH. There was one pamphlet of that character published by
0. W. Penrose, and there was another one also on that same order pub-
lished by a man by the name of Nelson, and they were their own per-
sonal views.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. C. W. Penrose is the C. W. Penrose of
whom you have spoken ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And the editor of the Deseret News?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know whether the document I have and now
show you is the one Mr. Penrose prepared ?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you.

Mr. TAYLER. Can you tell me, Mr. Van Cott? I do not want to get
any confused statement.

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not know. I could find out for you this even-
ing, probably.

Mr. TAYLER. All right.

Mr. SMITH. Is there no title to it?

Mr. TAYLER. There is no signature.

Mr. SMITH. I rather think, sir, that C. W. Penrose is the author of
that, but I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection as to the
authorship of this so as to be more definite, if you can. [Reading:]

"Recent occurrences in the church render it necessary to present in
a popular form some of the reasons for the action taken by the council
of the twelve apostles in reference to one of their number."

Then follow other general observations.

REED SMOOT. 173

"This pamphlet is therefore prepared for general dissemination
among the members of the church, that they may not be in the dark
concerning the step which the quorum of the twelve found it their
duty to take after much patience, forbearance, and charity."

Mr. SMITH. Well, sir, I do not know whether that is Mr. Nelson's
or whether it is—

Mr. TAYLER. Who is Mr. Nelson ?

Mr. SMITH. His name is N. L. Nelson. He is a professor in one of
our schools.

The CHAIRMAN. In what school ?

Mr. SMITH. In one of the church schools.

Mr. TAYLER. Whereabouts?

Mr. SMITH. At Provo.

Mr. TAYLER. We offer that book in evidence. It is identified suf-
ficiently by its name. There may be some lead-pencil notations in it.
We do not offer them. Do you know J. M. Tanner ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is he?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Where are his labors supposed to be carried on now?

Mr. SMITH. His labors, in the line of his duty as superintendent of
church schools, lie throughout all the church.

Mr. TAYLER. He is superintendent of church schools?

Mr. SMITH. He is.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist ?

Mr. SMITH. That is the reputation he has.

Mr. TAYLER. What position did he hold before he was appointed to
that place?

Mr. SMITH. I think he was at one time president of the faculty of
the agricultural society or school.

Mr. VAN COTT. College.

Mr. SMITH. Agricultural college.

Mr. TAYLER. Where?

Mr. SMITH. At Logan.

Mr. TAYLER. In Utah?

Mr. SMITH. In Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall how he came to leave that position?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. It was because he was a polygamist, was it not ? I do
not want to take up time. It was because the law forbade any of the
appropriation to go to agricultural colleges —

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; the law did not forbid.

Mr. TAYLER. Then tell us why. 1 was onty trying to hurry along.
i Mr. SMITH. There was some publication, some newspaper talk,
about an appeal being made to Congress to stop the appropriation
to the college if a polygamist was to be continued as the president
of the faculty, and, to avoid anything of the kind, Mr. Tanner resigned,
is my understanding of it.

Mr. TAYLER. Then was he immediately appointed to the succeeding
place, the place which he now holds ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What was it that intervened ?

Mr. SMITH. He took up the profession of law. He is a law student

174 REED SMOOT.

and a lawyer, and he took up the profession of law in Salt Lake City,
and practiced law for a number of years after he left the college.

The CHAIRMAN. And then what?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carl G. Maesar-—

The CHAIRMAN. I want to know when he became superintendent of
the schools.

Mr. SMITH. I can not tell you exactly the date, but I was going to
tell you how he was chosen. He was a student under Prof. Carl G.
Maesar, who was, previous to his appointment, the general superin-
tendent of church schools throughout Utah. Tanner was one of his
pupils, and was thoroughly posted in regard to the methods and teach-
ing and all the practices of Carl G. Maesar, who was a very eminent
teacher, and because of his knowledge and his eminent fitness to suc-
ceed Carl G. Maesar at his death he was chosen to succeed Mr. Maesar.

The CHAIRMAN. By whom was he chosen ?

Mr. SMITH. By the general board of education of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. He was a polygamist when he was on the faculty of
the college?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And a polygamist when he succeeded to the super-
in tendency of the Sabbath schools?

Mr. SMITH. Just the same. He is in precisely the status that I am
myself, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERMAN. Has he been chosen since 1890?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, I think so. It has been only recently that he was
appointed. It was not very long ago.

Senator DUBOIS. Which is the office of higher dignity, would you
think, that of superintendent of all the church schools, or that of
president of the agricultural college?

Mr. SMITH. The agricultural college is a State and Government insti-
tution, and is considered of very great importance in the State. The
office of president of that institution is regarded as very dignified
and a very responsible position. There is nothing we have in the
church capacit}^ that can compare with it, sir. Our institutions -are
small concerns in comparison to this grand institution of the State.

Senator OVERMAN. Did the apostles have anything to do with the
appointment of this man as superintendent of schools ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is a board of education. There is organized
a general board of education. To make it quite plain to you, Mr.
Senator, I will say that I am also a director in that board, in connec-
tion with all the rest of the institutions with which I am associated.

Senator OVERMAN. And the twelve apostles are not members of that
board ?

Mr. SMITH. One or two of them are.

Senator OVERMAN. As a body, I mean?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not as a body. I think there are one or two
apostles. I recall now only one apostle, and that is Mr. Rudger Claw-
son. He is the only one I recall. There might be one other, but I can
not recall any other than him.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the duty of Mr. Tanner, the superintendent
of schools ?

Mr. SMITH. His duty is to visit the church schools throughout the
State of Utah, and throughout the church in Utah, Arizona, Mexico,
and Canada, and also in Idaho, where we have one or two schools,

REED SMOOT. 175

The CHAIRMAN. And give instructions ?

Mr. SMITH. And give instructions, and superintend the conduct of
the schools.

The CHAIRMAN. How many wives had he when he belonged to the
faculty of the agricultural college ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about how many he has at all.
I never was in his house, to my knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know a man by the name of J. E. Wilson,
connected with the college at one time?

Mr. SMITH. Which college, Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN. The agricultural college, at the time Mr. Tanner
was one of the faculty?

Mr. SMITH. No; I do not remember the name.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of anyone else who was a polygamist
connected with that college as one of the faculty, aside from Tanner?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you had your attention called, Mr. Smith, to a
recent controversy arising at Brigham City ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is some trouble between some of the people down
there and some of the church officials, is it?

Mr. SMITH. A tempest in a teapot; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. A tempest in a teapot?

Mr, SMITH. That is all it is. It is simply a newspaper furore, and
there is absolutely nothing in it at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in Boxelder County ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. What was that?

Mr. SMITH. It was this: A band of musicians were employed by a
committee on amusements of Brigham City.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you right there, was it a committee
of the church or a committee of citizens?

Mr. SMITH. It was a band of musicians and a committee on amuse-
ments organized among the people.

The CHAIRMAN. A committee of citizens?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; a committee of citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. SMITH. And the musicians were employed by these people to
play for theaters, musical entertainments, concerts, and so on. In
course of time they became very arbitrary about their prices. They
demanded higher prices than the committee could afford to give, and
refused to engage with the committee for the sum that they proposed
to give them, and withdrew and started to build a dancing pavilion of
their own. The committee on amusements employed other musicians
to carry on their entertainments and amusements, and the result was
that this band of musicians got left out in the cold. The people did
not patronize them, and they commenced raising a hue and cry and a
howl, which was published in the newspapers that the church authori-
ties were interfering with their liberty. Gentlemen, that is exactly
the status of the case.

Mr. VAN COTT. And }^ou do not know anything about it of your
own knowledge, either?

Mr. SMITH. I know nothing about it. except I tell you this, that on

176 REED 8MOOT.

account of the newspaper notoriety that was given to the circumstance
I myself sent two of my friends to that place to investigate it and to
sift it to the bottom. I have simply given }~ou their report to me,
which I know is reliable. It is simply nothing at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anj^thing further, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; one or to questions that 1 want to close up with.
Mr. Smith, do you remember a letter on the subject of polygamy and
polygamous cohabitation, written by Lorenzo Snow and published in
the Deseret News in January, 1900?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; 1 do not remember it.

Mr. TAYLER. Let my read that and I think you will recall it. It is
on page 13. He said:

"I feel it but just to both Mormons and non-Mormons that, in
accordance with the manifesto of the late President Wilford Woodruff,
dated September 25, 1890, which was presented and unanimously
accepted by our general conference on the 6th day of October, 1890,
the church has positively abandoned the practice of polygamy, or the
solemnization of plural marriages, in this and every other State. And
any member or officer thereof has no authority whatever to form a
plural marriage or enter into such relation. Nor does the church
advise or encourage unlawful cohabitation on the part of any of its
members. If, therefore, any member disobey the law, either as to
polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, he must bear his own burden; or,
in other words, be answerable to the tribunals of the land for his own
action pertaining thereto."

Mr. SMITH. I remember it very well, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is correctly represented, and represents the atti-
tude of the church on this subject?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Then and now ?

Mr. SMITH. Then and now.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, have you read what purports to be a copy
of your testimony — and I infer you have from a remark you made
early in our inquiry — appearing in the hearings of the Committee on
Territories of the United States Senate, in relation to a bill for the
local government of Utah, in 1892?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Or rather I should say, quotations from testimony
given by you before Judge —

Mr. SMITH. Before the master of chancery.

Mr. TAYLER. Before a master in chancery ?

Mr. SMITH. Y"es, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is a correct transcript of your testimony in that
case, is it?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know. I have not seen it.

Mr. TAYLER. You have not seen it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I presume it is, but I have not seen it. 1 could
not say that it is.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May I ask what printed publication that is ?

Mr. TAYLER. It is the report of the committee. I think it is what
you have. I want to identify it. Mr. Richards was here and put it
in himself, and I do not want any technical difficulties in the way
unless it is intended that the}^ should be made.

Mr. VAN COTT. We can examine it to-night and tell you.

REED SMOOT. 177

Mr. TAYLER. You have a copy of it, have you not?

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me see it.

Mr. TAYLER. I did not want to lose it. His testimony appears in
two different places.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It does not appear to be a public document.

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, yes; it is a public document.

Senator FORAKER. This committee will take notice of it, anyhow.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course 1 want to gather together things that are
pertinent in this inquiry, and not have to refer to other documents.

Mr. VAN COTT. What page did you refer to in this?

Mr. TAYLER. it is the cross-examination of Joseph F. Smith, at
page 79.

Mr. VAN COTT. And what is the other page?

Mr. TAYLER. Pages 60 and 61.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand counsel to say they will examine that
to-night. We need not wait now.

Mr. TAYLER. I think that is all we desire to inquire of this witness.

Mr. SMITH. I do not understand your question in regard to it, Mr.
Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. I understood you could not identify it, so 1 was taking
steps to get it in otherwise. We will have no trouble about that, I
think.

Mr. SMITH. I beg your pardon. That is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, I want to ask a question. To go back
a little, you were inquired of in relation to an occasion when you were
in Los Angeles and went out to an island.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What I want to inquire of you is whether there was
any ceremony of any kind performed by you?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. None whatever.

Mr. SMITH. None whatever.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, one other question. You have said that you
know of no instance of plural marriages since 1890?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Performed in the State of Utah?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By the church, of course ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator FORAKER. Or with their approval.

The CHAIRMAN. I so understood you.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Wrill you state whether you have performed any
plural marriages outside the State of Utah?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I never have.

The CHAIRMAN. Either in Mexico or —

Mr. SMITH. Nowhere on earth, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any such?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. SMITH. I wish to say again, Mr. Chairman, that there have been
no plural marriages solemnized by and with the consent or by the
knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by any
man, I do not care who he is.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood that.

178 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTH INGTON. Since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. I mean that, of course. I understand that this investi-
gation comes in after the manifesto.

Senator DUBOIS. If an apostle of the church had performed such a
ceremony within or without the jurisdiction of the United States,
would you consider that being with the authority of your church?

Mr. SMITH. If any apostle or any other man claiming authority should
do any such thing as that, he would not only be subject to prosecution
and heav}r fine and imprisonment in the State under the State law, but
he would also be subjected to discipline and excommunication from
the church by the proper tribunals of the church.

Senator FORAKER. As for the excommunication from the church,
that would be imposed upon him no matter whether it were performed
inside the United States or outsider

Mr. SMITH. I do not know any different. It is contrary to the rules
of the church.

Senator FORAKER. That was the question asked you — whether or
not, if performed without the United States, these penalties would be
imposed.

Mr. SMITH. Well, it would be all the same. If any complaint was
made of any such thing as that and proof had, the man doing it would
not only be subject to prosecution under the law, but he would be sub-
ject to discipline in the church.

Senator FORAKER. The point I wish to call your attention to is that,
if performed without the United States, he could not be prosecuted
for it in Utah?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no.

Senator FORAKER. It would not be an offense against the laws of
Utah?

Mr. SMITH. To be sure.

Senator FORAKER. But would the church, nevertheless, impose its
penalty of excommunication ?

Mr. SMITH. It would, Mr. Senator, if any complaint of that kind
was made and proven.

The CHAIRMAN. You say permission was given to Senator Smoot, I
understand, to be a candidate for the Senate?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose permission had been denied by the presi-
dent and the apostles and associates, and he was commanded not to be
a candidate and he had persisted in being a candidate, what action
would have been taken?

Mr. SMITH. His associates would have considered him out of har
mony with them.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of harmony?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; out of harmony.

The CHAIRMAN. And when they found it was not in harmony, then
what?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that any action would follow that, except
that he would not be in good fellowship with his associates.

The CHAIRMAN. Would he still continue as an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. Unless he committed some overt act of unchristian-like
conduct, or rebellion, 1 may say — or at least I use the word rebel-
lion— against the church.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Smith, I would like to ask you if I understand

REED SMOOT. 179

.you. I understand that early in the hearing, I think it was said by you,
or if not, perhaps by some of the counsel, that the accepted books con-
taining your rules of faith and practice were said to be the Bible, the
Book of Mormon, the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl
of Great Price. Now, it seems to me each member of the committee
ought to have a copy of each of those books. If there are enough of
them here to be supplied to the committee by the parties on either
side, I wish they would do it. If not, I wish you would give us the
name of some place where we can apply for them and have them
furnished.

Mr. TAYLER. I supposed the committee would f urnislftts own Bibles.

Senator HOAR. I supposed the Mormon Bible was what you were
speaking of.

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, no; it is the King James translation of the Bible.

Senator HOAR. I beg your pardon. That is true. Are there any
other books which you publish by authority and disseminate, except
these four?

Mr. SMITH. These four books are the accepted standards of the
church; and I would like to say to the Senator that I will take great
pleasure myself in sending for copies of the Book of Mormon, the
Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible
also, if the Senators desire it, and have them brought here and dis-
tributed to the committee.

Senator HOAR. Are there any other books that you send out when
you wish to have persons who are inquiring know as to what you
believe and accept, and which you send to them by your agents, or
otherwise?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; .we have a number of lesser works — exponent.

Senator HOAR. Do they rank with these?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; they are not reckoned as standards or accepted
as standard works of the church. They are merely accepted as doc-
trinal works of the church.

Senator HOAR. If a person should come to Worcester, Mass., where
I live, and assemble an audience, and there^was no difficulty in the
way, and desired to call them to Mormonism, these are the books
which would be presented to them as what constituted Mormonism ?

Mr. SMITH. The standard works of Mormonism; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. What I wish to know is this: Is it or not true, then,
that the persons who disseminate your faith, disseminate a book as your
standard authority, which enjoins polygamy, and that they dissemi-
nate no other book with it which contradicts that or makes any change
in that attitude?

Mr. SMITH. They of course have these standard works, and they are
offered to anyone who desires to obtain them.

Senator HOAR. The standard work —

Mr. SMITH. The Doctrine and Covenants.

Senator HOAR. Contains an injunction to take plural wives, does it
not, as a divine authority in the old revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Then is it true or not not that in commending Mor-
monism to the outer world you send them works which enjoin that as
a divine authority without acccompanying it with any work of equal
authority which qualifies or changes that?

Mr. SMITH. The pamphlet and principle enunciated by President

180 REED SMOOT.

Woodruff in relation to the estoppel of the practice of polygamy is
universally circulated and universally known as broad and wide as the
Book of Doctrine and Covenants is.

Senator HOAR. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. SMITH. And there is not, Mr. Senator, an elder of the Mormon
Church who goes out as a missionary to the world who either has not
that pamphlet with him or is not thoroughly conversant with it and is
under strict injunction to observe its rule.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What pamphlet do you refer to ?

Mr. SMITH. That is the manifesto.

Senator HOAR. 1 do not know that I have seen that. Will you let
us have one of those also when you let us have the others, or now?

Mr. SMITH. There it is. You have it here in these other papers.

Senator FORAKER. Then, as a matter of fact, in practice this mani-
festo is circulated along with the standard works ?

Mr. SMITH. Exactly.

Senator HOAR. As I understand you, then, Mr. Smith, you will at
some time convenient to you furnish each member of the committee
with a copy of the Book of Mormon, a copy of the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and this.

Mr. SMITH. Also of that; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Talmage?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator OVERMAN. Have you any work containing the obligations
and duties of the twelve apostles and the first presidency ?

Mr. SMITH. There are revelations in the Book of Doctrine and Cove-
nants which prescribe their duties.

Senator PETTUS. Will you please examine the book now sent down
to you and let us know if that is one of the standard works you speak of ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Will you not read the caption and title-page, so
the stenographer can identify it?

Mr. SMITH. This book is 4 ' The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, containing the revelations given
to Joseph Smith, jr., th^ prophet, for the building up of the Kingdom
of God in the last days; divided into verses, with references by Orson
Pratt, sr. Salt Lake City, Deseret News Company, printers and pub-
lishers, 1886." This is all right, sir. This is the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants.

Senator PETTUS. That is one of the standards ?

Mr. SMITH. That is one of the standards. That is the Book of Doc-
trine and Covenants.

Senator PETTUS. And published by authority of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. 1 have here a book, which is entitled "Ready Ref-
erences: A Compilation of Scripture Texts, arranged in subjective
order, with numerous notations from eminent writers, designed espe-
cially for the use of missionaries and Scripture students. Salt Lake
City, Utah, the Deseret News Publishing Company, printers and pub-
lishers, 1892." Do you know that book?

Mr. SMITH. I know of it; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Is that also a book published for missionaries ?

Mr. SMITH. Well, it was published, in the first place, for mission-
aries, but it is in disuse greatly now. That is the same book that was
presented here by Mr. Tayler not long ago.

REED SMOOT. 181

Senator HOAR. Oh, }^es; when I was out.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further with this witness, Mr.
Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. I wanted to ask a question or two. Do you make any
distinction, when you speak of marriage and marriage ceremony, be-
tween marriage and sealing or sealing in marriage?

Mr. SMITH. No difference, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The church now performs the ordinary marriage cer-
emonies, of course, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And they are in form as they were when plural mar-
riages were celebrated, are they?

Mr. SMITH. The same form exactly.

Mr. TAYLER. And do you have as many different kinds of marriage
now as formerly ?

Mr. SMITH. We have as many different kinds of marriage now as
formerly.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me call your attention to what I mean, because it
will save time: Sealing for time only, sealing for time and eternity,
and sealing for eternity only.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you have those ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. All three of them ?

Mr. SMITH. All three of them.

Mr. TAYLER. In all respects, except as to the solemnization of
plural marriages, the practice and form of the church are the same as
formerly ?

Mr. SMITH. The same as formerly.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you keep records of all marriages?

Mr. SMITH. We keep records of all marriages, I believe, as far as
I know.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is the custodian of those records?

Mr. SMITH. Well, there are different persons.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean they are at different places?

Mr. SMITH. At different places; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. At what different places are they ?

Mr. SMITH. They are distributed at all the temples.

Mr. TAYLER. How many temples are there in Utah, for instance?

Mr. SMITH. There are four.

Mr. TAYLER. Where?

Mr. SMITH. At Logan, at Salt Lake City, at Manti, in Sanpete
County, and at St. George, Washington County.

Mr. TAYLER. Where in Utah may marriages be solemnized?

Mr. SMITH. At these temples.

Mr. TAYLER. And only at those temples ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; any elder of the church can perform marriage
ceremonies.

Mr. TAYLER. Any elder of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Any elder of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. That is to say, practically any adult male inhabitant
in the Mormon Church in Utah —

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. TAYLER. Can perform the marriage ceremony ?

182 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. No; you are quite wrong.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not want to misinterpret. I understood you to
say a while ago that almost all the male members of the church were
elders.

Mr. SMITH. It is generally official elders.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 want to know the fact; that is all I am seeking-, Mr.

C1 *J_1

Smith.

Mr. SMITH. It is official elders that I mean.

Mr. TAYLER. Official elders?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. What is the distinction between an official and a non-
official elder?

Mr. SMITH. A bishop is an elder.

Mr. TAYLER. He is also a bishop?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; and generally the bishop performs legal mar-
riages when parties apply to him for marriage.

Mr. TAYLER. How many bishops are there in Utah ? That is, is the
number large?

Mr. SMITH. Very large.

Mr. TAYLER. Is it several thousands ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is several hundred, though.

Mr. TAYLER. Is anybody lower down in the ecclesiastical court than
a bishop authorized to perform marriage ceremonies?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. TAYLER. Then it must be a bishop or somebody higher than a
bishop ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Any apostle can perform the marriage ceremony, of
course ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Was my understanding not correct in believing that
you stated that no elder, unless he was a bishop, could perform the
marriage ceremon}7 ?

Mr. SMITH. I did not wish to convey that idea, but it is not usual.

Mr. TAYLER. Not usual?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. It may occur?

Mr. SMITH. It might occur.

Mr. TAYLER. Are there any others, then, who might not perform
the marriage ceremony lawfully ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes, sir; a great many.

Mr. TAYLER. What is the distinction then, between the official elder
and those who have no right to perform the ceremony ?

Mr. SMITH. The distinction is that an official elder is authorized to
officiate and a nonofficial elder is not authorized to officiate.

Mr. TAYLER. Then there is some written authorit}7 going out from
some person authorized ?

Mr. SMITH. No; no written authority that I know of. It is simply
a general understanding of the church.*

Mr. TAYLER. Very well. What I was getting at was some method
of determining who it is that may administer the marriage rite.

Mr. SMITH. Generally a man or woman desiring to be married by
an officer of the church applies to the presiding bishop — that is, to the
bishop of the ward in which he lives — or to the president of the stake

KEED SMOOT. 183

in which he lives, and these officials of the church generally perform
the marriage ceremony, always on the authority of a license signed by
the courts.

Mr. TAYLER. That is to say, under the prevailing State law requir-
ing licenses?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Senator HOAR. Is there no State law which provides who may sol-
emnize marriages ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. What is that, if you know?

Mr. SMITH. Any minister of any church can solemnize marriages in
Utah, as I understand it.

Senator HOAR. That includes your church with others ?

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Senator HOAR. Is there any State law for recording them?

Mr. SMITH. Recording marriages ? Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. What is that?

Mr. SMITH. It is, that no person is eligible to marriage without they
are of a certain age

Senator HOAR. No; about recording them.

Mr. SMITH. That they must apply to the court for a license to marry,
And a certificate of marriage that must be signed by the person
officiating is handed to the person, to the woman generally, who is
married, and the certificate, or license, rather, is returned to the court.

Senator HOAR. You do not answer, still, the one point I have in
mind, which is the recording of the marriage itself. What is the State
law when A B has been married lawfully, however that, may be, to
CD? Is there any law where that record shall be preserved?

Mr. SMITH. In the courts.

Senator HOAR. In the courts ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Suppose, for instance, a person being a member of
your communion applies to the proper authority, an elder or apostle,
or anybody, and gets married, he has got first to get the license from
the civil authority you speak of?

Mr. SMITH. He has; yes.

Senator HOAR. And then after the marriage is solemnized, am 1
correct in understanding you that the certificate that it has been sol-
emnized by the officiating person

Mr. SMITH. Minister.

Senator HOAR, The minister, or whoever it is, is also recorded with
the civil authority ?

Mr. SMITH. It is returned to the court, or to the clerk of the court,
and is recorded.
. Senator HOAR. The court which issues the license ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Is it true, then, that all Mormon marriages in recent
years — I will not go back into old times, but to-day — are recorded by
the civil tribunals of Utah?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Taylor, might I ask a question just on that
line referred to by Senator Hoar, to just clear this? Would you
pardon it?

184 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLEK. That is all right.

Senator HOAR. Let me understand one thing. Would your church
recognize as valid, or would your social life recognize as a lawfully
married woman, a person whose marriage was not so authorized and
recorded ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. You would?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you understand the question ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know whether I did.

Senator HOAR. I want }7ou to understand this carefully. I want to
know whether, in case a person did not comply with this civil law-
Mr. SMITH. Oh, I beg your pardon.

Senator HOAR. I do not mean in the case of some accidental omission,
but in the case of a person who is not married according to that civil
law; do you Mormons recognize that person, whether a member of
your communion or not, as lawfully married?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. The question I want to ask you along the line of
Senator Hoar's questions, is this: Are any marriages performed by
elders or in the temples unless they bring along this certificate from
the clerk?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Senator HOAR. Of course, the point of my question is, to know
whether the Mormons, as a practice, are in the habit of performing
secret marriages, or marriages unknown to the world outside ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; they do not do it.

The CHAIRMAN. If parties were married in the temple, for instance,
upon a license, would that marriage be recorded in the temple ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be recorded in the temple ?

Mr. SMITH. It would be recorded in the temple.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it also be recorded in the civil courts?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. »

Senator DUBOIS. Is any outsider or Gentile ever admitted to any of
these four temples you speak of ?

Mr. SMITH. No; nor a great many Mormons, either.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you suppose there is any record of Abraham
Cannon's marriage to Lillian Hamlin ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about it, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course there naturally would not be records of
plural marriages now, would there?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. Well, there is no such thing.

Mr. TAYLER. I say if anybody should happen to do that?

Mr. SMITH. If they do I do not think they would dare to keep
any record of it.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you perform celestial marriage ceremonies now?

Mr. SMITH. That is simply a marriage for time and eternity.

Mr. TAYLER. Time and eternity ?

Mr. SMITH. That is what it means, nothing more and nothing less.

Mr. TAYLER. That, according to the civil or municipal law, is an
ordinary marriage, is it not?

Mr. SMITH. Those that are married in that way outside of the tem-
ples, it is simply a civil contract for time, but where they have obtained

REED 8MOOT. 185

these licenses and go to the temples to be married they are sealed for
time and eternity.

Mr. TAYLER. Are there sealings still going on for eternity alone,
not for time ?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of, unless the parties are dead.

Senator FORAKER. Do you marry people for eternity and not for
time?

Mr. SMITH. When they are dead; yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. You marry them after they are dead ?

Mr. SMITH. After they are dead; and, Mr. Senator, we do not have
to have a license from the court to do that.

Senator FORAKER. That is simply a church marriage ?

Mr. SMITH.- That is just simply a principle that we believe in, that
men and women are immortal beings.

Senator FORAKER. Are both the parties to that marriage dead at the
time it is solemnized?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; they are often dead, and the}7 are represented
by their heirs, either their sons or daughters, or some of their kins-
men.

Mr. TAYLER. Living persons have been united for eternity, have
they not?

Mr. SMITH. I think there have been some few cases of that kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. To what time, Mr. Tayler, do you limit your
question ?

Mr. TAYLER. I was going to ask him. How recently have you
known that kind of a marriage?

Mr. SMITH. Not very recently.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean five years or twenty -five years?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, twenty years or more.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there any rule of the church prohibiting that kind
of marriage? «

Mr. SMITH. Not that 1 know of.

Mr. TAYLER. It has merely fallen into disuse; is that all?

Mr. SMITH. It has merely fallen into disuse; that is all. I do not
know that it could be said to have fallen absolutely into disuse.

Mr. TAYLER. Or rather, that the principle which still adheres has
not been invoked or exercised so often ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it has not been invoked.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you anything more ?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the counsel on the other side desire to ask Mr.
Smith any questions?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the committee will adjourn at this time until
half-past 10 to-morrow morning.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was directed, Mr. Chairman, as I understood
the other day, that before the close of the direct examination, or at
its close, counsel should incorporate in the record for our benefit such
portions of these books as they rely upon. I ask that counsel be
requested to do that, so that they will appear in the record.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course 1 am going to offer all of these books.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We cannot have them all in.

Mr. TAYLER. We will put in the record what the committee desires,
but we can riot undertake to confine the committee to any particular

186 REED SMOOT.

portion of these books, all of which are standard. I veiy readily
understand that we do not need to print them all, but the books must
be in evidence here.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand, Mr. Smith, that you will undertake
to supply the committee with copies.

Mr. SMITH. As soon as I can possibly get them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was directed the other day, Mr. Chairman,
that the portions of these books to which counsel intend particularly
to call the attention of the committee should be called to our attention
so that we should know what they are.

Senator FORAKER. Our attention has been called to what it is }^ou
rely upon, or at least that which you have most in mind. I do not
want to -have to read all these books as thej^ are/

Mr. TAYLER. I said originally that I should offer them all in evi-
dence, but I would call attention to those parts which we emphasize,
and all that we cared anything about.

Senator FORAKER. That is what the committee understood.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understood that was to be done before the
cross-examination would go on.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not recall any special arrangement about it, but
of course I want to accommodate counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, when do you want to offer the extracts
from those books ?

Mr. TAYLER. I wTill now offer all of these books which have been
identified, and as to the Doctrine and Covenants, I will call the atten-
tion of counsel now to the parts upon which we rely.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think as to all the books, our attention and
that of the committee should be called to those parts upon which they
rely. It may be that after this witness has gone home and the evi-
dence is closed, some part of these several hundred pages that they
think wg have nothing to do with here will be of importance, and I
might want to ask the witness to explain about them. Counsel have
had those books for weeks and months, and they certainly know the
parts of them they want.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair understands that all these books to which
reference has been made are offered in evidence, and that Mr. Tayler
desires to call attention to some particular portion of those books, and
I think that ought to be done.

Mr. TAYLER. I will do so before 1 leave the room, so that you may
know what it is we rely on.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I will make a note of it, and then we will have
them put in the record.

Mr. SMITH. May I be relieved, Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is, for to-day. You will be here to-mor-
row at half -past 10.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I understand.

The committee (at 4 o'clock and 20 minutes p. m.) adjourned until
Friday, March 4, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

EEED SMOOT. 187

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 4, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, McComas, Foraker,
Beveridge, Dillingham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Over-
man; also Senator Smoot; also Robert W. Tayler, counsel for the
protestants; A. S. Worthington and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for
the respondent; and Franklin S. Richards, counsel for Joseph F.
Smith and other witnesses.

Senator HOAR. 1 should like to ask Mr. Smith one question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, may 1 ask you to resume the chair?
Senator Hoar has a question he would like to propound.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Continued.
I

JOSEPH F. SMITH, having previously affirmed, was examined and
testified as follows:

Senator HOAR. Mr. Smith, 1 should like to ask one question. I am
not sure that it has a direct bearing on this inquiry, and that is whether,
in your church, in ecclesiastical or religious matters, women are^recog-
nized as in all respects the equals of men in rights and privileges?

Mr. SMITH. As voters, they are recognized as equal with men. In
the matter of the holding of priestly authority, they are not regarded
as on the same plane that men are.

Senator HOAR. Are they admitted to hold what you call priestly
authority?

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

Senator HOAR. Are they admitted to hold what you call priestly
authority ?

Mr. SMITH. I just remarked that in that respect they are not
regarded as equal with men.

Senator HOAR. But that does not quite answer my question, you
will see.

Mr. SMITH. I beg pardon.

Senator HOAR. It may be, while not being regarded as the equals
of men, they might hold some authority.

Mr. SMITH. They do hold authority in all matters pertaining to
their sex.

Senator HOAR. Are they eligible to any of the church offices of
whi.'h you have given us a list — the apostles, and the first presidency,
and the councilors, etc. ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. The office of presidency, and apostles, and
councilors, and general authorities of the church are confined to males.

Senator HOAR. What priestly authority, then, is vested in women,
and how is it exercised? You say that priestly authority in matters
affecting their own sex is vested in them.

Mr. SMITH. We have an organization called the Woman's Relief
Society, which exists throughout the entire church, and it is organized
in stake and also in ward capacities.

Senator HOAR. Woman's Relief Society?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Does that mean a society for the relief of women
who need relief, or a society for relief to be administered by women
to anybody who needs relief?

188 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. To anybody and everybody. It is purely a charitable
organization.

Senator HOAR. For the relief of poverty and sickness?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; poverty and sickness, and orphans, and the
aged, and all needing assistance.

Senator HOAR. Is there any other? What makes that a priestly
authority ? You give that as an example of the priestly authority to
which women are admitted?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. They receive their authority, o£ course, from the
church.

Senator HOAR. But there is nothing priestly in the office, is there,
or what you would term priestly?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; in the nature of the office. They hold their
meetings —

Senator HOAR. Do you regard that as a priestty authority — the exer-
cise of charity to the sick and poor ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think we do.

Senator HOAR. I ought not to delay this hearing by a discussion of
that question.

Mr. .SMITH. Senator, if you please—

Senator HOAR. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. We regard this organization as one of the most essential
organizations of the church. It was brought into existence in the
days of Joseph Smith, and is one of the oldest institutions of the
church.

Senator HOAR. But what is there in it in the nature of authority?

Mr. SMITH. They have authority to preach the gospel; they have
authority to teach correct principles — the principles of our religion—
and to inculcate those principles in their example as well as in their
teaching throughout the church and throughout the world.

Senator HOAR. But do you understand that that preaching or teach-
ing or setting a good example comes properly within the definition of
the term ecclesiastical or priestty authority?

Mr. SMITH. We do, when they receive that authority from those
holding the priesthood.

Senator HOAR. Is there any person in your church who is not
authorized to set a good example, whether by the leave of the priest-
hood or not?

Mr. SMITH. Certainly not; but this organization is especially called
to that labor, and it is its particular duty.

Senator HOAR. Do you not understand by the word ''authority,"
control over other persons? Now, what control do these persons
exercise which would be termed priestty authority?

Mr. SMITH. If I could have one of our books here —

Mr. TAYLER. Which one?

Mr. SMITH. Doctrine and Covenants. If I may be permitted, I
should like to read from it. I should like to give you the authority
itself. May I read it, sir?

Senator HOAR. Read.

Mr. SMITH. This is a revelation through Joseph Smith, recorded in
one of our accepted doctrinal works.

Senator HOAR. What work is it?

Mr. SMITH. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

Mr. TAYLER. What section?

KEED SMOOT. 189

Mr. SMITH. Section 121.

Mr. VAN COTT. You had better give us the page.

Mr. SMITH. It commences on page 423:

"34. Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why
are they not chosen ?

"35. Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this
world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one
lesson—

"36. That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected
with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be
controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

"37. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we
undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambi-
tion, or to exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion upon the souls
of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the
heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and
when it is withdrawn, Amen to the Priesthood, or the authority of
that man.

"38. Behold! ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against
the pricks; to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

"39. We have learned by sad experience, that it is the nature and
disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as
they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous
dominion.

"40. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

" 41 . No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue
of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentle-
ness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

"42. By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge
the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile,

"43. Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the
Holy Ghost, and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love
toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his
enemy;

"44. That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the
cords of death."

This, Mr. Senator, is the rule of the priesthood of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, absolutely covering their whole
regime of the presidency of exercise of authority and power over the
souls or bodies or spirits of men by love unfeigned, long-suffering,
and charity, by persuasion and not by force.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Reporter, will you kindly read the question to
which we have just heard the answer?

The reporter read as follows:

" Senator HOAR. Do you not understand by the word ' authority,'
control over other persons? Now, what control do these persons
exercise which would be termed priestly authority ? "

Mr. SMITH. This is the authority they exercise.

Senator HOAR. With the exception of the authority as vou have
defined it, exercised by the charitable organization for the relief of the
poor and sick, do women exercise any other priestly authority in your
church?

Mr. SMITH. May I, if you please, explain to you that we do not
ordain women to the priesthood.

190 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOAR. And they do not hold these offices?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; they hold offices in the church.

Senator HOAR. No; I mean they do not hold the offices of which you
have spoken just now.

Mr. SMITH. We do not ordain them as elders and high priests.

Senator HOAR. Or as presidents and councilors ?

Mr. SMITH. The.y are presidents over their various organizations.

Senator HOAR. Do I understand they vote ?

Mr. SMITH. They vote, just the same as men do.

Senator HOAR. In all places of assembly — is that a proper use of the
word ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At conferences.

Senator HOAR. They vote equally with men ?

Mr. SMITH. In all our conferences. There is not a woman in the
church whose vote on the acceptance or on the rejection of any officer
of the church is not equal to my own.

Senator HOAR. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. I am not aware that the question is very appropriate
to our investigation, and perhaps I ought not to have taken the time
to have asked it, but it is a very interesting matter to history, and as
you were speaking about it, I wished to satisfy my curiosity by asking
the question.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Just a question or two. Mr. Smith, M. F. Cowley,
I believe you stated, is one of the twelve apostles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is his region of work now?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know whether I stated it.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 think you did.

Mr. SMITH. I think I did, but I will restate it.

Mr. TAYLER. Please.

Mr. SMITH. Our apostles have charge —

Mr. TAYLER. I do not care about that, unless you want to give it.
Is he in the South some place in charge of work?

Mr. SMITH. He was some two or three weeks ago making a tour of
our Northwestern States missions.

Mr. TAYLER. I recall that. He was in the South, was he not, a year
or two }^ears or three years ago? I merely want to get the identity of
the person. You remember his book — Cowley's Talks on Doctrine?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You are familiar with that work?

Mr. SMITH. I know of the work.

Mr. TAYLER. How long has he been an apostle — many years?

Mr. SMITH. Quite a number of years.

Mr. TAYLER (exhibiting book to witness). You recognize that that
is his work?

Mr. SMITH. That is the work of his.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Give us the title page.

Mr. SMITH. Cowley's —

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Tayler, excuse me a moment.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let us get the title page.

Mr. SMITH. Cowley's Talks on Doctrine. That is the title.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Give the date.

!) SMOOT. 191

Mr. SMITH. It was published in 1902. It was published in the South-
ern States by Elder Ben E. Rich.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Senator Dubois wishes to ask you a question.

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me.

Senator DUBOIS. You say quite a number of years. How many
years has Mr. Cowley been an apostle ?

Mr. SMITH. Now, Senator, I can not remember; but if it is necessary
1 will find out.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 will ask you this question: Has he not been
made an apostle since 1896?

Mr. SMITH. I could not te,ll from memory. Really I do not recall.

Senator DUBOIS. Perhaps some of these gentlemen here can recall.
That is my recollection of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Wait just a moment.

Senator DUBOIS. Some of the men present may be able to answer
the question.

Mr. SMITH. I really do not remember.

Senator DUBOIS. I think it was about 1897. or 1898. I am not posi-
tive, however.

Mr. TAYLER. I have a memorandum here, " October, 1897."

Mr. SMITH. I think that is likely it.

Mr. TAYLER. October, 1897, is the memorandum I have of his suc-
cession.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you answer the question, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. About Mr. Cowley?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I can not do it from actual remembrance, but I believe
that is about the time. What is the date ?

Mr. TAYLER. Eighteen hundred and ninety-seven.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, 1897. Perhaps some of the gentlemen here can
tell. [A pause.] I am informed it was in 1897.

Mr. TAYLER. No question is now before the witness?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir. You may proceed.

Mr. TAYLER. You were at the Weber Stake reunion last summer
sometime ?

Mr. SMITH. The Weber Stake reunion? I can not recall it just at
the present time.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember making a speech down there last
summer at Ogden ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 could not say it was last summer, but I recollect being
at Ogden at a reunion there and making some remarks at that reunion.

Mr. TAYLER. I perhaps can identify the occasion; not that the cir-
cumstance is important, but it interested me, as you can imagine. It
was when Mrs. Bathsheba Smith made some remarks in a reminiscent
way.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right. %

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smoot was there ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not remember that he was. He may have been
there.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember saying in your speech, made to
your people there, this—

The CHAIRMAN. On what date?

Mr. TAYLER. June 12, 1903.

192 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOAK. What paper is that?

Mr. TAYLER. I was just going to state, so that the witness should
know. It seems to have been June 12 when this reunion occurred.
The communication is dated from Ogden, June 20, and I find what I
am about to call to his attention printed in the Deseret News of Thurs-
day, June 23, 1903. So 1 ask you if you said this — or in substance
this — in your remarks:

"A LIVING WITNESS.

"Aunt Bathsheba, widow of George A. Smith, who is with us to-day^
is the last living witness, so far as I know, who received her endow-
ments while Joseph Smith was living. Here is Aunt Bathsheba, who
received her endowments in Nauvoo as they are now given in the tem-
ples. She is a living witness, and, if necessary, she will tell us that
she received her endowments in Nauvoo as they are now given in the
temples. She is a living witness, and, if necessary, she will tell us
that she received these privileges under the direction of Joseph Smith.
Opponents say that Brighain Young established the endowments and
also plural marriage, but here is a witness who knows better. Brig-
ham Young only sought to carry out the instruction he received from
Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith as he received it from God. So far
as the principle of plural marriage itself is concerned, we are not teach-
ing it nor practicing it; but we are taking care of our wives, and I
honor the men who take care of them and who are true to them.

"I would not like to sit in judgment on any of my brethren who are
not true to their families, and yet I do not think I would be more
severe upon them than the Great Judge would be, I have made no cov-
enants that were not made in good faith, and I will keep them so far
as 1 can. When it comes to the principle itself, I can defend it as a prin-
ciple of purity, strictly in accordance with the Gospel. To be a Latter-
Day Saint one must be honest with himself, with his neighbors, and
with his God. I have received a testimony of the truth of the principles
of the Gospel, and I will try to keep them. Joseph Smith revealed
plural marriage and the endowments, and here is a living witness to
those facts. So am I, for I received it of those who received it from
Joseph Smith. Now, am I telling you that plural marriage is practiced
or is to be practiced? No; I am only telling you that it is a principle
revealed by God to Joseph Smith the prophet, and the Latter-Day
Saint who denies and rejects that truth in his heart might as well reject
every other truth connected with his mission. Every man and woman
will get his or her reward, for God is just and deals out justice with
mercy."

Now, just read the question so that Mr. Smith can understand its
form.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLETR. Do you remember saying in your speech, made to
your people there, this —

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the words "your people" there are mis-
leading. This occurred in a select gathering of a few persons, a few
individuals, and there were only a few there of the leading authorities
of the Weber Stake of Zion, and it was not a public gathering at all,
nor were those remarks in the light of a public address. They were
made, and I acknowledge that I made them, and I think 1 am correctly
reported by the paper, as Mr. Tayler has read them.

REED SMOOT. 193

The CHAIRMAN. That answers the question.

Mr. TAYLER. That answers it.

I have no doubt your statement as to the character of this meeting
is correct. Let me read you the newspaper statement of its character,
which, perhaps,' will disclose it to all of us. It is this:

"The presidency of the stake, the bishops of the 25 wards and theii
counselors, the members, alternates, and clerk of the high council,
the patriarchs, the presidency of the high priest's quorum, the super-
intendencies and presidents of the various auxiliary organizations (the
Sunday school, Y. M. and Y. L. M. I. associations, relief society,
religion classes, and primary), and the stake erk, with a few other
leading brethren, all with their wives or husbands, composed the list
of invited guests from Weber Stake, and almost every one of those
invited was in attendance. Of the visiting brethren and sisters from
Salt Lake City there were present President Joseph F. Smith and
members of his family; President Anthon H. Lund, Patriarch John
Smith and wife, Apostles Rudger Clawson, wife, and mother, Abra-
ham O. Woodruff and wife, accompanied by Sister Asahel Wroodruff,
Reed Smoot and wife, and Hyrum M. Smith and wife; Sister Bathsheba
Smith, William Spence and wife, William Salmon and wife, Joseph F.
Smith, jr., and wife. President Charles Kelly and Counselor Oleen N.
Stohl of the presidency of the Boxelder Stake were also in attendance.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think that is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. That correctly describes the character of the meeting
and who the people were who were there ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. I understood }7ou to say there were not more than
a dozen people present?

Mr. SMITH. There were more than that, Senator. There were prob-
ably 50.

Senator FORAKER. I should say so, if all were present who are
described in that paper.

Senator HOAR. I should like to know — if you will ask him, or I will—
if that purports to be a verbatim report, published in the paper, of what
he said.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it is not a verbatim report.

Senator HOAR. I understood you to say you. said it in substance.

Mr. SMITH. I said that in substance.

Senator HOAR. I merely put this question with a view of shortening
the inquiry.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator HOAR. It was made to this audience, whoever they were,
and was published in the Deseret News. Was it published with your
approval ?

Mr. SMITH. I did not know anything about its being published at
all. I was not consulted about its being published, and I knew nothing
ibout it until after it was published. That is simply a newspaper
report of the meeting.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Mr. Chairman-
Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Tayler, I beg your pardon for just a moment.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

Senator DUBOIS. You had no objection to its being published ?

Mr. SMITH. If I had been consulted I would have advised the news-
paper reporter not to have published it.
s 13

194 KEED SMOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. They would not have published it had you advised
them not to publish it ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think they would — that is, 1 do not think the
Deseret News would.

Senator DUBOIS. It would not have been published without the sanc-
tion of the authorities of the church? They would not knowingly and
willfully publish anything without the sanction of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Of course they would; publish everything that is news.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand Mr. Smith has answered the question.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that, for the more intelli-
gent guidance of the committee in gathering these facts together, as
well as in justice to the other side, who are about to cross-examine Mr.
Smith, we ought to read those things which we especially rely upon in
the publications of the church to which reference has been made, and
which have been identified.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Senator OVERMAN. One moment. Why would you have objected to
publishing that speech ?

Mr. SMITH. Because I have avoided studiously saying anything in
public that could be construed in the least as advocating even the
rightfulness or truthfulness of plural marriage. I have avoided it.
Therefore I would not have advised its publication if I had been
consulted.

Senator HOAR. I should like to ask one question. Why, Mr. Smith,
would you have avoided advocating what I understand was received
by your church as a divine command ?

Mr. SMITH. Because it had been stopped by a more recent manifesto,
I may say, of the president of the church.

Senator HOAR. If I understand you, the obligation to practice plural
marriage had been dispensed with, but the divine teaching that
polygamy was right in itself had not been rescinded, had it?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. Then why would you abstain from impressing upon
the public the divine teaching that polygamy, though not to be prac-
ticed at present, was still of divine origin and authority?

Mr. SMITH. So as to avoid giving any public offense.

Senator HOAR. Is it, in your judgment, a good reason for abstaining
to make known to mankind a commandment of the Lord, that it may
give public offense — the teaching of the Lord ?

Mr. SMITH. When it comes to matters that we are at libertv to pro-
claim, and that there is no injunction upon us against proclaiming. I
think not. But in this particular instance we are under in junction not
to teach it.

Senator HOAR. Not to teach it ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; not to teach it publicly, or in any other way,
for that matter.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Does the fact that it is against the law of the
land have anything to do with it ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. I am not quite through.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Excuse me.

Senator HOAR. I understand you are under injunction not to teach
it publicly or in any other way, but this utterance of yours was teach-
ing it privately, was it not?

REED SMOOT. 195

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. It was simply announcing my own belief in it,
notwithstanding it was stopped, and my principal object, the main
object 1 had in view, was this: There are a large number of people
who claim that plural marriage was introduced by Brigham Young,
and that the endowments were introduced by Brigham Young, whereas
I knew that both of these were introduced by Joseph Smith ; and I
also knew that Bathsheba W. Smith, my aunt, was now about the only
living witness of that fact, and I availed myself of the opportunity of
her presence in that assembly to announce that she was a living wit-
ness that it was Joseph Smith who introduced these principles instead
of Brigham Young.

Senator HOAR. As a matter of history ?

Mr. SMITH. As a matter of history. That is all I had in view.

Senator HOAR. But what I do not quite understand is how, if you
were under a divine commandment not to teach publicly, or in any
other way the rightfulness of polygamy as a principle, although the
practice was suspended for a time, you, to this assembly of important
personages, were proclaiming your belief in it?

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Senator HOAR. Is not that a pretty important way of teaching a
doctrine, if the head of the church states he believes in it?

Mr. SMITH. I told the committee, in answer to that question frere
before the committee, if you please, that I believe in that principle
to-day as much as I ever believed in it. But I do not believe in con-
tinuing its practice, because I have accepted in good faith the procla-
mation of President Woodruff stopping the practice of plural marriage.
It does not change my belief one particle.

Senator HOAR. But I was speaking of your teaching the rightful-
ness of it. 1 understood }^ou to say-
Mr. SMITH. 1 did not teach it. That was not the intent at all. 1
was merely expressing my own belief in it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the stenographer read the question.

Senator FORAKER. What is the purpose of that? It has been asked
and answered over and over again.

The reporter read as follows:

"Senator HOAR. But what I do not quite understand is how, if you
were under a Divine commandment not to teach, publicly or in any
other way, the rightfulness of polygamy as a principle, although the
practice was suspended for a time, you, to this assembly of important
personages, were proclaiming your belief in it."

Senator HOAR. I do not understand that the witness has answered
it over and over again. I think he has answered it once.

Senator FORAKER. What I mean is that he has over and over again
stated that he believed in that principle, but that he had accepted the
manifesto in good faith as binding on him, and had ceased to teach it,
or to practice it, or to countenance it. He certainly said that over
and over again. He has said it fifty times.

» Senator HOAR. He said that fifty times.
Senator FORAKER. Fully that.
Senator HOAR. My question was how he reconciled the injunction
not to teach it with his statement to an important and influential gath-
ering of the people of his church that the head of the church still
believed in it. That was the question, which he never had answered
before, and to that Mr. Smith replied very properly, fully, and frankly

196 REED SMOOT.

that he did not regard that assertion of his continued individual belief
in the principle, under the circumstances, as teaching. That was the
last thing he said and I therefore desisted, considering my question
then answered.

Now, the statement that he has answered it fifty times seems to imply
a statement that I put the question fifty times over.

Senator FORAKER. No, Mr. Chairman-
Senator HOAR. That is the reason I object to it.

Senator FORAKER. The Senator may say that or anything else he
has a disposition to say, but everyone present in the room will know
that there was no such intimation to be properly derived from anything
1 said. I am referring to the testimony as a whole given by the wit-
ness, and the statement I referred to as having been made fifty times
or more — and the Senator himself acknowledged that in the beginning
of the remarks he has just now concluded —

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, when the Senator from Ohio dis-
claims a purpose or an intimation of what he says, 1 accept his
disclaimer.

Senator FORAKER. I do not know what the Senator from Massachu-
setts intends by that. I have not charged the Senator from Massa-
chusetts with refusing to accept the disclaimer, or refusing to disclaim
anything, or of having said anything. 1 merely said, a moment ago
that Mr. Smith had stated over and over again the answer which I
understood he was giving.

Senator HOAR. It was not an answer to my question. It was some-
thing else.

Senator FORAKER. I do not know what the Senator from Massa-
chusetts refers to.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I desire to ask Mr. Smith a question or two.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Indiana.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Does the fact that this practice is against the
law of the land have anything to do with your refraining from teach-
ing the principle?

Mr. SMITH. Most decidedly, Mr. Senator.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is the committee to understand that you and
your church regard the law of the land as more binding upon your
actions than your religious beliefs?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in that sense. I understand that we are
under injunction by the manifesto not to practice plural marriage.
That is what I mean by that — not to continue plural marrying. Under
that injunction we refrain from teaching it, inculcating it, and advo-
cating it, and out of respect both to the law and to the manifesto of
President Woodruff.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What I mean is this: Your belief may be one
way, which is nobody's business; you, notwithstanding your belief,
obey the law of the land?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is that what I am to understand?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is exactly what I mean.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Does that have anything to do with the reason
why you refrain from teaching the principle, the practice of which is
inhibited by the law of the land?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, you say you obey the law of the land?

REED SMOOT. 197

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand
your statement.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood the Senator from Indiana to put a
question, which I will ask the reporter to read.

The reporter read as follows:

" Senator BEVERIDGE. What I mean is this. Your belief may be
one way, which is nobody's business. You, notwithstanding your
belief, obey the law of the land?

"Mr. SMITH. Yes."

The CHAIRMAN. You obey the law ?

Mr. SMITH. With respect —

The CHAIRMAN. Do you obey the law in having five wives at this
time, and having them bear to you eleven children since the manifesto
of 1890?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case
I have obeyed the law of the land.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. SMITH. I do not claim so, and I have said before that I prefer
to stand my chances against the law.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. Rather than to abandon my children and their mothers.
That is all there is to it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That leads necessarily to another question. I
understood you yesterday to say why it was you continued that, that
you were willing to take the chances as an individual. My question
was directed to this: That, as head of the church, whatever 'your
beliefs may be, it is your practice and the practice of the church to
obey the law of the land, in teaching, notwithstanding what your
opinion may be. Is that correct or not?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, and I wish to assert that the church
has obe}red the law of the land, and that it has kept its pledges with
this Government; but I have not, as an individual, and I have taken
that chance myself.

Senator FORAKER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator FORAKER. I do not know whether it has been brought out
or not — perhaps it has been, but I have not observed it if it has been
put into the record — when and where and how this injunction to take
plural wives was given to the church as a doctrine of the Mormon
Church.

Mr. TAYLER. I was going to read the revelation in a moment.

Senator FORAKER. I want it to go in here before we get away from it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the manifesto?

Senator FORAKER. No; I do not mean the manifesto. I mean the
original revelation, if it was a revelation, authorizing plural wives.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is chapter 132.

Senator FORAKER. I wish you would read that particular part of it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I have the book here.

Senator FORAKER. What I want to know is whether that was a pos-
itive, arbitrary injunction laid upon every member of the church to
take a plural wife, or whether it was in the nature of a privilege which
was granted to the members and recommended.

Senator DUBOIS. Wait a moment. I believe, Senator Foraker, you
directed your question to the president of the church ?

198 REED SMOOT.

Senator FORAKER. To the president of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. Not to the attorneys ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I merely handed him the book.

Senator FORAKER. 1 asked the witness on the stand.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 should like to have the witness answer it.

Senator FORAKER. But I have no objection to counsel assisting him
if they want to. I did not observe to Avhat you referred, Senator
Dubois.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not think he needs any assistance from
anybody to find that.

Mr. SMITH. I think I understand your question.

Senator FORAKER. I wish you would give the exact language in
which that is clothed.

Mr. SMITH. In which it is written?

Senator FORAKER. For I have not heard it yet, although it may have
gone into the record.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what I was rising to read when I was inter-
rupted a moment ago. It is just as well to come in in this way.

Senator HOAR. When are we to have those books?

Mr. SMITH. I sent for them.

Senator HOAR. You have sent home for them?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. They will be here in a few days?

Mr. SMITH. They will come by express as soon as possible.

Mr. TAYLER. It is page 463.

Mh SMITH. Yes; 463.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, you will now answer the question.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, is it intended that I shall read a portion
of this chapter?

Senator HOPKINS. Let the reporter read the question propounded
by the Senator from Ohio.

The reporter read as follows:

"Senator FORAKER. I do not know whether it has been brought out
or not. Perhaps it has been, but I have not observed it if it has been
put into the record. When and where and how this injunction to take
plural wives was given to the church as a doctrine of the Mormon
Church."

The CHAIRMAN. When and where and how ?

Mr. SMITH. In the first place, this revelation was written in 1843 by
Joseph Smith. It was taught by him to the members of the church
during his lifetime, to Brigham Young, to Heber C. Kimball, and to
his associates, but owing to the conditions that existed at that time,
fierce opposition and mobocrac3T—

The CHAIRMAN. What opposition?

Mr. SMITH. Fierce opposition and mobocracy, which ended finally
in the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, it was not published and proclaimed
at that time. But this doctrine was preserved by Brigham Young,
carried with him to Salt Lake Valley in 1847, and in 1851, I believe it
was, there proclaimed at a public conference of the church as a reve-
lation from God through Joseph Smith, and at that public conference
it was accepted as a revelation.

The CHAIRMAN. That was in 1851.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1852.

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

REED SMOOT. 199

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1852.

Mr. SMITH. It was in 1852.

Senator HOPKINS. As I understand you, it was proclaimed at
Nauvoo ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it was not published and proclaimed at Nauvoo,
but it was taught by Joseph Smith to his confidential friends and
associates.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was received at Nauvoo.

Senator HOAR. Where was this publication of it, if that is the
proper term, by Brigham Young ?

Mr. SMITH. It was in Salt Lake Valley in 1852. Mr. Senator, does
that answer your question ?

Senator FORAKER. Not yet. That answers as to when and how, but
what is it? Let us have the revelation itself in so far as it relates to
plural marriages.

Mr. SMITH. It is very lengthy.

Senator McCoMAS. What section is it?

Senator FORAKER. What I wish to ascertain is, and all I care to
have you read is enough to show, whether it is a positive command to
take plural wives, or a mere recommendation or mere authority or
privilege ?

The CHAIRMAN. Can you not read the portion of it which relates to
plural marriages?

Mr. SMITH. 1 can read it if you desire me to.

Senator FORAKER. Cite the page and all, and then read.

Mr. SMITH. Page 463. The beginning of the revelation is thus:

"1. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, that
inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand, to know and understand
wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;
as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the prin-
ciple and doctrine of their having many wives and concubine's:

"2. Behold! and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as
touching this matter:

"3. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instruc-
tions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this
law revealed unto them must obey the same;"

Senator FORAKER. Mr. President, 1 observe, now that my attention
has been called to it, that it is, as the witness remarked, very long. I
do not wish to delay the examination by having it all read.

The CHAIRMAN. I tried to restrict the witness to that part which
relates particularly to your question.

Senator FORAKER. I have never read it and —

Mr. RICHARDS. If I may be permitted a suggestion, I think if the
witness were to commence with the sixty -first verse it would answer
the question of the Senator from Ohio.

Senator FORAKER. We have asked the witness to exercise his judg-
ment in that respect, and perhaps your suggestion may aid him. All
1 want to know is the character of the revelation.

Mr. SMITH. Of its binding character?

Senator FORAKER. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. It has been accepted by the church and admitted by all
that it is in its nature permissive and not absolutely mandatory.

Senator FORAKER. Now, will you read the language which has been
so construed?

200 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. RICHARDS. Commence with verse 61.

Mr. TAYLER. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. I will do so.

"61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the Priesthood: If any
man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give
her consent; and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and
have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he can not commit
adultery, for they are given unto him; for he can not commit adultery
with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

Mr. RICHARDS. The word "justified" is the word used.

The CHAIRMAN. There is something a little further on.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

"62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he can
not commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto
him, therefore is he justified."

Senator FORAKER. Now, that is the pith of that revelation, as I
understand it, according to your judgment, with respect to the taking
of plural wives?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. And I understand you to say, further, that that
has been construed by the church to be not an arbitrary direction to
take plural wives, but a permissive authority to do so ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

If I may be permitted, in replying to that question, I will say that
the fact that only about 3 per cent of the entire male population
of the church have entered into that principle at all is evidence that
it is only permissive and not mandatory.

Senator FORAKER. I so understood you to state yesterday, and when
you had stated that only about 3 or 4 per cent of the membership of
the church had ever taken plural wives I was at a loss to know why
questions were being propounded which seemed to assume that this
was an arbitrary command that all should take, and that if all did not
take and all did not teach it they were violating the revelation of God.

Senator PETTUS. I should like to ask the witness a question directly
on this point.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Alabama.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Smith, will you please read further as to the
refusal of the first wife to consent and explain what is meant by the
word "destroyed" in the same connection?

The CHAIRMAN. It is at the close of your last reading.

Senator PETTUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICHARDS. Page 472.

Mr. SMITH. I have that; but what verse?

Mr. RICHARDS. Verse 63. You read 62.

Mr. SMITH. All right:

"63. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused,
shall be with another man; she has committed adultery, and shall be
destroyed."

Is that the question ?

Senator PETTUS. No, sir; just a verse or two further on.

Mr. SMITH. 1 will read it.

"For they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth,
according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was
given by my Father before the foundation of the world; and for their

REED SMOOT. 201

exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men;
for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glo-
rified."

Mr. TAYLEK. The next verse.

Mr. SMITH. All right.

"64. And again, verily, verily I say unto }^ou, if any man have a
wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the
law of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she
believe, and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the
Lord your God, for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name
upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

Senator PETTUS. Now , what is the meaning of the word ' ' destroyed, "
there, as interpreted by the church ?

Mr. SMITH. I have no conception of the meaning of it more than the
language itself conveys, that the woman who disobeys is in the hands
of the Lord for Him to deal with as He may deem proper. I suppose
that is what it means.

Senator FORAKER. Has the church ever construed that language to
give authority to it as a church to destroy the woman ?

Mr. SMITH. Never in the world. It is not so stated. It is that tne
Lord

Senator FORAKER. The church construes it, as 'I understand, to
mean that she is in the hands of the Lord, to be destroyed by the Lord.

Mr. SMITH. By the Lord, if there is an}^ destruction at all.

Senator PETTUS. Have there ever been in the past plural marriages
without the consent of the first wife?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not know of any, unless it may have been Joseph
Smith himself.

Senator PETTUS. Is the language that }^ou have read construed to
mean that she is bound to consent?

Mr. SMITH. The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord
will destroy her, but I do not know how He will do it.

Senator BAILEY. Is it riot true that in the very next verse, if she
refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires
her consent ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her
consent.

Senator BAILEY. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not,
then he is exempt from the requirement?

Mr. SMITH. Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent,
under the law.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing ?

Mr. SMITH. It amounts to nothing but her consent.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that so far as there is anything in there con-
cerning her consent, it might as well not be there ?

Senator OVERMAN. Passing from this, I should like to ask Mr. Smith
a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator OVERMAN. You frankly said that as to polygamous cohabi-
tation you did not obey and were not obeying the law. You stated on
yesterday that some seven of the twelve apostles —

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; six is the out limit.

Senator OVERMAN. Six?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

202 REED 8MOOT.

Senator OVERMAN. You say six are polygamists. Now, are those
or any one of them disobeying the law of the land in regard to polyga-
mous cohabitation?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about their unlawful cohabita-
tion relations. I only referred in my answer to the question yesterday
to the fact that they were in the status of polygamists; that is, they
had more wives than one.

Senator OVERMAN. You do not know whether they have had chil-
dren born to them since the manifesto or not?

Mr. SMITH. I am happy to say that I am not a paid spotter or
informer.

Senator OVERMAN. You might know without being a spotter.

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Senator OVERMAN. I know people in my town who have children,
and I am not a spotter, either.

Mr. SMITH. 1 had no reference at all to this honorable body.

Senator OVERMAN. You have used that word two or three times.
Could you not know whether they had children without being a spotter ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know, because I am not familiar —

Senator OVERMAN. Do you know their general reputation ?

Mr. SMITH. Not whether they have children or not.

Senator OVERMAN. You do not know whether they have children
or not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. You might have answered without saying you
were not a spotter.

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me; I beg pardon.

Senator FORAKER. If the Senator from North Carolina is through,
I should like to have the entire revelation come in at the place where
a part of it was quoted, if there is no objection.

Senator HOPKINS. As I understand, counsel is about to read it.

Senator FORAKER. But we have anticipated him, and as there has
been an examination about it I should like to have it go into the rec-
ord at that point.

The CHAIRMAN. Let it come in at that point, if Mr. Tayler will indi-
cate what is to go in.

Senator FORAKER. I am speaking only of the one revelation. If
there is anything else on the same subject he might put it in.

Mr. TAYLER. I suggest that the entire revelation be incorporated.
When I present it I will read only two or three sections which I think
are instructive, which were not read by Mr. Smith. That will save
the reading of it.

Senator FORAKER. I will be glad to have the entire revelation come
in at this point, where Mr. Smith has been testifying in regard to it.

The revelation is as follows:

' ' Verily thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inas-
much as you have inquired of my hand, to know and understand
wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;
as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the prin-
ciple and doctrine of their having 'many wives and concubines:'

"2. Behold! and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee
as touching this matter:

"3. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instruc-
tions which 1 am about to give unto you, for all those who have this
law revealed unto them must obey the same.

REED 8MOOT. 203

cc 4. For behold! I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant;
and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can
reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory.

"5. For all who will have a blessing at my hands, shall abide the
law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof,
as were instituted from before the foundation of the world:

"6. And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was
instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a full-
ness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith
the Lord God.

"7. And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are
these: — All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, per-
formances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not
made and entered into and sealed, by the Holy Spirit of promise, of
him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and
that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the
medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to
hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold
this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at
a time, on whom this power and the keys of this Priesthood are con-
ferred) are of no efficacy, virtue or force, in and after the resurrection
from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have
an end when men are dead.

"8. Behold! mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God,
and not a house of confusion.

"9. Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in
my name!

"10. Or will I receive at your hands, that which I have not
appointed!

"11. And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by
law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world
was!

"12. I am the Lord thy God, and I give unto you this command-
ment, that no man shall come unto the Father but b}7 me, or by my
word, which is my law, saith the Lord;

"13. And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained
of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers or things of name,
whatsoever they may be, that are not by me, or by my word, saith the
Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead,
neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God;

"14. For whatsoever things remain are b}T me; and whatsoever
things are not by me, shall be shaken and destroyed.

15. "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world and he marry
her not by me, nor by my word; and he covenant with her so long as
he is in the world, and she with him, their covenant and marriage are
not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world;
therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the
world;

" 16. Therefore, when they are out of the world, they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage, but are appointed angels in heaven, which
angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy
of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory;

"17. For these angels did not abide my law, therefore they cannot
be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in

204 REED SMOOT.

their saved condition, to all eternity, and from henceforth are not
Gods, but are angels of God, for ever and ever.

"18. And again, verily I say unto you, it' a man marry a wife, and
make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that cove-
nant is not by me, or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed
by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed
and appointed unto this power — then it is not valid, neither of force
when they are out of the world, because they- are not joined by me,
saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world,
it cannot be received there, because the angels and the Gods are
appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore,
inherit my glory, for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

"19. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by
my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant,
and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of Promise, by him
who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power, and the
keys of this Priesthood; and it shall be said unto them, ye shall come
forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection,
in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, prin-
cipalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths — then
sjiall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit
no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my
covenant, and commit no murder whereb}^ to shed innocent blood, it
shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put
upon them in time and through all eternity, and shall be of full force
when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels,
and the Gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in
all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall
be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds for ever and ever.

"20. Then shall they be Gods, because they have no end; there-
fore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they con-
tinue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto
them. Then shall they be Gods, because they have all power, and
the angels are subject unto them.

"21. Verily, verily I say unto you, except ye abide my law, ye
cannot attain to this glory.

"22. For strait is the gate and narrow the way that leadeth unto
the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find
it, because ye receive me not in the world, neither do ye know me.

"23. But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and
shall receive your exaltation, that where I am ye shall be also.

4 4 24. This is eternal lives, to know the only wise and true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore,
my law.

" 25. Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths,
and many there are that go in thereat; because they receive me not,
neither do they abide in my law.

"26. Verily verily 1 say unto you, if a man marry a wife according
to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise,
according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or
transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all
manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder, wherein they
shed innocent blood — yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection

EEED SMOOT. 205

and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the
flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the
day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

"27. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be
forgiven in the world, nor out of the world, is in that ye commit mur-
der, wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after
ye have received my "new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord
God; and he that abideth not this law, can in no wise enter into my
glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

"28. I am the Lord, thy God, and will give unto thee the law of
my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father, before
the world was.

" 29. Abraham received all things whatsoever he received, by reve-
lation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath
entered into his exaltation, and sitteth upon his throne.

"30. Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the
fruit of his loins — from whose loins ye are namely, my servant Joseph—
which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as
touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue;
both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumer-
able as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the sea shore,
ye could not number them.

"31. This promise is yours, also, because ye are of Abraham, and
the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law are the continua-
tion of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

"32. Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye
into my law, and ye shall be saved.

" 33. But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise
of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

"34:. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham
to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law, and from
Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among
other things, the promises.

"35. Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verity I say
unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

"36. Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless
it was written, thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not
tfuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

"37. Abraham received concubines, and they bear him children,
ind it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were
jiven unto him, and he abode in my law, as Isaac also, and Jacob did
none other things than that which they were commanded; and because
they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they
have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit
upon thrones, and are not angels, but are Gods.

" 38. David also received many wives and concubines, as also Solo-
mon and Moses my servants; as also many others of my servants, from
the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin,
ive in those things which they received not of me.

"39. David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by
the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had
the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against
le, save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and therefore he hath

206 REED SMOOT.

fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not
inherit them out of the world; for I gave them unto another, saith the
Lord.

"40. I am the Lord thy God, and I gave unto thee my servant
Joseph, an appointment, and restore all things; ask what ye will, and it
shall be given unto you according to my word:

"41. And as ye have asked concerning adultery — verily, verily I say
unto you, if a man receive th a wife in the new and everlasting cove
nant, and if she be with another man and I have not appointed unto
her by the holy anointing she hath committed adultery, and shall be
destroyed.

"42. If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be
with another man, she has committed adultery.

"43. And if her husband be with another woman and he was under
a vow, he hath broken his vow, and hath committed adultery.

"44. And if she hath not committed adultery, but is innocent, and
hath not broken her vow, and she knoweth it, and I reveal it unto you,
my servant Joseph, then shall you have power, by the power of my
Holy Priesthood, to take her and give her unto him that hath not com-
mitted adultery, but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler
over many;

"45. For I have conferred upon you the keys and the power of the
Priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you
all things in due time.

"46. And verily, verily I say unto you, that whatsoever you sea?
on earth, shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth,
in my name, and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally
bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall
be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain
on earth, shall be retained in heaven.

"47. And again, verily I say, whomsoever you bless, I will bless,
and whomsoever you curse, I will curse, saith the Lord, for I, the
Lord, am thy God.

"48. And again, verity I say unto you, my servant Joseph, that
whatsoever you give on earth, and to whomsoever you give any one
on earth, by my word, and according to my law, it shall be visited
with blessings, and not cursings, and with my power, saith the Lord,
and shall be without condemnation on earth, and in heaven;

"49. For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto
the end of the world, and through all eternity ; for verily, I seal
upon you youi* exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the king-
dom of my Father, with Abraham your father.

"50. Behold, I have seen your sacrifices and will forgive all your
sins; I have seen your sacrifices, in obedience to that which I havt
told you; go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted
the offering of Abraham, of his son Isaac.

"51. Verily, I say unto you, a commandment I give unto mine
handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that
she stay herself, and partake not of that which I commanded you to
offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did
Abraham; and that 1 might require an offering at your hand, by cov-
enant and sacrifice;

"52. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that
have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and

REED SMOOT. 207

pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were
pure, shall be destroyed saith the Lord God;

"53. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and
I give unto my servant Joseph, that he shall be made ruler over many
things, for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from hence-
forth I will strengthen him.

' ' 54. And 1 command my handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave
unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide
this commandment, she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am
the Lord thy God and will destroy her, if she abide not in my law;

a55. But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my
servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will
bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred fold in this
world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands,
wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

" 56. And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant
Joseph, his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses,
wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will
bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.

"57. And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property
out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seek-
eth to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant; and
behold! and lo I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even
unto his exaltation and glory.

"58. Now, as touching the law of the Priesthood, there are many
things pertaining thereunto.

"59. Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was Aaron, by
mine own voice, and by the voice of him that sent me; and I have
endowed him with the keys of the power of this Priesthood, if he do
anything in my name, and according to my law, and by my word, he
will not commit sin, and I will justify him.

"60. Let no one, therefore, set on my servant, Joseph; for I will
justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands
for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

"61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the Priesthood; if any
man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give
her consent, and if he espouse the second and they are virgins and
have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit
adultery, for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery
with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else;

"62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law he can-
not commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto
him, therefore is he justified.

"63. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused,
shall be with another man; she has committed adultery, and shall be
destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the
earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which
was given by my father before the foundation of the world; and for
their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear their souls
of men; for -herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may
be glorified.

"64. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a
wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the
law of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she

208 EEED SMOOT.

believe, and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the
Lord 3^our God for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name
upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

"65. Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law,
for him to receive all things, whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will
give unto him, because she did not administer unto him according to
my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt
from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to
the law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

"66. And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily I say unto
you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice
for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen."

The CHAIRMAN. If it is convenient to you, Mr. Tayler, you may
now read the additional sections or verses.

Mr TAYLER. I will do so. I wish first to ask Mr. Smith just one
question.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. TAYLER. It is upon the subject of his instructions and inculca-
tion of polygamy. I understood you to say, Mr. Smith, that you did
not consider the remarks you made at Ogden, which I quoted, as
instructing or advising belief in polygamy.

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; I did not say that.

Mr. TAYLER. You then made use of this language:

"Now, am I telling you that plural marriage is practised or is to be
practised? No, I am only telling you that it is a principle revealed by
God to Joseph Smith the Prophet, and the Latter-day Saint who denies
and rejects that truth in his heart might as well reject every other
truth connected with his mission."

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. That is correct?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And that is not, in your construction of your lan-
guage, instruction or inculcation?

Mr. SMITH. Merely a statement of a fact.

Mr. TAYLER. Merely the statement of a fact — exactly.

Mr. SMITH. That is all.

Senator DUBOIS. May I ask the president a question on the line on
which he is now testifying?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator DUBOIS. To start out with, Mr. Smith has now several times
stated that only three or four per cent were in polygamy. That has
gone without challenge. My judgment is that three or four per cent
were convicted. I think the prosecution will be able to show that
much more than three or four per cent were in the polygamous
relations. I am almost willing to hazard the guess that three or four
per cent were actually convicted.

Senator FORAKER. In so far as I made use of the term "three or
four per cent," 1 took it from the witness. I have no knowledge on
the subject.

Senator DUBOIS. I understand. I do not undertake to give the per-
centage, but it will be given. However, I make my statement in con-
tradiction to that of the president.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you refer to three or four per cent of the
whole membership of the Mormon church or only the marriageable
males?

EEED 8MOOT. 209

Senator DUBOIS. Ah, you do not consider the women in polygamy?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did not know —

Senator DUBOIS. You mean that the women are not in polygamy ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I merely wanted to know whether you meant
3 or 4 per cent of the whole church population or that percentage of
the marriageable males.

Senator DUBOIS. I will state at the proper time what I mean.

We will accept your statement, Mr. Smith, that a small percentage
are in polygamy. How many presidents of the church from the
beginning have been monogomists?

Mr. SMITH. How many?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. How many presidents have been monogomists ? I think
that all of the first presidents of the church down to myself have had
plural wives.

Senator DUBOIS. I understood from the testimony here yesterday
that the heir to the throne is also a polygamist — the head of the
quorum of apostles now, who under the rule and precedents, should he
survive you, will be the president of the church. I understood that
he is also a polygamist.

Mr. SMITH. I should like to correct the Senator by saying that we
have no heir to the throne.

Senator DUBOIS. He is the head of the quorum of the apostles, and
there has been a line of unbroken precedents that the head of the
quorum of the apostles succeeds to the office of president.

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Senator DUBOIS. If the term "heir to the throne " is offensive, I will
withdraw it.

Mr. SMITH. If you please.

Senator DUBOIS. But apparently, following the precedents of the
church, he will succeed to the office of president. Now, of course you
could not state, but has it not been a fact that the great majority of
the high ecclesiastical positions in the church have been filled by
polygamists ?

Mr. SMITH. I could not state that from positive knowledge, but I
will say this frankly, that a large number of them have been polyga-
mists. The fact of the matter is, that the most prominent men, the
most influential me,n, the men who have stood highest in business and
in social circles in Utah among the Mormon people, have been men
who had more than one wife.

Senator DUBOIS. That is a satisfactory answer to me. I simply
wanted to show that this very small percentage are very influential.

Senator HOAR. I should like to ask a question merely to understand
what I did not get at heretofore. I understood the question to be put
whether this revelation to Joseph Smith, promulgated and made pub-
lic by Brigham Young, in regard to polygamy, was permissive or
obligatory. I understood— and I am not sure I understood you
aright — that it was permissive, but did you mean to say that or do you
mean to say that it is obligatory, so far as a general principle of con-
duct is concerned, but not mandatory under the circumstances ?

Now I will illustrate what I mean by the injunction of our scrip-
ture— what we call the New Testament.

Mr. SMITH. Which is our scripture also.

Senator HOAR. Which is your scripture also?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.
s 14

210 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOAR. The apostle says that a bishop must be sober and
must be the husband of one wife.

Mr. SMITH. At least.

Senator HOAR. We do not say that. [Laughter.] The bishop must
be sober and must be the husband of one wife. I suppose that is gen-
erally construed to enjoin upon bishops the marriage relation. But I
have known several bishops, two in my own State, of great distinction,
who were bachelors. I suppose they would say, if you asked them,
that that was an obligation to sustain by their example the marriage
relation, but that it did not apply under all .circumstances and upon
all occasions, and that the ordinary element of human illness and pov-
erty, or any other special reason, exempted them from it.

I gather from }^our general answer that that is what you mean by
your answer whether it is permissive or mandatory; that the principle
is mandator}^ but that it is not of universal application under all cir-
cumstances.

Mr. S ITH. 1 think, Senator, I can accept of your statement with-
out any criticism at all.

Senator HOAR. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. SMITH. I should like to be permitted to call the attention of the
honorable Senator to the fact that this injunction was made to the
church in Judea in the midst of a polygamous people, and that all of
the people believed in the practice of polygamy at that time.

Senator HOAR. You mean the ancients?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; the Jews at that time. But it was made
obligatory upon the bishop that he should have one wife, because the
duties of a bishop require an experienced man.

Senator McCoMAS. You said that the revelation of polygamy pro-
mulgated by Brigham Young was permissive and not mandatory.

Mr. SMITH. Begging pardon, I said that it is so construed by our
people.

Senator McCoMAS. So construed, and your church so construes it?

Mr. SMITH. It is so construed by our people.

Senator McCoMAS. To be permissive and not mandatory?

Mr. SMITH. In the sense of saying that as a principal it was a vital
principle at the time, but it was not mandatory, from the very fact that
only a very small percentage engaged in it, and, with all deference to
the Senator who has expressed himself, I still maintain that the estimate
of 3 per cent of the Mormon people who entered into polygamy is
based upon figures that were produced at the time the announcement
was made.

Senator McCoMAS. I will not require you to repeat the statement
you have made, although you have repeated part of it.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Senator McCoMAS. You said, if I understand you, that the manifesto
of President Woodruff was construed* by }7ou and by your church as
mandatory.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. As mandatory?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. Apart from your personal belief as a man, in your
office as president of the church, have you often or ever or repeatedly
rebuked those who have, after President Woodruff's manifesto, urged
the practice of plural marriage, when they did so in your presence or
to your knowledge or when it has been brought to your attention?

REED SMOOT. 211

Mr. SMITH. I should say that I have never heard anybody advocate
it or encourage or recommend it in any shape or form since the
manifesto.

Senator McCoMAS. Have you ever —

Mr. SMITH. Only in the sense that has been read here to-day -, that
is, in a little social gathering I announced my own belief in it and at
the same time announced the fact that it was tfot practiced and was
stopped.

Senator McCoMAS. Have you ever heard or have you read addresses
made by apostles of your church encouraging plural marriages since
the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; never.

Senator McCoMAS. You have never seen them reported in the news-
papers ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. Not in any instance?

Mr. SMITH. No; unless you can construe what I said there —

Senator McCoMAS. What you said? lam talking about the state-
ments of others.

Mr. SMITH. I have not heard anybody else.

Senator McCoMAS. Apostle Grant, for instance, and others?

Mr. SMITH. I understood that Apostle Grant merely announced the
fact that he had two wives and that he had contributed $300 to a cer-
tain class in the University of Utah in honor of his two wives — $150
each. He announced it publicly. The anti-Mormon press of Salt
Lake City took it up and made a great big hubbub about it.

Senator McCoMAS. I understood you to s&y that you have never
heard in any public place any apostle or elder of the church encourage
the practice of plural marriages or defend it after the Woodruff
manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. 1 will say truly as to both forms of your question, I
have never heard them advocate it; I have never heard them defend
it in public.

Senator McCoMAS. And you have never read of it ?

Mr. SMITH. But I have said this, if you please, Mr. Senator, that if
the principle in the abstract is attacked by opponents, it is very, very
likel}7 that we will defend it, from a scriptural view point.

Senator McCoMAS. I am not asking you what you would do. 1
want to know what you have done.

Mr. SMITH. We have not done anything of the kind.

Senator McCoMAS. Have you read in the newspapers in Salt .Lake
City reports that appear to be authentic of any apostle or elder who has
thus defended the practice of polygamy ? And if so, I desire to know
if you have ever in your place as president of the church in any man-
ner called him to account for violating the Woodruff manifesto, which
you say is mandatory upon the members of the church.

Mr. SMITH. There are some papers very bitterly anti-Mormon pub-
lished in Salt Lake City.

Senator McCoMAS. I am only asking you with respect to those
which seem to be fair and authoritative reports.

Mr. SMITH. 1 have never seen any fair, authoritative, or reliable
reports of that kind.

Senator McCoMAS. You never have?

Mr. SMITH. 1 never have.

Mr. WOKTHINGTON. Not since the manifesto?

212 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Not in the papers.

Senator McCoMAS. You have never heard any in public?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I never have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, before we take a recess, I wish you
would put in, if you have time, what you desire from these books.

Mr. TAYLER. Shall I proceed now?

Senator McCoMAS." Could you not cite it and have it put in the
record ?

Mr. TAYLER. No; I would rather not.

The CHAIRMAN. We will go as far as we can before the hour for a
recess arrives.

Senator FORAKER. It is only five minutes.

Mr. TAYLER. Shall I go on?

Senator BAILEY. I suggest that where Mr. Tayler begins reading
would be a good place for us to resume consideration of the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Senator FORAKER. He could not finish the reading anyway before
the recess.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. The committee will now take a recess
until 2 o'clock.

Thereupon (at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m.) the committee took
a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, will you have the kindness to resume
the witness stand?

Mr. TAYLER. Unless Mr. Smith prefers to sit there, I will not want
to ask him, so far as I am concerned, any question at present at least.
I was going to read from these documents. Mr. Chairman, I will
first read certain parts of the book entitled " Doctrine and Cove-
nants," and I read from the edition printed by the Deseret News, with
the imprint 1901 on it, first from section 43, page 177:

"Revelation given through Joseph, the Seer, at Kirtland, Ohio,
February, 1831."

4 Verse 1:

"Oh hearken, ye elders of my church, and give an ear to the words
which I shall speak unta you;

"2. For behold, verily, verily, 1 say unto you, that ye have received
a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have
appointed unto you, to receive commandments, and revelations from
my hand.

"3. And this ye shall know assuredly that there is none other
appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he
be taken, if he abide in me.

"4. But verily, verily I say unto you, that none else shall be
appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken
from him, he shall not have power except to appoint another in his
stead;

"5. And this shall be a law unto you, that }^e receive not the teach-
ings of any that shall come before you as revelations or command-
ments;

REED SMOOT. 213

"6. And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that
you may know they are not of me.

"7. For verily I say unto }^ou, that he that is ordained of me shall
come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach
those revelations which you have received, and shall receive through
him whom I have appointed."

Page 462, section 131:

4 'Remarks of Joseph, the Prophet, at Ramus, Illinois, May 16th
and 17th, 1843.

"1. In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

44 2. And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter in to this
Order of the Priesthood; (meaning the new and everlasting covenant
of marriage;)

4 '3. And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

" 4. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom:
He cannot have an increase."

Page 248, section 68:

''Revelation, given through Joseph, the Seer, at Hiram, Portage
Co., Ohio, November, 1831, to Orson Hyde, Luke Johnson, Lyman
Johnson and William E. M'Lellin. The mind and will of the Lord,
as made known by the voice of the spirit, to a conference concerning
certain elders, and also certain items as made known in addition to the
Covenants and Commandments."

Verse 4:

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy
Ghost, shall be Scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the
mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of
the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

Page 436, section 124:

"Revelation given to Joseph Smith, at Nauvoo, Hancock County,
Illinois, January 19th, 1841."

Verse 56:

"And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding-house
which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers,
let it be built unto my name and let my name be named upon it and
let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from genera-
tion to generation."

Then verse 60:

"And let the name of that house be called Nauvoo House, and let it
be a delightful habitation for man and a resting place for the weary
traveller that he may contemplate the glory of Zion and the glory of
this the corner-stone thereof."

Verse 62:

"Behold, verily 1 say unto you, let my servant George Miller and
my servant Lyman Wight, and my servant John Snider and my servant
Peter Haws, organize themselves and appoint one of them to be a
president over their quorum for the purpose of building that house.

"63. And they shall form a constitution whereby they may receive
•stock for the building of that house.

" 64. And they shall not receive less than fifty dollars for a share of
stock in that house, and they shall be permitted to receive fifteen
thousand dollars from any one man for stock in that house;

"65. But they shall not be permitted to receive over fifteen thousand
dollars stock from any one man;

214 REED SMOOT.

" 66. And they shall not be permitted to receive under fifty dollars
for a share of stock from any one man in that house;

44 67. And they shall not be permitted to receive any man as a stock-
holder in this house, except the same shall pay his stock into their
hands at the time he receives stock."

Page 410, being a part of section 112:

"The word of the Lord, given through Joseph, the prophet, unto
Thomas B. Marsh, at Kirtland, July 23rd, 1837, concerning the Twelve
Apostles of the Lamb."

That is the title of the section on page 407. I will now read sections
30 and 31, on page 410:

"30. For unto you, (the Twelve) and those (the First Presidency)
who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders,
is the power of this Priesthood given, for the last days and for the
last time in the which is the dispensation of the fullness of times.

"31. Which power you hold in connection with all those who have
received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the crea-
tion."

And I read the following three verses, which are short:

"32. For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation which
ye have received, have come down from* the fathers; and last of all
being sent down from Heaven unto you.

"33. Verily I say unto you, Behold how great is your calling.
Cleanse your hearts and your garments, lest the blood of this genera-
tion be required at your hands.

"34. Be faithful until I come, for I come quickly, and my reward
is with me to recompense every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega. Amen."

Page 412, section 114:

"Revelation, given through Joseph, the Seer, at Far West, Cald-
well County, Missouri, April 17th, 1838.

"1. Verily thus saith the Lord, it is wisdom in my servant David
W. Patten, that he settle up all his business as soon as he possibly
can, and make a disposition of his merchandise, that he may perform
a mission unto me next spring in company with others, even Twelve,
including himself, to testify of my name, and bear glad tidings unto
all the world;

"2. For verily thus saith the Lord, that inasmuch as there are those
among you who deny my name, others shall be planted in their stead,
and receive their bishopric. Amen."

1 read from section 132, page 463:

"Revelation on the Eternity of the "Marriage Covenant, including
Plurality of Wives. Given through Joseph, the Seer, in Nauvoo,
Hancock County, Illinois, July 12th, 1843."

All of this revelation of section 132 is to be incorporated with the
testimony. A part of this was read by Mr. Smith when he was on
the stand.

I want to read the seventh verse:

"7. And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are
these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, per-
formances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not
made, and entered into, and sealed, by the Holy Spirit of promise,
of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity,
and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the

EEED 8MCOT. 215

medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold
this power, (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this
power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a
time, on whom this power and the keys of this Priesthood are con-
ferred,) are of no efficacy, virtue or force, in and after the resurrection
from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end, have
an end when men are dead."

Verse 45, on page 470, and verse 46, on page 471:

"45. For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the
Priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all
things in due time.

44 -10. And verily, verily I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal
on earth, shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth,
in my name, and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally
bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be
remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on
earth shall be retained in heaven."

Verse 51, on page 471:

44 51. Verily, I say unto you, a commandment I give unto mine
handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that
she stay herself, and partake not of that which I commanded you to
offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did
Abraham; and that I might require an offering at your hand, by cov-
enant and sacrifice;"

Verse 52:

"52. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that
have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and
pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were
pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God;"

Verse 53:

44 53. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and
I give unto my servant Joseph, that he shall be made ruler over many
things, for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from hence-
forth 1 will strengthen him."

Verse 54:

"54. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and
cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not
abide this commandment, she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for
I am the Lord thv God, and will destroy her, if she abide not in my
law."

Verse 55:

"55. But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my
servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I Avill
bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in
this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and
lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal
worlds."

Verse 56:

"56. And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant
Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses,
wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will
bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice."

Verse 61:

" 61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the Priesthood: If any

216 REED SMOOT.

man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give
her consent; and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and
have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit
adultery, for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery
with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

Verse 62:

"62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he can-
not commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto
him, therefore is he justified."

Verse 63:

fc*63. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused,
shall be with another man; she has committed adultery, and shall be
destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the
earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which
was given by my Father before the foundation of the world; and for
their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of
men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be
glorified."

Verse 64:

"64. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a
wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the
law of my Priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she
believe, and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the
Lord your God, for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name
upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

Verse 65:

" 65. Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law,
for him to receive all things, whatsoever, I, the Lord his God, will
give unto him, because she did not administer unto him according to
my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt
from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to
the law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife."

Verse 66:

U66. And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily I say unto
you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice
for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen."

Now 1 read from the book entitled "Ready References, a compila-
tion of Scripture text, arranged in subjective order; with numerous
annotations from eminent writers. Designed especially for the use of
missionaries and Scripture students. Salt Lake City, Utah; The Des-
eret News Publishing Company, printers and publishers. 1892."

The original preface is dated at Liverpool, November 15 1884. The
preface to the third edition is as follows; it is short, and I will read
it all:

"The first edition of this work met with a very ready sale in Great
Britain, and gave much satisfaction to the missionaries and others who
used it. Quite a number of copies were also imported to this Terri-
tory, which, however, so far from satisfying the public demand only
seemed to increase it, so highly was the work appreciated by all
into whose hands it chanced to fall. To meet the increasing demand
without the trouble and expense of importing the books from abroad,
The Deseret News Company made application to the compilers for the
privilege of publishing an edition here. This consent being given, an
edition was issued which has already been sold, and we now present a
third edition to the still unsatisfied public.

REED SMOOT. 217

"Some improvement has been made in the arrangement of the
references, and a few passages have been added; otherwise this edition
is similar to the former. That the work may prove acceptable to the
public, and great good result from its more extensive publication is
the earnest desire of The Publishers.

"Salt Lake City, October 12, 1892."

I read from page 129:

"The traditions and prejudices of centuries, the man-made creeds of
the day and the laws of all the nations professing a belief in Christ
unitedly inculcate the idea that it is sinful for a man, under any cir-
cumstances, to h.we more than one living and undivorced wife at the
same time. A careful perusal of the Scriptures will, however, reveal
the fact that this practice which is now considered so heinous is in
accordance with the divine law given to the ancient Israelites, that it
was engaged in with the sanction and blessing of God by many of the
best and most favored men of whom the Bible makes mention, and that
never has the principle received the divine condemnation."

Then follow a number of pages of excerpts from the Bible, and
along the margin are inscriptions which speak for themselves and are
doubtless intended to be descriptive of that which appears in the text.

I will read some of those marginal annotations.

Page 129: " Laws providing for a plurality of wives."

Page 130: "Plural marriage commanded by divine laws."

Page 131: "Plurality of wives sanctioned by the Lord." "Polyg-
amous son blessed by the Lord."

Page 134: " Poly gamy right in the sight of God."

Page 135: "Polygamy predicted."

I will read that prediction from Isaiah:

"1. And in that d&y seven women shall take hold of one man, say-
ing, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let
us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

"2. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be b'eautiful and
glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for
them that are escaped of Israel.

" 3. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that
remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is
written among the living in Jerusalem. Isa. 4."

The next marginal reference on that page, 135, is:

"Polygamy implied in the Saviour's promise:

"29. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no
man that hath left house or parents, or brethren or wife, or children,
for the kingdom of God's sake.

"30. Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and
in the world to come life everlasting. Luke 18."

Following, these scriptural quotations is a note containing many
quotations from historical writers, from which I will only inake*one
extract, on page 136:

"Many more examples of polygamists might be cited, with the
scriptural mention of whose names or acts there is no word of con-
demnation. In a number of cases where it is not mentioned that men
had more than one wife, we are bound to infer that such was the case
from the number of children they are said to have had."

And at the bottom of the page:

tcTo find any prohibition of polygamy we must go to human rather

218 REED SMOOT.

than to divine law, and if we trace its history to its inception we will
find that it originated in opposition to marriage of any kind."

The chapter on " Patriarchal marriage," above referred to, is as
follows:

PATRIARCHAL MARRIAGE.

NOTE —The traditions and prejudices of centuries, the man-made
creeds of the day and the laws of all the nations professing a belief
in Christ unitedly inculcate the idea that it is sinful for a man, under
any circumstances, to have more than one living and undivorced wife
at the same time. A careful perusal of the Scriptures will, however,
reveal the fact that this practice which is now considered so heinous
is in accordance with the divine law given to the ancient Israelites,
that it was engaged in with the sanction and blessing of God, by many
of the best and most favored men of whom the Bible makes mention,
and that never has the principle received the divine condemnation.

Laws providing for a plurality of wives:

7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she sball not
go out as the men-servants do.

8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself,
then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he
shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9. And if he hath betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her
after the manner of daughters.

10. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her
duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out
free without money. — Exo. 21.

15. If a man hath two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and
the}r have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if
the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16. Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which
he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before
the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn. — Dent. 21.

17. But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn,
by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the begin-
ning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. — Deut. 21.

Plural marriage commanded by divine law:

5. If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no
child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger;
her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to
wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.—
Deut. 25.

28. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,
and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

2f>. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's
father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he
hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.— Deut. 22.

16. And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with
her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. — Exo. 22.

Plurality of wives sanctioned by the Lord:

3. And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after
Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her
husband Abram to be his wife.

REED SMOOT. 219

15. And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name,
which Hagar bare, Ishmael. — Gen. 1C).

15. And God said unto Abraham, as for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt
not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

16. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, 1 will
bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations: kings of people shall
be of her. — Gen. 17.

17. Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his
heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old?
and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

18. And Abraham, said unto God, O that Ishmael might live
before thee!

19. And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and
thou shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish my convenant with
him for an everlasting convenant, and with his seed after him.

Polygamous son blessed by the Lord:

20. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed
him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly;
twelve princes shall he beget, and 1 will make him a great nation.—
Gen. 17.

Jacob and his four wives:

1. And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel
envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children or elsel die.

4. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went
in unto her.

5. And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.

6. And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my
voice, and hath given me a son; therefore called she his name Dan.

9. When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her
maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

17. And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived u I bare
Jacob the fifth son.

18. And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because 1 have
given my maiden to my husband; and she called his name Issachar.

22. And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and
opened her womb.

23. And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken
away my reproach. — Gen. 30.

Saul's wives given to David by the Lord in addition to the wives he
already had:

7. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus said the
Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and 1 delivered
thee out of the hand of Saul;

8. And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into
thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if
that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such
and such things. — 2 Sam. 12.

All David's acts approved except in the matter of Uriah:
5. Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord,
and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the
days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. — 1 Kin. 15.
Moses marries a Midianitish woman :

21 . And Moses was content to dwell with the man : and he gave Moses
Zipporah his daughter. — Exo. 2.

220 REED SMOOT.

1. Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest
of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came
to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. — Exo. 3.

Marries an Ethiopian wife, and Aaron and Miriam complain of it:

1. And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethio-
pian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian
woman.

2. And the}^ said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses?
hath he not spoken also b}^ us ? And the Lord heard it. *

3. (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which
were upon the face of the earth.)

4. And the Lord spake suddenty unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and
unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congrega-
tion. And they three came out. — Num. 12.

Reproved and cursed for speaking against Moses:

5. And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in
the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they
both came forth.

6. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among
you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and
will speak unto him in a dream.

7. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.

8. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not
in dark speeches;, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold:
wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses ?

9. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he
departed.

10. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold,
Miriam became leprous, white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam,
and, behold, she was leprous. — Num. 12.

Had a Kenite wife also:

11. Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the
father-in-law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites. — Judg. 4.

Polygamous parentage of the prophet Samuel:

1. Now there was a certain man of Ramath-aim-zophim, of Mount
Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah:

2. And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the
name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children but Hannah
had no children.

19. And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before
the Lord, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and
Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her.—
1 Sam. 1.

20. Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after
Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son and called his name Samuel,
saying, Because 1 have asked him of the Lord. — 1 Sam. 1.

19. And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him, and did let none
of his words fall to the ground.

20. And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba, knew that Samuel
was established to be a prophet of the Lord.

21. And the Lord appeared again in Shiloh: for the Lord revealed
himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord. — 1 Sam. 3.

Polygamy right in the sight of God:

2. And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all
the da}rs of Jehoiada the priest.

EEED SMOOT. 221

3. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and
daughters.

15. But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days when he died; an
hundred and thirty years old was he when he died.

16. And they buried him in the city of David among the kings,
because he had done good in Israel, both toward God, and toward his
house.— 2 Chr. 24.

Gideon's large family not disapproved:

30. And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten;
for he had many wives.

32. And Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age, and was
buried in the sepulchre of Joash his father, in Ophraof the Abiezrites.

33. And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the chil-
dren of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and
made Baal-berlth their god.— Judg. 8.

Hosea told by the Lord to take two wives:

2. The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the
Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and chil-
dren of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredoms,
departing from the Lord.

3. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which con-
ceived, and bare him a son. — Hos. 1.

1. Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of
her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord towards
tho, children of Israel, and look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.

3. And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou
shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so
will I also be for thee. — Hos. 3.

Polygamy predicted:

1. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying,
We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be
called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

2. In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful arid glorious,
and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent, and comely for them that
are escaped of Israel.

3. And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that
remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is
written among the living in Jerusalem. — Isa. 4.

Polygamy implied in the Saviour's promises:

26. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man
that hath left house or parents, or 'brethren, or wife, or children, for
the kingdom of God's sake.

30. Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and
in the world to come life everlasting. — -Luke 18.

Abraham's works held up as an example:

39. They answered an said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus
saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works
of Abraham.

40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. — John 8.

11. And we desire that every one of you do show the same diligence
to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

12. That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through
faith and patience inherit the promises.

222 EEED 8MOOT.

13. For when God made promises to Abraham, because he could
swear by no greater, he sware by himself.

14. Saying, Surely blessing I will bless theo, and multiplying I will
multiply thee. — Heb. 6.

NOTE. — Many more examples of poly gam ists might be cited, with the
Scriptural mention of whose names or acts there is no word of condem-
nation. In a number of cases where it is not mentioned that men had
more than one wi^e, we are bound to infer that such was the case from
the. number of children they are said to have had. For example, Jair
is said to have had thirty sons (Judges x, 4); Ibzan had thirty sons
and thirty daughters, and! Abdon had forty sons (Judges vii, 9, 14).
These were judges in Israel, and their acts seem to have gained the
divine approval. The number of their children is mentioned as if it
were an especial honor to have large families, which agrees with the
assertion of the Psalmist (Psalm cxxvii), that "children are an heritage
of the Lord," and- "blessed is he that hath his quiver full of them."
The fact that a sentiment the reverse of this prevails to a great extent
in most of the so-called "Christian" nations of the present age, is only
an indication that the period of apostasy has arrived which Hosea pre-
dicted (iv, 10), when he said, "they shall commit whoredoms and shall
not increase, because they have left off to take heed to the Lord."

To find any prohibition of polygamy we must go to human rather
than to divine law, and if we trace its history to its inception we will
find that it originated in opposition to marriage of any kind. " Chris-
tianity " was made a state religion in the year 324, when Constantine,
after the death of Licinius, ruled the Roman empire. It has been
remarked that "however favorable the protection of the civil magis-
trate was at that time, as well as in after times, to the Christian
religion, yet from hence we must date the misfortunes which have
attended the interference of human power, in the establishment of
human systems of faith and ceremony; the former of which have been
contrary to God's word, the latter utterly subversive of it." Among
other things which Constantine did was to abrogate the "ancient
Roman laws Julia and Papia wherein the desire of women and mar-
ried life were so much privileged and encouraged, and single and
unmarried life disadvantaged." (Mede's Works.)

Sozornen, an ancient Greek historian, says (Hist. Eccl. lib. i, chap,
ix): "There was an ancient law among the Romans, forbidding those,
who, after twenty -five years old, were unmarried, to enjoy the like
privileges with married ones; and besides many other things, that
they should have no benefit by testaments and legacies, unless they
were next of kindred; and those who had no children, to have half
their goods confiscated. Wherefore the emperor, seeing those who
for God's sake were addicted to chastity and virginity to be, for this
cause, in a worse condition; he published a law — that both those who
lived a single life and those who had no children, should enjoy like
privileges with others; yea, he enacted that those who lived in chastity
and -virginity, should be privileged above them; enabling both sexes,
though under }Tears, to make testaments, contrary to the accustomed
polity of the Romans."

Mede says of this: " That which the fathers had thus enacted the
sons also seconded, and some of the following emperors, by new edicts,
till there was no relic left of those ancient privileges wherewith mar-
ried men had been respected. This was the first step " (he must mean

KEED SMOOT. 223

by public authority of the government) " of the disregard of marriage,
and the desire of wiving; which was not an absolute prohibition, but
a discouragement. No sooner had the Roman bishop and his clergy
got the power into their hands, but it grew to an absolute prohibition,
not for monks only, but for the whole clergy; which was the highest
disrespect that could be to that which God had made honorable among
all men."

"Thelyphthora," a most exhaustive work on the subject of plural
marriage, published about a century since, the author of which was the
learned Dr. Martin Madan, of London, abounds with unanswerable
arguments and historical citations which are well worth reproducing,
but limited space forbids the insertion here of any more than the
following:

"The first public law in the (Roman) empire against polygamy was
at the 'latter end of the fourth century, about the year 393, by the
Emperor Theodosius; this was repealed by the Emperor Valentinian
about sixty years afterwards, and the subjects of the empire were per-
mitted to marry as many wives as they pleased." (Vol. 1, p. 211.)

" As for the practice of polygamy amongst the early Christians it
was probably very frequent. * So it would seem to have been

in times long after them, not only among the lahVf , but the clergy
also; for Pope Sylvester, about the year 335, made an ordinance that
every Priest should be the husband of one. wife only. So in the sixth
century, it was enacted in one of the canons of their councils, that if
any one is married to many wives, he shall do penance. * * * The
learned Selden has proved in his Uxor Haebraica, that polygamy was
allowed, not only amongst the Hebrews, but amongst most other
nations throughout the world; doubtless amongst the inhabitants of
that vast track of Asia throughout which the Gospel was preached by
the great apostle of the Gentiles, where so many Christian churches
were planted, as well as in the neighboring states of Greece." (Vol.
1, pages 192-194.)

" How polygamy became reprobated in the Christian church is easily
accounted for, when we consider how early the reprobation of marriage
itself began to appear. The Gnostics condemned marriage in the most
shocking terms, saying it was of the devil. Better people soon after-
wards condemned marriage as unlawful to Christians, and this under
a wild notion of greater purity and perfection in keeping from all
intercourse with the other sex. This opinion divided itself into many
sects, and gave great trouble to the church before it was discounte-
nanced. Still second marriages were hold infamous, and called no
better than lawful whoredom. Nay, they were not ashamed to write,
that, a man's first wife being dead, it was adultery and not marriage
to take another. Amidst all this, polygamy must necessarily receive
the severest anathema." (Page 291.)

" So far from Jesus Christ ever condemning polygamy, which as a
new lawgiver he is supposed to have done, he never mentioned it dur-
ing the whole course of his ministry, but left that, as he had all other
moral actions of men, upon the footing of that law under which he
was made, and to which he, for us men, and for our salvation, became
subject and obedient unto death. (Page 306.)

"Our chief reformers, Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Zuinglius, etc.,
after a solemn consultation at Wittemberg, on the question ' whether
for a man to have two wives at once, was contrary to the divine law?'

224 EEED SMOOT.

answered unanimously 4 that it was not ' — and on this authority, Philip
the Landgrave of Hesse actually married a second wife, his first being
alive." (Page 212.) The language of this council was "The Gospel
hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of
Moses with respect to marriage."

"We do not worship the same God which the Jews did, or the God
we worship doth not disallow nor disapprove polygamy." (Page 289.)

" Josephus says it was the custom of the Jews to live with a plural-
ity of wives — the custom of their country, derived from their fathers."
(Page 392.)

"The Jews and Greeks were wont to be married to two or three,
and even more wives together." (Page 244.)

' ' That polygamy was practiced throughout all ages of the Jewish
economy, cannot be denied. It is equally evident, that it was the
deliberate, open, avowed, and willful practice of the most holy and
excellent of the earth, of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the
friend of God (Is. xli, 8), as well as of the most illustrious of his
children; and this, without the least reproof or rebuke from God; or
the most distant hint or expression of his displeasure, either by Moses
or any other of the prophets. No trace of sorrow, remorse, or repent-
ance, touching this matter, is to be found in any one instance, and
therefore many commentators are at a loss to maintain the sinfulness
of polygamy, but at the expense of Scripture, reason and common
sense." (Page 89.)

"That there were many polygamists among the Gentile converts, as
well as among the Jewish, there can be but little doubt; for as Grotius
observes: fcAmong the Pagans, few nations were content with one
wife." (Pages 243-244.)

"If women taken by men already married were not lawful wives in
God's sight, then commerce with them was illicit, and the issue must
be illegitimate. Whither will this carry us? Even to bastardizing
the Messiah himself. Unless an after-taken wife be a lawful wife to
the man who takes her, notwithstanding his former wife being living,
whether we take our Lord's genealogy on his supposed father's side
with St. Matthew, or on his mother's side with St. Luke, Solomon the
ancester of Joseph, and Nathan the ancestor of Mary, through whom
our Lord's line runs back to David, being the children of Bathsheba
(whom when David married, he had also other wives by whom he had
children), must fail in their legitimacy." (Vol. 2, p. 14.)

"That polygamy and concubinage were both dispensations of God,
both modes of lawful and honorable marriage, is a proposition as clear
as the Hebrew scriptures can make it. That polygamy and concu-
binary contracts are deemed by the Christians null and void, a:id
stamped with the infamy of adultery and whoredom, is as certain as
that the canons and decreesvof the Church of Rome made them so.
The consequences of the former were the preservation of female
chastity, and the prevention of female ruin. The consequences of the
latter have been and still are the destruction of thousands of both
sexes, but more especially the females, in this world and the next."
(Vol. 3, pp. 278, 279.)

Grotius says: "The Jewish law restrains all filthiness, but allows a
plurality of wives to one man." And again: "When God permits a
thing in certain cases and to certain persons, or in regard to certain
nations, it may be Inferred that the thing permitted is not evil in its

EEED SMOOT. 225

own nature." * * "Polygamy, therefore, is not in its own

nature, evil and unlawful." He also quotes Persichta Zotertha as say-
ing, "It is very well known that those who pretend a plurality of
wives was prohibited, do not understand what the law is."

St. Augustine says: "There was a blameless custom of one man
having many wives — for there are many things which at that time
might be done in a way of duty, which now cannot be done but licen-
tiously— because, for the sake of multiplying posterity, no law forbade
a plurality of wives." Again he says: "It is objected against Jacob
that he had four wives," to which he replied: "which, when a custom
was not a crime." In another instance he alludes to the custom of
having several wives at the same time as an "innocent thing," and
observes that "it was prohibited by no law."

Puffendorf says: "The polygamy of the fathers under the old cove-
nant is a reason which ingenuous men must confess to be unanswer-
able." Again he says: "The Mosaical law was so far from forbidding
this custom that it seems in some places to suppose it."

St. Ambrose, speaking of polygamy, sa}rs that "God, in the terres-
trial paradise, approved of the marriage of one with one, but without
condemning the contrary practice."

St. Chrysostom, speaking of Sarah, says: "She endeavored to com-
fort her husband, under her barreness, with children by her handmaid,
for such things were not then forbidden." Again he says: " The law
permitted a man to have two wives at the same time; in short, great
indulgence was granted in those and other particulars."

Bucer, the great reformer, says : ' ' The concubines of the holy fathers
were of the lawful kind. And because the Lord will, that the digni-
ties and patrimonies which he has conferred on his people should be
preserved, it is altogether to be wished, that this kind of wives, as
observed among the noly patriarchs, might be again observed among
Christians, and especially in great and illustrious families."

Bellarmine says: "Polygamy is not repugnant to the law of nature,
which is divine, that one man might beget and bring up children by
more women than one."

Noldius, the eminent Danish theologian of the 17th century, says:
" The old Saints who were polygamists did not sin before God, because
they had a special and extraordinary dispensation."

Zuinglius says : ' 4 The Apostles had made no new law about polygamy,
but had left it as they found it."

Theodoret says that "in Abraham's time polygamy was forbidden
neither by the law of nature nor by any written law."

"As for the modern Jews," says Leo Mutinensis, "those of them
who live in the East still keep up their ancient practice of polygamy. '

Bishop Burnet says: "Polygamy was made, in some cases, a duty
by Moses' law; when any died without issue, his brother, or nearest
kinsman, was to marry his wife, for raising up seed to him; and all
were obliged to obey this under the hazard of infamy if they refused;
neither is there any exception for such as were married; from whence
I may conclude, that what God made necessary in some cases, to any
degree, can in no case be sinful in itself, since God is holy in all his
ways. And thus far it appears that polygamy is not contrary to the
law and nature of marriage."

Lord Bolingbroke, in his published "Works" says: "Polygamy has
always prevailed, and still prevails generally, if not universally, as a

226 REED SMOOT. .

reasonable indulgence to mankind. * * * Polygamy was allowed
by the Mosaical law and was authorized by God him self. * * *
The prohibition of polygamy is not only a prohibition of what nature
permits in the fullest manner, but of what she requires for the repara-
tion of states exhausted by wars, by plagues, and other calamities.
The prohibition is absurd, and the imposition" (of monogamy) "arbi-
trary. * * If it " (monogamy) "was the most perfect state there
is reason for wonder how the most perfect kind came to be established
by an uninspired lawgiver among the nations, whilst the least perfect
kind" (polygamy) "had been established by Moses the messenger and
prophet of God, among his chosen people."

Milton, in the "First Book on Christian Faith," amply proves, from
the Scriptures, the lawfulness of polygamy, and concludes as follows:
"Who can believe, either that so many men of the highest character
should have sinned through ignorance for so many ages; or that their
hearts should have been so hardened; or that God should have toler-
ated such conduct in his people? Let therefore the rule received
among theologians have the same weight here as in other cases: 'The
practice of the Saints is the best interpretation of the commandments.' "

"The marriage sj^stem of polygamy never formed a part of that
ceremonial dispensation which was abrogated by the New Testament;
nor has it ever been proved that the New Testament was designed to
affect any change in it; but the presumption is that this new dispensa-
tion has also left it, as it found it — abiding still in force. If any
change were to be made in an institution of such long standing, con-
firmed by positive law, it could obviously be made only by equally
positive and explicit ordinances or enactments of the gospel. But such
enactments are wanting. Christ himself was altogether silent in
respect to polygam}T, not once alluding to it; yet it was practiced at
the time of his advent throughout Judea and Galilee, and in all the
other countries of Asia and Africa, ard without doubt, by some of his
own disciples.

"The Book of the Acts is equally silent as the four Gospels are. No
allusion to it is found in any of the sermons or instructions or discus-
sions of the apostles and early saints recorded in that book. It was
not because Jesus or the apostles durst not condemn it, hud they con-
sidered it sinful, that they did not speak of it, for Jesus hesitated not
to denounce the sins of hypocrisy, covetousness, and adultery, and
even to alter and amend, apparently, the ancient laws respecting
divorce and retaliation; but he never rebuked them for their polygamy,
nor instituted any change in that system. And this uniform silence,
so far as it implies anything, implies approval.

" John the Baptist was thrown into prison, where he was afterwards
beheaded, for reproving King Herod, on account of his adultery; and
wo cannot doubt that, if he had considered polygamy to be sinful, he
would have mentioned it; for Herod's father was, just before that
time, living with nine wives, whose names are recorded by Josephus,
in his 'Antiquities of the Jews;' but John only reproved him for mar-
rying Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, while his brother was liv-
ing. He administered the same reproof to Herod that Nathan had
formerly done to David, and for similar reasons." — History and Phil-
osophy of Marriage.

Now I call attention to the work entitled " Mormonism. The Rela-
tion of the Church to Christian Sects. Origin and History of Mor-

REED SMOOT. 227

monism. Doctrines of the Church. Church Organization. Present
Status. By B. H. Roberts. Published by the Church. Deseret News
Print, Salt Lake City."

That is the title page. On page 65 of this document appears the
statement

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, as to B. H. Roberts, referred to there.
What Roberts is that?

Mr. TAYLER. That is Brigham H. Roberts, if that is any more definite.

Senator BAILEY. Who was once refused permission to take his oath
as a Representative ?

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the Roberts ?

Mr. TAFLER. That is the same one, I believe, Senator Bailey.

Senator BAILEY. I voted to seat him.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, I know.

On page 65 it appears that the date of this publication was 1902.
On the opposite side of the leaf from the title are these words:

44 Copyrighted by Joseph F. Smith for the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints."

On the first page is UA word with the reader." The opening sen-
tence is as follows:

"This brochure is issued under the authority of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is therefore an authoritative utterance
upon the subject of which it treats."

I read now from page 81, under the chapter of "Origin and history
of Mormon ism:"

"As a rule it has been the policy of sectarian ministers to denounce
the Mormon leaders, whom the Mormon people held in highest esteem
for their unselfish devotion to the general welfare of the Church, and
the purity and integrity of their lives; and instead of hearing what
sectarian people would consider the more pure doctrines of the Chris-
tian religion expounded, Mormons were treated to a derision of their
own faith, to them sacred and divine. The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latterday Saints being attacked by these parties both political and
religious (and they generally made common cause against the Mor-
mons) the Mormon people were compelled to unite for self preserva-
tion, and hence arose in Utah what must ever be regarded as an anom-
aly in American politics, viz. a Church and anti- Church party.

"This led many honest people to the supposition that Mormons
believed in the union of church and state under our form of govern-
ment; which, however, has no other foundation for it than these
seemings which arose from the conditions here explained. The
unnatural and undesirable contest was continued until it was seen that
such a course was retarding the material interests of the Territory,
and was hindering Utah from taking the political station in the union
to which both the resources of the Territory and the character of her
people entitled her. Wiser counsels prevailed; the unprofitable con-
flict between Church and anti-Church party was abandoned, and all
united in a demand for statehood which finally was granted, Utah
being admitted into the Union in the year 1896."

Page 45, Paragraph IX. The heading of that paragraph is this:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal
and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important
things pertaining to the kingdom of God,"

228 REED SMOOT.

And it reads as follows:

"From this it will be seen that the Latter-day Saints are as far from
believing that the fountain of revelation is dried up as they are that
the Bible alone contains all the revelations God has given to man.
The theory that revelations, the visitations of angels, the enjoyment
of the spirit of prophecy, were all to cease when the Church of Christ
was fully established by the ministry of the Apostles, is one of the
inventions of the apostate churches to excuse the absence of these
divine spiritual powers in the godless institutions which usurped the
place of the Church of Christ long centuries ago.

"In the faith of the Latter-day Saints, it is the privilege and right
of the Church of Christ for ever to be in continuous and constant
spiritual communication with her Spouse, the Lord; which, however,
she can only possess by the enjoyment of continuous revelation, the
visitation of angels, and the possession of the Holy Ghost, which is
the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy. Instead of
teaching that the day of revelation and the visitation of angels has
ceased, it is the mission of the Church to bear witness that these spir-
itual privileges are to be more and more enjoyed, until all things in
heaven and in earth shall be gathered together in one, in Christ Jesus
our Lord; and to proclaim to the world that it is the morning rather
than the evening of revelation from God to man ; and that as the heav-
ens are full of days, so too are they full of light and knowledge to be
revealed unto the children of men in God's own due time; and while
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reverently believes
all that God has revealed, as well to men in the Western hemisphere
as to men in the Eastern world, she looks confidently forward to still
greater revelations in the future than has been given in the past."

Page 48, Chapter XII. The italicized words are, I believe, part of
the creed.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Tayler, what is this that you are now
reading from designed to show 1 I see the pertinence of the former
things, but what is the pertinence of this you are reading now ?

Mr. TAYLER. What I have just read?

Senator BEVERIDGE. The whole thing you had read in the book.
What is the point you are trying to establish ?

Mr. TAYLER. I have conceived it is important for us to understand
what was the meaning of their dogma of revelations and constant
communication and contact with the Almighty. I conceive that that
is a very important thing, as indicating the power and authority of
the church, as accepted by its people, and the domination of one who
claims to have received divine revelations over those who are sup-
posed to be subject to them when received.

Senator BEYERIDGE. That would apply, then, equally to any member
of this church?

Mr. TAYLER. It might.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that if you consider that point valid, then
any member of this church could not be fit to sit as a United States
Senator, so far as this particular quotation is concerned and the point
you wish to establish by it?

Mr. TAYLER. No; it would not apply with anything like equal force
to a member of the church as to an apostle, because surely whatever
anybody in the church can believe or stand for an apostle must stand for;
but we have already heard from Mr. Smith of the liberty of conscience

REED 8MOOT. 229

and belief with which the body of the church ma}7 be properly
endowed.

This is Chapter XII.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."

And on page 49 at the bottom of the page, after quoting on the sub-
ject of obedience to laws, the text is:

' ' Such have been and are the views of the Latter-day Saints relative to
laws and governments in general, and man's duty to obey the constituted
authority of civil government. If in the history of the Church there
has been any apparent deviation from the principles here announced,
and which have been proclaimed by The Church, at least from the year
1835, when they were adopted by the spiritual authorities of The
Church at Kirtland, Ohio, it has been for the reason that laws have
been enacted against the practice of religious principles which God
revealed to his Church; and upon the Latter-day Saints devolved the
duty of contending in a lawful manner for the right to practice the
principles which God has revealed to them, as well as to believe them.
Under such circumstances only has there been any conflict between
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the civil author-
ities of any government."

On page 53:

"The marriage system of the church."

I read from the bottom of the page:

"In such a presentation of Mormonism as it is desired this brochure
shall be, something of incompleteness would attach to it if nothing be
said concerning the marriage system of The Church. In common with
the Christian sects the Latter-Day Saints in the early years of the
Church's existence, regarded marriage vaguely as an institution to
exist in this world only; and married as Christian professors now do
until death doth them part; but by the revelation on marriage given
through the prophet Joseph Smith, the Saints learned that in celestial
spheres the marriage relation exists eternally; and that the pleasing
joys of family ties and associations, coupled with the power of endless
increase, contributes to the power, happiness and dominion of those
who attain to the celestial glory.

" What a revelation was this. Instead of the God-given power of
procreation being one of the things to pass away, it is one of the chief
means of man's exaltation and glory in eternity. Through it men
attain to the glory of an endless increase of eternal lives, and the right
of presiding as priest and patriarch, king and lord, over his ever
increasing posterity. Instead of the commandment 'Multiply and
replenish the earth' being an unrighteous law, to be regarded askance,
and as something evil, it is one by which the race of man is to be
eternally perpetuated; and is as holy and pure as the commandment
' Repent and be baptized."'

Going to the bottom of page 54:

"Celestial marriage also includes under certain conditions, restric-
tions and obligations, a plurality of wives. Such prominence indeed
has been given to this feature of the marriage system of the church
that to a great extent it has obscured the grandeur and importance of
the principle of the eternity of the marriage covenant. Plurality of
wives, of course, was as great an i nnovation in the marriage system of the
world as marriage for eternity was. It comes in conflict, too, only not

230 REED SMOOT.

with the education and traditions of the modern world, but in conflict
with the prejudices of the Saints themselves; yet God had commanded
its introduction into the world, and though the prejudices of the Saints
revolted against it, the faithful to whom it was revealed resolved to
obey it, and in the introduction of this principle of the marriage
system of the Church, the prophet Joseph Smith himself led the
way."

Then follows a statement, historically correct, I do not doubt, refer-
ring to the passage of the several laws and the decision of the court,
and the prosecution of many persons for polygamy and polygamous
cohabitation; and finally, on page 56, at the bottom:

"Meantime Government was relentless, and still more stringent
measures than those already enacted were threatened. In the midst
of these afflictions and threatening portents, President Wilford Wood-
ruff besought the Lord in Prayer, and the Lord inspired him to issue
the manifesto which discontinued the practice of plural marriage. At
the semiannual conference in October following, the action of Presi-
dent Woodruff was sustained by unanimous vote of the conference,
and plural marriages were discontinued in the Church. In the matter
of plural marriage, the Latter-Day Saints are neither responsible for
its introduction nor for its discontinuance. The Lord commanded its
practice and in the face of the sentiment of ages, and in opposition to
the teachings of their own traditions, many of the Saints obeyed the
commandment, and in the midst of weakness, difficulties and dangers
sought to carry out that law as revealed to them. * * *

" If the labors and sufferings of the Church of Christ for this prin-
ciple have done nothing more, this much at least has been accom-
plished— the Saints have borne testimony to the truth. And it is for
God to vindicate His own law and orjen the way for its establishment
on the earth, which doubtless he will do when ifis Kingdom shall
come in power, and when His will shall be done in earth as it is in
heaven."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have omitted certain passages on that

,ge. Will you put it all in?

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, yes; it will all be put in by the reporter.

Chapters IX to XIII are as follows:

IX.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,
and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important
things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

From this it will be seen that the Latter-day Saints are as far from
believing that the fountain of revelation is dried up as they are that
the Bible alone contains all the revelations God has given to man.
The theory that revelations, the visitations of angels, the enjoyment
of the spirit of prophecy, were all to cease when the Church of Christ
was fully established, by the ministry of the apostles, is one of the
inventions of the apostate churches to excuse the absence of these
divine spiritual powers in the godless institutions which usurped the
place of the Church of Christ long centuries ago.

In the faith of the Latter-day Saints it is, the privilege and right of
the Church of Christ for ever to be in continuous and constant spiritual

REED SMOOT. 231

communication with her Spouse, the Lord; which, however, she can
only possess by the enjoyment of continuous revelation, the visitation
of angels, and the possession of the Holy Ghost, which is the testimony
of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy. Instead of teaching that
the day of revelation and the visitation of angels has ceased, it is the
mission of the Church to bear witness that these spiritual privileges
are to be more and more enjoyed, until all things in heaven ana in
earth shall be gathered together in one, in Christ Jesus our Lord; and
to proclaim to the world that it is the morning rather than the evening
of revelation from God to man; and that as the heavens are full of
days, so too are they full of light and knowledge to be revealed unto
the children of men in God's own due time: and while the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reverently believes all that God has
revealed, as well to men in the Western hemisphere as to men in the
Eastern world, she looks confidently forward to still greater revela-
tions in the future than has been given in the past.

(Latter Day Revelations: — Isa. xxviii. 10, 13; Acts ii. 17, 18; Mai.
iii. 1, 4; Mai. iv; Isa. xi; Ezek. xx. 33, 38; Matt. xxiv. 31; Rev. xiv.
6, 7: Joel ii. 28, 32; Heb. i. 5; Zech. xiv.)

X.

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and in the restoration
of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon this (the American)
continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that
the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

Notwithstanding Israel and Judah have been scattered, their temple
destroyed and their chief city trodden down of the Gentiles, the
remnant of this favored people of God, according to the promises of
the Lord, are to be gathered together again and established upon the
lands given by covenant unto their forefathers. The keys necessary
lor the inauguration of this work were given to the prophet Joseph
Smith, and the work of gathering together the outcasts of Israel has
begun.

Relative to the establishment of Zion in the land of America, that
is a matter that is revealed in the Book of Mormon and in the revela-
tions of God to the prophet Joseph Smith. In the latter it is made
known that the center place of Zion, the Holy City of this land of
America, will be located in Jackson county, Missouri, where the town
of Independence now stands. Early in the history of the church — in
the summer of 1831 — this land was dedicated to the Lord to be the
gathering place of the Saints, and the site for the temple was chosen.
The personal reign of Christ on earth, the renewal of the earth into
its paradisiacal glory are all matters of prediction even in the New
Testament scriptures. The Latter-day Saints look forward to the lit-
eral fulfillment* of those promises and they believe that the reign of
Christ will be a literal one, and that Messiah will dwell with his
people.

(Gathering of Israel in the Last Days: — Jer. xxx; Isa. xliii. 5, 9;
Jer. xxxi; Jer. xxxii. 37; Isa. xlix. 22, 26; Isa. xi. 10, 16; Zech. x.
6, 12; Zech. xiv; Jer. xxiii. 3, 8; Ezek. xxxviii; Ezek. xxxix )

(Reign of Christ on Earth:— Isaiah Ixv. 17, 20; Isa. xxiv. 23; Isa.
ii. 3; Dan. vii. 13, 14; II Thes. ii. 1, 3; Rev. xi. 15; Rev. XJT. 4, 6;
Rev. v. 10.)

232 REED 8MOOT.

XI.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to
the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privi-
lege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

This claim is made in the interest of the political and civils rights of
the Saints rather than as the announcement of a religious doctrine;
and it is to be observed that the Saints concede to others the political
and civil rights which they claim for themselves. While it may be
true in these modern days, as it was of ancient times, that the procla-
mation of the religion of Jesus Christ has brought not peace but "a
sword" into the world, still the "sword." has ever been found in the
hands of those who have been opposed to the religion of the Saints,
never in the hands of the Latter-da}^ Saints, save in the way of self
defense.

The Saints have never believed that they had any right (and cer-
tainly they never have had the power) to enforce their belief upon
any people except to the extent of their ability to persuade them of
its truth. Indeed it is part of the doctrine of the church that "No
power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the
priesthood " (under which power the church work is accomplished)
" only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness,
and by love unfeigned, by kindness, and by pure knowledge, which
shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy and without guile. "-
Doc. and Cov., sec. 121, 41-42.

XII,

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magis-
trates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.

In this article they confess their obligations to civil government.
" We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit
of man, and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation
to them, either in making laws or administering them, for the good
and safety of society.

" Wre believe that no government can exist in peace, except such
laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the
free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the
protection of life.

" We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers
and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same, and that such as will
administer the law in equity and justice, should be sought for and
upheld by the voice of the people (if a republic) or the will of the sov-
ereign.

"We believe that religion is instituted of God, and that men are
amenable to Him, and to Him only, for the exercise of it, unless their
religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liber-
ties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to
interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men,
nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magis-
trate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should pun
ish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the
respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their

REED SMOOT. 233

inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and
that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus pro-
tected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments
have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgment are best cal-
culated to secure the public interest, at the same time, however, hold-
ing sacred the freedom of conscience.

" We believe that every man should be honored in his station; rulers
and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent,
and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws, all men owe
respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be
supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the
express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations,
between man and man ; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing
rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered
by man to his Maker." — Doc. and Cov., sec. 134, 1-7.

Such have been and are the views of the Latter-day Saints relative
to laws and governments in general, and Man's duty to obey the con-
stituted authority of civil government. If in the history of the Church
there has been any apparent deviation from the principles here
announced, and which have been proclaimed by The Church at least
from the year 1835, when they were adopted by the spiritual authori-
ties of The Church at Kirtland, Ohio, it has been for the reason that
laws have been enacted against the practice of religious principles which
God revealed to His Church; and upon the Latter-day Saints devolved
the duty of contending in a lawful manner for the right to practice the
principles which God has revealed to them, as well as to believe them.
Under such circumstances only has there been any conflict between The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the civil authorities of
any government.

XIII.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and
in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follov: the admo-
nition of Paul: — "We believe all things, we hope all things," we
have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things.
If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praise-
worthy, we seek after these things.

This has to do with the ethical part of their religion, but the article
is in itself so comprehensive, direct and clear, that it does not require
either enlargement or explanation.

ADDITIONAL DOCTRINES — (a) SALVATION OF THE DEAD.

Under this heading I propose to briefly discuss the question of the
application of the gospel to those who lived when it was not in the
earth; or when in the earth was not preached to them. It is apparent
that such conditions as here alluded to have existed, and the question,
What is the condition of those who have not heard the gospel preached
in this earth -life is both interesting and important. It must be clear
that those nations and races here referred to have some claim upon
God, and since the Christian religion assumes, and that rightly, to
teach the only way of salvation, it devolves upon the Christian sects
to give some reasonable explanation of this matter. In what way will
the gospel be applied to the uninstructed dead ? The Church of Jesus

234 REED SMOOT.

Christ of Latter-day Saints offers a rational solution to this problem
in her doctrine of "salvation for the dead."

From a remark made in the writings of the Apostle Peter we learn
that after the Messiah was put to death in the flesh " he went uml
preached unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient,
when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah."'.*
During the three days, then, that the Messiah's body lay in the tomb
at Jerusalem, His spirit was in the world of spirits preaching to those
who had rejected the teaching of righteous Noah. The Christian tra-
ditions, no less than the scriptures, hold that Christ went into hell
and preached to those there held in ward. Not only is the mere fact
of Messiah's going to the spirits in prison stated in the scriptures, but
the purpose of His going there is learned from the same source.
" For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live
according to God in tho spirit."6

This manifestly means that the spirits who had once rejected the coun-
sels of God against themselves had the gospel again presented to them
and had the privilege of living according to its precepts in the spirit
life; and of being judged according to men in the flesh, or as men in
the flesh will be judged; that is, according to the degree of their faith-
fullness to the precepts of the gospel . It should be observed from the
foregoing scripture that even to those who had rejected the gospel in
the days of Noah it was again presented by the ministry of the Lord
Jesus Christ; upon which consideration the following reflection forces
itself upon the mind: viz. If the gospel is preached again to those
who have once rejected it, how much sooner, will it be presented to
those who never heard it — who lived in those generations when neither
the gospel nor the authority to administer the ordinances were in the
earth? Seeing that those who had rejected it had it again preached to
them (after paying the penalty for their disobedience), surely those
who lived when it was not upon the earth or who, when it was upon
the earth perished in ignorance of it, will much sooner come to
salvation.

The manner in which the ordinances of the gospel may be adminis-
tered to those who have died without having received them is plainly
stated by Paul. Writing to the Corinthians on the subject of the
resurrection — correcting those who said there was no resurrection-
he asks: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead,
if the dead arise not at all ? Why are they then baptized for the dead ? "
In this the apostle manifestly refers to the practice which existed
among the Christian saints of the living being baptized for the dead;
and argues from the existence of that practice that the dead must rise,
or why the necessity of being baptized for them? This passage of the
scripture of itself is sufficient to establish the fact that such an ordi-
nance as baptism for the dead was known among the ancient saints.

In the present dispensation of the gospel committed to the earth
through the revelations of God to the Prophet Joseph Smith, this
application of the ordinances of the gospel to the dead has been a spe-
cial feature. Among the earliest revelations given to the prophet,
even before the Church itself was organized, was one in which the
promise was renewed that is given in the word of the Lord through

« I Peter iii, 18, 21. & 1 Peter 4, (i.

REED SMOOT. 235

Malachi, viz: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn
the heart of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children
to their fathers, least I come and smite the earth with a curse."

In fulfillment of this ancient prophecy the prophet Elijah appeared
in the Kirtland Temple on the third day of April, 1836, to Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery, and delivered to those men the keys or
powers of the priesthood which give to the living the right to do a
work for the salvation of the dead ; and as a consequence the hearts of
the children are turned to the fathers; and, of course, since the fathers
in the spirit world, through the preaching of the gospel, learn that it is
within the power of their children to do a work for them in the earth,
their hearts are turned to the children; and thus the predicted result
of Elijah's mission will be fulfilled.

The work the living may do for the dead is that of attending to out-
ward ordinances — baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, washings,
anointings, and sealings — all being appointed by revelation and direc-
tion of the Lord, and all sealed and ratified by the power of the priest-
hood of God which binds on earth and in heaven. It is required that
all baptisms and other ordinances of the gospel to be performed for
the dead be attended to in houses — and more properly in temples —
especially dedicated for such holy purposes. In pursuance of this work
and that it may be acceptably done unto the Lord, the Latter-day
Saints have built at great sacrifice of labor and means, so many costly
temples. One at Nauvoo; one at Salt Lake City; one at Logan; one
at Manti, and one at St. George; in which the ordinances of salvation
for the dead as well as for the living are being daily performed; for
the Saints believe that the fathers without them cannot be made per-
fect, neither can they be made perfect without the fathers.

There must be a sealing and binding together of all the generations
of men until the family of God shall be perfectly joined in holiest
bonds and ties of mutual affections. These ordinances attended to on
earth by the living, and accepted in the spirit world by those for whom
they are performed, will make them a potent means of salvation to
the dead, and of exaltation to the living, since the latter become in
very deed "saviors upon Mount Zion." This work that can be done
for the dead enlarges one's views of the gospel of Jesus Christ. One
begins to see indeed that it is the "everlasting gospel;" for it runs
parallel with man's existence both in this life and in that which is to
come.

ADDITIONAL DOCTRINES (7)) THE MARRIAGE SYSTEM OF THE CHURCH.

In such a presentation of Mormonism as it is desired this brochure
shall be, something of incompleteness would attach to it if nothing be
said concerning the marriage system of The Church. In common
with the Christian sects the Latter-day Saints in the early years of The
Church's existence, regarded marriage vaguely as an institution to
exist in this world only; and married as Christian professors now do,
until death doth them part; but by the revelation on marriage given
through the prophet Joseph Smith, the Saints learned that in celestial
spheres the marriage relation exists eternally; and that the pleasing
joys of family ties and associations, coupled with the power of endless
increase, contributes to the happiness, power and dominion of those
who attain to the celestial glory.

236 REED SMOOT.

What a revelation was this! Instead of the God -given power of
procreation being one of the things to pass away, it is one of the chief
means of man's exaltation and glory in eternity. Through it men
attain to the glory of an endless increase of eternal lives, and the right
of presiding as priest and patriarch, king, and lord, over his ever-
increasing posterity. Instead of the commandment "Multiply and
replenish the earth " being an unrighteous law, to be regarded askance,
and as something evil, it is one by which the race of man is to be eter-
nally perpetuated; and is as holy and pure as the commandment
"Repent and be baptized." The new marriage system, then, or,
rather, the old marriage system of the patriarchs restored to the earth
through this revelation — consists in the eternit}^ of the marriage cove-
nant; that is, the marriage covenant between a man and his wife is
made for time and all eternit}^ and being sealed by that power of the
priesthood "which binds on earth and in heaven," the covenant holds
good in heaven as well as on earth; ineternit}7 as well as in time; after
as well as before the resurrection from the dead; and by reason of it
men will have claim upon their wives and wives upon their husbands
throughout eternity.

Celestial marriage also includes under certain conditions, restric-
tions and obligations, a plurality' of wives. Such prominence indeed
has been given to this feature of the marriage system of The Church
that to a great extent it has obscured the grandeur and importance of
the principle of the eternity of the marriage covenant. Plurality of
wives, of course, was as great an innovation in the marriage system
of the world as marriage for eternity was. It comes in conflict, too,
not only with the education and traditions of the modern world, but
in conflict with the prejudices of the Saints themselves; yet God had
commanded its introduction into the world, and though the prejudices
of the Saints revolted against it, the faithful to whom it was revealed
resolved to obey it, and in the introduction of this principle of the
marriage system of The Church, the prophet Joseph Smith himself
led the way.

Its introduction into The Church originally was confined within a
small circle of the faithful brethren and sisters; and it was not until
The Church had settled in the Rocky Mountain valleys of Utah, that
it was publicly proclaimed as a doctrine of The Church unto the world.
The practice of it was then made public. The whole Church — and at
that time (1852) the members of The Church comprised nearly the
whole community of Utah — approving the principle, which was at
once recognized as a proper religious institution.

For ten years the practice in Utah of this system of marriage met
with no opposition from the United States Government. But in 1862
a law was enacted by Congress to punish and prevent the practice of
" polygamy " in the Territories of the United States. The penalties
affixed were a fine, not to exceed five hundred dollars, and imprison-
ment not to exceed five years. For twenty years, however, this law
remained practically a dead letter. It was claimed by the Saints that
it was an infringement of the religious liberty guaranteed by the Con-
stitution of the United States, since it prohibited the practice of a
religious doctrine. a For twenty years no pronounced effort was made
by the officers of the general government to enforce the law.

« "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohib-
iting the free exercise thereof." (Amendments to Constitution, Article I.)

REED 8MOOT. 237

In 1882, however, the law enacted twenty years before was supple-
mented by what is known as the " Edmunds Law. " In addition to
defining the crime of ""polygamy" — for which it retained the same
penalties as the law of 1862 — the " Edmunds Law" also made cohabit-
ing with more than one woman a crime, punishable by a fine not to
exceed three hundred dollars, and by imprisonment not to exceed
six months. This law also rendered persons who were living in
"polygamy," or who believed in its rigntfulness, incompetent to act
as grand or petit jurors; and also disqualified all polygamists for vot-
ing or holding office. This law of 1882 was again supplemented by
the tk Edmunds-Tucker Law" — enacted in 1887 — which made the legal
wife or husband, in cases of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, a
competent witness, provided the accused consented thereto; it also
enlarged the powers of the United States commissioners and marshals,
and required certificates of all marriages to be filed in the office of the
probate court. The penalty for the violation of this last provision
was a fine of one thousand dollars, and imprisonment for two years.
The law disincorporated The Church and ordered the supreme court
to wind up its affairs, and take possession of the escheated property.

The laws were rigorously enforced by the United States officials,
special appropriations being made by Congress to enable them to carry
on a judicial crusade against the Saints. The prominent Church offi-
cials were driven into retirement; others into exile. Homes were
disrupted; family ties were rent asunder. Upwards of a thousand men
endured fines and imprisonment in the penitentiary rather than be
untrue to their families. Every effort of the government to deprive
the Saints of their religious liberty was stubbornly contested in the
courts, until the decision of the supreme court of the United States
was obtained. While some of the proceedings of the courts in Utah
in enforcing the anti-polygamy laws were condemned, the laws them-
selves were sustained as constitutional. The court also held that the
first amendment to the Constitution, which provides that Congress
shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, cannot be invoked
against legislation for the punishment of plural marriages.

Meantime Government was relentless, and still more stringent meas-
ures than those already enacted were threatened. In the midst of
these afflictions and threatening portents, President Wilford Woodruff
besought the Lord in prayer, and the Lord inspired him to issue the
manifesto which discontinued the practice of plural marriage. At
the semi-annual conference in October following, the action of Presi-
dent Woodruff was sustained by unanimous vote of the conference,
and plural marriages were discontinued in the Church. In the matter
of plural marriage, the Latter-day Saints are neither responsible for
its introduction nor for its discontinuance. The Lord commanded its
practice and in the face of the sentiment of ages, and in opposition to
the teachings of their own traditions, many of the Saints obeyed the
commandment, and in the midst of weakness, difficulties and dangers
sought to carry out that law as revealed to them.

For about half a century they maintained its practice in the face of
opposition sufficient to appall the stoutest hearts. They defended it
in the public press, proclaimed it from the pulpit, debated it on the
platform with all who chose to assail it, and practiced it in their lives, not-
withstanding fines and imprisonments threatened; and when the power
of the government was vigorously employed to enforce its laws against

238 REED SMOOT.

the institution, hundreds of men cheerfully endured both fines and
imprisonment rather than be untrue to it. A whole generation had
been born and had grown to manhood and womanhood in this marriage
system, and the affections of family ties were entwined with it. Then,
under the presure of suffering brought upon the people through the
laws of the United States, the Lord permitted the President of The
Church to proclaim its discontinuance. The Saints submitted, and
there the matter rests. If the labors and sufferings of The Church of
Christ for this principle have done nothing more, this much at least
has been accomplished — the Saints have borne testimony to the truth.
And it is for God to vindicate His own law and open the way for its
establishment on the earth, which doubtless He will do when His
kingdom shall come in power, and when His will shall be done in earth
as it is in heaven.

The CHAIRMAN. You offer that book ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I offer that book.

The CHAIRMAN. If }rou are to do that, Mr. Tayler, can you not do
it by omitting a good deal of the reading?

Mr. TAYLER. I have not much to read now.

Senator HOAR. I would like to know at some convenient time from
Mr. Tayler what in Mr. Smith's statement he expects to contradict
and what of it he accepts ? I understand that Mr. Smith's statement
is in substance this:

That he and his church accept certain divine revelations which have
come to them, including him as one of its presidents, in the past; that
one of those divine revelations was an injunction to polygamy, to plu-
rality of wives; that he interprets that injunction not to mean that it
is binding on all men under all circumstances, but that it is like simi-
lar injunctions to persons who believe in monogamy, and that that is
shown by the fact that that was the construction of it; that only 3 or
4 per cent in old times of that communion lived in polygamy; that
thereafter, and after the practice of polygamy had been declared an
offense by the civil law, there was another revelation suspending — I
will not use the word retracting, but not for the future requiring —
polygamy, and that from that time forward his church has ceased to
inculcate it, and has regarded the practice of polygamy , with the excep-
tion I am about to state, an offense, and has obe}^ed the civil law; that
there have been since then no plural marriages under the sanction or
with the knowledge of the church or a society, but that he himself and,
according to his belief, other persons in high places of authority of
the church, and with his full approbation, 1 suppose, have said that
while they would contract no more plural marriages and would resist,
with all their influence and all the authority of the church, any new
one, and while the church has never sanctioned or solemnized one
since that later revelation, they will not desert the wives and the chil-
dren to whom they had been married under the old dispensation, and
that he himself has maintained those wives and their children in sep-
arate families, and has lived in the relation of husband and wife with
them so that new children have been borne to him by all of them.

1 do not know that 1 have given the whole statement, but in sub-
stance. I think it would shorten and make clear this inquiry if we
were to know whether you expect to controvert that statement in
whole or in part. If I have in any particular misstated it, I wish Mr.
Smith would point out the particular in which i have misstated it.

REED SMOOT. 239

Mr. SMITH. 1 understand, Mr. Senator, that you have stated the
case as I understand it.

Senator HOAR. Without expressing or intimating any opinion of
mine on the proper deduction from that, it seems to me the committee
ought now very soon to know from you whether the evidence which
you have been reading here for the last hour is simply in confirmation
of what Mr. Smith has admitted, and I should like to know whether
in any particular you expect to controvert that statement.

Mr. TAYLER. We expect to show that many plural marriages have
been solemnized in Utah since the manifesto of 1890. The statement
that it was not done by the sanction or authority of the church I do
not know that we can contradict.

Senator HOAR. You neither admit nor deny at present?

Mr. TAYLER. We expect to prove that plural marriages of people
who held official positions in the church have occurred, and that the
church must know about it, whether they countenanced it at the
beginning, or by their higher officials solemnized it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And that therefore Mr. Smoot must know that.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 can not connect Mr. Smoot with every sentence I
utter. Of course Mr. Smoot is a part of this hierarchy, and we have
got to weave this thing as one fabric and not as continued separate
threads.

Senator HOAR. That is, that this nonabandonment of polygamy you
expect to show is so general as to satisfy us that it is colorable or
pretended and not real.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely.

Senator HOAR. That is a fair offer to make.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, as to what I have been doing, of course 1 read
from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants for a manifest purpose as
showing what the revelation was. From these other books I have
read for the purpose of showing that the church is promulgating the
doctrine of polygamy throughout the world, as we charged them with
doing and as Mr. Smith denies he is doing, and surely when a book
written by an assistant historian of the church, owned and copyrighted
by the church itself, is spread broadcast and proclaimed to be written
for the purpose of being spread broadcast over the earth advising
them how holy, how divine, both in its origin and in its practice except
as local lav/ may prevent its practice, the relation of husband to plural
wives is, then 1 think we have shown that the church is publicly pro-
claiming its indorsement of that position. But of course I want to be
very brief and only indicate what it is.

Senator HOAR. 1 think bringing out ^ this statement on both sides,
from you and from the president of the church, has been of value to
this hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what else, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. A ver}^ brief reference to the book concerning which
Mr. Smith testified, of which the title page is as follows:

"The Articles of Faith. A Series of Lectures on the Principal
Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterda}^ Saints. By Dr.
James E. Talmage. Written by appointment; and published by the
Church. The Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1901."

On page 314 of this work-
Senator PETTUS. When does it appear to have been first published,

it appears at all 'I

240 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLEB. The preface to the first edition is dated April 3, 1899.

The CHAIRMAN. Wnat is the title of that book?

Mr. TAYLER. This is The Articles of Faith.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you go to that, what was the book you first
read from ?

Mr. TAYLER. The Doctrine and Covenants.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that one of the books identified as used by mis-
sionaries ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; the Doctrine and Covenants.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is one of the four standard books, Mr. Chair-
man.

Mr. TAYLER. I want to say right there that I am presenting and
reading from nothing whose date is not since the manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. But that is one of the four standard works?

Mr. TAYLER. One of the four standard works.

The CHAIRMAN. To which Mr. Smith referred?

Mr. TAYLER. It is the only one of the four standard works from
which 1 quoted — that is, standard in the sense in which that adjective
was used by him.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; go ahead.

Mr. TAYLER. The preface to the second edition of this book on the
articles of faith is dated Salt Lake City, Utah, December, 1901, and
Mr. Smith has told us of the position which Doctor Talmage occupies
in one of their colleges or schools.

On page 314, section 13, is the heading "Continual revelation
necessar}^." I do not read any more from that.

On page 315, section 14:

"It is at once unreasonable, and directly contrary to our conception
of the unchangeable justice of God, to believe that He will bless the
Church in one dispensation with a present living revelation of His
will, and in another leave the Church, to which He gives His name, to
live as best it may according to the laws of a by-gone age," etc.

Page 323, section 31:

"Revelation Yet Future. — In view of the demonstrated facts that
revelation between God and man has ever been and is a characteristic
of the Church of Christ, it is reasonable to await with confident expec-
tation the coming of other messages from heaven, even until the end
of man's probation on earth. The Church is, and will continue to be,
as truly founded on the rock of revelation as it was in the day of
Christ's prophetic blessing upon Peter, who by this gift of God was
able to testify of his Lord's divinity. Current revelation is equally
plain with that of former days, in predicting the yet future manifes-
tations of God through this appointed channel. The canon of scrip-
ture is still open; many lines, many precepts, are yet to be added;
revelation, surpassing in importance and glorious fulness any that has
been recorded, will yet be given to the Church and be declared to the
world."

On page 434 is the last quotation I make from this paragraph
22, under the head of " Submission to secular authority":

"Pending the over-ruling by Providence in favor of religious
liberty, it is the duty of the Saints to submit themselves to the laws
of their country. Nevertheless, they should use every proper method,
as citizens or subjects of their several governments, to secure for
themselves and for all men the boon of freedom in religious duties."

REED SMOOT. 241

Then, omitting two or three sentences which I omit because I do
not know what they refer to:

"And if by thus submitting themselves to the laws of the land, in
the event of such laws being unjust and subversive of human freedom,
the Saints be prevented from doing the work appointed them of God,
they are not to be held accountable for the failure to act under the
higher law."

Now I want to refer to this book which was identified by Mr. Smith
as " Cowley's Talks on Doctrine. By Elder M. F. Cowley, one of the
Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Published by Ben E. Rich, Chattanooga, Tenn. 1902."

On page 182—

Mr. VAN COTT. What is the date of that work, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. 1902. There is a good deal here on the subject of
marriage, but I de.sire to say that I have been unable to find in this
book any reference at all to the manifesto of 1890.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you make that same statement for the Articles
of Faith, by Doctor Talmage, that you just read from, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. No. I read from the book of Mr. Roberts that there
was a suspension of it, and it is undoubtedly stated, and is quoted in
your reply here and is before the committee, that there is a reference
in that to the suspension of this law by the manifesto of 1890; but in
this work there is no such suspension according to my examination of
it. There is a discussion and description of polygamous marriage —
marriage, not so much about polygamous marriage. But this is the
last paragraph on page 182:

"That all honorable women, who desire wifehood and motherhood
under the laws of God may have this privilege and not be left to live
and die as spinsters, nor become a prey to wicked, lustful men, God
will fulfill the prophecy found in Isaiah, chapter iv., verses 1, 2: "In
that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, we will eat
our own bread and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy
name to take awa}^ our reproach. In that day shall the branch of the
Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be
excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel."

On page 153 I want to read for just a moment two or three para-
graphs, among many others of the same kind; and I would like this
whole chapter on "Obedience" copied. It is four or five pages long.

The CHAIRMAN. What page is that?

Mr. TAYLER. The article on "Obedience" is on pages 152 to 156,
inclusive.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to have that inserted?

Mr. TAYLER. I desire to have that chapter inserted, and I read the
following on the subject of "Obedience:"

"The statement of the Savior, recorded in St. John vii: 17. covers
the ground in the broadest light: 4If any man will do His will, he
shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak
of myself.' This secures to every true Saint, if he is faithful, protec-
tion against imposture, the abuse of power and the false decisions of
man-made councils. In this particular the Church of Christ is distin-
guished from all other systems and institutions. He has promised to
guide and direct, and that He ' doeth nothing, but He revealeth His
secrets unto His servants, the prophets.' — Amos iii: 7.

'This does not imply the infallibility of man, but it does imply the

s 16

242 REED 8MOOT.

promise that no man or council or men who stand at the head of the
church shall have power to lead the Saints astray. With this assur-
ance, then, the people of God in every dispensation have been justified
in rendering absolute yet intelligent obedience in the direction of the
holy prophets. It is an undeniable fact in the history of the Saints
that obedience to whatever has come, either by written document or
verbally, from the presidency of the church, has been attended with
good results; on the other hand, whosoever has opposed such council,
without repentance, has been followed with evidence of comdemnation."

And at the bottom of the same page, 154:

"It is not the attractive qualities of the individual, however great,
that renders submission to his administration valid, but the authority
of God which he fears. The acts of Philip, Stephen, Paul or James
were just as valid and binding as those of the Messiah Himself, when
performed by His authority, and in His name. To reject the personal
teachings and offices of the Savior could bring no greater condemna-
tion than to reject the teachings of any man sent of God bearing
authority and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to speak and act in
the name of the Lord."

And at the bottom of page 155:

" It is not the individuality of the person which calls for respect and
consideration, it is the principle involved. God had placed His author-
ity upon humble men. Through their administrations can be secured
the benefits and blessings which follow obedience to the ordinances of
the Gospel. Implicit obedience must be rendered. The mandates of
Jehovah are imperative. No substitute will do. The condition is
complete to the plan of salvation as established by Almighty God."

The chapter on "Obedience," above referred to, is as follows:

OBEDIENCE.

"To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of
rams." (I. Samuel xv: 22.) In an age of the world when independ-
ence is the proud boast of the nations, obedience is, by mistaken ideas
of freedom, considered a mark of humiliation. To the reader I will
say, in reality, true obedience to the Lord's commands is an indication
of moral courage, union and power. It is not blind obedience that is
referred to and maintained, but that type which characterized the
ancient seers and saints, who, like the Messiah, were read}7 to day by
word and deed, "1 came not to do mine own will but the will of my
Father who sent me. "

The Latter-day Saints are credited with being obedient and sub-
missive to authority, this fact being often used by their opponents as
the occasion of reproach. Those who so use it surely must forget that
God requires obedience; that the best embodiment of this principle,
the most humble* and yielding to the divine will, was the best and
purest Being who ever dwelt in mortality, viz., the Lord Jesus Christ;
He in whose mouth there was found no guile; who was perfect and
without blemish in all the walks of life. While He was obedient to
His Father's will and humble to the extreme, He was independent of
the influence and persuasions of wicked men.

The status of Latter-day Saints is conformable to this example.
They are obedient to conscience, to convictions of right, to divine
authority and to God, in whom they trust. While thus submissive,

REED SMOOT. 243

their persecutors have found them equally oblivious to the behests of
wicked men, whether high or low. Men in the factories of the old
world, working side by side at the weaver's loom, in the coal pit or
elsewhere in following the various vocations of life — in this condition
the Gospel preached by the elders of Israel has reached them. Alike,
many of them have received convictions of the truth. They have said :
"This is the truth; I must obey it or stand condemned." Other peo-
ple have said : "It is true, but if I obey I will be ostracised, perhaps
lose my employment and be an outcast from my father's house. Bet-
ter that I reject the truth and live in peace, than take upon me this
cross of obedience to unpopular truth."

The courageous obe}T the Gospel, suffer persecution, prove them-
selves men, and will attain to eternal life. The other people referred
to are slaves to their own fear of popular clamor and to the unseen
powers of darkness which lead men to reject the plan of salvation. Of
the first named class are the Latter-day Saints, a host of men and
women who have left home, kindred and country for the Gospel's
sake. They have endured persecution even unto death, privation and
suffering in every form; have redeemed a desert and built up a com-
monwealth so fruitful with education, thrift and enterprise that any
nation beneath the sun might well be proud of them. Their obedience
and moral courage they bequeath to their posterity is a legacy better
than diamonds or the honors and praise of a fallen world. They look
back to their associates in early manhood who, for fear, rejected the
truth, and find these, whether living or dead, in most cases unhonored
and unknown.

The obedience rendered by Latter-day Saints to the authority of the
priesthood is not secured by virtue of any solemn obligation entered
into by the adherent to obey the dictum of his superiors in office; but
upon the nature of the Gospel, which guarantees to every adherent
the companionship of the Holy Spirit, and this Spirit secures to every
faithful individual a living testimony concerning the truth or falsity
of every proposition presented for his consideration.

" By one spirit have we access unto the Father." (Eph. ii.) So that
as all men and women who embrace the Gospel are entitled to an indi-
vidual testimony of the truth, the same spirit guides into all truth
reveals the things of the Father and imparts the inspiration essential
to preserve mankind from a blind obedience to erroneous principles
and false guides.

The statement of the Savior, recorded in St. John vii:17, covers the
ground in the broadest light: "If any man will do His will, he shall
know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of
myself." This secures to every true Saint, if he is faithful, protection
against imposture, the abuse of power and the false decisions of man-
made councils. In this particular the Church of Christ is distinguished
from all other systems and institutions. He has promised to guide
and direct, and that He "doeth nothing, but He reveal eth His secrets
unto His servants, the prophets." (Amos iii:T.) This does not imply
the infallibility of man, but it does imply the promise that no man or
council of men who stand at the head of the church shall have power
to lead the Saints astray. With this assurance, then, the people of
God in every dispensation have been justified in rendering absolute yet
intelligent obedience in the direction of the holy prophets. It is an
undeniable fact in the history of the Saints that obedience to whatever

244 REED SMOOT.

has come, either by written document or verbally, from the presidency
of the church, has been attended with good results; on the other hand,
whosoever has opposed such council, without repentance, has been
followed with evidence of condemnation.

• Applying this principle of obedience to organizations of a civil and
business character, confusion and weakness result from men refusing
their support to the decision of the presiding authority or of the
majority, where the action is left to popular vote. Carlyle, the great
English writer, said: "All great minds are respectfully obedient to all
that is over them; only small souls are otherwise."

The obedience rendered to God is based upon a conviction that He
is perfect in all His ways possessing the attributes of justice, judgment,
knowledge, power, mercy and truth in all their fullness. Obedience
to His appointed authority upon the earth is obedience to Him, and is
so taught by the Savior. "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and
he that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me." (Matthew x: 40.)
" He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth
me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me." (Luke x:
16.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever
I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth Him that
sent me." (St. John xiii: 20.)

It is not the attractive qualities of the individual, however great,
that renders submission to his administration valid, but the authority
of God which he fears. The acts of Philip, Stephen, Paul or James
were just as valid and binding as those of the Messiah Himself, when
performed by His authority a-nd in His name. To reject the personal
teachings and offices of the Savior could bring no greater condem-
nation than to reject the teachings of any man sent of God bearing
authority and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to speak and act in
the name of the Lord. This great truth was taught by the Savior on
more than one occasion, but perhaps no more forcibly or in more
beautiful terms than in the following:

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy
angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory; and
before Him shall be gathered all nations; and He shall separate them
one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.
And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world. For I was an hungered and ye gave me
meat; I was thirsty and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger and ye
took me in; naked and }^e clothed me; I was sick and ye visited me;
I was in prison and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous
answer Him saying: Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered and fed
Thee? or thirsty and gave Thee drink? When saw we Thee a stranger
and took Thee in? or naked and clothed Thee? or when saw we Thee
sick or in prison and came unto Thee? And the King shall answer
and say unto them. Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done
it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto
me." WThen He told the wicked that they had failed to thus admin-
ister unto Him, they began to plead that they had not seen Him sick,
in prison, hungry, naked or atnirst. He answered them, "Inasmuch
as ye did it not unto one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me."
(Matt, xxvi: 31-46.)

KEED SMOOT. 245

It is not the individuality of the person which calls for respect and
consideration, it is the principle involved. God had placed His author-
ity upon humble men. Through their administrations can be secured
the benefits and blessings which follow obedience to the ordinances of
the Gospel. Implicit obedience must be rendered. The mandates pf
Jehovah are imperative. No substitute will do. The condition if
complete to the plan of salvation as established by Almighty God.

Saul was commanded to destroy Agag and all his hosts, man and
beast. He kept the best of the flock for, he said, a sacrifice, but God
had ordered otherwise, and Saul's disobedience caused him to lose the
kingdom, shut him out from the revelations which came by dream,
vision and the Urim and Thummim. "Thou shalt not steady the ark;"
and they who disobeyed were smitten of the Lord. Israel by disobe-
dience lost the guidance of the Almighty, went into spiritual darkness,
and have been scattered to the four quarters of the earth, "a hiss and
a by -word in the mouths of all nations."

Obedience is essential to salvation, essential to success in every ave-
nue of human enterprise. Whether rendered to the laws of God direct,
in their moral and spiritual phases, or to His authority vested in man,
obedience must be implicit. The haughty man boasts of independence.
He scorns the humble followers of the Lord, but while he prates of
freedom, he is himself lavish^ obedient to his own whims and mis-
taken ideas or to the spirit of evil, to popular sentiment or to some
other influence always dangerous to the welfare of mankind.

The Saints have been accused of being priest-ridden and fearful to
use their own judgment. What do the facts show? They are only
asked to do right, live -pure lives, do good to all men, evil to none, and
to respect the order of God's kingdom that salvation may come to them
and be extended to all the world. Their obedience has made them the
best and purest body of people on the earth. What of the character
of those who have derided them ? They are slaves to a shallow and
excited sentiment or to wickedness and vice, obedient to their own
lusts and wicked ways. Compared with those they misrepresent they
are below them in almost every trait which characterizes noble man-
hood. By obedience to God and His priesthood the Saints in this age
have come off triumphant over obstacles within and foes without. By
obedience to God and His commands they will continue the blessed and
favored of the Lord forever. They have proved the words of Samuel
to Saul, verily true: "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams."

Mr. TAYLER. Now I desire to read a very little, and that is about
all I have to read, from "The Thatcher Episode. A Concise State-
ment of the Facts in the Case. Interesting Letters and Documents.
A Review of M. Thatcher's Claims, Pleas and Admissions. Salt Lake
City, Utah. Deseret News Publishing Company. 1896." It 'is this
concerning which Mr. Smith testified. It was written either by Mr.
Nelson or by Mr. Penrose; he thought, I believe he said, by Mr. Pen-
rose. I read from page 31, from a letter written by Edwin G.
Woolley, the first paragraph incorporated in this, as giving a history
evidently of this affair:

"While there may be a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of
the course being pursued by the Deseret News in threatening the sup-
porters of Thatcher for the Senate, with Church power, still I would

246 REED 8MOOT.

rather have an open fight at any time than to be stating one policy for
the outside to hear and pursuing- another in secret, so that I am will-
ing to stand by the Church in an open fight for any principle of right,
and at no matter what cost.

"As to Thatcher's chances for the Senate, I am unable to give an
intelligent opinion, as I am not acquainted with a great number of the
legislature, but I think no one who is a firm Latter-day Saint will vote
to place him there, because he has announced himself as standing on a
platform which is positively opposed to the discipline of the Church,
and which rules of discipline have been approved by nearly all the
members thereof. When he takes that stand he is opposing the Church
in a vital place, and 1 see no other course than for some one to make a
complaint against him for conduct unbecoming a Latter-day Saint, and
unless he retracts from the position he will necessarily have to be cut
off the Church. This may seem harsh to some, but there can be no
other logical outcome to a course such as he is now taking. It would
be the same if any other member of the Church should announce* him-
self on such a platform."

At page 33, a sentence from the text of this document:

"It should be plain to every intelligent mind that has paid attention
to this matter, that no 'charges' have been made against Moses
Thatcher to place him on trial, either in public or in private, with the
exception of the charge that he was not in harmony with his Quorum
and the General authorities of the Church."

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Tayler, is the part you are reading now a quo-
tation from the Woolley letter?

Mr. TAYLEK. Not at all. I say I am reading from the text of the
document, which is put out in the manner which has been described.
It goes on:

"This fact he appears to ignore entirely. The explanations given
by President Wilford Woodruff and other Church leaders at the Octo-
ber Conference, and those given in President Snow's letter were not
'charges' on which Moses Thatcher was to be placed on trial, but were
necessary items of information for the enlightenment of the members
of the Church who were under the impression that the only difference
between Moses Thatcher and the Church authorities was in relation to
the Declaration of Principles, enunciated at the April Conference."

Now, on page 45, at the bottom of the page. This is still the text
of the book itself:

"In reference to his candidacy for the Senatorship he exclaims "-

That is, Moses Thatcher exclaims —

"I invite neither the support nor the opposition of the Church. It
has no concern in political issues."

Then this book goes on in its text:

"That the opposition of the Church is incited if not 'invited' b}T
his attitude of hostility to its latest official Declaration cannot be ration-
ally disputed. The Church has the right to protect itself, and when
a candidate for high public office takes his stand upon a platform of
open antagonism to its discipline, he virtually invites the opposition
which he attempts to evade.

"And is it true that 'the Church has no concern in political issues?'
Has not every Church in the United States some concern in political
issues? In particular has not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints deep concern in all political issues that affect the people of

REED SMOOT. 247

Utah ? The great majority of them are members of that Church, and
their welfare depends largely upon political issues.

' ' The idea that the Church must be stricken dumb when political
issues which have a direct bearing upon it are raised, is a fallacy that
would be dangerous indeed if it were not so absurd.

" As to the selection of persons for public office, the word of the
Lord by revelation is given to the Church, and His people are directed
by commandment to seek diligently for wise men and honest men, and
are cautioned that the choice of other than good men and wise men
'cometh of evil.'

"Every official in the Church has the right to express his views on
political issues. The Church itself, as a body, is interested in those
issues that concern the State and the Nation. Its officers have as
much right as other men to a preference for some candidates over
others for civil office. They may exercise their influence as citizens
to give that preference effect, providing they do not use any improper
means to accomplish it.

u The opinions of men who helped to lay the foundations of this State
ought not to be ignored in political issues because they hold leading
positions in the Church, and as the Church itself is almost entirely
composed of people who are citizens, it is not to be shut out of a voice
in public affairs by the bald assertion that ' It has no concern in polit-
ical issues.' The Church must not dominate the State nor interfere
with its functions, nor must the Church be robbed of its right to speak
on issues that vitally concern its own welfare."

I desire that all of this pamphlet shall be printed. It gives the
historv, from the point of view of the Church, of what is called the
Thatcher episode.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; that may be printed.

The pamphlet referred to is as follows:

The Thatcher episode — A concise statement of the facts in the case —
Interesting letters and documents — A review of M. Thatchers
claims, pleas, and admissions.

Recent occurrences in the Church render it necessary to present, in
a popular form, some of the reasons for the action taken by the Coun-
cil cf the Twelve Apostles in reference to one of their number. False
reports have been circulated, the motives and purpose of the leaders of
the Church in this matter have been impugned, and improper feelings
have in consequence arisen in the breasts of uninformed people, which
may prove injurious to many unless the facts in the case are brought for-
ward for their enlightenment. Current publications do not reach all
the homes of the Saints, particularly in places remote from Salt Lake
City. This pamphlet is therefore prepared for general dissemination
among the members of the Church, that they may not be in the dark
concerning the step which the Quorum of the Twelve found it their
duty to take, after much patience, forbearance and chanty. Their
duty to God and the Church was and should be held superior to per-
sonal feeling and regard for an individual. It was performed in sor-
row, but with firmness, because the law of the Lord must be held far
above the feelings of men.

At the General Conference held in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City,
April 6th, 1896, a Declaration of Principles was enunciated by the

248 REED SMOOT.

Authorities of the Church. It was signed by the First Presidency,
ten of the Apostles, the Patriarch of the Church, the Seven Presidents
of the Seventies, and the Presiding Bishopric. Elder Anthon H.
Lund, one of the Apostles, was then in England presiding over the
European Mission. After his return he also signed it, leaving but
one of the Church authorities as a dissentient. The Church in Confer-
ence assembled adopted and ratified the Declaration by unanimous
vote. It was subsequently accepted by the various Stakes and Wards
of the Church by vote in their respective localities.

The name of Moses Thatcher was not presented as one of the General
Authorities of the Church at the April Conference, because he was not
and had not been for some time in harmony with his quorum and with
the other Church Authorities. His refusal to sign the Declaration of
Principles was an outward and visible sign and token of that lack of
harmony. It was therefore deemed improper to present his name at
the Conference to be sustained by the body of the Church, when he
was not held in fellowship by his quorum.

At the General Conference held October 6th, 1896, Moses Thatcher
was still out of harmony with the Authorities of the Church, and he
still refused to accept the Declaration which had become fully embodied
in the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints. His name therefore was still omitted from the list of the
General Authorities of the Church, and it was deemed necessary, for
the information of the Latter-day Saints, that some explanation should
be made concerning his attitude and standing in relation to his own
Quorum and the Church in general. President Wilford Woodruff,
therefore, in Conference assembled, made the following remarks, on
Monday afternoon, October 5th, 1896, in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake
City: '

PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF.

"I did not intend to occupy any more time in this Conference, but
there is a subject or two that I feel in duty bound to talk upon, and
I hope the Saints will give me their prayers and faith, that I may be
enabled to do my duty. In order to arrive at the principles and sub-
ject I wish to speak of, 1 feel disposed to deviate from my general
course of testimony in some respects.

"There are two powers on the earth and in the midst of the inhabit-
ants of the earth — the power of God and the power of the devil. In
our history we have had some very peculiar experiences. When God
has had a people on the earth, it matters not in what age, Lucifer, the
son of the morning, and the millions of fallen spirits that were cast
out of heaven, have warred against God, against Christ, against the
work of God, and against the people of God. And they are not back-
ward in doing it in our day and generation. Whenever the Lord set
His hand to perform any work, those powers labored to overthrow it.
I have a little experience in this direction that I want to refer to.

"Many of you probably have read the histoiy of the first proclama-
tion of the Gospel in England, under the presidency of Heber C.
Kimball, in 1837. Just previous to that I crossed Lake Ontario with
a man by the name of Russell, from Canada into the United States.
That man walked the steamer almost day and night, moaning and
groaning. What was the matter? He had a class of spirits that
stayed with him night and day, distressing him. What he had done
that they had power over him I do not know. When a man does his

EEED SMOOT. 249

duty and keeps the commandments of God, those spirits have no power
over him, although he may be distressed in a measure from their opera-
tion. This man went to England, and those spirits went with him.
He was with the Apostles there, and while they were holding a con-
ference there he was so troubled with those spirits that Brothers Heber
C. Kimball and Orson Hyde and the brethren who were there laid
hands upon him and cast those evil spirits out of him.

u When they left him they seized upon Brother Hyde, and he fell to
the floor as though he had been knocked on the nead with a club.
Brother Kimball and the brethern immediately laid hands upon him,
and the evil spirits left him. They then fell upon Brother Kimball
and tried to overcome him. But the vision of his mind was open and
he saw them in the room. They gnashed their teeth at him ; but did they
overcome him? Brother Kimball held the Apostleship and he stood at
the head of that Mission, and God gave him power over those spirits,
and they were rebuked and left him. This was the beginning of their
labors there. In 1840, when the Apostles were sent to England, we
had a similar experience. The history of my travels in Herefordshire,
Gloucestershire and Worcestershire is published and known to the
Church. After laboring there some eight months, Brothers Heber C.
Kimball and George A. Smith invited me to go to London. You all
know what kind of men Brothers Kimball and Smith were. They had
power and brought a great many into the Church.

" We three went into the City of London to undertake to open doors
in that great city. The first man who opened his doors to receive us
was a man b}^ the name of Morgan. The very day we entered that
house it was filled with evil spirits, who sought to destroy us. We
felt their power day after day. They did not particularly injure us
at that time, but we knew they were with us. The incident that I am
going to refer to now occurred after Brother Kimball returned to
Manchester. Brother George A. Smith and myself were left there.
We sat up one night till about 11 o'clock, talking about the Gospel
of Christ, and then went to bed. The room in which we slept was
small; there was about three and a half feet between our cots. Those
spirits were gathered together in that room and sought to destroy us.
They fell upon us with the determination to take our lives. The
distress, the suffering and the horror that rested upon me I never
experienced before nor since. While in this condition a spirit said to
me, 'Pray to the Lord.'

"Well, a man in that kind of warfare, when he is choking almost to
death, is in a peculiar position to pray. Nevertheless I went to pray-
ing with all the power I had. 1 knew we would die unless God opened
some door for our deliverance, because we were being choked to death,
and 1 prayed to the Lord, in the name of Jesus Christ, to preserve our
lives. While 1 was praying, the door opened and three messengers
entered, and the room was filled with light equal to the blazing light
of the sun at mid-da}^. Those messengers were all dressed in the robes
of immortal beings. Who they were I know not. They laid hands
upon me and my companion, and rebuked those evil powers, and we
were saved. From that hour to this day, not only our lives were
saved, but those powers were rebuked by the angels of God so that no
Elder since has been tormented with them in London.

" 1 name this because there is a principle in it. From the day that
the Prophet Joseph Smith was called upon by the angel of God and
the plates of the Book of Mormon given into his hands, these evil

250 REED SMOOT.

spirits labored for his death, and finally his blood was shed by the
power of the devil. You know about that. It is before the heavens
and the earth, and has got to be settled for. Those spirits are wher-
ever the Saints of God are, and they will follow this up until He who
holds the keys of death and hell binds that old serpent, sets a seal
upon him, and shuts him up for a thousand years. These evil spirits
are all around us. They follow every Elder of Israel at home and
abroad. They tempt me, they tempt you, and will as long1 as we
dwell in the flesh and they have their agency and power. Why?
Because they know the Priesthood is here; they know the power of
God is here; they know the authority is here to seal blessings upon
the heads of the children of men, and to preach the Gospel to the
nations of the earth, that they may be prepared for the coming of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Knowing this, if they can get any power over you
and me they will exercise it.

" There has been some talk here about myself, and my counselors,
and the Twelve Apostles, and the position we hold as leaders of the
people. I have been in the Apostleship for fifty-seven years. I have
been through all the apostasies in this Church, if I may be allowed to
use that expression, from the day of the organization of the Twelve
Apostles. On one occasion two Apostles came to me while I was in
Kirtland, and told me that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, and
that they wanted to put another man in his place — Oliver Cowdery.
They wanted to know what I would do about it. Said I, 4 Every man
that lifts his hand against the Prophet of God will go to hell, unless
he repents of his sins.' Well, about half of them did repent; the
others did not, and the}7 lost their crown and glory, and other men
have taken their places.

k4My brethren and sisters, there is something pressing upon my
mind that I want to say. We have arrived at a point here with regard
to circumstances that it is my duty to take up as the President of the
Church. The First Presidentcy and the Twelve Apostles were never
more united as a body than they are today. Our spirits are united.
WTe believe together, we work together, we pray together, and we
believe in each other, because we are all trying to do the will of God.
This is the case with all of us, with one exception. That exception is
Brother Moses Thatcher. A great many people marvel and wonder
why something is not done with him. Some nave said we were afraid
of Moses Thatcher. I am not afraid of Moses Thatcher, nor of any
other man who breathes the breath of life, when it conies to a matter
of duty. But I am afraid to disobey God, or to not perform my duty
in any position that 1 am called to in the Church. There has been a
great deal said with regard to Brother Moses Thatcher, and many have
wondered why something was not done about him. Well, I will say
that this is a matter that belongs to the Twelve Apostles. He is a
member of that quorum, and of course it is their duty to take hold of
that work and attend to it until it is settled. But I have felt, as the
President of the Church, it is my duty to not let this conference pass
without saying something upon this subject.

"Brother Moses Thatcher has been a very sick man. Preparations
have been made by the Twelve Apostles to settle this difficulty with
him in council; but he has been in the condition I speak of. What is
the difficulty with Brother Thatcher? The difficuly is, he has not
been with his quorum in spirit for years. He has not been united

REED SMOOT. 251

with them hardly, I may say, since the death of President Taylor. It
is not his declining to sign this Declaration of Principles that was
brought up at the last conference by the leaders of Israel. This is a
matter of comparatively small consequence. I say here — and I say the
truth — Brother Thatcher has not been in fellowship with us for a series
of years. He has not met with his quorum. He has spent days and
days in this city, when he was perfectly able to go about and do
business, and has not met with them — neither at their sacrament meet-
ings nor other meetings. Now, this cannot remain in this way. As
I have said, these evil spirits affect men. There is a spirit affecting
him, and not a good spirit either. With regard to his standing with,
hie quorum, he should have met with them and talked these things
over; but he has not done it. He has met with them comparatively
few times since President Taylor's death.

"Brethren and sisters, these are truths. The Apostles know that
he has neglected to meet with them at times when he could and should
have done so. He has been at difference with them in many things
that have transpired. He has been by himself in his labor, and for
himself, and not for the Church. Now, I want to say that neither
Moses Thatcher nor any other man on the face of the earth can stand
in the wa}^ of this Church. We have had almost whole quorums of
Apostles that have been in the road, and they have had to be moved
out of it, because the kingdom of God cannot stop for anybody — for
Wilford Woodruff, for Moses Thatcher, or for anybody else. Unless
we work with the Saints of God, with the Priesthood of God and with
the organization of His Church, we cannot have any power or influence.
I make this testimony because it is my duty. I have thought a great
deal of Moses Thatcher. 1 had a good deal to do with his coming into
the quorum of the Apostles. I had a great respect for his family. I
have for any man that will bear his testimony to the Gospel and king-
dom of God. But he has stopped that. He has taken a different
course with regard to this, and he occupies that position today. I
name this because he is not in a condition to be tried.

44 The Lord's kingdom is going to roll on. If I took a stand against
my counselors and against the Twelve Apostles, and we were not
united together, I could not go with them. But the Lord is with us,
and with His people. Whatever is required at our hands we want to
perform it. I hope that the little time we spend here in the flesh,
before we go into the valley of the shadow of death, we will pursue a
course wherein we wTill be satisfied when we come to meet the Lord,
and Joseph Smith, and the patriarchs and prophets. We will meet
these people in the morning of the first resurrection. Many of them
have got their resurrected bodies, and those who have not will have
their bodies raised from the grave in an immortal condition. Who
can sacrifice eternal life, and a part in the first resurrection, to stand
with their -wives and children in celestial glory, for the honor of this
life or to gratify ambition? I cannot afford to do it, neither can you.
We will hail Brother Moses Thatcher with every sentiment of our
hearts when he will meet with us, unite with us, repent of his wrong-
doings, and help cariy on the work of God as he should do. Without
this, he cannot go with us.

"God bless you. I bear testimony to the heavens and the earth
that this is the church and kingdom of God. We have got to live
3 or religion and to be united in order to bear off the kingdom and

252 REED SMOOT.

receive those blessings that lie on the other side of the veil for us. I

Fray that His blessing and spirit may rest, not only on the First
residency and Apostles and the whole Priesthood and the Saints,
but upon Moses Thatcher, that his eyes may be opened to see, his ears
to hear, and his heart to comprehend his position and duty before God
and man."

The remarks of President Woodruff were listened to with the pro-
foundest attention, as were the following remarks by succeeding
speakers. President Snow's address is given in full, and such portions
of the discourses that followed as relate to this subject are also given
as officially reported:

PRESIDENT LORENZO SNOW.

"As the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, of which
Brother Thatcher is a member, I want to say a few words in connec-
tion with this subject that has been introduced by President Woodruff.
I feel it my duty, however unpleasant that duty may be to me, to tes-
tify to the truth of what President Woodruff has said in reference to
the fellowship existing between Brother Thatcher and our quorum.
I think it was seven years ago when the present Presidency of the
Church was organized, and I then was appointed to preside over the
Quorum of the Apostles — a duty and an obligation that I felt the utmost
incompetency to discharge; and yet believing and knowing that it was
my duty to accept that position, I was satisfied that the Lord would
aid and assist me in accomplishing the duties pertaining to that sacred
office.

"I have labored actively from that d&y to the present to do that
which I considered my duty, to accomplish a perfect union between
every member of that quorum, and a perfect union also with the First
Presidency. I felt the importance of this when I took the position as
President of the Twelve, and 1 asked the Lord to let me live until
these duties were accomplished — until 1 could see and feel that every
member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was in perfect fellow-
ship with each other and with the First Presidency. The brethren of
the Twelve can answer now whether that has been accomplished, and
how far it has failed. It has failed in only one single instance, and
that has been presented to }rou by President Woodruff. There are
now of the Quorum of the Twelve ten members sitting here upon
these stands. With these ten brethren there is now a perfect union
between themselves and the First Presidency.

"1 distinctly remember a peculiar circumstance in connection with
this subject. It was when perhaps 150 brethren were assembled in
the upper hall of the Temple. The object of that assembling was to
gather means to accomplish the completion of the Temple, and that
speedily. I do not remember now how much we raised there, but it
was a large sum, contributed by the brethren present. On that occa-
sion President George Q. Cannon arose and spoke very feelingly in
reference to the perfect union that then existed with the First Presi-
dency, (this was about one year before the dedication of the Temple),
in all matters pertaining to the interest of the Church, both spiritual
and financial. After he got through, I dare say that the people there —
I thought so, at least — expected that 1 would arise and say some-
thing in reference to the union of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

REED SMOOT. 253

I did not do it. I sat there in silence. And I never explained the
reason to the Quorum of the Twelve, that I have any remembrance
of, why I sat there in silence. I am now going to explain it. I
thought my brethren had reasons to expect that I would arise and
speak in reference to union. I could have spoken as loudly and as
effectively in reference to the union of our quorum as Brother Cannon
in reference to the union of the First Presidency, with but one single
exception. That exception, 1 regret to say, was Brother Moses
Thatcher. The brethren of the quorum will now understand why I
sat there in silence.

"The next day, I think it was, in going up to Brigham City on the
train, Brother Thatcher and I sat together. I there told him this cir-
cumstance that I have just told you. I said to him that it was on his
account — the love and respect that I had for him — that I did not arise
and make him an exception. I would have been compelled at that time
to have mentioned Brother Moses Thatcher as an exception. There
were eleven of us that were in perfect union, which we had labored
and toiled to effect completely and strongly and abundantly. But I
would not place him in an unpleasant attitude before the people. I
explained this to him.

"But that was not the only time. The night previous to the dedi-
cation of the Temple we felt that the Quorum of the Twelve ought all
to be united, or perhaps there would be something arise that would
prove of a disagreeable character. We called the quorum together.
Every member was present. We labored and toiled at that meeting
to bring Brother Thatcher into a union with us, hour after hour, tin
about two o'clock in the morning. I labored diligently.

"I always thought a good deal of Brother Thatcher. He and I
always got along lovingly together; and he knows and will state it if
he ever comes to address the people, that Brother Snow was one of his
particular friends and felt an interest for him as deep as any man in
the quorum. We labored there with only one object in view — to bring
one member of our quorum into a perfect union with ourselves and
with the First Presidency. At last I repeated to Brother Thatcher
what I have been telling you. I told him of the sacrifice I made in
my feelings when I had to keep silence, and I said I could not do it
any more; I should be obliged to get up before the gathering in the
Temple and state that our quorum was in perfect union — that is, if the
subject came up, which it probably would — except in the case of
Brother Thatcher. Well, we patched the thing up, and he came to a
conclusion that we accepted at that time. How far that was really
a conclusion made in his heart, I am not prepared to say.

"There was another time, perhaps a year or a year and a half ago,
when we sought to effect a union with Brother Thatcher and the quo-
rum. We had a pretty difficult time, and failed. None of us felt
satisfied.

"About the last conversation I had with Brother Thatcher was in
the Temple, either at the last spring or fall conference. We had
prayed for him, and we had sent some of our most experienced breth-
ren to talk with him privately and beg of him to make things satisfac-
tory. I called on Brother Brigham Young, because I knew he felt an
interest in Brother Thatcher, and was a wise man, to go and see him
and plead with him to make things satisfactory. But he failed. He
came and reported to me that a spirit of darkness seemed to reign in

254 REED SMOOT.

Brother Thatcher's heart, and he could not reach it. I still thought,
however, that he would come and make things right before he returned
to his home in Logan; and about the second or third day after this, I
was visited by him in the Temple. I never felt to rejoice more in mv
heart than when I saw him enter my room. I thought he had made
up his mind to do that which we requested him to do and to place him-
self in perfect fellowship with the brethren of the quorum. I talked
with him. I did most of the talking myself. I felt the spirit of it, as
I alwa}Ts did when I spoke to him, because my heart was warm towards
him, and the Lord seemed to help me so that I felt perfectly at home
in telling him just what the Lord dictated to me.

"On a previous occasion in the Temple, I laid my hands upon his
head, according to his request and my own feelings, and blessed .him.
My heart went out for him. But I could not fellowship Brother
Thatcher, although I loved him. Did I love that man ? No man, it seems
to me, could love another man more than I loved Brother Thatcher;
and I labored for him, toiled for him, and prayed for him, and still

shall do. I have not given up my hopes, and I will not give them up.
My principle has ever been, when called upon to administer to the
sick, who were perhaps at the point of death, without seemingly any
hope whatever, to not give them up until I saw they were actually
dead. So I am with Brother Thatcher, whose voice has been heard
from this stand time after time, and we have loved to listen to his
beautiful and inspiring words. But he is a different man now alto-
gether— different in spirit, and of course, his physical condition is very
bad, although I understand now, he is improving ver}T rapidly. Presi-
dent Woodruff has explained to you the reason why we have not had
him before our quorum and the matter investigated. His low phys-
ical condition is the reason. But, as I was saying, I thought he had
come to my room with his mind made up to take a course to come into
fellowship with his quorum. 1 was disappointed, however, I felt like
shedding tears when he left the room. There was not that disposition
existing in him that I hoped there would be when he came.

" Now, there is a certain document that you have heard talked about
a good deal. Brother Young and myself took that document to
Brother Thatcher. His physical condition was not very promising,
and I asked him if I should read it to him. He said he preferred to
read it himself, and he read it — read it very deliberately. He said he
did not feel then to approve of it altogether; he wished it to remain
for awhile. We accorded him his wish. As President Woodruff had
said, not half the trouble is in relation to that document — not one-
hundredth part that is talked about. Of course, it was rather singular.
There were appended to that document the names of the First Presi-
dency, of the Apostles, (with the exception of Brother Lund, who was
then in England) of the First Seven Presidents of the Seventies, of
the Patriarch, and of the presiding Bishopric — twenty-four names in
all, representing the Authorities of the Church; but he did not feel
inclined, he said, to put his name to the document.

"lam reminded of a little anecdote I heard of Brother Erastus
Snow, which illustrates a principle. Brother George A. Smith was
speaking to an ' outside ' audience one night, and Brother Erastus fell
asleep. When he got through preaching he sat down and elbowed
Brother Erastus, and requested him to bear his testimony. It was
thought that Brother Erastus had scarcely heard a word; but he arose

HEED SMOOT. 255

and said, fc My friends, every word that my brother here has said is
God's truth.' Now, why did he say so? There was a reason for this.
Why, he knew Brother George A. Smith; he had heard him preach a
hundred times, and he knew that he was a man of inspiration, and
that he would never say anything but what was true. Well, I think
when a man is so well acquainted with the First Presidency, with
the Apostles, with the Patriarchs, with the Presidents of Seventies,
and with the Presiding Bishops, he ought to have some confidence in
the position of these brethren; and if that brother is rather low in his
mind and does not really feel competent to judge of the matter, he
ought to have confidence in his brethren. Still, this matter does not
amount to very much anyway. It is the general tenor of the course
that Brother Thatcher has been pursuing since even before the organiza-
tion of this First Presidency or before 1 was called to be the President
of the Quorum of the Twelve. Many other things might be said, but
I do not want to occupy the time.

" Brethren and sisters, these are solemn truths that I have told you
and what President Woodruff has stated. I want you all to pray for
Brother Thatcher. As soon as his physical abilities will allow, we
shall have him before our quorum, and he will be treated by his
friends. But there are certain rules and regulations that we, as the
servants of God, must conform to, and we are not responsible for
them."

ELDER JOHN HENRY SMITH.

uMy brethren and sisters, this meeting is one of the sorrowful
meetings in my experience. I have recognized the fact that there
must be an explanation made to the Latter-day Saints in connection
with the subject upon which the President of the Church and the
President of the Council of the Apostles have treated. I fully under-
stand that within three days after Brother Moses Thatcher declined to
sustain his associates he would have been dealt with for his fellowship
and standing in the Council of the Apostles but for his physical con-
dition. All have felt exceedingly tender, recognizing the fact that he
had been suffering for some time under conditions most unpleasant to
himself.

"I am fearful that the Saints this afternoon have not fully heard
the remarks that have been made by President Woodruff and President
Snow. They have sought to explain to the understanding of this
audience the condition that has arisen in this inner circle of the Church,
that they might be free in the minds of the Saints from the charge, by
the Saints, of fearfulness as to the correctness of the position that
they have assumed, and of the rightf ulness of the position that Brother
Thatcher has taken. I believe, however, that the Latter-day Saints
as a whole, have read with certainty, through the influence of the
Spirit, the correctness of the position taken by the Presidency of the
Church as well as the other councils that have been united with them,
and I trust that the understanding will be received by those who are
here today and heard the remarks of the brethren, and by those who
could not catch their words the spirit in which those utterances were
given.

"The Presidency of the Church and the Council of the Apostles, in
their deliberations upon all questions that affect the well-being and
interest of the cause, are as candid and frank in their consultations and

256 REED 8MOOT

expression of views as any body of men could possibly be. But when
a conclusion has been reached as to the course that should be pursued,
it is expected that every man will give in his adherence to the course
marked out, and with unfaltering voice and fixed determination, so that
those counsels may prevail, so far as may be possible, among the whole
people. This feeling and sentiment has been expressed in telling lan-
guage by President Woodruff and by President Lorenzo Snow; and I
believe that every one of the Council of the Apostles, with the First
Presidency, would make a similar expression of views upon this matter,
were they to speak upon this subject.

4 'It is not my thought, in the time that I am here, to dwell upon
the position in which our brother finds himself. I have held the hope,
I hold the hope now, that he will see his way clear to put himself in
unison with his associates, that he may stand with them and receive in
the end the commendation of our Father, through his humility, and
that his name may not be effaced from the roll of honor which God in
this dispensation and in this day has established. It is not for me to
speak further upon this subject. I stand by my President and by the
Presidency of this Church in the position they have taken, because. I
know they are right. It is not a question of fear or doubt in my
mind. It may be — and I presume my brethren will bear me out in
this — that I have been slower than any of them to form judgment or
pass an opinion in regard to this situation as it is today. But it has
not been because there was the least doubt or question in my mind of
the correctness of the position that they had taken. My judgment
was convinced that their position was absolutely correct, or I never
would have subscribed my name to that document, nor would I, in
connection with my brethren, have sought in various ways to awaken
a class of reflections in the mind of our brother that would have
brought him in unison with the council of which he is a member.

"My position has been such that I have felt the extremest delicacy,
in every place and under every circumstance, in giving expression to
anything that could in any sense reflect upon him. For this reason, if
no other, in the midst of the deliberations of my own council, with that
of the Presidency of the Church, I have felt extremely guarded, seek-
ing to gain as much time as practicable in his interest, trusting that the
time would come when the Almighty would touch his heart and he
would feel the spirit of kindness that has welled up in the soul of Presi-
dent Woodruff, that has guided his Counselors, and that has been the
characteristic in every deliberation of President Snow in seeking to
preserve one who was dear to us all. But there can be no question in
the minds of the Latter-day Saints. There may come a time in all
our lives when perchance, amid the temptations and allurements of
ambition, our hope and fears for ourselves may be aroused; but in
our sober senses and in the midst of experiences of this life, the men
who have received the Apostleship, who have been chosen by God
Himself to be witnesses to His Son, must find themselves in that posi-
tion that they indeed listen to the still small voice and recognize the
power which God Himself has established. I feel that this has been
and is the position of that circle in which I move; and the unfortunate
circumstances which have attended one of their associates in connec-
tion with this matter, is to me indeed a matter of extreme regret. I
have prayed, I have plead, I have done everything so far as lay in my
power in connection with these circumstances, trusting that our Father

EEED SMOOT. 251

might so move upon the heart of our brother that he would meet his
brethren with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and say, 4 1 am with
you heart and soul.'

"During this Conference, my brethren and sisters, the spirit of
inspiration resting upon the brethren has been, 'give ear to the legiti-
mate and proper counsels of the Priesthood.' I presume there are
none of us who have made a study of the organization that our Father
has established that can question the wisdom of those counsels. If
the people are to be united, it must be upon the basis that their hearts
are in attune with the propositions upon which they would be united.
We believe that God in this dispensation has restored the Gospel; that
the Father and the Son came to the Prophet and bestowed upon him
the knowledge that God did indeed live, and that Jesus Christ was
indeed His Son; that all the keys, powers and authorities necessary to
the accomplishment of His work, and that were exercised in former
dispensations, were given to him; and that in all these things and in
the organization of His Church, He presented us a complete and per-
fect pattern, that union might be the result of their counsels and their
action.

"We note the conditions of that organization in all its bearings, and
when one of the cogs in this machine that God himself has established
shall fail to be in attune with the balance of that machine, the results
are manifest in the spirits of the people; for they read, and read under-
standingly under the influence of that Spirit, that these conditions do
exist and that the machinery is not working as it should. Therefore
we, recognizing the purpose and design of our Father in the complete-
ness of that organization, keep in view the movements and actions of
the men at the head, the spirit of their counsel and instruction, and we
readily detect, while words may not speak it, the spirit of insubordi-
nation or a determination to not carry out and fulfill the obligations
which our Father has placed upon His children; and recognizing this,
a spirit of uncertainty, of fear and of doubt takes possession of many
men whose minds are susceptible to that influence.

"I trust that the spirit of the work shall indeed ever be with the
Latter-day Saints; that the movements that are made, the efforts that
are brought to pass to secure the best interests of the work and of its
spread in the world, shall be written in the hearts of the people of
God; and if they will attend to their prayers and fulfill their obliga-
tions, our Father will never allow one of them to drift from the path
of rectitude and fail to maintain the honor and credit of His cause in
the world. But if perchance a spirit shall take possession of us that
we seek to avoid the responsibilities that may attach to us, and we
desire the encomiums and the laudations of men, we may find ourselves
carried away with our ambitions, and catching our foot upon the applause
of our fellows, will trip and fall and will not be found carrying the
standard and proclaiming the truth as we should in the presence of
all men.

"I desire to bear my testimony to the truth of the work of God.
I did not live in the flesh to know Joseph Smith. I did not live in
the flesh to converse with him. The line, I presume, is broken when
you reach me in the Council of the Apostles, as to those who knew
him. But I am here as much of a witness of his mission as my
brethren who saw him in the flesh. God gave me the knowledge of
his mission. He also gave me the acquaintance of Brigham Young in
s— 17

258 EEED SMOOT.

the flesh, whom He raised up as well as the Prophet Joseph, to plant
the standard of eternal truth in these mountains and to be a savior to
this people whom he led into the desert, taught the ways of husbandry
and the responsibilities and duties of the people of God. May the
spirit of that Gospel well up in our hearts, and the knowledge that
God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was His
prophet, that John Taylor was His prophet, that Wilford Woodruff
is his prophet, live in our hearts, and grow and spread until we shall
scatter that knowledge to the ends of the earth and all mankind know
of its truth."

ELDER BRIGHAM YOUNG.

"I have a desire to say a few words on this occasion, and I trust
that the same spirit of kindness will be in my heart that has been mani-
fested by the brethren who have spoken. I am sure I feel very kind
and lenient and feel to extend mercy to my brethren, as I ask for mercy
from my- God. There was a time when I was absent from Utah for
two years and a half. I left here in August, 1890. But I knew more
than I cared to know before I left then in relation to this matter. I
cannot see a man rise up and stand in open rebellion to his brethren
in defiance of the pleadings of his quorum, and feel that he has the
.Spirit of God in him, which I witnessed previous to my departure in
1890; for 1 saw Brother Moses stand in open rebellion to his quorum.
I have prayed for him, and 1 want to say to you that personally I have
shed more tears over this situation since the death of President Taylor
than over all the griefs, public and private, that I have had since that
time. And I think this is the same with my brethren. But what can
we do ? What position are we in ? President Woodruff has given us
the keynote. No man nor set of men can place themselves in the way
of this Church and its progress and stay there; for they will be swept
aside. They cannot remain a stumbling block to the people.

" There are a few paragraphs in the Doctrine and Covenants that I
would like to read. I do not wish to multiply words, but I will say
this: On a certain occasion, quite a long time ago, I went to President
Woodruff and asked him the question, ' What is the reason of this
darkness that I see in the mind of a man whom I have loved like a
brother, whom I had placed in my affection equal to any man upon
the face of the earth?' This is the answer that he gave me: 'He has
sought to rule over his brethren, and lost the Spirit.' I will read
from a revelation that has often been referred to; it is 'A Prayer and
Prophecies, written bv Joseph the Seer, while in Liberty jail, Clay
County, Missouri, March 20th, 1839:'

" ' Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are
they not chosen?

4 "Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this
world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one
lesson —

" 'That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with
the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be con-
trolled nor handled only upon the principle of righteousness.

"'That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we
undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, or vain ambition,
or to exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of

BEET) SMOOT. 259

the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the
heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and
when it is withdrawn, Amen to the Priesthood, or the authority of
that man.'

" Where, brethren and sisters, will you get the channel of commu-
nication opened up between you and the powers that reign over the
earth? The God that sits in the heavens, and the angels and saints
that visit us — through what line of communication do they come?
God has placed these authorities here to guide His people, and when
a man cuts that thread for himself, than the channel of revelation is
destroyed, so far as that man is concerned. If you and I ever con-
sider that we can reach God and get His mind and will in relation to
this great work without receiving it through the channel of those men
who stand at the head, then all I have to say to you or myself is, we
have cut the thread between us and the Spirit of God, and we are left
to wander in bye and forbidden paths. One channel, one organization!
And no man may rise against that and expect that he will be favored
of the Lord or permitted to enjoy His Spirit."

ELDER HEBER J. GRANT.

"It is ever a source of pleasure to me to lift my voice in testimony
of the divinity of the work in which we are engaged, and, so far as 1
possess the ability, 1 know of nothing that I desire so much to do as
to keep the commandments of my Heavenly Father, and to labor to
try and persuade the Latter day Saints to walk in that straight and
narrow path that leads to life eternal. We have listened here today
to the testimony that has been borne by Brother John Henry Smith,
that although he was not personally acquainted with the Prophet
Joseph Smith, yet he knows for himself and not for another that Joseph
Smith was a prophet of God, and so also was John Taylor, and
he bears witness to you here today that he knows that Wilf ord Wood-
ruff is a prophet of the living God. In all humility, and knowing
that the words I utter I will have to meet when I stand before the
judgment seat of my Maker, I testify to you that I know that God
lives; that I know that Jesus was the Christ; that I know that Joseph
Smith was a prophet of God; that I know that Brigham Young was
a prophet of God; that I know that Wilf ord Woodruff is a prophet of
God and the mouthpiece of God upon the earth today; that I know
that his Counselors are chosen of God; that I know that the Twelve
Apostles are inspired by the Lord; and that I know that no man liv-
ing upon the face of the earth, who has received a testimony of the
Gospel, can fail to recognize the authority of the Almighty God that
rests upon the earth today, upon the shoulders of these men, and have
the light and inspiration of the Spirit of God to guide him.

44 1 pray for our brother whose name has been mentioned here
to day. I have fasted, I have wept, I have prayed for this brother of
mine; yet I have been charged in the papers with having attacked
him. God forbid that I should ever attack any man! But above all
things, may God save me and my brethren from failing to recognize
the power of Almighty God whereby you and I, through obedience to
the principles of the Gospel, may be saved eternally."

260 KEED SMOOT.

ELDER GEORGE TEASDALE.

"It is wonderful the power of the Spirit and testimony that has
rested upon the brethren at this conference. We have felt that God
has been with us by His power, and also that it should be manifested
unto the world that the Priesthood of the Son of God has been restored
to the earth and those who bear it enjoy the light and the power of
God that was promised unto those who would bow in obedience to the
commandements of God.

"I desire also to testify to the truth of that that has been said con-
cerning our Brother Moses. I love Brother Moses Thatcher. We
were together in Mexico, and I esteemed him as one of my best
friends. It was Brother Moses Thatcher that laid his hands upon me
and blest me when I went to undertake the mission to Europe. I have
plead for him, and all the Apostles have plead for him, and that is the
reason no action has been taken. We wanted him to have plenty of
opportunity for repentance; that he might come with a broken heart
and contrite spirit, and say, Brethren, forgive me for all my wrong-
doings; let me be one with you, as I have been in times that are past.
That is what we have patiently waited for. We have plead before the
Lord that he would touch and soften his heart, that he might see his
position as we see it. Do you think that we are all under a false
impression? Do you think that this body of men, who live near to
the Lord, and whom you sustain as prophets, seers and revelators, are
all wrong, and he is right? I pity anybody that entertains such an
idea. It is rather untenable. It is not so. The reason there has been
so much lenienc\T is because we have loved him. We hear that he is
increasing in health and strength, and we look for him to come with
the broken heart and contrite spirit, and be associated with us. If
there is anybody that loves him more than we do, I would like to know
where you find him.

"I am thankful to bear my testimony concerning this work, because
1 know it is true. I know that these principles we have received at
this conference are true. We are the representatives of the Lord
Jesus Christ, or we are not. And we can be tested; for we tell the
people that if they will repent and worship the living and true God,
and if they will be baptized by a man having authority, they shall
receive the remission of their sins; and they shall know through the
gift of the Hoty Ghost concerning the doctrine; for the Lord will
reveal it unto them. That is our promise to all the world, because we
know that the Lord has spoken, and that he is a rewarder of those who
diligently seek Him. I pray that the spirit of unity which exists
between the Presidency and the Apostles may never be any less, but
that it may increase until we shall become one with Christ as He is
one with the Father, to His eternal honor and glory."

PRESIDENT JOSEPH F. SMITH

" I wish merely to say a word to guard the people from unwise
sympathies. While we may have a great deal of love for our fellow
beings, and especially for those who have been favored of the Lord in
times past, we should exercise that love wisely. Now, 1 love men and
women who are devoted to the cause of truth, and my sympathies are
always with them. But it is impossible for rne to sympathize with
those who do wrong. * * *

KEED SMOOT. 26 i

"The Lord has said:

" 'Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies; for I have decreed in
my heart, saith the Lord that I will prove you in all things, whether
you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found
worth}7. For if ye will not abide in my covenant, ye are not worthy
of me.'

"The man that will abide in the covenant is my brother and my
friend, and has my sympathy and love, and I will sustain him. But
the man who raises his heel and his voice against the servants of God
and the authority of the Priesthood on the earth, is not my friend, and
he has not my sympathy nor my love. Of course I respect the rights
of all men, and honor those who are good and upright among all peo-
ple. And God knows, and I would that you should know, that when a
man repents of his sins, when a man that has done wrong will humble
himself before the Lord, and will show his determination to abide in
the covenant unto death, and comes with a humble spirit and con-
trite heart before the Lord and his brethren and acknowledges his
fault, asks forgiveness, and his acts correspond with his professions, oh!
God, how my heart yearns with love and affection, compassion', charity
and forgiveness for that man. I will go more than half way to meet
him. But I will not turn one hair out of my waj- for him that has
hardened his heart against the Lord and against the truth, and that
has turned away from the new and everlasting covenant and has proved
that he will not abide in it. He must look to his own wa}^ I will
turn him over to God to deal with him as seemeth Him good.

"That is where I stand in relation to this matter. We have not
dealt harshly with any man. Charity and love, mercy and kindness
have pervaded all our deliberations and all our counsels together con-
cerning our brethren, and all that we have had to do with. We never
entertain a feeling of bitterness, or of resentment, or of wickedness in
our hearts toward any man. On the contrary, we have exercised charity,
forbearance, patience and longsuffering, until patience ceases to be a
virtue, in my judgment, and it is about time that justice should claim
its own. Mercy has done its work; patience has endured long enough;
and all Israel must know that a man, whether he is an Apostle, a High
Priest, or a Seventy, that will not hearken to the voice of God, that
will not give his heart unto the Lord, that is not obedient, must cease
to be fellowshipped by the people of God. We cannot uphold men
who will pursue a course like this, or who will betray their brethren.
We cannot afiord it, and we cannot do it and be justified before the
Lord.

"We have received a commnnication, saying that we stood self-
condemned before the people, because we had transgressd the law of
God. We have transgressed no law of God, so far as we know. It is
a clear case of the twelve jurymen, eleven of whom were united and
saw eye to eye, while the one stood out alone, claiming that all the
rest were wrong. We have borne and borne. Six month shave passed—
aye, years have passed, because that which occurred six months ago
marked only the forks of the road, only the dividing line. For years
before, we had tolerated, and patiently waited, we had prayed and
petitioned, and we had suffered long, and yet to no avail. Our coun-
cils have seldom been graced by his presence. He has not felt it nec-
3ssary to be one with his brethren. He has estranged himself from
not we from him. He must abide the consequences. And we

262 EEED SMOOT.

want to tell you that these matters do not hinge upon political questions
either. We can tell you further, that every man is free, so far as this
is concerned. The question is not in regard to any man's political
faith. It is in regard to the order of the Priesthood. It is purely,
clearly and solely an ecclesiastical matter. It is not a personal matter
at all. It is a matter of compliance on the part of the members, with
the order that God has instituted in the Church or non-compliance
therewith. It is a matter concerning the government of the Church,
and the authority which God has instituted to direct and to guide. It
is the question as to whether the people will unite with the majority
of the Priesthood, who are united and see eye to eye, or whether they
will be misled by one man.

4 4 May the Lord help us to see the right, and not to condemn till we
know all the truth, and not to judge our brethren nor be harsh; for
we have not been."

The foregoing remarks were intended, not as an arraignment of
Moses Thatcher or in any way as a trial of his cause, but simply as an
explanation to the Latter-day Saints that they might understand the
situation. But he and his intimate associates and supporters construed
those utterances as a public accusation, and Moses Thatcher, who had
not attended the Conference, as it was reported on account of ill health,
immediate^ after the Conference, made public addresses in the Cache
Stake and seemed not to understand that he was acting without proper
authority. The First Presidency thereupon issued the following:

NOTICE.

To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints: •

It having been reported to us that Brother Moses Thatcher has on
three different occasions recently addressed congregations of the Saints
at Logan, Cache Valley, this therefore is to notify you that by action
of the Council of the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the name of Moses Thatcher was
not presented at the General Conferences of April and October, 1896,
to be sustained in his office as an Apostle; and that this action of the
authorities suspended him from exercising any of the functions of the
Priesthood, that is, from preaching the Gospel or administering in any
of the ordinances thereof, until he, by making satisfactory amends to
his fellow-servants, should be restored to their fellowship and that of
the Church.

WILFORD WOODRUFF,
GEORGE Q. CANNON,
JOSEPH F. SMITH,

First Presidency.

In consequence of the ill health of Moses Thatcher, by request of
his friends action in his case had been postponed from time to time by
the Council of the Twelve Apostles, and the understanding was had
and expressed that he would not be required to appear and make
satisfaction to that body until he should be in lit physical condition.
After making the public addresses referred to above, he came to Salt
Lake City and on October 15th, 1896, went to the Temple, as though
he was still a member of the Quorum of the Twelve in full fellowship

REED SMOOT, 263

and good standing, to meet with the Presidency and Apostles in their
prayer circle and general weekly meeting. He did not go to the
annex, the ordinary place of ingress, but to the door where the Presi-
dency and Apostles are admitted. He was not permitted to enter.
By this exclusion he was brought to understand his position, and he
applied by letter to President Lorenzo Snow for the appointment of a
time and place to meet with the Apostles, and confer with them con-
cerning his case.

In reponse to that request a special meeting of the Twelve was called
to meet at the Historian's Office, on Thursday, November 12, 1896,
and he was informed of the fact by letter from President Lorenzo
Snow. The Council met as per appointment, but Moses Thatcher did
riot appear. Instead, he sent a long communication to the Quorum,
going over the grounds of his case from his own standpoint, and inform-
ing the Apostles that they "need not convene."

In order to give him another opportunity to appear and place himself
in harmony with his brethren, another special meeting was appointed
at the Historian's Office, at 10 a. m., November 19th, of which he was
duly notified by letter. When the time came he again failed to appear,
but sent another communication, in which he stated that he had not
been invited to be present.

The case of Moses Thatcher was then fully considered by the Council
of Apostles, and their action is set forth in the following:

NOTICE.

To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints:

This is to inform you that at^a meeting of the Council of Apostles
held thia day (Thursday, Nov. 19th, 1896), there being present Lorenzo
Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young, Francis M. Lyman,
John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, John W. Tay-
lor, Marriner W. Merrill and Anthon H. Lund, which meeting was
called for the purpose of considering and taking action on the -case
of Elder Moses Thatcher — and of which meeting and its object he had'
been duly notified — after a full consideration of all the circumstances
of the case, and after each Apostle present had expressed himself upon
the subject, it was unanimously decided that Moses Thatcher be sev-
ered from the Council of the Twelve Apostles, and that he be deprived
of his Apostleship and other offices in the Priesthood.

LORENZO SNOW,
President Council of the Twelve Apostles.

This notice was served upon Moses Thatcher, and he gave to the
morning papers, on Sunday, November 22, 1896, all the correspond-
ence which had passed between him and President Lorenzo Snow in
reference to this matter. Although this should have been recognized
by all Latter-day Saints as highly improper, it created sympathy for
the deposed official of the Church among those who were not well
informed concerning the order of the Church and the particulars of
the case. The comments that were made induced some of the brethren
who had listened to remarks from various sources, to send a commu-
nication to President Snow, asking for an explanation of the Thatcher
case, that false impressions concerning the course of the Twelve in

264 REED SMOOT.

relation to it might be removed. Following is the letter, with the
reply of President Snow:

SALT LAKE CITY, November 28, 1896.
Elder LORENZO SNOW, President of the Twelve Apostles:

DEAR BROTHER: As there has been much discussion over the corre-
spondence between Moses Thatcher and yourself, and some of our own
people are at sea in regard to the primary cause of BrotheF Thatcher's
lack of harmony with your quorum, leading to his excommunication
therefrom, in behalf of a number of such persons we pen you this
communication.

We are aware that the difficulty mainly rested with the Twelve and
one of its members; also that when action was taken in the case there
was no need of your making further explanations. We can appreciate
your abstinence from controversy, on a purely Church matter, through
the public prints.

But seeing that there appears to be a misapprehension of the facts
in the case, and that many good people are liable, in consequence of
that, to form incorrect conclusions, we respectfully ask you, if it be
not inconsistent with any rule of the Church or of the Council over
which you preside, to make some public statement which will serve to
place this matter in its true light before the Saints, and clear away the
mists which, to some at least, seem to surround the subject of Moses
Thatcher's deposition. As he has given to the world the private cor-
respondence that passed between you and him in a Church capacity, is
it fair, even to yourself and your associates, to leave the matter in its
present condition and open to so much misconstruction ? If you would
make an explanatory statement through the Deseret News, we believe
it would be highly esteemed by many others, as well as
Your brethren in the Gospel,

NEPHI L. MORRIS.

ARNOLD G. GIAUQUE.

ARTHUR F. BARNES.

R. C. BADGER.

T. A. CLAWSON.

SALT LAKE CITY, November 30, 1896.
Messrs. NEPHI L. MORRIS, ARNOLD G. GIAUQUE,

ARTHUR F. BARNES, R. C. BADGER, and T. A. CLAWSON.

DEAR BRETHREN: In response to your esteemed communication of
the 28th inst., I have determined, after conference with several of the
Apostles, to offer some explanations on the case of Moses Thatcher
and comments on the correspondence to which you refer, through the
columns of the Deseret News.

The Apostles did not view the publication of the letters that passed
to and from Brother Moses Thatcher and them as calling for any con-
troversy on their part. Nor did they think it a proper thing to give
those ecclesiastical communications general publicity through secular
newspapers. The letters bearing my signature were not prepared
with a design for publication, whatever the others might have been—
and were regarded as Church matters for the consideration solely of
the respective parties. It is only because those letters have been given
to the public, and because it seems, from what you say, that an

ftEED SMOOT. 265

improper impression has been made upon the minds of some people
thereby, that I comply with the request to meet some of the state-
ments they contain.

The evident purpose in publishing those communications was to
excite public sympathy, and the unnecessary and superfluous appeals
they contain convey the impression that they were concocted for that
purpose. They were not relevant to the issue involved. Moses
Thatcher was not on trial for his fellowship. Specific charges were
not preferred either in public or in private. The question was solely
as to his standing as one of the Apostles, in consequence of his lack of
harmony with the Quorum of the Twelve of which he was a member.
That question he could have settled at any time if he had so desired,
and that without a formal trial. By placing himself in harmony with
his Quorum, in the spirit of humility and conformity with its rules, of
which he was not in ignorance, he could have saved himself all the
trouble and deprivation of which he complains.

In his review of what he calls his case, he lays great stress on the
matter of the Declaration of Principles, which he refused to sign after
it had received the endorsement of the First Presidency, tne Apostles
(excepting himself), the Patriarch, the Seven Presidents of the Seven-
ties, and the Presiding Bishopric, comprising the general authorities of
the Church. His excuse is that he had only about an hour and thirty
minutes in which to consider it. Usually men do not require much
time to consider a matter which they have always held to be right.
There was nothing new in that document as it relates to Church dis-
cipline. It contains that which has always been an established doc-
trine of the Church. When the committee which prepared it submit-
ted it to the other Church authorities, they signed it after reading
without hesitation and without requiring time to deliberate. It embod-
ies so manifestly a conceded and necessar}^ rule that every one in har-
mony \*ith the Church authorities accepted it at once, and the Church
as a body has received and adopted it as an essential rule. Why should
Moses Thatcher alone, of all the Church authorities, feel that he could
not sign it, as he alleges, "without stultification?" Was not that in
itself evidence that he was and had been out of harmony with his breth-
ren? And are they not men as little disposed as any one living to
stultify themselves, or to assent to anything wrong that is of vital
importance to them and to the Church?

He charges that his letter refusing to sign the Declaration was
"suppressed." There was no suppression in the matter at all. The
letter was not addressed to the Conference nor to the public. Out of
mercy and compassion to him no reference was made to his contumacy
at the April Conference, but his name was simply dropped from the
list of authorities presented. How could he have been sustained under
the circumstances? There are six of the Twelve now living who voted
for his appointment to the Apostleship. Not one of them would have
sustained him for that position if it had been known that he then
entertained views entirely out of harmony with those of that body.

The letter addressed on April 6 to his associates was a deliberately
composed communication showing that he was able to understand the
document which he refused to sign, and his prompt publication of that
letter, in a secular newspaper, shows that he had a deliberate intention
to oppose the Declaration and defy his brethren who promulged it.
Hut if he did not have sufficient time to consider the Declaration at

266 REED SMOOT.

the April Conference, what about the six months which elapsed before
the October Conference? Was not that time enough? During that
interval he was visited by many of the brethren, some of them Apos-
tles, and no change was effected, but he failed even to attend the
October Conference or to manifest a disposition to conform to the
principle of the Declaration.

It is true that he was in poor bodily health during that period. But
he was not too ill to upbraid brethren who tried to impress him with
the danger of his position, nor to accuse some of them of having
" blanketed their conscience" in signing the Declaration.

He states in his letters that he would have attended the October
Conference if it had not been for the "assurances and reassurances"
he had received that nothing would be done concerning his standing
until his health should be restored. He then complains bitterly of the
explanations given to the Conference as to his position and seeks to
convey the impression that they were a breach of good faith.

The "assurances" to which he refers were faithfully fulfilled. He
was left in statu quo. Every time it was shown that the condition of
his health would not admit of his meeting with his quorum the ques-
tion of his standing was postponed. But meanwhile he and his friends
were not slow to talk about his associates and to convey unwarranted
impressions concerning their course in his " case." So much misunder-
standing was thereby created that it became absolutely necessary to
make some explanations that the Latter-day Saints might not be deceived.
President Woodruff was so strongly impressed with this that he
addressed the Conference on the subject and his statements were
endorsed by several of the Twelve who followed him.

This was no ' ; trial " of Moses Thatcher. It was simply a necessary
explanation of his status. It involved the question of his lack of har-
mony with the Church authorities. His claim that he was publicly
accused and therefore should have a public trial is astonishingly
absurd. He was not accused in the sense of a trial or investigation.
The fact of his lack of harmony with the authorities was explained
and shown to be of much earlier date than his refusal to sign the Dec-
laration and his engaging in active politics. To place himself in
harmony with the Twelve, or refuse to do so, required no "trial"
either public or private. He did neither. Yet the assurance given
him which he misconstrues were observed and his "case" was not
called up until he was able to appear.

It was but a few days after the Conference, even if it had entirely
closed, before he appeared and spoke at public meetings as though he
still held the authority in which he had not been sustained at Confer-
ence. This necessitated the announcement from the First Presidency
through the Deseret News that he had no right to officiate in the
Priesthood while in his suspended condition.

Notwithstanding [the facts stated in a] that announcement, when he
chose to present himself to the authorities he presumed to attempt
entrance to the Temple for that purpose, and at a time when the First
Presidency as well as the Twelve met for the consideration of other
Church matters and for holding their prayer circle. No one could
attend but those of their own body, nor even enter the House unless
in good standing. No member of the Church without the proper
recommend can obtain admittance to the Temple, no matter how much

« These words were omitted from the Deseret News.

REED SMOOT. 267

he may have contributed to its erection. That would cut no figure at
all in the right of entrance. It is amazing that Moses Thatcher should
attempt to intrude the" boast of his contributions into the question of
entering the Temple of God when not in good standing and full
fellowship.

His exclusion from the Temple he construes into being " denied the
privilege of meeting with the Quorum." No one knew better than he
that there was no such denial. The assurance given him by Elder F. D.
Richards and others of the Quorum was proof of their willingness to
meet him and their joy at his manifestation of even a desire to meet
them. That there were other places and occasions when he could
properly have an interview with his brethren he fully understood, and
he subsequently applied for it as he should have done long before.

In passing 1 will notice his technical quibble about the closing of
the Temple against him on October 15th for his disregard of my letter
of October 23rd, which he says is hard for him to understand. A care-
ful reading of my letter will show that the difficulty is of his own
manufacture. What I said conveys no such meaning as he asserts. I
said, "This being the condition of affairs you were not admitted to
the Temple on the forenoon of Thursday." ;4 The condition of affairs "
which caused that exclusion is set forth in the first paragraph of my
letter^ and relates to occurrences before the 15th. It is true that my
letter of the 23rd in reply to his of the 16th is incidentally mentioned,
but only as something growing out of what happened on the 15th, and
of course was not intended to apply as a condition existing before that
date. This perversion of plain language shows what small evasions
will be resorted to when one gets into the dark.

Reference to the Conference discourses published in the Deseret
News was made that Brother Thatcher might know exactly what the
brethren said, that he might see the necessity there was for the people
to understand where he stood, and that he might see the need of put-
ting himself in harmony with the Church authorities.

It is necessary to notice his complaint that he had not been invited
to attend the meeting at which final action was taken in his case. In
his letter dated November 4th, he says:

" I returned to this city Thursday — a week ago tomorrow — and have
daily expected to hear respecting a time when I could see the brethren
once more together. No word having reached me respecting that mat-
ter, I adopt this means of respectfully asking you when such meeting
can be arranged. As early a reply as convenient will greatly oblige,
"Your brother in the Gospel.

" MOSES THATCHER."

To this I replied, as he has published, under date of November 6:
"In accordance with your wishes for a meeting, I take pleasure in
appointing 2 o'clock on Thursday next at the Historian's Office, upon
which occasion the quorum will be pleased to meet with you.

"With kindest regards, your brother and fellow servant,

"LORENZO SNOW."

On the day thus appointed the Apostles met, at the time and place
thus designated, and they received his lengthy communication dated
Nov. 11, in which he said:

"I shall not trouble my brethren therefore to convene in a special
meeting named for Thursday at 2 p. m. at the Historian's Office."

268 REED SMOOT.

Thereupon the Council of the Apostles gave him one week more,
and notified him that his case would be called up for action at a meet-
ing to be held in the Historian's office at 10 a.'m. on Thursday, the
19th inst., as appears in my letter, published by him with the other
correspondence.

When that day arrived we received his last letter in which he said:

"As there is to be no trial of any case and as I am not requested to
be present, I take it to be the purpose of considering my case," etc.

Why should there have been any further tampering with the case?
Moses Thatcher was entirely out of harmony with his brethren the
Apostles. He was simply required to put himself in accord with them
as is required by the Gospel and the order of the councils of the Priest-
hood. That he declined to do. After asking for a time and place to
be appointed when he could meet with them, and in response to that
request a time and place were set, and the Apostles came from distant
points for the purpose of meeting with him, instead of appearing he
coolly notified them by letter that he would "not trouble them to con-
vene!" Then when they gave him another week in which to appear,
and notified him that his case would be called up for consideration
and action, he still treated the Council with contempt and asserted: "I
am not requested to be present."

That the Council of the Apostles took the only consistent action
that was left open must be evident to every Latter-day Saint who has
eyes to see and a heart to understand. Why Moses Thatcher did not
meet with his brethen, after they had assembled at his own request, is
best known to himself. Notwithstanding his past course they were
ready to receive him with open arms if he had come in the proper
spirit and put himself in accord with them. As he would not, they
expelled him from the Priesthood as they were in duty bound to do.

It should be known that the disaffection of Moses Thatcher dates
back to a time long before political difficulties could enter into the
matter. President Woodruff has stated publicly that Moses Thatcher
had not been in full harmony with his Quorum since the death of
President John Taylor. Trouble was had with him before that time.

In 1886 he proclaimed in public discourses ideas and predictions
not endorsed by his brethren. At Lewiston, Cache county, notes were
taken of his utterances and published on a fly-leaf. He was sub-
sequently written to by President Taylor, and his answer is on file.
While he claimed that he had not been accurately reported, he gave
his own language, under his own hand, to the effect of predictions of
events to occur within five years, which have failed of fulfilment and
which were founded on erroneous interpretations of Scripture. He
wrote for publication a sort of retraction which really took nothing
back but merely charged partial errors in the report of his extrava-
gant remarks.

He was out of harmony with his brethren in relation to a standing
appellate High Council, which he claimed should be appointed and
which notion he has never acknowledged was incorrect.

He disputed with President Taylor as to the appointment of Presi-
dent of the Logan Temple and contended for a man of his own
selection, even after the President announced the appointment by
revelation.

His bearing with his brethren of the Twelve was such that he could
not brook dissent and resented their nonacceptance of his personal
views.

REED SMOOT. 269

When Wilford Woodruff's accession to the Presidency was under
consideration, as the proper successor, he expressed opinions which
showed that he regarded human smartness and business ability as
above that simplicity of character and susceptibility to divine impres-
sions which are notable in that faithful servant of God, and objected
that such a man could not grasp the situation of affairs or cope with
the difficulties arising. He was overruled but persisted in his views.

When President George Q. Cannon, after the decease of President
Taylor, was in prison for infraction of the anti-polygamy laws, Moses
claimed that Brother Cannon had defrauded him, and he threatened
in the presence of President Woodruff and others of the Twelve to sue
him at law, and thus bring many private affairs before the public
through the courts. Only on being emphatically warned by President
Woodruff and others that such a course, particularly in Brother Can-
non'* condition, would result disastrously to him in his Church posi-
tion did he desist. On President Cannon's release from confinement
the matter was fully investigated and it was demonstrated that instead
of Brother Cannon's owing him he was in Brother Cannon's debt to
an amount which he subsequently paid. For his insults and hard
language towards Brother Cannon he has never apologized nor made
any amends. This incident is referred to in President Cannon's
absence from the State. He has always preserved silence on this mat-
ter and did not wish it to be mentioned against Brother Thatcher.
But it is important as showing Moses Thatcher's spirit and bearing
towards his brethren.

Brother Thatcher makes great pretentions of devotion to the Church
and declares he has "never shirked any responsibility." The people
in many of the various Stakes of Zion who have been visited by the
Apostles may ask themselves when they have ever seen Moses Thatcher
at their quarterly conferences or other Church gatherings.

He has neglected the meetings of his Quorum for }^ears. This was
not always on account of ill health. He was able, at least in the
earlier part of the time, to attend to business and pleasure affairs,
apparently in good health and spirits. The roll book of meetings of the
Presidency and the Apostles shows that from May, 1889 to April, 1896,
a period of about seven years, he was in attendance at the regular
weekly meeting but 33 times. There were held 277 of those meetings,
at which President Woodruff, though weighted down by age and numer-
ous cares, was present 256 times; his absence was always on account
of sickness. Brother Thatcher's residence was most of the time in
Logan, but the hour was set so that he and others at a distance could
have reasonable opportunity to attend.

Brother Thatcher's spirit has been contumacious and he has been
self opinionated and arbitrary. Previous to the dedication of the
Temple his brethren labored with him for many hours to bring him
into the proper frame of mind to unite with them in that sacred cere-
mony. His condition was not entirely satisfactory at the close of the
protracted interview, but was accepted out of charity and mercy to
him that he might not be excluded from the dedication, with the hope
that the spirit of the occasion would influence him to thorough recon-
ciliation. President Woodruff's announcement of harmony among the
brethren was made with that understanding, but has been adroitly
turned by Brother Thatcher to shut off all that occurred before that
time, and which would not now be alluded to but for his own utter-
ances and reference to his pretended humility and harmony.

270 REED SMOOT.

In accepting nomination for a political office, which if elected thereto
would have taken him away from his ecclesiastical duties for long
periods, without consultation with his quorum and the Presidency,
he could not but have known that he was violating a requirement of
high officials in the Church. Yet he would not consult with them,
while he was able to attend political gatherings and business meetings
although in poor health. Here again he was out of harmony with his
brethren.

There was no need for any loss of manhood or proper independence
nor the forfeiture of any of the rights of citizenship. But if he did
not value his Apostleship and Priesthood as of the very first consider-
ation he was not worthy to hold them, and his subsequent course shows
that he held them in great esteem in theory but in very small esteem
in practice. Fine words and sympathetic phrases do very well to
influence the public, but they count for nothing in the face of deeds
that contradict them, and the failure to do that which is so rhetorically
professed. The standing and fellowship of Moses Thatcher as a mem-
ber of the Church have not been brought into question, therefore
there has been no trial. He has been dealt with by his quorum for
lack of harmony with his associates, something that was entirely in his
own power to correct without great exertion or much time. If his
standing in the Church was at stake, specific charges would be made,
and he would have to answer to them in the usual way, which is not
and has not been by public demonstration.

What has been done was necessary and a duty. Action was not
taken until it was certain that no further delay would be of any use or
benefit. Moses Thatcher has been treated with greater consideration
and mercy than any other man who has taken the course which he has
pursued. He has been prayed for, waited upon, pleaded with and
wept over until his rebellion and contumacy were seen to be invincible,
and he is in open hostility to regulations which the whole Church has
adopted and ratified. He could not and cannot be any longer em-
powered to act in the authority of the Holy Priesthood.

And now let the Latter-day Saints ponder upon the situation, and
take the warning given by the Prophet Joseph Smith as a key to the
Church for all time. It is as follows:

" I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom.
It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity.
That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the
Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is
righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to
apostas}^; and if be does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."
(History of Joseph Smith, July 2, 1839.)

In conclusion I repeat the words of Him who spake as never man
spake:

"He that exalteth himself shall be abased, but he that humbleth
himself shall be exalted."

Your brother in the Gospel, LORENZO SNOW.

Previous to the publication of the foregoing letters, some young
men in Salt Lake City addressed a letter to their father residing at St.
George; they received the following reply, which sets forth so clear

EEED SMOOT. 271

and comprehensive a view of the subject that it is here presented for
the careful consideration of the reader:

ST. GEORGE, November 28, 1896.

MY DEAR SONS, GORDON, RICHARD and FREDERICK: Since writing
you last and on the same day I wrote you about the Thatcher matter,
we received yours of the 22nd, and also had the Sunday and Monday
Herald, so that 1 have the letters between Brother Thatcher and
President Snow, and also have the articles of the Tribune on the
matter, as well as the News articles up to the 24th. The mail did not
connect yesterday, so I have nothing later, but I think I have enough
to size up the situation fairly well.

An outsider *on reading the letter between Thatcher and Snow wil
very naturally think that Moses Thatcher has not had fair treatment
from the fact that his Quorum would not formulate any charges for
him to plead to, and dealt with him without giving him a chance to be
heard in self-defence. Under a legal procedure, or in common business
transactions, this view would undoubtedly be the correct one, but to
one who is somewhat familiar with the principles of the Gospel, the
organization of the Church and its quorums of the Priesthood — the
matter assumes a different aspect.

The statements of the members of his Quorum made at the last Con-
ference throw considerable light on the trouble, even though nothing
definite was said as to the particular points of difference between him
and the others of the Twelve. That he stood alone as opposed to his
Quorum in any matter of church discipline, and refused to put himself
in harmony therewith, after a fair time had been given him, is in itself
enough cause for his being placed outside the Quorum, as it is impos-
sible for a body of that kind to do its proper work with disunion in its
midst; and while the people generally may not have known all the
matters of difference, still Thatcher's usefulness in his place as an
Apostle would be impaired, and he could not do his duty in his high
and holy calling. This being so, it was his plain duty to place himself
in harmony with the others of his Quorum, or, failing to do that he
should have resigned, and not have been a stumbling block in the way
of the progress of the cause which he professes to think so much of.

It may be said that the matters of policy and discipline were such
as he could not conscientious!}7 sustain, and that therefore he is justi-
fied in refusing to indorse or work for them. Admitting that to be
the 'case, he had a right in his place in the Quorum to give his views
in as strong a manner as he felt necessary, and urge upon the others to
adopt them; but when he had done that arid the majority was against
his ideas, to say nothing of there being in this case the entire eleven
against one, then he must acquiesce in their decision, yield his judg-
ment to the others, and do his best to make the polic}7 decided upon a
success; if it were not possible to give it his fullest sanction, he should
at least ndt do anything to oppose or obstruct the workings of the
Quorum, for the minute he does such a thing he is not fit to hold his
place in that Quorum and must make way for some one who can and
will work in harmony with the heads of the cause.

It is not^a supposable case that the eleven of the Quorum and the
three of the First Presidency are all going to take a course which is

272 REED SMOOT.

opposed to the good of the Church, and that one man is the one who
is right, especially when that one man is only one of twelve of equal
authority, with another quorum of three still over them. While in
ordinary cases of trial for fellowship the accused has the right to have
charges preferred against him to which he may answer and rebut if he
can, this is another kind of a case; it is simply a matter of harmony
and fellowship between a member of a quorum and the quorum itself,
and consists of differences of opinion and opposition to the decisions
of the quorum, with which all are acquainted and which need no formal
charges to acquaint the party out of harmony with what he is expected
to make right so that he may be in fellowship with his Quorum.

It is not a matter where the eleven should go to him and make the
differences right, but it is for the one out of harmony >to come to them
and set himself straight; or, failing to do so, to resign his place, so that
the cause may not suffer from the want of union among the leading
quorums. You will see from this the difference between a case where
a member of the Church has committed some act against the laws of
discipline of the Church, and the case of a member of a quorum being
out of harmony in his own quorum. In the first case the party who is
accused of a wrong must have the charges specified; must have the
opportunity of being confronted with his accusers, and of producing
any evidence he may have, to rebut the accusations against him; then
by the law and the testimony only can he be condemned.

No one can know and understand better than Thatcher these princi-
ples of order in the organization of the Church, and when he called on
the members of. his Quorum for specific charges against himself he
must have known that he was requiring something out of order, some-
thing which they would not have been justified in making, and to all
appearances he was only doing this to make a record by which he could
claim that he had been unjustly dealt with, in being deposed without a
hearing, depending on the ignorance of " outside" people and many of
the " inside" ones as well, to justify him in his course, and by this
means gain popularity and make a schism in the Church, or at least to
ride into political power by his show of independence of the Church.

While his letters seem to exhibit a meekness of spirit, still there is
something of a studied effort at posing for future effect, so that he
might have the quorum at a seeming disadvantage when the matter
became public. A careful reading between the lines will make this
plain to a spirit of discernment.

He exhibited the cloven hoof the moment he announced himself a
candidate for the Senate on a platform opposed to the rule of the
Church, and this was done even before he had been deposed, and while
he still pretended to expect to hold his position. What further proof
can be wanted of his disposition to try and gain political power and pres-
tige among the class called ' k Young Utah ? " Of course he knows that
there is a large class of the young of this Church which does not have
a very good understanding of the Church order and discipline, and he
evidently thinks he can work upon the sympathies of this class by
pretending not to have had a fair showing to defend himself, but when
the young, and many of the older ones, too, who have not understood
this, have time to think the matter over, they will not see the thing in
the light that at first seemed to be so clear to them, and Thatcher will
stand where he belongs in their estimation.

REED SMOOT. 273

While Thatcher inay be an honest man, and a man whom any one
would be disposed to like, still there can be no doubt that he lias
allowed his ambition, mixed probably with his personal feelings toward
some of the leading1 men, to have such an influence ov.er him, that he
has thrown away a position which is the highest and most honorable
in the world.

While there may have been many mistakes made by Church authori-
ties, and may be many more made in the future, it is no justification
for a man in Thatcher's position to take the stand he has done, and
his duty was to try and learn by the errors committed, and endeavor
to have them avoided in the future. No man is perfect, and although
there are men holding high places who aro entitled to the spirit of the
Lord to teach them how to act so as to bring about the best results for
the cause they represent, still they may at times commit errors in
judgment and even do things through selfish principle, not in keeping
with their professions and high callings; so that we should not tie to
any man so far as our faith in the principles of the Gospel and our
ideas of right are concerned, but endeavor so to live that we may have
the spirit of discernment arid truth to guide us aright on all subjects.

A few weeks since it would have been considered by many as almost
a sacrilege to have questioned anything which Brother Thatcher might
have said or done, but his fall shows how fallible is man, and that any
one of those now in full standing may go the same way, for no man
is of himself safe for a day or an hour. I desire to keep enough of the
spirit of the Lord in close communion to enable me to judge between
right and wrong, as I consider that one of the greatest of God's gifts
to man.

There is one thing we should bear in mind regarding those high in
authority, and that is that they are placed on a kind of a pedestal, where
their faults and weaknesses are plainly visible, and where they appear
more prominent than where exhibited by others who are not in so
prominent a position and have not so mucn expected from them.

As to the merits of any business troubles and. jealousies there may
have been between Brother Thatcher and others of the authorities, I
am not prepared to judge, as I have only heard one side of a portion
of them, and nothing at all from Thatcher's side, but I assume Thatcher
is able to look pretty well after his own part of such things, as ho is a
bright and intelligent business man.

While there may be a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the
course being pursued by the DeseretNews in threatening the supporters
of Thatcher for the Senate, with Church power, still I would rather
have an open fight at any time than to be stating one policy for the
outside to hear and pursuing another in secret, so that I am willing to
stand by the Church in an open fight for any principle of right, and
at no matter what cost.

As to Thatcher's chances for the Senate, I am unable to give an
intelligent opinion, as I am not acquainted with a great number of the
legislature, but I think no one who is a firm Latter-day Saint will vote
to place him there, because he has announced himself as standing on
a platform which is positively opposed to the discipline of the Church,
and which rules of discipline have been approved by nearly all the
members thereof. When he takes that stand he is opposing the
Church in a vital place, and I see no other course than for some one to

274 EEED SMOOT.

make a complaint against him for conduct unbecoming a Latter-day
Saint, and unless he retracts from the position he will necessarily have
to be cut off the Church. This may seem harsh to some, but there
can be no other logical outcome to a course such as he is now taking.
It would be the same if any other member of the Church should
announce himself on such a platform.

I believe I am as independent in my ideas and action as any one
can well be, but I try to be consistent with my ideas of honor and
justice, and to recognize order and authority in Church government.
The position I take on the Thatcher case seems to me to be the only
one which can be maintained in justice to the rights of the Church
itself.

I have a strong dislike to injustice to any person or cause, and will
always defend the right as I understand it.

If I were a member of the Legislature, I should surely vote against
any one assuming the position Thatcher does, not believing that poli-
tics of that kind should stand in the way of the cause of truth. I have
talked with none here, and can't say how much sympathy Thatcher
has,, but suppose there will be a good many who will be led away by
the speciousness of his pleas of unfairness; my sympathy for him is
for his great loss, and I would be glad to have him come around and
make all right if he can do it honestly.

All well; very cold for two nights. Ice half an inch thick on creeks.
Love to all.

Your affectionate father, EDWIN G. WOOLLEY.

As evidence of the impression produced on the minds of persons
not connected with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints,
by the dispute between that Church and Moses Thatcher, the follow-
ing article from the pen of a Catholic clergyman is here presented. It
is taken from the Denver Catholic of November 28th, of which Rev.
T. H. Malone is editor:

" It seems to us that most of the newspapers which have commented
upon the action of the Mormon Church in its treatment of ex- Apostle
Moses Thatcher, have failed utterly to grasp the correct position of
the Mormon Church in the matter.

" Mr. Thatcher has been put outside the fellowship of the Mormon
Church for having, as alleged, accepted civil office without taking
counsel with the Church. No one, we think, will question the right
of the Church to deal with its members in its own way, and if Mr.
Thatcher has transgressed some law of the Mormon body we fail to
see wherein &ny outsider has the right of complaint.

c 'A great cry has been raised against the Mormon Church because
of its treatment of Mr. Thatcher, and the old cry of interfering in
politics renewed. But we confess that a careful examination fails to
show that the Mormon Church has in any way interfered in politics in
its treatment of Mr. Thatcher. If Mr. Thatcher violated a rule of
the Mormon institution in seeking and accepting office without the
permission of the Mormon Church, he clearly made himself liable to
the treatment which has been meted out to him. And in this vjew of
the case it is quite clear that Mr. Thatcher is insincere in seeking to

REED SMOOT. 275

use his violation of Church discipline as an argument in favor of his
election to the United States Senate.

" If the Democratic Legislature of Utah should be influenced in Mr.
Thatcher's favor because of his treatment by the Church to which he
has professed allegiance, the Legislature would be clearly guilty of
doing by indirection what it is prohibited by the constitution from
doing directly, viz: of interfering in a church matter which in no way
concerns it.

'•'The Mormon people have shown a far better temper in this whole
affair than any of their critics. It is entirely outside the province of
the Utah Legislature to vindicate Mr. Thatcher in a matter that per-
tains solely to the Mormon Church; and if the Legislature of Utah
should assume any such responsibility it will have entered upon a
very dangerous proceeding, and one which will absolutely dissolve the
Mormon Church from its expressed obligation not to interfere in
politics.

"There is a fundamental principle involved in this controversy
which the Gentiles of Utah should not lose sight of."

On Sunday, December 13th, Moses Thatcher had a very lengthy
communication in the morning papers, ostensibly addressed to Presi-
dent Lorenzo Snow, as a reply to his letter of explanation which
appears in this pamphlet, but covering much wider ground, and enter-
ing into subjects entirely outside of President Snow's remarks. While
expressing great hostility to the mingling of religion and politics, it
mixes them up in a manner which conveys to the thoughtful reader
the impression that political office is the chief end in view of the
writer, and the religious part of his argument is so framed as to lead
up to, and make eminently conspicuous the platform on which he pre-
sents himself for the suffrages of the members of the Utah State Leg-
islature. He also attacks the Deseret News on political ground, all of
which is extraneous to the letter of explanation published by Presi-
dent Lorenzo Snow, and while addressed to him is clearly intended to
influence the Legislature and the public mind.

Starting with the assertion that in writing his letter: "The dut}^ is
a painful one, so painful indeed, that personal considerations would
be a motive insufficient to induce me even on a matter so \itally
important to me and mine, to take up my pen in self defence," he goes
on through nearly seven columns of print to make statements and offer
pleas which are almost entirely personal to himself, and utterly fails
to make it appear that there was anything like a "duty" incumbent on
him to make any of the statements which he gives to the public.

The explanations given by President Snow, in response to the letter
of inquiry addressed to him, Moses Thatcher denounces as "public
charges to gratify the curiosity of five young men of Salt Lake City,"
and complains because the specified charges against him, which he
demanded previous to his deposal, were withheld from him but are
now made public.

It should be plain to every intelligent mind that has paid attention
to this matter, that no "charges" have been made against Moses
Thatcher to place him on trial, either in public or in private, with the
exception of the charge that he was not in harmony with his Quorum
and the General authorities of the Church. This fact he appears to
ignore entirely. The explanations given by President Wilford Wood-
ruff and other Church leaders at the October Conference, and those

276 REED SMOOT.

given in President Snow's letter, were not " charges " on which Moses
Thatcher was to be placed on trial, but were necessary items of infor-
mation for the enlightenment of the members of the Church, who were
under the impression that the only difference .between Moses Thatcher
and the Church authorities was in relation to the Declaration of Prin-
ciples, enunciated at the April Conference.

The insinuation that they were given merely to gratify the curiosity
of a few young men is scarcely worthy of mention, except to show the
underlying spirit of an effusion professing candor and fairness. The
"pleas" for mercy and "cries of anguish" of which he speaks could
all have been obviated by a few minutes conversation with the brethren
of his Quorum in a conciliatory spirit. This he could have had when-
ever he so desired, and such expressions fail to move upon the sym-
pathies of enlightened people, in view of that simple fact.

Another complaint by Moses Thatcher is that,

" During all these weary months, while friends and physicians
believed I was on the verge of the grave, I was administered to only
once by members of our Quorum, although day after day engagements
made for that purpose were for reasons unknown to me not kept. And
after the Manifesto was returned to you unsigned, none of the
Apostles, except the three mentioned, ever came to my house or visited
me for any purpose whatever."

This statement is amazing in view of the facts, unless for charity's
sake the idea is entertained that the sickness to which he alludes has
blotted many things from his memory. Times without number mem-
bers of his quorum visited him during his sickness, and were always
ready to administer to him when he was ready to receive their admin-
istrations. President Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith also
waited upon him. On several occasions, after waiting a long time to
see him, some of his brethren failed to obtain any interview. None of
them is aware of any "engagement made for that purpose" which was
not fulfilled. It is not customary for the Elders of the Church to
thrust their offices upon invalids, but the rule is: "If any are sick
among }^ou, let him call for the Elders of the Church, who shall anoint
him with oil and pray over him, and the prayer of faith shall save the
sick."

No one of the authorities of the Church has ever refused a call from
Moses Thatcher or members of his family, to administer to him. After
his refusal to sign the Declaration of Principles (or "Manifesto" as he
calls it,) it is true that calls were not made upon him so frequently as
before. He had demonstrated that he was out of harmony with his
brethren and was in such a frame of mind and condition of body that
conversation with him was almost an impossibility. He was so excited
and determined to talk himself, that any attempt to enlighten him or
respond to his voluble expressions was utterly in vain.

But wiry should he now complain that he was not "labored with"
by his brethren in reference to the Declaration of Principles when he
admits " I understood the Manifesto then as I understand it now? "

The ground he offers for this complaint is this:

"It may be that Elder B. H. Roberts signed it* without considera-
tion, but I have been authoritatively informed that, strong and healthy
as he was in mind and body, several members of the Quorum to which
I belonged labored with him day after day for weeks before he con-
sented to accept the principles of absolutism it contains,"

EEED SMOOT. 277

He then remarks:

"But when I afterwards learned that its claims had been discussed
for weeks by the other members of the Quorum of Apostles, that a
systematic presentation of its grounds had been devoted to Brother
Roberts, — I was led to wonder if the brief time allotted me was the
result of design or accident."

These complaints and insinuations are founded upon error. The
Declaration of Principles, which was formulated by a committee, was
not prepared until a time subsequent to the reconciliation of Elder B.
H. Roberts with his brethren. He needed no persuation to append
to it his signature. He signed it without objection, as did all of the
Authorities of the Church to whom it was presented, with the sole
exception of Moses Thatcher. The principle it contains is so mani-
festly essential to the welfare of the Church, and so clearly in accord
with the order of the Holy Priesthood, as understood from the begin-
ning, that there was no need for hesitation or delay. The necessity
for its enunciation at that particular juncture must be apparent to
every reflecting mind, in view of the attitude assumed by Moses
Thatcher and those who shared his opinions. It is often necessary to
repeat well established doctrines and to reiterate principles which all
experienced Saints ought to understand, but which some of them seem
to forget or neglect to practice.

His complaint about his exclusion from the Temple is repeated with
quibbles about dates, owe of which was fully explained in President
Snow's letter. The spirit in which they are put forward will be dis-
cerned by the majority of the Latter-day Saints. Complaint is again
made by Moses Thatcher of the remarks made by President Woodruff
and others concerning him at the October Conference, in this wise:

" I had received assurances and reassurances that nothing would be
done or said affecting my case until I should report myself ready for
trial."

This statement is another of those remarkable departures from the
exact truth, which occur so frequently in his latest publication. The
promises made to those of his friends who expressed the desire that he
should not be called to account by his quorum before he was physically
able to endure the mental and bodily exertion necessary to undergo
such an investigation, did not pledge any person to refrain from speak-
ing on the subject. He and his friends did not appear to think there
was any seal of silence to be placed on their lips, and it was to correct
the improper impression which had been made upon the minds of many
of the Saints that the explanation given by the brethren at the Con-
ference was considered necessar}^. Moses Thatcher contended, as he
contends now, that his failure to sign the Declaration of Principles
was the only note of discord between him and the Church authorities.
The remarks made at the October Conference placed the matter in its
true light, and the lack of harmony between him and his brethren was
shown to have long existed.

He disputes and ridicules the statement of President Snow that the
promise to his friends was faithfully fulfilled, and asks:

"When a tribunal pronounces a man guilty and announces to the
world its judgment, has he been left 'in statu quo?'"

Here again Moses Thatcher assumes that he was placed on trial,
when there had been no tribunal, no trial, no charges, and no ^ judg-
ment. His case was certainly left "in statu quo," and was not inves-

278 REED SMOOT.

tigated nor acted upon until by his own request a time and place were
set for the purpose, at which he refused to be present. Once more,
charity would suggest that his singular objections and failure to
recognize the realities of his case are attributable to mental weakness
consequent upon his affliction.

He next attempts to evade the evidence adduced to show his lack of
harmony with his brethren and an established rule of the Church, in
his threat made to President Woodruff, and several of the Twelve, to
sue President George Q. Cannon at law when Brother Cannon was
imprisoned for infraction of the anti-polygamy laws. This he does by
quoting a receipt which he gave to Brother Cannon as president of the
Bullion-Beck Company for certain shares of stock in that company,
which were delivered to him by the secretary. What application that
can have to his accusation against President Cannon, and his threat to
take a civil case against a brother into a court of law, before seeking
redress according to the law of the Lord, is also one of those peculiarities
in Moses Thatcher's latest plea, which it is difficult to harmonize with
good reason and Church doctrine.

The point which he, not ver}^ skillfully, evades is that he was out
of harmony with the President of the Church and his associates in his
spirit and course towards President Cannon in this instance. He pro-
fesses not to understand how this matter being "a business transac-
tion between two members of the Church " has a bearing on his affairs
as recently made public. Such a transaction' between two mem bers
of the Church has been many times in its history the foundation for a
trial in its courts, involving the fellowship of the member who sued
or threatened to sue his brother, before that recourse which the Church
provides had first been exhausted.

Following this evasion of the real issue, is an endeavor to explain
the subject of his utterances in Cache County and other places in 1886.
He says:

"Not one word uttered by me at Lewiston on the occasion referred
to partook of the nature of a prophecy as coming from me."

Let us see. The report of his remarks which was circulated at the
time on a fly leaf, numerously distributed, was as follows:

"WORDS SPOKEN BY MOSES THATCHER AT LEWISTON, CACHE co., 1886.

"It is my belief that every city, precinct, County and Territorial
Office in this Territory will be in the hands of our enemies, that we
will be so burdened with taxes that it will be almost more than human
nature can endure; that we shall cry to the Lord both by night and
by day for deliverance; that when our hearts are sufficiently subdued,
that our entire trust will be in the Lord, then shall that man like unto
Moses be raised up and raise us up, and lead us out of bondage back
to Jackson County, in the State of Missouri. There will be no hesi-
tation; everything shall be decisive and prompt; the mountains shall
tremble before him, and if there be a tree or anything else in the way
of their progress, it shall be plucked up by the power of God. Then
is the time that the Scripture shall be fulfilled that says, ' One shall
chase a thousand, and two shall put ten thousand to flight.'

"It is my belief that the time of our deliverance will be within five
years, the time indicated being February 14th, 1891 (see Millennial
Star, Yol 15, page 205), and that the man raised up will be no other

KEED SMOOT. 279

than the Prophet Joseph Smith in the resurrected body; the power to
lead Israel in the latter days, as Moses lead him anciently having been
sealed upon his head by his father Joseph Smith, the Patriarch of the
Church at that time. If Father Smith had the power to bless, and
that he had this power is most certain, from the fact that he was
ordained to this office and calling by his son the Prophet, before the
above blessing was promised on the head of Joseph Smith.

"No other man can perform this mission of the Prophet Joseph
Smith (Millennial Star, Vol. 15, page 620). I do not sa}T all the people
of the nation will be destroyed within the time mentioned, but I do
say that in consequence of the wickedness and corruption of the
officers of this nation the government will pass into the hands of
the Saints, and that within five years. There will not be a city in
the Union that will not be in danger of disruption by the Knights of
Labor who are becoming a formidable power in the land. You people
in quiet Lewiston need not be surprised if within the next four years
the railroad is torn up from Ogden to the Missouri River and to San
Francisco and into Montana in the North leaving us isolated as we
were when we first came to this Territory. There is a power to do
this and a disposition too," meaning the Knights of Labor.

4 ' A servant of God holding the power and keys of the holy Apos-
tleship does not speak in this manner for mere pastime; there is more
in these utterances than we are apt to attach unless we are aided by
the Spirit of God. They are calculated to cheer the Saints in the time
of trial and persecution."

The foregoing was declared at the time to be an accurate report of
the remarks of Moses Thatcher in Cache county and as repeated by
him at Rockville in Washington county, when he was on his wa}7 up
from the South. Reports from these extreme points were to the same
purport. But Brother Thatcher in his communication to President
John Taylor, to which he refers in his latest open letter, disputes the
correctness of that report, and gives the following as his own version
of his remarks at Lewiston:

" The inacuracy of the report consists mainly in accrediting me with
declarations made by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and with statements
recorded in his history as published in the Millennial Star, to which
in my remarks I alluded, and from which 1 quoted. Of course I an
unable to remember the exact words at the time and place mentioned,
but I remember the ideas sought to be conveyed in that portion of my
remarks claimed to have been reported as indicated in the prints sent
me by you. In substance what I said was as follows:

'"I believe that every Territorial, County and Municipal office in
this Territory will be in the hands of our enemies before this religious
persecution is ended; that we will be burdened by excessive taxation
almost beyond human endurance; that political bondage will be so
complete and, so oppressive, that we will be compelled to purify our-
selves, cease to rely upon the arm of flesh, and cry night and day with
one united voice of supplication to God, for deliverance.

" 4I believe, when that day shall come, — and I do not think it far
distant, — the man like Moses spoken of in the Book of Covenants will
lead the Saints out of bondage to the land of their inheritance, as pre-
dicted. There will be no hesitation, for what God does through that
deliverer will be decisive and prompt. The mountains will tumble
before him, and if trees or other obstructions be in the way of

280 REED SMOOT.

progress, they will be plucked up, or removed by the power of God,
and " one shall chase a thousand and two shall put ten thousand to
flight," as foretold.

u ' It is my belief that the Saints will be delivered from bondage
within five years, the Prophet Joseph Smith having declared at a special
meeting of the members of Zion's Camp, called by revelation, manifest
in vision to the Prophet and held at Kirtland, Ohio, on February 14th,
1835, "that the coming of the Lord was nigh, — even fifty-six years
should wind up the scene." (Mill. Star, Vol. XV, page 205.)

•" 'The blessings of Moses to lead Israel in the latter days, even as
Moses led them in the days of old, having been put upon the head of
Joseph by his anointed father, the ordained Patriarch of the Church.
I believe the man to be " raised up," to deliver God's people from the
temporal bondage will be no other than Joseph Smith, in the spirit or
in the resurrected body.' (Mill. Star, Vol. XV, page 620; also pre-
diction in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.)

" 'Within the time specified by the Prophet for the coming of the
Lord and the winding up scene, 1 know not how great may be the
destruction wrought upon our nation, but the officials thereof will cease
their wickedness, corruptions and oppressions, repent of the hatred of
the Almighty, and stop persecuting His saints, or the government and
power to rule will pass out of their hands.

'"Previous to the time indicated few cities in the Union will be
beyond danger of disruption by the Knights of Labor and other secret
societies, fast becoming formidable powers in the land. In the midst
of the doings of these secret societies I should not be surprised, nor
need you, dwelling in quiet Lewiston, be surprised, if within five
years, the railroads between the Missouri River and San Francisco,
Ogden and Montana on the North, are largely torn up, leaving us
isolated as when we first came to the Territory. The power and dis-
position to accomplish this, and much more, is in these organizations,
and will increase until the abundant elements of destruction, rapidly
massing, will work for the people of our nation terrible disasters, and
if they repent not, ultimate ruin.":

How is it possible that Moses Thatcher can reconcile his own report
of his utterances at Lewiston with his present statement that " not one
word on the occasion referred partook of the nature of a prophecy as
coming from him ? " In his letter to President Taylor he states that
the inaccuracy of the report consists mainly in attributing to him
assertions made by the Prophet Joseph Smith. But the citations which
he makes, whether from the Millennial Star or the Doctrine and Cove-
nants, make no allusion whatever to the events which he said would
occur within five years from the time when he predicted them. They
are not to be found in any of the declarations of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, or of his father, or of any other leaders of the Church. If
Moses Thatcher's utterances as reported by himself are not in the
nature "of predictions, then the term has no meaning in our language.
If those predictions 'have not failed of fulfillment, then the history of
our Church and nation since 1891 has no signification.

But reference to those predictions and their failure was not made in
the nature of a "charge" against Moses Thatcher for which he was to
be called to account, it was simply to show his lack of harmony with
his associates in the Church, that being the gist of the offense alleged
by the Church authorities.

REED SMOOT. 281

But he urges in further excuse this peculiar assertion:

a Besides, it is well understood by the Saints that the sermons,
even of Apostles, are not regarded as doctrine."

Let us compare this statement with the revelation of God through
Joseph Smith to three Apostles, which the Lord declares is "an
ensample unto all those who are ordained unto this Priesthood."

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy
Ghost, shall be Scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the
mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of
the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." D. & C. p. 248.

This promise is to be coupled wi th the commandment,

"And the spirit given unto you by the prayer of faith, and if

ye receive not the spirit ye shall not teach." Doc. & Cov. page 170.

When we further consider the remark reported to have been made
by Moses Thatcher at Lewiston, and which was a favorite expression
of his at that time, his present declaration appears all the more
remarkable. It was this:

"A servant of God holding the power and keys of the Holy Apos-
tleship does not speak in this manner for mere pastime. There is
more in these utterances than we are apt to attach unless we are aided
by the Spirit of God."

He next disputes the statement of his discord with President Taylor
in relation to the appointment of M. W. Merrill as President of the
Logan Temple. But the spirit of forgetf ulness which he attributes to
others, must be an affliction of his own, for there is abundent evidence
to prove the truth of President Snow's statement, and the fact of
Moses Thatcher's appointment as third officer in the Temple, instead
of proving, as he claims, that he had not opposed Brother Merrill's
appointment, is rather in the nature of evidence that President Taylor
desired to placate Moses Thatcher and soothe his ruffled feelings.

But if the question was asked, did Moses Thatcher fill that appoint-
ment and perform its duties, what answer could be truthfully given?
There is actually nothing to show that Brother Thatcher acted as
assistant to the President of the Temple, even when his services were
needed in consequence of the very large attendance for ordinance
work. This was many years before his severe illness. It was in 1884.

The next effort of Moses Thatcher is to make it appear that there is
a conflict between the position taken by the leading authorities of the
Church on political matters previous to the admission of Utah into the
Union, and that which they occupy now. That this effort is a com-
plete failure will be evident to all who carefully examine that which
he sets forth in support of his proposition.

He quotes from the report of an interview with the First Presidency
which appeared in the columns of the Salt Lake Times, and also refers
to the statements of the First Presidency as published in the Deseret
News. He then refers once more to the Declaration of Principles,
and offers the excuse for not signing it, that he "could not reconcile
this last one with those made by file leaders and ecclesiastical superiors
between 1890 and the date of Utah's admission into the Union."

The truth is that there is nothing in all those utterances of the leaders
of the Church, between the dates he mentions, which is in any way out
of harmony with the principles enunciated in the Declaration, or "Mani-
festo," as he pleases to term it.

The substance of what he quotes from those earlier declarations is
contained in these two paragraphs :

282 REED SMOOT.

" We have no desire to interfere in these matters, bat proclaim that,
as far as we are concerned, the members of this Church are entirely
and perfectly free in all political matters."

That is from the announcement made b}^ the First Presidency March
18, 1892. The following is from the interview in the Salt Lake
Times:

"Does the Church claim 'the right to dictate to its members in
political matters ?

"The Church does not claim any such right.

"That being true, are we to understand that the Church will not
assert any right to control the political action of its members in the
future ?

"That is what we wish to convey and have you understand."

Now what is there in those remarks, or in any others of a similar
nature made by the Church leaders, which differs from their enuncia-
tion in the Declaration of Principles?

In that document the doctrine is reasserted, as a rule long established
in the Church that,

" Every leading official thereof before accepting any position, polit-
ical or otherwise, which would interfere with the proper and complete
discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, and before accepting a nomina-
tion or entering into engagements to perform new duties, should apply
to the proper authorities and learn from them whether he can consist-
ently with the obligations already entered into with the Church upon
assuming his office, take upon himself the added duties and labors and
responsibilities of the new position."

It will be seen that this regulation, essential to maintain proper
discipline and order in the Church, does not affect any one but the
leading officials thereof. Following is another quotation from that
document:

" We declare that in making these requirements of our ourselves
and our brethren in the ministry we do not in the least desire to dic-
tate to them concerning their duties as American citizens, or to inter-
fere with the affairs of the State. Neither do we consider that in the
remotest degree we are seeking the union of Church and State."

The whole tenor and spirit of the Declaration tend to maintain the
individual liberty, political and otherwise, of the members of the
Church. There is nothing in it encroaching upon their rights as
American citizens or seeking to control their ballots. They are left
perfectly free to join or not to join any political party. The Times
interview and the Declaration are in nowise antagonistic.

It is noticeable that in all the allusions to the Declaration made by
Moses Thatcher, in his forced construction of its language, in his infer-
ences and deductions as to its meaning, he refrains from quoting a soli-
tary sentence from that document, although it forms the chief topic of
his lengthy efforts. If he found so vital a difference between former
utterances of the Presidency and the principle advanced in what he
terms the "Manifesto," why did he quote in detail from the former
and omit to quote a line from the latter. To use his own query, was
this "the result of accident or design " ?

Moses Thatcher assumes that the Declaration contains something
that could be applied to restrict the liberties of the people, and argues
that because of that danger he cannot sustain it. Is anything necessary

REED SMOOT. 283

further than this to show that he is and has been since April, 1896,
entirely out of harmony with the authorities of the Church ?

Here is another quotation from his letter:

"The spirit of the Manifesto as it appeared to me, was in violent
antagonism to all I had believed and publicly proclaimed for many
years, and I could not, and so far have not been able to bring myself
to a point where I believe I should yield my political judgment to any
set of men however praiseworthy their intentions."

Does he not in that paragraph furnish the proof that he has been
for many years out of harmony with his brethren? But does the
Declaration require him or any one else to ''yield his political judg-
ment?" The rule to which he objects, bears no such signification.
An officer of the Church whose time and talents are pledged primarily
to the Church, has no right under this rule to engage in anything,
political or otherwise, which would take him away from the duties
that claim his first attention, unless by permission of his associates and
presiding officers. This does not infringe upon his political liberty or
deprive him of his political judgment. If he prefers political honors
to ecclesiastical duties, he can lay down the latter and freely take
up the former. But he cannot at will ignore, neglect and for-
sake his Church duties for any purpose, and retain his official
standing, power and authority. That is so simple a proposition that
it would seem as though any person of mature age and sound mind
could grasp it without difficulty.

But he contends:

"The Manifesto (applied as its construction will allow, or as it
would be interpreted by men whose personal ambitions might control
and subvert their sense of right) could be operated to the injury of the
State."

Could not this be said of any declaration of principles or set of rules
in Church or State penned by the hand of man ? Does Moses Thatcher
wish it to be understood that he charges any of the Church authorities
with personal ambition or desire to establish what he terms "abso-
lutism ? " If not, what is the meaning of his comment, last quoted on
this subject? And yet he afterwards declares:

" I deny their right or their intention 'to interfere with my politics."

If he disclaims their intention to interfere with his politics, why does
he take the pains to deny their right, and where is the danger to the
individual or to the State which appears to him so terrible ? And he
seems to be entirely oblivious to the danger which would come to the
Church if its leading officials could go off as they pleased, hither or
thither, engage in business or politics, accept public positions which
would take them away months at a time from their ecclesiastical duties,
without leave or license from the presiding Church authorities. He is
fearful of some danger to the State from the operation of the rule
asserted in the Declaration, but has no regard for the ruin that might
ensue if that proper discipline declared to be essential to the order of
the Church should not be maintained.

Nearly all of the remaining part of Moses Thatcher's letter is de-
voted to a presentation of his claims as a candidate for political office.
It is entirely irrelevant to the subject discussed in President Snow's
letter, to which the Thatcher communication purports to be a reply.
He prefaces it with the following statement:

284 REED SMOOT.

"My whole life and its work contradict the charge that I could
seek office on a platform antagonistic to any Church. 1 should oppose
any man who stood upon such a platform."

To test the sincerity of this assertion, it will be necessary to quote
from the definition of his position in the Senatorial contest, published
in the Salt Lake Tribune of Sunday morning Nov. 15th, and which he
subsequently admitted to a Herald reporter was substantially correct.
He said:

"If Lhad not been placed in a position involving a great principle,
I could not be tempted to accept even the high office of United States
Senator, but if Utah — if Young Utah feels that my election would be
a vindication of that for which I have contended, and would aid in pre-
venting the forging of chains upon the people of this State, I should
accept the office of Senator should it be tendered me."

Then speaking of the Declaration of Principles he adds:

"I could not consent to the adoption of a rule that would affect the
political liberty of so many people, and give so great power to the
Church authorities."

And further, he says:

" Because of the stand I then took 1 have been placed in the posi-
tion of defending the cause imperilled by the Address I refused to
sign, and I have been asked to believe that my election to the Senate
at this time would be of incalculable benefit to that cause. If, as I
have said, young Utah believes that it would, I shall be at its com-
mand, and shall be willing to give such service to the State in Con-
gress as I am capable of rendering."

That forms the entire platform on which he then presented himself
as a candidate for the high office of United States Senator. Is it not
"a platform antagonistic to the Church" of which he was and now
claims to be a member? He declared himself willing to accept a pub-
lic position, for the express purpose of fighting a rule of that Church
which its general and local authorities and the body of the Church had
formally announced and adopted as essential to its order and discipline.
On his own declaration, then, it will be entirely proper for every per-
son in the Church who accepts the Declaration, to oppose Moses
Tha cher in his political candidacy, because he stands on that anti-
Church platform.

Observe, this is the logical deduction from his own reasoning. It
is he who has interjected this political question into the subject of his
religious relations and standing. It is he who has laid down the rule
that an}r man should be opposed by the Church who seeks office on. a
platform antagonistic to its rules. While he pretends aversion to the
idea of seeking office on such a platform, the whole tenor of his recent
utterances given to the press tends to show that his aim and object are,
to reach a high political position as the champion of a cause which is
nothing if not hostile to the Church. And this appears to be the cap-
stone of the somewhat incongruous structure which he has raised;
under cover of a purported reply to the plain and pointed explanations

fiven by President Snow, of the reasons why action was taken against
im by the Council of the Twelve Apostles.
In reference to his candidacy for the Senatorship he exclaims:
I invite neither the support nor the opposition of the Church. It
has no concern in political issues. "

REED SMOOT. 285

That the opposition of the Church is incited if not "invited" by his
attitude of hostility- to its latest official Declaration, cannot be rationally
disputed. The Church has the right to protect itself, and when a can-
didate for high public office takes his stand upon a platform of open
antagonism to its discipline, he virtually invites the opposition which
he attempts to evade.

And is it true that "the Church has no concern in political issues?"
Has not every Church in the United States some concern in political
issues ? In particular has not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints deep concern in all political issues that affect the people of Utah?
The great majority of them are members of that Church, and their
welfare depends largely upon political issues.

The idea that the Church must be stricken dumb when political
issues which have a direct bearing upon it are raised, is a fallacy that
would be dangerous indeed if it were not so absurd.

As to the selection of persons for public office, the word of the Lord
by revelation is given to the Church, and His people are directed by
commandment to seek diligently for wise men and honest men, and
are cautioned that the choice of other than good men and wise men
"cometh of evil."

Every official in the Church has a right to express his views on
political issues. The Church itself, as a body, is interested in those
issues that concern the State and the Nation. Its officers have as
much right as other men to a preference for some candidates over
others for civil office. The}^ may exercise their influence as citizens to
give that preference effect, providing they do not use any improper
means to accomplish it.

The opinions of men who helped to lay the foundations of this State,
ought not to be ignored in political issues because they hold leading
positions in the Church, and as the Church itself is almost entirely
composed of people who are citizens, it is not to be shut out of a voice
in public affairs by the bald assertion that "It has no concern in
political issues." The Church must not dominate the State nor inter-
fere with its functions; nor must the Church be robbed of its right to
speak on issues that vitally concern its own welfare.

In conclusion Moses Thatcher admits that he has "no complaint
against the treatment accorded" him, but asks:

' ' Why am I to be driven out of the Church because of the Manifesto ? "

That admission is astonishing after the long columns of complaints
which precede it. That question is absurd in the absence of any attempt
or desire to "drive him out of the Church." No man is "driven" out
of the Church. It is his own acts that are responsible for any man's
excommunication. Moses Thatcher, by simply going from his house
in this city to the Historian's Office, a distance of two and a half blocks,
to meet with the Council of the Apostles could have saved himself all
the sorrow, grief and humiliation of which he so repeatedly complains,
while claiming that he makes no complaint.

By conversing with his brethren at a meeting specialty convened at
his written request, he could have learned all he wished to know
respecting their views and feelings concerning him, and if he so desired
could have made reconciliation, or have resigned peaceably the posi
tion which he could not consistently retain while out of harmony with
that body. But, after asking for that meeting, when it had convened

286 REED SMOOT.

according to his desire he coolly informed his brethen that uthey need
not convene." When they re-convened a week later, he again failed to
appear. He has indeed no cause to "complain of the treatment
accorded" to him, nor has he any reason to talk of an attempt to
"drive" him from the Church.

This review of Moses Thatcher's case is published with no desire to
injure him in person, standing or estate. It is designed simply to
guard members of the Church, who may be excited to undue sympathy
by reason of pathetic appeals to their feelings, against being led away
by a false light, by sophistical argument, or by political bias into the
swamps of error which lead to the depths of apostacy , wherein are sor-
row, ignominy, darkness and despair. By clinging to the "iron rod"
and keeping their eyes fixed upon the guides whom God Almighty,
through His son Jesus Christ, has set in the Church to point the way
to celestial glory, they will be led in the straight and narrow way which
leadeth unto eternal lives, avoiding the by and forbidden paths into
which so many have strayed, and will thus gain an abundant entrance
into the Eternal Presence, and receive the crown which awaits those
who, having overcome all things, shall inherit all things.

Mr. TAYLER. We want to make reference later on to some extracts
of testimony printed in this Senate report in 1892, but I will not do
that now. I want to read the constitutional provision and the statu-
tory provision of Utah respecting the subject of polygamy, and so on.

The constitution of Utah, article 1, section 4, is as follows:

"SEC. 4. Religious liberty. — The rights of conscience shall never be.
infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for
any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a
witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof.
There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church
dominate the State or interfere with its functions. No public money
or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious wor-
ship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of an}7 ecclesiastical
establishment. No property qualification shall be required of any
person to vote or hold office, except as provided in this Constitution."

Article III is as follows:

' 'ARTICLE III. — Ordinance.

"The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent
of the United States and the people of this State:

"Religious toleration. — Polygamy forbidden. — First. Perfect toler-
ation of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this
State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his
or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages
are forever prohibited."

I read section 4208 of the statutes of Utah:

"4208. Polygamy defined. — Exceptions. — Every person who has a
husband or wife living, who hereafter marries another, whether mar-
ried or single, and any man who hereafter simultaneously, or on the
same day, marries more than one woman, is guilty of polygamy, and
shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and
by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not more than live
years; but this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any

KEED SMOOT. 287

former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have
been absent for five successive years, and is not known to such person
to be living, and is believed by- such person to be dead, nor to any person
by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by
a valid decree of a competent court, nor to any person by reason of
any former marriage which shall have been pronounced void by a valid
decree of a competent court, on the ground of nullity of the marriage
contract."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is the Edmunds act, is it not?

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, no; this is a statute.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is the same language?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; the same language was adopted in the State
statute.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Does the margin give the date ?

Mr. TAYLER. 1892. It is on pages 5 and 6.

Mr. VAN COTT. It means it was passed in 1892?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, originally passed. This is the law of Utah, how-
ever, to-day.

"4209. Unlawful cohabitation. — If any male person hereafter co-
habits with more than one woman, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than
three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not
more than six months, or by both said punishments, in the discretion
of the court.

" 4210. Adultery. — Whoever commits adultery shall be punished by
imprisonment in the State prison not exceeding three years; and when
the act is committed between a married woman and a man. who is
unmarried, both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery;
and when such act is committed between a married man and a woman
who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty of adultery."

Mr. TAYLER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Have counsel on the other side an}- questions?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— RESUMED.

JOSEPH F. SMITH having previously affirmed was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Smith, at the beginning of your examina-
tion you stated that the members of the first presidency and the
apostles are all known as revelators, prophets, and seers. We have
heard read here to-day a passage indicating that there is only one
revelator. What is the explanation of that apparent inconsistency ?

Mr. SMITH. We believe that all men are privileged to enjoy the
light of revelations for their own guidance in the discharge not only
of their personal aifairs but also in the discharge of their religious
duties, but that only one man at a time holds the authority to receive
revelations for the guidance of the whole church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In this little book, for instance, that has been
introduced here called "Mormonism," by B. H. Roberts, on page 59
occurs this language, and 1 will ask you whether this correctly states
the doctrine of the church:

"The first of the three presidents is recognized as the president of
the church, its prophet, its seer, its revelator, the mouthpiece of God
to the people, Christ's vicegerent on earth; the one and the only one

288 EEED SMOOT.

authorized in the government of the church to receive the revelations
of God for the church, which revelations constitute the law of the
church."

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, in the book called "Doctrine and Cove
nents" I find that the last revelation in that book, the one of latest date
as well as the one last arranged in the book, is one which is headed thus

"SECTION 136. The word and will of the Lord given through PresJ
dent Brigham Young at the winter quarters of the camp of Israel,
Omaha Nation, west bank of Missouri River, near Council Bluffs
January 14, 1847."

I wish to ask whether after that date there were any revelations
coming through the one authorized revelator which are not included
in the book, except the manifesto.

Mr. SMITH. There have been several revelations since the date of
that one which are not included in that book.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then the manifesto?

Senator HOAR. Mr. Worthington, before you pass from your first
question, I did not quite understand Mr. Smith's explanation of the
statement that he certainly enumerated officially, of revelators, proph-
ets, and seers.

Mr. AVoRTHiNGTON. He said that every member of the church
received revelations, but only one can communicate and authorize
revelations to the church for its government.

Senator HOAR. Did you mean to say, then, that when the book says
that all the presidents are revelators, prophets, and seers, they were
not in any way distinct from any other member of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Not in relation to giving laws to the church.

Senator HOAR. In what respect are these men revelators, prophets,
and seers, other than the first president, in which other members of
the communion are not?

Mr. SMITH. In the discharge of their ecclesiastical duties, being
standing ministers of the church.

Senator HOAR. But are they distinguished from any other ecclesias-
tical officers? Where are they mentioned as revelators, prophets, and
seers rather than any other officials of the church.

Mr. SMITH. Because they are the general officials of the church.
There are general officials and local officials. These are classed among
the general officials of the church.

Senator HOAR. But they have, as I understand you, no gift of reve-
lation of prophecy or of sight which does not belong to all other
Mormons in full communion?

Mr. SMITH. I would say, Senator, that we hold that every good
man, every just man, every man living according to his highest idea of
correct life as a member of the church is entitled to revelations for his
personal guidance and for his direction in his duties in the calling of
the church, whatever that calling may be, whether he is a lay member
or an official member, and neither is this, we think, confined to the
men or males. We believe that women also are entitled to inspira-
tions, as were women of old, mentioned in the Scriptures, provided
they live worthy to receive the manifestations of the spirit to them.

Mr. WTORTHINGTON. Then, do I understand that the fact is that only
the president, the head of the church, is or ever has been authorized

REED SMOOT. 289

to receive revelations for the church which constitute the law of the
church?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You say there have been a number of revela-
tions received which have never been bound up with the Doctrine and
Covenants.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have they been printed and distributed at all ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; they were printed in brochure form— that is, in
pamphlet form — and of course are kept in our book department of
the Desert News, for sale to anybody who wants them, just the same
as the book of Doctrine and Covenants, or any other book is held.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The same as the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. The same as the manifesto; yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was the last revelation that came to the
church from the one authorized to give it as the law of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Well, according to my best recollection, it must have
been about 1882. The purport of the revelation was calling to the
apostolate or apostleship two men, who are named in the revelation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the president through whom that rev
elation came?

Mr. SMITH. President John Tayler.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You say that was the last one?

Mr. SMITH. I do not now recall any since then except the manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Except the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, except the manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then ,do I understand you to say the only reve-
lation that has come to the church in the last twenty years is the one
that sa}^s polygamy shall stop ?

Mr. SMITH. Since 1882?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, since 1882 — twenty-one years.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think it is.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Worthington, if you would not object to an
interruption just there —

Mi. WORTHINGTON. Certainly not, Senator.

Mr. BAILEY. I would like to know why you call the others revela-
tions and you call this last a manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. It is merely a custom, I guess. It was so called in the
first place, and we have become habituated to it, just as we have
become habituated in calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints the Mormon Church. We have accepted the term although
it is not the name of the church.

Senator BAILEY. It indicates no difference, so far as the binding
authority upon the conscience of members is concerned?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That manifesto, it already appears here, was
accepted, but I think it has been stated it was accepted twice. How
did that happen ?

Mr. SMITH. This manifesto, as it is called, or revelation through
Wilford Woodruff, was first submitted to the entire church in con-
ference assembled.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I wish you would describe, for the benefit of
those who do not know so much about it, just what is meant by that

s 19

290 EEED SMOOT.

conference. It is a conference of what? Who conies, or who is
authorized to come?

Mr. SMITH. It is a conference at which all of the official members
of the church are expected, as far as it is possible for them, to be
present. It does not exclude any member of the church, but it is
particularly expected that all official members, all persons holding the
priesthood, shall be present at that conference. It is an official
gathering- of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; but of what geographical division, if any ?

Mr. SMITH. None; it includes the entire church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. From all the world ?

Mr. SMITH. From all the world.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As a matter of fact, how many people attend
those conferences generally ?

Mr. SMITH. Well, generally anywhere from ten to fifteen thousand
people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you present when the manifesto was first
presented and accepted, in October, 1890?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know how many persons were present,
about?

- Mr. SMITH. I could not say from knowledge, but I am under the
impression there were from eight to ten thousand people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said, in response to a question from Sena-
tor Hoar, that women attend as well as men ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, 3^es.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Could you tell us about in what proportion
women and men attend?

Mr. SMITH. I believe in about equal proportions.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then when the manifesto was proposed, was it
accepted by a majority, or by unanimous vote?

Mr. SMITH. It was accepted by a unanimous vote of the people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Every hand was raised?

Mr. SMITH. Every hand was raised, so far as we have any power of
knowing.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When was it again presented to the conference,
and why?

Mr. SMITH. Later a report was made by the Utah Commission, who
were sent to Utah —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By the Government?

Mr. SMITH. By the Government, that polygamous marriages were
being conducted in Utah by the church, and asserting that some forty
polygamous marriages could be accounted for. It became necessary
to refute that statement, and a declaration was made by the president
of the church denying the charge made by the commissioners and
reasserting the manifesto or revelation on suspension of plural mar-
riages, according to my recollection.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long after the first acceptance of the man-
ifesto was it that it was submitted the second time and again accepted
by the conference; do you remember?

Mr. SMITH. Not from memory ; I could not tell you.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How often are the conferences held regularty?

Mr. SMITH. Semiannually, on the 6th of April and the 6th of October.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are there any special conferences?

REED 8MOOT. 291

Mr. SMITH. There are what are called quarterly conferences held in
the stakes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It appears here that the Doctrine and Covenants
continue to be printed without the manifesto. Why is it that the
manifesto is not printed and distributed with the- other revelations
contained in the Doctrine and Covenants?

Mr. SMITH. So far as I know, it is entirely an oversight. For myself,
I never thought of it. It never occurred to me; but, from the circum-
stances existing at this time and what I have heard in relation to the
matter, it appears to me that it should be in the Doctrine and Cove-
nants, and 1 shall certainly use my influence to have it put in the next
edition that is published.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I will ask you whether this was presented and
is what indicates the action taken by the conference when the mani-
festo was first submitted and approved or ratified:

" President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

" fcl move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on
the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordi-
nances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to
issue the manifesto which has been read in our hearing and which is
dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church In General Confer-
ence assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages
as authoritative and binding."'

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have said that among your standard books
is the Bible?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the Bible, as you have said to-day, and as
we all know, contains some passages which do, or which some people
consider do, support the practice of polygamy?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In distributing the Bible, do you print any
note or appendix, or anything indicating that those passages are not
to be taken as indicating what is the proper practice to-day ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; we have not interfered at all with the King
James version of the Bible, which we have accepted as a standard
work of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In that respect have you made any distinction
between the doctrine and covenants and the Bible?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; none whatever.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you claim there have been additional revelations
that ought to be added to the Bible?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 claim there are things in the Bible — for
instance, such a man as Solomon having had a number of wives —

Mr. TAYLER. Has any revelation been made that is not in the Bible?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No; no revelation has been made.

Senator HOAR. 1 do not think that discussion is profitable.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In reference to these other books which have
been produced here, let me ask you, for instance, about this, from
which excerpts have just been read, Crowley's Talks on Doctrine.
That appears to have been published in Chattanooga in 1902.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you any knowledge whether that was or
was not submitted to the church or any authorities of the church?

292 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. It never was submitted to .anybody in charge in the
church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you aware of its contents before it was
referred to?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I never saw it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You also said to Mr. Tayler, in reference to
the book which is here, called Mormonism, Its t)rigin and History,
by B. H. Roberts, that that book holds an exceptional position; or,
rather, he asked you the question whether it did or not, and you
answered "yes; differing from that of all other books." What did
you mean by that?

Mr. SMITH. I did not intend to convey the idea that it was any differ-
ent from Talmage's Articles of Faith or any other standard exponent —
that is, accepted exponent — of the principles and doctrines of the
church. It is entirely on a par with Talmagc's book and other books
of a similar character. It is not exceptional at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then I will read you the question and answer
and ask you whether you wish to say anything further in regard to
them. The question is:

"Then this work is to be distinguished, is it not, as respects its
authority, from all other works that have been written b}^ other per-
sons, unless they were such as were written by inspiration or other
revelation?"

Your answer is:

"Yes, sir."

Mr. SMITH. Perhaps the answer was hasty. I think it was. I did
not mean to convey that idea, because Talmage's Articles of Faith, and
there are many other books published in the church or by members of
the church, which are equal as works of the church with that. There
is no difference as to their authority or authenticity.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the book to which you refer as Doctor Tal-
mage's book, entitled "The Articles of Faith," and which you have
already testified was supervised in its preparation by a committee
appointed by the first presidency-
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I find in the beginning of the book a page con-
taining "The articles of faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
day Saints." Are those articles the authorized articles of faith of the
church ?

Mr. SMITH. Those sentiments expressed, and termed the articles of
our faith, were the enunciation of Joseph Smith and are accepted by
the church as the fundamental principles of our faith; and the lectures,
if you please, contained in that work are based upon those fundamental
principles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I will ask the reporter to copy into the record
all of that page containing the articles of faith.

The articles of faith referred to are as follows:

"THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS.

"1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus
Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

"2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and
not for Adam's transgression.

REED 8MOOT. 293

"3. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind
may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

44 4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gos-
pel are: — (1) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) Repentance; (3)
Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins ; (4) Laying on of
Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

44 5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and
by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority, to preach
the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

44 6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primi-
tive Church, viz: apostles, prophets, pas tors, teachers, evangelists, etc.

44 7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
healing, interpretation of tongues, etc.

44 8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is trans-
lated correctly; We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word
of God.

4 ' 9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,
and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things
pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

44 10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restora-
tion of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon this (the American)
continent; That Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, That
the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

44 11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God accord-
ing to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same
privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

"12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

44 13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous,
and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the
admonition of Paul. We believe all things, we hope all things, we
have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things.
If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praise-
worthy, we seek after these things." (Joseph Smith.)

Mr. WORTHING TON. I find that the twelfth is this:

44 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and mag-
istrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law."

Is that and has that always been a cardinal and fundamental principle
of the church?

Mr. SMITH. It is and always has been a cardinal doctrine of the
church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I read from page 435 of this book; and I will
ask that the whole of the chapter from which 1 am now reading shall
be inserted. It is the chapter which contains the commentary on that
article of faith, and explains what is meant by being subject to rulers
and honoring the law; but I will read only section 23:

44 An illustration of such suspension of Divine, law is found in the
action of the Church regarding the matter of plural or polygamous
marriage. The practice referred to was established as a result of direct
revelation, and many of those who followed the same felt that they
were divinely commanded so to do. For ten years after polygamy
had been introduced into Utah as a Church observance, no law was
enacted in opposition to the practice. Beginning with 1862, however,
Federal statutes were framed declaring the practice unlawful and pro
viding penalties therefor.

294 REED SMOOT.

"The Church claimed that these enactments were unconstitutional,
and therefore void, inasmuch as they violated the provision in the
national constitution which denies the government the power to make
laws respecting any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. Many appeals were taken to the national court of
final resort, and at last a decision was rendered sustaining the anti-
polygamy law as constitutional and therefore binding. The Church,
through its chief officer, thereupon discontinued the practice of plural
marriage, and announced its action to the world; solemnly placing the
responsibility for the change upon the nation by whose laws the renun-
ciation had been forced. This action has been approved and confirmed
by the official vote of the Church in conference assembled."

The chapter referred to by Mr. Worthington is as follows:

LECTURE XXIII. — Submission to secular authority.

ARTICLE 12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents,
rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

1. Introductory. — It is but reasonable to expect of a people profess-
ing the Gospel of Christ, and claiming membership in the one accepted
and divinely authorized Church, that they manifest in practice the
virtues which their precepts inculcate. True, we may look in vain for
perfection, among those even who make the fullest and most justifiable
claims to orthodoxy; but we have a right to expect in their creed,
ample requirements concerning the most approved course of action;
and in their lives, sincere and earnest effort toward the practical realiza-
tion of their professions. Religion, to be of service and at all worthy of
acceptance, must be of wholesome influence in the individual lives and
the temporal affairs of its adherents. Among other virtues, the
Church in its teachings should impress the duty of a law-abiding course;
and the people should show forth the effect of such precepts in their
excellence as citizens of the nation, and as individuals in the community
of which they are part.

2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes emphatic
declaration of its belief and precepts regarding the dut}^ of its mem-
bers toward the laws of the land; and sustains its position by the
authority of specific revelation in ancient as in present times. More-
over, the people are confident, that when the true story of their rise
and progress as an established body of religious worshipers is written,
the loyalty of the Church and the patriotic devotion of its members
will be vindicated and extolled by the world in general, as now are
these virtues recognized by the few unprejudiced investigators who
have studied with honest purpose the history of this remarkable
organization.

3. Obedience to Authority Enjoined by Scripture. — During the patri-
archal period, when the head of the family possessed virtually the
power of judge and king over his household, the authorit}r of the ruler
and the rights of the family were respected. Consider the instance of
Hagar, the "plural" wife of Abram, and the handmaid of Sarai.
Jealousy and ill-feeling had arisen between Hagar and her mistress,
the senior wife of the patriarch. Abram listened to the complaint of
Sarai, and, recognizing her authority over Hagar, who, though his
wife, was still the servant of Sarai, said:— "Behold thy maid is in thy
hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee/' Then, as the mistress dealt harshly

REED SMOOT. 295

with her servant, Hagar fled into the wilderness; there she was visited
by an angel of the Lord, who addressed her thus: — "Hagar, Sarai's
maid, whence earnest thou, and whither wilt thou go? And she said,
I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord
said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her
hands. " Observe that the heavenly messenger recognized the authority
of the mistress over the bondwoman, even though the latter had been
given the rank of wifehood in the family.

4. The ready submission of Isaac to the will of his father, even to
the extent of offering his life on the altar of bloody sacrifice, is evi-
dence of the sanctity with which the authority7 of the famity ruler was
regarded. It may appear, as indeed it has been claimed, that the
requirement which the Lord made of Abraham as a test of faith, in
the matter of giving his son's life as a sacrifice, was a violation of exist-
ing laws, and therefore opposed to stable government. The claim is
poorly placed in view of the fact, that the patriarchal head was possessed
of absolute authority over the members of his household, the power
extending even to judgment of life or death.

5. In the da}Ts of the exodus, when Israel were ruled by a theocracy,
the Lord gave divers laws and commandments for the government of
His chosen people; among them we read: "Thou shalt not revile the
gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." Judges were appointed by
Divine direction to exercise authority amongst Israel. Moses, in reit-
arating the Lord's commands, charged the people to this effect: —
"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the
Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes; and they shall
judge the people with just judgment."

6. When the people wearied of God's direct control, and clamored
for a king, the Lord yielded to their desire, and gave the new ruler
authority by a holy anointing. David, even though he had been
anointed to succeed Saul on the throne, recognized the sanctity of the
king's person, and bitterly reproached himself, because on one occa-
sion he had mutilated the robe of the monarch. True, Saul was at
that time seeking David's life, and the latter sought only a means of
showing that he had no intent to kill his royal enemy; yet we are
told:— "That David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's
skirt. And he said unto his men, The Lord forbid that I should do
this thing unto my master, the Lord's anointed, to stretch forth mine
hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord."

7. Note, further, the following scriptural adjurations as recorded in
the Old Testament: — "My son, fear thou the Lord, and the king." "I
counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of
the oath of God." "Curse not the king, no not in thy thought."

8. Examples Set l)y Christ and His Apostles. — Our Savior's work on
earth was marked throughout by His acknowledgment of the existing
powers of the land, even though the authority had been won by cruel
conquest, and was exercised unjustly. When the tax-collector called
for the dues demanded by an alien king, Christ, while privately pro-
testing against the injustice of the claim, directed that it be paid, and
even invoked a miraculous circumstance whereby the money could be
provided. Of Peter he asked: — "What thinkest thou, Simon? of
whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own
children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus
saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we

296 REED SMOOT.

should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up
the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth,
thou shall find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me
and thee."

9. At the instigation of certain wicked Pharisees, a treacherous plot
was laid to make Christ appear as an offender against the ruling
powers. They sought to catch Him by the hypocritical question,—
"What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or
not?" His answer was an unequivocal endorsement of submission to
the laws. To His questioners He replied: — "Shew me the tribute
money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto
them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him,
Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Ca3sar
the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
(See note 1.)

10. Throughout the solemnly tragic circumstance of His trial and
condemnation, Christ maintained a submissive demeanor even toward
the chief priests and council who were plotting His death. These offi-
cers, however unworthy of their priestly power, were nevertheless in
authority, and had a certain measure of jurisdiction in secular as in
ecclesiastical affairs. When He stood before Caiaphas, laden with
insult and and accused by false witnesses, He maintained a dignified
silence. To the high priest's question, — "Answereth thou nothing?
What is it these witness against thee?" He deigned no reply. Then
the high priest added: — "I adjure thee by the living God, that you
tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." To this solemn
adjuration, spoken with official authority, the Savior gave an imme-
diate answer; thus recognizing the office of the high priest, however
unworthy the man.

11. A similar respect for the high priest's office was shown by Paul
while a prisoner before the tribunal. His remarks displeased the high
priest, who gave immediate command to those who stood near Paul to
smite him on the mouth. This angered the apostle, and he cried out —
"God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me
after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
And they that stood by said, Re vilest thou God's high priest? Then
said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is
written, Thou shall not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."

12. Teachings of the Apostles.— Paul, writing to Titus, who had been
left in charge of the Church among the Cretans, warns him of the
weaknesses of his flock, and urges him to teach them to be orderly and
law-abiding: — "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and
powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to eveiy good work." In
another place, Paul is emphatic in declaring the duty of the Saints
toward the civil power, such authority being ordained of God. He
points out the necessit}^ of secular government, and the need of officers
in authority, whose power will be feared by evil-doers only. He des-
ignates the civil authorities as ministers of God; and justifies taxation
by the state, with an admonition that the Saints fail not in their dues.

13. These are his words addressed to the Church at Rome: — "Let
every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever
therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not

REED SMOOT. 297

a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid
of the power ? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the
same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do
that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for
he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that
doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath,
but also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay .ye tribute also:
for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very
thing. Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is
due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom
honor."

14. In a letter to Timothy, Paul teaches that in the prayers of the
Saints, kings and all in authority should be remembered, adding that
such remembrance is pleasing in the sight of God: "I exhort therefore,
that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of
thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority;
that we nmy lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior."

15. The duty of willing submission to authority is elaborated in the
epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians; and illustrations are
applied to the relations of social and domestic life. Wives are taught
to be submissive .to their husbands. " For the husband is the head of
the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church;" but this duty
within the family is reciprocal, and therefore husbands are instructed
as to the manner in which authority ought to be exercised. Children
are to obey their parents; yet the parents are cautioned against pro-
voking or otherwise offending their little ones. Servants are told to
render willing and earnest service to their masters, recognizing in all
things the superior authority; and masters are instructed in their duty
toward their servants, being counseled to abandon threatening and
other harsh treatment, remembering that they also will have to answer
to a Master greater than themselves.

16. Peter is not less emphatic in teaching the sanctit}^ with which
the civil power should be regarded (see note 2); he admonishes the
Saints in this wise: — ''Submit yourselves to eveiy ordinance of man
for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto
governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of
evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the
will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance
of foolish men; as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of
maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the
brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."

17. These general rules, relating to submission to authorit}% he
applies, as did Paul, similarly, to the conditions of domestic life.
Servants are to be obedient, even though their masters be harsh and
severe: — "For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward
God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if,
when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye take it patiently? but if, when
you do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable
with God." Wives also, even though their husbands be not of their
faith, are not to vaunt themselves and defy authority, but to be sub-
missive, and to rely upon gentler and more effective means of influ-
encing those whose name they bear. He gives assurance of the
judgment which shall overtake evil doers, and specifies as fit subjects

298 REED SMOOT.

for condemnation, kt chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust
of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they,
self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities."

18. Doubtless there existed excellent reason for these explicit and
repeated counsels against the spirit of revolt, with which the apostles
of old sought to lead and strengthen the Church. The Saints rejoiced
in their testimony of the truth that had found place in their hearts,—
the truth that was to make them free, — and it would have been but
natural for them to regard all others as inferior to themselves, and to
rebel against all authority of man in favor of their allegiance to a
higher power. There was constant danger that their zeal would lead
them to acts of indiscretion, and thus furnish excuse, if not reason,
for the assaults of persecutors, who would have denounced them as
law-breakers and workers of sedition. Even half-hearted submission
to the civil powers would have been unwise at least, in view of the
disfavor with which the new sect had come to be regarded by their
pagan contemporaries. The voice of their inspired leaders was heard,
therefore, in timely counsel for humility and submission. But there
were then, as ever have there been, weightier reasons than such as
rest on motives of policy, requiring submission to the established
powers. Such is no less the law of God than of man. Governments
are essential to human existence; they are recognized, given indeed,
of the Lord; and His people are in duty bound to sustain them.

19. Book of Mormon Teachings concerning the duty of the people
as subjects of the law of the land are abundant throughout the volume.
However, as the civil and the ecclesiastical powers were usually vested
together, the king or chief judge being also the high priest, there are
comparatively few admonitions of allegiance to the civil authority as
distinct from that of the priesthood. From the time of Nephi, son
of Lehi, to that of the death of Mosiah — a period of nearly five hun-
dred years, the Nephites were ruled by a succession of kings; during
the remaining time of their recorded history, — more than five hundred
years, the people were subject to judges of their own choosing. Under
each of these varieties of government, the secular laws were rigidly
enforced, the power of the state being supplemented and strengthened
by that of the Church. The sanctity with which the laws were regarded
is illustrated in the judgment pronounced by Alma upon Nehor, a
murderer, and an advocate of sedition and priestcraft: — "Thou art con-
demned to die," said the judge, "according to the law which has been
given us by Mosiah, our last king; and they have been acknowledged
by this people; therefore, this people must abide by the law."

20. Modern Revelation requires of the Saints in the present dispen-
sation a strict allegiance to the civil laws. In a communication dated
August 1, 1831, the Lord said to the Church: — "Let no man break the
laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to
break the laws of the land: Wherefore, be subject to the powers that
be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies
under his feet." At a later date, August 0, 1833, the voice of the
Lord was heard again on this matter, saying:— "And now, verily I sa}r
unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people
should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them; and that
law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of
freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind,
and is justifiable before me; Therefore I, the Lord, justify you, and

REED SMOOT. 299

your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the con-
stitutional law of the land."

21. A question has many times been asked of the Church and of its
individual members, to this effect: — In the ca-e of a conflict between
the requirements made by the revealed word of God, and those imposed
by the secular law, which of these authorities would the members of
the Church be bound to obey ? In answer, the words of Christ may
be applied: — it is* the duty of the people to render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. At
the present time, the Kingdom of Heaven as an earthly power, with a
reigning King exercising direct and personal authority in temporal
matters, has not been established upon the earth; the branches of the
Church as such, and the members composing the same, are subjects of
the several governments within whose separate realms the Church
organizations exist. In this day of comparative enlightenment and
freedom, there is small cause for expecting any direct interference
with the rights of private worship and individual devotion; in all civ-
ilized nations the people are accorded the right to pray, and this right
is assured by what may be properly called a common law of human-
kind. No earnest soul is cut off from communion with his God; and
with such an open channel of communication, relief from burdensome
laws and redress for grievances may be sought from the Power that
holds control of the nations.

22. Pending the over-ruling by Providence in favor of religious
liberty, it is the duty of the Saints to submit themselves to the laws
of their country. Nevertheless, they should use every proper method,
as citizens or subjects of their several governments, to secure for them-
selves and for all men the boon of freedom in religious duties. It is
not required of them to suffer without protest imposition by lawless
persecutors, or through the operation of unjust laws; but their pro-
tests should be offered in legal and proper order. The Saints have
practically demonstrated their acceptance of the doctrine that it is
better to suffer evil than to do wrong by purely human opposition to
unjust authority. And if by thus submitting themselves to the laws
of the land, in the event of such laws being unjust and subversive of
human freedom, the Saints be prevented from doing the work appointed
them of God, they are not to be held accountable for the failure to
act under the higher law.

The word of the Lord has been given explicitly defining the. position
and duty of the people in such a contingency: — •" Verily, verily, I say
unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men,
to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their
might, and with all they have, to perform that work, and cease not
their diligence, and their enemies come upon them, and hinder them
from performing that work; behold, it behoveth me to require that
work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their
offerings; And the iniquity and transgression of nry holy laws and
commandments, 1 will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my
work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not
and hate me, saith the Lord God." (See note 3.)

23. An illustration of such suspension of Divine law is found in the
action of the Church regarding the matter of plural or polygamous
marriage. The practice referred to was established as a result of
direct revelation, and many of those who followed the same felt that

300 REED SMOOT.

they were divincty commanded so to do. For ten years after polygamy
had been introduced into Utah as a Church observance, no law was
enacted in opposition to the practice. Beginning with 1802, however,
Federal statutes were framed declaring the practice unlawful and pro-
viding penalties therefor. The Church claimed that these enactments
were unconstitutional, and therefore void, inasmuch as they violated
the provision in the national constitution which denies the government
power to make laws respecting any establishment of religion, or pro-
hibiting the free exercise thereof. Many appeals were taken to the
national court of final resort, and at last a decision was rendered sus-
taining the anti-polyganry law as constitutional and therefore binding.
The Church, through its chief officer, thereupon discontinued the prac-
tice of plural marriage, and announced its action to the world; sol-
emnly placing the responsibility for the change upon the nation by
whose laws the renunciation had been forced. This action has been
approved and confirmed by the official vote of the Church in confer-
ence assembled. (See note 4.)

24. Teachings of the Church Today. — Perhaps there can be presented
no more proper summary of the teachings of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints regarding its relation to the civil power,
and the respect due to the laws of the land, than the official declara-
tion of belief which wTas issued by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and
which has been incorporated in the Doctrine and Covenants, — one of
the standard works of the Church, adopted by vote of the Church as
one of the accepted guides in faith, doctrine, and practice. It reads
as follows:

"1. We believe that governments were instituted of God for the
benefit of man, and that he holds men accountable for their acts in rela-
tion to them, either in making laws or administering them, for the
good and safety of societ}7.

"2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such
laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the
free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the
protection of life.

44 3. We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers
and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same, and that such as will
administer the law in equity and justice, should be sought for and
upheld by the voice of the people (if a republic), or the will of the
sovereign.

"4. We believe that religion is instituted of God, and that men are
amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their
religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and
liberties of others; but we do .not believe that human law has a right
to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of
men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil
magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should
punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

"5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the
respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their
inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and

REED SMOOT. 301

that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus pro-
tected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments
have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgment are best calcu-
lated to secure the public interest, at the same time, however, holding
sacred the freedom of conscience.

"6. We believe that every man should be honored in his station:
rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the
innocent, and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws, all men
owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would
be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for
the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and
nations, between man and man, and divine laws given of heaven, pre-
scribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be
answered by man to his Maker.

"7. We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right,
and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the
free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they
have a right in justice, to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe
them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to
the laws, and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor con-
spiracy.

"8. We believe that the commission of crime should be punished
according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery,
theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be
punished according to their criminality, and their tendency to evil
among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is
committed; and for the public peace and tranquillity, all men should
step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good
laws to punishment.

" 9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil
government, whereby one religious society is fostered, and another
proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its
members as citizens, denied.

" 10. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with
their members for disorderly conduct according to the rules and regu-
lations of such societies, providing that such dealing be for fellowship
and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society
has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from
them this world's goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or
limb, neither to inflict any physical punishment upon them; they can
only excommunicate them" from their society, and withdraw from them
their fellowship.

" 11. We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress
of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted, or the
right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will
protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defend-
ing themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from
the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons, in times of
exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and
relief afforded.

"12. We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the
aarth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption
of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond

302 REED SMOOT.

servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them, contrary to
the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence
them in the least, to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in
this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we
believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every
government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

NOTES.

1. Insults to Paul and to Christ. — See Acts xxiii, 1-5. "Scarcely
had the apostle uttered the first sentence of his defense, when, with
disgraceful, illegality, Ananias ordered the officers of the court to
smite him on the mouth. Stung by an insult so flagrant, an outrage
so undeserved, the naturally choleric temperament of Paul flamed
into that sudden sense of anger which ought to be controlled, but
which can hardly be wanting in a truly noble character. No character
can be perfect which does not cherish in itself a deeply-seated, though
perfectly generous and forbearing, indignation against intolerable
wrong. Smarting from the blow, 'God shall smite thee,' he ex-
claimed, 4thou whitewashed wall! What! Dost thou sit there judg-
ing me according to the Law, and in violation of law biddest me to
be smitten?' The language has been censured as unbecoming in its
violence, and has been unfavorably compared with the meekness of
Christ before the tribunal of his enemies. (See John xviii, 19-23.)
4 Where,' asks St. Jerome, 'is that patience of the Savior, who — as a
lamb led to the slaughter opens not his mouth— so gently asks the
smiter, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness to the evil; but if well,
why smitest thou me ? "

'" We are not detracting from the apostle, but declaring the glory
of God, Who, suffering in the flesh, reigns above the wrong and
frailty of the flesh.' Yet we need not remind the reader that not once
or twice only did Christ give the rein to righteous anger, and blight
hypocrisy and insolence with a flash of holy wrath. The bystanders
seemed to have been startled by the boldness of St. Paul's rebuke, for
they said to him, ' Dost thou revile the high priest of God ? ' The
apostle's anger had expended itself in that one outburst, and he
instantly apologized with exquisite urbanity and self-control. '1 did
not know,' he said, 'brethren, that he is the high priest;' adding that,
had he known this, he would not have addressed to him the opprobri-
ous name of "whited wall," because he reverenced and acted upon
the rule of Scripture, 'Thou shalt not speak ill of a ruler of thy
people."' -Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul, pp. 539-540.

2. Peter's Teachings regarding submission to Law. — A special "duty
of Christians in those days was due respect in all things lawful to the
civil government. * Occasions there are — and none knew this
better than an apostle who had himself set an example of splendid dis-
obedience to unwarranted commands (Acts iii 19, 31; v 28-32; 40-42)—
when ' We must obey God rather than men.' But those occasions are
exceptional to the common rule of life. Normally, and as a whole,
human law is on the side of Divine order, and, by whomsoever admin-
istered, has a just claim to obedience and respect. It was a lesson so
deeply needed by the Christians of the day that it is taught as emphat-
ically by St. John (John xix, 11), and by St. Peter, as by St. Paul
himself.

REED SMOOT. -303

"It was more than ever needed at a time when dangerous revolts were
gathering to a head in Judea; when the hearts of Jews throughout the
world were burning with a fierce flame of hatred against the abomina-
tions of a tyrannous adolatry; when Christians were being charged
with 'turning the world upside down' (Acts xvii, 6); when some poor
Christian slave, led to martyrdom or put to the torture, might easily
relieve the tension of his soul by bursting into apocalyptic denuncia-
tions of sudden doom against the crimes of the mystic Babylon; when
the heathen, in their impatient contempt, might wilfully interpret a
prophecy of the final conflagration as though it were a revolutionary
and incendiary threat; and when Christians at Rome were, on this very
account, already suffering the agonies of the Neronian persecution.

"Submission, therefore, was at this time a primary duty of all who
wished to win over the heathen, and to save the Church from being
overwhelmed in some outburst of indignation which would be justified
even to reasonable and tolerant pagans'as a political necessity. * * *
'Submit, therefore,' the apostle says, 'to every human ordinance, for
the Lord's sake, whether to the emperor as supreme (the name "King"
was freely used of the emperor in the provinces) or to governors, as
missioned by him for punishment of malefactors, and praise to well-
doers; for this is the will of God, that by your well doing ye should
gag the stolid ignorance of foolish persons; as free, yet not using
your freedom for a cloak of baseness, but as slaves of God. ' Honor
all men,' as a principle; and as your habitual practice, 'love the
brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the King.'" (See I Peter ii, 13-17.)—
Farrar Early Days of Christianity, pp 89-90.

3. The Law of God., and the Law of Man. — The teaching of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, respecting the duty of
its members in obeying the laws of the land wherein they live, is more
comprehensive and definite than is that of many other Christian sects.
In January, 1899, an association of the free Evangelical churches of
England officially published "A Common Statement of Faith in the
form of a New Catechism." Touching the relation between Church
and State, the following formal questions and prescribed answers
occur:

" 36. Q. What is a free church? — A. A church which acknowledges
none but Jesus Christ as Head, and, therefore, exercises its right to
interpret and administer His laws without restraint or control by the
state.

"37. Q. What is the duty of the Church to the State?— A. To
observe all the laws of the state unless contrary to the teachings of
Christ "etc.

According to the report of the committee in charge of the work of
publication, the catechism "Represents, directly or indirectly, the
beliefs of not less, and probably many more, than sixty millions of
avowed Christians in all parts of the world."

4. Discontinuance of Plural Marriage. — The official act terminating
the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints was the
adoption by the Church, in conference assembled, of a manifesto pro-
claimed by the President of the Church. The language of the docu-
ment illustrates the law-abiding character of the people and the Church,
as is shown by the following clause: — "Inasmuch as laws have been
enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been
pronounced constitutional by the $ourt of last resort, I (President

804 REED SMOOT.

Wilford Woodruff) hereby declare my intention to submit to those
laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over
which I preside to have them do likewise." In the course of a sermon
immediately following the proclaiming of the manifesto, President
Woodruff said regarding the action taken:— "I have done my dutv,
and the nation of which we form a part must be responsible for that
which has been done in relation to that principle " (i.e., plural marriage).

Senator HOAR. May I inquire at that point what time elapsed
between what they speak of as the final decision of the Supreme Court
and —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If you will pardon me, Senator, I am coming
to that in a few minutes. It will require a little time to go over those
decisions.

Senator HOAR. Very well; whenever it will be convenient for you
to get to it.

Mr. AYoRTHiNGTON. After that paragraph there is a reference to a
note. Each of these chapters is followed by a note, and the note there
referred to is this:

" 'Discontinuance of plural marriage. — The official act terminating the
practice of plural marriage among the Latter-Day Saints was the adop-
tion by the church, in conference assembled, of a manifesto proclaimed
by the president of the church. The language of the document illus-
trates the law-abiding character of the people and the church, as is
shown by the following clause: c Inasmuch as laws have been enacted
by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pro-
nounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I (President Wilford
Woodruff) hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to
use nry influence with the members of the church over which I preside
to have them do likewise.' In the course of a sermon immediately
following the proclaiming of the manifesto President Woodruff said,
regarding the action taken : ' I have done my duty, and the nation of
which we form a part must be responsible for that which has been
done in relation to that principle' (i. e., plural marriage)."

That book was issued, I understand, not only by the authority of
the church, but was revised, before it was published, by a committee
appointed by the first presidency and composed in part of a member
of the first presidency.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It has been in the hands of your missionaries
and everywhere on sale from the time it was tirst published, which
appears to have been, as has already been shown, April 3, 1899.

Mr. SMITH. And in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, if you please,
in direct line with this remark permit me to say that in every church
school in our church —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is what I was coming to.

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me. I may be premature.

Mr. WORTHINTON. Go on. I was just coming to that.

Mr. SMITH. I thought it would be proper to state that fact, that in
all our church schools —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If you please, before you do that, when you
say "our church schools" you know what that means, but we do not.
What is your church school system, so that we will know how far this
goes ?

Mr. SMITH. We have established quite a number of church schools.

REED 8MOOT. 305

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where?

Mr. SMITH. We have the Latter-Day Saints' University, established
at Salt Lake City; we have Brigham Young University, established at
Provo, in Utah County; we have Brigham Young College, established
in Logan, Cache County; we have another large and flourishing school
in Oneida County, Idaho; we have another extensive school, called
Snow Academy, in San Pete County; we have still another in Snow-
flake, Ariz. ; we have another at St. Johns, in Arizona; we have another
at Thatcher, in Graham County, Ariz., and also others of a smaller
character — that is, of an inferior grade — that are conducted by the
church, in which the principles and doctrines of the church are incul-
cated, and in each of which there is a missionary class. This book is
the text-book of that class, so adopted by the church; and the mani-
festo included in this is made a part of the instructions to our mission-
aries in all these schools.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, as to missionaries. You said something
as to the general instructions which are given them, but I want to
ask you if you yourself are ordinarily present when missionaries are
instructed, or whether that is done by somebody else?

Mr. SMITH. It is done by the apostles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who, then, could give us the most direct and
certain information on that subject?

Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Lyman could.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He is the president of the quorum of the
apostles ?

Mr. SMITH. He is president of the apostles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And he is here?

Mr. SMITH. He is here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now I come to a line of inquiry as to which
Senator Hoar made inquiry a moment ago. Prior to 1862 there was,
I believe, no law in force in Utah against either polygamy or polyga-
mous cohabitation?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And your people arrived there from Nauvoo
about 1847?

Mr. SMITH. Yes*, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that they had been thereabout fifteen years?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The formal public proclamation of polygamy
as an article of faith and practice was made bv Brigham Young in
1852?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So it was publicly proclaimed and practiced
for ten years before Congress did anything?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, in 1862 there was passed an act which
made bigamy an offense?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That act, however, I believe, did not in any way
relate to polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It punished only the offense of a man taking
another wife?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

s 20

306 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And as to those who had already taken wives,
it did not make it unlawful for them to continue to live with them and
each of them as husband and wife?

Mr. SMITH. That was our understanding.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then that act was declared constitutional in 1878.

Senator HOAR. By what authority ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By the Supreme Court of the United States, in
what is called the Reynolds case, which is here. Then, in 1882 there
was passed a law, which is called the Edmunds law.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And that, for the lirst time, made polygamous
cohabitation an offense?

Mr. SMITH. That is according to my understanding.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that your people had been living there and
practicing polygamous cohabitation or plural cohabitation for thirty
years before there was any law passed making it an offense ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the meantime you had acquired several
wives, 1 believe?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And many others of your people had?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then there were other decisions of the Supreme
Court, beginning in 1885 and running down to 1889, which related to
that law and other subsequent laws?

Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The last of which decisions was made in May,
1890?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And then came the proclamation, or manifesto,
as it is called here?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The acts of Congress then had made a clear
distinction between polygamy-
Senator HOAR. What is the date of the manifesto ? That will make
my notes complete.

Mr. WOHTHINGTON. September 26, 1890, is the date of the mani-
festo, and the date of the submission of it to the conference for approval
was the 6th of October, 1890.

I think you said after the manifesto your people, as a general rule,
ceased polygamous cohabitation, even?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And finally the State was admitted in 1896,
under the enabling act of 1894?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the enabling act made it a condition of
Utah coming into the Union that polygamy should be forbidden, but
did not prohibit polygamous cohabitation or make forbearance from
that offense a condition ?

Mr. SMITH. That is a correct statement.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then your people adopted the constitution
which has been read here, in which they did make it an offense, and
provided that the clause should be irrevocable without the consent of
the United States that polygamy or plural marriages should be forever
prohibited ?

EEED SMOOT. 3W

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And there was nothing in the constitution pro-
hibiting- polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Continuing to live with wives already married?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If I remember rightly, you said that seemed to
you to be an implication by the Congress of the United States that
perhaps you people who had married in these old times might continue
to live with your wives and nothing would be said about it?

Mr. SMITH. But that is a fact, and also the liberal sentiment that
was exhibited by all people, both Mormons and Gentiles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is it a fact — it has been stated here several
times — that the great majority of the inhabitants of Utah belong to
the Mormon Church?

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It has been so during all these 3^ears?

Mr. SMITH. All these years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And it has been said here that the body of 15
men who are charged here witli being conspirators control the church?

Mr. SMITH. That is the charge, 1 believe.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have told us your view as to their authority ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What I want to know is, if Congress had decided
that Utah might come into the Union on the condition solely that they
would not have any more plural marriages, and there is a law there
which makes polygamous cohabitation a crime also, where did that
come from?

Mr. SMITH. It was passed by the Utah legislature. In other words,
the Edmunds-Tucker bill was enacted by the legislature of the Terri-
tory or of the State.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That was in 1892, was it?

Mr. SMITH. Counsel Richards saj^s it was first enacted under the
Territorial statute, and then it was continued or reenacted under the
State government.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is this, then, the law which makes polygamous
cohabitation an offense? Section 4209 has already^ been read by Mr.
Tayler, but I will read it here:

"If any male person hereafter cohabits with more than one woman,
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall
be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by
both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."

That is the only law, then, is it, that makes polygamous cohabitation
an offense in Utah?

Mr. SMITH. In force in Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And that law was passed by a legislature which
was—

Mr. SMITH. Largely Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Overwhelmingly Mormon?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. I would like to inquire at that point of the wit-
ness-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. Certainly, Senator.

308 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOAR. Whether there is any law which constitutes such
cohabitation an offense on the part of the woman ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator HOAR, I understood that the law against adultery which
was read a while ago did apply to an unmarried woman living in
adultery with a married man. Where is the law about the woman?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There seems to be none, Senator. Any man
or woman who commits adultery is punishable.

Senator HOAR. The law which was read provided that any woman
committing the offense with a man commits adultery and is punishable,
but there is no law applicable to a married woman in the ordinary
offense as it exists everywhere. I understand in this antipolygamy
law there is no provision except affecting males.

Senator HOAR. Yes; in other words, whether it is an oversight or
whether there is reason for it, there is no law punishing women who
disobey this injunction, if I am correct. Is not that true?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did not catch that.

Senator HOAR. I say, in other words, there is no law punishing a
woman who lives in polygamous relation with a man ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 think not. Mr. Van Cott can answer that
question better than I can, perhaps.

Senator DUBOIS. When did you say this law was passed ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The statute says 1892.

Senator DUBOIS. That was how long before statehood was passed?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Four years.

Senator DUBOIS. That was in Territorial days?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Senator HOAR. I do not know whether this question has any peculiar
significance or not.

Mr. TAYLER. I think the Edmunds law did not punish the woman.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This is simply the Edmunds law repeated,
which the legislature reenacted. It is enforced there both as an act
of Congress and as an act of the legislature of the Territory.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Was that reenacted after it became a State?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Senator Hoar, did your question, which you put to
Mr. Worthington just now, relate to adultery.

Senator HOAR. I did not specify adultery.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will read this section, because I did not quite catch
all the question, to see if it covers your question:

" SECTION 4210. Whoever commits adultery shall be punished by
imprisonment in the State prison for not exceeding three years; and
when the act is committed between a married woman and a man who
is unmarried, both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adul-
tery; and when such act is committed between a married man and a
woman who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty of adultery."

Senator BAILEY. When was that law reenacted or enacted by the
legislature of Utah?

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1898.

Senatot BAILEY. Was there ever an act passed through the legis-
lature of Utah repealing that?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was coming to that, Senator. I was going
to ask him about that in one moment. It is the very next thing I had
on my notes. I had, however, asked a question and 1 do not know

REED SMOOT. 309

whether it was answered. It appears that the only law in force in

amous cohabitation as distinguished
was passed by this legislature which

Utah which prohibits polygamous cohabitation as distinguished from
hich wa

polygamy is an act which was pass

largely or overwhelmingly Mormon.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; that is correct.

Senator BAILEY. Just before you pass from that, was this act a single
enactment of the legislature or did the legislature of Utah, after the
the State was admitted to the Union, adopt all the laws of the Terri-
tory applicable to the condition of a State ?

Mr. SMITH. I think that is the case— that after the State was admitted
all the laws of the Territory were adopted by the State.

Senator BAILEY. All of the laws of the Territory applicable to the
condition of a State?

Mr. SMITH. All the laws applicable. That is what I mean.

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement in regard
to this matter to make it still more clear? This section that has been
referred to is in a compilation or codification of the laws which was
made in 1898 by a code commission and adopted by the State.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did not the constitution provide that the laws
already existing should continue?

Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir; they continued in force until that codification.

Senator BAILEY. It really required an act of the legislature repealing
it, did it not, or else it came by force of the constitutional provision?

Mr. SMITH. Certainly; it continued in force, and finally the law, as
it now stands, was enacted in 1898.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The act was adopted by the Territorial legisla-
ture in 1892?

Mr. SMITH. In 1892.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And then in the constitutional convention the
acts then in force were carried forward?

Mr. RICHARDS. They continued until 1898. Then they were reen-
acted by the Revised Statutes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to the constitutional convention, Mr. Smith,
how did the number of Mormons in that compare with the. number of
gentiles ?

Mr. SMITH. I could only tell you from a general impression. I
could not tell you as to the exact number. My impression is that the
body was composed very largely of Mormons.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that if there is any law there prohibiting
polygamous cohabitation, it is the act of a legislature composed largely
of Mormons?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What about the act repealing this?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is the question 1 am going to ask him.

Mr. Smith, reference was made in your direct examination to what
is called the Edmunds bill. That bill is in the record here. We may
as well have the language of it in this connection.

Mr. TAYLER. It is on page 11 of the protest.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is what I mean. There never was any bill
offered to repeal it, but it was to affect its operation. When I speak
of the Edmunds bill 1 refer to the bill which is on page 11 of the
printed record of this case, as follows:*

USEC. 1. That section 4f>ll of the Revised Statutes of Utah, 1898,
be, and the same is hereby, amended to read us follows."

810 REED SMOOT.

Now, what is section 4611 ? That is not the section we have been
dealing with at all.

Mr. TAYLER. The words before the proviso are section 4611 as they
now stand.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; Isee. So that the act originally stood:

" Every person who has reason to believe that a crime or public
offense has been committed may make complaint against such person
before some magistrate having authority to make inquiry of the
same."

This bill proposes to amend that by making specific reference to
this particular offense in this way:

"Provided, That no prosecution for adultery shall be commenced
except on complaint of the husband or wife, or relative of the accused
within the first degree of consanguinity, or of the person with whom
the unlawful act is alleged to have been committed, or of the father
or mother of said person, and no prosecution for unlawful cohabita-
tion shall be commenced except on complaint of the wife or alleged
plural wife of the accused; but this proviso shall not apply to pro-
secutions under section 4208 defining and punishing polygamous
marriages."

So there was an attempt made to provide that polygamous cohabita-
tion should not be punished unless the prosecutioYi was instituted by a
plural wife. Will you tell us what you know about that act, Mr.
Smith?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is that the act you refer to as repealing?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No; it never became a law, Senator.

Senator HOAR. What is the date of the Edmunds law?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. March 22, 1882.

Senator HOAR. What is the date when the Supreme Court held the
Edmunds act unconstitutional ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As 1 remember, it was 1885, in the case of
Snow and in the case of Cannon.

Mr. TAYLER. Angus M. Cannon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; Angus M. Cannon, 116 U. S. I should
say, Senator, not to be misleading— this is an important thing that the
committee should know — that it is rather assumed than decided there
that that act was unconstitutional. There the question was raised,
which is an important thing to know here, whether it was necessary,
in order to convict a man of polygamous cohabitation under that act,
to show that he occupied the bed of the plural wife, whether he had
sexual intercourse with her, and the}7 expressly decided that if a man
simply held her out as his wife — " flaunting" is the expression used in
the opinion — that was sufficient.

Senator HOAR. They sustained the conviction ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They sustained the conviction; yes. Let me
say that three years later there came up the case of Snow, which is in
118 U. S., and in that case somebody suggested that the court did not
have jurisdiction, because it was not an appealable judgment, and they
took that view of it. The}7 went back and set aside the affirmance
which they had given in the Cannon case and let the judgment of the
lower court in both cases stand, on the ground that there was no appeal
to the Supreme Court in that class of cases.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If it will not interrupt the order of your
examination, Mr. Worthington, what about that statute repealing this,
which was inquired about? I am interested in that.

REED SMO.OT. 311

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There has been no repeal, so far as I know.

Senator BEV BRIDGE. I thought you said there had been.

Senator BAILEY. I was asking' if there was not a bill passed through
the legislature to repeal it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is what I am asking about now, and this
is the statute referred to. After the provision that any person may
make complaint about a crime, this is the proviso, which I have already
read :

"Provided, That no prosecution for adultery shall be commenced
except on complaint of the husband or wife, or relative of the accused
within the first degree of consanguinity, or of the person with whom
the unlawful act is alleged to have been committed, or of the father or
mother of said person, and no prosecution for unlawful cohabitation
shall be commenced except on complaint of the wife or alleged plural
wife of the deceased; but this proviso shall not apply to prosecutions
under section 4208 defining and punishing polygamous marriages."

What became of that act?

Mr. SMITH. It was passed b}^ both branches of the legislature, and
it was repealed; that is, I would say it was rejected by the governor.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean vetoed?

Mr. SMITH. Vetoed; yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was the governor a Gentile or a Mormon?

Mr. SMITH. The governor was a Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is his name?

Mr. SMITH. Heber M. Wells.

Mr. WORTHINTON. 1 presume that you had the usual provision of
law there that the legislature might pass it over the governor's veto?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What did the}7 do?

Mr. SMITH. They never attempted anything of the kind.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It never became a law \

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you favored that bill. At that time,
I believe, you were not president of the church?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What position did you hold then?

Mr. SMITH. I was counsel to the president.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One of the three constituting the first presi-
dency ?

Mr. SMITH. One of the three.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you favored the bill and that you had
spoken to some of your friends about it, but not to any member of the
legislature ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In justice to you, I will ask you why you
favored it?

Mr. SMITH. It was rather personal, so far as I was concerned. I
was one of those unfortunate, or otherwise, men who had a numerous
family, and there were certain parties in the State who were making
it their special business to pry into the private domestic afi'airs of men
like myself, who were in the status of polygamy. Without any refer-
ence^to any other crimes or offenses under the law, we were made the
special targets for this individual who was constantly seeking informa-
tion and giving information in relation to our marital relations and our

312 REED SMOOT.

associations with our families; and it occurred to me that it would be not
only a boon to myself, but a great relief to those who were in a simi-
lar condition to myself if a law like this should be passed, and thereby
put an end to a professional business of espionage and spotting by this
individual upon the privacy of our people. Therefore, 1 was in favor
of the law. I spoke to friends of mine. The gentlemen who is here,
who is my counsel now, was, I think, about the only person. I do
not recall that I spoke to any other person.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean Mr. Richards?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Richards. I spoke to Mr. Richards about it, and
I intimated to him that I was very much in favor of the passage of the
law. Further than that I took no interest in that and had nothing to
do with it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now I pass to another subject for a moment.

Senator HOAR. Before you pass to another subject, as I suppose we
are going to adjourn about this time, I would like to ask Mr. Smith a
question in that connection. The date of the Edmunds bill was in
1882, and the conviction in the Snow case was confirmed by the
Supreme Court in 1885. The old revelation —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the Cannon case, Senator.

Senator HOAR. In the Cannon case, in 1885. The old revelation
continued in force; that is, it was not interrupted by the new one, or
modified, until 1890.

Mr. SMITH. Until 1890.

Senator HOAR. Now, between 1882 and 1885 and 1890 which was
binding upon the conscience of the members of the Mormon Church,
the old revelation or the statute?

Mr. SMITH. I think the leading authorities of the church felt that
the statute was binding.

Senator HOAR. Over the revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. Over the revelation, because it had become the con-
firmed law of the land. In other words, the constitutional law of the
land, having been so declared by the Supreme Court; but younger
fellows like myself, Senator, were a little more difficult to control, I
suppose —

Senator HOAR. You may say that, if you like. I did not put that
with a view to going into any inconsistency.

Mr. SMITH. I presume I am the greatest culprit.

Senator HOAR. I put that question not with any view to inquire
into your personal conduct or anybody's, but you will see in a moment
that it has a veiy particular and important significance on this ques-
tion. That is, suppose in regard to a matter of personal conduct, like
polygamy, the revelation stands on one side unrepealed and the law of
the land on the other, which, in your judgment, is binding upon the
consciences of your people ?

Mr. SMITH. If you please, I will state, having been intimate with
these gentlemen, that President Woodruff and George Q. Cannon and
President Lorenzo Snow, who afterwards succeeded Wilford Wood-
ruff in the presidency of the church, absolutely obeyed the law of the
land.

Senator HOAR. That does not fully answer the question.

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me, then. I perhaps do not understand it.

Senator HOAR. You are the head of the Mormon Church?

Mr. SMITH. To-day.

EEED SMOOT. 313

Senator HOAR. I will not use the word "Mormon" if you do not
like it.

Mr. SMITH. That is all right. I will accept that, Senator.

Senator HOAR. You 'are the head of your church, and I ask you, as
the most authoritative and weighty exponent of its doctrine and belief,
when, in regard to personal conduct, the law of the land comes in con-
flict with the divine revelation received through you or your prede-
cessor, which is binding upon the conduct of the true son of the
church.

Mr. SMITH. In this case — and 1 think, perhaps, you will accept it as
the answer to your question — under the manifesto of President Wood-
ruff the law of the land is the binding law on the consciences of the
people.

Senator HOAR. Before the manifesto of Mr. Woodruif, is my
question.

Mr. SMITH. We were in something of a state of chaos about that
time.

Senator HOAR. That is not the point. The point is, which, as a mat-
ter of obligation, is the prevalent authority, the law of the land or the
revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. Well, perhaps the revelation would be paramount.

Senator HOAR. Perhaps ?

Mr. SMITH. I am simply expressing a view.

Senator HOAR. Do you think "perhaps" is an answer to that?

Mr. SMITH. I am simply trying to illustrate it.

Senator HOAR. Yes; I will not interrupt you.

Mr. SMITH. With another man the law would be accepted, and this
was the condition the people of the church were in until the manifesto
settled the question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask you a question in that connection.

Senator HOAR. 1 had not quite gotten through, Mr. Worthington.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 beg your pardon, Senator.

Mr. SMITH. Does that answer the question, Senator?

Senator HOAR. I think it does, so far; but I want to go a little far-
ther. Suppose you should receive a divine revelation, communicated
to and sustained by your church, commanding your people to-morrow
to do something forbidden by the law of the land. Which would it be
their duty to obey ?

Mr. SMITH. They would be at liberty to obey just which they
pleased. There is absolutely no compulsion.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you finished your answer to that question,
Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think I have quite. One of the standard
principles of our faith, and one that has been read here to-day, is that
we shall be obedient to the law. This is the word:

"Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the
laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. Wherefore,
be subject to the powers that be until He reigns whose right it is to
reign, and subdues all enemies under His feet. Behold the laws
which ye have received" — this is speaking to the church — "from my
hand are the laws of the Church, and in this light ye shall hold them
forth."

Not in conflict with the laws of the land, but simply as the laws of
the church.

314 REED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Suppose them to be in conflict, Mr. Smith,
which would control the conduct of the members of your church, the
law of the land or the revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. I think under the discipline that we have had for the
last twenty years our people would obey the law of the land.

The CHAIRMAN. Which would control you?

Mr. SMITH. I should try with all my might, Mr. Chairman, to obey
the law of the. land, but 1 would not like to be put in a position whore
I would have to abandon my children. 1 could not do that very well.
I would rather stand anything than to do that.

Senator HOAR. I was not referring in my question to that particular
thing. I would like to ask one question which is flatly curiosity, for
this is a most interesting matter. Did I understand you correctly
that there has been no revelation since this revelation of Woodruff's
for the general government of the church 'I

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He said there have been none for twenty-one
years except that. That is the only one in twenty-one years.

Senator HOAR. Then there has been none since, so that you have
received no revelation yourself?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. Now, if this question is in the least trespassing on
any delicacy in your mind 1 do not want to press it. I ask it solely
for curiosity. If a revelation were to come to you, or if you have a
belief it would come to you. in what way does it come? By an inward
light, by an audible voice, by a writing, or in what way? Have you
anything you can tell us about that?

Mr. SMITH. It might come by an audible voice or it might come by
an inspiration known and heard only by myself.

Senator HOAR. Or by writing, I suppose, as in the case of Joseph
Smith?

Mr. SMITH. In the case of the Book of Mormon; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. That is all.

Senator BAILEY. One word about this document which you call the
manifesto. As a matter of fact, that does not purport to have been a
revelation at all, if what 1 have before me is a correct copy of it. It
seems to have been provoked — I do not use that in am^ offensive sense
—by a report made to the Congress of the United States, in which report
it was charged that the church continues the practice of polygamy
and that they have found something like 40 cases; and in response to
the press dispatches conveying a copy of that report, the president of
the church issues an official declaration. That, I take it, is what you
call the manifesto?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; that is it.

Mr. SMITH. But the manifesto really — that is, the estoppal of plural
marriages — was issued before that.

Mr. RICHARDS. He is talking of the manifesto.

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes; the manifesto.

Senator BAILEY. When you speak of the manifesto, you speak of
this document?

Mr. SMITH. I speak of that; yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. That is the manifesto [handing witness a pamphlet].

Mr. SMITH. This contains the manifesto.

Senator BAILEY. The pamphlet contains it, but the particular docu-
ment, the form of words to which I have called attention there, is the
manifesto itself, is it not?

REED SMOOT. 815

Mr. SMITH. The form of words that contains the manifesto, or is
the manifesto, is a declaration by Wilford Woodruff, the head of the
church, that he will abstain f roni plural marriages and use his influence
to prevent all others from entering into it.

Senator BAILEY. I think, if I correctly read it, it declares that he
has not encouraged it, but, on the contrary, has reproved those who
taught it. But what I am trying to do is to draw, at least in my own
mind, the distinction between the manifesto and a revelation. A rev-
elation, as I understand it, comes from on high. That manifesto seems
to have been merely a way of reaching and denying a report made to
the American Congress; and while it does establish a code of conduct,
I do not understand that to be religious in its character at all.

Mr. SMITH. It was essentially religious for the reason that it was a
specific estoppel of plural marriages by the head of the church.

Senator BAILEY. Well, in obedience of the law. Of course, it might
have been communicated to the secret conferences or to the conferences
of the church that he had prayed for light and had received a revela-
tion.

Mr. SMITH. That is it.

Senator BAILEY. But so far as that document is concerned, it no-
where indicates that there has been any light from heaven on the sub-
ject. It appears that it is in obedience to the law, and I rather think
it puts the responsibility for discontinuing the practice of polygamy
on the law of the land. I would not be sure, but I think maybe the
concluding sentence indicates that it is a pure matter of obedience to
the law; and while obeying the law is commendable, and 1 have no
criticism about it, I am simply trying to —

Mr. SMITH. It is certainly in pursuance of the decision of the
Supreme Court declaring the law against plural marriages and against
unlawful cohabitation constitutional, that the church was brought to
the adoption of the rule of the church not to allow or permit any
further plural marriages.

Senator BAILEY. I understand; but that is a matter of law and not
of religion.

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; it is a matter of religion.

Senator BAILEY. At this time that the official declaration was made,
it was not even the law of the church, 1 believe, until it was what you
call sustained.

Mr. SMITH. It was submitted to the entire church.
" Senator BAILEY. I was going to say, it could not have been the law,
because on the next page I find that President Lorenzo Snow offered
the following, which seems to have been a written resolution, approv-
ing and adopting this manifesto.

Mr. SMITH. Before the whole conference; yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. Yes. The very last sentence of it is:

uAnd I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints
is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of
the land."

He does not say that he has received a revelation that changes the
law of the church. He simply says that he has come to a resolution
to obejr the law of the land.

Mr. SMITH. Does he not say that he has prayed and obtained light?

Senator BAILEY. I think not, in this.

Mr. RICHAKDS. Mr. Chairman, may I make a word of explanation?

316 REED SMOOT.

Senator BAILEY. I should be glad to have it.

Mr. RICHARDS. I see Mr. Smith is confused about the contents of
this instrument and other instruments. It does appear in other instru-
ments, in a sermon delivered by President Woodruff', and in a petition
to the President of the United States, and also, I think, in some of the
testimony that was given before the master in chancery, what the cir-
cumstances were under which this document was promulgated, and
by reason of which he claimed it to have been the force of inspiration
and revelation; but it does not appear here.

Mr. TAYLER. Does the divine origin of it appear in this manifesto
you send out?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir; it does not, and that is why I say the wit-
ness is confused. He is cognizant of its appearing somewhere, but he
is confused as to whether it is in that paper.

Senator BAILEY. The instrument itself negatives that idea. The
paragraph of it preceding the one from which I read the concluding
sentence of the document is this:

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plu-
ral marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the
court of last resort, 1 hereby declare my intention to submit to those
laws, and to use my influence with the members of the church over
which I preside to have them do likewise."

Now, I take it, if it had been a revelation, he would have used the
language of a prophet rather than the language of a lawyer, and instead
of declaring that inasmuch as Congress had passed laws forbidding this
he would have declared he had received a revelation.

Senator DILLINGHAM. May I be permitted, Senator Bailey, to call
your attention to the record here, on page 18. The petition to the
President of the United States contains this clause:

"According to our creed, the head of the church receives from
time to time revelations for the religious guidance of his people "-

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is signed by Woodruff.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Yes. "In September, 1890, the present
head of the church in anguish and prayer cried to God for help for
his flock, and received permission to advise the members of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that the law commanding polyg-
amy was henceforth suspended."

Mr. SMITH. Now permit me to say that the presentation of this to
the general conference of the church, and the resolution that was
adopted by the entire church made this binding upon the whole
church.

Senator BAILEY. Yes; I understand that. I have no disposition to
engage in any debate as to matters of faith. I hardly consider myself
competent for that kind of discussion; and if it were made a matter of
inspiration I would feel foreclosed against any argument. But so far
as this question is concerned — so far as this official declaration is con-
cerned— it is purely a question of law and not of conscience. Now, one
other question, and that other question is suggested by that idea.

I noticed in response to Senator Hoar's question, Mr. Smith, you
said as between a conflicting law and a conflicting revelation, the law
would be binding on some and the revelation on others?

Mr. SMITH. It might be, I said.

Senator BAILEY. Do you mean by that that it would be binding us
as a matter of conduct or as a matter of conscience?

EEED SMOOT. 317

Mr. SMITH. As a matter of conscience.

Senator BAILEY. I can not understand how a man who has any
Christian faith can yield his conscience to the law, though I do under-
stand how he can conform his conduct to it. I can not quite understand
how, if the revelation comes from on high, }^ou could, as a matter of
conscience, yield it to a law that is made by ordinary, every-day law-
makers, either in Utah or at Washington, though I understand per-
fectly well that as a question of good citizenship you would, in tem-
poral affairs, yield to the law of the land. I would like to know, for
my own satisfaction — and it is not a matter with which this committee
has much concern, but just for my own satisfaction — would your church
people make any distinction between conforming as a matter of law
and nonconforming as a matter of conscience?

Mr. SMITH. I tried to illustrate that some time ago, and I will repeat
my idea. To my conscience the revelation conflicting with the law
might appeal and be paramount, but to my brother and to my asso-
ciate member of the church it might not appeal to his conscience, and
he would not be affected by it at all.

Senator BAILEY. 1 did not make myself entirely plain, evidently,
from your answer. 1 can conceive easily how a man's conscience
might remain the same, although his conduct would difl'er. I could
conceive how you and your associates in the first presidency might
have precisely the same conscience in respect to a matter, and yet
your conduct might differ. You might feel that you could not yield
your conscience to the law, and they might feel that, reserving to
themselves the same conscientious regard for institutions, still they
would yield it to the commands of the State; and what I was trying
to ascertain was whether your people as a church would still adhere
to their conscientious beliefs in a given institution, although, as a
matter of law, they might yield it.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think that is correct. I think they would
do that as a general thing.

The CHAIRMAN. You think what. Mr. Smith ?

Mr. SMITH. I think that our people — the Mormon people — would
as a rule, while they might retain their convictions or their conscience,
conform to the law; that is, their acts.

Senator HOAR. May I put one question right there, Mr. Bailey?

Senator BAILEY. Certainly.

Senator HOAR. Could a man remain in good standing as an apostle,
who, if the divine command were in conflict with the command of the
human lawgiver, disobeyed God and obeyed man?

Mr. SMITH. I did not catch the last, Senator.

Senator HOAR. Could a man, in your judgment, remain in good
standing as an apostle, who, if the divine command by revelation
enjoined one thing and the human law the contrary, disobeyed God
and obeyed man?

Mr. SMITH. Would he remain in good standing?

Senator HOAR. Yes. Would he remain in good standing?

Mr. SMITH. I rather think he would be considered as a little out of
harmony with his associates if he did that.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Smith", as a matter of conduct, where there
is a conflict between revelation — or by whatever term it is called — and
the law of the land, which, as a church matter, does your church
direct the members to obey?

318 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. To obey the law of the land. That is what we have
done absolutely.

Senator DUBOIS. i would like to ask one question.

Senator DILLINGHAM. It is half past 4. I move the committee
adjourn.

Senator DUBOIS. I will ask this question, and I will stop there for
the time being. I want to supplement the question made by Senator
Hoar. You^said that if you received a revelation your people could,
obey it or not, as they saw fit. Now, presume that revelation had been
submitted to your people and all of them in their conference had held
up their hands. Do you still think it would not be the duty of your
people to obey that revelation, and that they would not obey that
revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. That they would not obey that revelation?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I think that when the people hold up their hands to
accept a principle, and they do accept a principle, they are honest
enough to carry it out.

Senator DUBOIS. They will all carry it out?

Mr. SMITH. I think so.

Senator DUBOIS. They would accept your revelation then?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Some of them would and some would not?

Mr. SMITH. Some would and some would not, to be sure.

Senator DUBOIS. Would it not be obligatory upon every member of
your organization to accept that revelation, if sustained by the holding
up of hands?

Mr SMITH. No, sir; only those who were disposed to do it would
do it. Those who were not disposed to do it would not do it.

Senator DUBOIS. Then, of course, any one is at liberty to refuse a
revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Senator DUBOIS. It is not binding at all upon any of your people?

Mr. SMITH. How is that?

Senator DUBOIS. It is not binding at all upon any of your people ?

Mr. SMITH. Not at all; only the binding of conscience. It never was.

Senator DUBOIS. It has no effect or force or authority which must
be obeyed according to your church organization and laws?

Mr. SMITH. Not in the least. There is not a man in the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that is under any more obligation
to obey the doctrines of the church and the laws of the church than
you are, Senator — not one particle.

Senator DUBOIS. When promulgated by the head of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. You promulgate, then, a revelation to your apostles
to start with, and they do not have to accept it?

Mr. SMITH. Not unless they choose.

Senator DUBOIS. Then, if they impart that in turn to their people

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me. I say not unless they choose.

Senator DUBOIS. They are not under any sort of obligation, then,
to obey ?

Mr. SMITH. Not unless they choose to. They have their volition,
their free agency, and the church does not interfere with the con-
science or the free agency of men at all.

REED SMOOT. 319

Senator BAILEY. Could you not make use of a better word and say
"unchurched" if they refuse to obey the ordinances of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes.

Senator BAILEY. I think they do that with the Baptist Church and
the Methodist Church and all the rest of them.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; we do that.

Senator BAILEY. If they did not receive it, you would withdraw
membership, or fellowship, as you call it?

Mr. SMITH. That would depend on whether they committed overt
acts of unchristianlike conduct.

Senator BAILEY. The rejection of the creed is, in the eyes of the
church, I suppose, unchristianlike, is it not? Of course, you under-
stand about the creeds of the other churches. Suppose a member of the
Baptist Church should reject, say, the doctrine of baptism. I suppose
they would unchurch him, would they not? Would not your organi-
zation— your church would be the better term — do the same?

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Mr. BAILEY. So would you not do an exact obedience to your doc-
trine that far?

Mr. SMITH. Permit me to put it this way, if you please, with exact
language: We preach our doctrine. We submit it to the judgment of
men. They either receive it or reject it on their own volition. If
they receive it and are initiated into the church as members of the
church, then they are amenable to the laws and rules of the church;
and if they do not obey the laws and observe the rules of the church
after becoming members of it, and commit overt acts or transgress the
laws of the church, then they are dealt with for their fellowship in the
church, and the hand of fellowship is withdrawn from them unless
they repent.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until to-morrow
morning at half -past 10.

The committee (at 4 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) adjourned until
Saturday, March 5, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 5, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, Foraker, Dillingham,
Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senator Smoot;
also Robert W. Tayler, counsel for the protestants ; A. S. Worthing-
ton and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Frank-
lin S. Richards, counsel for Joseph F. Smith, and other witnesses.

Mr. TAYLER. Before we proceed I wish to say that on page 172 of
the printed testimony Mr. C. W. Penrose was the subject of a ques-
tion in connection with what is called the Moses Thatcher pamphlet,
and I appear as asking Mr. Smith a question respecting Mr. Penrose
as the ' ' owner " of the Deseret News. I would not, of course, question
the accurac}^ of these very accurate reporters, but rather my own. Of
course, the word "owner" ought to be "editor." That is what I
want to say, and I ask that proper steps may be taken to have that
correction made.

The CHAIRMAN. That correction will be noted and made.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 should like to say that 1 have observed other

320 REED SMOOT.

errors, either of the speaker or of the stenographer, in the report;
and I now ask that the committee direct that when a witness has fin-
ished his testimony whatever errors ma}^ be agreed upon may be cor-
rected or attention be called to them.

The CHAIRMAN. The testimony will be printed from day to day, and
before its final print any correction of the kind suggested will be
made to correspond to the fact.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Continued.

Joseph F. Smith, having previously affirmed, was examined, and
testified as follows:

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have testified in regard to the effect upon
a member of the church or one of the apostles who would run for
office without getting the consent which is indicated by the rule put
in evidence here yesterday. I will ask whether or not the same rule
would apply in case of his disobeying a regulation of the church in
other matters?

Mr. SMITH. The same exactly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. For instance, what other matters ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What about drinking and gambling and swear-
ing and things of that sort. Do they come within your prohibition ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. It would involve all un-Christianlike conduct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean whether the same consequences would
follow in case of any un-Christianlike conduct that would follow in case
a man should run for office in violation of the rule?

Mr. SMITH. We should consider acts of un-Christianlike conduct of
very much more serious consequence than merely disregarding our
wish with respect to running for office, because we consider that these
principles are vital. The other is simply a matter of free will.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There has been a good deal said here about the
proportion of polygamists to the Mormon population. Have you any
statistics on that subject?

Mr. SMITH. I have not any in my possession, but some years ago the
facts were published, and I think they were reached by the Utah Com-
mission, and as near, Mr. Chairman, as my recollection goes — it is a
long time ago and it is a matter which has not been brought to my
attention since, although I have some recollection of it — when the Utah
Commission was created and sent to Utah to administer the govern-
ment there, they excluded all polygamists from the elective franchise,
and as women held the elective franchise the same as men they were
excluded of course as well as the men.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The women who were in polygamy?

Mr. SMITH. All women were voters in Utah. Afterwards, however,
the women were disfranchised by act of Congress, I believe, in the
Territory. But 1 understand that the commissioners, after excluding
all polygamists, ascertained that there had been excluded some 12,000 —
in the neighborhood of that, I would not say just what — out of a pop-
ulation of some 250,000 or 300,000. Of course these were polygamists,
including the men and the women; and as it took two women to one
man to make polygamy, two-thirds of that number of the population
excluded from voting would be women, leaving only one-third, or
practically about 4,000 men. And reckoning that it takes a man

KEED SMOOT. 321

.specially to create the status of plural marriage, it was supposed that
jhus 4,000 male voters represented the actual polygamists of the church,
which was something less, I believe., in reality, than 2 per cent of the
entire membership of the church.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this statement of mine may be subject to some
correction from the record. I do not pretend to state it as absolutely
correct, but that is my recollection of it, to the best of my under
standing.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Chairman, there has been a controversy
between the president and myself—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Allow me to finish this subject.

Senator DUBOIS. Mine comes in here. It is right in point.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. On this particular subject I have some other
questions.

Senator DUBOIS. On the matter of statistics?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir; on the proportion.

Senator DUBOIS. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Worthington, conclude.

Senator DUBOIS. I want the committee to understand my position.

Mr. SMITH. May I be permitted to say, Mr. Worthington, if you
please, that all that I have stated is on record. That is to say, I merely
quote from what I recollect of the record.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the answer of Reed Smoot, found on the
bottom of page 38 of the record, it is set forth that the returns of
subordinate officers of the church show then umber of polygamists at
certain times. Do you have records of that kind?

Mr. SMITH. I have.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you any information-
Senator DUBOIS. I beg your pardon, but 1 rather think it is my
right-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. Certainly, Senator, it is your right.

Senator DUBOIS. And I think it is a courtesy due to the president
and myself that I should make my statement here.

I am willing to accept the statement which the president has made.
I think it is altogether likely that we reason from different premises,
and, of course, if we do we will reach different conclusions.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the point.

Senator DUBOIS. As to the proportion of polygamists ?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to question him at this points

Senator DUBOIS. I desire to make a statement. He says that by the
Utah commission there were 12,000 polygamists excluded from voting,
and he assumes there are 2 women to each man. There must of neces-
sity have been 2 women to each man.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At least 2.

Senator DUBOIS. At least 2.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator- DUBOIS. I should think very likely the percentage would
be larger than 2. In his calculation he includes suckling babes.
How can a child 2 years old be in polygamy?

Mr. SMITH. I beg pardon, I am talking about voters.

Senator DUBOIS. There were about 220,000 persons in Utah of voting
age. Now, how many of those were gentiles?

Mr. SMITH. At that time, 1 do not know.

Senator DUBOIS. Well, about a third to a fourth?

322 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. I would, tit a guess, at that time — that was in—

Senator DUBOIS. We will have the full statistics pretty soon.

Mr. SMITH. I would not wish to undertake to make a guess at it.
I would rather refer right to the statistics themselves.

Senator DUBOIS. We will say a fourth.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not think there was a fourth at that time.

Senator DUBOIS. Say a fifth.

Mr. SMITH. I could not say ar^thing about it because I do not know,
but I do not think there was a fourth.

Senator DUBOIS. All right. Then I will assume that there were
50,000 gentiles in Utah. That would leave 170,000?

Mr. TAYLEK. Of all ages.

Senator DUBOIS. A hundred and seventy thousand Mormons of all
ages.

Mr. SMITH. I wish to state, Mr. Chairman, to the chairman and
to the Senators, that I suppose you ineau by all ages, infants.

Senator DUBOIS. I beg pardon.

Mr. SMITH. Infants?

Senator DUBOIS. Infants.

Mr. SMITH. We never take any wonoTm* of nny child under 8 years
old, so far as our church records are concerned — that is, as being reck-
oned a part of our church membership.

Senator DUBCIS. I know; but there were 12,000 male polygamists —

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Twelve thousand polygamists excluded.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I did not intend to convey that idea. That was
a supposition. It was ascertained that there were about 12,000—

Senator DUBOIS. I thought }^ou accepted that statement?

Mr. SMITH. I said if that was the case at least two-thirds of that
number would be women. That is a supposition. That would leave,
of course, but one-third males. Now, 1 contend, if I have permission
to contend with the Senator —

Senator DUBOIS. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. I do not wish to be disrespectful in any way.

Senator DUBOIS. Not at all. The controversy between you and
me is because you include all and I include only those of sufficient age.

Mr. SMITH. I would be rather inclined to think that at that time
probably three women to one man might have been the average. 1
could not say.

The CHAIRMAN. Right there, at what date was that?

Mr. SMITH. That was in 1882.

Senator DUBOIS. Then you would have had 12,000 —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One-fourth would have been men.

Senator DUBOIS. Twelve thousand polygamists out of a Mormon
population, including everybody, of 170,000.

Mr. SMITH. There were over 200,000, considerably.

Senator DUBOIS. There is a discrepancy, but we will figure it at
200,000. Now, with the large families in Utah, I think it would be
fair to assume that there were four children to each famity. I think
there are seven children to a family in Minnesota and some of those
other States. Ordinarily I think it is one to five. But here there are
plural wives. Taking it all together, I should think, including the
polygamous families and all, there were four children to a family.
What would you say to that?

EEED SMOOT. 323

Mr. SMITH. I have no objection to that.

Senator DUBOIS. Then you would exclude from the 170,000 as being
below the age of 18 considerably more than one-half, of necessity?

1 am getting at it roughly. Of necessity you would exclude consid-
erably more than one-half. You can not count children as being in
polygamy.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do the census returns give the number of Mor-
mons, males and females ?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes. "

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think it is a matter we can get at, then.

Senator DUBOIS. I want to put this in here.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Senator, you had better make your statement
of what you claim, so that we will have both statements on the record.

Senator DUBOIS. I stated the other day that in my judgment the
convictions showed that there were more than 2 or 3 per cent, and
that in my judgment there were a great rnan}f more than 3 or 4 per
cent in polygamy at this time.

Senator HOAR. What is the date ?

Senator DUBOIS. 1890. I have already proven my contention,
because at the least there were 80,000 people who were of sufficient
age to go into polygamy and out of that number there were about
15,000 polygamists.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further question on that point, Mr.
Senator ?

Senator DUBOIS. That is my statement. 1 can put in the more exact
figures if necessary. I did not want that statement to go to the coun-
try unchallenged. The difference between the president and myself
is that we were reasoning from different premises. He included all
the members of the church. I exclude, of course, those who are not
in condition to be in polygamy. I do not question the veracity of the
president's statement at all. I simply wish to call attention to the
fact that our premises being so totally at variance, of course, our con-
clusions would be very much at variance.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Worthington.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Smith, have you any statistics as to the
number of polygamists in the year 1890 in the Mormon Church, and
at any different dates since that down approximately to this time ? If
you have, please give us the result.

Mr. SMITH. I have. I have a statement here, if you please, which
was gotten up a short time ago, giving the present status of polyga-
mists in Utah, and 1 can vouch for its accuracy up to the date that is
here named. If I may be permitted, I should like to read the whole
paper. It is not very long.

" Mr. Copp, local agent of the Associated Press, called upon Presi-
dent Smith this afternoon desiring information as to the status of
polygamy, and the following questions and answers were put into
form for that gentleman, at his request, for publication:

"Q. Does the church solemnize or permit plural marriages? — A.
Certainly not. The church does not perform, or sanction, or authorize
marriage in an}r form that is contrary to the laws of the land."

Mr. TALLER. These questions were addressed to you?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; lhad this interview between the reporter and
myself.

324 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. That is what you did not say at the begin-
ning, and 1 did not catch the connection.

Mr. SMITH. I intended to do so.

Mr. TAYLER. You nia}^ have done so.

The CHAIRMAN. The answers are by yourself?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, ,<>ir; by myself.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was the gentleman who interviewed you?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Copp is the agent of the Associated Press.

The CHAIRMAN. Living in Salt Lake?

Mr. SMITH. Living in Salt Lake. The statement continues:

"Q. Why then is it asserted that prominent Mormons practice
polygamy?— A. That is done evidently to mislead the general public.
Polygamy, under the law, is the marrying of a husband or wife while
the legal husband or wife is living and undivorced. There is no such
offense committed by sanction of the Mormon Church. But when the
prohibition of polygamy was proclaimed by the president of the Mor-
mon Church there were many persons who had contracted plural mar-
riages, and that relation has been continued in many instances because
the men in that position determined not to abandon their families, but
to care for and provide for them and educate and cherish their chil-
dren. This is erroneously construed as practicing 'polygamy,' and
creates the impression that polygamous marriages are still permitted
in and by the church.

Q. To what extent are these relations of polygamous families
sustained? — A. It was ascertained by careful census in 1890, when
President Woodruff issued his manifesto against further polygamous
marriages, there were 2,451 such families belonging to the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the United States. In October,
1899, by another count, it was found that the number had been reduced,
by death, 750; by removals beyond the confines of the Republic, 63;
by divorce, 95; leaving then but 1,543. In Ma}% 1902, a complete
and thorough inquiry showed that the original number in 1890 had
been reduced 63 per cent, leaving then only 897, and the great majority
of whom were of advanced age, and many of them have since departed
this life. *It is evident that with no additions to this total, but a rapid
and continual decrease, the number of polygamous families will soon
be reduced to zero.

That is my statement.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, of the 897 polygamists in the United
States belonging to the church in 1902, can you give us approximately
how many of them live in Utah?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. The statement covers every church organiza-
tion that we have in the United States. 1 do not know how many of
these are in Utah, or how they are divided. However, I could get
that information —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well.

Mr. SMITH. In a little time.

Mr. WTORTHINGTON. Do these figures, for instance the figures for
1902, 897 polygamists, include men and women or only men ?

Mr. SMITH. That includes, I think, the families — the heads of fami-
lies.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The men only?

Mr. SMITH. The men, in other words.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And can you tell us whether or not, since the

BEED SMOOT. 325

date of that census in 1902, the decrease lias gone on in about the same
proportion to the present time?

Mr. SMITH. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the decrease has gone on
in greater ratio, for the reason that these elderly men are continually
getting older and they are more rapidly passing away.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Take your own case as an illustration of what
the situation is. You have five families and they all live in Salt Lake
City.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have had children. How old is your oldest
child?

Mr. SMITH. My oldest child is probably about 35 or 36 years of age.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have a son, I believe, who is one of the
apostles.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is his name?

Mr. SMITH. Hyrum M. Smith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he here?

Mr. SMITH. He is here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old is he?

Mr. SMITH. My recollection-
Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Thirty-two.

Mr. SMITH. Thirty -two; that is my recollection, although I was not
quite sure.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he married?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Has he any more than one wife?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He has little children ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And a separate household in Salt Lake City?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They are your grandchildren?

Mi1. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I should like to have it noted on the record
that all these children born prior to 1888 are legitimate, having been
made legitimate by act of Congress. The Edmunds Act, as it was
called, which was passed on the 22cl of March, 1882, provided that all
children of these polygamous relations born before the 1st of January
following should be legitimate.

The CHAIRMAN. That will go in the record.

Senator FORAKER. It occurs to me that in this connection it might
be convenient to have the Edmunds Act inserted right into the record.
Is there objection to that?

The CHAIRMAN. I will either have that done or have it published by
itself.

Senator FORAKER. Let it come right in here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It would be very convenient if instead of doing
that we could have a compilation made, which counsel on both sides
could prepare, giving the different acts and Presidential proclamations
which either side may think bears upon this question, and have them
printed by themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. What the counsel agree upon will be done.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I will also state here that the Edmunds-Tucker

326 REED SMOOT.

Act, passed in 1887, provided that all issues born within a year of the
passage of the act should l>c legitimate.

You visit your son's house, Mr. Smith, and visit your little grand-
children?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.,

Mr. W6RTHINGTON. Is the mother of that son still there?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. With her household ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; still living in her home.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. These are her grandchildren?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And she visits them, too?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. She goes to see them in sickness and in health?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You do, too ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have amongst your issues funerals and
marriages ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And at times f amity reunions?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You acknowledge in those gatherings these
women to be your wives ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I have done so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It came out yesterday, if the committee will
allow me to keep the thread of this matter, that the only provision of
law in Utah to-day forbidding polygamous cohabitation is the law
enacted by the legislature composed very largely of Mormons, and that
the only revelation which has come to them for twent3T-one years is the
revelation forbidding polygamy. I will now come down to the time
when }^ou became the president.

1 want to see what you have done since that time which indicates
that this committee of fifteen is a conspiracy to inculcate and perpetu-
ate polygamy.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the date?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When did you become president?

Mr. SMITH. On the 101 h of November I was sustained. Prior to
that 1 acted as senior president. On the 10th of November, 1901. Is
that correct?

Senator SMOOT. 1901.

The CHAIRMAN. May 1 ask right here, in this connection, so as to
have it appear, when did you. become an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. In 1867.

The CHAIRMAN. Now go on.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was your predecessor?

Mr. SMITH. Lorenzo Snow.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you remember the date of his death?

Mr. SMITH. 1 think it was on the 10th day of October, 1901.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then under your rule you became acting presi-
dent until the vacancy should be filled?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTIIINGTON. WThen was it filled?

Mr. SMITH. On the 10th day of November following.

EEED SMOOT. 327

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then you were presented and sustained and con-
firmed by the general assembly ?

Mr. SMITH. By the whole church in general conference assembled.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When President Snow died, or just prior to his
death, what office did you hold?

Mr. SMITH. I was his second councilor.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the first councilor?

Mr. SMITH. George Q. Cannon when living, but he was then dead.
He had died previously.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was no other councilor living at the time
President Snow died ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not quite understand your question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean just at the time of his death.

Mr. SMITH. At the time of his death he had chosen me as first coun-
cilor, and he had chosen Rudger Clawson his second councilor.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was Mr. Clawson a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was a monogamist?

Mr. SMITH. He was a monogamist.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So, at the time Lorenzo Snow died a majority
of the first presidency, the highest tribunal in your church, were
polygamists ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. sir; tha£ is right.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I want to find out what you did about having
that body constituted — the first presidency. Who became your coun-
cilor ?

Mr. SMITH. I selected Hon. John R. Winder as my first councilor.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he a polygamist or a monogamist?

Mr. SMITH. A monogamist.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was your second councilor?

Mr. SMITH. My second councilor was Anthon H. Lund.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was his status as to the marriage relation ?

Mr. SMITH. He is reputed to have but one wife, and that he never
had any other.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have those gentlemen remained your councilors ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that from the time you became president a
majority of the highest tribunal have been monogamists?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTOX. Now, what vacancies, if any, have been filled
in the twelve since 3^ou became president?

Mr. SMITH. Since I became president there have been two vacancies
filled in the council of twelve.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How were they filled; by whom were they
filled?

( Mr. SMITH. They were filled in the usual manner by the nomination \
I or suggestion of members of the council and confirmation by the presi-
} dency of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who are the persons who were selected?

Mr. SMITH. Who were the persons selected?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH. My son, Hyrum M. Smith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have already said that he is a man with but
one wife?

328 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He never had but one wife *

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct. And the second was George
A. Smith, who is also a monogamist, and always has been a
monogamist.

Senatoi; OVERMAN. Is he any relation to you ?

Mr. SMITH. He is my cousin\s son. He is the son of John Henry
Smith, and his father is my cousin.

Mr. TAYLER. He is an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Who is John Henry Smith ? What official position
in the church does he hold?

Mr. SMITH. He is one of the twelve.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have I asked you whether he is a polygamist
or monogamist?

Mr. SMITH. Which — George A ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean those who filled the vacancies.

Mr. SMITH. George A. Smith is a monogamist and always has been.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, if I understand you correctly, you have
appointed since you became president two councilors and two of the
twelve apostles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And all have been monogamists and are?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; all of them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to Apostle Teasdale, you were asked some-
thing about whether he had not more than one wife. How was that
at the time you became president?

Mr. SMITH. At the time 1 became president he was a monogamist.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Has he been ever since?

Mr. SMITH. He has been ever since.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, as to the other apostles, you were asked
as to most of them, and perhaps all of them, whether they were not
polygamists, and you answered yes?

Mr. SMITH. Oh', no.

Mr. VAN COTT: He was not asked that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You were asked the question as to each of them,
and you said " yes " as to some. I ask you what you mean by that?

Mr. SMITH. 1 mean only that to-day there are six of the twelve who
are reputed to be polygamists.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I want to know what you mean by the word
a polygamists " in that connection?

Mr. SMITH. I mean that they are in the status of polygamy; that
they are reputed to have more than one wife. That is what I desire
to have understood.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are they also reputed to acknowledge and hold
out the plural wives as their wives?

Mr. SMITH. That I am notable to say; I do not know7.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is your knowledge, obtained personally
or by reputation, as to whether or not as to the others they, like you,
actually live and cohabit with more than one woman ? What do you
know about that?

Mr. SMITH. All I know about it, sir, is that these men who are in
the polygamous status with myself take their own chances individually

REED SMOOT. 329

as to the consequences of living with or abstaining from living with
their families. They are amenable to the law.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That does not answer my question.

Mr. SMITH. Excuse me.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. My question is what knowledge you have — I
include knowledge acquired in any way — as to whether or not they
are actually cohabiting with more than one woman?

Mr. SMITH. Not having inquired into the matter at all, I am really
not in a position to say. I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you say they are porygamists, do you
mean they are living with more than one woman, just as you are?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not mean that. I mean they are repre-
sented to be the husband of more than one wife each. That is all I
know about it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to one, you said on your direct examination
that he is a neighbor of yours.

Mr. SMITH. Oh; my cousin.

Mr. W^ORTHINGTON. And a relative.

Mr. SMITH. My cousin.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And that you knew all about him. What is
his name?

Mr. SMITH. John Henry Smith. WTe are related and we are neigh-
bors. His family associates with my families and my families with
his, and we are very intimate.

Mr. W^ORTHINGTON. Do you know whether or not, as a matter of fact,
he does cohabit with more than one wife?

Mr. SMITH. I am very strongly inclined to believe that he does.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me go back to the matter of the first pres-
idency and the three who constitute it.

Senator DUBOIS. Before you leave this question I should like to ask
a question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Certainly, Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. You have stated the number of polygamists now
in the church. Does the United States at the present time gather any
statistics in regard to that matter, to your knowledge ?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of. I do not know anything about
that,

Senator DUBOIS. There is no Utah commission now?

Mr. SMITH. I am very happy to say there is not, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. And there is no other body of men appointed by
the United States whose duty it is to ascertain how many Mormons
are now living in polygamous relations?

Mr. SMITH. I should be very happy, sir, if there were.

Senator DUBOIS. I want to know whether there is or not?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not know that there is.

Senator DUBOIS. You think not?

Mr. SMITH. I think not.

Senator DUBOIS. So your statement, of course, is one collected by
your church?

Senator FORAKER. For information, .let me ask whether the Census
Director was not required to gather information on that subject?

Senator DUBOIS. Not in regard to their polygamous status.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is that all?

330 REED SMOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. That is all.

Mr. WORTIIINGTON. I observe that Senator Bailey is here, and 1
will put a question which I deferred until he came in. That is whether
the manifesto is taken to be a revelation. You spoke }^esterday, 1
think, of a sermon that had been delivered by President Woodruff
after the minifesto. Is that the manifesto which is published in con-
nection with the proceedings before the Committee on Territories of
the House of Representatives when Utah was knocking at the door for
admission as a State?

Mr. SMITH. President Woodruff himself declares —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No; I asked you—

Mr. SMITH. I beg pardon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I asked whether the sermon is the one printed
in connection with the proceedings? Look 'at it. It is on page 85.
It will speak for itself. I want first to identify it. [Handing witness
pamphlet.] You need not read it clear through.

Mr. SMITH (after examining pamphlet). I have not any doubt but
that it is correctly stated, just as he stated it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is a sermon which was delivered by Presi-
dent Wroodruff on November 1, 1891, a little over a year after the
manifesto. He refers to the manifesto. I will not read it all, but I
will ask the stenographer —

Mr. VAN COTT. Read it all.

The CHAIRMAN. It can be inserted in the record.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; I will read only the concluding portion
of it. It is quite long.

" I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should
have gone to prison myself and let every other man go there had not
the God of heaven commanded me to do whatl did do; and when the
hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I
laid it before my brethren, such strong men as Brother George Q.
Cannon, Brother Joseph F. Smith, and the twelve apostles. I might
as well undertake to turn an army with banners out of its course as to
turn them out of a course that they considered to be right. These
men agreed with me, and 10,000 Latter-Day Saints also agreed with
me. Why? Because they were moved upon by the spirit of God and
b}7 the revelations of Jesus Christ to do it."

The preceding portion shows it is the manifesto referred to. Now I
was about to ask }rou—

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. November 1, 1891; a little over a year after the
manifesto was issued.

The matter referred to is as follows:

"The following extract from a sermon delivered by President
Woodruff at Logan, November 1, 1891, will further explain the posi-
tion of the church on this subject.

" President Woodruff said:

u I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones tome,
and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your
minds to what is termed the manifesto. The Lord has told me by
revelation that there are many members of the church throughout
Zion who are sorely tried in their heart because of that manifesto, and
also because of the testimony of the presidency of this church and the
apostles before the master in chancery. Since 1 received that re vela-

BEED 8MOOT. 331

tion I have heard of many who are tried in these things, though I had
not heard of any before that, particularly. Now, the Lord has com-
manded me to do one thing, and I fulfilled that commandment at the
conference at Brigham City last Sunday, and I will do the same here
to-day.

''The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-Day Saints a question, and
he also told me that if they would listen to what 1 said to them and
answer the question put to them by the spirit and power of God, they
would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to
this matter. The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the
Latter-Day Saints to pursue; to continue to attempt to practice plural
marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of
sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of
all the temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both
for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the first presi-
dency and twelve and the heads of families in the church, and the con-
fiscation of personal' property of the people (all of which of themselves
would stop the practice), or after doing and suffering what we have
through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and sub-
mit to the law, and through doing so leave the prophets, apostles, and
fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the
duties of the church, and also leave the temples in the hands of the
saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the gospel, both for
the living and the dead?

"The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would
take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it
you would have had no use for Brother Merrill, for Brother Edlefsen,
for Brother Roskelley, for Brother Leishman, or for any of the men
in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped through^
out the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and
many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come
upon the whole church, and we should have been compelled to stop the
practice. Now the question is whether it should be stopped in this
manner or in the way the Lord has manifested to us and leave our

Erophets and apostles and fathers free men and the temples in the
ands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large num-
ber has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit
world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the
question I lay before the Latter-Day Saints. You have to judge for
yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not
answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we, as
the people, would have been in had we not taken the course we have.
"I know there are a good m'any men, and probably some leading
men, in this church who have been tried and felt as though President
Woodruff had lost the spirit of God and was about to apostatize.
Now, I want you to understand that he has not lost -the spirit, nor is
he about to apostatize. The Lord is with him and with his people.
He has told me exactly what to do and what the result would be if we
did not do it. I have been called upon by friends outside the church
and urged to take some steps with regard to this matter. They- knew
the course which the Government were determined to take. This
feeling has also been manifested more or less by members of the
church. I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not
something done. I have had the spirit upon me for a long time.

832 KEED SMOOT.

44 But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of
our hands, I should have gone to prison ii^self and let every other
man go there, had not the God of Heaven commanded me to do what
I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it
was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the
Lord tol<i me to write. I laid it before my brethren, such strong men
as Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother Joseph F. Smith, and the twelve
apostles. I might as well undertake to turn an army with banners out
of its course as to turn them out of a course that they considered to be
right. These men agreed with me, and 10,000 Latter-Day Saints also
agreed with me. Why ? Because they were moved upon by the spirit
of God and by the revelations of Jesus Christ to do it."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Also in the petition submitted to the President
asking for amnesty, the same thing was averred and signed by Presi-
dent Woodruff and all the other apostles. I understand that the first
presidency is composed of the president and his two councilors.

Senator BAILEY. Before you leave that, if you do not intend your-
self to ask any further questions about it, I would like to ask a ques-
tion. The sermon sa}rs these 10,000 members of the church were
moved upon by a revelation. I do not still see that the head of the
church declares that he received a revelation. He does say that he
went to God in anguish and prayer, just as Christians of various
denominations do when their duty is not plain, and they rise from it
more or less instructed. But that was an instruction to obey the law.
I, myself, think a Christian would go to the stake before he would
abandon his creed; and if that is a revelation, contradicting a former
revelation

Mr. SMITH. It is not contradicting it.

Senator BAILEY. I think it is. The former revelation undoubtedly
permitted plural marriages, if it did not command them, and this reve-
lation forbids them.

Mr. SMITH. It simply forbids the practice.

Senator BAILEY. That is a distinction without a difference

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no.

Senator BAILEY. Because the other undoubtedly permitted its prac-
tice. This forbids the piactice. Now, if there is not a conflict between
these two I am unable to comprehend what a conflict is. Under one
state of the case they were permitted to enter into plural marriage and
in another state of the case they were forbidden to do it. Now, from
what I can understand —

Mr. SMITH. Will the Senator please allow me to say a word just
there ?

The CHAIRMAN. Let the Senator complete his statement.

Mr. SMITH. I beg your pardon.

Senator BAILEY. I will pause to hear the witness.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. SMITH. The one is no more emphatic than the other. President
Woodruff declares that he himself will stop and that he will use all his
influence to have all the people stop the continuance of plural mar-
riages, and all the people assembled in conference agreed with him
that they would stop the practice of plural marriage.

Senator BAILEY. That does not touch the question which L have in
mind.

Mr. SMITH. All right.

KEED 8MOOT. 333

Senator BAILEY. I will say to you very frankty that I do not have
much patience with a doctrine which does not receive a revelation
until there is a statute and where the revelation happens to conform to
the statute. What I have been trying to fix in my mind is whether you
taught that this was a revelation or merely a submission to the law.
If it were a. submission to the law, then it would be a question whether
the Christian would submit to the laws of the land or to the laws of
God. I do not pretend to judge about that, but when a sect teaches
that an inspiration comes just after a statute has been passed and a
report made to Congress, I do not quite understand that anybody is
required to accept it as a revelation.

Senator FORAKER. All of that is a matter of opinion.

Senator BAILEY. Hardly, if the Senator please.

Senator FORAKER. I mean so far as the sense of duty is concerned.

Senator BAILEY. Not precisely that. 1 have been compelled to
submit to many a law that I thought a vicious one, and which I would
have voted to repeal, but as a good citizen I submitted to it. But just
how far I would have submitted if I had been otherwise commanded
by a revelation from God is a question that I am not now deciding.

Mr. SMITH. May I please try to explain this matter a little to the
Senator? I will try to be brief.

Senator BAILEY. Very well.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Senator, the facts are these: When the laws against
plural marriage were passed by the Congress of the United States we
held to the idea that they were unconstitutional laws. Wre are com-
pelled by our doctrines — the doctrines of our church — to obey and
observe the constitutional laws of our land.

Senator BAILEY. I have heard such a statement read here.

Mr. SMITH. We fought the validity of those laws in court all the
way from the first and lower court to the highest court of our land,
arid when the subject finally came before the Supreme Court of the
United States and was settled and the law was sustained as a constitu-
tional law, then we, to be obedient to our own doctrines and faith,
were naturally inclined to obey the law.

But we had a revelation on our statute books, commanding us, or at
least not commanding us — yes, commanding us to enter into a certain
covenant for eternity as well as for time, which is mandatory, with
reference to the blessings that are promised in the law; they can not
be received without it; and, with reference to the plural part of it,
permissive, and we had the alternative before us as to whether we
should observe even the constitutional law of the land that was so pro-
nounced by the Supreme Court of the United States or to continue to
practice the law of the church.

President Woodruff, as president of the church, entitled, as we hold,
as you may not hold, and as everybody is free to have his own opinion
about it, to receive revelations and inspiration from Almighty God
for the guidance of the church and that he is the final arbitrator for
the church on matters of doctrine, sought to the Lord, and, as he says
himself in the language which has been read here, the Lord made man-
ifest to him clearly that it was his duty to stop plural marriages, and
he received that revelation and that commandment from the Lord to
stop it. He published it; announced it. It was submitted first to the
officials of the church and accepted by them and then it was submitted
to the entire church in conference assembled and it was accepted by

334 KEED SMOOT.

them, and thus it became binding upon the church; and the church
has from that day to this kept the law so far as plural marriages are
concerned.

I should like to draw a distinction in the Senator's mind that there
is a great difference in our judgment, in our feelings, between the law
prohibiting plural marriages and the law prohibiting what is termed
in the Taw unlawful cohabitation — a very great difference. Plural
marriage has stopped; but I choose, rather than to abandon my chil-
dren and their mothers, to ruivmy risks before the law. I want to say,
too, that it is the law of my State — it is not the law of Congress —
under which I am living and by which 1 am punishable. It is the law
of my State, and the courts of my State have competent jurisdiction
to deal with me in my offenses against the law, and the Congress of
the United States has no business with my private conduct any more
than it has with the private conduct of an}^ citizen of Utah or any
other State. It is the law of my State to which I am amenable, and
if the officers of the law have not done their duty toward me I can not
blame them. I think they have some respect for me.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 Adsh to ask you a question right here. You speak
of }rour unwillingness to abandon your children.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is it necessary, in order to support your chil-
dren, educate, and clothe them, that you should continue to have
children by a multiplicity of wives ?

Mr. SMITH. Because my wives are like everybody else's wife.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not speaking of them.

Mr. SMITH. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of the children now in existence born
to you.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Why is it necessary to continue to have issue by
five wives in order to support and educate the children already in
existence? WThy is it necessary?

Mr. SMITH. It is only to the peace and harmony and good will of
rc^self and my wives; that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you could educate your children and clothe
them and feed them without having new issue ?

Mr. SMITH. Well, yes; 1 possibly could, but that is just exacttythe
kernel in the nut.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I have chosen not to do that, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You have chosen not to do it?

Mr. SMITH. That is it. I am responsible before the law for my
action.

The CHAIRMAN. And in not doing it, you are violating the law?

Mr. SMITH. The law of nvy State?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Is there not a revelation published in the Book
of Covenants here that }7ou shall abide by the law of the State?

Mr. SMITH. It includes both unlawful cohabitation and polygamy.

Senator OVERMAN. Is there not a revelation that you shall abide by
the laws of the State arid of the land?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 335

Senator OVERMAN. If that is a revelation, are you not violating the
laws of God?

Mr. SMITH. I have admitted that, Mr. Senator, a great many times
here.

Senator OVERMAN. I did not know that you had.

Mr. SMITH. Arid I am amenable to the law for it. But I see the
point of the Senator's question. Gentlemen, you have shown a great
deal of leniency in permitting me to express my views here, and I do
not wish to be offensive and I do not wish to take more time than I
need to. But the church itself — I understand your point, that the
church forbids me to violate the law, certainly it does — but the church
gave me those wives, and the church can not be consistent with itself
and compel me to forsake them and surrender them.

Senator BAILEY. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away," and
when the Lord gave this second revelation forbidding it —

Mr. SMITH. He did not forbid it.

Senator BAILEY. Well, he did, if the manifesto is based upon a reve-
lation, because the manifesto declares against it.

Mr. SMITH. The manifesto declares positively the prohibition of
plural marriages, and in the examination before the master in chancery
the president of the church and other leading members of the church
agreed before the master in chancery that the spirit and meaning of
that revelation applied to unlawful cohabitation as well as to plural
marriages.

Senator BAILEY. That is what I was coming to now, Mr. Smith.
Then, as I understand you, both plural marriage and unlawful cohab-
itation are forbidden by the statutes of Utah and by the revelations of
God. Is that true?

Mr. SMITH. That is the spirit of it, sir.

Senator BAILEY. And yet you, as the head of the church, are defy-
ing both—

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no.

Senator BAILEY. The statutes of Utah and the ordinance of the
church-
Mr. SMITH. Not the ordinance at all.

Senator BAILEY. Perhaps you have another and better expression
to describe them?

Mr. SMITH. If you say the manifesto-
Senator BAILEY. I should say that a revelation once communicated
to the church and sustained by the church would become an ordinance
of the church.

Mr. SMITH. If the Senator please—

Senator BAILEY. If }TOU will provide me with a better expression than
that I shall be glad to adopt it. We will call it the law of the church.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; call it the rule.

Senator BAILEY. Does not a revelation become the law of the church

Mr. SMITH. Call it the rule of the church, and I will understand.

Senator BAILEY. Law, after all, is but a rule of conduct prescribed
by the supreme power. What I am trying now to emphasize is that
the manifesto is a revelation, or that it is based upon a revelation; that
the revelation-
Mr. SMITH. If the Senator will permit me, it is inspired. It is the
same thing. I admit what you say.

Senator BAILEY. I do not know quite so much about these nice dis-

336 KKK.D 8MOOT.

tinctions in the gospal as I hope I do in the law. I am amenable to
correction on those. But tit any rate, it is a revelation forbidding
alike plural marriage and unlawful cohabitation; and that revelation
from the Lord is supplemented and reenforced by the statutes of the
State of Utah.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator BAILEY. I agree with you entirely, that for your individual
conduct you are amenable to the State of Utah and not to the Federal
Government. 1 concur in that statement; but is it true that the head
of the church in Utah is living in open and proclaimed defiance of the
statutes of that State, and also in defiance of a revelation received by
your predecessor — not your immediate predecessor, I believe, but a
predecessor— and communicated to the church and sustained by it?
Am I correct in that?

Mr. SMITH. You are correct so far — that I have confessed here
openly, and it has gone to the world — that I have not observed the law
against cohabitation with my wives. That is all there is to it.

Senator BAILEY. What I am tiding to make clear is that it is a law
not only of the State of Utah but also a law of the church.

Mr. SMITH. It is a rule of the church.

Senator BAILEY. That is what I want to make clear.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator OVERMAN. There is one question I wish to ask. You may
have stated it before. This manifesto, which was published, I under-
stand }^ou to say is sent broadcast?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Senator OVERMAN. What I want to know is this: This manifesto
does not tell about how the revelation came or that it is a revelation.
Is this revelation published in any of your standard works?

Mr. SMITH. I informed the committee yesterday that it has been
an oversight, that it had not been published in the latest edition of the
Doctrine and Covenants, and that I would see to it that it should be
incorporated in the next edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to
meet this objection.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me a question right in the line of what Mr.
Smith has been testifying about — speaking about the care of his chil-
dren. Another statement you made is that you do not teach polygamy.

Mr. SMITH. I do not understand the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say you were not teaching the
doctrine of polygamy to your people.

Mr. SMITH. That is right, and I should like to add in connection
with the Senator's remarks here that I am not oponly and obnoxiously
practicing unlawful cohabitation.

The CHAIRMAN. Right in this connection-
Mr. SMITH. I have avoided that.

The CHAIRMAN. Right in this connection, you say you are not teach-
ing polygamy?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How more forcibly could you teach it than by prac-
ticing it openly as the head of the church?

Mr. SMITH. I am not practicing it openly.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you practicing it secretly ?

REED SMOOT. 337

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, how are you practicing it?

Mr. SMITH. 1 am not practicing polygamy at all.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not?

Mr. SMITH. I have prohibited polygamy.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not Hying in polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes; but not in polygamy. Polygamy means the
marrying of more wives than one, but I am not living in polygamy.
I am not practicing it or permitting it.

The CHAIRMAN. Then your idea is, after the marriage is consum-
mated, to live with a woman is not polygamy ?

Mr. SMITH. It is not polygamy inasmuch as the marriage occurred
before the manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The statute makes the same distinction.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I understand.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Congressional acts make that distinction.

Senator FORAKER. What acts?

Mr. VAN COTT. The Edmunds-Tucker Act and the Edmunds Act.

Senator OVERMAN. I have not read the manifesto through to know
exactly what it is. Does the manifesto state in it anywhere that it is
a revelation from God ? You say you intend to publish it hereafter.
But does the manifesto anywhere state that it was a revelation from
God?

Mr. SMITH. The attorney read before the committee this morning
that President Woodruff himself announced that it was a revelation.

Senator OVERMAN. I mean the manifesto itself.

Mr. SMITH. That comes in connection with the manifesto.

Senator OVERMAN. But it is not published in the pamphlet?

Mr. SMITH. It was presented before the conference.

Senator OVERMAN. I understand.

Senator HOPKINS. That matter has been presented here and it speaks
for itself.

Senator OVERMAN. The manifesto speaks for itself.

Senator BAILEY. The manifesto as a whole has not been introduced.
I presume it will be.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It will be published in full in the record.

Mr. VAN COTT. It has been put in the record in full.

Mr. TAYLER. If I may be excused, in the interest of econonry of
time, there is a pamphlet which has been published by the church
entitled il>A manifesto" and declared by the president of the church to
be its official proclamation of the manifesto. But the question which
Senator Overman asked goes to the point as to whether or not that
official declaration as to the rule of the church contained in the mani-
festo is accompanied by a statement that it was a revelation or is accom-
panied by the statement which Mr. Worthington read a few moments
ago, and I understand it is not contained in that official paper.

Senator OVERMAN. That is what I was getting at. The witness states
that there are certain standard works, and that this pamphlet has been
sent out broadcast as the rule of the church, and it nowhere states that
it was a revelation from God.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is right.

Senator FORAKER. The pamphlet has been put in evidence.

Mr. VAN COTT. The manifesto does not say in terms that it is a
revelation.

338 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Or the pamphlet which is sent out. Does that con-
tain it?

Mr. VAN COTT. I have not read it, Mr. Tayler. I do not know.

Senator OVERMAN. The question is whether or not the pamphlet he
described as a manifesto, which is sent broadcast by your missionaries
and is used by your missionaries, contains a statement that this is a
revelation from God.

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell just from memory without examining
the pamphlet, but I will say that the contents of this pamphlet embrace
the prohibition of plural marriage, and it also gives a statement of the
fact that it was presented before the church and approved and became
binding upon the church to stop plural marriages, which is in effect-
Senator OVERMAN. Which is in effect what?

Mr. SMITH. As complete and as perfect as it could possibly have
been couched under any other terms or words.

Senator OVERMAN. The question is whether it so stated in terms.

Mr. SMITH. It does not state in terms that it was a revelation, and
it is not necessary that it should, inasmuch as the object is accom-
plished by it.

Senator OVERMAN. The question is whether it did it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Has any gentleman got the pamphlet here?

Senator OVERMAN. I have never seen it. That is the reason why I
have been asking about it.

Senator FORAKER. The pamphlet was here the other day. Mr. Tay-
ler had it. I think he offered it in evidence or intended to.

Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment and I think I will be able to answer
the question. [A pause.] Here [exhibiting] is^ the manifesto as it is
contained in this pamphlet as issued and it goes along with the state-
ment and with this manifesto that the Senator asked if it contained the
words, in effect, that it was a revelation, and which I answered that
it did not in effect.

Then on page 3 of this pamphlet will be found the following:

" President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:"

And I think if I read that it will answer the question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It has already been read.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will read it.

"I move that recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the president of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on
the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordi-
nances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to
issue the manifesto which has been read in our hearing and which is
dated September 24, 1890, and that as a church in general conference
assembled we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as
authoritative and binding."

Then a vote was taken. That is contained in the pamphlet.

Senator OVERMAN. Is that pamphlet in evidence ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The portion he read was introduced yesterday.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think Mr. Tayler put in the whole manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask you whether an}' thing which, is
intended for the government of the church and proceeds from the
president and has first been approved by the apostles —

Mr. SMITH. How is that?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When it has been introduced by the president,
submitted to the apostles and approved by them, and is then submitted

REED SMOOT. 339

to the body of the church and in general conference approved by the
church, whether it is binding upon the members of the church — whether
it is a revelation or a rule.

Mr. SMITH. It is equally binding on the church, whether it is a reve-
lation or a rule.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And a man who disobeys it would be just as
much out of harmony if it were a rule as if it were a revelation ?

Mr. SMITH. Just the same.

Senator BAILEY. I would suggest that one side or the other now
offer in evidence the manifesto. Of course it is in this statement, but
not in as evidence.

Senator FORAKER. Let me make an inquiry. I understood Mr. Tay-
ler to put this entire pamphlet in evidence —

Mr. TAYLER. Not that one.

Senator FORAKER. In connection with his documentary evidence.

Mr. TAYLER. But 1 will consider this paper as being put in evidence,
concerning which Mr. Smith has testified.

Senator FORAKER. The whole pamphlet?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir; Mr. Smith produced that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I thought it was yours.

Mr. TAYLER. I think that is the one Mr. Smith had in his hand
yesterday.

Senator FORAKER. I thought you exhibited it the first da}'.

Mr. TAYLER. Not that one. Mr. Smith produced it a'nd testified
respecting it.

The pamphlet referred to is as follows:

President Woodruff '$ manifesto — Proceedings at the semiannual gen-
eral conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints,
Monday forenoon, October 6, 1890.

President Woodruff said: I will say, as the question is often asked,
" What do the Latter-Day Saints believe in? " we feel disposed to read
the articles of faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
and should there be any strangers present they may understand our
faith in this respect. The question is often asked, ""Do the Mormon
people believe in the Bible ? " So the principles that are read will show
our faith and belief appertaining to the gospel of Christ.

The articles were then read by Bishop Orson F. Whitney. They
are here introduced:

ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY

SAINTS.

"1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus
Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

U2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and
not for Adam's transgression.

"3. We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind
may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

U4. We believe that these ordinances are: First, faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the
remission of sins; fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy
Ghost.

340 REED SMOOT.

"5. We believe that a man must be called of God by 'prophecy and
by the laying on of hands ' by those who are in authority to preach the
gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

"6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the primi-
itve church, viz, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.

"7. )\re believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
healing, interpretation of tongues, etc.

"8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is trans-
lated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word
of God.

"9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now
reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and impor-
tant things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

"10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restora-
tion of the ten tribes; that Zion will be built upon this continent; that
Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be
renewed /ind receive its paradisic glory.

"11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according
to the dictates of our conscience and allow all men the same privilege,
let them worship how, where, or what they may.

"12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

" 13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous,
and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the
admonition of Paul. 4 We believe all things, we hope all things,' we
have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things.
If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy,
we seek after these things." — (Joseph Smith.)

Apostle Franklin D. Richards said: Beloved brethren and sisters, I
move that we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints in general conference assembled do accept and adopt these
articles of faith which Bishop Whitney has now read as the rule of our
faith and of our conduct during our mortal lives.

It may be thought that it is superfluous to offer it; but it must be
borne in mind that we have a rising generation since this was last pre-
sented to us that are coming to years of judgment and understanding;
and we wish to have all, old and young, rich and poor, bond and free,
that have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and in these articles to have
a chance to express it by their vote, if they wish.

The vote to sustain Brother Richards's motion was unanimous.'

President George Q. Cannon said: President Woodruff, as doubtless
the members of the conference are aware, has felt himself called upon
to issue a manifesto concerning certain things connected with our affairs
in this Territory, and he is desirous to have this submitted to this con-
ference, to have their views or their expressions concerning it, and
Bishop Whitney will read this document now in your hearing.

Following is the manifesto as read:

"OFFICIAL DECLARATION.

"To whom it may concern:

" Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes from Salt
Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the
Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Inte-

REED SMOOT. 341

rior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that
forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last
June or during the past year; also that in public discourses the leaders
of the church have taught, encouraged, and urged the continuance of
the practice of polygamy.

"I, therefore, as president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these
charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy, or plural marriage,
nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and 1 deny that
either 40 or any other number of plural marriages have, during that
period, been solemnized in our temples or in any other place in the
Territory.

"One case has been reported in which the parties alleged that the
marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City,
in the spring of 1889, but 1 have not been able to learn who performed
the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowl-
edge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment
House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural
marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the
court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those
laws and to use my influence with the members of the church over
which I preside to have them do likewise.

"There is nothing in my teachings to the church or in those of my
associates during the time specified which can be reasonably construed
to inculcate or encourage polygamy, and when any elder of the church
has used language which appeared to convey any such teachings he
has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my
advice to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any
marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

"WILFORD WOODRUFF,

"President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints."

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"I move that recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the president of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the only man on
the earth at the present time who hol&s the keys of the sealing ordi-
nances, we consider him fully authorized, by virtue of his position, to
issue the manifesto which has been read in our hearing and which is
dated September 24, 1890, and that as a church in general conference
assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as
authoritative and binding."

The vote to sustain the foregoing niotion was unanimous.

President George Q. Cannon: On the 19th of January, 1841, the
Lord gave His servant Joseph Smith a revelation, the forty -ninth
paragraph of which I will read:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when 1 give a commandment
to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons
of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that
work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon
them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behoveth
me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men,
but to accept of their offerings."

The Lord says other things connected with this, which I do not

342 REED SMOOT.

think it necessary to read; but the whole revelation is profitable, and
can be read by those who desire to do so.

It is on this basis that President Woodruff has felt himself justified
in issuing this manifesto.

I suppose it would not be justice to this conference not to say some-
thing upon the subject; and }Tet everyone knows how delicate a subject
it is, and how difficult it is to approach it without saying something
that may offend somebod}^ So far as I am concerned, I can say that
of the men in this church who have endeavored to maintain this* prin-
ciple of plural marriage I am one. In public and in private I have
avowed my belief in it. I have defended it everywhere and under all
circumstances, and when it was necessary have said that I considered
the command was binding and imperative upon me.

But a change has taken place. We have, in the first place, endeav-
ored to show that the law which affected this feature of our religion
was unconstitutional. We believed for years that the law of July 1,
1862, was in direct conflict with the first amendment to the Constitu-
tion, which says that ""Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
We rested upon that, and for years continued the practice of plural
marriage, believing the law against it to be an unconstitutional one,
and that we had the right, under the Constitution, to carry out this
principle practically in our lives. So confident was I in relation to
this view that in conversations with President Grant and with his
Attorney-General, ex-Senator Williams, of Oregon, I said to them
that if my case were not barred by the statute of limitations I would
be willing to have it made a test case in order that the law might be
tested.

We were sustained in this view, not only by our own interpretation
of the amendment to the Constitution, but also. by some of the best
legal minds in the country, who took exactly the same view that we
did — that this law was an interference with religious rights, and that
so long as our practices did not interfere with the happiness and peace
of society or of others we had the right to carry out this principle.
In fact, it is within six or eight months that, in conversation with two
United States Senators, each conversation being separate from the
other, both of them expressed themselves, though not in the same
language, to this effect: "Mr. Cannon, if this feature that you practice
had not been associated with religion it might have been tolerated, but
you have associated it with religion and it has aroused the religious
sentiment of the nation, and that sentiment can not be resisted."

4 'So far as the practice itself is concerned, if you had not made it a
part of your faith and an institution sanctioned by religion it might
have gone along unnoticed." I do not give the exact language; but
these are the ideas that they conveyed to me. Now, we were very con-
fident that this law was an unconstitutional one. President Daniel H.
Wells will remember how he and I tried to get a case to test the con-
stitutionality of the law during the lifetime of President Brigham
Young. We wanted to get Brother Erastus Snow. It is the last
thing that we should have thought of to put a man like he was in the
gap if we had not been firmly convinced that the law was unconstitu-
tional and would be declared so by the United States Supreme Court.
We telegraphed to Brother Erastus in the South, thinking that his

REED SMOOT. 343

case would not be barred by the statute of limitations. He replied to
us concerning it, and we found that it was barred.

Brother A. M. Musser proposed himself, if I remember aright, to
be a test case; but there was a defect in his case. We wanted this
case whenever it was presented to be presented fairly, that there should
be no evasion about it, but that it should be a case that could be tested
fairly before the courts of the country. Finally Brother George Rey-
nolds was selected. I said to myself, when I learned the result, "it
is the last time that I will ever have anything to do with a test case
again which will involve the liberty of anybody." I was promised
when he was sentenced, by one high in authority and who had the
right to make the promise, that he should be released when the cir-
cumstances were told to him, for they were laid fairly before him,
and he was told that the evidence had been furnished by Brother Rey-
nolds himself, and that everything had been done to make it a test case.
The Government had been aided in the securing of witnesses, and no
difficulty thrown in the wa}7.

Afterwards, on the second trial, I believe, Brother Reynolds'^ law-
yers got frightened, and there was something occurred then that gave
it a different appearance; but when the facts were related, as I stated,
to one high in authority he promised me that George Reynolds should
be pardoned. There were those, however, in this city, who were deter-
mined that he should not escape imprisonment, and the prosecuting
attorney wrote a letter which changed the mind of this high official, as
he afterwards told me, and he declined to carry out that which I had
received as a promise; but even then there were circumstances con-
nected with this decision that made us reluctant to accept it.

Since that time the histor}7 of proceedings is before you and before
the world. We have felt as though this command of God was of such
importance to us, involving so many serious consequences, that we
should do all in our power to have the world know the position that
we occupied. There may be men among us who believed they would
be damned if they did not obey this, accepting it as a direct command
from God. Therefore you can understand how tenaciously we have
protested and how vigorously we have endeavored, as far as we could,
to make public our views upon this subject.

I suppose there are two classes here to-day in this congregation-
one class who feel to sorrow to the bottom of their hearts because of
the necessity of this action that we have now taken; another class who
will say : u Did I not tell you so ? " " Did I not tell 3^011 it would come
to this? " " Did I not say to you that you ought to take advantage of
and comply with this years ago, instead of enduring that which you
have suffered since that time?" There may be men here to-day who
pride themselves on their foresight, and to take credit to themselves
because they foresaw, as they allege, that which we have done to-day,
and would lead others to believe that if their counsel had been adopted,
if the views that they presented had been accepted by the people, it
might have saved very serious consequences to us all and left us in a
better position than that which we occup}7 to-day.

But I, for one, differ entirely with this view. I believe it was neces-
sary that we should witness unto God, the Eternal Father, unto the
heavens, and unto the earth that this was reall}7 a principle dear to us —
dearer it might be said, in some respects, than life itself. We could

344 EEED SMOOT.

not have done this had we submitted at the time that those of whom
I speak suggested submission. We could not have left our own nation
without excuse. It might have said, " Had we known all that you tell
us now concerning this we should have had very different views upon
this feature of your religion than we did have." But, now, after the
occurrences of the past six }^ears have been witnessed by this entire
nation and by the world, and by God, the Eternal Father, and the
heavenly hosts, no one can plead as an excuse that they have been
ignorant of our belief and the dearness of this principle to us.

Upward of thirteen hundred men have been incarcerated in prison,
going there for various terms from one or three months up to years.
They have gone there willingly, as martyrs to this principle, making
a protest that the heavens and the earth should bear record that they
were conscientious in espousing this principle, and that it was not for
sensual indulgence, because if sensual indulgence had been the object
we could have obtained it without such sacrifices as were involved in
obedience to this law, without going to prison, without sustaining
wives and children, without the obloquy that has been heaped upon
us because of this action of ours. If licentious motives had prompted
us we could have secured the results in a cheaper w&y and in a way
more in consonance with universal custom throughout our own land
and all Christendom.

But the sacrifices that we have made in this respect bear testimony
to the heavens and to the earth that we have been sincere and conscien-
tious in all that we have done and that we have not been prompted by
a desire to use women for lustful purposes, but to save them, to make
them honorable and to leave no margin of women in our society to
become a prey to lust, so that every woman in our land should have
the opportunity of becoming a virtuous wife and an honored mother,
loved and respected by her offspring and by all her associates.

If no other result has attended what may termed our obstinacy,
these results are at least upon record, and they never can be blotted
out. The imprisonment of these men, the sufferings — the untold,
unwritten, yea, the unmentionable, it may said, sufferings of wives
and children, they are recorded in heaven and are known to men upon
the earth, and they form a chapter that will never be blotted out.

Latter-Day Saints, there has been nothing lost in the five years that
have just passed. We have lost no credit. There has been no honor
sacrificed. We can look God in the face; that is, if we are permitted
to do so, so far as this is concerned, we can; we can look the holy angels
in the face; we can look mankind in the face without a blush or with-
out feeling that we have done anything unworthy of our manhood or
of our professions and the faith that God has given unto us. This all
of us can do; and if no other result has followed what may be called
our obstinacy than these which I now describe the}7 are grand enough
to pay us for all that we have gone through.

But the time has come when, in the providence of God, it seemed
necessary that something should be done to meet the requirements of
the countr}r, to meet the demands that have been made upon us, and
to save the people. President Woodruff and others of us have been
appealed to hundreds of times, I might say; J can say for myself that
I have been appealed to many scores of times to get out something
and to announce something. Some of our leading brethren have said:
" Inasmuch as we have ceased to give permission for plural marriages

EEED SMOOT. 345

to be solemnized, why can not we have the benefit of that? Why can
not we tell the world it, so as to have the benefit of it? Our enemies
are alleging constantly that we still practice this in secret, and that
we are dishonest and guilty of evasion. Now, if we have really put a
stop to granting permissions to men to take more wives than one, why
should not the world know it and we have the advantage of it? "

These remarks have been made to us repeatedly. But at no time
has the Spirit seemed to indicate that this should be done. We have
waited for the Lord to move in the matter; and on the 24th of Sep-
tember President Woodruff made up his mind that he would write
something, and he had the spirit of it. He had prayed about it and
had besought God repeatedly to show him what to dc. At that time
the Spirit came upon him, and the document that has been read in
your hearing was the result. I know that it was right, much as it
has gone against the grain with me in many respects, because many
of you know the contest we have had upon this point. But when God
speaks, and when God makes known His mind and will, I hope that I
and all Latter-Day Saints will bow in submission to it. When that
document was prepared it was submitted. But, as is said in this motion
that has been made, President Woodruff is the only man upon the earth
who holds the keys of the sealing power. These apostles all around
me have all the same authority that he has.

We are all ordained with the same ordination. We all have had the
same keys and the same powers bestowed upon us. But there is an
order in the church of God, and that order is that there is only one
man at a time on the earth who holds the keys of sealing, and that man
is the president of the church, now Wilford Woodruff. Therefore,
he signed that document himself. Some have wondered and said,
"Why didn't his counselors sign ? Why didn't others sign ? " Well, I
give you the reason — because he is the only man on the earth that has
this right, and he exercised it, and he did this with the approval of all
of us to whom the matter was submitted, after he had made up his
mind, and we sustained it; for we had made it a subject of prayer also
that God would direct us.

There never was a time in this church when I believe the leading
men of this church have*endeavored to live nearer to God, because
they have seen the path in which we walked environed with difficulties,
beset with all manner of snares, and we have had the responsibility
resting upon us of your salvation to a certain extent. God has chosen
us, not we ourselves, to be the shepherds of His flock. We have not
sought this responsibility. You know Wilford Woodruff too well to
believe that he would seek such an office as he now fills. 1 trust you
know the rest of us sufficiently to believe the same concerning us. I
have shrunk from the apostleship. I have shrunk from being a mem-
ber of the first presidency. I felt that if I could get nfy salvation in
any other way I prayed God that He would give it to me, after He
revealed to me that 1 would be an apostle, when I was comparative^ a
child; and I have had that feeling ever since. These apostles, all of
them, feel the responsibility which rests upon them as leaders of the
people, God having made us, in His providence, your shepherds.

We feel that the flock is in our charge, and if any harm befall this
iock through us we will have to answer for it in the day of the Lord
Jesus; we shall have to stand and render an account of that which has
been intrusted to us; and if we are faithless and careless and do not

346 REED SMOOT.

live so as to have the word of God continually with us and know His
mind and will, then our condemnation will be sure and certain and we.
can not escape it. But you are our witnesses as to whether God is
with us or not, as well as the Holy Ghost. You have received, and it is
your privilege to receive, the testimony of Jesus Christ as to whether
these men who stand at your head are the servants of God, whom God
has chdsen, and through whom God gives instructions to His people.
Ytfu know it because the testimony of the spirit is with you, and the
spirit of God burns in your bosoms when you hear the word of God
declared by these servants, and there is a testimony living in your
hearts concerning it.

Now, realizing the full responsibility of this, this action has been
taken. Will it try many of th,e Saints? Perhaps it will; and per-
haps if will tiy those who have not obeyed this law as much as any
others in the church. But all we can say to you is that which we
repeatedly say to you — go unto God yourselves if you are tried over
this and can not see its purpose; go to your secret chambers and ask
God and plead with Him, in the name of Jesus, to give you a testi-
mony as He has given it to us, and I promise you that you will not
come away emptj^, nor dissatisfied; you will have a testimony and
light will be poured out upon you and you will see things that perhaps
you can not see and understand at the present time.

I pray God to bless all of you, my brethren and sisters; to fill you
with His Holy Spirit; to keep you in the path of exaltation which he
has marked out for us; to be with us on the right hand, and on the
left in our future as He has been in the past.

Before I sit down I wish to call attention to one remarkable thin<r,
and it may be an evidence to you that the devil is not pleased with
wrhat we have done. It is seldom I have seen so many lies, and such
flagrant, outrageous lies, told about the Latter-Day Saints as 1 have
quite recently. I have not time to read the papers, but I have hap-
pened to pick up two or three papers and glance at them, and the most
infernal (pardon me for using that expression) lies ever framed are
told. It seems as though the devil is mad every wa}^. "Now," .-ays
he, "they are going to take advantage of this, and I am determined
they shall have no benefit of it; I will fill the earth with lies concern-
ing them and neutralize this declaration of President Woodruffs."
And you will see in all the papers everything that can be said to neu-
tralize the effect of this. To me it is pretty good evidence that the
devil is not pleased with what we are doing. When we kept silence
concerning this, then we were a very mean and bad people; and now
that we have broken the silence and made public our position, why, we
are wicked in other directions and no credence can be attached to an}^-
thing that w.e say. You may know by this that his satanic majesty is
not pleased with our action. I hope he never will be.

President Wilford Woodruff: I want to say to all Israel that the
step which I have taken in issuing this manifesto has not been done
without earnest prayer before the Lord. I am about to go into the
spirit world, like other men of my age. I expect to meet the face of
my Heavenly Father— the Father of my spirit. I expect to meet the
face of Joseph Smith, of Brigham Young, of John Taylor, and of the
apostles, and for me to have taken a stand in anything which is not
pleasing in the sight of God or before the heavens I would rather
nave gone out and been shot. My life is no better than other men's.

KEED SMOOT. 347

I am not ignorant of the feelings that have been engendered through
the course 1 have pursued. But 1 have done my duty, and the nation
of which we form a part must be responsible for that which has been
done in relation to this principle.

The Lord has required at our hands many things that we have not
done, many things that we were prevented from doing. The Lord
required us to build a temple in Jackson County. We were prevented
by violence from doing it. lie required us to build a temple in Far
West, which wye have not been able to do. A great many things have
been required of us, and wo have not been able to do them, because of
those that surrounded us in the world. This people are in the hands
of God. This work is in the hands of God, and He will take care of
it. Brother George Q. Cannon told us about the lies that are abroad.
It is a time when there have been more lies told about Mormonism
than almost any other subject ever presented to the human family.
I often think of what Lorenzo Dow said with regard to the doctrine
of election. Says he: "It is like this: You can and you can't; you
will and you won't; you shall and you shan't; you'll be damned if
you do and you'll be damned if you don't."

That is about the condition we, as Latter-Day Saints, are in. If we
were to undertake to please the world, and that was our object, we might
as well give up the ship; we might have given it up in the beginning.
But the Lord has called us to labor in the vineyard, and when our
nation passes laws, as they have done, in regard to this principle which
we have presented to the conference, it is not wisdom for us to make
war upon sixty-five millions of people. It is not wisdom for us to
go forth and carry out this principle against the laws of the nation
and receive the consequences. That is in the hands of God and he will
govern and control it The Church of Christ is here; the Zion of God
is here in fulfillment of these revelations of God that are contained in
these holy records in which the wThole Christian world profess to
believe.

The Bible could never have been fulfilled had it not been for the
raising up of a prophet in the last days. The revelations of St. John
could never have been fulfilled if the angel of God had not flown
through the midst of heaven, "having the everlasting gospel to preach
to them that dwell on the earth, and to ever}r nation, and kindred, and
tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, 'Fear God and give glory
to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come.'" Was that angel
going to visit New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and the world and
call the people together and preach to them? Not at all. But the
Lord raised up a prophet. The angel of God delivered that gospel
to that prophet. That prophet organized a church, and all that he
has promised in this code of revelations (the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants) has been fulfilled as fast as time would admit. That which
is not yet fulfilled will be.

Brethren and sisters, it is our duty to be true to God and to be faith-
ful. Make your prayers known unto the Lord. The Lord has told
us what He will do concerning many things. He will fulfill His word.
Let us be careful and wise, and let us be satisfied with the dealings of
God with us. If we do our duty to one another, to our country, and
to the Church of Christ, we will be justified when we go into the spirit
world. It is not the first time that the world has sought to hind CM- the
fulfillment of revelation and prophecy. The Jewish nation and other
nations rose up and slew the Son of God and every Apostle but one

348 EEED SMOOT.

that bore the priesthood in that day and generation. They could not
establish the kingdom; the world was against them.

When the Apostles asked Jesus whether He would at that time restore
again the kingdom to Israel, He replied: "It is not for you to know
the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power."
He did not say it would be established then; but He taught them to
pray: "X)ur Father which art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven."
It is a long time since that prayer was offered, and it has not been ful-
filled until the present generation. The Lord is preparing a people to
receive His kingdom and His church, and to build up His work. That,
brethren and sisters, is our labor.

I want the prayers of the Latter-day Saints. I thank God that 1
have seen with my eyes this day that this people have been ready to
vote to sustain me in an action that I know, in one sense, has pained
their hearts. Brother George Q. Cannon has laid before you our posi-
tion. The Lord has given us commandments concerning many things,
and we have carried them out as far as we could; but when we can not
do it, we are justified. The Lord does not require at our hands things
that we can not do.

This is all 1 want to say to the Latter-Day Saints upon this subject.
But go before the Lord and ask Him for light and truth, and to give
us such blessings as we stand in need of. Let your prayers ascend
into the ears of the God of Sabaoth, and they will be heard and
answered upon your heads, and upon the heads of the world. Our
nation is in the hands of God. He holds their destiny. He holds the
destinies of all men. I will say to the Latter-Day Saints, as an elder
in Israel and as an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are approach-
ing some of the niost tremendous judgments God ever poured out upon
the world. You watch the signs of the times, the signs of the coming
of the Son of Man. They are beginning to be made manifest both in
heaven and on earth. As has been told you by the Apostles, Christ
will not come until these things come to pass. Jerusalem has got to
be rebuilt. The temple has got to be built. Judah has got to/ be
gathered, and the house of Israel. And the gentiles will go forth to
battle against Judah and Jerusalem before the coming of the Son of
Man.

These things have been revealed by the prophets; they will have their
fulfillment. We are approaching these things. All that the Latter-Day
Saints have to do is to be quiet, careful, and wise before the Lord, watch
the signs of the times, and be true and faithful, and whe'n you get
through you will understand many things that you do not to-da}^.
This work has been raised up by the power of Almighty God. These
elders of Israel were called from the various occupations of life to
preach as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost. They were not
learned men; they were the weak things of this world, whom God
chose to confound the wise, "and things which are not, to bring to
naught things that are."

We are here on that principle. Others will be gathered on that
principle. Zion will be redeemed, Zion will arise, and the glory of
God will rest upon her, and all that Isaiah and the other prophets
have spoken concerning her will come to pass. We are in the last dis-
pensation and fullness of time. It is a great day, and the eyes of all
the heavens are over us, arid the eyes of God Himself and all the patri-
archs and prophets. They are watching over you with feelings of

HEED SMOOT. 349

deep interest for your welfare, and our prophets who were slain and
sealed their testimony with their blood are mingling with the gods,
pleading for their brethren. Therefore, let us be faithful and leave
events in the hands of God, and He will take care of us if we do our
duty.

I pray God that he will bless these apostles, prophets and patri-
archs, these seventies, high priests and elders of Israel, and these
latter-day saints, who have entered into covenant with our God.
You have a great future before you. You have kept the command-
ments of God, so far as -you have had the opportunity, arid by receiv-
ing the Gospel of Christ and being faithful your reward is before you.
Your history is written, and is before you. I will say that this nation,
and all nations, together with presidents, kings, emperors, judges, and
all men, righteous and wicked, have got to go into the spirit world
and stand before the bar of God. They have got to give an account
of the deeds done in the body. Therefore we are safe as long as we
do our duty. No matter what trials or tribulations we may be called
to pass through, the hand of God will be with us and will sustain us.

I ask my Heavenly Father to pour out His Spirit upon me, as His
servant, that in my advanced age, and during the few days I have to
spend here in the flesh, I may be led by the inspiration of the Almighty.
I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me nor any other man who
stands as the president of this church to lead you astray. It is not in
the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt
that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any
other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the
oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you. Amen.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Would it not be well to have the petition to
the President of the United States, found on page 18 of the record,
because in it is the statement of the church as to what they claim for
this document, appear in the record in connection with this testimony?

Senator BAILEY. Let us put in the sermon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That has already been put in. I put it in.

Senator BAILEY. I should be very glad if you would put in the date
when the sermon was delivered.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is in.

Senator FORAKER. There is the pamphlet [exhibiting] and here is
the petition to the President [exhibiting].

Senator HOPKINS. I suggest that those separate pieces come in con-
nectedly.

Mr. TAYLER. And the application for amnesty to which Senator
Dillingham refers. That is One of the things I meant to put in
yesterday.

Senator BAILEY. I suggest, in order to save a multiplication of doc-
uments, that counsel agree that this manifesto as it appears in this
document and the petition to the President are correct. That would
save reprinting them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 suggested that counsel together should get
up a pamphlet containing the statutes and proclamations and have
them printed in separate form.

Senator FORAKER. That will do.

Mr. TAYLER. So that they are a part of this case.

At 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m. the committee adjourned until
Monday, March 7, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

350 REED SMOOT.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March, 7, '1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, McComas, Fo raker,
Dillingham, Pettus, Dubois, and Overman; also Robert W. Tayler,
counsel for the protestants; A. 8. Worthington and Waldemar Van
Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S. Richards, counsel
for Joseph F. Smith and other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Worthington, will you proceed?

Mr. WORTHINGTOX. Certainly.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Counsel, before you proceed, if you will
pardon me for just a moment, I wish to make a statement.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Certainly.

Senator DUBOIS. I wish to get the record straight. There was some
controversy between the president and myself as to the number of
polygamists in 1890. I spoke from memory, and it was thirteen years
ago but 1 find Iwas quite accurate. 1 wish to put in the record what
1 have taken from the census of 1890, which, of course, no one will
question.

The CHAIRMAN. 1890 or 1900?

Senator. DUBOIS. 1890. The president said there were 3 or 4 per
cent in polygamy, and I contended that there were 20 to 25 per cent.

The total population of Utah in 1890 was 207,905; the Mormon pop-
ulation, 118,201; Gentile, 89,701. So it is much larger than 1 stated.

The commissioner's report of the school census of 1890 shows that
there were white children, between the ages of 6 and 18, of Mormon
parentage to the number of 50,015.

Now 1 will assume, which is not violent, that 33^- per cent of the
children were below the age of 6 years. When you take in connec-
tion with them the Gentiles, and they have not nearly so many children
as the Mormons, 1 think anyone will admit that that is approximately
correct. That makes 16,682 below the age of 6. The total Mormon
population of Utah under 18 years of age was approximately 66,727.
The Mormon population of the entire State over 18 years of age was
approximately 51,474. Based upon the estimate of 12,000 polyga-
mists, upon which AVC agree, in 1890, who were disfranchised, this
represented 23i per cent of the Mormon population of Utah over 18
years of age who were in polygamy.

Now, the president says further on that there are about 897 Mor-
mons in polygamy now.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Not now.

Mr. VAN COTT. The heads of families ?

Senator DUBOIS. The heads of families.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Not now, but in May, 1902.

Senator DUBOIS. The year 1902. There ,are no statistics other
than church statistics. I give it as my opinion that there has been no
material reduction in the number of polygamists. So it is my opinion
that his statement as regards that is just as misleading as his state-
ment that there were 3 or 4 per cent in polygamy in 1900.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all?

Senator DUBOIS. That is all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You say in 1900?

Senator DUBOIS. Or in 1902, whenever the statement was
There has been no verv material reduction in the number.

REED SMOOT. 351

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, proceed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Smith, will you resume the stand

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH E. SMITH— Continued.

JOSEPH F. SMITH, having previously affirmed, was examined, and
testified as follows:

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I want this morning first to get at a little more
clearly than we have the machinery of your church. We all under-
stand that the first presidency, composed of yourself and your two
councilors, is the supreme tribunal, and we have also learned, I
think, that your largest geographical divisions are called ''stakes, "and
that they correspond in a general way to counties, but sometimes a
large county has more than one stake.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is impossible to hear your answer, Mr. Smith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He simply nodded his head.

Mr. SMITH. My answer is "yes."

The CHAIRMAN. We are not all perfect in our eyesight.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the stakes are again divided into wards?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the supreme authority of your church
in the wards in the first place?

Mr. SMITH. The bishop and his two councilors.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What constitutes the supreme authority in the
stake?

Mr. SMITH. A presidency, consisting of a president and two coun-
cilors, and twelve high priests.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Corresponding to the situation as to the gov-
ernment of the church at large?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the government in the stake?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir. They have a president and 2 coun-
cillors and 12 assistants.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Suppose a charge is made against some member
of the church looking to his being disciplined or excommunicated.
Where would the proceeding begin and who would have jurisdiction in
the first instance?

Mr. SMITH. It begins with the bishop. That is, the complaint for
un-Christian-like conduct is made to the bishop and his councilors,
who constitute what is called by us the common judges in the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean the bishop and the councilors in
charge of the ward?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where the alleged offender belongs?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; where he belongs.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Suppose that tribunal decides it one way 01 the
other. Does an appeal lie?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What appeal, and to whom?

Mr. SMITH. To the presidency of the stake and his councilors.

352 KKKD SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Consisting of how many *

Mr. SMITH. Of three.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the twelve high councilors?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Suppose they have rendered a decision. Does
any further appeal lie ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHTNGTON. Where?

Mr. SMITH. From the decision of the high council — the presidency
and the high council?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of the stake.

Mr. SMITH. Of the stake. To the presidency of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Composed of the president and his councilors?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOKTHINGTON. What have the apostles to do with those pro-
ceedings?

Mr. SMITH. Nothing, whatever.

Mr. WOKTHINGTON. Suppose a charge is made, not against one of
the ordinary members of the church, but is made against a member of
the first presidency itself? Suppose you were charged with an offense
or one of your two councilors, you being the court of last resort, what
is the proceeding in that case? What would it be, according to the
laws of your church ?

Mr. SMITH. According to the laws of the church there is not a
member of the church who is not amenable to the bishop for his fel-
lowship in the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Take yourself. Do }TOU pertain to some par-
ticular ward of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. I still live in a particular ward. I now have m}T mem-
bership in the sixteenth ward.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where is that? ;

Mr. SMITH. Of Salt Lake stake.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If some member of the church were to charge
}^ou with violating a law of the church in cohabiting with plural
wives, where would his complaint properly be made?

Mr. SMITH. He would make the complaint to my bishop.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of your ward?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And then an appeal could be taken from the
decision there?

Mr. SMITH. To the high council.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The high council of the stake?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To which you belong?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What stake is that?

Mr. SMITPI. Salt Lake stake.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That decision having been rendered, would
there be any further appeal — in the case, I mean, of a charge against
yourself ?

Mr. SMITH. Myself? Yes; there is provision made for an appeal
in my own case to the three general presiding bishops of the church,
with twelve high priests chosen for that express purpose.

EEED SMOOT. 353

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who are those three high priests?

Mr. SMITH. Bishops.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who are the people who hold those positions
now, I mean.

Mr. SMITH. The present presiding bishopric of the church is William
B. Preston, Robert T. Burton, and Orrin P. Miller.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have any of those persons, so far as you know,
plural wives at present? I do not mean personal knowledge, but repu-
tation. Do you know anything about it?

Mr. SMITH. Robert T. Burton, by common repute, is a polygamist.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you mean by that that he has more than
one wife, or is cohabiting with more than one wife?

Mr. SMITH. I kn«ow nothing about his cohabitation at all. I think
he is reputed to have more than one wife, but I could not tell you that
he has more than one. He is a very old man. His wives, if they are
living, must be very old women, and I do not know that he has more
than one wife living. I could not say that he has more than one, but
he is reputed to have lived in plural marriage.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have given us what appears to be the
machinery of the church and you have not mentioned the apostles or
the seventies. What have they to do with the organization ?

Mr. SMITH. They have nothing whatever to do with the judicial
affairs of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What are their duties?

Mr. SMITH. Their duties are to preach the gospel and to send elders
to preach it to all the nations of the earth.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Their duties correspond in a general way to
those of the apostles of old, then?

Mr. SMITH. Exactly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have also said somewhere in your exami-
nation by Mr. Tayler that the apostles are your advisers — I think
something of that kind was said; but, without reference to whether
you said it or not, what is the fact?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that I quite understand the question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are the quorum of the apostles in any way the
advisers of the first presidency or the members thereof?

Mr. SMITH. They are frequently consulted by the presidency of the
church on important matters pertaining to the church, and I believe
that 1 stated in tny testimony here on that subject that I asked advice
and counsel from every good, honorable man member of the church
with regard to my duties as the president of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I wish to find out, without reference to what
you do in that way, what is the duty of these apostles— what are their
duties and powers as distinguished from those of the members of the
church in general ? You say they do missionary work. What else do
they do, if anything?

Mr. SMITH. When they are appointed they act under the direction
of the presidency of the church, and when they are appointed to preach
and to labor and to set in order matters in the stakes of Zion they are
appointed to do that by the presidency of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now as to the body of 15. We find that the
first presidency is composed of three persons and the quorum of
apostles of 12.

354 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Reference is made in the protest here to a body
of 15. Do the 15 persons composing those two bodies meet conjointly
at any time9

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; we meet from time to time.

Mr. ^ORTHINGTON. What is the nature of those meetings? What
are they for?

Senator OVERMAN. How often do you meet?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; how often do you meet?

Mr. SMITH. Our rule is to meet once a week, but we do not always
meet once a week. But that is the rule.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the purpose of the&e conferences, and
what are they for? .

Mr. SMITH. The principal purpose is for prayer.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. For what?

Mr. SMITH. For prayer.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What are the subordinate purposes?

Mr. SMITH. Also for consultation in matters generally pertaining to
the church.

Senator DUBOIS. Just a moment, if you please, about the meeting
of the apostles. You are supposed to meet once a week.

Mr. SMITH. I said it is the rule to meet once a week.

Senator DUBOIS. You f requentty meet of tener than once a week ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. You say you do not always meet once a week?

Mr. SMITH. We do not always meet once a week; and furthermore,
it is very seldom the case that there are more than four or five or
six of the council present. Most generally the apostles are out in the
missionary field and do not meet with us on that day.

Senator DUBOIS. But the rule is that there shall be a meeting of the
apostles once a week. Do those who do meet transact business just
the same as though all of them were there?

Mr. SMITH. We consult together and counsel together in regard to
church matters; yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Just the same. Does it happen that long intervals
elapse ever without any meeting of the apostles according to the rule?

Mr. SMITH. I think it does; yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Sir?

Mr. SMITH. Very frequently.

Senator DUBOIS. Long intervals ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. So that these consultations between the apostles are
sometimes deferred for some considerable length of time ?

Mr. SMITH. Very frequently.

Senator DUBOIS. In whom, then, is the power for the guidance of
the church solety vested?

Mr. SMITH. The presidency of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is not the power vested in the presidency,
whether you hold conferences or not? Have the apostles any power
to do anything more than to advise?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; only as advisers and councilors.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They advise the president of the church in a
general sense, very much like the Cabinet here advises the President
of the United States?

KEED SMOOT. 355

Mr. SMITH. I presume it is very much in the same way.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The first presidency have the authority to do as
they please in church matters, even against the advice of all the
apostles ?

Mr. SMITH. That is the law of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is the law of the church.

Mr. SMITH. And the rule.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, about the power of the governing body
of your church. I understand it to be charged here that they are
practically despots. I wish to find out whether you can give us any
illustration in respect to what has happened which shows whether or
not that is correct. Do you remember, for instance, the Jacob Weiler
case about 1875 ?

Mr. SMITH. It is a long time ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know of it?

Mr. SMITH. I knew of it at the time; but my recollection of it is —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the president then ?

Mr. SMITH. Of the church?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Bringham Young.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Proceed.

Mr. SMITH. Bishop Weiler was one of the oldest bishops in the
church, really one of the most respected of men, but he was getting
along somewhat in years, and it was thought by the presidency of the
stake that a change would be beneficial to the ward over which he pre-
sided. The presidency of the stake called a special meeting of the
members of the ward for the purpose of making the change, and as it
happened, President Young, and one or both of his councilors, were
present at their general meeting of the ward, and there it was pro-
posed to depose, or rather to honorably excuse and relieve Bishop
Weiler from the bishopric of the ward, and put in some other man;
but when the proposition was made to the people they voted it down ;
they preferred their old, trusted, and tried bishop, and voted down the
proposition to remove him and put in a new one.

Those are the facts in the case, and President Young and his coun-
cilors were present at that meeting — that is, one or both of his coun-
cilors.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And they were supporting the movement to
have the bishop removed ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was the upshot of it? Did he stay or did
he go?

Mr. SMITH. He stayed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you remember a case of the same general
nature at Parowan, in Iron County?

Mr. SMITH. I remember of a case somewhat parallel, but it was not
in relation to a bishop.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By the way, where is Parowan?

Mr. SMITH. It is 250 miles or so south of Salt Lake City.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is in Utah?

Mr. SMITH. In the southern part of Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. About when did this incident which you are
about to relate occur ?

REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell the date, but it was during the lifetime
of Brigham Young.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well.

Mr. SMITH. Brigham Young attempted, or proposed rather, in a
general conference of the stake, a certain man who was very promi-
nent ip the community for the president of that stake. When his
name was presented to the conference they voted him down; they
rejected him; and of course that is a matter that pertains to the presi-
dency of the church. They preside over all these matters, and it is
their duty to install presidents of stakes. But President Young's
proposition was voted down. The people were consulted as to their
choice for president, and another man was chosen and sustained as
president of the stake, and not the one who was proposed by President
Young.

Mi. WORTHINGTON. Was the man who was proposed and became
the official the choice of the people as against the wishes of Brigham
Young ?

Mr. SMITH. He was the choice of the people against the wish of
Brigham Young, and President Young felt somewhat offended about
it, because he was much in favor of the other man.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you remember the Sanpete Stake case
recently ?

Mr. SMITH. I remember a case at Sanpete that occurred a little
while ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long ago?

Mr. SMITH. Probably two months ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where is Sanpete Stake?

Mr. SMITH. Sanpete Stake is southeast of Salt Lake City about 90
miles, I think; between 75 and 90; I do not know the distance. We
reach it by different routes.

The presidency of the North Sanpete Stake had a vacancy in the
bishopric of one of the wards, and he and his councilors and the high
council consulted together and decided upon a man for the bishopric,
and after the}^ decided upon him they submitted the matter to the
presidency of the church — to us — and we approved of their selection.
One or two of the apostles were sent down to Sanpete to attend the con-
ference and to attend to the installment of the new bishop, and at the
conference, when the name of this man was put before the conference,
they rejected him, and for several weeks afterwards the ward remained
unorganized, without a bishop. Later — some weeks later — the presi-
dency consulted the people and decided upon another person, who was
finally installed as the bishop.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was satisfactory to the people of the stake?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; he was satisfactory to the people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, 1 wish to ask you also whether or not by
the revelation of January 19, 1841, given through Joseph Smith, be-
ing section 124 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the section beginning
on page 429, and the part to which I refer being pages 445 to 447,
verses 127 to 144 — 1 ask you whether that is not the revelation which
provided for the original appointment of the twelve.

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 ask whether that is not the revelation which
authorized the appointment of the twelve as the traveling council, in
Miese words, being verses 127, 128, and 129:

REED 8MOOT. 357

"127. I give unto you my servant Brigham Young, to be a Presi-
dent over the Twelve traveling Council,

" 128. Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my
kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send
my word to every creature;

"129. They are— Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt,
Orson Hyde, William Smith, John Taylor, Johh E. Page, Wilford
Woodruff, Willard Richards, George A.' Smith."

Mr. SMITH. That is a revelation given at the date you mentioned,
naming or nominating all the general officers of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I will ask you whether or not, as a part of the
same revelation, there was not this clause, referring to these appoint-
ments or nominations. I read from page 447, section 144:

"144. And a commandment I give unto you that you should fill all
these offices and approve of those names which I have mentioned, or
else disapprove of them at my general conference."

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that under the original revelation if the peo-
ple had chosen to refuse to accept any of these officers they never
would have become officers of the church?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And what would have happened is what did
happen in these two cases to which you have referred?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That would be the law of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that would be the law of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, your general conferences are held every
six months.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And for how long a term do the members of
the first presidency and of the twelve hold their offices after they have
been submitted to a conference and sustained, or confirmed, as we say ?

Mr. SMITH. It is the rule of the church to submit the names of all
the general authorities of the church to the conference twice a year
for their acceptance or rejection.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When was your last conference held?

Mr. SMITHO Our last conference was held on the 3d to the 6th of
October.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the next will be held when ?

Mr. SMITH. It will be held from the 3d, probably, to the 6th of
April next.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At the conference held last October was your
name and that of the other councilors and of the twelve presented to
the people to see whether they would be sustained for another six
months ?

Mr. SMITH. Every one.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And at the next conference they will be sub-
mitted again?

]V|r. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So every six months since you have held the
office and since the other people have held their office it has been within
the power of the people to turn them out at any time the}^ chose?

Mr. SMITH. At any time they chose.

358 RKED SMOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. Allow me to state that there are quarterly confer-
ences held in each stake.

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Senator DUBOIS. Not only in Utah but in other States, and at those
quarterly conferences your name and the names of the apostles are
also sustained?

Mr. ^SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At the quarterly conferences?

Senator DUBOIS. At the quarterly conference of every stake in the
country. Not only do they have the two conferences, but they have
quarterly conferences in every stake, and at each of those quarterly
conferences their names are also sustained. That is right. I simply
wanted to make the argument stronger than it is.

Mr. SMITH. I should like merely to say, in relation to that, that it is
according to the rule of the church that quarterly conferences be held
in each stake of Zion, for the reason that a very large proportion of the
members of the church are unable to attend the general conferences.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are these quarterly conferences, to which Sen-
ator Dubois refers, conferences of the stakes?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And not of the whole body ?

Mr. SMITH. Of the stakes.

Senator DUBOIS. Which are geographical subdivisions ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes. We have just been covering that. But
what I do not understand is how one of these subdivisions — one of the
numerous subdivisions — can confirm him in his office. Suppose one
of the stakes, at their general conferences, should not sustain you.
What would be the effect of it?

Mr. SMITH. The effect of it would be that so far as that stake of
Zion is concerned I would not be sustained by them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean as to that stake you would no longer
be president?

Mr. SMITH. I mean as to that stake they would not fellowship me
or sustain me as president of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So any one of the subdivisions can oust you
from its jurisdiction?

Mr. SMITH. So far as their stake authority is concerned; but they
could not, of course, remove me out of the office without a general
action of the general church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand, in addition, that the wards have
similar conferences every few months.

Mr. SMITH. They are every quarter, I think — the ward conferences.

Senator DUBOIS. So that you are being pretty constantly sustained.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you are not being kept in office by Sen-
ator Smoot and his associates ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

I should like to state that there is a general principle laid down in
our church organization that nothing shall be done affecting the church
generally or locally without the common consent of the people of the
church.

Senator OVERMAN. Have the people of the church ever refused to
sustain any of the twelve apostles?

Mr. SMITH. I just told you of several instances where they have
refused.

REED SMOOT! 359

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You do not understand the question.

Senator OVERMAN. The twelve apostles. Has the church ever
refused to sustain the presidency or the twelve apostles?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think the church generally has, but 1 think
there have been individuals who have.

Senator OVERMAN. That is the question — whether the church has?

Mr. SMITH. No; 1 think not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He stated the other day that they had not done
it, but they can do it.

You said something- a moment ago about the apostles being consulted
as advisers. I do not clearly understand whether you said that they
were the advisers of you in your official position, or whether they are
your personal advisers. Have they anything to do with advising you
as to your conduct personally any more than any other member of the
church has?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not in the least.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At the time Senator Smoot became an apostle
which was — I do not know whether it appears in the record — the 9th
day of April, 1900, was it not?

Mr. SMITH. The 9th or 10th; I am not sure which.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask you right there, while I think of it,
when was your last child born? Do you remember the exact date?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that there is any particular coincidence
about it. 1 think it was born on the day that he was sustained as one
of the twelve.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That part of the complaint has stopped since he
became an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. There has been none since.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there any relation of cause and effect between them?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not pretend to have any revelation on that
subject.

The CHAIRMAN. You seem, then, to be in harmony.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You were not president at the time he became
an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You became president on what day ?

Mr. SMITH. The 10th day of November, 1901.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Since that date, of course, he has not been pres-
ent when the members of the first presidency have met officially.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you have not been present, I presume,
when the quorum of apostles met officially ?

Mr. SMITH. Since that time?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; since you became president. The apos-
tles are not present when the members of the first presidency hold their
meetings ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the members of the first presidency are
not present when the Apostles hold their meetings?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But you are all present at the general councils
which are held for prayer and advice ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, at any conference of that kind when you

360 kEED SMOOT.

have been present, has the subject of your relations with reference to
living with plural wives been touched upon in any way? Do you
understand the question?

Mr. SMITH. I hardly think I do.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The question is whether at any joint meetings
which have been held of the first presidency and the twelve Apostles
since you became president, and when you wen? present, has anything
been said on this subject of your living and continuing to live in polyg-
amous cohabitation with several wives?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you any recollection?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I have no recollection of anything having been
said about it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So far as you know has there come up the sub-
ject whether members of the church should or should not, or were
right or wrong in continuing to live in potygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think anything has been said about it in any of
our meetings. It has been generally conceded and generally under-
stood, as I have frequently stated before, I think, that the plural
marriages which occurred before the manifesto, many, many years
ago in many instances, were not to be disturbed by the church; that
the church was a party to the entering in of that marriage status, and
that it would be inconsistent for the church to undertake to interrupt
it, and the consequence has been that there has not been anything said
to my knowledge against that principle. But I do know that when
we have heard rumors, such as have been published by the anti-Mormon
press, that there were marriages going on, the question has been
broached many times in our councils, and invariably it has been
resolved in our councils that all such things must stop, if they had not
stopped, and so far as we were concerned, we knew of no such things
occurring, and if anything of the kind did occur, it was without our
knowledge or consent or approval. Those things have been men-
tioned.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is a digression, and something you have
already^ stated several times.

Mr. SMITH. I understand.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What I want to know particularly, Mr. Smith,
is whether at any of these joint meetings of the first presidency and
the quorum of the apostles when you were present and since you
became president this subject of polygamous cohabitation has been
discussed at all ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not think it has.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Either in the way of advisory talk or in taking
official action?

Mr. SMITH. I do not recall anything that has been said in relation
to it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you became president you were then, as
I understand, living with your five wives, as you have stated here?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you had made up your mind long before
that, that you would continue to do it, as I understand?

Mr SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that when Reed Sinoot became an apostle,
and you became president, your status in that respect had been fixed?

EEED SMOOT. 361

Mr. SMITH. It had been fixed long years before.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Had Senator Smoot anything to do with that
status?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or with bringing you to that conclusion ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or did he advise you

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or encourage you?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or connive at your sustaining that relation ?

Mr. SMITH. Not to my knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Has he at any time protested to you against it ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; he never has had any conversation with me on
the subject at all.

Senator DUBOIS. Has he ever publicly protested anywhere, to your
knowledge, against your living in this relation?

Mr. SMITH. Not within my knowledge. I know nothing about it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now about the number of polygamists, to
which reference has been made this morning; can }TOU give any infor-
mation as to what proportion of your people who have been polyga-
mists became such before the decision of the Supreme Court in the
Reynolds case in 1878, in which for the first time it was held that the
act of Congress making the taking of plural wives a crime was consti-
tutional ?

Mr. SMITH. A very large proportion of those who had entered into
plural marriages did so before the law of 1862.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you mean —

Mr. SMITH. And a number of them are still living.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. My question is as to what proportion of them
became polygamists, not before the act of 1802 was passed, but before
it was sustained by the Supreme Court, which was in 1878, sixteen years
later.

Mr. SMITH. I have no idea how many, but there was a lapse of a
great many years, nearly twenty years, that the statute laid as a dead
letter.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the next place, it has appeared here that
there were a great many convictions for this crime of polygamy or
polygamous cohabitation; When was it that these convictions were
so prevalent?

Mr. SMITH. Those convictions occurred under the Edmunds-Tucker
law.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But when— before or after the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, it was long before the manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Long before the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were those convictions, as a general thing, for
taking plural wives or for polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. SMITH. They were for polygamous cohabitation; very, very
few, indeed, for marriage.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not ask for the number, but in propor-
tion to the number that had gone before, how man}T convictions, either
for taking plural wives or for polygamous cohabitation, were there
after the manifesto?

362 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. After the manifesto?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. After the manifesto.

Mr. SMITH. I do not recall any. There may have been some, but I
do not remember any at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When the manifesto was proclaimed and down
to the year 1896 3^011 were a Territory. It was a Territory, not a State ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You were not admitted until 1896 ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that from 1890 to 1896 the prosecution of
such offenses was in the hands of the prosecuting officers appointed
by the President and confirmed by the Senate of the United States ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the cases were heard before judges ap
pointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the
Senate ?
. Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That continued until 1896?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you say that during that period of six
years there were very few convictions compared with what had gone
before ?

Mr. SMITH. If I understand your question, that is so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. My question is whether from the time of the
manifesto down to the time the State was admitted into the Union
the convictions in the courts of the Territory were very few compared
with what they had been before.

Mr. SMITH. I do not remember any. There may have been a few,
a very few. I do not recall that there were any.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Any?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not recall any, although there may have
been one or two or such a matter.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that the practice had either stopped of being
openly married or the officers appointed by the President were not
doing their duty ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. The prosecutions stopped after 1890, did they not,
practically?

Mr. SMITH. I believe that the prosecutions — I do not know whether
I understand the force of }^our question.

Senator DUBOIS. I am merely repeating the question of your counsel.

Mr. W'ORTHINGTON. I beg your pardon, I am not counsel for Mr.
Smith. I am counsel for Senator Smoot. If I were counsel for Mr.
Smith the examination would be very different from what it is.

Senator DUBOIS. There were no prosecutions by the Federal author-
ities after the manifesto was issued?

Mr. SMITH. I have so stated two or three times. I do not say there
were no prosecutions, but I say there were very few, if any at all.

Senator DUBOIS. In order to make it perfectly clear, I wish to ask
this question: Did not the courts proclaim publicly, and was it not
thoroughly understood by all those who had been contending against
polyganry and unlawful cohabitation, that after the manifesto was
issued it was the duty of those who had previously contracted plural
marriages to support and maintain their families?

REED SMOOT. 363

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. I so understood it. I was in that conflict, as you
will remember, and that was my understanding.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. That was the reason for my question, whether the
prosecutions did not cease practically after the manifesto.

I should like to ask another question, if you please. I did not quite
understand the answer. How many convictions were had for polygamy
between 1882, the year of the passage of the Edmunds Act, and Sep-
tember 25, 1890, the date of the issuance of the manifesto ? How many
convictions were had in Utah during that period for polygamy?

Mr. SMITH. Very few, Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. Not more than a half dozen?

Mr. SMITH. I could not just tell you.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 should say about three.

Mr. SMITH. 1 know there were very, very few indeed.

Senator DUBOIS. They were mostly for unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now in order to cover the period between the
manifesto and the admission of the State into the Union, it having
been shown that plural marriages were prohibited and that nearly all
of the prosecutions were for unlawful cohabitation and not for polyg-
amy, when the State was admitted into the Union, we have seen here
that it was admitted by Congress upon condition that you should for-
ever give up polygamy ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Nothing was said of giving up polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The offense which was the basis of most of
these prosecutions ?

Mr. SMITH. That was the provision in the enabling act.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the constitution embodied that as an irrev-
ocable provision ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; and it was to have the force of law.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And President Cleveland then sent out his
proclamation that all the conditions upon which the State was to be
admitted into the Union had been complied with, and she was admitted?

Mr. SMITH. Was it President Cleveland?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; President Cleveland.

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not remember that. I think that is correct,
though.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that the United States let go of the situa-
tion-
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Upon the condition that the people of Utah
should not practice polygamy any more ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That left it to the State to deal with polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, when the State was admitted into the
Union, I presume you at once, or about that time, had to have an elec-
tion to elect officers ?

304 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before you were admitted you elected 3Tour
officers ?

Mr. SMITH. I think the State elected their officers; yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, prosecutions for polygamous cohabita-
tion, after the State was admitted into the Union, would be conducted
before your own State judges?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOKTHINGTON. What was your judicial system there? What,
was the title of your judge of original jurisdiction before whom jury
trials would be had? Do }TOU call him a district judge?

Mr. SMITH. We have district judges and the supreme court.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know how many district judges? [A
pause.] It is nine, is it not?

Mr. SMITH. It is nine, I think. I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is nine.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was nine then. It is ten now.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had a supreme court of three judges?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to the supreme judges, how many of them
have sat in that tribunal since the State was admitted into the Union?
The court is composed of three judges?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And who were the first three elected?

Mr. SMITH. According to my recollection, although I may not be
able to state it correctly, but I will give it to the Best of my recollec-
tion-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is a matter of common knowledge. I can
correct you if you make any mistake.

Mr. SMITH. I am willing to be corrected.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who were they ?

Mr. SMITH. The first three judges, according to my best recollec-
tion, elected by the vote of the people of the Static of Utah were
Judge C. S. Zane and Judge Bartch and Judge Miner. That is accord-
ing to my recollection.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 will ask whether those three men had not
been United States judges under the Territory.

Mr. SMITH. I believe they had.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And whether they had not all sent members of
your church to prison or had punished them for polygamous
cohabitation.

Mr. SMITH. I believe they had; all of them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They are all gentiles ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So the first thing that was done in the State,
where the Mormons were in control, was to elect as your supreme
judges three men who had been Federal judges, appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate, all of whom were gentiles,
and all of whom had punished your people for the crime of polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Has there been any change in that court since
then?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I think there have been some changes.

EEED SMOOT. 365

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was the first change?

Mr. SMITH. I believe that the —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who succeeded Judge Zane, for instance?

Mr. SMITH. At the expiration of Judge Zane's term — I think Judge
Raskin — Robert Baskin.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. He was elected to succeed him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he a Morman or a gentile?

Mr. SMITH. He is a pretty strong gentile.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. A strong gentile. What do you mean \)y being
a strong gentile?

Mr. SMITH. He is a good gentile; that is all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was a lawyer in Salt Lake City?

Mr. SMITH. He was a very prominent lawyer there, and had been
for years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And very prominent in having members of your
church prosecuted for unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; very prominent.

Mr. WTORTHINGTON. One of the leaders?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In opposition to the church and in this respect?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was elected to fill this vacancy?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he still on the bench?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you remember another vacancy on the bench
which has been filled.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I believe so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the name of the judge? [A pause.] Is
it McCarthy ? It is a matter of common knowledge. There is no
harm in my suggesting it.

Mr. SMITH. I think it is.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he a gentile or a Mormon?

Mr. SMITH. He is a gentile.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that all of the judges of the supreme court
since the State has been admitted into the Union have been gentiles?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now as to the nine judges of the inferior courts.
I presume you are not competent to give us the names of the persons
who have occupied those offices from the beginning?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think I could.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you tell us whether they have all been Mor-
mons, or gentiles, or partly one and partly the other, and about the
pi oportion of each ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any of the nine who have been Mor-
mons except two. I know of two of them who are Mormons, but I do
not think there have been any others who ever have been Mormont
at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I wish to state, so that it may appear of record,
that Mi. Van Cott, who is familiar with these matters, says that the
witness is mistaken; that three have been Mormons.

Mr. SMITH. Three? I did not know of any more than two.

306 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now as to the prosecuting- officers generally.
Each jurisdiction where there is a judge has a prosecuting officer, 1
suppose ?

Mr. SMITH. How is that?

Mr. \VORTHINGTON. I suppose in each jurisdiction over which one
of the district judges presides there is a prosecuting officer?

Mr. SMITH. My understanding of our State government is that there
is a county prosecuting attorney-
Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment.

Mr. SMITH. Very well.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, as to the matter of prosecuting
officers, if the committee please, I will withdraw the question for the
present, and also as to the district judges. We will get that before the
committee by something that will be authentic and definite.

Senator DUBOIS. Would you include the sheriffs in that also?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did not.

Senator DUBOIS. Would you?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Well, of course, if the Senator desires it, and
also State and municipal officers generally.

Now, as to the matter of persons who have been sent here to repre-
sent the State in either House of Congress. Of course we know who
they were, but I will ask }TOU whether -they were Mormons or gen-
tiles ? The first two Senators were Frank J. ^Cannon and Arthur
Brown.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I believe so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is Mr. Cannon a Mormon or a gentile ?

Mr. SMITH. I am sorry to say he is classed as a Mormon; but a very
poor one.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you sa}^ as to Arthur Brown?

Mr. SMITH. He is a non-Mormon. He never has been connected
with the Mormon people at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The next one was Joseph L. Rawlins. Is he a
Mormon or a gentile?

Mr. SMITH. He is a gentile.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of course the others are the present Senators —
Senator Smoot, who is a Mormon, and Senator Kearns, who is —

Mr. SMITH. Who is not a Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He is a gentile. Now, as to the Representa-
tives, your first Representative was C. E. Allen.

Mr. SMITH. A Gentile.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The next one was William H. King. What
was he?

Mr. SMITH. A Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, i believe, came B. H. Roberts, who was
sent here and excluded because he was a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. A polygamist.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And was living, as you are, with more than one
wife?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct. That is the reputation he has.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then came George Sutherland.

Mr. SMITH. Who is not a Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And then Joseph Howell ?

Mr. SMITH. He is a Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON, Now, as to the business corporations to which

REED SMOOT. 367

reference was made in }^our direct examination. How many of
them —

The CHATEMAN. Mr. Worthington, will you be able to conclude on
this subject before 12 o'clock?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I am informed by counsel that there are some
other questions, but the rest of our examination will be very short
and counsel had better be prepared with another witness.

Thereupon (at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m.) the committee took
a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Continued.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, before going on with the exam-
ination of the witness, 1 would like to say that just before the recess
I made a remark which has been misinterpreted by some, and perhaps
by the committee. 1 remarked, when Senator Dubois had, by acci-
dent, referred to me as counsel for the witness, that I was not his
counsel, and I said if I were his counsel that there would have been
some difference in his testimony, or something to that effect. 1 only
meant by that to say that as 1 understood the law he had a right to
refuse to answer a great many of the questions which have been asked
him here, and if I had been in his place 1 would have refused to answer
them.

I did not, in the slightest degree, of course, mean to reflect upon
any person who may have advised him, because we all know he is
represented here by very able, conscientious, and distinguished counsel.
I am advised, however, that even, in so far as that is concerned, I was
mistaken, because — and in this the witness can answer whether it is
true or not — I am informed he was fully advised in the premises, and
decided of his own motion that he would answer everything, whether
he was compelled to answer it or not.

How is that, Mr. Smith ?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement of Mr. Worthington will go into the
record.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Smith, about the matter of rewarding
those who have persistently violated the law by giving them high
office. I want to ask a few questions bearing upon that charge. At
the time of the manifesto President Woodruff was at the head of your
church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask you whether or not, so far as either
your personal knowledge or the reputation of the matter goes, he
complied with his own manifesto in the matter, of polygamous cohab-
itation, as well as in the matter of polygamy proper?

Mr. SMITH. He did, according to my best understanding.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long did tie live after the manifesto, about,
and continue to be president?

Mr. SMITH. He lived a number of years, quite a number of years.
I could not tell you from memory.

368 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. His successor, you have told us, was Snow

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And what is the fact, as you understand it, as
to whether or not he complied with the prohibition against polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. SMITH. My understanding is that he complied strictly with it.

Mr^ WORTHINGTON. Then you succeeded him?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 wish you would explain a little more fully
than 3^011 have about this matter of promotion — how it was you came
to take the place of Lorenzo Snow. I think you have told us there
has been a custom, at least, of promotion.

Mr. SMITH. It has been the custom, since the death of Joseph Smith
that the president of the twelve succeeded to the presidency of the
church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That has been from the beginning — that has
been a rule that has been followed?

Mr. SMITH. It was the case with Brigham Young and his successors.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How is the apostle who becomes president of
that quorum selected? Is that by selection or seniority, or how?

Mr. SMITH. It is by seniority.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that the last apostle takes the foot of the
list?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And as vacancies occur he moves up?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Has there, so far as you know, from the begin-
ning been any other rule followed?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or has that been universally followed?

Mr. SMITH. That has been universally followed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that all the rewards that have come in that
way have been by simply following the custom of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand you to say, however, that there
is no law — no revelation or command — of the church in any way which
requires that.

Mr. SMITH. No; it is just simply a custom.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And that if a vacancy should occur to-morrow
it would be competent for any member of the church to be selected as
president ?

Mr. SMITH. That is quite right.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, still further on this subject of rewards
for crime. Since the manifesto I want to find out how many persons
have been made apostles.

Mr. SMITH. Since the manifesto?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Since the manifesto.

Mr. SMITH. I think at least six.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask you as to one whose name has been
mentioned here, Mr. Cowley.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Cowley is one that has been added to the quorum
since the manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And there was another named Woodruff, I
believe.

REED SMOOT. 369

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was he a son of the president?

Mr. SMITH. He was a son of the president.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who appointed those two? I mean in whose
time did they become apostles ? We know how they are appointed.

Mr. SMITH. They became apostles in the time of Wilford Woodruff.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were they polygamists or not?

Mr. SMITH. One of them was and one of them was not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Which one was?

Mr. SMITH. Cowley.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you say he was a polygamist, do you
mean he was living with more than one wife or had more than one
wife?

Mr. SMITH. He is reputed to have had two wives.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know what is reputed as to his living
with them since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not know anything about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the next?

Mr. SMITH. After Cowley ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean after Woodruff, the son of the president.

Mr. SMITH. The next one after Woodruff was Rudger Clawson, I
believe.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And was he a monogamist or a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. He was a monogamist.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The next was Senator Smoot?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who, it is admitted, is a monogamist?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the next?

Mr. SMITH. Hyrum M. Smith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Your son?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And he, you have told us, is a monogamist?

Mr. SMITH. He is a monogamist.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And lastly ?

Mr. SMITH. Lastly, George A. Smith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Whom you also say is a monogamist?

Mr. SMITH. So I understand.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So, that out of the six apostles who have come
into office since the manifesto, five have been monogamists, one had
two wives, and whether he actually lived with more than one wife
after that you do not know?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In that line something has been asked of you
about the appointment of a man named Tanner. What is his full
name?

Mr. SMITH. Joseph M. Tanner, I suppose.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And he was appointed to what office in the
church?

Mr. SMITH. He was appointed by the general board of education as
general superintendent of the church schools.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When did that happen?

Mr. SMITH. That happened directly or soon after the death of Carl
G. Maesar — probably two or three years ago.

8 24

370 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You can not tell us with exactness whether it
was before or after Senator Smoot became an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Which was in April, 1900?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I could not say.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Senator Smoot says it was after.

Mr. SMITH. I do not remember that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What position had he held before he took that
place ?

Mr. SMITH. Immediately before, he was practicing law. He was an
attorney at Salt Lake City.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But he had had some official position, I believe?

Mr. SMITH. Prior to that he held the position of president of the
facult}^ of the Agricultural College, Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is that a State institution?

Mr. SMITH. A State institution.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long had he held that position?

Mr. SMITH. He had held it a number of years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And so far as you know, was his status, while
he held that office, as to polygamous cohabitation, the same as it was
when he took this office in the church?

Mr. SMITH. Just the same.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the president of the board of the
Agricultural College?

Mr. SMITH. The president of the board was then and still is
William S. McCornick.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who is he?

Mr. SMITH. He is a very prominent banker in Salt Lake City.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he a Mormon or a gentile?

Mr. SMITH. He is a gentile — an outsider, as we call them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you remember whether on that board of
the Agricultural College who retained Tanner in that position there
were any other gentiles — prominent people?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. W^ORTHINGTON. WTho?

Mr. SMITH. There was a gentleman b}^ the name of Hill, I believe.

Mr. RICHARDS. Adams.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; Mr. Adams, a very prominent gentleman there
in business, a non-Mormon. He was a member of the board, and there
was also another member of the board who was not a Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you have anything to do with having Tan-
ner given this office in the church, or appointed to it?

Mr. SMITH. Only as a member of the board of education.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So far as your action in that case was concerned
and so far as the motives which influenced the others who acted with
you in that matter are concerned, so far as you know, why was Tanner
given that office ?

Mr. SMITH. Because he was the best-qualified man that we knew of
as an educator and thoroughl}7 posted in relation to the methods of
church schools, having been educated under Carl G. Maesar in the
church schools.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, finally, on that subject, so far as I am con-
cerned, let me ask you whether, to your knowledge, in any case, any
man in the church has been given any oifige, whatever because he was

EEED SMOOT. 371

a polygamist or lived in polygamous cohabitation, or whether, so far
as you know, such appointments have gone by merit and deserts?

Mr. SMITH. They have gone by merit entirely.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or, as you have stated, by promotion, where
that was the custom.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; of course.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to this episode of Mr. Thatcher, which has
been referred to, do you know whether that was before or after Sena-
tor Smoot became an apostle ?

Mr. SMITH. My recollection is that it was before.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have been asked as to the status of women
in the church. Are women among your missionaries who are sent out
to teach your gospel ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Few or many ?

Mr. SMITH. There are not so very many, but quite a number.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Just one other question, and I think 1 am
through. You were asked about your connection with a great many
business corporations. I wish to ask in how many of those business
corporations, if any of them, the church has a controlling interest?

Mr. SMITH. The church has not a controlling interest in any one of
them, except it may be the theater. Brigharn Young built the theater —
that is, the church did under his administration, for theatrical amuse-
ments, and with the exception of a short period it has remained mostly
in the possession of the church. The church to-day owns a little more
than one-half of the stock. There is a company called the Dramatic
Association that holds the title to the property, and the church owns
a little over half of the stock.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One corporation particularly was mentioned—
Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institute or Institution.

Mr. SMITH. Institution.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The Z. C. M. I., as it is commonly called?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What proportion of the stock in that corpora-
tion does the church own or hold in any way ?

Mr. SMITH. It owns now a very small proportion of it. Many years
ago the church sold out to a syndicate this stock. It did own a large
amount of it in the beginning. It helped to establish the institution,
but it sold out to a syndicate of young men that bought the stock of
the church; and lately the church has bought a little of the stock back.
As it has been on the market it has bought it in.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May I ask you, Senator Dubois, as to whether
the figures you gave us this morning referred to the Territory of Utah ?

Senator DUBOIS. It was the Territory of Utah, the census of 1890.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean they referred only to Utah, whether a
Territory or a State.

Senator DUBOIS. That is right.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Smith, do the figures you gave the other
day refer to the Mormons in your church in Utah, or to the whole
body of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. They referred to the whole church.

Senator OVERMAN. I want to ask this question: Do you teach the
of Mormon in your schools? Is it taught in the schools?

3?2 REED

Mr. SMITH, It is taught in one class of all GUI' schools — the mission-
ary class*

Senator OVERMAN. Do you have what we call Sunday schools?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Do you have catechism for the children?

Mr; BM!TH. Yes, sir;

Senator ^OVERMAN. Do you teach in these Sunday schools that there
is Divine authority for polygamy ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; there is nothing of that included in our cate-
chisms or Sunday-school works at all.

Senator OVERMAN. Nothing about polygamy in the catechism ?

Mr. SMITH* Nothing.

Senator OVERMAN, Can you furnish us with a copy of your catechism
that you use in your Sunday schools?

Mr. SMITH. You mean that is used in the Sunday schools?

Senator OVERMAN* Yes.

Mr. SMITH, Yes; I could* I will have to have a little time, though.
If I had known a little sooner 1 might have had them here now*

Senator OVERMAN. You teach in your schools the Book of Mormon
and the Bible, both?

Mr* SMITH. We teach the Book of Mormon and the Bible and the
Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

Mr. WORTHINGTON* Do you mean the Book of Mormon, Senator?
That has not been here at all.

Senator OVERMAN. The Book of Mormon was introduced here, was
it not?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No; the Doctrine and Covenants. The book
that-contains the revelation of Joseph Smith as to polygamy is in the
Doctrine and Covenants. That is the book you probably had in mind.

Senator OVERMAN. Yes. That is taught in your schools?

Mr. SMITH. It is taught in that one class. We have what is called
a missionary class established in each of our church schools, in which
young men who are called to go on missions meet and go through a
course of instruction for several months on the duties and necessities
of a missionary.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Those are church schools, not public schools?

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely church schools.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The witness testified the other day very full}7,
Senator, that these missionary classes are all carefully instructed; and
he also said that Mr. Lyman, who was the president of the quorum of
the apostles, is the man who has that matter of instruction particularly
in charge, and he could give more definite instruction than the witness
himself can; and Mr. Lyman is here.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, how many trustees are there of this agri-
cultural college?

Mr. SMITH. Seven, I believe.

Mr. TAYLER. A majority of them are Mormons, are they not?

Mr. SMITH. Four, I think, are Mormons.

Mr. TAYLER. And two of those four are reputed to be polygamists,
are they not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; riot any of them.

Mr. TAYLER. Never?

Mr. SMITH. I can not tell you as to never, but not now.

Mr. TAYLER. Is Merrill a trustee now?

REED SMOOT. 373

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He was when?

Mr. SMITH. Man}> years ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Many years ago?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. At the time that Joseph M. Tanner was president?

Mr. SMITH. I would not be surprised if that was about the time.

Mr. TAYLER. And was Morrell a trustee at that time?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I think Morrell is now a trustee, but not at
that time.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that his reputation ?

Mr. SMITH. I never heard that he had any reputation of being a
polygamist.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not know that that is quite what I wanted. Is
he reputed to be a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. I just said, Mr. Tayler, that I did not think he was. I
do not know that he was ever reputed to be a polygamist. I do not
know anything about the status of his family at all.

Mr. TAYLER. You were raised to the presidency of the church while
Mr. Smoot was an apostle ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You testified respecting the judges. I believe you
stated that originally two of these circuit judges out of nine were
Mormons ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment. I understood that Mr. Worthing-
ton withdrew all that testimony, for the reason —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did state that as to that I would withdraw it,
because we could give better information.

Mr. VAN COTT. The information I gave Mr. Worthington had been
mixed between originally and now, so it was all withdrawn.

Mr. TAYLER. It reminded me of something, so I thought I would
take it up.

Then, shortly after, the proportion became three out of nine, did it
not?

Mr. SMITH. I have not kept track of those things.

Mr. TAYLER. And shortly after that it became four out of nine, did
it not?

Mr. SMITH. I have no knowledge in regard to that matter.

Mr. TAYLER. And is it not true that now six out of ten are Mor-
mons— adherents of your church ?

Mr. SMITH. I have no knowledge.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not know anything about that now?

Mr. SMITH. No; I do not know anything at all about that now.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, you testified on Friday or Saturday respect^
ing the prevalence of polygamy in Utah, and of the number of polyga-
mists there, using an interview which }rou had given out to the rep-
resentative of the Associated Press.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have the interview, or a copy of it, in full, in
your hand at the time you testified?

Mr. SMITH. I brought it with me.

374 REED SMOOT,

Mr. TAYLER. Was that the whole interview?

Mr. SMITH. I think that was the whole interview at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. Did not the interview that you gave out at that time
and which was published in the Deseret News, your church's newspaper,
contain also a very strong declaration in favor of the election of Mr.
Smoot as Senator?

Mr. SMJTH. 1 do not know of anything of the kind. Perhaps it did.
I do not remember anything of that kind.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not recall that, while the controversy was on
respecting the election of a Senator, you put out this interview which
you have described, saying that it was not true that polygamous mar-
riage ceremonies had been performed in Utah by the church, and giv-
ing the figures showing the number of polygamists then in Utah, and
then follow that with an argument in very vigorous terms in favor of
the election of Mr. Smoot as Senator before the legislature that was
about to convene ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir-
Mr. VAN SCOTT. Just a moment, Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, we
suggest that the custom that was suggested the other day be followed,
of showing Mr. Smith that interview, to refresh his recollection.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you it here?

Mr. TAYLER. I have it not right by me. I had it Saturday; but I
wanted to know of the witness whether he gave out any interview of
that sort, and 1 asked him if he had given us all of the interview.

Mr. SMITH. I can tell the chairman and the committee that I have
not given out any interview at all that I know of except that which I
read here the other day.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler asks you if you gave out the whole of
the interview to the committee.

Mr. SMITH. This is all that I know anything about. It was given
to the associated press man. It was necessarily brief, as an associ-
ated press dispatch, and —

Senator HOAR. Did yon give it to him in writing or did he take it
down from your lips ?

Mr. SMITH. Who?

Senator HOAR. The man to whom you gave it.

The CHAIRMAN. The correspondent?

Mr. SMITH. He was there, and he asked the questions and I answered
his questions, and furnished him the data that is contained—

Senator HOAR. All I want to know is this. Sometimes a person
comes to a public man for an interview, and he writes down what he
wants to say, and hands it to him for greater certainty. Did you give
him what you gave him in writing, or did he report it, you giving it
orally?

Mr. SMITH. We gave it to him together. We sat down together,
he and I, and we made out that report from the data we had.

Senator HOAR. You do not answer my question yet. I want to know
whether you gave him a manuscript which he took, or whether you
spoke to him and he took down the substance of your conversation.
That is all.

Mr. SMITH. He was in our office, Senator, if you please. A gentle-
man called upon us in our office-
Senator HOAR. That does not answer the question.

Mr. SMITH. We sat down together—

HEED SMOOT. 375

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you write the paper or did he write it?

Mr. SMITH. We wrote it together. He wrote his questions to me
and I wrote my replies.

The CHAIRMAN. You wrote the answers yourself?

Mr. SMITH. I wrote the answers myself.

The CHAIRMAN. After the paper was completed, did you examine it?

Mr. SMITH. I did.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Critchlow had the paper, and he is not here
to-day. That is why I haven't it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean the newspaper.

Mr. TAYLER. I have a Deseret News interview, verbatim ad litera-
tim, what Mr. Smith read, save and except this indorsement of Mr.
Smoot.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean you have not here the paper which was
written at that time ?

Mr. TAYLER. No; and I do not intend to depend upon that. J will
take the Deseret News account of it. If that is not reliable, it is up to
you to show it is not.

Senator FORAKER. Let me ask, before you pass from that, is there
any doubt that the w'itness was in favor of Mr. Smoot' s election to the
Senate ?

Mr. TAYLER. Not the slightest.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think Mr. Smith ought to answer the question. I
do not think Mr. Tayler ought to furnish the information.

Mr. TAYLER. The question was asked me, Mr. Van Cott, and I have
no objection to answering questions.

Senator FORAKER. I was not addressing myself to anyone in par-
ticular, but rather to the witness. I did not know but that some
question had arisen. I have not been here in attendance all the while.
I understood he favored the election of Mr. Smoot as Senator.

Mr. SMITH. I never had any question in my mind in regard to it.

The CHAIRMAN. That does not answer the question directly, Mr.
Smith. Did you favor his election, is the question?

Mr. SMITH. I gave my consent as an individual and a fellow-laborer
to him that he should become a candidate if he chose. I certainly had
no objections. If I had I would have made them known to him.

Mr. TAYLER. Does that answer your question satisf actority, Senator ?

Senator FORAKER. Yes; I was simply led to believe by this question
that there might possibly have been something said when 1 was out
that had given rise to a question as to whether or not he did favor his
election to the Senate. I wanted to clear that up.

Mr. TAYLER. I hope you feel it is cleared up, Senator.

Senator FORAKER. It was clear in my mind until you asked the
question. It is now clear, just as it was before.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you this, Mr. Smith, to make that
clear. You say you gave your consent to Mr. Smoot to be a candi-
date for the United States Senate. Did you do anything toward his
election beyond that?

Mr. SMITH. No more than you did, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the question.

Mr. SMITH. Well, I did not then, if you please.

kThe CHAIRMAN. You did nothing, then?
Mr. SMITH. I did nothing.
'

376 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, why did you regard your consent as neces-
sary ?

Mr. SMITH. Because he was one of our general authorities, and the
rule of the church is that one of our general authorities desiring to
engage in any business contrary to the business he is strictly engaged
in as general authority of the church comes to his associates and asks
their permission to thus engage in something else.

The CHAIRMAN. In any business?

Mr. SMITH. In any business; it makes no difference what. It is
simply, if I may be permitted to make an explanation—

The CHAIRMAN. That covers it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The rule is in the record.

Mr. SMITH. The rule is in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. That covers it.

Senator DUBOIS. Allow, me, just there. As I understand it, there
was a special rule promulgated by the church in regard to politics, in
regard to high officers of the church asking and receiving the consent
of the authorities before they could aspire to a high position. That
was a distinct rule, 'an isolated rule, standing by itself.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it was not.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is here in the record, Senator.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is on page 168 of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. The record will show what that is.

Senator DUBOIS. What I want to know is this. I may have missed
it. 1 thought of it the other day. If that rule of the church is not
in the record I would like to have it put in the record — the political rule.

Mr. VAN COTT. On page 168 that rule is quoted in full, every word
of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, you testified this morning respecting the
method by which any member of the church might be prosecuted for
any violation of his churchly duties or unchristian conduct, and stated
that each member was first triable before the bishop of his ward ?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. And that in the event of your violation of the rule as
the law against cohabitation you would be triable before the bishop of
your ward in Salt Lake ?

Mr. SMITH. As a member of my ward I am subject to my bishop.

Mr. TAYLER. That does not answer my question. I am only trying
to repeat what 1 understood you to testify to this morning.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. That for any offense you may commit, for instance —
you fix it that way yourself — for unlawful cohabitation, as a violation
of the rule of the church, you could be brought and tried before the
bishop of your ward?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I could.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is the bishop of your ward?

Mr. SMITH. George R. Emery.

Mr. TAYLER. He is a polygamist, is he not?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Is not that his reputation ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not know ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I do not know.

REED SMOOT. 377

Mr. TAYLER. Have you any idea whether he is a polygamist or not?

Mr. SMITH. If I had I should decline to tell 3rou.

Mr. TAYLER. You should decline to tell us?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I do not know anything- about George R.
Emery's family.

Mr. TAYLER. Is Mr. Emery's status so different from that of the
other persons —

Senator HOAR. One moment. You said this rule was at page 167?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 168 of the printed record.

Senator HOAR. Of these hearings?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You say you have no information or belief respecting
this man, as to whether he is living with more than one wife or not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You stated in your examination in chief that you have
had 11 children born since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you sure of the number?

Mr. SMITH. I can not say that I was absolutely sure, but I think 1
am about right.

Mr. TAYLER. Is it not a fact — and I do not put this in an offensive
way, but only to get at the fact as quickly as possible — that you have
had 20 children born since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I have not.

Mr. TAYLER. Who are the children by your wife Alice?

Mr. SMITH. Who are the children by my wife Alice ?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean their names ?

Mr. TAYLER. Their names.

Mr. SMITH. The names of the children born, since the manifesto, of
my wife Alice are, Fielding, Jesse, and Andrew.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you a child Robert by her?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is the youngest child by her?

Mr. SMITH. He is 4 years old.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that the one that was born on the day of Mr. Smoot's
accession ?

Mr. SMITH. That is the one, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have }^ou had by Mary since 1890 ?

Mr. SMITH. Since the manifesto?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr.. SMITH. I have had Silas, Rachel, and James.

Mr. TAYLER. Whose child is Agnes ?

Mr. SMITH. 1 meant to have said Agnes. It was a slip of the tongue,
Silas, Agnes, and James.

Mr. TAYLER. Whose child is Samuel?

Mr. SMITH. He is her child.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is he?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you from memory.

Mr. TAYLER. He is only 10 or 11 years old, is he not?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I do not know exactly what his age is.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is Calvin?

Mr. SMITH. Calvin is about 14 — or 15.

Mr. TAYLER. That is, do you say 15 because

378 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Fourteen or 15, along there. 1 could not tell }Tou from
memory.

Mr. TAYLER. And there are four younger than him?

Mr. SMITH. Four younger than Calvin; yes.

Mr. TAYLER. All of the other wives have had at least two children
since the manifesto, have they not?

Mr. SMITH. I think they have; yes. If you desire to have me —

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you inquire in regard to the others, Mr.
Tayler. It may aid the witness.

Mr. SMITH. I can furnish the committee a correct statement of
exactly the ages and dates of my children, if I have the time to do it.

Mr. TAYLER. You were subpoenaed to bring with you a family
record?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I was not.

Mr. TAYLER. You were not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. There was no instruction to you to bring any record
of your marriages and of the births of your children?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is not the subpoena here, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. TAYLER. I presume it did not go out. The press statement was
to that effect.

Mr. SMITH. I have the subpoena in my pocket here.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no question about it. It was not a sub-
poena duces tecum.

Mr. TAYLER. What is your best recollection now, Mr. Smith, as to
the number of your children since the manifesto ?

Mr. SMITH. My recollection is that I have had eleven born since the
manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. Who are the children of your other three wives, born
since that time, if you can recall them?

Mr. SMITH. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. Is it understood that the children of my legal wife are to
be numbered in this category?

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose counsel alludes id the five wives.

Mr. SMITH. Am I to understand, then, that I am not lawfully per-
mitted to have children by my first and legal wife?

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the question.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to know, in order that I m&y give a cor-
rect answer.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the question be repeated by the reporter.

The reporter read the question, as follows:

44 Mr. TAYLER. Who are the children of your other three wives, born
since that time, if you can recall them?"

Mr. SMITH. Then, if I may be permitted, I shall decline to give the
children of my first wife.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by your first wife ?

Mr. SMITH. My legal wife. I have a legal wife, if you please.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you, so as to identify that — you mean the
wife you married at what time?

Mr. SMITH. My first wife, that 1 married many, many years ago;
thirty-eight years ago.

REED SMOOTH 879

The CHAIRMAN. You will pardon me, Mr. Smith. Is that the wife
I understood was dead ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; she is living.

The CHAIRMAN. But from whom there was a divorce ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; she is living, and she is my wife to-day, and
the mother of eleven of my children.

The CHAIRMAN. I simply inquired for information.

Mr. RICHARDS. Give the names of all the children.

Mr. TAYLER. I would rather that question should be answered.

Mr. VAN COTT. It will be answered.

The CHAIRMAN. Read the question, Mr. Reporter.

The reporter again read the question, as follows:

4 'Mr. TAYLER. Who are the children of your other three wives,
born since that time, if you can recall them? "

Mr. SMITH. My question is, am 1 to give the children of my first
wife?

The CHAIRMAN. Born since the manifesto; yes.

Senator HOAR. I would like to inquire whether you included in the
number you gave the other day the children of your first wife?

Mr. SMITH. 1 gave the number the other day offhand, Senator, and
I may not have been exactly accurate as to the number, but I think I
was.

Senator HOAR. You do not understand my question. I will repeat
it. You gave a number the other day of your children by all your
wives. Did you include or exclude, in giving that number, the chil-
dren of your first wife, or, as you now speak of her, as your lawful
wife?

Mr. SMITH. They all were included. .

Senator HOAR. You meant to include them all ?

Mr. SMITH. I meant to include them all; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Smith, can you answer the question ?

Mr. SMITH. Am I to understand, Mr. Chairman, that I have got to
include my first wife's children ?

The CHAIRMAN. You have already said you included your first wife's
children in the 11 ?

Mr. SMITH. I think it will make some difference, now, if I state just
simply the children of nry plural wives.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement the other day, you say now, included
those of what you call your legal wife. Perhaps you had better state
the children of all of the wives.

Mr. SMITH. The children of my first wife, born since the manifesto,
are Edith and Rachel.

Mr. RICHARDS. Give the name of your first wife.

Mr. SMITH. Julina L. Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. Now the next one.

Mr. SMITH. The children of my second wife, Sarah, are Asinith and
Jenetta. The child of my third wife is Martha.

Mr. VAN COTT. And her name, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Her name is Edna.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand you, that is the only child born of
that woman.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. Since the manifesto.

380 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. You said " living." I did not know but that there
were others born, but not living?

Mr. SMITH. She lost a child, but I think he was born before the
manifesto. 1 could not tell you from memory.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Now, the fourth wife. .

Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, he has alread\r testified as to the
children of all the wives.

The CHAIRMAN. He will conclude with them in a moment, right
along in order.

Mr. SMITH. What is the question, please?

The CHAIRMAN. The fourth wife.

Mr. SMITH, i have given the others.

The CHAIRMAN. Please repeat the name of the fourth wife, and the
children.

Mr. SMITH. The fourth wife is Alice K.

The CHAIRMAN. And the names of the children.

Mr. SMITH. The children are Fielding, Jesse, and Andrew.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the fifth.

Mr. SMITH. I gave them also. The fifth wife is Mary. The chil-
dren are Silas, Agnes, and James, and I am not sure about the age of
the one older.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, may I ask 3Tou right there, if any children
have been born to you from these wives since the manifesto, who are
not living, aside from the ones who are living?

Mr. SMITH. None, except the one 1 have named, and I do not remem-
ber about that date.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Whose child is Robert? Have you a son Robert?

Mr. SMITH. I have a son Robert that was born — if he was living-
he would be 18 years old to-day.

Mr. TAYLER. That is the only Robert?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And a daughter Lucy ?

Mr. SMITH. I have a daughter Lucy, and she is living, but she was
born before the manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is she?

Mr. SMITH. I think she is 15 years of age.

Mr. TAYLER. How old are Edith and Rachel?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you from memory. 1 think Rachel is
about 12 years old.

Mr. TAYLER. She is younger than Edith?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is Edith?

Mr. SMITH. She is nearly 8.

Mr. TAYLER. Nearly what?

Mr. SMITH. Nearly 8 years old; between 7 and 8, I think. I am
not positive about that. I am not in the habit of carrying the dates
of the births of my children in my mind.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand. So Edith was born to your wife Julina
when you had been married over thirty years?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; quite so. I think she was over 45 years of
age when the child was born.

Mr. TAYLER. How old was she when you married her?

Mr. SMITH. Between 16 and 17 years of age.

REED SMOOT. 881

Mr. WORTHINGTON, Mr. Chairman, what in the world has that to
do with whether Senator Smoot should hold his seat in the Senate or
not — asking him whether a child was begotten when his wife was 45
years old?

Mr. TALLER, Well, I do not know. Some things might be important.
When did you marry her?

Mr. SMITH. I married her on the 5th day of April, 1866.

Mr. TAYLER. You then had a wife?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. She was, then, your plural wife?

Mr. SMITH. This one was my plural wife*

Mr. TAYLER. Have you been married to her since?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When?

Mr. SMITH. After the divorce of my first wife.

Mr. TAYLER. When did she get that divorce?

Mr. SMITH. I can not tell you from memory.

Mr. TAYLER. I mean was it a short time after your plural marriage ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Or a long time ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; it was a short time after the marriage of the
second wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, you stated that Apostle Teasdale told you
that when he married Marian Scoles he thought his first wife was not
living.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; 1 did not say so.

Mr. TAYLER. I did not mean to do anything but quote you as I
thought you spoke. What was it you said?

Mr. SMITH. I said he told me that he understood at the time of his
marriage with Marian Scoles that he had no legal wife living.

Mr. TAYLER. No legal wife living?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where was he married?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know where he was married.

Mr. TAYLER. Where could he have been married?

Mr. VAN COTT. I object to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLER. You seem to laugh a good deal, and still object
strenuously.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 did not laugh, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did all the smiling. He did the objecting.

Mr. TAYLER. This apostle said to the president of the church that he
had been married, and that when he was married to Marian Scoles, who
was in fact his plural wife, taken some years after the manifesto, he
took that plural wife because he thought he did not have a legal wife
living. I want to know where, according to the rites of the Mormon
Church, he could have been married. He said he did not know where
he was married. Now, as the head of the Mormon Church, I want to
know where an apostle could have been married to Marian Scoles?

Mr. SMITH. He could have been married —

Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment, Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I want
to call the attention of counsel on the other side to the fact that I do
not think it is proper for him to make those statements. I do not do
it in any offensive way, but that goes into the record and will probably

382 REED SMOOT.

•

be read by Senators and taken for proof of the fact. Mr. Tayler may
be right in his statement; I do not know; but I do not think it is proper
for Mr. Tayler to make those statements, and I think lie should with-
draw from the record the statement he makes. He made it voluntarily,
and it should not go on the record.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The statement that Teasdale was married after
the manifesto.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the statement of counsel ought not to be
and will not be considered as evidence in the matter. Mr. Tayler,
you can frame your questions so as to draw out the facts you desire,
probably.

Mr. TAYLER. I have not been suspecting that my statement of what
I was trying to prove would be taken by the committee as testimony,
but it is impossible to escape stating the fact.

Mr. VAN COTT. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman—

The CHAIRMAN. I think we will have no trouble about it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, 1 object to the question, and just so
that it will be clearly understood I ask to have the reporter read the
last questions, so that the committee can understand the question that
is objected to.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. Where was he married?

"Mr. SMITH. I do not know where he was married.

"Mr. TAYLER. Where could he have been married? "

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the question we object to. The witness says
he does not know where he was married. And he is asked: " Where
could he have been married?" That is an improper question to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 suppose Mr. Tayler means by that to inquire of
the witness where it would have been proper for the church to have
performed the ceremony.

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the question is in order. You may answer,
Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I do not know, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know where it could have been per-
formed ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. I am just about through, but I am waiting for some-
thing I called attention to before. [A pause.] I do not think, Mr.
Chairman, 1 have anything further to ask. 1 desire, however, to call
the attention of the witness later on to the particular interview to
which reference has been made, printed in the Deseret News.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, I will not press it, but I will ask you if
you have any objection to stating how many children you have, in all.

Mr. SMITH. Altogether?

The CHAIRMAN. Yeg.

Mr. SMITH. I have had born to me, sir, 42 children, 21 boys and 21
girls, and I am proud of every one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is your official residence? You spoke of
the official residence. Where is that?

Mr. SMITH. My official residence is in the Beehive House, Salt Lake
City.

REED SMOOT. 383

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that?

Mr. SMITH. It is adjoining my office.

The CHAIRMAN. The Beehive House. How long has that been the
official residence of the various presidents?

Mr. SMITH. It was purchased by the church during the administra-
tion of Lorenzo Snow, and fitted up for him.

The CHAIRMAN. And you live with one of your wives in that official
residence ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. With his legal wife, he says.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that this property belongs to the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is the Beehive House.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that in relation to the tabernacle?

Mr. SMITH. It is just east of the tabernacle, on the next block.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it in an obscure portion of the city or the cen-
tral portion ?

Mr. SMITH. It is in the cenLral portion.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it in any way protected from the public ? I mean
by a high fence.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it open?

Mr. SMITH. It is open, absolutely, on — I was going to say on four
sides, but it is open on three sides.

The CHAIRMAN. Now,, where are the residences of your other wives ?

Mr. SMITH. Three of them reside in the Sixteenth Ward.

The CHAIRMAN. As to this official residence, I want to know where
they are?

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. As to the official residence, how far are these resi-
dences of the other wives from the official residence?

Mr. SMITH. By the nearest road, about 1 mile.

The CHAIRMAN. And these residences of your- other wives are not
connected, then, with the grounds of the official residence?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In passing from the official residence to the resi-
dences of the three you have spoken of, you of course pass through
the usual streets — the highways of the city?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where does Senator Smoot reside?

Mr. SMITH. He resides in Provo.

The CHAIRMAN. Not in the city of Salt Lake ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the tabernacle? That is your chief place
of worship I understand.

Mr. SMITH. The tabernacle?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; how far from the official residence?

Mr. SMITH. Just one block.

The CHAIRMAN. In sight of the official residence?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have services there weekly?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the capacity of the tabernacle ?

Mr. SMITH, It will comfortably seat between eight and nine thou-

384 REED SMOOT.

sand people, and we can put from ten to twelve thousand people in it
by crowding.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you attend these services yourself?

Mr. TAYLER. Can you crowd that many in, sitting?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you attend these services, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. When I can.

The CHAIRMAN. And when present do you conduct the services ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who conducts them?

Mr. SMITH. The president of the stake, except in our general con-
ferences.

The CHAIRMAN. At the regular meetings on the Sabbath?

Mr. SMITH. That is the presidency, of the stake; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you sometimes attend?

Mr. SMITH. I sometimes attend; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you sometimes preach at that time?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the apostles attend?

Mr. SMITH. Sometimes they attend.

The CHAIRMAN. In what numbers ? All of them or only a portion ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; occasionally one or two.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you attend service on the Sabbath?

Mr. SMITH. My duties call me to attend the quarterly conferences
of the church, and nine-tenths of the time, nearly, during the year, I
am absent from Salt Lake City, attending conferences of the people.

The CHAIRMAN. Do your families attend this tabernacle ?

Mr. SMITH. They attend it sometimes, and sometimes their ward
meetings.

The CHAIRMAN. But they attend every Sabbatli one meeting or the
other? ^

Mr. SMITH. I could not say. I wish they would, Mr. Chairman,
but sometimes they do not go to meeting.

The CHAIRMAN And with their children?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes; they sometimes take their children.

The CHAIRMAN These other residences in which your wives live, do
those belong to the church ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; they belong to my wives.

The CHAIRMAN. Purchased by them.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; purchased by me and given to them.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; I see.

Mr. SMITH. They own their own homes.

The CHAIRMAN. You purchased them, and then-
Mr. SMITH. Deeded them to the mothers.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, is there an organization known as the
Reform Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any organization of that name.

The CHAIRMAN. I may be mistaken in the name. There is a Mor-
monisrn organization, separate from the organization to which you
belong ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that called?

Mr. SMITH. It is called the Reorganized Church.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you ever a member of that?

REED SMOOT. 385

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you acquainted at Piano, 111. ?
Mr. SMITH. Some twenty years ago I called there and visited with
my cousin, who was then residing there, but he is not living there
now.

The CHAIRMAN. Did this organization of which you speak have an
existence in that place?

Mr. SMITH. It did at that time. There was a branch of it at that
time there.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was at the head of that organization then ?
Mr. SMITH. Joseph Smith, my cousin.

The CHAIRMAN. He was a cousin of yours?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And is he living?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And a lineal descendant, I suppose, of Joseph
Smith ?

Mr. SMITH. He is a son of Joseph Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he still at the head of that organization, do you
know?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that the prophet Joseph
Smith — I mean the original revelator —

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say, somewhere in your testi-
mony, that he was in his lifetime a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you name any person to whom he was married ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or any child born to him—

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no; I can not tell you anything about the children.
I can tell you one or two of his wives.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will be kind enough to give them to me, I
will be obliged to you.

Mr. SMITH. Eliza R. Snow.

The CHAIRMAN. When did he marry her?

Mr. SMITH. He married her in 1842, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, another?

Mr. SMITH. Eliza Maria Partridge was one of his wives.

The CHAIRMAN. When was that?

Mr. SMITH. Somewhere in the forties; I do not know just when;
I could not tell from memory.

The CHAIRMAN. Was his first wife alive at that time?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom else, that you know of ?

Mr. SMITH. It would be very difficult for me to tell you who else
from memory.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, pardon me for making the sug-
gestion, but 1 understood the committee to decide that the inquiry was
to be limited to what happened after the manifesto, in relation to the
violation of the laws.

The CHAIRMAN. It is not for that purpose. He has testified to the
fact that the original prophet, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist, which
is denied by some people, and I want to find out the fact. That is all,

s 25

386 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. I was going to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I can give
you the names of the ladies that were married to Joseph Smith, and
the dates on which they were married, and the name of the person offi-
ciating, if I have the time to do it. I did not bring any data of that
kind with me here.

The CHAIRMAN. Are these women living, any of them, now ?

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Are any of these several wives you speak of, of
Joseph Smith, living now?

Mr. SMITH. I do not think any of them are living now.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How far is Provo from Salt Lake City ?

Mr. SMITH. It is about 50 miles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you ever see Senator Smoot at church at
the tabernacle?

Mr. SMITH. At conference, I have.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. On Sunday, I mean. You speak of Sunday
meeting's.

Mr. SMITH. I do not recollect that I ever saw him there except dur-
ing our conference.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now as to Mr. Teasdale. Does he live in Salt
Lake City?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where does he live?

Mr. SMITH. He lives at Nephi.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know what is his present condition
physically, as to age?

Mr. SMITH. About three or four weeks ago he came to me and
informed that he was suffering very severely with an attack of grip,
and asked for permission to go away from home and from duties for
a little while to recuperate. I said to him, "Go and take care of
yourself." He is a very aged man. He is a very slender built man
and very feeble.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, are these conferences largely attended?

Mr. SMITH. Do you mean the general conferences ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. All the way from ten to fifteen thousand people attend
them.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the apostles attend ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does Mr. Smoot attend?

Mr. SMITH. When he can he does, I suppose.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, he does not attend when he can not.

Mr. SMITH. No.

The CHAIRMAN. But he attends sometimes.

Mr. SMITH. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You have seen him?

Mr. SMITH. At the general conferences; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do your wives attend?

Mr. SMITH. I could not swear that they do nor that they do not.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no knowledge about it?

Mr. SMITH. I think some of my people generally go to meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. The women generally attend?

Mr. SMITH. What, my wives?

REED SMOOT. 387

The CHAIRMAN. No; the women generally belonging to the Mormon
Church.

Mr, SMITH. Our people generally are very good churchgoers.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you not answer the question ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not understand. I do not know, Mr. Chairman,
how to answer it. I could not tell you.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the conferences. You say you
attend conferences, do you not?

Mr. SMITH. I attend there in my official capacity as the president
of the conference.

The CHAIRMAN. You attend conferences?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you preside?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And the apostles attend?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You have seen Mr. Smoot there?

Mr. SMITH. I have seen him there occasionally; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what I asked you was whether your wives
attend also at these conferences?

Mr. SMITH. I think likely they do.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How far is Nephi from Salt Lake City?

Mr. SMITH. It is a little over 90 miles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How far from Provo?

Mr. SMITH. It is 40 odd miles — a little over 40 miles from Provo,
south of Provo.

Senator DUBOIS. How old was President Woodruff when he died ?

Mr. SMITH. I am not quite sure, but I think he was somewhere
about 94 or 95 — somewhere along there.

Senator DUBOIS. He was 80 odd then when the manifesto was issued
by him?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I should suppose he was.

Senator DUBOIS. How old was Lorenzo Snow, the next succeeding
president, when he died ?

Mr. SMITH. When he died?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. He was 84—82, I think.

Senator DUBOIS. He would have been considerably over 70 then
when the manifesto was issued, necessarily.

Mr. SMITH. Necessarily, I think.

Senator DUBOIS. You testified that they did not continue their
polygamous relations after the manifesto. That was all.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Senator HOAR. How old are you, Mr. Smith ?

Mr. SMITH. I was 65 last November.

Senator HOAR. 1 wish to ask one thing, Mr. Smith. When you
took the chair you declined to take the oath, but took an affirmation.
Is that some view of duty personal to you, or is it a part of the doc-
trine in your church, as it is with the Quakers and Shakers?

Mr. SMITH. We believe in the Scriptures, "swear not at all."

Senator HOAR. Then that is a doctrine of your church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

388 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOAR. I have asked that because it has been said by the
counsel opposed to you that they conceded that Mr. Smoot had taken
no oath, I think, inconsistent with his obligation as a Senator. I do
not think there is any doubt, but I think it ought to be made clear
that that phrase "taking no oath " applies in Mr. Smoot's mind and
in the mind of the counsel to having taken no affirmation.

Mr. SMITH. Just the same.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The sworn answer says uno oath or no obliga-
tion."

Senator OVERMAN. Let me ask a question for my own satisfaction.
I have a little pamphlet which states that you teach that our Savior
was a polygamist. Is that so ?

Mr. SMITH. We do not teach any such doctrine. We simply teach
the historical fact that Jesus Christ descended through a line of polyga-
mists from David and Abraham.

Senator OVERMAN. You do not teach that he had polygamous rela-
tions ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Call your next witness, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. I will call Mrs. Kennedy.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. CLARA MABEL BARBER KENNEDY.

Mrs. CLARA MABEL BARBER KENNEDY, having been duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Your full name is Mabel Barber Kennedy, is it?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Clara Mabel Barber Kennedy.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mrs. Kennedy ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I live in Sevier County, Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I have lived there four years — four years ago this
coining summer.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you born ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I was born in Albany, N. Y.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you go to Utah early in life?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; at 2 years old.

Mr. TAYLER. And your family was a Mormon family there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At Utah?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; in Utah.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes; my father and mother are both Mormons.

Mr. TAYLER. And later, while you were still young, did they move
to Mexico ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where in Mexico did you and your family live?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At Diaz, Mexico.

Mr. TAYLER. How old were you when you went there?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About 10 years old — a little more than 10 years old.

Mr. TAYLER. Was your mother a plural wife?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And you were taught the propriety of plural mar-
riage, were you, during your early years?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; I did not know any difference.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did the witness give her age ?

Mr. TAYLER. No, she did not give her age. How old are you?

REED SMOOT. 389

Mrs. KENNEDY. I am 26 years old this coming June.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did yon live at Diaz, Mexico?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About seven or eight years, I think.

Mr. TAYLER. Until you were about 17 years old?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is Diaz a Mormon community or colony?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; strictly Mormons.

Mr. TAYLER. And is plural marriage generally practiced there, or
was it at that time ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I believe so; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When you were about 17 years old, were you married ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you married ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. James Francis Johnson.

Mr. TAYLER. Where was his home when you married him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At Mesa, Maricopa County, Ariz.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he at the time you married him a married man ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know his wife; that is, did }rou meet his wife?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. His first wife, I mean ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where was she when }TOU saw her first?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At Diaz, Mexico.

Mr. TAYLER. Was the subject of your marrying her husband talked
over between you — among the three of you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, not exactly among the three of us, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Tell us what took place.

Mrs. KENNEDY. It was between her and her husband, and I had a
slight interview with his wife; not very lengthy.

Mr. TAYLER. Did she know you were to marry him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; I think she did.

Mr. TAYLER. Did she give her consent to it?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I think she did.

Mr. TAYLER. Was an arrangement made for you to go to another
place and be married ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you to go to be married ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. We were to go to Juarez, Mexico.

Mr. TAYLER. How far is that from Diaz?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About 75 miles.

Mr. TAYLER. How did you go?

Mrs. KENNEDY. By wagon.

Mr. TAYLER. And who were in the party.

Mrs. KENNEDY. There was Mr. Johnson, his wife, myself, and one
baby in the wagon.

Mr. TAYLER. Whose baby?

Mrs. KENNEDY. His wife's baby — Mr. Johnson's baby.

Mr. TAYLER. You reached Juarez in two or three days, or two days ?
How long did it take you ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Two days — two days and a half.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did you stop, all of you ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. We stopped at his half-brother's, Benjamin John-
son, or Benjy, as he was called then.

390 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. And when were you married; how long after you got
there?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About two weeks.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you married?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At president — well, he is not exactly president; he
is among one of the first presidents of the stake.

Mr. TAYLER. What day of the month and year was this ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. It was on the 19th evening of May.

Mr. TAYLER. Of what year ? What year was it you went there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I can not just recall.

Mr. TAYLER. How old were you? That is the way to get at it.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I was 17 years old.

Mr. TAYLER. And you are now 26 ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. We can figure that out. 1896?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And who married you ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Brother Young married me.

Mr. TAYLER. Brother Brigham Young?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Brother Brigham Young.

Mr. TAYLER. That is, the Apostle Brigham Young?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I suppose so.

Mr. TAYLER. You have heard him so called?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did you live with Mr. Johnson?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About five years from the time that I was married
to him until I came back home. Of course, that would be just about
five years.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any children by him ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Two.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they living?

Mrs. KENNEDY. One is living.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is that child?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He will be 7 years old next September.

Mr. TAYLER. You finally separated, did you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you tell me at whose house you were married?

Mrs. KENNEDY. A. F. McDonald.

Mr. TAYLER. And he, you say, was the president or councilor of
the stake?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he present at the marriage?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you seen Apostle Brigham Young before this
time?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Before I was married?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At Diaz, Mexico.

Mr. TAYLER. You had been living there five or six years, I believe
you said.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 391

Mr. TAYLEK. Will you look at that picture [exhibiting a book to
the witness] and tell me if that is a picture of the man who married you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, now, I couldn't say as to that. It has been
a number of years since I saw him, now. I couldn't say.

Mr. TAYLER. You could not say from the picture?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I could not say from the picture whether that was
him or not.

Mr. TAYLER. He was at Diaz frequently while you lived there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Did you stay at this house where you were married
or did you merely go there for the ceremony ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I went there for the ceremony.

Senator HOAR. And you found the Mr. Young who married you at
the house of the president?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was he there when you arrived?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Who?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Young. You found him there? You said, in
answer to the Senator's question, that you found him at the house
where you were married?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was he there when you arrived?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I could not say as to that.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask you in that connection who were
present at the time Mr. Young performed this ceremony ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Mr. Johnson, Mr. McDonald, myself, and Mr.
Young.

The CHAIRMAN. And was Mrs. Johnson, the other wife, there?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. She was not present?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where was she?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I suppose she was at his half brother's, Mr. John-
son's.

The CHAIRMAN. How far from there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I should say about half a mile.

The CHAIRMAN. In your conversation with Mrs. Johnson, the first
wife, did she consent to this marriage on your part with her husband?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I think she did.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell us what the ceremony was pronounced
by Mr. Young.

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I could not.

The CHAIRMAN. Or the substance of it?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I could not say.

The CHAIRMAN. You can not give the substance of it?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I can not.

The CHAIRMAN. You stood up, I suppose, and some ceremony was
performed ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there any religious service of any kind, prayer,
or anything of that kind ?

kMrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. Who was Mr. Johnson? What place did he occupy
n the church ? That is a question I forgot to ask you.

392 REED SMOOT.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I think he was councilor to the stake president.

Mr. TAYLEK. At Mesa, Ariz. ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. After you married him and were living with him
what official position did he have ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He held the same for a while, I think. I do not
know how long*.

Mr. TAYLEK. He was constantly in an official position of some kind
in the churth, was he?

Mrs. KENNEDY. In the stake.

Mr. TAYLER. In the stake; yes.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. What has become of Mr. Johnson ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. That I could not say. I do not know where he is.

Senator FORAKER. How did you come to separate? Under what
circumstances and for what cause ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, because I just couldn't stand the pressure any
longer. That was all.

Senator FORAKER. You left him or he left you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I left him.

Senator FORAKER. At what place?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I left him — do you mean when I came to Utah ?

Senator FORAKER. Whenever you left him. Did you leave him and
go back to Utah?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I left him and came to Utah.

Senator FORAKER. I asked where you left him. It is not very
important.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I left him in Marysvale.

Senator FORAKER. In Mexico?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; Utah. That is, I hardly understand your
question, about where I left him.

Senator FORAKER. You said you left him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. And I asked simply where you left him.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I left him and came to Utah on a visit.

Senator FORAKER. And then did not return ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. And then I did not return.

Senator FORAKER. Where was he when you left him; in Utah?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He was in Arizona.

Senator FORAKER. How long did }^ou live at Diaz after you married
him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I lived there about three or four months.

Senator FORAKER. Then where did you go ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I went to Arizona.

Mr. TAYLER. What place in Arizona?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Mesa City.

Senator FORAKER. And you continued to reside there with Mr.
Johnson until the time you speak of, when you left him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; except that I lived in a little settlement
about 3 miles distant, called Nephi.

Senator FORAKER. Where was Mrs. Johnson No. 1 living?

Mrs. KENNEDY. She was living at Mesa City.

Senator FORAKER. She lived with him ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

EEED SMOOT. 393

Senator FORAKER. And you lived off in the settlement, is that it?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; I lived with him — with her part of the
time, and the other part 1 lived alone, away from the family.

Senator FORAKER. Did Mr. Johnson have any other wives besides
yourself and the Mrs. Johnson to whom you have referred ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. He had only two ? Did he have any children by
Mrs. Johnson?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Then when did you marry Mr. Kennedy?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Let me see— I married Mr. Kennedy the 21st of
October four years ago.

Senator FORAKER. Four years ago?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; three years ago, this coming fall, I married Mr.
Kennedy.

Senator FORAKER. That is, it will be three years this coming October ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; three years.

Senator FORAKER. Then you married him in 1901?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. In October?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I am very poor at remembering dates.

Senator FORAKER. Well, we do not want to confuse you at all. We
just want to get at the facts. Where did you marry him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I married him at Manti.

Senator FORAKER. Where is that?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Utah.

Senator FORAKER. Did you marry him before you separated from
Mr. Johnson?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Afterwards?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Afterwards.

Se nator FORAKER. How long afterwards ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About a year.

Senator FORAKER. So that you left Mr. Johnson probably in Octo-
ber, 1900?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Then, }^ou lived with him about four years
altogether?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Mr. Kennedy?

Senator FORAKER. No; Mr. Johnson. You lived with Mr. Johnson
about four years?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. How soon after you left Mr. Johnson did you
become acquainted with Mr. Kennedy, or did you know him before
you left Mr. Johnson?

Mrs. KENNEDY. 1 became acquainted with Mr. Kennedy after I left
Mr. Johnson.

Senator FORAKER. How long after?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About — well, that I could not exactly say, either,
about how long it was.

Senator FORAKER. Give us some idea.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Just a few months. It was not very long before I
became acquainted with him.

394 REED SMOOT

Senator FORAKER. You met him, then, after you returned to your
old home in Utah?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. You never had known him before ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. To what church, if any, does Mr. Kennedy
belong ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. If he belongs to any church, he belongs to the
Church of England. He was raised in the Church of England.

Senator FORAKER. You mean the Episcopal Church ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. The Episcopal Church. I am not acquainted with
the names. J never have attended any of the outside churches.

Senator FORAKER. He is not a Mormon ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. How old a man is he?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He is about 42 or 43 years old.

Senator FORAKER. You have resided with him since until now, I
understand ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. You can not tell us anything more about this
ceremony than you have related?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I could not.

Senator HOAR. The children you speak of are the children of the
Mormon husband, are they?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I had two. My first two children were by Mr.
Johnson.

Mr. TAYLER. One of them is dead, she said.

Senator HOAR. Yes; I remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any children by your present husband?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I have two children.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you left Mr. Johnson because of the pres-
sure— you could not stand the pressure ? What do you mean by that?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I mean because I was not treated just right; that
is what I mean by that.

Mr. TAYLER. State, Mrs. Kennedy, what you want to say about
that.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I was not treated right at all. That covers
it. That is as much as I can say, of course.

Senator FORAKER. Would you have sta}7ed if you had been treated
right?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; I certainly should.

Senator FORAKER. It was not then, are we to infer, because of any
objection }TOU had to the polygamous state that made you leave?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I do not — no, sir; it was not.

The CHAIRMAN. You had been brought up in that faith?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Are you still a Mormon }^ourself ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; not a very good one though, but 1 still
cling to that.

Senator OVERMAN. You adhere to that doctrine ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. How did Mrs. Johnson treat you ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, not very good. ,

REED SHOOT. 395

Senator FORAKER. Was it she or her husband who mistreated you,
or both of them?

Mrs. KENNEDY. It was both of them.

Senator FORAKER. As I understand you, he lived with her regularly
and you were supported by him at some place 3 miles distant?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. At a settlement, I believe you said?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Did he visit you there from time to time?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Sometimes; not very often.

Senator FORAKER. Did he support you there — furnish you with food
and clothing, I mean; or in what manner did he treat you in that
respect?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, he supported me. I guess you would think
he supported me. I did not think he supported me.

Senator FORAKER. I do not want to go into anything embarrassing.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mrs. Kennedy, who were the persons who were
present at that marriage, when you married Johnson in Mexico?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Mr. Johnson, myself—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Johnson, your husband?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir. Mr. McDonald and Mr. Taylor.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Taylor?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Apostle Taylor.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Apostle Taylor?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Excuse me — Brother Young.

The CHAIRMAN. Allow me to ask one question before you go on.
After you married Mr. Johnson did you live with him and his first
wife in the same house any portion of the time?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You did live together?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How did you come to say " Apostle Taylor?"

Mrs. KENNEDY, It just confused me. I was just confused, was all.
It was not any mistake —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Oh, no.

Senator HOAR. I wanted to know whether you received any form
of marriage certificate?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. Was this house where you were married a private
house ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Or one of the public buildings of the church?

Mrs. KENNEDY. It was a private house.

Senator HOAR. What did you say was the place in the church of the
owner of that house?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Sir?

Senator HOAR. What did you say was the office in the church of the
owner of that house ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He was councilor, to the president.

Senator HOAR. Councilor to the president?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To the president of that stake.

Senator HOAR. And can you give any more account, from memory,
of the ceremonial ?

396 KEED SMOOT.

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I can not.

Senator HOAR. You stood up together?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Did he pronounce you husband and wife ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Was there any religious service whatever?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. How long did the ceremonial last, do you think,
where you stood up?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Just a few moments.

Senator OVERMAN. Did he read from a book?

Senator HOAR. Did he ask you if you accepted that man as your
wedded husband, or any questions of that sort ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. That I can not say. I do not remember.

Senator HOAR. You do not remember what you said or what Mr.
Johnson, your husband, said on that matter? Do you remember any-
thing of the ceremony at all ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes; I remember I said — I answered yes when the
questions were asked.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said the persons present were the man
whom you married, Mr. Johnson, and a Mr. McDonald, and the man
who married you, and yourself ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Those four persons?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There were no other persons in the room?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You know, I suppose, that Brigham Young is
dead?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I heard it a few weeks ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You know also, I presume, that Mr. McDonald
is dead ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I did not know the fact. I had not been
informed of the fact.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Johnson, you say, whom you married, is
living?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I think he is. I could not say as to that, but I
think he is.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where?

Mrs. KENNEDY. 1 do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When did you last hear of his being at any par-
ticular place as an abiding place ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I could not say that either. I do not know any-
thing about him. I have not heard anything of him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When did you leave him or separate from him ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I left him about six or seven }^ears ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You can not come any nearer than say ing about
six or seven }^ears ago ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May it have been eight years?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Somewhere about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or five?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; it was more than that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where were you living when you left him?

EEED SMOOT. 397

Mrs. KENNEDY. Where was I living?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; where were you and he living up to the
time you left him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I was Living at Arizona, Mesa City.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was he living there?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you living with him there as his wife ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You hesitate about that. What do you mean?
Do you mean to hesitate because you had any doubt whether you were
living there with him as his wife when you separated?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I was living with him as his wife, certainly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was he doing there ? Did he have any
occupation ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Not at the time I left.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Had he had any occupation?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He was running a store.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What kind of a store?

Mrs. KENNEDY. General merchandise.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you left there, six or seven or eight
years ago, where did you go ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. 1 came to Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you never heard of him since, so that you
can give us any idea where he has been or whether he is alive ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I could not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You know nothing about him since then?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I know nothing about him since then.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had two children then?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I had one child alive. The other one died.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you take your child with you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old was the child?

Mrs. KENNEDY. When I left?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Mrs. KENNEDY. He was not quite two years old.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you fix the year when you were married?
You said you were married on the 19th of May, did you not?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You are sure about that date, are you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was when you were 17?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are you sure about that?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I just lacked one month.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You would have been 17 in June?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Following the day 3^ou were married?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; I would have been 17 the 16th day of
June, and I was married May 19.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you give us with absolute certainty the
date of your birth ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; 1 was born on the 16th day of June, 1877,

398 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Row often had you seen Brigham Young
before he married you to Johnson ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Not very often.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Well, approximately; half a dozen times— a
dozen ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Oh, no; not more than maybe twice.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And on the other occasions where had you seen
him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I had seen him once — 1 had seen him twice, I think,
in Mexico.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But where in Mexico ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At both Diaz and Juarez.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you saw him in Diaz, where was he in
Diaz ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. That I could not say, where he was.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you not know where he was when you saw
him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you not know whether it was in a house or
on the street?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I could not say.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How do you know you saw him at all if you do
not know whether you saw him in a house or on the street and can
not tell us anything about where you saw him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, I just remember that I seen him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You do not remember anything about where
you saw him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I saw him in the town. I can not tell you just ex-
actly where.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not ask for exactly where, but I ask under
what circumstances, or whether it was in a house or in a church or in
a wagon.

Mrs. KENNEDY. It was in the church, 1 think, or in the meeting-
house.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then why did you say, if it was in a meeting-
house, that you could not tell whether it was in a building or on the
street? Well, it was in a church, was it not? Do you settle down on
that?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you hear him preach ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or did you see him present.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I just saw him present.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long were you in the same church where
he was on that occasion ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Not over a couple of hours.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you sit near him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How far from him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Back in the audience.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You saw his face ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had a good look at him?

RESD SMOOT. 399

Mrs. KENNEDY. I do not know that I looked —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mrs. Kennedy, I am not asking these questions
foolishly. We want to know whether the man who married you was
really Brigham Young, if you were married at that time.

Mrs. KENNEDY. That is what I was told — he was Brigham Young.

Mr. WORTHING TON. 1 understand. You saw him in the church once
at Diaz before he married you ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you see him more than once at Diaz before
he married you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Once or twice.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where was it the other time?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I think it was in the same capacity.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you mean by "in the same capacity ?"

Mrs. KENNEDY. In meeting, in the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Just as a church-goer. You simply went to
church ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You did not participate in the ceremonies ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, he talked.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Oh, he did. How long did he talk?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, not very long.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He had his face toward the audience, of course,
when he talked?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you had a good look at his face?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you saw him before you were married,
at some other town or some other place besides Diaz. Where was
that?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Before we were married?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes. You said, a few moments ago, that before
you were married you had seen him at two different places, as I under-
stood you, Diaz being one place and the other place I have forgotten.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I saw him at Juarez.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long before you were married?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Just a few days — yes; just a few days.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. A few days before he married you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And under what circumstances did you
him at Juarez ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. In the meetinghouse.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did he preach there?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that then you had a good opportunity
see him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. On the day he married you, how long were you
in his presence ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I should judge about an hour.

Mr. WOTHINGTON,, Now, from all these opportunities you had to see
the man, I wish you would describe the man to the committee.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, he was quite a large man. He was rather
short. I think that he — I do not remember whether he wore a mus-

400 REED SMOOT.

tache or not. He had quite prominent features. That is all the
description I could give of him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. About how old was he?

Mrs. KENNEDY. That I could not say, about how old he was.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You could give us some approximation cer-
tainly.

Mrs. KENNEDY. He must have been, I should judge, along in the
forties somewhere probably, or 50. I could not say positively as to
that, how old he was.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. All you can say is he was somewhere about a
middle-aged man ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was not a young man nor an old man .

Mrs. KENNEDY. .No, sir; he was a middle-aged man.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to his hair, I suppose when you saw him in
church and when he married you he was bareheaded, of course?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you notice whether he had any hair; and if
so, what its color was; or was he bald?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He was partly bald. His hair was not real white.
It was streaked with white.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And he was partly bald ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you give us any idea of the extent of his
baldness? Was it slight or great?

Mrs. KENNEDY. That I could not say.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you see the man who married you after the
ceremony, at any time since ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did anybody make any records, in your pres-
ence, of this marriage?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Not that I know of.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where do you live now, Mrs. Kennedy?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I live in Sevier County, Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What place in Sevier County.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I couldn't hardly tell you what place. I live at a
mine called the Antelope Mine.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. With Mr. Kennedy ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long have you lived there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. We have lived there about — we have lived there
about six months.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where did you live before that?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I lived at Marysvale.

Mr. W'ORTHINGTON. With your husband?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long did you live in Marysvale, away from
your husband?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I lived at Marysvale with my mother. How long —
what did you say ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long was it you were living at Marysvale
away from your husband ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. How long from the time I left him ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When were you married to Mr, Kennedy?

EEED SMOOT. 401

Mrs. KENNEDY. I was married to Mr. Kennedy the 21st day of
October.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What year?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Three years ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Three years next October?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Three years ago this coming October.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is what you said to Senator Foraker. If
that is correct, it would make you married October 21, 1901. How
many children have you now ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. 1 have three children.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Two of them since you married Mr. Kennedy?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes. sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old is the oldest one?

Mrs. KENNEDY. The oldest one is not quite 7 years old.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you give us the date of its birth?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He was born the 13th day of September. I forget
the year.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was the September following your marriage,

1 presume?

Mr. TAYLER. Which marriage are you speaking of?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean the last one.

Mr. TAYLER. She does not understand you. Of course we only
want to get the truth.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think she does.

Mr. TAYLER. I think she is referring to the child by Mr. Johnson
when she says it is 7 years old, of course.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Oh, yes.

Mr. TAYLER. You were speaking of Mr. Johnson's child when you
said it was 7 years old ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think under the circumstances it would be
much better to let the witness answer the questions, Mr. Tayler, and if
she should make a mistake it can be corrected.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 do not want you to be under any misapprehension
here, and I want you to get the truth absolutely.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think the better way to get the truth would
be to let her make her statements, and if she makes any mistakes they
can be corrected.

Your oldest child by Mr. Kennedy was born when ? That is, the
one you were referring to when you said it was born in September?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; the first child I had by Mr. Kennedy is

2 years old in May — this coming May.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then it was born in May, 1902 ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You were married to Mr. Kennedy on the 21st
of October previously. That is right, is it?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did he know you had been married before to
Mr. Johnson?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 think you have not told us yet how long you
had lived with your mother prior to your going to the place where you
live now with your husband. How long had you been there?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I lived with ma about two or three years.

s 26

402 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And away from Mr. Kennedy all that time?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was not acquainted with Mr. Kennedy — not
until after I came to Marysvale. Then I had been home a year — yes,
I had been home a little more than a year when we went to Marysvale.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Perhaps I am laboring under some mistake.
How long did you say you have lived where you are now, with your
husband, in Sevier County ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I have lived there about six months.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And immediately before that you had been
living somewhere with your mother, away from your husband, did you
not say ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then I did misunderstand you.

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I have not been living away from my hus-
band. I meant to say I had been living with ma before I was married
to Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. My question was where you lived before you
lived where you live now?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Where did I live before?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You say you have lived where you are living
now for six months ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I said I lived at Sevier Station with my husband,
Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long have you lived at Sevier Station
with him ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About three months.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where had you lived before that ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I lived in what is called or known as Belknap mine
or station.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long had you lived there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About six months.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And before that where had you lived ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. We lived at Richfield before we went to Belknap.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long had you lived at Richfield?

Mrs. KENNEDY. We lived at Richfield — let me see. [A pause.] I
went to Richfield in October and I moved away from there — let me
see. [A pause.] I lived in Richfield about a year and a half, I should
judge — somewhere about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, Mrs. Kennedy, I would like, if you
please, to have the day in May when your first child, by your present
husband, was born. You said he was born in May following your
marriage. What day of May ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. My first child?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By your present husband.

Mrs. KENNEDY. He was born in May— the 5th day of May.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The 5th day of May ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; he will be two years old the 5th day of
this coming May. That would make him born in 1892.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you were married to Kennedy where
were you married?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I was married at Manti, Utah.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By whom ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Mr. Reed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Reed?

EEED SMOOT. 403

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is he a Mormon priest or elder?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; he is dead now.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He is dead, too?

Mrs. KENNEDY. He died just as we was on the road coming out.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you married in the temple ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I was married at his house.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do I understand you were born in 1877?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then you will be 27 next June ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you would be £6.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Twenty-seven; I forget my age.

Senator FORAKER. I wish she would fix definitely when she was
married to Johnson. The testimony as it now stands is in doubt. I
understood Mr. Tayler to say she was married in 1896, and the wit-
ness said she was married when she was 17 years old. That would
make it 1894.

Mr. TAYLER. That is so. I do not know, except as she may be able
to state it. I thought her age when she was married would be the
easiest way to fix it.

Senator FORAKER. That is correct, is it, that you were 17 when you
were married, lacking one month?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. So that if you were born in June, 1877, and
married when you were within a month of 17 years of age, you would
have been married in May, 1894?

Mr. TAYLER. I think that is right. I think that fixes those dates.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And on the 19th day of May.

Senator FORAKER. The 19th day of May, 1894, and at Juarez, was
it not?

Mr. TAYLER. At Juarez.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Kennedy, you say your child will be 2 years
of age in May next?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Two years this coming May.

The CHAIRMAN. May of this present year?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; my oldest child by Mr. Kennedy.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is what I understand. Now, just a word.
You saw this man whom you call Brigham Young at church, did you ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He preached there?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You saw him how many times at a service ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Twice.

The CHAIRMAN. How did you know it was Brigham Young? Was
he presented to the audience^ or did anybody mention him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. They told me — they said it was Brigham Young.

The CHAIRMAN. Who told you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. The bishop; or— yes, the bishop addressed him as
Brother Young, or —

The CHAIRMAN. The bishop? In the meeting?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Addressed him as Brother Young?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

404 REED 8MOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you remained after the marriage about an
hour?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you talk with him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN, Did you see him ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; not after the marriage.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not? Did he go away?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was the individual who married you the same one
you heard preach and was introduced by the bishop as Brother Young ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not know?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir — yes, sir; it was.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, gentlemen, of this
witness ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, there are one or two things of
which we would like to be advised before we can say absolutely we are
through with the cross-examination of this witness, and we would like
at least to have her stay here until to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness will be here to-morrow morning, then,
at half past 10 o'clock, and the committee will stand adjourned until
that time.

Thereupon (at 4 o'clock and S minutes p. m.) the committee
adjourned until Tuesday, March 8, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 8, 1901,.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, Foraker, Hopkins,
Pettus, Dubois, and Overman, also Senator Smoot; also Robert W.
Tayler, counsel for the protestants; A. S. Worthlngton and Walde-
mar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S. Richards,
counsel for Joseph F. Smith and other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe the cross-examination of Mrs. Kennedy
was under way when the committee adjourned.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was given permission at the close to ask a few
more questions of Mrs. Kennedy. 1 should like to ask one or two
questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mrs. Kennedy present?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I am.

The CHAIRMAN. You will please take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. CLAKA MABEL BARBER KENNEDY - Con-
tinued.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I have observed, looking over your testimony,
that you have lived at Diaz for six or seven years.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you came to be married, you took a
wagon ride of about 75 miles with some others in the party.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

KEED SMOOT. 405

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Which took two days and a half.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To go where you were married.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I wish to ask if there was aity reason why you
were not married where you lived. Had any attempt been made to —

Mrs. KENNEDY. I do not know of any reason why.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You do not know why it was?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was there a Mormon colony at Diaz or near
Diaz?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; there were Mormon colonies in Diaz.
Diaz is a Mormon settlement.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was there a bishop there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think you said that you have attended the
meetings there when Apostle Young has been present and preached.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I attended one meeting.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you any idea or any knowledge as to why
it was, that, instead of getting married there

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You took this long journey in a wagon?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I could not give any statement.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know whether any effort had been
made to have the marriage celebrated by anybody else before you
went?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before you went to—

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before you went to Juarez?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Her answers are not understood. Where did she
say that she was married — in Mexico or in New Mexico ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. In old Mexico.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At Juarez ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. At Juarez.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. She lived at Diaz.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Senator HOAR. Both of those places are out of this country ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir; Diaz is also in Mexico.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Diaz is the first settlement in Mexico — the first
Mormon settlement. Juarez is the next. There are several Mexican
settlements between the two Mormon settlements.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were there any other Mormon settlements
between Diaz and Juarez ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was Juarez the nearest Mormon settlement to
Diaz?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, Mrs. Kennedy, do you not know that
some effort had been made to have that ceremony performed by some-
body else?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you not been so informed ?

406 EEED 8MOOT.

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If 1 have correctly read your testimony, Mrs.
Johnson, the first wife, was with this party that went to Juarez in the
wagon ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is correct?

Mrs. KENNEDY. It is.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you got to Juarez you went to some one's
house in Juarez?

Mrs. KENNEDY. To his half-brother's house.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Another —

Mrs. KENNEDY. Another Mr. Johnson.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But you were not married there ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; not at the house.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You were married at the house of Mr.
McDonald?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. About a mile away, or a half mile?

Mrs. KENNEDY. About a half mile away.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did Mrs. Johnson, the first wife, go with you
to where the marriage ceremony was performed?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. She remained at the half-brother's house?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I suppose so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you inform the person who performed this
ceremony, whatever it was, that the man to whom he was marrying
you had already a wife living ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Please ask that question again.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 asked you whether you informed the man
who married you that the man to whom he was marrying you already
had a wife living?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know whether or not anybody so
informed him?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir; I could not say.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, so far as you know, he may have sup-
posed he was marrying Mr. Johnson to his first wife when he married
you?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I suppose so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand from that, of course, that nothing
was said in his hearing, to your knowledge, to inform him of the fact
that Mr. Johnson already had a wife?

Mrs. KENNEDY. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you know, at any time, Apostle Teasdale?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was he in that country at or about this time?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you not know that application was made to
him to perform this marriage ceremony and that he refused to do it or
to authorize it?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you know of that subject?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Brother Teasdale refused positively; he said that
it could not be done; said the thing could not be done.

EEED SMOOT. 407

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How do you know that?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, he told my mother that it could not positively
be done. My mother interceded for me, and he told my mother that
such a thing could not be done; it had all been done away with; it
could not be done.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mrs. Kennedy, I asked you a few moments ago
whether application had not been made to somebody else to perform
this ceremony and that they had refused, and you said no. Your
answers do not seem to stand together, and I merel}7 mention it so that
you may explain it. Did you understand my first question ? I asked
you a little while ago whether an effort had been made to get anybody
else to perform this ceremony, and you said no.

Mrs. KENNEDY. Not that I knew of.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now you say that Apostle Teasdale had been
asked to perform the ceremony and refused. Do you not see that
those answers do not stand together. I am merely mentioning them
so that you may make any explanation, if there is any.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I do not know how-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. I beg pardon.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I have tried to forget those things. I have tried to
put them away from me and to forget them all. They were not

gleasant for me to think about, therefore I have put them aside. I
ave not thought of them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, proceed.

Mr. TAYLER. What you learned —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 'Pardon me a moment.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask a question. Is your mother living?

Mrs. KENNEDY. My mother is living.

Mr. TAYLER. She will be here in a minute. This is hearsay.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well.

Mr. TAYLER. What you learned about Apostle Teasdale refusing to
marry you you learned from your mother? You did not know it
yourself, then?

Mrs. KENNEDY. 1 did not know it myself. I simply knew it because
my mother told me.

Mr. TAYLER. Let the marshal-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. When was it your mother told you that? I do
not like to press you about the matter.

Mrs. KENNEDY. I could not just exactly tell when.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the question ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When it was that her mother told her about
Apostle Teasdale refusing to perform the ceremony. Was it before
you were married to Mr. Johnson ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. She had tried to get Apostle Teasdale to do it,
and he had said it could not be done.

Mrs. KENNEDY. She asked for permission if such a thing could be
done. Of course ma will have to answer for herself.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand that. But it was after that that
you took this 75-mile journey in a wagon to Juarez to get married?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

408 REED 8MOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. After she had told you that he had stated it
could not be done?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLEK. You have a young child six or seven weeks old with you ?

Mrs. KENNEDY. I have a child which will be just 2 months old on
the 8th.

Mr. TAYLEK. You may go down now and tell your mother to come
up. Is Mr. Smith present?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The president?

Mr. RICHARDS. I understood }TOU to say you would not want him
this morning, that you wanted Mr. Lyrnan.

Mr. TAYLER. I should like to have him present for a moment.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He will be here as soon as it is possible.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand; but I thought this interval might be
utilized. Will Mr. Charles Merrill take the stand, so as not to delay
further?

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. MERRILL.

CHARLES E. MERRILL, being duly sworn, was examined and testi-
fied as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Your name is Charles E. Merrill ?
Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you the son of Apostle Merrill?
Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you the son by a plural wife?
Mr. MERRILL. I am.
Mr. TAYLER. Which one?
Mr. MERRILL. His third wife.
Mr. TAYLER. How old are you?
Mr. MERRILL. Thirty-eight years old.
Mr. TAYLER. Are you married?
Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. When were you married?
Mr. MERRILL. I was first married in the spring of 1887.
Mr. TAYLER. The spring of 1887?
Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. Is that wife living?
Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.
Mr. TAYLER. When did she die?
Mr. MERRILL. She died in the fall of 1889.
Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the fall of 1889 ?
Mr. MERRILL. The fall of 1889.
Mr. TAYLER. When were you married after that?
Mr. MERRILL. 1 was married to my legal wife in 1891.
The CHAIRMAN. A little louder, if you please.
Mr. MERRILL. In 1891.

Mr. TAYLER. He said he was married to his legal wife in 1891.
What was her name?

Mr. MERRILL. Her name was Chloe Hendricks.
Mr. TAYLER. Have you had children by her?
Mr- MERRILL. Yes, sir.
Mr TAYLER. How many ?
Mr. MERRILL. Five.

REED SMOOT. 40(J

Mr. TAYLER. Have you another wife?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you married to her?

Mr. MERRILL. In the fall of 1888.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you married to her?

Mr. MERRILL. In Logan.

Mr. TAYLER. By whom?

Mr. MERRILL. By N. C. Edlefson.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is he?

Mr. MERRILL. A man who worked in the Logan Temple at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. How many temples are there?

Mr. MERRILL. Four, I think.

Mr. TAYLER. They are where?

Mr. MERRILL. I do not know that I can name them for you.

Mr. TAYLER. There are four in Utah ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; one at St. George, one at Manti, one at
Salt Lake, and one in Logan.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have you had by her?

Mr. MERRILL. Four.

The CHAIRMAN. Your name is Charles E. Merrill ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me understand. When was it you married your
second wife; that is, the second wife }rou now have?

Mr. MERRILL. In the fall of 1888.

Mr. TAYLER. In the fall of 1888?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What was her name?

Mr. MERRILL. Annie V. Stoddard.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have you had by her?.

Mr. MERRILL. Four.

Mr. TAYLER. Four?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How old are they?

Mr. MERRILL. The oldest one is coming 9 years old, and the young
est one is something like 2^ years old. 1 can not give the dates exactly.

Mr. TAYLER. That marriage, you say, took place in 1888?

Mr. MERRILL. Tes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And the next marriage took place in 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Who married you in 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. My father.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you married?

Mr. MERRILL. I could not give you the exact date, but it was in
March.

Mr. TAYLER. 1891?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was your father then an apostle?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Mr. Tayler, I came in after the witness com-
menced his statement. I should like to get the date of his first mar-
riage, if you can tell me ?

Mr. VAN COTT. 188T.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The spring of 1887.

410 EEED SMOOT.

Senator FORAKER. How many marriages has he had — three only —
one in 1887, one in 1888, and—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One in 1891.

Mr. VAN COTT. His first wife died in 1889.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. His first wife died in 1889. He was married in
1891 to the only legal wife he has.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you living with Annie Stoddard at the time you
married what you call your legal wife ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir. She had no home of her. own, however.
She was living with her parents. My home was with my mother at
that time.

Senator FORAKER. Who performed the marriage ceremony of 1891 ?
I did not hear.

Mr. MERRILL. My father.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. His father was an apostle.

The CHAIRMAN. Your father was an apostle at that time ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you, because I am not clear about it,
how many wives you have living now?

Mr. MERRILL. Two.

The CHAIRMAN. You are cohabiting with both of them?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many children have you had by them?

Mr. MERRILL. My first wife had one child before she died, and my
legal wife now has five children, and my plural wife has four. I have
ten children.

Senator FORAKER. Which is your legal wife now?

Mr. MERRILL. The wife I married in 1891.

Senator FORAKER. That is your legal wife ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes.

Senator FORAKER. She has four children?

Mr. MERRILL. She has five.

Senator FORAKER. And the wife you married in 1888 had four?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. And the wife you married in 1887 is dead?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Leaving one child ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. So that you have ten children ?

Mr. MERRILL. Ten children altogether.

The CHAIRMAN. What official position do you hold? You talk so
low that I can not hear you here.

Mr. MERRILL. I do not hold any official position in the church.

Senator FORAKER. You regard the wife you married in 1888 as your
legal wife?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr, WORTHINGTON. The one he married in 1891.

Senator FORAKER. He just now spoke about his legal wife. I asked
him which is his legal wife— the 1891 one?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. The 1888 wife died before the 1891 wife was married.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The 1887 wife.

Senator HOAR. The 1887 wife.

EEED SMOOT. 411

Senator FORAKER. There is some confusion in my mind. He said,
as I understood him, that he married his first wife in 1887 and that
she died, but not until after he had married again, in 1888. So that,
Mr. Merrill, when you married in 1888 you already had a first wife?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And she was living at that time ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Were you. living with that second wife in 1891
when your father married you to what you call your legal wife?

Mr. MERRILL. I explained, if you please, Senator —

Senator FORAKER. I did not hear it. I am asking only for
information.

Mr. MERRILL. My home was with my mother. 1, however, was liv-
ing with that wife.

Senator FORAKER. Of 1888?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. At the time when your father solemnized this
marriage of 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. And although you were living with a wife at
that time, whom you had taken in 1888, you call the wife of 1891 your
legal wife?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; I do not know that he knew that I was
living with a wife.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The witness adds that he does not know whether
his father, when he married him to his last wife, knew that he was
living with his plural wife.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have you had by Annie Stoddard?

Mr. MERRILL. Four.

Senator FORAKER. Where was your father living? Where did your
mother live?

Mr. MERRILL. At Richmond.

Senator FORAKER. At Richmond, in Utah?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. And your father?

Mr. MERRILL. He lived in Richmond.

Senator FORAKER. Also?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. You stated, as I understand counsel to say, that
your father perhaps did not know that you were living with the wife
of 1888.

Mr. MERRILL. I do not know that he knew it; no, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How large a place is Richmond ?

Mr. MERRILL. I think about 1,400 people.

Mr. TAYLER. How large was it then, in 1890, or 1891?

Mr. MERRILL. About the same.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children had you by Annie Stoddard, the
wife of 1888, in 1891?

Mr. MERRILL. She had not had any.

Mr. TAYLER. She had not had any at that time?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator PETTUS. Will you please explain why the last wife whom
you married is your legal wife ?

Mr. MERRILL. Because she was married under the laws of the State

412 KEED SMOOT.

of Utah. The laws of the State of Utah, as I understand them, did
not make my wife a legal wife — my plural wife that I had in 1888 —
and I married this one under the laws of the State of Utah. I went
to court and got a license to marry her.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, the marriage of 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Have you that marriage certificate with you ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; I have not.

Senator DUBOIS. Can you get it?

Mr. MERRILL. I think I could.

Senator DUBOIS. Will you get it?

Mr. MERRILL. I will if you want it.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to see it very much.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will see that that is obtained, if there is one.

Senator DUBOIS. It was in March, 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. When was the manifesto issued ?

Mr. MERRILL. It was in 1890, I think.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. September. 20, 1890 —

The CHAIRMAN. The record shows.

Senator OVERMAN. How were you married in 1888 to the plural wife ?

Mr. MERRILL. How was I married?

Senator OVERMAN. Yes; under the laws of the church?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Who married you?

Mr. MERRILL. N. C. Edlefson.

Senator OVERMAN. Did you have to have any record made of it?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Were you married at the temple ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; at his residence in Logan.

The CHAIRMAN. Whose residence?

Mr. MERRILL. N. C. Edlefson.

Senator OVERMAN. Who was Edlefson — an apostle?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. What official position did he hold?

Mr. MERRILL. He was simply a worker in the temple.

Senator OVERMAN. He had a right to perform the marriage cere
mony?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; I so understood it.

Senator DUBOIS. Please describe that marriage ceremony.

Mr. MERRILL. I can not do it.

Senator DUBOIS. You can not do it?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Is there any certificate of that marriage?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Is there any record of that marriage?

Mr. MERRILL. I did not keep any.

Senator DUBOIS. You have not a certificate of that marriage?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was present?

Mr. MERRILL. 1 do not know the witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Was anybody there?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; there were two witnesses, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know them?

REED SMOOT. 413

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You were there?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator DTJBOIS. You can not describe the ceremony ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. There was no music?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator DTJBOIS. No singing?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Were any questions asked you?

Mr. MERRILL. I do not remember now of any questions being
asked.

Mr. TATLER. Was your first wife with you ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Was there any religious ceremony of any kind
at all?

Mr. MERRILL. Nothing more than the marriage ceremony.

Senator FORAKER. What was that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; what was that?

Mr. MERRILL. I could not tell you what it was — simply that the
marriage ceremon}r was performed. I can not remember the words.
I could not repeat one of them to you that I know of.

Senator OVERMAN. Did he read out of a book?

Mr. MERRILL. I do not think so.

Senator HOAR. Do you not know what the ordinary form ot mar-
riage ceremony is in your church, or the substance of it?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; I can not repeat it.

Senator HOAR. Or give the substance of it?

Mr. MERRILL. The substance of it is that he pronounced us husband
and wife.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you join hands?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. You made some promises?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Which you have forgotten?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; not altogether.

Senator HOAR. If you have not forgotten them, will you state what
they are ?

Mr. MERRILL. I do not know that I can state them in the language.

Senator HOAR. The substance?

Mr. MERRILL. I promised to love and cherish her and support her.
That is part of it.

Senator HOAR. Did you have the usual phrase in marriage cere-
monies— " forsaking all others, cleave to her " — do you remember that?

Mr. MERRILL. 1 do not remember that.

Senator HOAR. You do not know whether that was in or not?

Mr. 'MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator HOPKINS. That would hardly be in such a ceremony,
would it?

The CHAIRMAN. There is one question right here. After your mar-
riage to what you claim to be your legal wife, in 1891, have you con-
tinued to Cohabit with the other woman ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And do now?

414 REED SMOOT.

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where does the last wife live — the wife to whom
you were married in 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. She lives in Richmond.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And where does the wife whom you married
in 1888 live?

Mr. MERRILL. She lives in Richmond.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do they live at the same household*

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How far apart are they? How far separated
are the two houses?

Mr. MERRILL. Seven blocks, I think; nearly a mile.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said that when you were married in 1891
you were living with }^our mother ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And that you do not know, and can not say,
that your father knew that at that time you were cohabiting with the
wife of 1888?

Mr. MERRILL. That is what I said.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where was the wife of 1888 living?

Mr. MERRILL. She was living with her father and mother.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the same town ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At different places ?

Mr. MERRILL. At a different place.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where was your father living?

Mr. MERRILL. On the underground most of the time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you mean by the underground?

Mr. MERRILL. In hiding.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then you do not know whether he knew that
you were cohabiting with the wife of 1888 —

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At the time he married you to the wife of 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir. .

The CHAIRMAN. He was in hiding; what for, if you know?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; because they were prosecuting in Utah at
that time for polygamy, very severely.

Senator FORAKER. Had not those prosecutions stopped at that
time?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. 1 understood some one to testify here that they
were stopped on the issuing of the manifesto of September, 1890, or
practically so.

Mr. MERRILL. This was 1888.

Senator FORAKER. The manifesto?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; the time I speak of.

Senator FORAKER. Oh, in 1888.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was speaking of the marriage of 1891.

Senator FORAKER. So was I. 1 understood you to say that when
you were married in 1891 your father did not, so far as you can tell,
know that you were living with the wife of 1888?

EEED SMOOT. 415

Mr. MERRILL. I do not know that he did. I did not have that in
mind.

Senator FORAKER. Was your father in hiding in 1891 ?

Mr. TAYLER. He married him.

Senator FORAKER. He might have been in hiding.

Mr. MERRILL. Not as he had been previously. I do not remember
just as to dates.

Senator DUBOIS. You do not understand Senator Foraker's question,
I think. You were living with the. wife of 1888 up to 1891 in the
town of Richmond ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. And your father was not in hiding after the mani-
festo was issued?

Mr. MERRILL. I think not.

Senator DUBOIS. And you were all living together in the town of
Richmond ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; you do not understand the situation, I think,
Senator. My father has spent a great deal of his time at Logan, and
of ttimes I would not see him more than once a month, even when I
was living with my mother.

Senator DUBOIS. Whose home was in Richmond ?

Mr. MERRILL. In Richmond.

Senator DUBOIS. And his wives were in Richmond?

Mr. MERRILL. And his wives were in Richmond.

Senator DUBOIS. That was his home ?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. After the manifesto?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is your father now ?

Mr. MERRILL. He is in Logan.

Mr. TAYLER. At Logan ?

Mr. MERRILL. At Richmond, I think, rather.

Senator FORAKER. Was your wife of 1888 living with you and your
mother, in the same house with you and your mother, in 1891 ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. She was not?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Where was your wife of 1888 living at that time?

Mr. MERRILL. She was living with her father and mother.

Senator FORAKER. Where was that?

Mr. MERRILL. Some mile and a half away.

Senator FORAKER. In the same town, however?

Mr. MERRILL. Well, on the outskirts of the town, on a farm.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that all, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. Just a word here. Did you ever bring the wife of
1888 to your mother's house?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; she had been there.

The CHAIRMAN. How f requently ?

Mr. MERRILL. Not very often; not more than once a year, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. Once a year. Was your father present ?

Mr. MERRILL. I do not remember of him ever being present when
she was there.

The CHAIRMAN. You say he was not?

416 REED SMOOT.

Mr. MERRILL. I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know?

Mr. MERRILL. 1 do not. I could not swear positively.

The CHAIRMAN. Did she stay there with your mother and you?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you stay there overnight?

Mr. MERRILL. Only a short time; not overnight.

The CHAIRMAN. At no time?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Up to 1891 were you living openly with the
wife of 1888, or secretly ?

Mr. MERRILL. Secretly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask you, Is your father still living?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And is still an apostle?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He has been subpoenaed here?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is his physical condition?

Mr. MERRILL. He has had what we think is diabetes for seven or
eight months and has been very feeble.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How is he now ?

Mr. MERRILL. He is not much better. We have hopes that he is
improving a little.

Mr. TAYLER. I was about to ask the question Mr. Worthington
asked, and I want to add one or two more. You said he is at Rich-
mond now?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. TAYLER. Do all of his wives live there?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How many has he?

Mr. MERRILL. He has six.

Mr. TAYLER. How many brothers and sisters have you ?

Mr. MERRILL. I have 20 brothers and 17 sisters, I think.

Senator OVERMAN. How many?.

Mr. MERRILL. Twenty brothers and 17 sisters.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know how many nieces and nephews you have ?

Mr. MERRILL. 1 do not.

Mr. TAYLER. Over a hundred ?

Mr. MERRILL. I think so.

Senator FORAKER. When you say brothers and sisters you include
half brothers and half sisters; or what we would call half brothers
and half sisters?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Senator FORAKER. Was your mother, if I may ask you without giv-
ing any offense, a plural wife of your father?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Did he make his home regularly with your
mother or with his first wife or some other wife ?

Mr. MERRILL. I may say with his first wife; that is where people
all went to do business with him.

Senator FORAKER. And he simply came occasionally, are we to under-
stand, to visit your mother?

KEED SMOOT. 417

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. He did not live there continuously ?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; not continuously.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know where his home was?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where?

Mr. MERRILL. In Richmond.

The CHAIRMAN. With which family ?

Mr. MERRILL. With his first family.

The CHAIRMAN. With your mother?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; my mother was the third wife.

The CHAIRMAN. Was she living in Richmond?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How far from where your mother lived?

Mr. MERRILL. Just across the street.

Senator OVERMAN. Did he have any regular time for coming to
your he-use, and did he stay any length of time?

Mr. MERRILL. When he was home he did.

Senator OVERMAN. How often did he come?

Mr. MERRILL. About every fourth or fifth night, when he was in
Richmond.

Senator OVERMAN. How long did he -stay ?

Mr. MERRILL. Overnight.

Senator OVERMAN. Did he stay any length of time?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir; he was a very busy man.

Senator PETTUS. How many wives has your father now ?

Mr. MERRILL. I have answered that question — six.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a little confusion here. You say your
father now has six wives?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you conceal from your mother and from your
father your relationship with this woman of 1888?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They knew of that?

Mr. MERRILL. My mother knew of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Did your father know of it?

Mr. MERRILL. I do not know that.

The CHAIRMAN. But your mother did know it?

Mr. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was your father married to any of these wives
since the manifesto?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many of your brothers have plural wives?

Mr. MERRILL. There are three of my brothers. Only two of them,
though, are living with their plural wives. One separated from his
wife some years ago, or his wife left him.

Mr. TAYLER. A number of your sisters, 1 believe, are plural wives
of others ?

Mr. MERRILL. Two, 1 think.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all so far as I am concerned.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to ask Mr. Merrill a question. Do
you still uphold the doctrine of polygamy?

Mr. MERRILL. Do I still uphold it?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

s 27

.

418 REED SMOvXT.

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.
' Senator DUBOIS. You practice it?

Mr. MERRILL. I practice it.

Senator DUBOIS. But you do not uphold it?

Mr. MERRILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He practices it, but disapproves of it.

Senator FORAKER. Like a prohibitionist who favors prohibition but
is against enforcing the law.

Senator OVERMAN. You believe in keeping the divine law and dis-
obeying the law of the land?

Mr. MERRILL. I do not know that I can answer the question.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. EMMA MATHEWS.

Mrs. EMMA MATHEWS, having been duly sw6rn, was examined, and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mrs. Mathews?

Mrs. MATHEWS. In Marysvale.

Mr. TAYLER. Utah?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you the mother of Mrs. Kennedy ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you a member of the Mormon Church?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been a member of it?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Twenty-five years.

Mr. TAYLER. You were a plural wife?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you now?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. Is the husband of whom you were a plural wife alive ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. He is dead?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. You continued to be his plural wife until his death ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr, TAYLER. And after that married Mr. Mathews?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been married to Mr. Mathews ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Ten years.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you hold any position in the Mormon Church?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you a member of any of the women's organizations ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Not now.

Mr. TAYLOR. Have you been?

Mrs. MATHEWS. 1 have been.

Mr. TAYLER. You are a member of the church, however, in good
standing ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And subscribe to its doctrines and obey your superiors ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. You at one time lived in a Mormon colony in Mexico?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. At Diaz?

REED SMOOT. 419

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Was that community made up altogether of Mormons?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And mostly of polygamous Mormons?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mi . TAYLER. Your daughter, Mrs. Kennedy, was —

The CHAIRMAN. Right in this connection, I wish to know the size of
the community. Do you know what its size was at that time?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. The size of this community, made up mostly of
Mormons— do you know how many there were?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I do not believe I know at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you know whether there were a hundred or
a thousand?

Mrs. MATHEWS. There were not a thousand. There may have been
two or three hundred.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Was Mrs. Kennedy the child of a Mormon father?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The child of your first husband ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. I believe she was not born in Utah?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. But before you had joined that faith?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you go to Mexico?

Mrs. MATHEWS. It was sixteen years ago last June.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Fifteen or sixteen?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Sixteen.

Senator FORAKER. I could not hear the witness.

Mrs. MATHEWS. It was sixteen years ago last June that we arrived
in Mexico.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That she went to Mexico.

Senator FORAKER. That she went to Diaz.

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember when Mabel was born?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is she?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Twenty-six. Twenty-six on her next birthday, in
June. I am very poor on dates, like herself. I have it recorded at
home, but I have never tried to remember dates.

Mr. TAYLER. Twenty-six or 27 years old ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes; I think it is 26 in June.

Mr. TAYLER. You were living then at Diaz prior to 1890?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know Mr. James Francis Johnson?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you known his wife ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. His first wife?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did you know them prior to your daughter's
marriage ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Two years"

420 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Two years?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes; perhaps two and a half; not more.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he seek your daughter in marriage?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. You knew that he had a wife?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. You had no objection to his marrying her, your
daughter, so far as concerned his already having a wife?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. When did he first make known to you that he wanted
to many her as his plural wife?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I think it was about a year and a half before.

Mr. TAYLER. Before they were married?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes; somewhere about that time — maybe two
years.

Mr. TAYLER. Maybe two years?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes; I think it was two years.

Mr. TAYLER. Not more than that, you think?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I do not think so; about two years, I think it was.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, you remember when Mr. and Mrs. Johnson
came to Diaz on the occasion when your daughter was married?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. That was about how long ago? If you have anything
by which you can fix the time —

Mrs. MATHEWS. It. will be ten years this coming March or May;
May, I believe the month was.

Mr. TAYLER. Ten years this coming May ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. At that time did you see Mr. Johnson and his wife?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. What did he say to you about marrying your daughter?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I do not know that he said anything particularly at
that time. He talked to me about it several times before that.

Mr. TAYLER. Tell us whatever conversation you had with him then
or before.

Mrs. MATHEWS. He just asked me if I was willing.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, is this competent?

The CHAIRMAN. I think so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What took place between the parties them-
selves not known to any officer of the church?'

The CHAIRMAN. It may lead up to something else. It is preliminary,
I suppose. The chair will admit it.

Mrs. MATHEWS. He first asked me if I was willing to give him my
daughter, and I told him yes, but I did not want her to marry him
until she was 18 years of age; but they did not want to wait that long.

Mr. TAYLER. When was this conversation that you have j ust detailed ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Sometime during those two years.

Mr. TAYLER. Sometime during the two years ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes; during those two years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was it that happened sometime during
those two years? My attention was diverted for the moment.

Mr. TAYLER. This conversation wherein he said he wanted to marry
her daughter, and so on. Mrs. Mathew.s, when he came there in 1894
with his wife, was it talked over again?

REED SMOOT. 421

Mrs. MATHEWS. No. I talked with him, but not with his wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Not with his wife ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did he remain in Diaz before leaving- for
Juarez ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Just one day and night.

Mr. TAYLER. One day and night?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you then give your consent to your daughter's
marrying him at that time?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I did.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he stay at your house?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. His wife did not stay at your house either?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. And after remaining there one day and night in the town
your daughter and Mr. Johnson and his wife left together, did they ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. To go where.

Mrs. MATHEWS. To Juarez.

Mr. TAYLER. For what purpose?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I did not ask them. I supposed they were going for
that purpose. I did not think they knew when they started that it
could be accomplished.

Mr. TAYLER. That it could be accomplished?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I do not think so.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not mean that you sent your daughter off on a
visit

Mrs. MATHEWS. We had friends living in Juarez, and permission
was asked for her to visit with them for a week or two, and I gave it.

Mr. TAYLER. How long was it before she came back?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I think it was about ten days.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all you know about their being married?

Mrs. MATHEWS. That is all I know about it.

Mr. TAYLER. You only know that they were married from what they
said to you?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No; they did not say anything about it when they
returned.

Mr. TAYLER. You mean your daughter has never told you she was
married ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir; I never have asked her.

Mr. TAYLER. You never have asked her?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. Did they come to your house?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Just drove up to the house and she stayed with me.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did he stay in town ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Until the next morning.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he stay at your house?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He did not?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How soon did your daughter go to him ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. In the following November.

Mr. TAYLER (to Mr. Worthington). You may inquire.

422 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before this drive to Juarez had you made any
effort to have your daughter married at Diaz ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I did.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To get the consent of any authority of the
church?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No; I could not get it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How did you know?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I applied to Brother Teasdale.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean Apostle Teasdale?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir; for the privilege.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What did he tell you?

Mrs. MATHEWS. He told me it could not be done.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you urge it upon him ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. More than once?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What did he constantly reply ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. That it could not be done; simply impossible.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long was it that you made application to
Brother Teasdale before she went over to Juarez; and it was before?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long before?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Some time during that year.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. About what period of time was covered by
your endeavors to get Brother Teasdale to permit the ceremony to be
performed ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. It was within the year before she was married.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you urged it upon him several times?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes; during that year.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. During that year?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Several times during that year.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did he tell you why it could not be done?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Well, simply because the church would not allow it.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to ask you a question, if you please.
Where did you join the Mormon Church?

Mrs. MATHEWS. In England.

Senator DUBOIS. You joined it in England?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. You say you became a polygamous wife after you
went to Utah?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir; I went to England. After my husband
died I went to England and met Mr. Barber there, my husband.

Senator HOAR. You met whom?

^ Mrs. MATHEWS. Mr. Barber, the man I married. He was on a mis-
sion, and 1 embraced the gospel there, and in two years afterwards
came out to Utah and married him.

Senator FORAKER. Had you been married in England ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir; the first time I was married in England.

Senator FORAKER. And your husband died before you came to this
country ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir. We came to America, He died at Albany ,
in the State of New York.

Senator FORAKER. What year did you come to America?

REED SMOOT. 423

Mrs. MATHEWS. I could not remember. I do not remember any-
thing- about it.

Senator FORAKER. Can you tell us the year when your husband died,
at Albany?

Mrs. MATHEWS. He died the same year that President Young died.
He died in September, and I believe President Young died in June,
did he not?

Senator FORAKER. President Grant?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No; President Young.

Mr. TAYLER. The president of the Morman Church.

Senator FORAKER. Oh!

The CHAIRMAN. We have two presidents.

Mrs. MATHEWS. The president of the Mormon Church.

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. 1 do not remember the year, but I remember there
being talk about it in the papers.

The CHAIRMAN. What year was it?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1877.

Mr. TAYLER. Your daughter was born in this country?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, 'sir; in Albany, in the State of New York.

Senator FORAKER. How long did you stay in this country before
you returned to England?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Seven years.

Senator FORAKER. After your husband's death ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir; just six weeks after his death.

Senator FORAKER. Then you returned to England?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. You embraced the gospel in England?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. And then a few years later, did 1 understand
you to say, you came to this country?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Just one year later. I stayed in England two
years.

Senator FORAKER. During that time you were not married at all?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. You are an English woman by birth ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. You said you did not want your daughter to
marry until she was 18. Is there any rule of the church against their
marrying before 18?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Not that 1 know of.

Senator OVERMAN. That was not Mr. Teasdale's reason for refusing
to marry them ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand how you happened to come to
this country.

Mrs. MATHEWS. At first?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mrs. MATHEWS. My husband did not like England, and he had a
position offered him in Canada — in Ottawa, in Canada — in the govern-
ment printing office.

The CHAIRMAN. Was your husband a Mormon missionary — not the
first one ?

424 REED SMOOT.

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, the second one.

Senator DUBOIS. Did Apostle Teasdale tell you that it was contrary
to the laws of the United States for plural marriages to be performed
in the United States?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I do not remember whether he said that, but he
said that the authorities would not allow it; would not allow a cere-
mony to be performed; would not allow a plural marriage at that
time.

Senator FORAKER. What was }^our first husband's name — I mean
your h'rst Mormon husband?

Mrs. MATHEWS. George Barber.

Senator FORAKER. How many wives did he have?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Three.

Senator FORAKER. How many did he have when you married him?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Two.

Senator FORAKER. You were his third wife ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where was Brother Teasdale, as you term him,
when you made this application to him to have your daughter
married ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. In Diaz, Mexico.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was in Mexico, and }^ou were?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And your daughter was there?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you v/ere asking to have the ceremony
performed in Mexico?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did he tell you that it was against the law of
Mexico, or against the law of the church, or what?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No; against the law of the church.

Senator OVERMAN. Let me see if I understand you. Did you say
you married your Mormon husband, Barber, in England?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No; in Salt Lake City.

Senator OVERMAN. You came here to marry him ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. You were a widow at that time, arid came on to
marry him ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. But you met him in England?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. What was he doing in England ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. He was on a mission for the church.

Senator OVERMAN. You came on here and married him at Salt Lake
City?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Was he a polygamist at that time?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Did he have another wife at that time?

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS.- When you left England did you know that?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. WORTFIINGTON. What year was that?

Mrs. MATHEWS. That was twenty-four years ago.

REED SMOOT. 425

Senator HOAR. How long ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Twenty-four years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Twenty-four years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. No; there is nothing more.

Senator HOAR. I should like to ask you a question. Twenty-four
years ago would be 1880. Did you become a convert to Mormonism
under the preaching of this gentleman whom )^ou afterwards married ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator HOAR. Did he impress upon you then the lawfulness of
polygamy ; that that was one of the doctrines of the church ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator HOAR. That was in 1880 or thereabouts ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator HOAR. Did you make your arrangement, your betrothal or
engagement, or whatever it was, in England ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Senator HOAR. When did you first agree to marry him, and where?

Mrs. MATHEWS. After I came to Utah.

Senator HOAR. In Utah?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator HOAR. But you became a Mormon, supposing polygamy to
be one of the doctrines of the church and to be lawful?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator HOAR. In 1880, in England, or thereabouts? .

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator HOAR. Did he inform you when you were married, or were'
you informed by anybody, that }TOU were violating the laws of the
land?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Senator HOAR. You were not informed then that this was illegal,
either according to the law of man or of God, when you were married?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No.

Senator HOAR. That was two years after the act of 1878 ?

Mr. TAYLER. The decision of 1878, you mean.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The decision of 1878 under the act of 1862.

Senator HOAR. The decision of 1878 on the act of 1862.

Senator FORAKER. I understand you fix the year 1880 as the year
when you came to this country ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator FORAKER. He had been to England preaching the Gospel
there?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator FORAKER. Before that time ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Senator FORAKER. How long before 1880, when you came over, had
he returned to this country ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. He was there when I went to England. He had
been there one year then.

Senator FORAKER. And when did he leave England to return to the
United States?

Mrs. MATHEWS. One year after I arrived there.

Senator FORAKER. One year after you arrived?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

•

426 REED SMOOT.

Senator FORAKER. That would be about 1878 or 1879, perhaps.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I should like to ask a question here. You
married this husband in Utah in what year?

Mrs. MATHEWS. I can not tell the year.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was it in 1880 ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. It was twenty-four years ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is this daughter a daughter of his?

Mrs. MATHEWS. No; she is 26 years. She is a daughter

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By the first husband.

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. I think we can fix that. Your daughter was born the
same year that your first husband died?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Oh no. It was three years after my husband died
before she was married.

Mr. TAYLER. Born, I said.

Mrs. MATHEWS. No; she was born just six weeks before her father
died,

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He died in 1877.

Mrs. MATHEWS. She was born in June.

Mr. WORTHINHTON. She was born the same year that the elder
Brigham Young died ?

Mrs. MATHEWS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to inquire of counsel if you have any
further use of these two witnesses — the ladies ? I should like to release
them, if possible. One of them has a young- child.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So far as counsel for Senator Smoot are con-
cerned, we consent to their discharge.

The CHAIRMAN. How is it with you. Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. The same with us. We have no further need of them.

The CHAIRMAN. You are both discharged, ladies.

«
TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS MARION LYMAN

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lyman, will }^ou be sworn ?
Mr. VAN COTT. Just a moment, if you please, Mr. Chairman, before
you swear him. [A pause.] All right, Mr. Chairman.

FRANCIS MARION LYMAN, being duly sworn, was examined and tes-
tified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Your name is Francis M. Lyman ?

Mr. LYMAN. Francis Marion Lyman is my full name.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you one of the apostles of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is the correct designation of your church, is it?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Mr. TAYLER. That is the correct description or name of the church ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been an apostle ?

Mr. LYMAN. Since 1880.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you always been in the church ?

Mr. LYMAN. Ever since I was baptized.

Mr. TAYLER. I mean you were born-
Mr. LYMAN. 1 was born of Latter-Day-Saint parents.

REED SMOOT. 427

Mr. TAYLER. That is what I mean. Are you the child of a plural
wife '(

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How old are you ?

Mr. LYMAN. I was 64 years old the 12th day of last January.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you a polygamist?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Ho.w many wives have you?

Mr. LYMAN. Three.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do they live?

Mr. LYMAN. One of them lives in Salt Lake City; one of them lives
in Fillmore, and the other died about twelve }^ears ago.

Mr. TAYLER. You are living with two wives now?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you children by both of them ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was the wife who died the first wife you married ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; she was the second.

Mr. TAYLER. So that one of your living wives is the one to whom
you were married originally?

Mr. LYMAN. In 1857.

Mr. TAYLER. She was the only wife when you married her?

Mr. LYMAN. In 1857.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you married to your second wife — the one
who is living, I mean — the present second wife?

Mr. LYMAN. When was I married to her?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. On the 9th day of October, 1884.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you married to her?

Mr. LYMAN. Where?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. In the temple?

Mr. LYMAN. In the endowment house.

Mr. TAYLER. You have children by her?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many ?

Mr. LYMAN. Five.

Mr. TAYLER. What are their ages?

Mr. LYMAN. The first was born in 1891 ; the last was born in 1900.

Mr. TAYLER. What time in 1891 was the first child born?

Mr. LYMAN. On the 4th clay of July.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you a signer of the prayer for amnesty?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Which one?

Mr. TAYLER. I think there was but one.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. What page of the record is it?

Mr. TAYLER. 1 am just trying to find it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Page 18.

Mr. TAYLER. And in that prayer for amnesty did you pledge your-
self to obey the law ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not remember exactly what the article contains.
I pledged myself to all it says. I have not read it for a long time.

428 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you, as a matter of fact, pledge yourself, by that
plea for amnesty, to obedience to the law, not only respecting the taking
of plural wives, but the other laws respecting the plural marriage
relation ?

Mr. LYMAN. Whatever the article contains I signed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object, Mr. Chairman. It is asking the wit-
ness to give a construction to a paper which can be produced.

Senator FORAKER. Is it not the correct way to call his attention to
what it says? He has stated that he signed the paper and that he
pledged himself to everything that is in the paper.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I know; but the Senator will understand that all sorts
of constructions have been given to this paper. We have heard the
president of the church himself make a declaration on that subject,
and I want to know whether this man claims that he did not under-
stand he was to obey the law on other subjects than as to taking
Elural wives, or whether he agrees that he is violating the promise
e then made.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose, Mr. Tayler, }^ou read to the witness that
portion of the application for amnesty ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To that I have no objection, and then ask him
how he construes it.

The CHAIRMAN. And ask him in regard to it.

Senator FORAKER. The witness says he has not seen the paper or
read it for a long time —

Mr. TAYLER. But they are all pretty familiar with this paper.

Senator FORAKER. That is no reason why all the ordinary rules of
examination should be violated.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Why do you say he is familiar with it?

The CHAIRMAN. Read that portion of the petition to which you wish
to call his attention.

Mr. TAYLER. It is quite long, so that I do not wish to read it all.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. TAYLER. In this prayer for amnesty there is this sentence:

"As shepherds of a patient, suffering people we ask amnesty for
them and pledge our faith and honor for their future."

Do 3^ou recall that statement?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; 1 do.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you interpret that as meaning that you would
obey the law respecting potygamous cohabitation '(

Mr. LYMAN. I intended to do everything that was right in the
observance of the law.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you think it would be right to abstain from polyg-
amous cohabitation with your plural wife?

Mr. LYMAN. I think it would have been right.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not do that, though?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you did wrong?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; according to the law.

Mr. TAYLER. According to the law?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. It was wrong according to the church law as well ?

Mr. LYMAN. It was wrong according to the rule of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. So you violated both laws?

REED SMOOT. 429

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The law of the land and the rule of the church?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask a question right here. You are now
continuing in this polygamous relation?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And intend to?

Mr. LYMAN. I had thought of nothing else, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are the next in succession to the presi-
dency ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Let me see if I understand you. You used the
phrase, or the counsel used the phrase, in the question which you
answered affirmatively—

Mr. LYMAN. Excuse me. I am a little hard of hearing.

Senator HOAR. You used the phrase, or the counsel used the phrase,
which you accepted by an affirmative answer, "The rule of the
church;" that you were violating a rule of the church, as you under-
stand it. Do you understand the rule of the church to be the law
of God?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Very well. Then, do I understand you to say that
you are living and intend to live in violation of the law of God and of
the law of man, as you understand them?

Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I fully intend to be true to my obliga-
gations and covenants with the Lord and with my wives and children
and to the Government of the United States. I have lived in all good
conscience before the Lord and I have never done a thing willfully
against the church nor my God nor my country.

If I may be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to make a remark, my case is
possibly a little different from the case of other men generally. I
was born in 1840. I can hardly remember when my father was not a
polygamist. He married a number of wives in 1845. the next year
after the death of Prophet Joseph. He was taught that doctrine by
the prophet, and he was charged that it was important for him that
he should embrace that principle. He was selected at one time as a
councilor to the prophet. He entered into that principle and married
six plural wives in 1845 and 1846, so that as my earliest recollections
I remember my father's wives and families as 1 remember my father
and my own mother.

I was taught the truthfulness of that principle from the very begin-
ning, and I lived in that plural family till I married and had a family
of my own.

1 have never been able to see but that that principle is correct and
true. I have always felt that it was, in my heart and soul, and hence
when I became a man I married, in 1857. 1 married again in 3869
and had families by both my wives. 1 married again in 1884 and I
have greatly regretted — my soul has been very much pained — to find
myself in opposition to the law of my country and the rule of my
church. But I covenanted with those wives most solemnly to love
and respect and revere them as my own heart and soul, and I felt I
could not separate from them so long as they were true to me.

Senator HOAR. Now, I think I clearly understand; and I come back
to the question. Do I not correctly understand you to say that the

430 REED 8MOOT.

revelation requiring the future abstaining from polygamy by your
people comes from God?

Mr. LYMAN. I did not catch that question.

Senator HOAR. Do you not understand that the revelation requiring
you to abstain from polygamy comes from God?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Do you not understand that you are disobeying the
commands of God in disobeying that revelation ?

Mr. LYMAN. So far, Mr. Chairman, as my disobeying the law in
regard to polygamy is concerned, I have not. I have most earnestly
and faithfully, from the adoption of the manifesto, done all in my
power to prevent polygamous marriages in the church.

Senator HOAR. That is not my question.

Mr. LYMAN. I have been most faithful in that.

Senator HOAR. I am "ot asking you about that. You have said
more than once that in living in polygamous relations with your wives,
which you do and intend to do, you knew that you were disobeying
this revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. And that in disobeying this revelation you were dis-
obeying the law of God?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Very well. So that you say that you, an apostle of
your church, expecting to succeed, if you survive Mr. Smith, to the
office in which you will be the person to be the medium of Divine
revelations, are living and are known to your people to live in dis-'
obedience of the law of the land and of the law of God?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. He says "yes." That is all.

Senator DUBOIS. You think it is your duty now to live with these
plural wives and protect them, etc. ? You think that is your duty now ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

At 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m. the committee took a recess until
2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lyman, you may take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF FRANCIS M. LYMAN— Continued.

FRANCIS M. LYMAN, having been previously sworn, was examined,
and testified as follows:

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dubois was about to make some inquiry of
the witness.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Lyman, I believe you stated it, but I have
forgotten. When did you become an apostle of the church?

Mr. LYMAN. In October, 1880.

Senator DUBOIS. Are you acquainted with Reed Smoot?

Mr. LYMAN. Am I what?

Senator DUBOIS. Acquainted with him?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. When did he become an apostle?

REED SMOOT. 431

Mr. LYMAN. I can toll you in a moment.

Senator DUBOIS. About when ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The date is April 9, 1900. It was brought out
here the other day.

Mr. LYMAN (after examining a paper). In 1900.

Senator DUBOIS. You voted to make him an apostle, did you?

Mr. LYMAN. I voted for him?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. In your apostolic meetings did Mr. Smoot ever
reprove you for living in polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. To your knowledge did he eVer take you to task
in public?

Mr. LYMAN. Did he ever take me to task in public?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes; for living in polygamous relations?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. When did you marry your second wife, Mr.
Lyman ?

Mr. LYMAN. On the 4th of October, 1869.

Senator DUBOIS. Then, when did you marry your third wife?

Mr. LYMAN. On the 9th of October, 1884.

Senator DUBOIS. 1884?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. It is immaterial, but 1 understood him to say 1882
this morning. That was after the passage of the Edmunds law?

Mr. LYMAN. It was in 1884, on the 9th day of October.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know when the JEdmunds law was passed?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 think it was in 1882.

Senator DUBOIS. I wish you would describe this marriage ceremony
with your third wife in 1884.

Mr. LYMAN. It was just the same as with the first wife.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Just one moment. I understood the committee
had decided we were not to go back of 1890, the date of the manifesto,
Mr. Chairman.

Senator DUBOIS. Well, you were married in 1884?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. How many children did you say you had by this
third wife?

Mr. LYMAN. Five by the third wife.

Senator DUBOIS. Wrhen was the first one born ?

Mr. LYMAN. 1891.

Senator DUBOIS. There was no issue, then-
Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; not until 1891.

Senator DUBOIS. Could you furnish the marriage certificate with
this third wife ?

Mr. LYMAN. Did I what?

Senator DUBOIS. Can you furnish the marriage certificate with this
third wife?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not understand what he said.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you furnish the marriage certificate with
the wife you married in 1884?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; I did not have any. I do not think the law
required it.

432 EEED SMOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. What time in 1891 was your first child born?

Mr. LYMAN. On the 4th day of July.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Lyman, I understand you are the presiding
officer of the quorum of apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. In accordance with the rules and precedents of
your organization, should you survive the president would you become
the president of the organization ?

Mr. LYMAN. If I was found worthy.

Senator DUBOIS. Who is the apostle next to you ?

Mr. LYMAN. John Henry Smith.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe he is.

Senator DUBOIS. How old is he?

Mr. LYMAN. He is eight years younger than I am.

Senator DUBOIS. That would make him 56 ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Who is the next to John Henry Smith in the apos-
tolic order?

"Mr. LYMAN. George Teasdale.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know, sir. I do not think he is; that is, 1
understand that he is not.

Senator DUBOIS. How old is he?

Mr. LYMAN. He must be 72.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he not 75 ?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator DUBOIS. Is he not 75 ?

Mr. LYMAN. Possibly; I am only approximating.

Senator DUBOIS. Would -you take this book as authority? — "Lives
of our Leaders. Character Sketches of Living Presidents and Apostles
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Deseret
News Company, Salt Lake City. 1901."

Mr. VAN COTT. Who is the author, Senator?

Senator DUBOIS. Let me hand him the book and see if he will accept
that as authority.

Senator HOPKINS. As authority for what?

Senator DUBOIS. As to the age of the president and as authority
for the questions I ask. It is a biographical sketch of the leading
men of the Mormon Church.

Mr. LYMAN (after examining the book). Why do you submit it to
me, Senator?

Senator DUBOIS. 1 ask you if you will accept that as authority for
your age, for instance. Look at your own age stated there and see.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Whether you will accept it as authority as a bio-
graphical sketch of your leaders?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I submit his acceptance of it would not bind
Senator Smoot as to everything in it.

Senator HOPKINS. Is the question in regard to authority as to what
is said about each man there ?

Mr. LYMAN. This is correct, where it says " he was born at the town
of Good hope, McDonouo-h County, 111., on January 12, 1840."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is yourself?

KEED SMOOT. 433

Mr. LYMAN. That is myself.

Senator DUBOIS. That is correct. Now, look at the biographical
sketch of Mr. Teasdale.

Mr. LYMAN. Look at what?

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Teasdale.

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes; I will. That is a very good picture of him.

Senator DUBOIS. I assume, Apostle Lyman —

Mr. LYMAN. It says he was born in London, England, on the 8th of
December, 1831.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you think that is correct ?

Mr. LYMAN. I should think so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that what is in
that book is of any consequence, but I certainly object to attempting
to prove facts by producing a book and having a witness read it who
knows nothing about the matter, and say he presumes it is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think his answer is of any consequence.

Senator DUBOIS. I am simply asking as to the age of Apostle
Teasdale.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. My objection is that you can not prove it by a
witness who simply sees it stated in a book and says he does not know
anything about it.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness states he does not know.

Senator DUBOIS. I will ask you if that biographical sketch of yours
was not published with your knowledge and consent?

Mr. LYMAN. If what?

Senator DUBOIS. Did you not give the facts in regard to your own
age to the biographer of that book ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not understand.

Senator DUBOIS. He must have gotten the facts somewhere. You
say it is correct as to yourself ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He says it is correct as to his age.

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know where they got it. I do not know who
wrote it. 1 have no idea.

Senator DUBOIS. Who is the apostle next to Mr. Teasdale?

Mr. LYMAN. Heber J. Grant.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe he is.

Senator DUBOIS. How old is he?

Mr. LYMAN. He must be about 46.

Senator DUBOIS. That is right. He is 47. Who is the next apostle ?

Mr. LYMAN. John W. Taylor.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe he is.

Senator DUBOIS. How old is he ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you mean, Mr. Lyman, when you say
you believe they are polygamists?

Mr. LYMAN. That he has more than one wife.

Senator DUBOIS. How old is he ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know. He must be near 50.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he not 46?

Mr. LYMAN. Well, I do not know. I would not know his age
exactly.

Senator DUBOIS. It is easy to imagine he is 46, is it? You would
not dispute the fact if 1 should state it that he is 46?

s 28

434 REED SMOOT.

Mr. LYMAN. 1 should think he is 46; yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Who is the next apostle ?

Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Merrill.

Senator DUBOIS. How old is he?

Mr. LYMAN. He is about 70.

Senator DUBOTS. He is 72, I think. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I desire to ask you one or two questions, Mr. Lyman.
You are president of the quorum of the twelve ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How often does that quorum of the twelve apostles
meet ?

Mr. LYMAN. Our regular meeting is once a week. That is — yes,
once a week.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the apostles generally attend?

Mr. LYMAN. They always attend when they are in Salt Lake City.
If they are abroad of course they are excused.

The CHAIRMAN. If they are out of the country ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; or out of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. But if they are in the country they are expected to
attend?

Mr. LYMAN. If they are in reach they are expected always to be
there.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smoot became an apostle, when?

Mr. LYMAN. In 1890.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean 1900?

Mr. LYMAN. 1900; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who presides at those meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. The president of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. At the meetings of the apostles?

Mr. LYMAN. That is, they meet together; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They meet with the president?

Mr. LYMAN. The weekly meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you attended those meetings since 1900?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Every week?

Ma. LYMAN. I never failed when I was in Salt Lake City, or could
reach there.

The CHAIRMAN. You never failed ?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I never failed.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever seen Mr. Smoot at one of those
meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. Well, a very few times. 1 have been away, Mr. Chair-
man, for three years.

The CHAIRMAN. Then during the three years you were not present
at these meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. During the time you have been here and attended
these meetings, have you seen Mr. Smoot there ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not think Mr. Smoot has been there since I came
home.

The CHAIRMAN. Since 1900, at any time?

Mr. LYMAN. I saw him a few times before I went away since 1900.
He met with us.

REED SMOOT. 435

The CHAIRMAN. I am not particular about the time, but what I
want to get at is whether. he has met with you?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; he did.

The CHAIRMAN. Since 1900?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the president of the church presided?

Mr. LYMAN. Questions were discussed?

The CHAIRMAN. No; I ask you if the president of the church pre-
sides at these weekly meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone attend these meetings save the apostles
and the president?

Mr. LYMAN. And the clerk.

The CHAIRMAN. And the clerk?

Mr. LYMAN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Nobody else?

Mr. LYMAN. No one else.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Mr. Smoot taken part in the exercises?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. At these weekly meetings ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And mingled with the other apostles, of course?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say that Mr. Smoot has never,
at any of these meetings or in private, questioned your course in
regard to polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; it was never mentioned.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It has not appeared yet that Senator Smoot
knew of his course.

The CHAIRMAN. Not yet, only in a general way.

Have you ever introduced any of your wives to Mr. Smoot?

Mr. LYMAN. Have I what ?

The CHAIRMAN. Have you introduced or presented any of your wives
to Mr. Smoot?

Mr. LYMAN. Never.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are these meetings held?

Mr. LYMAN. In the temple at Salt Lake City.

The CHAIRMAN. In the temple?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Not in the tabernacle?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; in the temple.

The CHAIRMAN. You were married, 1 think you said, in the temple —
~ mean in the endowment house.

Mr. LYMAN. In the endowment house.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the difference between the endowment
house and the temple ?

Mr. LYMAN. The endowment house was a temporary building for
the purposes for which it was built — sacred purposes; but it was not
a substantial building like the temple. It was just for the time being
until we oould build the temple. Our temple was forty years in
building.

The CHAIRMAN. This ceremony was performed in the endowment
house?

436 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. LYMAN. In the endowment house; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You went through the endowment house, as it is
commonly spoken of, did you ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you please state what the ceremony is in going
through the endowment house?

Mr. LYMAN. I could not do so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to that, Mr. Chairman, on the ground
that it is inquiring into a matter prior to 1890, and I understood, or
we were informed, that the committee had decided that would not be
done.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the charges is that Mr. Smoot has taken an
oath or obligation incompatible with his obligation as a Senator. The
object of this question is to ascertain from this witness, who went
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 was not my question. It was a statement
to counsel.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I had understood, Mr. Chairman, that that was
expressly disclaimed by counsel here the other day.

The CHAIRMAN. Counsel stated that they did not propose, as far as
the}r were concerned, to offer any proof upon that question; but the
Chair did not understand, that therefore the committee was precluded
from showing it. Is there any objection to the question?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do object to it, for the reasons already stated;
and further because it does not 1'oJlow at all that because the witness
went through certain ceremonies or took certain obligations, if you
please, Senator Smoot took them.

The CHAIRMAN. That would not follow of itself. If nothing further
than this can be shown, of course it will have no bearing upon Mr.
Smoot at all. Read the question, Mr. Reporter.

The reporter read as follows:

" The CHAIRMAN. Will }^ou please state what the ceremony is in
going through the endowment house?

"Mr. LYMAN. I could not do so."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 do insist upon my objection. I understood
the Chair to ask me whether I had any further objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks it is permissible; and as the Chair
stated, if nothing appears beyond this to connect Mr. Smoot with it,
of course it will have no bearing upon the case.

Can you state what that ceremony was?

Mr. LYMAN. I could not, Mr. Chairman; I could not do so if it was
to save my life.

The CHAIRMAN. You could not?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you state any portion of it?

Mr. LYMAN. I might approximate something of it that I remember.

The CHAIRMAN. As nearly as you can.

Mr. LYMAN. I remember that I agreed to be an upright and moral
man, pure in my life. I agreed to refrain from sexual commerce with
any woman except my wife or wives as were given to me in the priest-
hood. The law of purity I subscribed to willingly, of my own choice,
and to be true and good to all men. I took no oath nor obligation

HEED SMOOT. 437

against any person or any country or government or kingdom or any-
thing of that kind. I remember that distinctly.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course the charge is made, and I want to know
the facts. You would know about it, having gone through the endow-
ment house?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. There wa*s nothing of that kind?

Mr. LYMAN. Nothing of that kind.

The CHAIRMAN. No obligation or oath ?

Mr. LYMAN. Not at all; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was present at this ceremony ?

Mr. LYMAN. Daniel H. Wells — when I was married?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Daniel H. Wells and others. I could not tell how
many. Sometimes there are a hundred people go through and receive
their endowments — a large company.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course you do not know about that?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you can remember of the ceremony?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir. The marriage ceremony was performed by
Daniel H. Wells.

The CHAIRMAN. What position did he hold at that time?

Mr. LYMAN. He was counselor.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. In fact, he married my three wives to me. He olficiated
in each case. The first time he was counselor to President Brigham
Young— counselor in the presidency of the church. The last time I
believe he was counselor to the twelve apostles.

The CHAIRMAN. How long are these monthly meetings of the apostles ?
How long do they continue ?

Mr. LYMAN. The weekly meetings?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LYMAN. Two hours.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Sometimes more, if there is much business to consider.

The CHAIRMAN. At these meetings you become acquainted, of course ?
The apostles become acquainted with each other?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Lyman, since 1890 the charge has persistently
and constantly been made in print in Utah, has it not, that many of
the apostles were living in polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. LYMAN. State that again, Mr. Tayler, and speak a little louder.

Mr. TAYLER. I will ask the reporter to read the question.

The reporter read the question.

Mr. LYMAN. Possibly it has been made.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you not seen it so in print?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not remember particularly. I know that some of
them have so lived. That is, I believe they have, including myself.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, I know; but have you not heard of the charge
being made constantly that such was the fact, apart from your knowl-
edge of that fact of potygamous cohabitation?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not remember that I have heard it constantly .

Mr. TAYLER. Frequently?

438 REED SMOOT.

Mr. LYMAN. Frequently, possibly.

Mr. TAYLER. Have the first presidency and the twelve apostles ever,
to 37our knowledge, taken any action looking to the disciplining or
prosecuting of persons who were charged with living in polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. LYMAN. I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean you may have discussed whether you
would or would not prosecute such persons ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know the wife of George Teasdale who died
in 1898?

Mr. LYMAN. I never saw her until she was dead. I was at the
funeral.

Mr. TAYLER. Was she a young woman?

Mr. LYMAN. I think so. 1 believe she was. I do not know her age
at all.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know when he married her?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; I never saw her.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any talk with him about his marriage
of her?

Mr. 'LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know where he married her?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you first bear that she was married to him?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not remember. I never met her. I never was in
her house, nor in his house — that is, where she lived; that is, until the
funeral.

Mr. TAYLER. Until the funeral.

Mr. LYMAN. At Nephi; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know she became his wife since 1890?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir. No; I did not know that.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know his first wife ?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 never saw her.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know Mrs. Lillian Hamlin Cannon?

Mr. LYMAN. I have seen her since Abraham's death.

Mr. TAYLER. Since Abraham's death?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes. 1 never saw her before.

Mr. TAYLER. You never saw her before that?

Mr. LYMAN. I saw her in Provo.

Mr. TAYLER. When?

Mr. LYMAN. I forget. It was some years after. She was teaching
school, as I remember — teaching in the academy.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one question more. At these weekly gather-
ings of the apostles do you have any social function in connection with
the gathering?

Mr. LYMAN. Have what?

The CHAIRMAN. Some social function — that is, after the meeting?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. A social conference?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or meeting at the president's house?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the apostles ever go to the president's house?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, we do sometimes; yes.

EEED SMOOT. 439

The CHAIRMAN. At these weekly meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, no, sir; never.

The CHAIRMAN. The apostles go there sometimes?

Mr. LYMAN. They go to his office.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you been in his residence?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes. Yes. sir.

The CHAIRMAN. With the other apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. With some of them; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. With Mr. Smoot?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 do not think I was ever in with Mr. Smoot.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not remember that I was ever in with him.

The CHAIRMAN. You attended the quarterly conferences?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They are largely attended, 1 understand?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; well, those are stake conferences.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand, but they are very largely attended ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the apostles attend those meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; as far as they possibly can.

The CHAIRMAN. How long do those meetings last, generally?

Mr. LYMAN. They generally last two days.

The CHAIRMAN. Two days?

Mr. LYMAN. 'fwo days.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Smoot attends those gatherings ?

Mr. LYMAN. He used to do so before I went away.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there any social function in connection with
these gatherings?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; not usually.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, sometimes?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 do not remember one, Mr. Chairman. I do not
remember one, and I have attended a great many.

The CHAIRMAN. And do the apostles at that time, or at the weekly
gatherings, call on the president in a body sometimes?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And at the general conferences, quarterly confer-
ences, do your wives attend ?

Mr. LYMAN. The quarterly conferences?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LYMAN. They do when the conferences are held in the stake
where they live.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the wives attend?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And then the general conference— when is that held ?

Mr. LYMAN. The general conference is held twice a year.

The CHAIRMAN. When is that held?

Mr. LYMAN. In April and October.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that held?

Mr. LYMAN. That is held in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that largely attended? .

Mr. LYMAN. Very largely; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many people attend?

Mr. LYMAN. I suppose from 12,000 to 15,000 people, and then lots
of them can not get in — can not get room.

440 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the apostles attend those meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. Always, when they are at home.

The CHAIRMAN. And their families?

Mr. LYMAN. And what?

The CHAIRMAN. And their wives?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know about their wives. I never saw an
apostle with his wives at one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. You never took your wife?

Mr. LYMAN. Never.

The CHAIRMAN. To one of these gatherings?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I never went there with my wife. She has been
there. She goes when she has a mind to, but 1 am generally with my
brethren, and we go together.

The CHAIRMAN. But you have discovered her there some times ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; I have seen her.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the wives of the president of the church
personally ?

Mr. LYMAN. Well, 1 believe I do. That is, 1 believe I am acquainted
with them.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Lyman, your church publishes a book called
Church Chronology, does it not?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Under the direction of your assistant church historian,
who is here, Mr. Jenson?

Mr. LYMAN. Mr. Jenson; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And that is intended to contain an account of the vari-
ous things as they occur, from time to time, of interest to the church
and its people?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You were an apostle during the controversy that they
had with Moses Thatcher?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I find in this Book of Chronology — which I will iden-
tify later on, but it saves trouble to not do it here — under the year
1896, at page 211 of the edition of 1899, under date of Saturday, April
4, the following:

uThe sixty-sixth annual conference of the church convened in Salt
Lake City. It was continued for three days. In voting for the gen-
eral church authorities on the 6th, Charles W. Penrose wras sustained
as an assistant church historian. Moses Thatcher was not upheld as
one of the twelve because of his refusal to sign a manifesto issued by
the general authorities of the church to the saints, in which the leading
men of the church were requested to seek counsel before accepting
political offices wKich would interfere with their ecclesiastical duties."

Does that accurately describe what occurred with respect to Mr.
Thatcher on that occasion ?

Mr. LYMAN. Does that what?

Mr. TAYLER. Does that accurately describe what occurred respecting
Mr. Thatcher at that time?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe it does.

Mr. VAN COTT. Does that say "manifesto," Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Well, I read it.

KEED SMOOT. 441

Mr. VAN COTT. You said "manifesto." I was wondering if you
mispronounced the word. It is manifesto, is it?

Mr. TAYLER. " Moses Thatcher was not upheld as one of the twelve
because of his refusal to sign a manifesto issued by the general church
authorities to the saints, in which the leading men of the church were
requested to seek counsel before accepting political offices which would
interfere with their ecclesiastical duties."

Mr. VAN COTT. You know that that is erroneous, do you not, Mr.
Tayler, in saying "manifesto?" Is not that erroneous, in saying
"manifesto?"

Mr. TAYLER. I would not think to question this book.

Mr. VAN COTT. I just ask the question.

Mr. LYMAN. It does not mean the other manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. I would be criticised if I did question it.

Mr. VAN COTT. I did not mean to criticise you at all, Mr. Tayler.
I asked because I had an idea that Mr. Thatcher did sign the mani-
festo, but refused to sign the rule. That is the reason I ask about it.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not know. I, of course, assumed this was a cor-
rect statement of fact, as I doubt not almost everything is. It has been
called the manifesto. When did Mr. Smoot first speak to you respect-
ing his becoming a candidate for the United States Senate?

Mr. LYMAN. He never spoke to me.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you here at the time?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That was during your mission abroad?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; in Europe.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said your last child was born in 1900.
Can you give us the date ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; November 2.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have said you are next in succession to
the presidency.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Has that been simply by virtue of the fact that
you have been longer in the quorum of the apostles than any other
member of it?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And your turn comes in rotation?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Which, I understand, has been the universal
practice from the beginning?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How many children had your father — how many
male children ?

Mr. LYMAN. My father?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. He had twenty-two.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How many of them are polygamists, and how
many monogamists?

Mr. LYMAN. There is only myself living. I have a brother who
had two wives. He is dead. He died a few years ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And were all the rest monogamists, or men who
did not marry at all ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; my brother next to me has had three wives, but
only one at a time. He lost two.

442 REED SMOOT

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to your own children — how many male
children have you who are grown up, old enough to have wives of
their own, I mean ?

Mr. LYMAN. Four or five.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How many of your sons are married ?

Mr. LYMAN. Three are married.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are they monogamists or polygamists?

Mr. LYMAN. They are monogamists.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to these other apostles who come next in
order to you, are the}7 also there by virtue simply of the rule of
seniority ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They have come into their places by that rule?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And not because the}7 were polygamists?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, no.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you known of any instance of any man
being appointed or coming into high place in your church because he
was a polygamist?

Mr. LYMAN. Never.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By virtue of what is it they get into those
offices ?

Mr. LYMAN. His merit and the designation of the Lord.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have said the president of the church pre-
sides at the meetings of the apostles?

Mr. LYMAN. That is the council, when we all meet together.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do the apostles have meetings of their own ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When the president is not there ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is what I understood from the president.
How often do the apostles meet by themselves ?

Mr. LYMAN. Four times a year.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Only quarterly meetings?

Mr. LYMAN. Quarterly meetings.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At any of those quarterly meetings, has this
question of polygamous cohabitation been raised or discussed or acted
upon ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So far as you know, does Senator Smoot know,
or has he known, that you have been living with more than one woman
since he became an apostle?

Mr. LYMAN. He never knew.

The CHAIRMAN. You say he never knew?

Mr. LYMAN. He never knew; Apostle Smoot never knew that I was
doing wrong.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. These quarterly conferences are conferences of
the stake, I believe?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To what stake do you belong?

Mr. LYMAN. Tooele stake.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the same stake to which Senator Smoot be-
longs ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

REED SMOOT. 443

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you say the apostles generally attend
the meetings, do you mean all the apostles attend the quarterly meet-
ings of all the stakes ?

Mr. LYMAN. They do, as nearly as they can; one at a time, or two,
as the case may be.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are the quarterly conferences held at the same
time for the different stakes?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; that is, there will be perhaps three or four
on the same Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So far as you know, since Senator Smoot
became an apostle, has he ever been at any of those quarterly confer-
ences where your wives were present?

Mr. LYMAN. Never.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have your two wives ever been present at the
same quarterly conference at all?

Mr. LYMAN. Never.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, about these meetings at the tabernacle —
these large meetings. Do the apostles go to those meetings in a body ?

Mr. LYMAN. Not necessarily.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When they get there, where do they sit?

Mr. LYMAN. They sit in a body.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They sit together?

Mr. LYMAN. They sit together; yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They sit somewhere, I suppose, near the presi-
dent, do they — near the head of the church?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; they sit right by him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. President Smith has told us he has five wives.
Have you ever seen his live wives go in there together with their
children ?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 never saw one of them there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And if an apostle is there and has several
wives and children in the audience, is there any way for anybody who
does not know that they are his wives, being able to designate them?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, no. There are 10,000 people there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you have pews there where every man has
his place?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Everybody goes in and sits where he pleases?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; only the presidency and the twelve. They have
their seats that they occupy regularly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That does not apply to your families?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand you might go there a hundred
times, where another apostle has two or three wives present, and you
would have no means of knowing they were his wives?

Mr. LYMAN. I would not know anything about it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You spoke of the visits to the president's office, •
you said?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WTORTHINGTON. Are his office and his house combined in one
building?

Mr. LYMAN. His house — his official residence, as he spoke of it —
adjoins the office.

444 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you have gone there on business, do you
go into the part of the building in which his family resides?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So far as you know, has he at any time lived
there with anybody except his legal wife — his first wife?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know. I have not known it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you ever seen there any of his other
wives in that building?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is, at the residence?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. On any of those occasions was Senator Smoot
present ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have not been asked anything particularly
to-da}^ about the missionar}r work of the church. I understand that
is the principal work of the apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you are their head?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I want to ask you as to the books which you
use of late years. 1 will confine my inquiry on this subject to the
time since Senator Smoot became an apostle, about four years ago.
During that time, what books have been used or have been most used
b}^ your church in its missionary work?

Mr. LYMAN. The Book of Mormon. We have taken great pains to
publish that extensively in the United States and in foreign countries;
and of the commentaries, the Articles of Faith, by Talmage, is the
most popular work. If a man asks for a book, a comprehensive work,
from which to learn something of the doctrines of the Latter-day
Saints, we always recommend the Articles of Faith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is the book that has been here?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know whether there has been one here or not.
It has been spoken of.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; it has been identified.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is the book which announces that polygamy
was prohibited in 1890, and refers to the manifesto ?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe it does.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have not mentioned the Doctrine and Cove-
nants. Is that circulated, too?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have not mentioned the Doctrine and Cove
nants. Is that circulated, too?

Mr. LYMAN. No; not so much.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In what proportion do }^ou circulate the Doc-
• trine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, the Doctrine and Covenants is not circulated as a
book to make converts with. It is not circulated at all. If anybody
wants it — we do not put it forward; but the Book of Mormon and the
Articles of Faith. Then, there is the Voice of Warning, by Parloar
P. Pratt, and Key to Theology, by Parloar P. Pratt, and works of that
kind.

Mr. WORTHINTON. The Book of Mormon, 1 understand, was the

'ginai book. It is the Mormon Bible, if I may use that expression?

REED SMOOT. 445

Mr. LYMAN. That is what it is called in the world; yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was first promulgated about 1820—

Mr. LYMAN. 1830.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In that book polygamy was prohibited, I
believe?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; in that day. It is a history of ancient times.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In what proportion is the Doctrine and Cove-
nants circulated, compared with the Articles of Faith, the Talmage
book, which we have here?

Mr. LYMAN. We do not look upon the Doctrine and Covenants as a
book to circulate at all. It is a law of the church, the word of the
Lord to the church, and the law and discipline, but for the doctrines
of the church we take the commentaries more.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now. say in the last four years, what has been
the custom about instructing missionaries who go out on their work—-
the last four years, since Senator Smoot became an apostle ? I do not
care to go back farther than that now.

Mr. LYMAN. Of course, the last four years I have not been at home —
that is, three years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Take the last fourteen years then, since the
manifesto.

Mr. LYMAN. We always instruct the elders that they are sent out
to preach the first principles of the gospel.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who instructs them?

Mr. LYMAN. The twelve, and the first seven presidents of seventies.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They personally instruct them, do they?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And do you participate in that instruction, so
that }^ou know what it is?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Just tell us what it is.

Mr. LYMAN. We instruct them particularly to go into the world and
preach the first principles of the gospel. That is what they are sent
out for, and particularly to leave the mysteries alone.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are those first principles reduced to writing
or print?

Mr. LYMAN. Is what?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are those first principles reduced to writing or
print? Look at this card, for instance, and tell me whether that is
something you have been using in this work.

Mr. LYMAN. This is the Articles of Faith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are your missionaries instructed to promulgate
those articles?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir. "We believe in God the Eternal Father,
and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is the first.

Mr. LYMAN. "We believe that men will be punished for their own
sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

44 We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may
be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel
are: — (1) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) Repentance; (3) Baptism
by immersion for the remission of sins; (4) Laying on of hands for the
gift of the Holy Ghost.

446 REED SMOOT.

"We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and
by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority, to preach
the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

" We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive
Church, viz: Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.

" We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions,
healing, interpretation of tongues, etc.

"We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is trans-
lated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word
of God.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal,
and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things
pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

•' We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the resurrection
of the ten tribes; that Zion will be built upon this continent; that
Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and that the earth will be
renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

"We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according
to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same priv-
ilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and mag-
istrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous,
and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the
admonition of Paul. We believe all things, we hope all things, we
have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things.
If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praise-
worthy, we seek after these things."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have been reading from a printed card,
and I notice on the other side of it the words "Elder Nunham Stan-
ford, Egin, Idaho." Is he one of 3rour elders?

Mr. LYMAN. He is an elder; yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is this a sample of the way you do that part of
your work?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To what extent, if at all, since 1890, in instruct-
ing your missionaries and sending them out to their work, have you
told them to inculcate or encourage the practice of polygamy ?

Mr. LYMAN. They are always thoroughly warned, Mr. Chairman,
to avoid the discussion of that subject, and prohibited from discussing
it or advocating and defending or putting it forth, because we have
yielded that requirement to the law and have ceased plural marriages
entirely, and they never refer to it. They never advert to it at all
unless they are approached and compelled to.

The CHAIRMAN. And then what, if they are assailed?

Mr. LYMAN. If they are compelled, we always advise that they
should not listen, should not yield.

The CHAIRMAN. But if compelled, then what?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

The CHAIRMAN. If compelled to, by an assault?

Mr. LYMAN. I suppose they do, likely.

The CHAIRMAN. Do what?

Mr. LYMAN. I very much regret that they should answer at all in
regard to it.

EEED SMOOT. 447

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They do what?

The CHAIRMAN. What do they do ?

Mr. LYMAN. The}?- speak of the principle, I presume, when they are
compelled.

The CHAIRMAN. They denounce it or defend it?

Mr. LYMAN. Defend it. They would not denounce it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What arc they instructed to say .about the
practice of it as distinguished from the theory?

Mr. LYMAN. Forbid it entirely, and to instruct the people that noth-
ing1 of the kind is tolerated in the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is, you defend it as a belief ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But instruct that it is not to be pursued as a
practice ?

Mr. LYMAN. The}^ are entirety forbidden to handle it or do anything
with it, and what they do of course I am unable to say.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of course you can only say what they are told
to do.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But so far as you personally are concerned,
you can tell what you do? You go out as a missionary?

Mr. LYMAN. And I alwaj^s advise people that we are not practicing
or teaching that doctrine at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Right there just a moment. If your theory upon
that is assailed in regard to polygamy, do you then defend it?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that? If I am assailed?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; upon that doctrine; do you then defend it*

Mr. LYMAN. If 1 was assailed, I should tell that we have let that
doctrine go. We have let go of it.

The CHAIRMAN Do you, as a missionary, defend its rightf ulness ?

Mr. Lyman. Do I what?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you defend its rightf ulness?

Mr. LYMAN. If I did anything, 1 would have to.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have to do that?

Mr. LYMAN. I would have to if I did anything.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you mean defend its rightf ulness as a prin-
ciple or as a practice?

Mr. LYMAN. As a principle of faith.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 understand. You always instruct and tell
everybody it is forbidden — the practice of it.

Mr. LYMAN. Entirely; always. We never fail.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was about to ask you if you knew President
Woodruff, who issued the manifesto.

Mr. LYMAN. 1 knew him well; yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was he the president in 1894?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; I believe he was as late as 1894.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At the time of this alleged marriage of Mrs.
Kennedy in Mexico, I mean ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was the president?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If any elder or preacher of the church had
desired to have authority to perform a plural marriage ceremony at
that time, from whom could he have obtained that authority ?

448 REED SMOOT.

Mr. LYMAN. I am sure he could not have obtained it from anyone,
but President Woodruff would have been the only man that could
have given it.

Mr. WoRTHiNGTOir. Do you know what President Woodruff's
instructions were at that time, and what he was doing- about that?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; he forbade it entirely.

Senator .OVERMAN. Right there; has the president power to confer
that now upon an}^ of the apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator OVERMAN. Has the president now power to confer upon any
of the apostles that right?

Mr. LYMAN. Has he the power?

Senator OVERMAN. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, }res, sir; that is, he is the man who holds the keys,
and the only man.

Senator OVERMAN. He holds the keys, and he has power now to
confer upon the elders and apostles that right, notwithstanding the
manifesto?

Mr. LYMAN. He has all the power in that regard.

Senator OVERMAN. Notwithstanding the manifesto, then, he has the
right?

Mr. LYMAN. He has the power.

Senator OVERMAN. He has the power to authorize elders to perform
marriage with plural wives? Is that the way I understand you?

Mr. LYMAN. He has that authority.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Why do you say he has the authority when the
manifesto, which is a revelation, forbids it? I want to understand you.

Mr. LYMAN. Because the authority is in abeyance just as the law is
in abe}7ance.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean by that that he might receive another
revelation commanding or authorizing him to allow it?

Mr. LYMAN. No; not that, necessarily. His power has not been
shortened and his authority has not been shortened.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I want to see that I understand you. I under-
stand you all claim that the manifesto is a revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes. sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is, a direction from the Almighty not to
practice polygamy further?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; that is what it is.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If that is so, I do not understand how the presi-
dent, without a further revelation, can give anybody authority to vio-
late that direction.

Mr. LYMAN. Well, he is the only man who has any authority in
that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. He says he holds the keys.

Mr. LYMAN. He holds the keys of that authority and power.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by his holding the keys?

Mr. LYMAN. And he has the power and authority to exercise it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean he is above the Lord ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; he gets them from the Lord.

The CHAIRMAN. If the order of the Lord is one thing, how can he
give an order contrary to it if he is not above the Lord ?

Mr. LYMAN. He can not. He can not do it.

Senator OVERMAN. I understand you, Mr. Lyman, to state that this

REED SMOOT. 449

manifesto or revelation was only holding in abeyance the law as to
plural marriages ?

The CHAIRMAN. Suspending it.

Senator OVERMAN. Suspending it for the time, but that the presi-
dent still has the authority to confer that upon the elders and apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; but he is not at liberty to exercise it.

Senator OVERMAN. He is not at liberty to exercise it?

Mr. LYMAN. He is not at liberty to exercise it, because the Lord
has forbidden it.

The CHAIRMAN. If he had a revelation to suspend the suspension,
then he would be authorized ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not think there is any — I would not think there
was any probability of that at all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not speaking of the probabilities.

Mr. LYMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the Lord should appear to him and direct
him to suspend the suspension; he would then have to obey it?

Mr. LYMAN. He has obeyed the law in —

The CHAIRMAN. I say he would then have to obey that latest revela-
tion?

Mr. LYMAN. He has obeyed the law wherein the Lord forba.de
plural marriages.

The CHAIRMAN. That revelation suspended it. That was the lan-
guage ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Not in the manifesto, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYMAN. Not in the manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The manifesto does not say " suspended."

Senator DUBOIS. Look at the revelation. Does not that say it?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No.

Mr. TAYLER. What is the language?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The language of the manifesto is " prohibited,"
not "suspended."

Mr. TAYLER. Let us have the revelation.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the language is u suspend."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No. You are mistaken, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I may be in error.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You will find that elsewhere, but not in the
manifesto. Beginning at the top of page 18, it reads:

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural
marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the
court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those
laws, and to use my influence with the members of the church over
which I preside to have them do likewise.

"There is nothing in my teachings to the church, or in those of my
associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably con-
strued to inculcate or encourage polygamy, and when any elder of the
church has used language which appeared to convey any such teach-
ings he has been promptly reproved. And now I publicly declare
that my advice to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting
any marriage forbidden by the law of the land."

It does not say it is suspended.

Mr. TAYLER. That is advice.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I merely say the word "suspended" is not
there.

s 29

450 REED SMOOT.

Senator OVERMAN. Did you read the revelation itself? That is the
manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The revelation is the manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. I will pass that for the present.

I understood you to say that no question is made of an apostle
because he is a polygamist?

Mr. LYMAN. That is Avhat I said; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the apostleship within your knowledge denied to
any man because he is a polygamist ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is no bar to apostleship?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. On the contrary, is it a commendation?

Mr. LYMAN. It would be nothing against him.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that—

Mr. LYMAN. That is, Mr. Chairman, would }TOU allow me to explain,
that would be nothing against him if his marriage occurred before the
manifesto.

Senator DUBOIS. If it occurred after the manifesto, would it be an}^
thing against him ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. How was that with Apostle Cowley?

Mr. VAN COTT. I object to the assumption that Apostle Cowley
married since the manifesto, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DUBOIS. He was made an apostle after the manifesto, and
was a polygamist, as has been admitted here.

Mr. VAN COTT. The point I make, Senator, is this, that there is no
proof in the record that Apostle Cowley became a polygamist since
1890, and that is what Mr. Lyman has stated.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is what he said. He said if he had taken
plural wives since 1890, it would be a very serious objection to his
becoming an apostle.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one word more. You say at these large gath-
erings of the apostles the president and the apostles sit together?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In the temple?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a platform there?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; in the tabernacle.

The CHAIRMAN. In the tabernacle ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. A platform or pulpit?

Mr. LYMAN. It is a stand ; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the first president and the apostles occupy th:it
pulpit or stand together?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen Mr. Smoot there?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir. "

The CHAIRMAN. You say Mr. Smoot does not know you are a polyg-
amist?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you know he does not know it?

Mr. LYMAN. Because I do not know that he knows it. [Laughter.]

REED SMOOT. .451

The CHAIRMAN. You will not undertake to say what he knows or
what he does not know, will you?

Mr. LYMAN. I know some things; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. On that point?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; I think on that point I would be perfectly com-
petent.

The CHAIRMAN. You never discussed it with him, you say?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, never.

The CHAIRMAN. Never in the world?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And still you know that he does not know that?

Mr. LYMAN. I think I could prove it by him. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Undoubted!}-; but you do not want to say, do you,
that you know he does not know? You have said what the apostles
are instructed to do, or the missionaries?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And they are instructed not to go into the mysteries ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, of the kingdom.

The CHAIRMAN. Is polygamy one of the mysteries?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; it would be now. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. But if that doctrine is assailed, then you would be
called upon to defend it as a faith, would you?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I do not think I would say anything about it. I
would let them assail.

The CHAIRMAN. You would let them assail and you would walk off?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But you would defend the faith, would you not?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I think I would let the faith take care of itself.

The CHAIRMAN. But you would attend to the practice?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir. [Laughter.]

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Lyman, I desire to know whether an apostle
or any other officer of the church could become a candidate without
the consent of the church for a civil office?

Mr. LYMAN. Or any other officer; }<es, sir.

Senator PETTUS. Sir?

Mr. LYMAN. Other officers; }Tes, sir; many other officers. There
are only a few officers that are expected to ask consent if they want
to leave their fields.

Senator PETTUS. Who are they ?

Mr. LYMAN. The presidency and the twelve apostles, the first seven
presidents of seventies, the general authorities, and particularly the
men who are entirely engaged in the ministry.

Senator PETTUS. Bishops ?

Mr. LYMAN. A president of a stake. If a president of a stake wanted
to go to Congress or an}7where else he would consult with his file leaders
and ask to be released or relieved, furloughed, or something of the
kind, so that the field shall not be left unoccupied by some one respon-
sible to take care of the flock, just as a man taking care of his flock of
sheep would not leave his sheep until somebody else was there to take
care of the sheep. That is the principle only — nothing else.

Senator PETTUS. In the legislature of your , State what proportion
of the body is composed of Mormons ?

Mr. LYMAN. I have no idea, Mr. Senator, at all.

Senator PETTUS. None at all ?

452 REED SMOOT

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; I pay but very little attention to the legisla-
ture— very little.

Senator PETTUS. You have never attended the meetings of that body ?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I have not lately. I used to sit with them in
early days, but not latterly.

Senator PETTUS. Were you ever a legislator yourself ?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator PETTUS. Were you ever a member of the legislature?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; many times.

Senator PETTUS. When was that; how long ago?

Mr. LYMAN. First, in 1868.

Senator PETTUS. Y ou have no idea how many of them are Mormons ?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I have not now; no, sir. 1 could not tell at all.
There are other men here perhaps who could give an idea, but I do not
think I have been in the legislature since the organization of the State,
since the State was admitted into the Union.

Senator PETTUS. You have not been at the legislature at all?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I think not; no, sir.

Senator PETTUS. 1 do not mean as a member, but as a visitor.

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; not as a visitor. I do not remember that I
have.

Senator PETTUS. You say it is only the principal officers of the church
who are prohibited, in substance, from becoming candidates without
the consent of the church ?

Mr. LYMAN. That is all.

Senator PETTUS. Does it apply to the local ministers of the church?

Mr. LYMAN. Does it apply to?

Senator PETTUS. The local ministers, the preachers, the bishops ?

Mr. LYMAN. Well, it would apply to a bishop, yes. A bishop is
the father of his ward "and is expected to be on duty every day. A
president of a stake the same.

Senator PETTUS. Who gives this permission to run?

Mr. LYMAN. In a stake it would be the presidency of the stake.

Senator PETTUS. For instance, when Mr. Smoot wanted to become a
member of the Senate, who gave him permission to run ?

Mr. LYMAN. It was according to where he was located and what
position he held. If he was an apostle, he would obtain his permis-
sion from the president of the church.

Mr. VAN COTT. One moment, Mr. Lyman. I think you said Sen-
ator Smoot, did you not, Senator ?

Senator PETTUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Lyman, Senator Pettus asked you about Sen-
ator Stnoot— if he ran for the Senate.

Senator PETTUS. I sa}r, when he ran, from whom did he get his
permission ?

Mr. LYMAN. I was not here, Mr. Senator, but I believe it would be
from President Joseph F. Smith.

Senator PETTUS. According to the rules of the church, from whom
was it his duty to get permission?

Mr. LYMAN. From the president of the church, being an apostle.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The rule governing that subject, Senator, is in
the record. It is a written rule, and it is in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further desired of Mr. Lyman ?

KEED SMOOT. 453

Mr. VAN COTT. Just one thing, Mr. Chairman, if they are all
through.

Mr. TAYLER. No; I want to ask a question.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Lyman, 1 would like to ask one question. Do
you take interest, as ordinary citizens do, in the political elections in
your State?

Mr. LYMAN. I take great pains to vote, but otherwise I do not.

Senator HOAR. That is not precisely my question.

Mr. LYMAN. Not otherwise. I attend religiously to my voting. I
never fail to vote.

Senator HOAR. Did you ever know :>f Mormons, to any consider-
able extent, voting against Mormons who were candidates for office
and for a person not belonging to your community — voting for a
gentile against a Mormon ?

Mr. LYMAN. Please read the question.

(The reporter read the question.)

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes, sir. That is very common — very common,
and the gentile elected.

Senator HOAR. Do you say that the religious faith of the candidate
makes no difference in the voting of the men of your church ?

Mr. LYMAN. No difference at all, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes. Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Lyman, to
say that the book of Doctrine and Covenants is rather kept in the back-
ground now?

Mr. LYMAN. It is not used as a proselyting work at all.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you not know that it is the one book that is so
widely distributed that it has to have a fresh edition each year put out?

Mr. LYMAN. It is not used as a proselyting book in this church, and
has never been from the beginning.

Mr. TAYLER. That is true. You have said that, but you have not
answered my question. I will ask the reporter to read the question.

The reporter read the question as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. .Do you not know that that is the one book that is so
widely distributed that it has to have a fresh edition each year t>ut out? "

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; I do not know that.

Mr. TAYLER. I understood you to say that some of your apostles
have been chosen through revelations?

Mr. LYMAN. Every one of them.

Mr. TAYLER. Every one of them ?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smoot was chosen, then, through a revelation 8

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr.. TAYLER. Who received that revelation ?

Mr. LYMAN. Lorenzo Snow — President Lorenzo Snow.

Mr. TAYLER. What kind of a revelation was it?

Mr. LYMAN. From the Lord.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it written or—

Mr. LYMAN. Oral. It was not written. It was the voice of the Lord
to Lorenzo Snow.

Mr. TAYLER. Speaking directly to him?

Mr. LYMAN. To him.

Mr. TAYLER. And specifically indicating Mr. Smoot?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; it pointed him out exactly.

454 REED SMOOT

Mr. TATTLER. You do not define it as being a desire of Lorenzo
Snow (

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. To have Mr. Smoot one of the apostles, which he
imagined would be approved by God ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. But it is more specific and certain and substantive
than that I have just stated.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. I would like to ask one question there. You say
that Mr. Smoot was selected as an apostle by the voice of the Lord to
Lorenzo Snow?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Do you know whether that voice was audible, in the
sense of an ordinary- sound?

Mr. LYMAN. It was, no doubt, audible to him=

Senator HOAR. Audible as a sound rather than a light?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. How do you know?

Mr. LYMAN. How do I know ?

Senator HOAR. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. The Lord revealed it to me.

Senator HOAR. The Lord revealed it to you also?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; by his spirit.

Senator HOAR. How did He reveal it to you?

Mr. LYMAN. By the spirit of the Lord.

Senator HOAR. Did He reveal it to you by an audible sound, as you
hear the voice of an ordinary person speaking to you ?

Mr. LYMAN. He spoke to me by his spirit.

Senator HOAR. How?

Mr. LYMAN. By his holy spirit.

Senator HOAR. How ?

Mr. LYMAN. To my soul.

Senator HOAR. How ?

Mr. LYMAN. And heart.

Senator HOAR. How ?

Mr. LYMAN. By the spirit of the Lord.

Senator HOAR. How did the spirit of the Lord speak by the spirit
of the Lord to your soul? In what way was the speech made?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 could tell you, Mr. Senator, how 1 obtained that
spirit and testimony so that not only when Mr. Smoot has been chosen,
but when every other apostle has been chosen, the spirit of the Lord
has borne record to my spirit.

Senator HOAR. 1 understood Mr. Smith to testify that he had never
had a revelation since he has been president of the church.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Senator HOAR. You have had some?

Mr. LYMAN. What President Smith does as the president of this
church he does by the direction of the spirit of the Lord, not a writ-
ten revelation. Two of the apostles were chosen, and revelation was
written when George Teasdale was chosen, and Heber J. Grant,
but-

Senator HOAR. Have 3Tou always obeyed those revelations in your
actions about the selection of apostles?

REED SMOOT. 455

.

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator HOAR. Have you always obeyed those revelations ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; in the selection.

Senator HOAR. Do you make any distinction in your mind between
commands of the Lord, that you are at libert}^ to disobey, and com-
mands that you are at libert}^ to obey ?

Mr. LYMAN. The commands of the Lord that I have disobeyed —
that I presume the Senator refers to — in my life, 1 trust myself to the
mercy of the Lord.

Senator HOAR. Have you repented of that disobedience?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator HOAR. Have you repented of that disobedience?

Mr. LYMAN. Not yet; no, sir.

Senator HOAR. Not yet?

Mr. LYMAN. Not yet. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. You say that Mr. Smoot was chosen by revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. To Mr. Snow?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You voted for Mr. Smoot?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As an apostle ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you first communicate to Mr. Snow to ascer-
tain what —

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And he told you what the Lord had told him?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you get your revelation about Mr. Smoot?

Mr. LYMAN. When he made the revelation to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it after Mr. Snow told you, or before?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes; after.

The CHAIRMAN. You got your revelation after Snow got his and
told you what it was?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; the Lord did not tell me first.

Senator HOAR. 1 would like to ask one more question. Have you
communicated to your associate apostles, or any of them, what you
have stated to me, namely, that you disobeyed the commands of the
Lord and that you have not yet repented?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I have not told them.

Senator HOAR. Any of them ?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I have not told them?

Senator HOAR. So far as you know and believe, is not the fact of
your disobedience, which has been spoken of, well known in that com-
munity?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. You have no reason to doubt it is known to your
associate apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes; I think so.

Senator HOAR. You think it is well known?

Mr. LYMAN. I think it is generally understood.

Senator HOAR. You have no doubt it is well known to Mr. Smoot.
Do you know whether they approve or disapprove ?

456 REED SMOOT.

Mr. LYMAN. I am speaking of the people. I do not think Mr. Smoot
knows in regard to the matter.

Senator HOAR. What makes you think that if the people generally
know it one of your associate apostles does not know it?

Mr. LYMAN. He has never met one of my wives.

Senator HOAK. Have the people in general met one of your wives?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator HOAR. Have the people in general met your wives?

Mr. LYMAN. They have met them some; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. They have met them some?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Do you mean to say, Mr. Lyman, that the fact that
you are living in a state of polygamy is known to the people in general,
as you believe, and yet that, as you believe, it is not known to Mr.
Smoot, your associate apostle ?

Mr. LYMAN. I mean that it is generally accepted as a fact. I do
not — I perhaps ought not to have said that the people generally know
it, but they generally accept it.

Senator HOAR. Do you mean to say that you believe that what the
people generally accept as a fact on that subject is not known and
accepted as a fact by Mr. Smoot, your associate apostle ?

Mr. LYMAN. I think it is accepted as a fact by Mr. Smoot, but I do
not think he knows it. [Laughter.]

Senator HOAR. Well, in what sense do you declare you think that
the people generally do know it, and at the same time declare that you
think Mr. Smoot does not? What is the distinction between the gen-
eral knowledge of the people and his, in your mind ?

Mr. LYMAN. I am so generally known, and my reputation is so wide
that I think the church accept —

Senator HOAR. Are you not as well known to Mr. Smoot personally
and by reputation as to the people in general ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Then, why do you think he knows less about this
matter than people in general ?

Mr. LYMAN. I think he knows just as much as they dp. [Laughter.]

Senator HOAR. I wish to remind you that you have just said exactly
the contrary of that. You have just said that you thought people in
general did know it, and that you believed Mr. Smoot did not.

Mr. LYMAN. 1 believe the people generally accept it as a fact, but
they do not know it.

Senator HOAR. What did }^ou mean just now when you said they did
know it and Mr. Smoot did not? I asked you why, and you said
because he had not met your wives.

Mr. LYMAN. I presume they accept it as a fact, and I presume he
does, but they do not know it.

Senator HOAR. You do not yet answer my question, which is why
you said just now that you believed people in general did know it and
that Mr. Smoot did not; and when I asked you why you thought your
associate on the board of apostles did not know what the people knew,
you said that he had not met your wives; and I asked you if the people
generally had, and you made the answer which you will recall. Do
you take back what you said just now?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 did, Mr. Senator.

Senator HOAR. You did take it back?

REED SMOOT. 457

Mr. LYMAN. I did take it back, yes; and I intended to say that the
people generally know — the people accept it as a fact.

Senator HOAR. Do you not think, Mr. Apostle, that in this hearing
it behooves you to be a little careful of your answers so that in so
important a matter you do not have to take back in two or three min-
utes what you have said? Have you had any revelation or command-
ment in regard to the testimony you should give in this case?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. There is no inspiration of that or any part of it?

Mr. LYMAN. As to the testimony I should give here ?

Senator HOAR. As to the testimony you have given or are to give.

Mr. LYMAN. No; I do not know that I have, particularly. I came
here to answer the questions of the committee.

Senator HOAR. But I want to know whether you are answering them
under the direction of the Lord, according to your belief, or merely
in your human and uninspired capacity?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe I shall answer the questions that are asked
me here as the spirit of the Lord directs me, and truthfully.

Senator HOAR. Do you mean to say that the spirit of the Lord
directs you in your answers here?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe so.

Senator HOAR. You believe so?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Then in your belief, did the spirit of the Lord
direct you to make the answer which you just took back and said was
a mistake? Well, if you can not answer it I will not press it. That
is all.

The CHAIRMAN. That question was not answered.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you hear that last question, Mr. Lyman ?

Mr. LYMAN. I think I did; yes. I think 1 understood what he said.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you one question. In view of your
testimony here to-day, do you think your associate, Senator Smoot,
knows now that you are a polygamist ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I object to that question, Mr. Chairman. I do not
think it is proper to ask this witness that kind of a question. Senator
Smoot is sitting in the room, and I do not think it is proper to ask that
question under the circumstances.

Mr. TAYLER. I think the question is proper, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness has testified about his knowing things
and not knowing things, and he has testified now, in the presence of
Mr. Smoot, as to his conduct; that he is living in potygamous cohabi--
tation. I ask him now, for the purpose of testing the witness, if, in
his judgment, Mr. Smoot knows that fact now?

Mr. VAN COTT. If that is the object 1 withdraw the objection, Mr.
Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, there is no other purpose, of course.

Mr. LYMAN. In my judgment he does not know it. That would be
my judgment.

The CHAIRMAN. He does not know it?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you mean by that to suggest that Mr. Smoot
does not believe you?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I believe he believes it.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe he believes it?

458 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And holioves you?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But he does not know it?

Mr. LYMAN. He does not know it. That is my judgment, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. TAYLER. That is to say, Mr. Smoot is just as disqualified now
to testify to the fact that you are living in polygamy as he was before
you testified?

Mi. LYMAN. That he is just as competent, you say?

Mr. TAYLER. No. I say he is just as incompetent now, except to
testify to an admission of yours.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; he could testify- to my admission.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. I agree with you entirely in your answer
to this question I pursued briefly a line of inquiry-
Senator OVERMAN. Let me ask this question: Do you think Mr.
Smoot believed you were a polygamist and living in polygamous
cohabitation while he was an apostle associated with you, prior to his
coming to the Senate?

Mr. LYMAN. Did he believe?

Senator OVERMAN. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The question is whether he thought he believed
it?

Senator OVERMAN. Whether you thought he believed it? You say
he believes it now. Did he believe it then ? You say he did not know
it then. Did he believe it then?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know whether he did or not. I never talked
with him on the subject.

Senator OVERMAN. How do you know now he believes it ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. I asked you two or three questions, Mr. Lyman,
respecting the choice of apostles by revelation, and you stated they
were all chosen by revelation.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And therefore I did not ask you a question which 1
had intended to ask, because I supposed they were all, except the
early ones, chosen by the same kind of revelation.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand that a different kind of revelation was
the source of the choice of George Teasdale and Heber Grant?

Mr. LYMAN. The revelation was written.

Mr. TAYLER. That was written ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; it was a written revelation.

Mr. TAYLER. Who received that written revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. John Taylor.

Mr. TAYLER. Who?

Mr. LYMAN. President John Taylor.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you see the writing — the revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You saw it?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, it was published; yes.

Mr. TAYLER. It was published*

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

REED 8MOOT. 459

Mr. TAYLEK. In whose handwriting was the revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not remember.

Mr. TAYLEK. Were you an apostle at the time?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That that revelation came ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLEK. And the fact that this written revelation had been
received by John Taylor, directing the choice of Heber Grant and
George Teasdale as apostles, was communicated to you, was it?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLEK. And you obeyed that revelation ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. No apostle since then has been chosen by- means of a
written revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; not that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith testified respecting the subject of revelations
and said that there had been no revelation since 1882 except that which
is referred to in the manifesto of 1890?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. The 1882 revelation to which he referred was this one
appointing these two apostles, was it ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; that was one of them.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, I do not think I misunderstood Mr. Smith in
assuming that he meant by that, not that he himself had not received
revelations for his own personal guidance, but that he had received no
revelation for the general guidance of the church since 1882.

Mr. LYMAN. None that was written.

Mr. TAYLER. None that was written.

Mr. LYMAN. Not a written revelation; no.

Mr. TAYLER. But that he is in receipt of revelations from time to
time from God that are not written. Is that right?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes. I would like to explain, Mr. Chairman, if you
will allow me —

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. LYMAN. That we believe that in the organization of the church,
and in all its departments, in conducting the missionary department of
the church, all that work and labor is done under the inspiration of
the Lord; that when an apostle is chosen, as was related here by
President Smith, the names of men are presented, as in olden times,
when, if there was a vacancy in the twelve, in the days of the Savior,
two men, if you remember, were presented, and the lot fell to Mat-
thias to fill the vacancy made by the death of Judas who betrayed
Jesus. The lot fell, to Matthias, as the Lord signified and indicated.

So when a vacancy occurs in the council of the twelve, two vacan-
cies or three vacancies as sometimes occur, the names of men who
have accompanied with the church, and have been long experienced
and trained and known, are presented before the Lord and the Lord
manifests through the president, the prophet, Lorenzo Snow, Wilf ord
Woodruff', John Taylor, or Joseph F. Smith, the name of the man
who is to fill that vacancy or those vacancies; and every apostle
receives the witness to his heart and soul that that is the man for the
position, and they are united. When those men or that man is taken
before the general conference, every Latter-Day Saint is entitled to

460 REED SMOOT.

feel the burning, warming influence of the spirit of the Lord is in his
heart and soul when he votes for that man. The spirit of testimony
and the spirit of the Lord touch the hearts of the people, and thus
they are just as firm and established in their faith of the divine choice
of that man as are the apostles themselves.

Mr. TAYLER. They know the choice has been made by the apostles
through revelation?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes. It is the same in organizing our stakes and
quorums of the priesthood. We seek the spirit of the Lord, and believe
that we obtain it and listen to it, in the direction of the choice of men.
Now, that is the course, Mr. Chairman, that is pursued by the Latter-
Day Saints in their organization.

Mr. TAYLER. When the son of Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum, and his
nephew, George A.—

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Were selected apostles, it came through the revela-
tion to Joseph F. Smith, just as the others did?

Mr. LYMAN. Joseph F. Smith would be the man to announce the
man to be chosen.

Mr. TAYLER. The revelation ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not quite satisfied with the answer you made
about Mr. Smoot' s knowledge. Do you say Mr. Smoot now does not
know you are a polygamist, you having so stated ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not think he knows.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think he knows?

Mr. LYMAN. That would be my judgment — that he does not knowc
He believes it, no doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. He would know, if you told the truth, would he
not?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not think he would know that?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have told the truth about it?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And Mr. Smoot is present?

Mr. LYMAN. And Mr. Smoot, I presume, will believe every word
I say.

The CHAIRMAN. And he is present?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a denomination or a portion of the Mormon
faith called the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints ?

Mr. LYMAN. There is such a church; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There is such a church?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know where is its headquarters; who is at
the head of that church ?

Mr. LYMAN. Joseph Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. Joseph Smith ?

Mr. LYMAN. A son of the prophet.

The CHAIRMAN. And he is a son of the original prophet?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He is at the head of that church ?

REED SMOOT. 461

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know where he resides?

Mr. LYMAN. At Lamoni.

The CHAIRMAN. How does that organization differ from yours ?

Senator DUBOIS. In what State is that?

The CHAIRMAN. In what State?

Mr. LYMAN. In many particulars.

The CHAIRMAN. No. In what State does he reside?

Mr. LYMAN. In Iowa.

The CHAIRMAN. He is the president of that church now 1

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Without going into it generally, in what respect
does that organization differ from yours upon the question of
polygamy ?

Mr. LYMAN. In what respect?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Why, in every respect?

The CHAIRMAN. They denounce it, do they not?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, they denounce it; yes, sir, in strong terms, and
almost provoke us to defend it sometimes. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; they almost provoke you to defend it. That
is all.

Senator DUBOIS. Also, they do not teach absolute obedience to the
leaders, do they?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator DUBOIS. They do not teach absolute obedience to their
leaders ?

Mr. LYMAN. I think not. I think they are not very strenuous.
Still, I am not very much of a judge of their doctrines.

Senator DUBOIS. I understood you to say that President Smith gave
his permission to Reed Smoot to be a candidate for the United States
Senate ?

Mr. LYMAN. Well, I presume so. 1 was not there, Mr. Senator. 1
was away.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He says he was not here, Senator.

Mr. SMITH. I was riot here to know about it. I was in Europe.

Senator DUBOIS. Would not that be the source from which he would
get the consent, ordinarily ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; from President Smith, I would presume.

Senator DUBOIS. If he received the consent he got it from President
Smith?

Mr. LYMAN. I should think so; yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Now, suppose President Smith had refused consent
and Reed Smoot, notwithstanding, had insisted on being the candidate
for the United States Senate. What position would Mr. Smoot have
been in?

Mr. LYMAN. 1 should say that he was insubordinate.

Senator DUBOIS. What would happen to him then ?

Mr. LYMAN. He would be very likely to be disciplined.

Senator DUBOIS. What does that consist of ?

Mr. LYMAN. Taken to task, and reproved and corrected.

Senator DUBOIS. What effect would it have had on the people if he
had presisted in his candidacy ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know, I am sure.

462 REED 3MOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. Notwithstanding the refusal of the president of
the church to give his consent*

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know what effect it would have had.

Senator DUBOIS. Suppose the president had given his consent to
some other apostle to be a candidate, and notwithstanding that, Reed
Srnoot, an apostle, had insisted on being a candidate against the apostle
who had received the consent. Which one of those apostles or per-
sons—

Mr. LYMAN. I do not know; it would have made a whole lot of con-
fusion. We would have to grapple with that question when it came
to us.

Senator OVERMAN. Do I understand you to say the difference
between the reorganized Mormon Church and yours is that they are
not required to obey their leaders and your people are required to
obey their leaders ?

Mr. LYMAN. No, I did not say that. Somebody suggested that. I
do not criticise them in that regard. I believe they do not gather.
We gather. I know of no other religious people that gather. They
do not gather.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you mean by "gather 2"

Mr. LYMAN. Gather together.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In conference?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; from Europe to the United States and to the land
of Zion. We gather together and they do not. We build temples
and they do not. We marry for eternity and they do not, as I under-
stand. I would not like to be taken to task. I may be mistaken in
some of these ideas, but I believe those things make us differ. On the
first principles of the gospel I think they agree pretty well with us,
but they do not believe in the endowments, I understand, nor temple
building, nor the gathering. I do not think they engage in the doc-
trine of salvation for the dead, which we do.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, might I ask what the question
of the reorganized church and the difference between that and this
church has to do with the question we have here ?

The CHAIRMAN. The question I propounded was simply to ascertain
whether there was another organization than the Mormon Church of
which we have been speaking, so that we could know whether there
were two organizations.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, I think the counsel should under-
stand that while the committee will preserve carefully the right of his
client so that he should not be affected by evidence that ought not to
affect him — and being a committee of lawyers, they ought to be able to
do that — the committee are engaged not only in trying an ordinary
case, but to some extent are engaged in an investigation. A com-
mittee of the Senate is in part like a grand jury who would inquire
into some fact not of itself bearing on the question to see whether it
might demand a further investigation, and would do so. That is, we
might ask for a hearsay answer in order to see where we can get other
testimony.

We are not simply controlled by agreements of the parties or by
the narrow issue. While of course they are subject to the possible
effect on any human mind, and such proceedings might bias them a
little, yet, as I understand it, that is always the rule in legislative
inquiries, and I suppose— I certainly have put questions myself which

REED SMOOT. 463

I should not have put if I had been a judge in an ordinary court of
justice, trying simply the one issue.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Senator, I should say that I understood
that perfectly, and therefore 1 have made no objection to a great many
things that I thought the Senators who asked them would not think of
considering as against Senator Smoot; but this seems to me to be get-
ting away so far from any possibility that could, either under the
charges that are here or any charges that might arise, affect Senator
Smoot that I felt justified in making the inquiry.

It is a question about the doctrines of another organization to which
he does not belong and never has belonged, and I did not see how it
could be pertinent to the inquiry here, either under the charges as
they stand or any other against him. I therefore asked the question,
not for the reason of suggesting any obstruction of the inquiry, but
for the purpose of finding out whether it was supposed to have any
bearing upon Senator Smoot, so that, if it was thought it might, we
might pursue it.

Senator OVERMAN. I think my question was proper along that line.
If they have to obey the orders of the president and the orders of the
twelve apostles I think it bears directly upon this issue; and I had under-
stood the witness to state, and he did state, that that was one of the
differences between the reorganized church and his church; that the
reorganized church did not believe in obeying their leaders. Now he
says he did not intend to say that. You see how important that ques-
tion would be. If Mr. Smoot has to obey the orders of that church
we have a hierarchy greater than the Government.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand it was perfectly competent, Mr.
Chairman, to inquire whether Senator Smoot was bound to obey the
orders of his church, but I did not see what the fact that somebody
belonging to another organization would not be bound to obey it would
have to do with the question.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the main point to be reached was the
power. Did he answer that question?

Senator OVERMAN. I think he answered it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; he answered it.

Senator OVERMAN. And then counsel objected.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I objected to the general line of inquiry,
Senator.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be foreclosed by the
fact that this informal discussion has taken place from taking a differ-
ent ground when the juncture comes than that which is stated by Mr.
Worthington, for we shall argue that here are two branches, said to
be branches of the same church, in which the only difference is that
one believes in the doctrine of plural marriages and in the subordina-
tion of its people. That is the only distinction between the two. One
of them has a history with which we are all familiar. I do not com-
ment on that now at all. It has made great trouble in this country.
The other is composed, so far as history tells us anything about it, of
a peaceable, law-abiding, orderly people; and it is in respect of those
two things around which all of this case gathers — potygamy and the
direction of the people by the apostolate — and if those two were elim-
inated this hearing would not be going* on here.

Senator DILLINGHAM. That being so, what does the other church
have to do with this question? The Methodist Church, the Congre-

464 REED SMOOT.

g-ational Church, the Episcopal Church do not believe in the author-
ity of the church nor do they believe in polygamy. Therefore, what
has the other branch, as you call it, to do with this investigation?

Mr. TAYLER. I will not argue about the Methodist Church and the
Congregational Church. The argument would be analogous, but not
forcible. But now we have undertaken to distinguish between these
two church organizations and what they stand for, a"nd we discover
why it is that one of them is a menace, as it is claimed, to good gov-
ernment and to society and to civilization, and the other is not, both
claiming under the same prophet and believing in the same thing save
only those two items and elements of faith.

Senator DILLINGHAM. It is not claimed, I suppose, that Reed Smoot
is connected with the other branch ?

Mr. TAYLER. No; unfortunately he is not.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I was asking you how you made that apply
to the issue in this case. That is what I did not understand. But
you have made your explanation, and I am satisfied with it.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course we claim that Mr. Smoot is inextricably
woven into this fabric, and he can not extricate himself without cut-
ting himself off with a knife, or scissors, or some other process that
brings about separation.

Senator HOAR. I want to say this, Mr. Tayler. I have some little
hesitancy whether I had better do it now, but I will. How do you
distinguish this obligation of Mr. Smoot which you propose to show,
and which you have put in a good deal of evidence tending to show, to
obey, without regard to his own opinion or belief, the dictates of a hier-
archy to which he belongs, from the obligation which is asserted by
so many excellent citizens in both political parties to obey the behests
of their party in regard to important public questions?

Mr. TAYLER. I have a very .well denned — —

Senator HOAR. Perhaps you would rather not state that now ?

Mr. TAYLER. I would rather not state it now, because it would be
so incomplete a statement of my position, but that reflection has passed
through my mind and I am ready to answer it to my satisfaction, at
any rate.

Senator HOAR. I should like to hear from 3^011 in regard to that.
One of the best beloved of our statesmen told me, with tears in his
eyes, that he was utterly opposed to a certain political policy which he
thought was going to bring the Republic to destruction. 1 said to him,
" Why do you not oppose it then, publicly?" To which he answered,
"I am going with my party."

Mr. TAYLER. That was a party, however, not a church.

Senator HOAR. I will not go into the debate now. I rather think i
was indiscreet in putting the question to you, but you were so near it.
I shall like, when the proper time comes, to hear your distinction
between the two cases.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, may I, that I do
not want, by not sa}dng anything on this point now, to let it be under-
stood in the mind of any member of the committee for a moment that
we concede, if it should appear, as we maintain it will not, that Senator
Smoot is a member of an organization which is called a church, and
that church is of the character in the power of its superior officers
which has been maintained here, that that will be a cause for removing

REED SMOOT. 465

him from his seat in the Senate. That is a matter we can reach, how-
ever, when we come to the argument.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter of debate and consideration by the
committee. Have you anything further to ask this witness Mr.
Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Nothing.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you, Mr. Worthington?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask how long you will take, M/. Worth-
ington ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But a very few minutes, Mr. Chairman. I have
but a few questions to ask.

In reference to revelations by which new apostles have been put in
the quorum of the twelve, I think it is a fact, Mr. Lyman, is it not,
that since Reed Smoot became a member of the apostles, all who have
succeeded him have been monogamists?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, as to the book called Ready References.
This was a question I meant to have asked you before. To what
extent, if at all, is that used in your missionary work? Do you knowr
what the book is?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; I know what it is. Of course it was put out
many years ago in Liverpool and has been quite an assistance to the
elders in years gone by, but since the "articles of faith" was put forth,
and tracts have multiplied very greatly, that book is not in use as it
was originally.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, with reference to Senator Smoot running
for Senator or doing anything else that the authorities did not want
him to do. If he chose still to do it he could leave the church, could
he not?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There is no compulsion — no punishment?

Mr. LYMAN. No.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If he wants to do anything and the church for-
bids it, he can say, " I will go out of the church," and he can do it,
can he not?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes; he is at perfect liberty.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You were asked how many Mormons — how
many members of your church — are in your State legislature. You say
you do not know?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know whether there is in it a single
poly gam ist?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have already perhaps mentioned it, but
any revelation, whether it be one as to an apostle, or anything else, it
must be submitted to the conference and sustained, as you call it, by a
majority of the conference?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before it becomes binding?

Mr. LYMAN. It would have to be sustained by the apostles before it
becomes binding.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And then it has to be sustained again by the
conference ?

s 30

466 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. LYMAN. By the people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. bo, unless it is sustained by a majority of one of
those great gatherings, it goes for nothing?

Mr. LYMAN. It is generally sustained by them all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand it is, but they have their right to
object?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So one who obeys a revelation of that kind
obe}Ts not only the voice of God, but obeys that of a majority of his
church.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There is one question that was asked here by
Senator Dubois that we think may mean what perhaps he never
intended. It appears that this man had been married to a woman for
quite a number of years, and his first child by her was in 1901. Is it
claimed, may I ask, by counsel or by anybody, that that may indicate
that he was not married to the woman until after the'manifesto?

Senator DUBOIS. I have asked for the marriage certificate.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well; then I will ask the question. I will
ask you this. Mr. Lyman. There was one wife who bore you a child
first in 1901?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, no; 1891.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1891, I mean. When did you marry that wife?

Mr. LYMAN. In 1884.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was she suffering from any physical complaint
or disability which prevented her from having children?

Mr. LYMAN. I would not like to say that. I would not like to
answer a question of that kind.

Senator DUBOIS. Why not get the marriage certificate ? That is all
I asked for.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understood him to say there was no marriage
certificate. That was before the Edmunds-Tucker act went into effect.

Senator HOAR. That question can not be very important.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did not consider it of importance; but we
thought, especially after the question I asked of the Senator, that it
might be intended to say that although he puts the marriage back to
1884, it must have taken place after the manifesto, because there was
this long interval without any children. I had a delicacy about it, but
I can not allow that delicacy to let the suspicion rest on the statement.

Senator DUBOIS. Oh, no; I would like to have the certificate of
marriage.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You know the law did not require these records
of marriage until 1887.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks that ought not to be insisted upon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Since a question has been asked about this
reorganized church I will ask you this question: One of the claims of
that reorganized church, I believe, is that Brigham Young and not
Joseph Smith, jr., the original president, introduced polygamy. Is
not that one of their claims?

Mr. LYMAN. I believe so; yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You say you remember as far back as 1840—
what do you say?

Mr. LYMAN. 1845.

EEED SMOOT. 467

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You remsmber, then, that your father had a
polygamous household at that time?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; he always had as long as I can remember my
father. 1 was born in 1840.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have said that if Apostle Smoot wished to
run for Senator he would have to get the consent of President Smith?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is not the rule of your church, which refers to
these higher officials getting consent to run for office or engage in
business inconsistent with the duties of their office, a written rule?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And it is in evidence here?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And what it means anybody can tell by
reading it?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As well as you can ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have said to Senator Hoar that you think
the people generally knew you were living with more than one wife ?

Mr. LYMAN. Well, I retracted that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did not so understand. Did you mean to say
that the people of the State of Utah generally have known that you
have been living with both your wives ?

Mr. LYMAN. I think they generally accepted it that I was a polyg-
ainist. I think it was generally understood in the State.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was generally understood that you had two
wives, you mean?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What I want to know is whether, when you say
it was generally understood, you mean it was understood that you were
living with both of them?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I do not think it was.

Senator 'DUBOIS. Mr. Lyman, by what process do the people sustain
a revelation submitted to them by the president and apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. By raising their right hand.

Senator DUBOIS. That is at one of the general conferences.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; at their conferences.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you recollect any time when the people refused
to sustain any revelation submitted to them by the president and
apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. Not any revelation.

Senator DUBOIS. That was my question.

Mr. LYMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to ask one question. Is there anything
in the rules and practice of your church which prevents an apostle
from severing his connection with the apostolate?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smoot could resign ?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. From the apostolate and still remain a member of
the church?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes, sir; any man can resign.

Senator HOAR. Do you mean to say that if the revelations from the

468 REED SMOOT.

Lord had directed that he should be an apostle, he would be at liberty
to resign, if he chose?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. And remain a member of the church in good and
regular standing?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; he has his agency.

Senator HOAR. Then he would be at liberty to disobey the word of
the Lord and still remain ?

Mr. LYMAN. Oh, yes; all men are at liberty to do that.

Senator HOAR. And still remain a good member of your church ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Senator HOAR. You said in reply to Mr. Worthington that if the
conference or the people, in whatever mode the}7 act, rejected a reve-
lation, failed to sustain it, it would go for nothing. Did I understand
you correctly?

Mr. LYMAN. Did I answer you? A revelation, was it?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said if a revelation should be submitted to
a conference —

Senator HOAR. I am asking the questions now, Mr. Worthington.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The witness asked me a question and 1 was
answering him.

Senator HOAR. Would that revelation which had come through the
president from the Lord and which the people had rejected, go for
nothing? Do you mean to say that?

Mr. LYMAN. If the people rejected it, it would go for nothing for
them.

Senator HOAR. For them?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Then, you would have a revelation. Would it still
be binding upon the person to whom it was revealed — you, if it came
to you, or Mr. Smith, if it came to him?

Mr. LYMAN. It is not binding on people that will not submit to it.

Senator HOAR. I understand; I am speaking now of this: Suppose
a revelation came to you or Mr. Smith and was rejected by the peo-
ple; would it still be binding on you?

Mr. LYMAN. Well, if it was to me —

Mr. HOAR. According to the doctrine of your church ?

Mr. LYMAN. If it was to me — 1 may explain, Mr. Chairman, if you
will allow me —

Senator HOAR. Certainly.

Mr. LYMAN. To show that the occasions are when the people reject
the counsel of their leaders in the choice, for instance, of a man to pro
side over them, chosen by the presidency of the church, and pre-
sented—

Senator HOAR. I am speaking of a man chosen by the Lord.

Mr, LYMAN. If they reject him he is not their president, because
the president has chosen him alone. It must have the common consent
of the people over whom he is to preside.

Senator HOAR. But my question is in regard to a revelation which
I understood you said just now went for nothing, made by the Lord
to his chosen instrument, and rejected by the people. Does the chosen
instrument of the Lord then, according to the faith of your church,
follow the direction of the people or the revelation of the Lord ?

Mr. LYMAN. If the people rejoct the law they would not be under it.

EKED SMOOT. 469

Senator HOAR. I do not ask that. I ask what he would bo under,
what he would do ?

Mr. LYMAN. He would not be under condemnation.

Senator HOAR. No; 1 do not ask about condemnation, but whether
he would continue to obey the revelation as an existing authority or
mandate ?

Mr. LYMAN. I presume he would. I presume he would.

Senator HOAR. Then what did you mean when you said it went for
nothing ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not remember that question, Mr. Senator. I
would like to be refreshed in my mind. I do not remember the answer.
I do not remember the question.

Senator HOAR. I thought you said just now you did remember it?
Very well. Mr. Worthington asked you what would happen if the
revelations to the president, or to whomsoever it is made, were rejected
by the conference or the people. He said would it go for nothing,
and you said 3^es.

Mr. LYMAN.. Now, I think I can understand, Mr. Senator. We will
take, for instance, the revelation given that called George Teasdale
and Heber J. Grant to be apostles.

Senator HOAR. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Now, if the church had rejected that revelation George
Teasdale and Heber J. Grant would never have been apostles?

Senator HOAR. And you would not have treated them as apostles in
your capacity as another apostle ?

Mr. LYMAN. No; they never would have been there at all. They
never would have been apostles if they had been rejected by the church.

Senator HOAR. You would not have treated them as apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. No.

Senator HOAR. Then, in your church, in conferring the apostolic
authority, the voice or judgment of the people is of more authority
than the mandate of the Lord, is it?

Mr. LYMAN. The law of the Lord as revealed to us, Mr. Senator,
requires that whatever is done must be done by the common consent
of the people — common consent of the people.

Senator HOAR. Yes. Then according to your faith the Lord sub-
mits his decree to the judgment of the people, and does not desire
them to be obeyed by anybody unless the people approve?

Mr. LYMAN. He desires them to be obe}red by everybody, but he
lets everbody do just as they please.

Senator HOAR. You say you should not treat a man as an apostle
whom the Lord has called to that sacred office unless the people also
agree with the Lord, and the Lord would expect everybody to do as
he pleased. You would then, as I understand you, please to follow
the people and not the Lord under those circumstances. Is that
true?

Mr. LYMAN. Please repeat that.

The reporter read the question.

Mr. LYMAN. The Lord has directed that in all our transactions of
business everything must be done by common consent; that the presi-
dent or the prophet or the apostles can not take matters in their own
hands, even if it comes from the Lord, and carry it in spite of the
people. We can not defy the people. They have their rights and
their rights are respected, and their agency is respected.

470 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOAK. Their rights, then, are rights which the Lord has no
power to interfere with, according to you, are they?

Mr. LYMAN. The Lord seems not to have power to make people do
right nor to accept his law.

Senator HOAR. One of the articles of the Mormon faith is, is it, that
the Lord is a being of limited powers and in some respects of less
power than the Mormon conference \ Is that true ?

Mr. LYMAN. No; I do not think I want to put it that w&y.

Senator HOAK. I do not suppose you want to put it that way, but 1
ask you whether it is true ?

Mr. LYMAN. But we understand that every man is left to exercise
his own agency in regard to religion as well as business or politics;
that he is not compelled. He will persuade and exhort and talk and
be long suffering and kind to man, but He never forces the human
mind nor spirit.

Senator HOAR. But my question is a little different from that, Mr.
L}7man. My question is what you, as an apostle, or if you were to
succeed to the presidency, as president, consider to be your personal
duty when the Lord tells you to recognize one man as an apostle and
the people tell you not to recognize him. Have you not said, and said
several times —

Mr. LYMAN. He would not be sustained; no. He would not be
made an apostle if the people rejected him.

Senator HOAR. Then you would regard it, would you not, to be
your duty in that particular case to obey the voice of the people in
opposition to the expressed revealed will of the Lord?

Mr. LYMAN. So far I believe the people have not rejected an apostle
that the Lord has presented.

Senator HOAR. It is not what they have done, but what %your faith
requires you to do if thev should. You undertook to tell us about
that.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Senator HOAR. That is why I put my question.

Mr. LYMAN. If they should, I have told -you what I would do.

Senator HOAR. Obey the people and not the Lord ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not think they will reject any that the Lord
presents.

Senator HOAR. That is not the question. You told us, before I said
anything about this subject, or put any questions, what would happen
if the Lord gave a command and the people rejected it or refused to
sustain it, and I am pursuing that and seeing whether I understand
you correctly. It is not an answer to my question to say that you do
not think they ever will do so. They are fallible like the rest of man-
kind. I want to find the authority of the church, and I understand
you to say— and you have said in substance to Mr. Worthington — that
if that contingency should arise, you, as an apostle or as president,
would consider the will of the people manifested in the conference of
superior authority to the revealed will of the Lord.

Mr. LYMAN. The Lord has so ordered that when He appoints men,
as He did do in the revelations here, and named the apostles and the
other general authorities of the church, He commanded that they be
presented to the church and sustained or rejected; and whenever the
church has rejected a man he has stepped aside.

Senator HOAK. A sort of veto power over the Lord. [Laughter.]

REED SMOOT. 471

Mr. LYMAN. And they have sometimes rejected men.

Senator HOAR. Has any apostle selected by a revelation ever after
wards proved unworthy and been disowned?

Mr. LAYMAN. He is cast out.

Senator HOAR. Has such a case ever happened ?

Mr. LYMAN. How is that?

Senator HOAR. Has such a case ever happened as to an apostle?

Mr. LYMAN. They have been cast out?

Senator HOAR. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Numbers of them; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Numbers of apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; when they have transgressed.

Senator HOAR. So persons who, according to your faith, have been
selected by Omniscience and Omnipotence and who have turned out to
be unworthy and unfit for office have been cast out?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. I was about to say, it is fair to you in regard to this
question to say that the same thing happened in the early Christian
church in regard to Judas.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Senator DILLINGHAM. I would like to ask a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I understood President Smith to say that
since he assumed the office of the first presidency he never had
received a revelation in the sense in which the word " revelation" is
used in the books.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; a written revelation. f

Senator DILLINGHAM. I understand you to say that in the selection
of officers for the church the matter is revealed to you by the spirit of
the Lord?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Senator DILLINGHAM. That is, it comes in some way to your con-
sciousness that such a man is the one for that position ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I understand you also to have used that expres-
sion synonymously with the word "revelation." Now, do you make
any distinction between a revelation such as is named in the books and
the inspiration which comes to you by the Holy Spirit?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes. President Smith no doubt referred to written
revelations, such as the prophet Joseph received and such as President
Taylor received. I think that was the last one before President Joseph
was chosen. In that sense he has not received a revelation — a written
revelation that will be placed in the Doctrine and Covenants, but
through the inspiration of the Lord. It is indicated to him as the
head of the church the men who are to fill positions and places in the
church.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Do I understand by what you have said that
it is the doctrine of your church that before a person is elected or
approved to the office the revelation of his fitness must be made to the
officers of the church and to the people as well?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did any apostle ever resign?

Mr. LiMAN. No, sir. Well, men have •

472 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. I mean voluntarily separated themselves from the
apostolate.

Mr. LYMAN. I rather think some of the early apostles withdrew
from their association with the church, and would finally be excom-
municated.

Mr. TAYLER. And finally excommunicated?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. They did it, however, only because they were out of
harmony with the church and the apostolate ?

Mr. LYMAN. They had lost their faith.

Mr. TAYLER. They had lost their faith?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. In your time nobody has voluntarily separated himself
from it?

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Lyman, has there happened in JOUY experience
in the church any time when the people have overruled what the presi-
dent and the apostles have agreed upon?

Mr. LYMAN/ That the people have overruled the action of the presi-
dency and the twelve ?

Senator PETTUS. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; a number of instances.

Senator PETTUS. In what instance?

Mr. LYMAN. In a number of instances.

Senator PETTUS. Well, give us one.

Mr. LYMAN. Yes. In the case of the organization of a ward in the
Sevier Stake of Zion, the Thurber ward, it had been a branch for
many years, and had been presided over for many years by a brother,
William Meeks, who had been a very faithful man. When we came
to organize a ward out of that branch, Elder John Henry- Smith, with
the presidency of the stake and the high council, selected Brother
Meeks, who had been a very excellent man, to be their bishop. I
joined Brother Smith the next week and we went there, the two
apostles and the presidency of the stake, and presented Brother
William Meeks to the people of that ward; and they rejected him,
would not receive him, voted him down.

Senator PETTUS. Were they informed he had been selected by the
order —

Mr. LYMAN. He had been selected by the apostle, and the presidency
of the stake, and the high council.

Senator PETTUS. Were they informed he had been selected by the
inspiration of the Master?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, sir; they were informed, and they voted the man
down because they did not want him, and they wanted somebody else.
I said to the people of that ward, "You won't agree with us; who do
you want? and we will agree with you." " We want George Brinker-
hofi';" and we gave them George Brinkerhoff, because he was about as
good a man as the other, only the other man had been in the harness,
in the service, and was entitled to promotion.

Senator OVERMAN. Who do you mean by "we" gave it. Do you
mean the twelve apostles, or you and your associates at that meeting?
Did the twelve apostles agree to it?

Mr. LYMAN. There were two apostles there.

^enator OVERMAN. Two apostles?

REED SMOOT. 473

Mr. LYMAN. Yes; two apostles.

Senator OVERMAN. So it was not the action of the twelve apostles?

Mr. LYMAN. No; it was in the country. It was out in the country.

Senator DILLINGHAM. It was known that the people had manifested
their wishes —

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lyman, 1 think you did not understand the
Senator's question wholl}T. He asked you if at this meeting the peo-
ple were informed that the gentleman you presented had been selected
or chosen by the Lord— if the people were so informed ?

Mr. LYMAN. I do not think it was said in that way; no. I do not
think that was said.

Senator PETTUS. Have the people ever rejected-
Mr. LYMAN. But the authorities, as we felt, under the inspiration
of the Lord, had selected the right man. We so felt and presented
him and they decided that they did not want him, but they wanted
another brother that was just as good.

Senator OVERMAN. What authority had selected him; the twelve
apostles or the authorities of that ward ? Who had selected him ?

Mr. LYMAN. They selected finally.

Senator OVERMAN. Who selected the other man ?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who selected Meeks?

Senator OVERMAN. Who selected Meeks ?

Mr. LYMAN. We did.

Senator OVERMAN. Who did ?

Mr. LYMAN. The apostles that were there and the presidenc^y of the
stake and the high council. They transacted the business in the stakes.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Lyman, have the people ever rejected what is
called a revelation ?

Mr. LYMAN. I think not; not to my knowledge. I remember a case
in our history — I was going to speak of a remarkable case, Mr. Chair-
man. It will not take but a moment. Sidney Rigdon was the coun-
cilor to the Prophet Joseph-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. Joseph Smith?

Mr. LYMAN. Yes, Joseph Smith; and Sidney Rigdon. got on the back-
ground, was something like a backslider, in a spirit of apostac}T, and
neglected his duties and went off from the church to Pittsburg from
Illinois. The Prophet got tired of keeping him in his place and he
undertook to cast him out and cast him off, and he chose my father in
his place; but when the case was presented to the church, in general
conference assembled in Nauvoo, the church held to Sidney Rigdon,
and the will of the Prophet or the will of the Lord was not complied
with in that instance. They held on to him in spite of the prophet —
the people did; and he said: "I shall shake him off. You may have
him and carry him if you want to, but I shall not carry him any longer."
But the action of the people prevailed and he remained as a councilor
to the Prophet Joseph.

Mr. TAYLER. Was Rigdon one of the original apostles ?

Mr. LYMAN. Sidney Rigdon?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. LYMAN. No, sir; he never was one of the twelve; he was one of
the first presidency.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, have }TOU any further questions to ask

474 REED SMOOT.

this witness, and can he be discharged? Do either of you desire to
call him in the morning?

Mr. TAYLER. As far as I am concerned I do not care for anything

_£ .Ll JO

further.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And as far as we are concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Then he will be discharged, and the committee will
adjourn until half past 10 to-morrow morning.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, when these witnesses are dis-
charged, does that mean they are at liberty to go home, or go where
they please?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what 1 understand the purpose of the inquiry
to be.

The CHAIRMAN. I want the Government to be relieved of the expense
of their attendance.

The committee (at 4 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m.) adjourned until
Wednesday, March 9, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 9, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, McComas, Foraker,
Depew, Dillingham, Pettus, Dubois, and Overman; also Senator Smoot;
also Robert W. Tayler, counsel for the protestants; A. S. Worthington
and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S.
Richards, counsel for Joseph F. Smith and other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you any thing further?

Mr. TAYLER. I should like Mr. Smith to take the stand for a moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, will you resume the stand, please?

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. SMITH— Resumed.

Joseph F. Smith, having previously affirmed, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. I called your attention, Mr. Smith, a day or two ago,
to an interview from which you quoted, and in which you made a
statement respecting the stand of the church since the manifesto, on
the subject of plural marriage; and also as to the number of polyga-
mists in Utah. And later I asked you if you had given us all of that
interview, and if you did not add to it some observations in support
of the candidacy of Mr. Smoot for the Senate.

1 make this statement merely to indicate the subject. You made
some reply, that }^ou did not recall what might have been said in addi-
tion, and that there might have been some more of the interview.

Without taking time further to identify this, I wish to say that I
hold in my hand the Deseret Evening News, of Wednesday, December
3, 1902, in which appears the interview which you quoted, in the
words in which you quoted it, and there also appears what I am about
to read. This is the question which the representative of the Associ-
ated Press submitted to you in writing — I believe you said his ques-
tions were submitted in writing?

REED SMOOT. 475

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And your answers were in writing?

Mr. SMITH. That is my recollection.

Mr. TAYLER. This is the question:

"It is widely asserted that Apostle Reed Smoot ought not to be
elected "Senator, because he is a high church dignitary, and his church
position is compared to that of a cardinal or archbishop in other eccle-
siastical bodies. Ho^v do you regard this objection?"

And you appear as answering as follows:

"The two positions are not parallel," President Smith said. "An
apostle or seventy or elder or bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints is usually engaged in some secular vocation, or
laboring in some capacity for his daily bread. He is ordained to the
office he holds in the priesthood so that he may act in that calling when
required. He gives his services gratuitously to the church.

"There are instances, of course, when a man's whole time is taken
up with some church duty that he receives remuneration therefor, but
as a rule men holding these positions in the priesthood are engaged in
secular callings and are men of affairs.

" Reed Smoot is a banker, the manager of the largest manufacturing
institution in the State, is interested greatly in mining operations and
other temporal pursuits. He is recognized as a capable and enterpris-
ing citizen, and his position in the church need not interfere in any
way with his services to the State or to the nation in any political office
to which he may be elected.

"It is not true that he has been put forward by the church as a can-
didate for public office, but he has the same right that any other
American citizen enjoys to accept any office to which his fellow citizens
may elect him to occupy. Mormon church officials have served in
Congress for years, and no objection has been offered on that account.
Every Mormon official has been one holding the priesthood, and that
has never interfered with his official duties. The objection in the
present case is without substantial reason or foundation."

Did you give that answer to that question ?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, I believe, as far as I now recall. The
portion of the interview which 1 introduced here came about in this way.
Just before I left home — I received notice that I was wanted here one
day and I had to leave the next — I asked my secretary to go back to
that interview arid give me a copy of it, and he handed me in type-
writing the sheet that I put in here as my interview, and at the time
he handed it to me, in fact since he gave it to me, I did not recall or
remember that there was any more to it. But the newspaper report
there is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Smith, do you know Benjamin Cluff, jr.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH. He is reputed to be a polygamist, I believe.

Mr. TAYLER. And has been so reputed for some years?

Mr. SMITH. For a great many years; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where does he live?

Mr. SMITH. He lives in Tobasco, Mexico.

Mr. TAYLER. Where is Tobasco ?

Mr. SMITH. In Mexico.

Mr. TAYLER. Has he lived in Provo?

476 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long is it since he left there?

Mr. SMITH. I think it is about six months since he left, or it may
be less than that.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position did he hold in Provo ?

Mr. SMITH. He was president of the Brigham Young Academy:
that is, of the board; of the faculty.

Mr. TAYLER. President of the board of Brigham Young Academy ?

Mr. SMITH. No; I beg pardon. He was president of the faculty of
Brigham Young Academy.

Mr. TAYLER. President of the faculty of Brigham Young Academy,
at Provo?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He had his several wives there ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about his wives.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not know where they were?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Only that he was generally understood to be a polvg-
amist?

Mr. SMITH. 1 do not know how the general understanding is, or was,

am sure; I had that understanding.

Mr. TAYLER. Senator Smoot lives at Provo?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is Senator Smoot connected with that institution?

Mr. SMITH. He is a director.

Mr. TAYLER. How long has he been a director?

Mr. SMITH. No; excuse me. He is a trustee.

Mr. TAYLER. A trustee ?

Mr. SMITH. A trustee and not a director.

Mr. TAYLER. The trustees elect the faculty, I suppose?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you just what the custom is in regard to
that. I think if they do not elect them the}7 confirm them.

Mr. TAYLER. They confirm them?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 want to ask you a question again, Mr. Smith, about
Abraham H. Cannon. There was a great deal of talk about the time
of his death, and afterwards, in Utah, was there not, to the effect that
it was claimed he had taken a plural wife, Lillian Hamlin?

Mr. SMITH. I heard a good deal of it, I think, in the newspapers;
yes.

Mr. TAYLER. You heard a good deal of it?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, the church — I gather from your statement the
officials of the church have been ever since 1890, and are now, very
sensitive as to the charge that plural marriages have been solemnized

Mr, WORTHINGTON. Since the manifesto ?

Mr. TAYLER. Since the manifesto.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; I think we have been very sensitive about that.

Mr. TAYLER. Very sensitive?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What inquiry did you make to find out whether
Abraham H. Cannon, one of the twelve apostles of the church, had made
a plural marriage?

Mr. SMITH. 1 made no inquiry at all.

BE ED SMGOT. 477

Mr. TAYLER. Did you set on foot any inquiry ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; not myself.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any interest in finding out whether
there had been —

Mr. SMITH. Not the least.

Mr. TAYLER. Not the least?

Mr. SMITH. Not the least.

Mr. TAYLER. So that the public charge that an apostle of the church
had married a plural wife as late as 1896 did not concern you at all '(

Mr. SMITH. The public charge, or what you call a public charge, is
simply the charge made by the bitterest anti-Mormon publication in
Salt Lake City, and its charges are of s-uch a vicious character that I
pay no attention to them. If I were to undertake to answer one-
hundredth part of the vicious and vile charges that are made in the
anti-Mormon papers against me and my people I would have nothing
else to do in the world.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; but was not the charge respecting Abraham H.
Cannon taking a plural wife made with much circumstance and detail?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of, any more than it was newspaper
talk.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it not published in other papers outside of Utah ?

Mr. SMITH. Copied from the Salt Lake papers; yes; I presume it
was.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember an interview with Eugene Young
on the subject?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know any thing' about Eugene Young.

Mr. TAYLER. However that may be, you did not yourself make any
investigation or set on foot any investigation ?

Mr. SMITH. None whatever.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you hear it said that Abraham H. Cannon claimed
that he had a right to marry Lillian Hainlin, because she had been
betrothed to his dead brother?

Mr. SMITH. I never heard anything of the kind; only what the
papers stated.

Mr. TAYLER. You also heard the charge made that George Teasdale
had taken a plural wife?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; in the papers.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I saw the account that was published in the papers; in
some of them, at least. I do not know that 1 saw them all.

Mr. TAYLER. He was and is an apostle of the church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you make any investigation as to that?

Mr. SMITH. I did not feel called upon to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is if you did it.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you mean to say that as a general proposition,
notwithstanding your sensitiveness on the subject of plural marriages
having been authorized or performed under the sanction of the church,
you do not investigate any charges that are made of that character ?

Mr. SMITH. It is not my business to investigate them. I have given
to this honorable committee —

The CFIAIRMAN. The question is. Do you make any investigation?

t Mr. SMITH. I have made the assertion and explanation here to this

478 REED SMOOT.

honorable committee that our courts of original jurisdiction in the
church are the bishops' courts, and it is the duty of the bishops to
inquire into the moral character and the moral standing and the good
fellowship of members of the church who reside in the wards of the
bishops.

Senator HOAR. Including officials ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. sir.

Senator HOAR. Including all officials ?

Mr. SMITH. They have jurisdiction over all members of the church,
and all officials are members of the church.

Senator HOAR. I think I ought not to have interposed, and I am
sorry I did, but I wanted to .know whether you claim that it is not
your business to exercise any superintendence, directly or indirectly,
over the morals or the obedience to law of the other high officials of
the church; whether your disclaimer of having anything to do with
that question applies to them?

Mr. SMITH. No; it does not apply to them.

Senator HOAR. That is all I want to know. I beg your pardon, Mr.
Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you not feel any duty laid upon you to investigate
this, in the interest of the church, apart from any personal lapse?

Mr. SMITH. No; not in the way that these reports and rumors came
to me. They were the reports and rumors of malicious persons.

Mr. TAYLER. Malicious persons?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Sometimes malicious persons tell the truth.

Mr. SMITH. That may be.

Mr. TAYLER. Or is it 3- our assumption that they never do ?

Mr. SMITH. We become habituated to hearing reports of malicious
persons until we pay no attention to them, even if they do tell the
truth.

Mr. TAYLER. Suppose it were charged that Francis M. Lyman, presi-
dent of the twelve apostles, who does not, I believe, live in your ward,
had performed a plural-marriage ceremony at Provo; would that induce
you to make any inquiry ?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is not a supposable case.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you make the inquiry ? That is the question.

Mr. SMITH. It is not a supposable case, and if it were the case I
could not tell you—

The CHAIRMAN. That is the only answer you desire to make ?

Mr. SMITH. It is the only answer I can give. It is not a supposable
case. I suppose I am not required to answer suppositions.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask just a question ? In any instance where
you have learned that these high officials, or anyone else, have been
guilty of a plural marriage, or of performing a ceremony of that kind,
since 1890, have you made inquiry into it?

Mr. SMITH. It has not, Mr. Chairman, been my business to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Answer my question. Have you inquired?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; because it has not been my business.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 understand.

Mr. SMITH. I wish to say further —

The CHAIRMAN. That covers it.

Mr. SMITH. 1 wish to say, in connection with that, Mr. Chairman,
that the circumstances that are referred to by this gentleman occurred

REED SMOOT. 479

before I was president of the church, and before it was my duty to
inquire into anything of the kind, if it was possible to be construed
that the president of the church should interfere with the duties of
the lesser authorities of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand you to say, Mr. Smith, now, as presi-
dent, it is not your duty to make inquiry ?

Mr. SMITH. It is not, because it belongs to the lesser authorities.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand the reason you give.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you ever have any conversation with George Q.
Cannon respecting the marriage of Abraham H. Cannon to Lillian
Hamlin ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to ask the president a question. Did
Lillian Hamlin take the name of Cannon after the death of the apostle?

Mr.- SMITH. You will have to ask somebody who knows about it,
sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Very well. Did she have a child by the name of
Cannon after that time?

Mr. SMITH. You can not prove it by me, because I do not know.

Senator DUBOIS. Did this child share in the interest of Abraham H.
Cannon in the estate of George Q. Cannon, and is that child now
Sharing in that estate ?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know anything about it.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to ask one or two questions. I am
not clear with respect to your statement. I understand, according to
the practice of the church, you formerly performed the marriage for
life, the marriage for time and eternity, and also the marriage for
eternity — three different kinds.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the marriage for eternity was called sealing?

Mr. SMITH. They were all called sealings.

The CHAIRMAN. They were all called sealings ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have to excuse my ignorance about it. I
wish to get at the facts.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. I take very great pleasure in trying to
enlighten you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the sealing for eternity ever performed between
two living mortals ?

Mr. SMITH. I have heard, Mr. Chairman, of one or two instances of
that kind.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Between living persons ?

Mr. SMITH. Between two living persons.

The CHAIRMAN. Could a person living in polygamy, married for
time, be sealed to some other woman for eternity ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard of instances where two living per-
sons have been sealed for eternity ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. According to the doctrines of your church, did that
carry with it the right of earthly cohabitation?

Mr. SMITH. It was not so understood.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, what is your —

480 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. It does not carry that right.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it practiced, do you know?

Mr. SMITH. Not that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Smith, one word more. I hold in my
hand the Book of Mormon. I should like to have you look at it to see
if it is the book. I want you to identify- the book.

Mr. SMITH (after examining the book). I recognize the book.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the Book of Mormon?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is the Book of Mormon.

The CHAIRMAN. One of your —

Mr. SMITH. One of our editions.

The CHAIRMAN. One of your authorized publications ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; authorized publications.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the revelation of Joseph Smith \

Mr. SMITH. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. A revelation to Joseph Smith.

Mr. SMITH. It was translated by Joseph Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the doctrine of polygamy taught in that revela-
tion?

Mr. SMITH. Taught in it ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. It is emphatically forbidden in that book.

The CHAIRMAN. In this book it is emphatically forbidden?

Mr. SMITH. It is.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recognize these words? I read from page
132, verse 24:

4 '24. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concu-
bines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

"25. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth
out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might
raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of
Joseph.

U26. Wherefore, I the Lord God, will not suffer that this people
shall do like unto them of old.

"27. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and barken to the word of
the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have save it be one
wife, and concubines he shall have none."

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You recognize that?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You recognize it as the teaching of your church?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Will the chairman please read a little further?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I will be very glad to read the next verse:

" 28. For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women."

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

"And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord
of Hosts."

Mr. SMITH. A little further, please. There is still more in connec-
tion with that.

The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

"29. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith
the Lord of Hosts "

REED SMOOT. 481

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. (Reading:)

" Or cursed be the land for their sakes."

Mr. SMITH. Still further, if you please.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to read the whole book.

Mr. SMITH. You have to read the context to find out what it means.

The CHAIRMAN. I will allow you to read it in explanation.

Mr. SMITH. If you will be kind enough to pass me the book I will
do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; in a moment. Was that doctrine overruled
or annulled by the revelation of polygamy ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It was not?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir. If you will be kind enough to let me have the
book, I will show you.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to know when that doctrine of the Mormon
bible was repudiated.

Mr. SMITH. It is not the Mormon bible. It is the Book of Mormon.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Book of Mormon. You know what I
mean. When was that repudiated or modified in any way, and by
whom?

Mr. SMITH. If you will permit me, I will read a little further.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. It is this:

"29. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith
the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

"30. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me,
I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these
things."

All you need to do, sir, is to read the whole thing, and it explains
itself. The revelation to Joseph Smith does not repeal this. It is
simply a commandment of the Lord to him, and received by him and
accepted by him to enter into plural marriage by His law and by His
commandment and not by their own volition.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you construe that which you have read as the
commandment of the Lord to practice polygamy when —

Mr. SMITH. He commands it.

The CHAIRMAN. When He commands it.

Mr. SMITH. That is exactly what the words say.

The CHAIRMAN. But you have revelations from Him frequently.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think from the answer, that the witness did
not hear the last part of the question — that he has revelations fre-
quently.

Mr. SMITH. I did not hear that. .

The CHAIRMAN. He has already stated that the Lord revealed to him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He has stated that there has been no revelation
:o the sense of a revelation for twenty -one years.

Mr. TAYLER. He said written revelation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He said no revelation.

Senator DUBOIS. Let me understand that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He spoke of personal revelations to him—

Senator DUBOIS. I would rather have the witness interpret what he
says than have the counsel do it.

s— —31

482 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I am not interpreting it. I am simply saying
what he testified to.

Senator DUBOIS. I understand there has been no general revelation
to the church received by you which the people have sustained?

Mr. SMITH. I do not understand your question, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Have you received any revelation from God which
has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church
in their semiannual conference, which revelation has been sustained
by that conference through the upholding of their hands?

Mr. VAN COTT. I object to that question, and I wish to take this
opportunity of stating rather fully why I object to it, so as to be
thoroughly understood i n regard to what has gone before.

The Senator from Massachusetts last evening at the adjournment
made a suggestion which on account of the short time that we were
in session we deemed it inadvisable to reply to in any way. In sub-
stance it was this: That this was in one sense an investigation, and
that the committee might even take hearsay testimony into considera-
tion for the purpose of following it up and getting other information.

In the first place it occurred to me in this way: There must be, as I
assume, a number of Senators — I do not mean in the committee,
because I am not informed, but in the Senate — who are not lawyers.
When all those Senators take this testimony and read it, how are they
going to tell what is competent testimony and what is incompetent?
It seems to me

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, I think I must object to this discus-
sion. I do not think we can, within the time allowed to us, listen to
arguments calculated to overthrow the established custom of the Senate
and of Senatorial committees for many }7ears. The gentlemen who
are engaged in this investigation I hope will do entire justice and
act justly and reasonably; but we must in an investigation, unless we
are going to spend twelve months or more, keep within certain limits.
The counsel are here simply in aid of the inquiry of the Senate, and
not as trying a case in an ordinary court; and while everything ought
to be allowed to them I do not think that the old established usages
or practices of the Senate in investigations of this kind ought to be
open to very much discussion.

I wish to say that with great respect to the gentleman, and with the
very eager, earnest desire on my part that nothing shall happen that
will do any substantial injustice to his client.

Mr. VAN COTT. Senator Hoar

Senator HOAR. I should like to have that settled by the committee
before counsel proceeds.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am not going to argue against that. I was stating
that as a reason —

Senator HOAR. But you were arguing against it.

Mr. VAN COTT. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to have that matter
settled.

Mr. VAN COTT. I was giving the reason for what I was going to say.
If it is desired that I shall stop, 1 do not wish to trespass upon the
committee, but I think in justice to Mr. Smoot I ought to say—

The CHAIRMAN. You probably had better defer that until a later
time.

•

REED SMOOT. 483

Mr. VAN COTT. In jus tire to my client I do not think I should, but
if the committee desires it I will defer it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you had better do that. We want to get
along with the case.

Senator DUBOIS. I do not think there is any difference between the
president of the church and myself. I think he misapprehended my
question.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the question ?

Senator DUBOIS. I wish to state that I am not a lawyer, and in addi-
tion to that I am trying to ask questions which the ordinary fellow,
who is not a lawyer, would like to have answered. So, if I transgress
the strict rules of law you must remember that I am a layman and am
taking what laymen would consider a broad view of the case.

Mr. VAN COTT. Senator Dubois, what I was going to say was simply
with respect to one point. I was merely calling attention to the line
of testimony for the purpose of showing in what sense this testimony
was being received by the committee. That was all.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the question propounded by Senator
Dubois ?

Senator DUBOIS. Let the stenographer read it.

The reporter read as follows:

' ' Senator DUBOIS. Have you received any revelation from God, which
has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church
in their semiannual conference, which revelation has been sustained by
that conference through the upholding of their hands?"

Mr. SMITH. • Since when ?

Senator DUBOIS. Since you became president of the church.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; none whatever.

Senator DUBOIS. Individual members of the church can receive
individual revelations, can they not?

Mr. SMITH. If I may be permitted, the word ' ; revelation " is used
very vaguely here all the time. No man can get revelations at his
will. If a man is prayerful and earnest in his desire and lives a right-
eous life and he desires information and intelligence, he will inquire of
the Lord, and the Lord will manifest to him, through the presence
and influence of his Spirit, his mind, and his will. That would be a
revelation to that individual.

The CHAIRMAN.. What is the answer to the question ?

Senator McCoMAS. Is not that an answer?

Senator FORAKER. I think it is an intelligent answer, and a very sat-
isfactory one.

Senator McCoMAS. It seems to me it is full.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to hear what the question was. Mr. Reporter,
will you please read it?

The reporter read as follows:

"Senator DUBOIS. Individual members of the church can receive

dividual revelations, can they not ? "

Mr. SMITH. I think I have answered that.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; if you think that is an answer.

Senator DUBOIS. Have you received any individual revelations your-
self, since you became president of the church under your own defini-
tion, even, of a revelation?

Mr. SMITH. I can not say that I have.

Senator DUBOIS. Can you say that you have not?

484 REED SMOOT.

Mr. SMITH. No; I can not say that I have not.

Senator DUBOIS. Then you do not know whether you have received
any such revelation as you have described, or whether you have not?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the
line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the
spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good
Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far
as that is concerned, I say yes; I have had impressions of the Spirit
upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense revela-
tions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, do you think it is important to pursue that
further?

Senator DUBOIS. No.

The CHAIRMAN. What next?

Mr. TAYLER. I wish to ask two questions. Mr. Smith, something
has been said about an endowment oath. I do not want to go into
that subject or to inquire of you what it is, but whatever oath or
obligation has been taken by those who have been admitted to the
church, at whatever stage it is taken, is the same now that it has been
for years?

Mr. SMITH. It is the same that it has always been.

Mr. TAYLER. It is the same that it has always been?

Mr. SMITH. Yes; so far as I know.

Mr. TAYLER. No other oath is taken now than heretofore ?

Mr. SMITH. I should like to say that there is no oath taken; that we
abjure oaths. We do not take oaths unless we are forced to take them.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand. You understand what I mean — any
obligation —

Mr. SMITH. Covenant or agreement — we do that.

Mr. TAYLER. Any obligation of loyalty to the church such as would
be proper to be taken?

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Mr. TAYLER. That is the same now that it has always been?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; that it has always been, so far as I know. I
can only say that they are the same as they were revealed to me.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly.

Mr. SMITH. And as they were taught to me.

Mr. TAYLER. You have known them for forty years or more ?

Mr. SMITH. I have been more or less acquainted with them for a
great many years.

Mr. TAYLER. You were absent from Utah from 1884 to 1890, did
you say ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; most of the time.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you?

Mr. SMITH. In the Sandwich Islands most of that time; a little over
two years and a half.

Mr. TAYLER. You were away from Utah during the time of the
prosecutions under the Edmunds Act and the Edmunds-Tucker Act?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; most of the time.

Mr. TAYLER. You were not prosecuted then — at least, you were not
arrested ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Or punished?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

REED SMOOT. 485

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know whether or not there was a warrant
out for your arrest?

Mr. SMITH. I can make you a present of it. I have it in my posses-
sion. It was handed back to me.

Senator DUBOIS. You were not then looking out for your wives and
children all this time, six years?

Mr. SMITH. I managed to look after them quite a little.

Senator DUBOIS. But you were not there.

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any member of the commitee desire to ask
Mr. Smith any further question?

Senator HOAR. You said just now, if I understood you correctly,
that the performing of a marriage which would be polygamous by
a high officer of the church, like an apostle, since the manifesto is not
a supposable case, and you did not like to be questioned about it.

Mr. SMITH. It is not a supposable case.

Senator HOAR. How do you distinguish between that case being not
supposable and the living in polygamy in defiance of the revelation
of the Lord and the law of the land by such an official ? Why, in your
judgment, is one supposable and the other unsupposable ?

Mr. SMITH. For this reason, Mr. Senator. In the one case, in my
case, we have felt that not only public opinion, but the constitution of
our State and the general conditions that exist in Utah more or less
justified me in pursuing the course 1 did. But, on the other hand,
we have agreed that we will not solemnize any more plural marriages,
and 1 do not believe that there is a member of the church, an official
member of the church, in good standing, who would violate that
promise. That is the reason.

Excuse me for being a little earnest about it, Mr. Senator. I am
naturally a little emphatic in my nature. I do not mean to use any
undue-
Senator HOAR. I think I will say now, for the information of every-
body, that the putting of questions which might seem to imply in my
mind, when I put them, a pretty strong sense of the inconsistency and
delusion of the religious faith, so called, of the witness — and in saying
that I suppose I may add that a great many members of different sects
attribute both inconsistency and delusion to others — must not be taken
to imply in my mind, as at present advised, any opinion one way or the
other as to the right of the people who hold that religious faith,
whether inconsistent or a delusion or even not sincere, to send one of
that faith to the United States Senate under our Constitution and laws
if the person so holding it has not violated law himself or is not engaged
in an association which has for its object the violation of law. I do
not wish to be taken by the public or counsel or anybody else, by put-
ting the questions I have or any others which I may put, as indicating
an opinion on that final question.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I should like to say that so far as counsel for
Senator Smoot are concerned we have never so taken it.

The CHAIRMAN. I would not suppose that counsel on either side
would, in the investigation in which we are engaged, take questions
propounded as indicating the final judgment of any member of the
committee on the issue involved.

486 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May I now have an opportunity to examine
Mr. Smith?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Smith, you said that Benjamin duff is
reputed to be a polygamist?

Mr. SMITH, Y es, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you mean that he is reputed to have more
than one wife, or that he is reputed to be cohabiting with more than
one woman, or both ?

Mr. SMITH. I meant the former; that he was reputed to be the hus-
band of more than one wife.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have spoken of a Brigham Young Acad
emy . Is that or not a church institution ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; it is a church institution.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have referred to some newspaper as being
of such a vicious character, etc., that you do not attribute much
importance to charges made in it. What is that newspaper? You
said that speaking of the matter of Abraham H. Cannon.

Mr. SMITH. I should like to ask counsel if that would be taken as a
public attack upon the newspaper? I do not wish to get into a quar-
rel with a newspaper.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was asking only for curiosity, and if you have
any doubt about it, I will not ask the question.

Mr. SMITH. I have not any doubt about it, but I prefer not to name
it, if it is not necessary.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well. You spoke of George Teasdale,
the apostle, and that you had not investigated the charge against him.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understood you to say the other day that he
had told you —

Mr. SMITH. He had.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. About his different marriages and the answer
to this charge.

Mr. SMITH. He told me—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One moment, before you state what he told
you. Did you inquire of him as to the fact?

Mr. SMITH. Inquiries had been made of him in relation to it, and he
was explaining the matter to me.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He came to you and voluntarily explained the
matter to you?

Mr. TAYLER. Who is this?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. George Teasdale.

Mr. TAYLER. I wish you would ask him what he said.

Mr. SMITH. I repeated the other day what he said. It is on the
minutes.

Mr. TAYLER. I should like to have the conversation.

Senator McCoMAS. Is Teasdale dead ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; he is living.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He has been subpoenaed, but he is quite ill. It
is doubtful whether he will be able to come here.

Mr. SMITH. Unless he recovers from the condition he was in the
last time I saw him, I do not think it will be possible for him to come.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If the witness is to go on and tell what Teas-
dale told him, it will be a long story. It is in the record. The sub

EEED SMOOT. 487

stance is that at present he has but one wife, and has had but one
since Reed Smoot became an apostle.

Mr. TAYLER. All I could get out of him with difficulty

The CHAIRMAN. You may inquire now.

Mr. TAYLER. I should like to have him tell what the conversation
of Apostle Teasdale was, in explanation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Since the time must be taken up, I wish you
would tell us what was Teasdale's statement to you about this whole
matter.

Mr. SMITH. I will try to tell it as nearly as possible as he told it to
me. He informed me that at the .time he married Marian Scoles he
was under the impression that he had not a legal wife living. That is
what he told me.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That you stated the other day.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did he go into the particulars of it to tell you
what were his relations to his first wife and why he supposed he had
no other wife living at that time ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, to some extent.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand it is desired that you should state
what he told you, so far as you can recollect it.

Mr. SMITH. He told me — it was like one of the cases spoken of by
the chairman here — it was a case in which an elderly lady, who was
deformed, but who had been a housekeeper in his family for a number
of years before his first wife died, had been sealed to him for eternity,
with the understanding that they were not to be husband and wife,
and were not husband and wife, and never had been at all. And he
was under the impression that she was not his wife in a legal sense
and that therefore he was at liberty to marr}^ Marian Scoles. He told
me that when he discovered —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did he tell you how he discovered it?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Tell us.

Mr. SMITH. He said he sold a piece of property, and when he came
to give the title to the property the person purchasing it demanded
that his wife sign the deed with him. The law of Utah requires that
a man and his wife shall sign a deed of conveyance. And he informed
the person that he did not have a wife, but he was reputed to have a
wife. He went to a lawyer and informed his attorney of his status
and condition and the attorney informed him that she would be con-
strued as his legal wife, she having been sealed to him for eternity
after his first wife's death.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand that this first wife, the one to
whom it appears he was legally married, was an old lady, deformed?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And they had been sealed for eternity?

Mr. SMITH. For eternity.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And that the relation of husband and wife had
never existed between them?

Mr. SMITH. It had never existed between them.

Senator McCoMAS. She was the housekeeper?

Mr. SMITH. The housekeeper.

Senator FORAKER. The first wife was that?

Mr. SMITH. The first wife.

488 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did he tell you whether or not the first wife,
the aged and deformed woman, had obtained a divorce from him?

Mr. SMITH. As soon as he discovered that the opinion of his attorney
was that she would be construed as his legal wife he instituted pro-
ceedings and obtained a divorce from her.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was that before or after Reed Smoot became
an apostle?

Mr. SMITH. I think it was after.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long ago?

Mr. SMITH. I could not tell you how long ago, Mr. Worthington.
It is some time ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, you said you did not feel called upon to
make inquiry about this charge against Teasdale. It appears that you
were informed about the fact?

Mr. SMITH. Nothing more than what he told me. I know nothing
about it of myself.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have said this morning that you did not
feel it incumbent upon you to make any charge against him ?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You fully explained here the other day that
every man, no matter how high in office he may be, including your-
self, if charges are preferred against him, they must be preferred
against him before the bishop of the ward in which he lives ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And that charges may be made by any member
of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And then he must answer to the judicial tribu-
nals of the church, including those of the ward ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was all stated very fully and clearly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Either I have misapprehended the views of
your church about marriage or I misunderstood what you said just a
moment ago. You seemed to distinguish between sealing in general
and sealing for eternity. Do you call it sealing in every case of a
marriage by an officer of the church ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is that sealing always for eternity, as well as
for time ?

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You marry sometimes for time and not for
eternity ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The officers of the church do ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then I misapprehended the fact. This Book
of Mormon, to which reference has been made this morning — I see
this is the edition of 1883. Do you know whether there have been
later editions?

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that. I think that is one of the latest.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is that book from which the passages have been
read the one which you say is promulgated now and in the hancs of
your missionaries ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 489

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And is used, you said, a great deal more than
the Doctrine and Covenants?

Mr. SMITH. J did not say that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I beg pardon. It was Mr. Lyman.

Mr. SMITH. That is one of the four cardinal works of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is it put in the hands of all your missionaries?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; all of them.

Senator DEPEW. As new revelations are received, are they embodied
in the new edition of the Book of Mormon ?

Mr. SMITH. No revelations that are received are put in the Book of
Mormon — none whatever. The Book of Mormon is a complete work
in itself. In the book the Doctrine and Covenants, if the Lord .should
reveal His mind to His people and it should be accepted by His people
in the way that He has appointed, it would then become a matter to
be added to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Smith, I should like to ask one question which,
perhaps, you will be able to answer as well as anybody else. I wish
the fact to appear of record. What is the law in Utah as to inheritance
with reference to children who are not children of what the civil law
recognizes as a lawful marriage ? What share do they have in the
parent's estate?

Mr. SMITH. Polygamous children, up to a certain date, were legiti-
matized by an act of Congress.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The Edmunds-Tucker act of 1887 made legiti-
mate all children born of polygamous parents down to 1888.

Senator HOAR. I understand, but suppose either of the witnesses
here who have testified that they now live in polygamous cohabitation
have had within the last year or shall have within the next year, a child
by a wife other than the true wife according to the civil law, that is,
the first wife. What right of inheritance will that child have in the
father's estate when the father dies ?

Mr. SMITH. Whatever the father wills to that mother and the child.

Senator HOAR. That is not the right of inheritance. The will is not
a right of inheritance.

Mr. SMITH. It can only inherit by will from the father.

Senator HOAR. For instance, in my own State illegitimate children
inherit the property of the mother, but have no right to the estate of
the father. I want to know what your law is in that particular.

Mr. SMITH. I am not lawyer enough to tell you. I think the
attorneys here probably could tell.

Senator McCoMAS. I should like to have Mr. Van Cott state the
substance of the statute of Utah on that subject?

Mr. VAN COTT. I am just looking it up.

Senator HOAR. I want to know. Mr. Smith, suppose your will — I
do not inquire whether you have made one or not — had been made and
destroyed, and that you die and leave property. Do you know what
rights in that property those children of whom you have spoken would
have — these later children, the children born since the manifesto?

Mr. SMITH. In my own case I have deeded to my family their
property-
Senator HOAR. I did not mean in the least to inquire into your per-
sonal affairs. I want to know what the legal rights of the children
would be.

Senator DEPEW. In case a man died intestate and had property.

490 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOAS. Yes; died intestate and had property.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Van Cott is looking it up now.

Senator McCoMAS. I suggest that the chairman permit Mr. Van
Cott to insert the sections of the statute in the record.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Van Cott can answer the question. It is a legal
question.

The CHAIRMAN. The course suggested by the Senator from Mary-
land will be pursued. The subject will be taken up later.

Mr. TAYLER. You know, Mr. Smith-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. I have not yet finished my examination. While
I was proceeding with the examination Senator Hoar asked a question.

Senator HOAR. I thought you had stopped.

Mr. VAN COTT. I have the statute. Shall I read it now ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 read from the revised statutes of Utah, 1898,
section 2833:

U2833. Illegitimate children to inherit, when. Every illegitimate
child is an heir of the person who acknowledges himself to be the
father of such child; and in all cases is an heir of his mother, and
inherits his or her estate, in whole or in part, as the case may be, in
the same manner as if he had been born in lawful wedlock. The issue
of all marriages null in law, or dissolved by divorce, are legitimate."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It practically says that the sins of the father
shall not be visited on the children.

Senator OVERMAN. Give the date of the act.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to have you state the date of that act.

Mr. VAN COTT. This does not say when it was first passed and I
will have to trace it back to find out. This is a codification of the
laws of Utah.

Senator McCoMAs. Does it not show the statute from which it is
taken?

Mr. VAN COTT. This shows that it was brought from the laws of
1888, long before statehood, but how long before that it had been in
force I can not state. But from memory-
Senator HOAR. WThen was it last enacted ?

Mr. SMITH. 1898, when the laws were codified; but Mr. Critchlow
can possibly remind me. I think that law was in force in 1876, but I
should have to check that to be sure.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the codification of 1898 ?

Mr. VAN COTT. 1898.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said you remembered two instances where
persons had been sealed by the church for eternity; you said one or
two instances ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; one or two instances.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long ago were those?

Mr. SMITH. Twenty-five to thirty years ago.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said that the Book of Mormon is not the
Mormon bible. What is the Mormon bible?

Mr. SMITH. The King James translation of the Bible.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have the same bible that other Christians
have?

Mr. SMITH. Yes sir; most emphatically.

Senator DEPEW. Does the Morman bible include the New Testament ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. I should like to state for the information of

KEED SMOOT. 491

the Senator who makes the inquiry that we have no bible except the
Christian Bible. King James's translation is the translation that we
have accepted as the standard work of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is all.

Mr. TAYLER. Just one question. I want to be sure that I under-
stand you correctly. You say that Apostle Teasdale told you that to
this wife, from whom he had to obtain a divorce, he had been sealed
for eternity only?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That he had not been married either for time or for
time and eternity, but only for that third form — eternity only?

Mr. SMITH. Well, now, Mr. Tayler, I could not tell you as to the
form of the ceremony.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand that. I am not speaking about that.
But it was merely for eternity ?

Mr. SMITH. That is the understanding they had. It was for eternity,
and not for time.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly; and therefore the relations between them as
contemplated at the time of the ceremony were that they should never
cohabit ?

Mr. SMITH. Never cohabit.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Therefore his relations with her were as chaste
as if she were his sister or a stranger to him ?

Mr. SMITH. Perfectly so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 should like to ask counsel if this witness will be
needed further?

Mr. VAN COTT. We are through with him.

Mr., WORTHINGTON. Is it a final discharge ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. Tayler, will you want anything more of
this witness?

Mr. TAYLER. No; I think not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have no desire to have him held.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Smith, if you will remain until the
meeting at 2 o'clock, we will then probably discharge you.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, I should like, in connection with the
answer about the right of inheritance of children of polygamous parents
in Utah, to have sections 2848, 2849, and 2850 of the Code of 1898 also
read. I wish the chairman would read them aloud, if he will. They
are very brief.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

"2848. Inheritance by issue of polygamous marriages. Section
twenty-eight hundred and thirty- three included when first enacted and
effectually operated at all times thereafter and now operates to include
the issue of bigamous and polygamous marriages, and entitles all such
issue to inherit, as in said section provided, except such as are not
included in the proviso of section eleven of the act of Congress called
the ' Edmunds-Tucker Act.' entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled
"An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and two "of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other
purposes.'"

"2849. Id. Cases heretofore determined. New trial. In all cases
involving the rights of such issue to so inherit, heretofore determined
adversely to such issue in any of the courts of the Territory of Utah,

492 REED SMOOT.

a motion for a new trial or rehearing shall be entertained, on applica-
tion of such issue who was or were parties, at any time before the
tenth day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety-seven; and the case
or cases in which said motion is so directed to be heard shall be deemed
transferred to the court of the State of Utah corresponding to that of
the Territory of Utah, in which such adverse decision was made, and
the courts shall thereupon proceed to hear and determine said motion,
and if granted, to proceed to hear and determine the case or cases
without prejudice from the lapse of time since the former hearing or
any prior determination of a like motion.; provided, that this section
shall not be construed to affect the rights of bona fide purchasers from
any such parties before the approval of this title.

"2850. Polygamous issue born on or prior to January 4, 1896,
legitimated. The issue of bigamous and polygamous marriages, here-
tofore contracted between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, born on or prior to the fourth day of January, A. D.
eighteen hundred and ninety-six, are hereby legitimated; and such
issue are entitled to inherit from both parents, and to have and to
enjoy all rights and privileges to the same extent and in the same
manner as though born in lawful wedlock."

Mr. VAN COTT. At the end of section 2849, if there is no objection,
we should like to have it appear that the supreme court of Utah has
held that section (2849) unconstitutional.

Senator HOAR. I wish you would put in the decision.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir. It is in re Handley, 49 Pacific Reporter,
829.

The decision referred to is as follows:

(Supreme court of Utah. June 28, 1897.)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — POLYGAMOUS CHILDREN — INHERITANCE — FINAL JUDGMENT —

LEGISLATIVE POWERS.

1. Where the legislature of the State by statute declares that in all
cases involving the right of polygamous children to inherit, determined
against them before the act in any of the courts of the Territory, a
motion for a rehearing or new trial shall be entertained on their appli-
cation who were parties at any time within one year after the act took
effect, and the court is required to entertain the motion for a new trial
or rehearing regardless of when the judgment or decree became final,
the legislature assumed a control over the judiciary not warranted by
the constitution, and such a statute, destroying vested rights, and the
finality of judicial determinations, is unconstitutional and void.

2. When the court construes the law and holds that it has a certain
effect, and bases its judgment upon it, the legislature can not declare
that the law as to that case has any other effect than that declared by
the court.

(Syllabus by the court.)

On rehearing. For former opinion see 24 Pac., 673. Denied.
Sutherland & Murphy and John W. Judd, for petitioner; Dey &
Street and W. H. Bramel, for respondent.

ZANE, C. J. It appears from this record that the late George Hand-
ley was a resident of Salt Lake City; that he died on the 25th day of

REED SMOOT. 493

May, 1874, leaving a lawful wife, Elizabeth Handley, and a polyga-
mous wife, Sarah A. Chapman, and the following children: John
Handley, William Handley, Charles J. Handley, and Emma N. Hand-
ley, of the lawful marriage, and Ruth A. Newson, Benjamin T. Hand-
ley, Mary F. Handley, and Harvey F. Handley, of the plural
marriage; that both wives and all of the children except Mary Hand-
ley are still living; that he died seized of real estate estimated to be of
the value of $25,916.92; that on April 12, 1888, his widow, Elizabeth
Handley, was appointed administratrix of her husband's estate b}r the
probate court, and that she filed an inventory and final account as such.

It also appears that the surviving children of the plural wife,
and their mother, as the heir of the deceased Mary, filed their petition
in said court, asking that the children of the potygamous marriage be
recognized as lawful heirs of their father, and that his estate be divided
in equal parts among the children of both marriages. After hearing
the evidence and proofs, the court made findings of fact and stated its
conclusions of law to the effect that the petitioners were not entitled,
under the law, to any part of the estate of the deceased father, and
entered a decree accordingly, and for costs. It further appears that
the petitioners appealed to the supreme court of the Territory of Utah,
and upon a hearing in that court the decision of the lower court was
affirmed, with costs, on July 28, 1890 (24 Pac., 673); that the peti-
tioners then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and
the appeal was dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, and its mandate
was sent down to the supreme court of the Territory, and the latter
issued its mittimus or mandate to the district court.

After the lapse of six years from the expiration of the time within
which a motion for a rehearing could be made under the rules of the
supreme court of the Territory or of this State, the legislature of the
State of Utah passed the act in force March 9, 1896, in pursuance of
which the petitioners present this motion for a rehearing. The statute
is as follows:

"SECTION 1. That section 2742 of the Compiled Laws of the Terri-
tory of Utah included when enacted, and effectually operated at all
tunes thereafter and now operates, to include the issue of bigamous and
polygamous marriages, and entitles all such issue to inherit, as in said
section provided, except such as are not included in the provision in
section 11 of the act of Congress called the ' Edmunds-Tucker Act,'
entitled ' An act to amend an act entitled ' 4 An act to amend section
5352 " of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to
bigamy, and for other purposes.'

USEC. 2. That in all cases involving the rights of such issue to so
inherit, heretofore determined adverse^ to such issue in any of the
courts of the Territory of Utah, a motion for a new trial or rehearing
shall be entertained, on application of such issue who was or were
parties at anytime within one year after this act shall take effect; and
the case or cases in which said motion is so directed to be heard shall
be deemed to be transferred to the courts of the State of Utah corre-
sponding to that of the Territory of Utah in which such adverse
decision was made, and the courts shall thereupon proceed to hear and
determine said motion, and, if granted, to proceed to hear and determine
said case or cases without prejudice from the lapse of time since the
former hearing or any prior determination of a like motion : Provided,

494 REED SMOOT.

That this act shall not be construed to affect the rights of bona fide
purchasers from any such parties before the approval of this act."

Handley, the ancestor, died in 1874, ten years before section 2742
mentioned in the act became a law and its meaning, operation, and
effect declared by the act quoted. An act of the Territorial legislature
of March 3, 1852, was in force when the father and polygamous hus-
band died. By that law the court determined the rights of the parties
to his estate by the decree which the petitioners seek to set aside.
This decree gave the entire estate to the children of the lawful wife,
and it became final after the time for filing a petition for rehearing
had passed. If it were conceded that the right of the children of the
plural wife to inherit a portion of their deceased father's estate should
have been determined by section 2742, Compiled Laws, and the decree
sought to be set aside had been rendered under it, section 1 of the act
of March 9, 1896, could have no effect upon that decree, because it
became final six years before that law took effect. After the court
has interpreted or construed a statute on the trial of a case, and ren-
dered judgment, the legislature can not affect it by a declaratory or
explanatory law giving the law under which the decree was rendered
a different construction.

To hold that the legislature can would recognize the law-making
department as a court of errors with power to overturn all judgments
and decrees depending upon the interpretation or the construction of
statutes. The purpose of separating and classifying the powers of
government and of intrusting the law-making power to the officers of
one department and the right to execute laws to another, and the power
to interpret and construe and apply laws to the conduct and conten-
tions of mankind to another, was to prevent the evils that would arise
if all were concentrated and held by the same hand. Such a concen-
tration of power would give to the class of officers possessing it abso-
lute power, and that would amount to a despotism.

The second section of the act upon which the petitioners rely is sub-
ject to fatal objections. That section declares that in all cases involv-
ing the right of polygamous children to inherit, determined against
them before the act in any of the courts of the Territory, a motion for
a new trial or rehearing shall be entertained on their application, who
were parties, at any time within one year after the act took effect.
The court is required by it to entertain the motion for a new trial or
rehearing regardless of when the judgment or decree became final.
And the section further declares that such cases shall be deemed trans-
ferred from the Territorial court to the State court. The State court
is then directed to hear and determine the motion, and, if granted, to
hear and determine the case without prejudice from the lapse of time
since the former hearing, or any prior determination of a like motion.

The court is peremptorily commanded by the legislature to enter-
tain the motion for a new trial or rehearing upon the application of
the polygamous issue, no matter what reasons may be brought to the
attention of the court or may appear for not entertaining it. Though
a final hearing may have been entered twenty-five years before, the
motion must be entertained. If the right to inherit was decided
against a polygamous issue, no matter for what reason, the legislature
has decided the new trial must be entertained. The court is denied
all discretion or right to judge for itself as to its jurisdiction or other-
wise. It is commanded to proceed at once, without first hearing any

EEED SMOOT. 495

reasons or listening to any argument one way or the other. And, if
a rehearing or new trial is granted, the court is directed to proceed to
hear the case without prejudice from the lapse of time since the former
hearing, or any prior determination, though the case may have been
tried on much evidence, and a decree rendered a generation before.

The court is forbidden by the act to take such matters into considera-
tion; all laches and limitations must be disregarded. Under the Terri-
torial law the right to a new trial was lost unless the motion was served
and tiled with the clerk of the court within ten days after the verdict,
or, in case of a trial by the court, within ten days after notice of its
decision; and the same rule exists under the State. And a right to a
rehearing in the supreme court under the Territory was lost unless
the petition was filed within twenty days after the decision, and this is
also a rule of the supreme court of the State. According to this act
any number of years may have intervened. The act in question appears
to be a plain attempt on the part of the legislature to exercise judicial
powers.

Section 1 of article 5 of the State constitution declares: u The powers
of the government of the State of Utah shall be divided into three dis-
tinct departments — the legislative, the executive, and the judicial; and
no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to
one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to
either of the others except in the case herein expressly directed or
permitted."

Section 1 of article 8 of the same instrument is as follows: kt>The
judicial powers of the State shall be vested in the senate sitting as a
court of impeachment, in a supreme court, in district courts, in jus-
tices of the peace, and such other courts inferior to the supreme court
as may be established by law." The senate while sitting as a court
of impeachment has judicial authority, so far as necessary, to try such
issues. Otherwise the constitution has not intrusted any part of the
judicial power of the State to the legislature. The petitioners claim
that the provisions of the second section relate alone to the remedy.
When the estate of the deceased, Handley, was ready for distribution,
the four children of the lawful wife claimed all of it, while the four
children of the plural marriage claimed the right to one-half of it.
This made it the duty of the court to ascertain the heirs — the persons
entitled to inherit.

The remedy provided Dy law was employed and the issue was tried,
and, upon the evidence heard and the law as interpreted, construed,
and applied to the facts, the court found the entire estate to belong to
the four children of the lawful wife and entered a decree accordingly.
That decree was affirmed by the court of last resort, and it became
final when the twenty days given within which to file a petition for a
rehearing expired — six years before the act of 1896 in question. That
decree determined the interests of the children of the lawful wife to
the estate in litigation, and gave them an immediate right to its pos-
session. The remedy was exhausted and the rights of the parties
were established by that decree, and the title to the entire estate was
vested in the four children of the lawful wife. The right was a vested
one. It was finally ascertained and settled by the decree beyond the
power of the court or the legislature to unsettle or divert it. The
remedy which the law afforded the petitioners was employed by them

496 REED SMOOT.

and it had completed its work. It was exhausted six years before the
legislative enactment upon which they rely.

After the decree became final there remained no legal right to be
enforced by the remedy which the act attempted to provide, or any
legal wrong to be redressed. The legislature attempted by a retro-
spective act to furnish a method by which vested rights could be
divested, and to compel the courts to employ it. The rights of the
children of the lawful wife to the estate in question were ascertained
and settled by the decree. Thereafter their rights were subject to no
contingency. They were completed and consummated. They were
vested, and beyond the reach of any remedy the court could employ
or the legislature could invent. No retroactive, explanatory, or declar-
atory enactment thereafter could have any effect upon them. The
court, having tried the case, construed the law in force at the time,
and, having applied it to the facts and entered a final decree, the legis-
lature could not afterwards, by a declaratory or explanatory act as to
that case, give to the law a different construction, requiring a different
decree, and invent a new remedy or change the old one, and require
the court to retry the case and enter a new decree according to its new
construction and new and changed remedy.

If we were to affirm the validity of the law in question, we would,
in effect, say that the legislature may exercise judicial powers, author-
ize and require the courts to set aside final judgments and decrees,
divest titles, and destroy and annihilate vested rights. The people of
the State have not intrusted such powers to the legislature. Coolev,
Const. Lim. (6th Ed.), p. Ill; Merrill" v. Sherburne, 8 Am. Dec., 52;
De Chastellux v. Fairchild, 15 Pa. St., 18; Reiser v. Association, 39
Pa. St., 137; Hookers. Hooker, lOSmedes &M., 599; Moser v. White,
29 Mich., 59; Oilman v. Tucker (N. Y. App.), 28 N. E., 1040; People
v. Board of Supervisors of New York, 16 N. Y., 424.

Judge Cooley (Const. Lim., p. Ill) says: " It is always competent to
change an existing law by a declaratory statute, and, where the statute
is only to operate upon future cases, it is no objection to its validity
that it assumes the law to have been in the past what it is now declared,
that it shall be in the future. But the legislative action can not be
made to retroact upon past controversies and to reverse decisions
which the courts, in the exercise of their undoubted authority, have
made; for this would not only be the exercise of judicial power, but it
would be its exercise in the most objectionable and offensive form,
since the legislature would, in effect, sit as a court of review to which
parties might appeal when dissatisfied with the rulings of the courts."

In Merrill v. Sherburne (8 Am. Dec., 52), the plaintiff claimed the
estate of Nathaniel Ward by virtue of an instrument purporting to be
his last will, which the heirs at law of Ward contested, and after a
hearing the issues were found against Merrill, and in 1814, at the
November term of the court, final judgment was rendered disallowing
the instrument. Merrill then petitioned the legislature for another
trial, and they, at their June session, 1817, passed an act granting to
the plaintiff, as administratrix of Merrill, then deceased, liberty to
reenter the cause in the superior court and there have it tried like a
common case for review, and upon due notice the case was entered
upon the docket, and the heirs, appearing as defendants, moved the
court to quash the proceedings on the ground that the act was uncon-
stitutional. The court held the nature and effect of the act was judi-

REED SMOOT. 497

cial; that it was also retroactive, and that the legislature had no power
to pass such an act and quashed the proceedings.

In a very learned opinion the court said, among other things: " Be
that as it may, however, it is clearly unwarrantable thus to take from
any citizen a vested right, a right 'to do certain actions, or possess cer-
tain things,' which he has already begun to exercise, or to the exercise
of which no obstacle exists in the present laws of the land. * * *
But previous to the passage of the act granting a new trial to the
plaintiff, the defendant had become authorized by the laws of the land
to possess all the estate of which Ward died seized. Every obstacle to
the exercise of their rights had been removed or annulled; and whether
their rights became vested by Ward's death, or by the final judgment
in November, 1814, is immaterial, because both these events had hap-
pened before the passage of this act. * * * The defendants being
thus situated, the legislature interfered; not to enact what is in its
nature and effect a law, but to pass a decree; not to prescribe a rule
for future cases, but to regulate a case which had already occurred;
not to make a private statute by the consent of all concerned, but at
the request of one party, to reverse and alter existing judgments; not
to promulgate an ordinance for a whole class of rights in the commu-
nity, but to make the action of a particular individual an exception to
all standing laws on the subject in controversy.

uThe expense and inconvenience of another trial were also imposed
upon the defendants, and all their claims to the property in dispute,
which had become indefeasible by the law then in being, were launched
again upon the sea of litigation to be lost or saved as accident and
opinion might afterwards happen to injure or befriend them. The mis-
fortune of having vested rights thus disturbed is not small when we
consider that on this principle no judgment whatever in a court of law
is final."

In the case of Oilman v. Tucker, supra, the court said: " We also
think the act violated the constitutional guaranty, because it assumes
to nullify a final and unimpeachable judgment, not only establishing
the plaintiff's right to the premises in dispute, but also awarding him
a sum of money as costs. After rendition this judgment became an
evidence of title, and could not be taken from the plaintiff without
destroying one of the instrumentalities by which her title was mani-
fested. A statute which assumes to destroy or nullify a party's muni-
ments of title is just as effective in depriving him of his property as
one which bestows it directly upon another. * * In the one
case it despoils the owner directly, and in the other renders him
defenseless against any assault upon his property. Authority which
permits a party to be deprived of his property by indirection is as
much within the meaning and spirit of the constitutional provision as
where it attempts to do the same thing directly. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that the repugnancy between the law and the constitu-
tional rights of the citizen is so irreconcilable that the law must fail."

The first section of the act of 1896 declared the operation and effect
of section 2742 of the compiled laws of 1888, at the time it took effect,
and at all times thereafter, included the issue of polygamous mar-
riages, notwithstanding the court might have held in any given case it
did not include such issue. The legislature assumed the right to
declare the law had an operation and effect with respect to such cases
different from that which the court may have declared it had and upon

s 32

498 REED SMOOT.

which it may have based its judgment. When the court construes the
law and holds it has a certain effect and bases a judgment upon it, the
legislature can not declare that the law , as to that case, had any other
effect than that declared by the court.

By the second section of the act of 1896 the legislature decided and
assumed that all judgments and decrees that had been entered involv-
ing the right of polygamous children to inherit were not final, and
assumed to direct the courts to disregard their effect as such, and to
entertain applications to set them aside, and assumed to command the
State courts to deem such cases transferred, and to take jurisdiction of
them to proceed to hear and determine such applications, and, if
granted, to hear and determine the cases regardless of limitations or
laches. In effect the courts are required to disregard as final all
judgments and decisions rendered in such cases. We must hold the
act of 1896 invalid, because in its passage the legislature assumed to
exercise judicial powers, and also because they assumed the right to
require the courts to regard judgments as impeachable that were
unimpeachable under the laws in force at the time they were rendered,
and by which vested rights were established and evidenced.

Miner, J., and Hart, district judge, concur.

At 12 o'clock meridian the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock. .

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Call Andrew Jenson.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Andrew Jenson will take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW JENSON.

ANDREW JENSON, having been duly sworn, was examined and testi-
fied as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mr. Jenson?

Mr. JENSON. In Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there ?

Mr. JENSON. Twenty -two years; since 1882.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you lived in this country prior to that time?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been a member of the Mormon
Church?

Mr. JENSON. Since I was 8 years old.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you born ?

Mr. JENSON. In Denmark.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you come to this country when you were 8 years
old?

Mr. JENSON. I came to this country when I was 15 years of age.

Mr. TAYLER. So you were a member of the churclTfor seven years
in Denmark?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position do you now hold?

Mr. JENSON. I am one of the assistant historians in the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is the chief historian ?

Mr. JENSON. Anthon H. Lund.

Mr. TAYLER. He is one of the counselors to the first president?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

EEED SMOOT. 499

Mr. TAYLER. Are you practically the person in charge of the his-
torical work of the church, or does Mr. Lund give constant attention
to that?

Mr. JENSON. His time does not permit him to do that, so I suppose
I am the one that has charge.

Mr. TAYLER. That was what I supposed. I called Mr. Smith's, or
Mr. Lyman's; attention to a book entitled The Chuch Chronology, com-
piled by Andrew Jenson, and dated 1899. That is an official publica-
tion of the church, is it not?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; you can not call it official. It is my own work.

Mr. TAYLER. Just describe it. It is your own work.

Mr. JENSON. It is my own work. I only am responsible for its
contents.

Mr. TAYLER. It is published by the Deseret News?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And this edition states that "Before printing, the copy
was carefully read to a committee appointed by Historian Franklin D.
Richards, consisting of Assistant Historians John Jaques and Charles
W. Penrose and Elder A. Milton Musser. Great pains have been
taken to make the work accurate and in all respects reliable as a work
of reference, and as such it is respectfully presented to the public at
large, and particularly to those who desire correct information in
regard to the Latter-Day Saints and their most remarkable history."

That is correct, is it?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. So far as you know, this is a correct account of histori-
cal affairs as indicated in its pages?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; only we did discover a few inaccurate dates,
but not of any importance.

Mr. TAYLER. You have also published a book entitled Latter-Day
Saints, Biographical Encyclopedia?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was that prepared by you?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The edition that I have here is dated 1901 and pub-
lished by the Deseret News.

Mr. JENSON. There has been only one edition.

Mr. TAYLER. And in so far as you are able to learn, from the data
at your command, this correctly represents events in the lives of the
various Latter-Day Saints?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; so far as I have been able to obtain correct
information.

Mr. TAYLER. I of course offer these two books, not for the purpose
of printing them all but such portions as we may need to refer to
before the committee.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I presume you will let us know what the por-
tions are that are to be used before we cross-examine the witness.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes. I do not intend to cross-examine him on any of
them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I say before we cross-examine him.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly. I have nothing in my mind now. It would
be used in argument more than anything else, and I will refer alone
to what I find within the pages of the books.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What I ask, Mr. Tayler, is that before we

500 KEED SMOOT.

cross-examine the witness we may- have our attention called to the
portions to which you expect to refer.

Mr. TAYLER. I might read until the committee tired of me and I
might discover later on something that I wanted to refer to. I will
refer to these as I would to any other book that has been identified in
a court of justice; but I have no ulterior purpose in my mind. I have
no thought of anything here to which I desire to refer, except that I
want the opportunity to inform the committee and ourselves as to
various facts in the lives of men in the history of the church. That
is all.

How many wives have you, Mr. Jenson ?

Mr. JENSON. I have two wives.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you married to them ?

Mr. JENSON. I was married to one of them in 1886 and the other
one in 1888.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they sisters?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You live with them now?

Mr. JENSON. No; 1 live with my first wife?

Mr. TAYLER. Are they both in the same house?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Both in the same house ?

Mr. JENSON. Both in the same house.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you married to anybody else ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you sealed to anybody for eternity only ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You are not sealed to your wives' mother for eternity
only ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any questions, Mr. Worthington?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have no questions, Mr. Chairman, unless
upon an examination of these books we should find occasion to ask
something. We are rather at a loss about that, because here is a large
book, and counsel may refer to something which, upon cross-examina-
tion of the witness, we might find entirely inaccurate.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You will have the opportunity to cross-examine.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness will remain until to-morrow.

Mr. TAYLER. I want to ask one other thing of the witness, because
there is some confusion about it.

Where do you reside with respect to the places of residence of four
of the plural wives of Joseph F. Smith, president of the church?

Mr. JENSON. I can testify only to three. I live pretty near to three
of them.

Mr. TAYLER. Pretty near to three?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do they live with reference to you and with
reference to each other?

Mr. JENSON. Across the street from me.

Mr. TAYLER. There are three wives, then, who live in separate
houses ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. On the opposite side of the street from you?

REED SMOOT.

501

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLEK. That is all.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Tayler, 1 suggest that if you have anything to
read out of that book it ought to be done now, because I do not see
how we could consider that any more than the verbal declarations of
the writer.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, I will do that before he goes.

The CHAIRMAN. Counsel said he would call attention to any parts
they rely on.

You speak of the residences of three of the wives of Mr. Smith ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the residence of the fourth wife in that same
block, or do you not know?

Mr. JENSON. I do not know; not to be sure.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any informatian on that subject?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is }^our next witness, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Lorin Harmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harmer, will you take the stand ? Before that,
however, I want to ask Mr. Jenson a question. You say you live with
these two wives in the same house ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I live with one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. They live in the same house ?

Mr. JENSON. They live in the same house. The house is large, and
the other one has her special apartments.

' TESTIMONY OF LORIN HARMER.

LORIN HARMER, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified
as follows:

Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
my membership
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. HARMER.
Mr. TAYLER.

Where do }^ou live, Mr. Harmer?

Springville, Utah County, Utah.
What official position do you hold in the church?

Not any.
Have you had any official position in it?

Yes, sir.
What?

I was bishop about five years, or six.
When did you cease to be a bishop.

It was in 1899, I believe.
How did yon come to cease to be a bishop?

Well, I committed the crime of unchastity and lost

Were you sent to the penitentiary ?

Yes, sir.
How many wives have you?

Two.
What are their names ?

Ellen and Ida.
How old is Ida?

48.
How old is Ellen?

49.
What was Ellen's name before she was married?

502 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. HARMER. Her name was Ellen Tew.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know Ellen Anderson?

Mr. HARMER. Yes, sir,

Mr. TAYLER. Are you married to her?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you ever live with her?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir; not as a wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Not as a wife? Did you have children by her?

Mr. HARMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many ?

Mr. HARMER. Two.

Mr. TAYLER. How many since you were in the penitentiary?

Mr. HARMER. One.

Mr. TAYLER. You were sent to the penitentiary for having- children
by her?

Mr. HARMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where does she live now?

Mr. HARMER. She lives in Springville.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not live with her as wife ?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you have the last child by her?

Mr. HARMER. I do not know as I could tell you exactly.

Mr. TAYLER. A bout when?

Mr. HARMER. Oh, perhaps a year or a year and a half ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it not last July?

Mr. HARMER. Well, perhaps a year. I can not recollect just
exactly ; something like that.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you not had two children by her since you came
out of the penitentiary ?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The last was last July, was it not?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir; 1 do not think it was. I think it was longer
ago than that. Still, I have no dates.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you support that child?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Who does?

Mr. HARMER. The mother.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you support the mother ?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not contribute to her support at all?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir; she has property of her own.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know whether she expects to have more
children?

Mr. HARMER. I do not think she does.

Mr. TAYLER. What?

Mr. HARMER. I do not think she does.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, I do not believe I would ask that.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course it was intended to bring out testimony as to
existing circumstances and not a general expectation.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is this one of his wives?

Senator DILLINGHAM. This is a relation that is entirely outside of
the Mormon Church.

REED SMOOT. 508

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was about to ask whether Mr. Tayler really
claims that the witness is married to the woman, and whether, when
he says he is not, he is not testifying truly.

Mr. TAYLER. I suspect that there is some inference to be drawn
from the fact that he continues this kind of unchaste life.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is this one of his wives?

Mr. TAYLER. It is a woman he has had children by.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is it one of his wives?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I think so. 1 think it is one of his wives. This
sort of thing has never existed, that we know of, among the Mormons.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you expect to show that he has held the woman
out to the public as his wife ?

Mr. TAYLER. Undoubtedly; that he has held her out as his wife.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. TAYLER. Where does your wife Ida live?

Mr. HARMER. She lives in the western part of the city.

Mr. TAYLER. Where does Ellen Anderson live?

Mr. HARMER. She lives on the same square.

Mr. TAYLER. On the same lot?

Mr. HARMER. Well, it is on the same block.

Mr. TAYLER. Is it on the same lot?

Mr. HARMER. What you would call the same block.

Mr. TAYLER. Is it on the same lot? How far is it from the house
of Ida?

Mr. HARMER. Oh, perhaps 12 or 15 rods.

Mr. TAYLER. Twelve or 15 rods?

Mr. HARMER. Something like that.

Mr. TAYLER. Who lives with her?

Mr. HARMER. I do not know as I could tell you that. I guess her
children.

Mr. TAYLER. I mean, there is no other member of her family with
her but her children ?

Mr. HARMER. I just wish to state for your information, Mr. Tayler,
that I have not been in Springville but very little for three or four
years. My business at the mines, in furnishing the mines supplies, has
taken me away from Springville, and I am not so well acquainted with
them things as perhaps you might think I was.

Mr. TAYLER. Your wife Ida lives there?

Mr. HARMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You live with her when you are there?

Mr. HARMER. Very little.

Mr. TAYLER. You live with her when you are there?

Mr. HARMER. I have been there a few times; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Who owns the land on which the house that Ellen lives
in stands?

Mr. VAN COTT. Which Ellen ? Were there not two Ellens ? Do you
mean Ellen Anderson ?

Mr. TAYLER. The last Ellen, Ellen Anderson. Who owns that land ?

Mr. HARMER. I think she does.

Mr. TAYLER. You think she does? Who owns the land on which
Ida's house stands ?

Mr. HARMER. She does.

Mr. TAYLER. Who?

Mr. HARMER. Ida.

504 REED SMOOt.

Mr. TAYLER. From whom did Ellen buy her land?

Mr. HARMER. I think she got it of Ida.

Mr. TAYLER. Who built the house 1

Mr. HARMER. A man by the name of Silas Hutchings.

Mr. TAYLER. Who paid for it?

Mr. HARMER. I believe she did.

Mr. TAYLER. Who?

Mr. HARMER. Ellen.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did she get the money, if you know?

Mr. HARMER. I do not know that.

Mr. TAYLER. She did not get it from you?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Or from Ida?

Mr. HARMER. Not that I know of.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you marry any wife since the manifesto?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you at any time married, or did you have
any marriage ceremony between you and Ellen Anderson?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you held her out at any time as being
your wife ?

Mr. HARMER. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. About your being punished and sent to the
penitentiar}^ . Do you know whether Senator SniOot had anything to
do with that?

Mr. HARMER. I think he did.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What?

Mr. HARMER. Well, at that time, when I had the trouble with that
woman, he was counselor to the president of the stake, and the presi-
dent of the stake was quite sick at the time when 1 went over to
Provo. I had a talk there with Mr. Smoot and he told me what the
church was going to do right away, and I asked him to give me a
little time that I might kindly prepare my folks for the worst.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What was the church going to do right away?

Mr. HARMER. Well, they was going to take my bishopric from me,
and the offices I then held in the church.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What?

Mr. HARMER. I was bishop, and I was instructor of the priests'
quorum, teachers' quorum, and deacons1 quorum.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Why were they going to take those things
from you ?

Mr. HARMER. Because I had committed a crime that the church
could not allow.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What crime? What was the conversation
between you and the Senator, about what crime you had committed ?

Mr. HARMER. Well, the crime of adultery, plainly speaking, and I
got in my buggy and started home. Before I got home the county
sheriff caught me, and I laid it to Mr. Smoot a-sending after me.
They took me back to Provo, and I stayed there all that night in
Provo ; and I did not think it was hardly fair. I thought he ought
to give me a little fairer chance, although it was a bad crime.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you right there, if you will, what year
was this ?

Mr. HARMER. In 1899.

REED SMOOT. 505

The CHAIRMAN. You said you laid it to Mr. Smoot. Do you know
that he went the officer after }TOU ?

Mr. HARMER. I do not know it, but it looked very much like it, you
know.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Nothing further.

The CHAIRMAN. You may stand aside, Mr. Hariner. Who is your
next witness?

Mr. TAYLER. Hyrum M. Smith.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did I understand you to say you were also sent
to the penitentiary for this crime, sir?

Mr. HARMER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, will you be sworn ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I would prefer to affirm, Mr. Chairman.

TESTIMONY OF HYRUM M. SMITH.

HYRUM M. SMITH, having duly affirmed, was examined and testified
as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mr. Smith?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I live in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. You are one of the twelve apostles?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you become an apostle?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. In October, 1901.

Mr. TAYLER. You are a son of Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You say 1901 ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is your mother ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Edna Smith

Mr. TAYLER. I find, Mr. Smith, in the Deseret News of Thursday,
February 25, 1904, an account of a speech or address which you are
said to have delivered at a conference of Boxelder Stake a day or two
before that time.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. A day or two before which time ?

Mr. TAYLER. A day or two before the date of the paper; do you
recall being there?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. If you will give me something about the
date — what was the date of the paper ?

Mr. TAYLER. February 25, 1904.

Senator PETTUS. Let the witness see the paper.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I think that I was there.

Senator PETTUS. Let the witness see the paper.

Mr. TAYLER. I was asking him if he was there. I will show the
witness the paper, and he can look at the paragraph that is marked
and tell me if that is a correct statement of what he said at that
meeting.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH (after examining the paper). I believe that
that is in substance what I said — a part of it. Shall I read it?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, do you want him to read that?

Mr. TAYIER. You can read it; yes, sir.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. This is a synopsis of my address.

"Elder Hyrum M. Smith spoke of the agency given to man, each

506 REED SMOOT.

to do as he pleased, whether it be good or evil, but each must take the
consequences of his acts. Spoke of beautiful order of obedience in
the family circle and in the Church of Jesus Christ. He said that
from the viewpoint of the gospel there could be no separation of tem-
poral and spiritual things, and those who object to church people
advising and taking part in temporal things have no true conception
of the gospel of Christ and the mission of the church. Elder Smith
severely rebuked those who either secretly or openly revile and mis-
represent their brethren."

I believe 1 said that.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Where was this? I did not understand.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. It was held in Brigham City.

The CHAIRMAN. In Brigham City ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. At what place?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Well, in Utah.

The CHAIRMAN. I know.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Boxelder County, Utah.

The CHAIRMAN. But was it in a tabernacle?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. In a tabernacle, at a regular quarterly con-
ference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints held at
that place.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there a large attendance?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; very large.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your age ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I am 32 the 21st of this month.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been an apostle?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I have been an apostle since October, 1901.

The CHAIRMAN. Were any others of the apostles present at this
meeting?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Rudger Clawson.

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. None of the apostles; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you married?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have but one wife ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Only one.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had your wife, and but one wife, when you
were selected as an apostle?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Since you became a member of that organiza-
tion, has there been any accession to it except of monogamists?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Smith, wnat did you mean in that address
when you spoke about the relation of things spiritual and things tem-
poral ? Did you mean that the church assumes to control the temporal
action of its members ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What did you mean ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. 1 meant that the authorities of a stake, upheld

REED SMOOT. 507

and sustained in their position by the people of the stake, ought to
receive the counsel that might be given them pertaining to their tem-
poral welfare. That is, the looking after themselves, their fami-
lies, their condition in the church, taking care of their premises, being
thorough good citizens in every respect, both civilly and religiously.
I never had any idea of throwing out the idea that the authorities of
the church had or assumed to have any absolute control over them,
either temporal or spiritual.

Senator BEVEKIDGE. Then you mean qualified control?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I qualify it in that way.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You said "any absolute control." Do you
mean, by putting in that adjective "absolute," that while you did not
advise absolute control of the church over their temporal affairs you
do advise a qualified control?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; that is, in the influence, just as has
been read here — just exercising an influence for good in counsel.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Smith, supposing a member of your church
refuses constantly this counsel which you are disposed to give him?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Well, supposing, Senator; what is it?

Senator DUBOIS. What happens to that individual who refuses per-
sistently to obey the counsel which your officials choose to give him?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Well, speaking for myself, I never had any
of them refuse to obey counsel I have given.

Senator DUBOIS. You are not answering my question.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Well, you said counsel I gave, and I have
no such case.

Senator DUBOIS. You never counsel your people ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Please read my question. 1 would like to have an
answer.

The reporter read as follows:

"Senator DUBOIS. What happens to that individual who refuses
persistently to obey the counsel which your officials choose to give
him?"

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. If a person persistently refuses to receive
the counsel which he is given, why, that individual would not be con-
sidered in full fellowship with those who give the counsel.

Senator DUBOIS. Would he be considered in full fellowship with the
church?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Not if that counsel was given by the church.

Senator DUBOIS. Suppose it was given by a high representative of
the church like an apostle. Would not the apostle in that case be
the representative of the church ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; an apostle is a representative of
the church.

Senator DUBOIS. Then he would not be in fellowship with the
church if he refused to obey the counsel which the apostle of the
church gave him?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Providing that counsel pertained to the church
and to good fellowship in the church. He would cease to be in fel-
lowship if he refused to obey that counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you one question. Does your body
Df apostles have frequent meetings?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

508 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. How frequently?

Mr. HYKUM M. SMITH. We aim to meet; every week — once a week.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you generally attend?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; when I am in Salt Lake City.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have a quarterly meeting, I believe? Is
there not a quarterly meeting of the church?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. We have semiannual meetings of the church,
and we have quarterly meetings of the various stakes of Zion.

The CHAIRMAN. Semiannual meetings of the church.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you met with Mr. Smoot at the meetings of
the apostles, ever?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How frequently?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. He aimed also to meet there whenever he
was in Salt Lake City.

The CHAIRMAN. He has been at several of the meetings, I suppose ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Who is your next witness ?

Senator BEVERIDGE. I want to ask a question, Mr. Smith, as to this
counsel addressed to members of your church. Did you ever give any
of the members of your church any political counsel ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did you ever advise any of them how to vote
on any question?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir. That is a matter, Mr. Senator,
which I consider belongs to the right of every individual; and inas-
much as I myself consider that 1 am capable of using my own judg-
ment in all political matters, even so do I not give counsel in that
respect.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You spoke about good citizenship and one
thing and another, and you said you counseled them tp make good
citizens in that respect. I was interested in knowing just how far
your mind went in the counsel you give, which, in your view, would
make them good citizens.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Counsel to obey all of the statutes and ordi-
nances of the municipality and the State, and no individual has to be
at variance with any law, so far as I know, to be a good Latter-Day
Saint, and that is what my counsel has been.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you speak of advising your people about
temporal affairs and their being out of fellowship if they do not take
the advice, what do you mean by " temporal affairs" — what kind of
affairs ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. When I speak of temporal affairs I mean
being frugal, industrious, sustain one another, sustain home industries,
build up their country, take care of their flocks and herds, properly
fence their fields, and be frugal in sowing and planting, and taking
care of machinery and outbuildings, and such things as that. That is
what I mean by temporal advice. Those are temporal things, I believe.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 had not intended to ask you any questions,
but, since this matter has been brought up, I will. You belong to
that branch of your organization which has charge principally of the
missionary work?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir

REED 8MOOT. 509

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The missionary work, as I understand, is the
principal business of the apostles.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do the apostles themselves go out on mission
work?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And have you been ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You spoke about attending meetings when you
were in Salt Lake City. Have you been away much lately — of late
years?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Not to any extended period; not since I was
an apostle.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. But before that, were you a missionary?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where did you go when you were traveling as
a missionary ?

Mr. HYRUM M.. SMITH. I labored in Great Britain.

Mr. .WORTHINGTON. For how long ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. For two years and four months.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, since you became an apostle you have
made shorter journeys jn missionary work?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you had anything to do with instructing
others' who are sent out on missionary work?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What have }^ou had to do with it?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Well, I have had to assist in giving those
instructions.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, you were a missionary for two years and
a half and then a missionary as an apostle?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you have seen to the instruction of others?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I want to know what you do about this matter
of polygamy?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. The instructions I received when I became
an apostle were to the effect that plural marriages had ceased in the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; that I was not to preach
it or advise others to preach it, but that I was to advise them not to
preach it or to agitate the question in any way; and that has been the
substance of my advice to missionaries whom I have instructed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How about your own practice when you were
a missionary ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. In relation to that principle?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. 1 fully adhered to that instruction.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, about the books you used. There was
here this morning — you were here when that Book of Mormon was
produced ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And you heard that condemnation of polygamy
read this morning?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

510 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What use have you been making of that hool
in your apostolic work and missionary work ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. We make every effort we can to distribute
that work among the people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How does the extent to which that book is dis-
tributed among non-Mormons, where you are doing your missionary
work, compare with the distribution of the book the Doctrine and
Covenants ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. So far as I, myself, am concerned in mission-
ary work, and those who immediately labored with me, we made no
effort to circulate the Doctrine and Covenants among the people as a
proselyting medium. The Book of Mormon was used extensively for
that purpose.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How about this book of Talmage's, the Arti-
cles of Faith, which contains the substance of the manifesto ? To what
extent, if at all, has that been used in your mission work of late years ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. That book was not published when I, myself,
filled a foreign mission, but I understand it is useda extensively by the
missionaries; and -I, myself, have highly recommended it to mission-
aries about to depart for a mission.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Both it and the Book of Mormon are in com-
mon everyday use among those who are on missions?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Something was asked of Mr. Lyman the other
day about the publication of frequent editions of the Doctrine and
Covenants. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, 1 really do not know how frequently
they are issued.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Among those who are members of the Mormon
Church, out there in the inter-mountain States, is the Doctrine and
Covenants commonly used as one of their household books, as well as
the Book of Mormon ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; it is practically the book of instruc-
tion in church government, and pertains more particularly to those
who are members of the church than to those who are not members of
the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, among those who are your members and
who know all about the manifesto and this matter being forbidden by
law, the Doctrine and Covenants is used a great deal more than it is
among people who are not members and when you are doing missonary
work ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; and if I may be permitted to add
here, 1 would like to do so in relation to the editions. I think it was
relating to the Doctrine and Covenants that the question was asked, I
believe, how it was that a number of editions had been issued recently.

Now, if I am not mistaken, and the Book of Doctrine and Cove-
nants was referred to, I will say that, in my opinion, those books were
purchased by the Latter-Day Saints themselves and not for distribu-
tion for proselyting purposes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One thing more about these apostle meetings,
concerning which the chairman has asked you. You and Mr. Smoot
have been present together at a number of these meetings?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At any meeting at which you were present and

REED SMOOT. 511

when he was present has the subject of polygamous cohabitation or
polygamy been discussed, so far as you can remember?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir; not that I can remember.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you tell me at any meeting while you were
present, whether he was there or not, whether anything has been done
looking to the advocating of polygamy or polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Looking to the advocating of it?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Looking to it, one way or the other; and if so
in what way ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. 1 have heard things occasionally. Of course
the rumors that are rife come to our ears, as well as others; and on a
number of occasions 1 have heard it most specifically given as instruc-
tion to those present that we must use our every effort to have these
things stopped, if there was any truth whatever in the rumor, which
we ourselves have not believed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To what rumors do you refer?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. That polygamy or the practice of plural
marriage is being continued in the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then those rumors have been discussed and
you have all agreed that everything must be done to stop it if it exists ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What about polygamous cohabitation; that is,
Irving with plural wives, as distinguished from taking them?

Mr. HYRUM M. -SMITH. I have never heard that question discussed
at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If the meetings of the apostles, then, are in the
nature of a conspiracy to carry on that sort of thing, you do not know
about it and have not participated in it?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, you say as teacher and missionary you
were instructed in the line of your work?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you were not instructed in relation to the ques-
tion of polygamy?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; 1 was when I went on my foreign
mission.

The CHAIRMAN. What were you instructed in that regard?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I was instructed to avoid a discussion of the
subject at all.

The CHAIRMAN. If the question was broached and the doctrine
assailed of the rightfulness of polygamy, what were you to do?

Mr. HYRUM M, SMITH. What would I do?

The CHAIRMAN. What were you to do — yes.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. As a missionary—

The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of yourself.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I frequently ran up against that very ques-
tion.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You are asked for your instructions.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. My instructions, you want?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Was anything said to you about that?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Please repeat your question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You were instructed, you said, in relation to the
question of polygamy, not to say anything about it?

512 REED SMOOT.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir; any more than I could possibly
help, I said.

tions on that particular point, further than perhaps I used my own
judgment in relation to the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be your judgment in such a case as that
if the rightfulness of polygamy was questioned?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I suppose every Latter-day Saint elder has
that thrown up to him, as I did. "You believe in polygamy. You
do not practice polygamy, neither is it allowed any more in the
church, but you have believed in it and practiced it.". Of course that
we can not deny. "It is wrong," they contend. Then I have dis-
missed the question by referring them to their own Bible, in which
most Christians believe, and let them judge for themselves and avoid
further discussion, if possible, on the question.

The CHAIRMAN. But if forced to discuss it, what would be your
attitude ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Well, I never was forced to discuss it.

The CHAIRMAN. But if you were?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I do not think I could be.

JMr. WORTHINGTON. I submit, Mr. Chairman, they ought not to be
asked what they would do if something happened which has never
yet happened. He could only give a guess about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Have you ever had any discussion
while on your missions, and discussed with anybody the question of
polygamy while you were an apostle?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir; I never have since 1 have been an
apostle.

The CHAIRMAN. While you were a missionary?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. W7hile I was a missionary, yes; I had one or
two discussions on the question.

The CHAIRMAN. WThat position did you take?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I took the position that it was a Bible doc-
trine — merely from, I suppose, an argumentative point of view.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not in any way counsel the practice of it?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As distinguished from the belief?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir; and I never argued the point with
any one who was investigating Mormonism for the purpose of embra-
cing it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did any convert you made in England, so far as
you know, during your two years and a half, ever become a polyga-
mist, either as a husband or as a wife?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, sir.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Smith, the doctrine, when you were a missionary
of the church, was a doctrine of opposition to polygamy, was it not-
forbidding polygamy ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. That was a rule of the church; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Very well; I will use either the word "rule" or the
word "doctrine."

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 513

Senator HOAR. I suppose the rules of the church were based on its
doctrine, and its doctrines are that the rules should be observed?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. However, that is a question I will not trouble you
about. Did you as a missionary advocate or enforce that doctrine or
rule and point out the reasonableness of it to your auditors?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. You argued against the rightfulness of polygamy,
then, did you?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I can hardly hear your question, Senator.

Senator HOAR. I asked you if you urged upon your converts, or
persons you were trying to convert, the righteousness and rightfulness
of the present doctrine of the church forbidding polygamy, as opposed
to divine command?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I hardly know how to answer your question.

Senator HOAR. When you undertook to win adherents to your church
1 suppose you commended the belief and practice of your people — the
present belief and practice — did you not?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Very well. In doing that did you commend and urge
upon them the rightfulness of the present doctrine and rule of the
church forbidding polygamy?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I do not know that I remember. I remem-
ber distinctly in every case informing them that it was no longer a doc-
trine of the church, so far as our practice was concerned.

Senator HOAR. I am not asking whether you told them it was a doc-
trine no longer, but whether you argued and persuaded them that it
was a religious and rightful doctrine.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. No, I did not argue. I have said that 1
avoided all argument on the question.

Senator HOAR. Well, if the rule of your church forbade polygamy,
and you were tiding to win converts to your faith, why did you omit
from the things which you urged upon your converts the article of
faith that potygamy was wrong ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Well, I can not gather you, Senator Hoar.

Senator HOAR. Will you repeat that queston, Mr. Reporter, so that
the witness can hear it?

The reporter read the question as follows:

"Senator HOAR. Well, if the rule of your church forbade polygamy,
and you were trying to win converts to your faith, why did you omit
from the things which you urged upon your converts the article of
faith that polygamy was wrong?"

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I have always, in my ministrations among the
people, urged the rightfulness of the commandments and the doctrines
of the church, and 1 recognized that the practice of plural marriages
had ceased, and the manifesto as a doctrine of the church I have fre-
quently urged upon them.

Senator HOAR. And forbidden it? Well, my question is did you
urge upon your converts that that was a rightful and true doctrine?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. That polygamy should be forbidden ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. As of right? I am not now speaking of it as merely
resting on the divine authority but as being right in itself?

s 33

514 REED SMOOT.

Mr. HYKUM M. SMITH. That they should refrain from that?

Senator HOAR. Yes.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Then you did not refrain from discussing the subject
of polygamy and its rightfulness in your ministrations, for you
preached to your converts that it was wrong, did you not?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Now, let me explain that, Senator Hoar.
You place me in a false position, entirely.

Senator HOAR. I have only asked the question.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I said I have avoided a discussion of that
matter entirely. If it were to come up incidentally by a person who
was favorably disposed toward Mormon ism, and who might be con-
sidered an investigator, and I were asked the question, I would answer
his questions to the best of my ability to the effect that while in times
past plural marriages had been a doctrine and had been practiced by
the church, that it no longer was practiced by the church, nor should
be; arid to that extent and no further have I gone in the discussion of
the question.

Senator HOAR. Why did you confine yourself to the fact that the
church had now altered its rule, and not enter into the question of the
rightfulness of the present rule?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. The principal reason for that is that with
investigators of the doctrine of a church it is the first principles of
the gospel that are considered, and it is seldom polygamy is spoken
of, either by them or by the elders, and we have no particular occa-
sion-
Senator HOAR. Then your answer is that it was not, in the mind of
the convert with whom you were dealing, a practical question at that
time ?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. That is my idea; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. That is a fair answer, Mr. Smith. •

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Smith, this is a question that is not perti-
nent at all. Where were you educated?

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. I was educated in the church schools in
Salt Lake City.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you any further witness?

Mr. TAYLER. Thomas H. Merrill.

Mr. HYRUM M. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if now I
can be excused, or discharged, in other words.

The CHAIRMAN. Do either of the counsel want this witness further?

Mr. TAYLER. He may be excused as far as we are concerned.

Mr. VAN COTT. We excuse him.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be excused.

Mr. VAN COTT. How is it, Mr. Chairman, in regard to Mr. Joseph F.
Smith?

The CHAIRMAN. I understand from counsel, Mr. Smith, that your
presence will not be required further.

Mr. JOSEPH F. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me ask Mr. Joseph F. Smith a question, as to
whether he could get into communication with any of these apostles
who have been subpoanaed and have not been reached, and whether any
instruction from him would facilitate their coming here?

Mr. JOSEPH F. SMITH. I presume 1 could find them in time, Mr.
Tayler. I do not know how soon I could find them.

REED SMOOT. 515

Mr. TAYLER. I would be obliged if you would give them such
instruction as you can that we want them as soon as we can get them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Which ones, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. John W. Taylor, George Teasdale, M. F. Cowley,
John Henry Smith.

Mr. VAN COTT. You know he is very ill, and that Teasdale is very ill ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The}^ have been subpoenaed, and are not here
simply because they are not well.

Mr. JOSEPH F. SMITH. Mr. Merrill has also been subpoenaed.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 understood Mr. Merrill was quite ill. Of course a
man who is physically incapable of coming or whose health would be
affected by coming ought not be required to come.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS H. MERRILL.

THOMAS H. MERRILL, having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mr. Merrill?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Richmond, Cache County, Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you son of Apostle Merrill ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position do you hold?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Bishop of the Richmond ward.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been bishop ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Since 1899.

Mr. TAYLER. How many wives have you?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I have two.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do they live?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. In Richmond.

Mr. TAYLER. In the same house?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No.

Mr. TAYLER. What are their names?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Emma Olsen Merrill and Maggie
Thompson Merrill.

Mr. TAYLER. How old are they ?

The CHAIRMAN. One minute. I want to know who this witness is.
What is your first name, Mr. Merrill?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Thomas H. Merrill.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He is a son of Apostle Merrill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have you?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I believe I did not answer that other
question.

Mr. TAYLER. How is that?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I think there is a question there I did
not answer. I was interrupted before giving the answer.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Reporter, will you read the question that was not
answered ?

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. How old are they?"

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. My first wife is 42 years old. My sec-
ond wife will be 43 years old the 15th of this month.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have you by them ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I have six living children by the first
and four living children by the second.

516 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. How recently have you had children by either of them ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. My youngest child by my first wife will
be 14 months old the 15th of this month. The youngest child of my
second wife was 3 years old the 26th day of last January.

Mr. TAYLER. There has been no child born to this last wife you
have spoken of since this 3-year-old child was born ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Merrill, where were you married to the second
wife?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. In the Logan Temple, in the city of
Logan, Utah.

Senator DUBOIS. Will you describe the ceremony, please?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir; not in detail.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, as fully as you can.

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I made a covenant that I would love,
honor, respect, arid treat her in all respects as a wife, is the substance
of the ceremony that was performed on that occasion.

Mr. TAYLER. When was that? Excuse the question, Senator, unless
you were going to ask it.

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. That was in the year 1885, on the 21st of
April, 1 believe — the 21st or 22d, I am not positive which.

Senator DUBOIS. Have you a certificate of that marriage ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Is there any record of the marriage?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Not that I know of. No certificates were
required at that time.

Senator DUBOIS. No certificate was required of any marriage except
that of the first wife?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No certificate was required even of that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you remember of the ceremony?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. That is not the wording of the ceremony;
that is the substance of it. I do not remember that as being the word-
ing. I do not remember the wording at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you recall, in substance?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Yes, sir; in fact, that we were pro-
nounced husband and wife.

The CHAIRMAN. Who performed the ceremony?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. My father.

The CHAIRMAN. Who were present?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I do not remember the witnesses' names.
There were two witnesses, I remember, both being males.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there anybody beyond that? Was there any-
Dne else present?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I think not.

Senator DUBOIS. You do not know whether any record of this mar-
riage was kept or not?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I do not know, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. He says not.

Senator DUBOIS. He says he does not know whether any record was
kept.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether any record is kept in the
temple of marriages ocurring in the temple?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir; I do not know.

EEED SMOOT. 517

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know about that?

Mr. THOMAS II . MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Do you perform marriages yourself as bishop?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I have, I believe, upon two occasions since
I have been bishop.

Senator OVERMAN. Do you keep any record of them ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Yes, sir; that is, I keep an individual
record. Now certificates are required. I fill out the certificate and
the party that I solemnize is given one and 1 sign the other and send*
it to the county court.

Senator HOPKINS. There is a registry kept at the county court of
each county in the State of all marriages?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I think so; yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Do you have a book out of which you marry
them — any form?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. You have no form at all ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Having performed the ceremony yourself, can you
not tell us what the ceremony is?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Well, sir, I am sure I would not use the
same ceremony twice. I simply do the work and the preliminary
would take care of itself.

The CHAIRMAN. You do the work. You pronounce them husband
and wife?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the preliminaries you attend to as the occasion
arises ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. That would be perhaps studied for the
occasion.

Senator HOAR. You would require some promise from each party ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Oh, yes.

Senator HOAR. To be a faithful husband or wife, as the case may be ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. In some form of words?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Yes, sir; I consider that as a part of the
obligation and a part of the work, that I should see that they do.

Senator HOPKINS. Does not your church have some formula that is
used in marriage ceremonies?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. 1 have looked for it, but I have never
been able to find it; and if they have 1 do not know where it is.

Senator HOPKINS. Then each member of the Mormon Church who
is authorized to perform the marriage ceremony uses his own formula
in pronouncing the couple husband and wife. Is that it?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Now, I could answer that only as far as
I am concerned. That is the way I have done it, because I was unable
to find a written ceremony.

Senator OVERMAN. Is the public generally invited to these mar-
riages ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir. Invited guests, however, have
been present on both occasions, but not the public.

Senator OVERMAN. The public is not invited, not allowed to attend ?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Well, they would not think of attending
unless they had an invitation on that special occasion.

518 REED 8MOOT.

Senator PILLINGHAM. Do you know of any part of the country
where they would be?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. No, sir; I do not know of any.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further of this witness?

Mr. TAYLER. 1 am through.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. After the adjournment, Mr. Merrill, will you stop
.at the clerk's desk a moment?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further of this witness, gentle-
men, he will be discharged.

Mr. VAN COTT. There is one question we forgot. What is your age,
Mr. Merrill?

Mr. THOMAS H. MERRILL. I will be 45 years old the llth day of this
coming June.

TESTIMONY OF ALMA MERRILL.

ALMA MERRILL, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Merrill, where do you live?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. 1 live in Richmond, Cache County, Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. You are a son of Apostle Merrill ?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position do you hold in the church.

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. I am a member of the presidency of Benson
Stake.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you what is called first counselor?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is president?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. William H. Lewis.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been first counselor?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Since April, 1900.

Mr. TAYLER. April, 1900?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position, if any, did you hold before
that time ?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. President of the elders' quorum— ninth quorum
of elders.

Mr. TAYLER. How many wives have you ?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. I have two.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been married ?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. I was first married in 1885 and I was married
again in 1886.

Mr. TAYLER. What are the names of your wives?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Esmeralda Hendricks Merrill and Rebecca
Hendricks Merrill.

Mr. TAYLER. Sisters that you married ?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did they live?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. They lived in Richmond.

Mr. TAYLER. In the same house?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. You mean now ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

REED SMOOT. 519

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You have provided a house for each one of them,
have you ?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they near together?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. About 40 rods, one on one block and one on
another.

Mr. TAYLER. You have children by both of them ?

Mr, ALMA MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many each?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. 1 have eight children by my second wife and
seven by my first wife.

Mr. TAYLER. How old are the youngest children?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. The youngest child by my lirst wife is near
3 years old and by my second wife 3 months old.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have no questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a son of Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He is the son of Mr. Merrill.

The CHAIRMAN. I misunderstood the name. Are the children all
living?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many are not living?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Three.

The CHAIRMAN. Three children born that are not living?

Mr. ALMA MERRILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire whether any of
the witnesses who are reported as not being here the day the investi-
gation opened have since appeared?

The CHAIRMAN. I will call the names of witnesses subpoenaed. John
Henry Smith.

Mr. TAYLER. He is not here.

The CHAIRMAN. George Teasdale.

Mr. TAYLER. Not here.

The CHAIRMAN. John W. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLER. Not here.

The CHAIRMAN. M. F. Cowley.

Mr. TAYLER. Not here.

The CHAIRMAN. Samuel S. Newton. Is Mr. Newton here ? He does
not respond. J. M. Tanner present? Moses Thatcher? Those are
the witnesses subpoenaed, except the two.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take up a matter
with the committee in executive session.

The CHAIRMAN. Ogden Hiles; is he here?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; he is here.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to examine Mr. Hiles?

Mr. TAYLER. No; not now.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn after the conclusion of the execu-
tive session.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The last witness wants to know whether he is
excused.

The CHAIRMAN. All of them are excused.

Senator McCoMAS. Has Mr. Tayler no witness he can call now
before we go into executive session?

520 K.EED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. He can not, so I am advised. Mr. Tayler stated to
me a matter upon which the committee should have an executive ses-
sion before it is taken up. The committee will therefore have an
executive session. The audience will retire; and at the close of the
executive session the committee will adjourn until to-morrow morning
at half past 10.

At 3 o'clock arid 15 minutes p. m. the committee went into execu-
tive session.

Thereupon (at 3 o'clock and 55 minutes p. m.) the committee
adjourned until Thursday, March 10, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 10, 190J.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows, Hoar, McComas, Foraker, Depew, Bev-
eridge, Dillingham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, and Overman; also Sena-
tor Smoot; also Robert W. Tayler, counsel for the protestants; A. S.
Worthington and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent; and
Franklin S. Richards, counsel for Joseph F. Smith and other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I desire to give notice now respecting the Biographical
DictionaT}^, as to which testimony7 was given yesterday by Mr. Jenson,
who is assistant church historian, that I shall want to make reference
in the course of the argument to the biographies of the apostles and
the presidents.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Those now occupying those offices?

Mr. TAYLER. The persons now occupying those offices, and Moses
Thatcher, spoken of as a deposed apostle, and Brigham Young, jr.,
who was an apostle at the time this protest was filed and has since died.
They are long, and of course I do not want to read all of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reporter, are you taking down Mr. Tayler's
statement?

The REPORTER. I am.

Mr. TAYLER. I call Mr. Worthington's attention to it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We are satisfied with that.

Permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the matter which
was discussed in executive session yesterday afternoon, that we are
prepared to make a statement to the committee about it, and I suggest
that we have another executive session shortly before the noon recess
or later in the day.

The CHAIRMAN. Your wishes will be respected, and we will have an
executive session at half past 11 or a quarter to 12, or else later in the
day.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It will be very short.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the next witness?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We wish to recall Mr. Jenson for a moment.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean now?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenson, will you please take the stand ?

REED SMOOT. 521

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW JENSON— Continued.

ANDREW JENSON, having been previously sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have testified that you are the author of
this book which is called the Latter-Day Saints' Biographical Encyclo-
pedia?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I wish to ask you, in making up your state-
ments as to the lives of the different persons mentioned in that book,
and especially as to the apostles and the first presidency — and I will
confine myself to them — where you got the information that is there
embodied ?

Mr. JENSON. About the early apostles I obtained my information
from the public documents of the church; and as to the recent mem-
bers 1 have copied some from Bishop Orson F. Whitney's sketches
that he has prepared for the fourth volume of the history of Utah,
and also from M. F. Cowley's History of the Lives of the Leaders.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You made it up, then, from previous publica-
tions ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; partly so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask you, as to Senator Smoot, whether,
in the biography which refers to him, you consulted him at all or not?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; 1 could not reach Mr. Smoot. He was not
around. He did not see it at all before it was published

Mr. WORTHINGTON. For instance, 1 note that you say in the very
first sentence about Mr. Smoot, that he has been ' fc a member of the
council of twelve apostles since 1898." That is a mistake?

Mr. JENSON. It is a typographical error. It ought to be 1900.

Senator FORAKER. It should be what?

Mr. JENSON. 1900.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The next statement is:

" Smoot, Reed, a member of the council of twelve apostles since
1898, is the son of Abraham O. Smoot and Anna Kirstine Mouritsen."
M-o-u-r-i-t-s-e-n. Do }^ou not know that his mother's name was
Morrison?

Mr. JENSON. This is the right name, I think.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This is the right name?

Mr. JENSON. Yes. That is the original name — Mouritsen. She was
born in a foreign land. That is the right spelling.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You did not get that from him, and you differ
from him, perhaps?

Mr. JENSON. I went back to the original. I know what the name
is in the original language.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 merely mentioned that as an illustration.

Mr. TAYLER. Where you used other publications, they were publi-
cations by officials of the church?

Mr. JENSON. Not altogether.

Mr. TAYLER. At least those that you named were.

Mr. JENSON. Cowley's work was published by him, he being an
apostle.

Mr. TAYLER. And Whitney?

522 REED SMOOT.

Mr. JENSON. Whitney is also a writer; he is a historian. He is the
author of the History of Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a Mormon ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position did he hold ?

Mr. JENSON. He is also one of the assistant church historians now,
but he was not at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask you if you have a list of the bishops
presiding in the different stakes in the State of Utah ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, you mean the bishops at the
present time ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENSON. We have no list later than for the close of the year
1902. The list for 1903 is not yet completed.

The CHAIRMAN. For 1902 can you give to the committee the names
of the bishops in the various stakes?-

Mr. JENSON. I could not from memory. I should have to refer to
the documents.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you the documents here?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir. We were not asked to bring any documents.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. You can not do that without refer-
ring to the documents.

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; there are so many of them. I could not
recall the names of all of them.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a bishop for every stake, 1 understand?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir. There is a bishop for every ward and a presi-
dent for every stake.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. How many stakes and wards are there ?

Mr. JENSON. There are 53 stakes and about 700 wards.

The CHAIRMAN. About 53 stakes?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you name the presidents of the various
stakes; have you any data here by which you could inform us?

Mr. JENSON. 1 think, perhaps, I could name most of them, particu-
larly if I could have the time to collect my thoughts.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you reflect upon it and present a list of the
presidents of the various stakes in the State of Utah ?

Mr. JENSON. Now or later on?

The CHAIRMAN. Later in the day; any time when you are prepared
to do so.

Senator DEPEW. What do you mean by 53 states ?

Mr. JENSON. 1 did not say " states." I said stakes — s-t-a-k-e-s.

Mr. TAYLER. It is a geographical division generally corresponding
to the county lines, except that where the population is large, they
have more than one.

The CHAIRMAN. The county lines, as a rule, it appears in evidence,
mark the boundary lines of the stakes.

Mr. JENSON. That was the case in most instances until some time
ago, but there have been many new organizations of late where there
are as high as three stakes in one county.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be kind enough to look up that data, arid

REED SMOOT. 523

I will call upon you later for it ? I wish information as to the number
of presidents of stakes, and their names.

Senator DEPEW. The stakes are divided into wards?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DEPEW. Are the wards subdivided, or is that the final sub-
division ?

Mr. JENSON. The wards are not subdivided. That is the smallest
ecclesiastical division of the church, except it may be divided into dis-
tricts or blocks.

Senator DEPEW. How many wards are there for each stake ?

Mr. JENSON. All the way from about five up to thirty-three.

Senator DEPEW. What-is the presiding officer of tha stake called?

Mr. JENSON. Stake president.

Senator DEPEW. And the ward leader?

Mr. JENSON. Bishop of the ward and president of the stake is the
way we name them.

Senator DEPEW. What is the relation of these officers? You have
first your ward bishop. They are responsible to the stake president?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DEPEW. What are their relations to the apostles?

Mr. JENSON. They are laboring immediately under the direction of
the first presidency, not of the apostles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It has already been brought out that the apostles
are no part of the working machinery of the church.

Senator DEPEW. This organization seemed so perfect that I wanted
to get the detail of it.

Mr. JENSON. There are three men, constituting the first presidency,
presiding over the church, and there is a similar procedure of three
presiding over each stake, and these are responsible to the presidency
of the church directly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And not to the apostles?

Mr. JENSON. Not to the apostles.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the head of the ward in the various stakes?

Mr. JENSON. A bishop.

Senator DEPEW. These 53 presidents of stakes elect 3, do they, who
are a sort of executive committee ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir. The three presidents of the stakes are elected
by the voice of the people. The president of the stake is nominated
by the president of the church, as a rule, and he, as a rule, selects his
own councilors or names his own councilors and they are sustained.
If they are accepted by the people they are sustained by the people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON/ The bishop himself has to be accepted by the
people ?

Mr. JENSON. The bishop himself has to be accepted by the people.

Senator DEPEW. Are the presidents who are over the bishops stake
presidents or outside officers ?

Mr. JENSON. They are stake presidents.

Senator DEPEW. Selected from that body ?

Mr. JENSON. Selected from that body locally. They are local
officers, so far as the stake is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. But each president of a stake selects his own coun-
cilors, as they are called?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

524 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Two councilors?

Mr. JENSON. They are nominated or chosen by him, and they can
be accepted or rejected at the will of the people.

The CHAIRMAN. Who selects or names in the first instance the
president of the stake ?

Mr. JENSON. As a rule, the presidency of the church does.

The CHAIRMAN. What?

Mr. JENSON. The presidency of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. The head of the church?

Mr. JENSON. The head of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Smith?

Mr. JENSON. The head of the whole church.

The CHAIRMAN. That is Mr. Smith?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He designates the presidents of the various stakes?

Mr. JENSON. That is, the names —

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. JENSON. Are suggested to him and he passes upon them and
then they are submitted to the people afterwards in the stakes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. They are submitted to the people
after that?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; after that.

The CHAIRMAN. But they are not submitted without his approval?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I do not think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is at the head of the organization in the
various wards? What is he called?

Mr. JENSON. Bishop.

The CHAIRMAN. Bishop?

Mr. JENSON. Ward bishop.

The CHAIRMAN. How are the bishops selected?

Mr. JENSON. They are selected in the same way.

The CHAIRMAN. By the president of the church?

Mr. JENSON. Well, the president of the church generally passes
upon the names. Sometimes a list of names is handed him, suggested
by the people in the locality where they want or need a new bishop,
and then the name suggested is sent up to the president of the church,
as a rule, and he passes upon it, together with his council, and then
the name is submitted to the people.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. JENSON. And if the people accept the president's nomination he
becomes bishop, and if they reject it, of course that is the end of it.

The CHAIRMAN. If the president of the church— President Smith-
does not accept these names then they are not submitted ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I do not think so.

Senator FORAKER. I understood the witness to say the names are
sent up by the people in the stake, and from the names so submitted
to the president he selects one.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that your statement ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; that is, sometimes it is. Sometimes only
one is suggested, but in case several names are suggested for the same
office he makes the selection; that is, he makes his choice known, and
then it is left to the people.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it usual to send up a large number of names?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the usual practice?

Mr. JENSON. 1 think the usual way is sending up only one name.

The CHAIRMAN. The bishops of the various wards are not acted on
by the people until the president indicates his approval ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; and yet I think there are exceptions. For
instance, in the distant stakes there may be variations where the presi-
dent of the church is not personally acquainted with the names that
have been sent in to him, and in that case it may be left almost entirely
to the presidency of the stake.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, one step further. Is there any official posi-
tion below that of bishop of the ward?

Mr. JENSON. There are what we term teachers.

The CHAIRMAN. Teachers?

Mr. JENSON. Teachers.

The CHAIRMAN. How are they chosen ?

Mr. JENSON. They are chosen by the voice of the people in ward
conferences; that is, they are sustained there. They ma}T be chosen
by the bishops themselves, but sustained by^ the people in their ward
conferences.

The CHAIRMAN. Are their names submitted to the first presidency?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not submitted ?

Mr. JENSON. They are not submitted to the first presidency.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any officer of the church below the teacher
of whom you have now spoken ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; except the deacons. They are generally
3^oung men, very young men, who are called assistants to the teachers.

The CHAIRMAN. They get their authority from whom?

Mr. JENSON. From the bishop. None of the subordinate local offi-
cers are sustained or named by anyone except the bishop in the re-
spective wards.

Senator McCoMAS. Did you mention the elders ?

Mr. JENSON. I did not mention the elders.

Senator McCoMAS. Where do they belong?

Mr. JENSON. They belong in a stake capacity. They are organized
into quorums, with presidents. There are one or more quorums of
elders in the stake.

Senator McCoMAS. Who appoints them?

Mr. JENSON. The president of the stake.

Senator McCoMAS. How many are there to each stake ?

Mr. JENSON. A quorum of elders, when full, consists of 96 mem-
bers, and in some stakes there is but one quorum, while in other
stakes there are as many as a dozen. For instance, in the Salt Lake
Stake of Zion, which is a very large stake, there are fully a dozen
quorums of elders.

The CHAIRMAN. Of 90 ed,ch?

Mr. JENSON. Of 96 each.

The CHAIRMAN. Ninety -six each?

Mr. JENSON. Yes.

Senator FORAKER. Is every male member of the church in a stake
an elder?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; not every male member. There are those
who are not ordained to any position in the church; that is. to any
degree of what we term priesthood.

52(> REED SMOOT.

Senator FORAKER. What are the qualifications of an elder?

Mr. JENSON. The qualifications of an elder are that he must be able
to preach the gospel wherever he may be sent, and officiate in the ordi-
nances at home also; to assist, as it were, mostly in local affairs.

Senator DEPEW. Now you have a stake corresponding mainly to the
county division of a State, and then a number of wards in the stake.
Are those wards divided territorially or by population?

Mr. JENSON. They are divided always territorially, geographical Ly.
Where there is a small town all the members of the church residing
in that town generally constitute one ward. In the case of a large
town, like Salt Lake City, there are 33 wards, and in some others there
are from two to seven.

Senator DEPEW. Is it your idea to have so many families in each
ward for a bishop.

Mr. JENSON. As much as possible. It can not be regulated.

Senator DEPEW. 1 mean as nearly as it can be regulated.

Mr. JENSON. In some instances there are only 25 families in a ward,
and in other instances two or three hundred.

Senator OVERMAN. You spell that word "stake" s-t-a-k-e.

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; that is the spelling.

Senator OVERMAN. I should like to ask you what is the history of
that word and its significance? Does it correspond with the word
" State "in this Union?

Mr. JENSON. It is borrowed from a sajdng of Isaiah, where the
Lord, through Isaiah, says that not one of the stakes of Zion shall
ever be removed. I can give you the reference to it. It is a biblical
expression, borrowed from Isaiah. It is used only by our people in a
geographical sense.

Senator OVERMAN. There seems to be a similarity between the
organization of your church and that of our Government. Every thing
centers at Salt Lake City as the capital; you have Joseph Smith as
president, corresponding to our President; you have the stakes, cor-
responding to the States in this Government, and you have the wards,
corresponding to the counties in our Government. Is it not formed
all the way through as our Government is formed?

Mr. JENSON. There is certainly a siiililarity, but I do not think the
church organization has been copied from the political divisions. But
there is a similarity. I do not think it was considered at all when the
stakes were organized.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you if the list of elders of the church,
of which you have just spoken, is presented to the president of the
church ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He does not know who the elders are?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He has no information?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir. There are so very many cf them that it
would be impossible for him to be acquainted with the names of all of
them.

The CHAIRMAN. How many counties are there in the State of Utah ?

Mr. JENSON. Twenty-six counties, I think.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the population of those counties ?

Mr. JENSON. I coula not give it from memory. It is a matter of
public record.

REED SMOOT. 527

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of your own knowledge, or have you
any information on the subject, as to the relative population in the
various counties of Mormons and gentiles?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; I have a general idea.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any definite information ?

Mr. JENSON. Not in the shape of figures; not with me. We have
all these matters at home.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any counties in the State where the
members of the Mormon church are in the ascendant?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many?

Mr. JENSON. You mean where they are in the majority ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; numerically.

Mr. JENSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How many and what counties are they, if you can
name them ?

Mr. JENSON. Nearly all of the counties, I should say, with the
exception of Salt Lake County, and Weber, and I think even there,
when it comes to count numerically, so far as the population is con-
cerned, perhaps the Mormons are in the majority also. In the cities
it is different — Salt Lake City and Ogden— there the majority of the
people are non-Mormons. They carry the elections.

The CHAIRMAN. And, aside from the two counties you have men-
tioned, in the other counties the numerical majority is with the
Mormons ?

Mr. JENSON. I might, perhaps, except Summit County. I do not
know the status of Summit County.

The CHAIRMAN. Does this organization of which you have spoken —
the president and the presidents of the stakes and the bishops and so
on — extend to all these counties?

Mr. JENSON. I remember no exception. I think there are no excep-
tions.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Senator DUBOIS. You did not mention the seven presidents of seven-
ties. Is their selection also submitted to the president?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; as I understand it.

Senator DUBOIS. And the presiding bishops, I think you call them.
I am a little misty. I have not thought of this matter for fourteen or
fifteen years. Is that the term ? The first presidency comes first —

Mr. JENSON. The first presidency.

Senator DUBOIS. Then the apostles, and the presidents of seventies,
and the three presiding bishops?

Mr. JENSON. Excuse me, Mr. Senator. I will give them in order.
There is the first presidency ; the apostles —

Senator DUBOIS. Now, the apostles —

Mr. JENSON. The presiding patriarch.

Senator DUBOIS. Let me ask about the apostles, as you are going
down the list. Are their names submitted to the president?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; I think so.

Senator DUBOIS. Go on down the list.

Mr. JENSON. Of course I do not meet with them in their councils,
but that is my understanding of it.

Senator DUBOIS. Go ahead.

528 REED SMOOT.

Mr. JENSON. The presiding patriarch; the .seven presidents of
seventies.

Senator DUBOIS. The}7 are the presiding patriarchs ?

Mr. JENSON. There is only one.

Senator DUBOIS. Only one ?

Mr. JENSON. Only one.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he submitted to the president of the church?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Go ahead.

Mr. JENSON. And then the presiding bishopric.

Senator DUBOIS. The seven presidents of seventies?

Mr. JENSON. The seven presidents of seventies.

Senator DUBOIS. Then the presiding bishopric, consisting of three?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Senator DUBOIS. Their names are also submitted?

Mr. JENSON. They are the general authorities of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. You have named the presidents of the stakes—

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dubois asked you if their names were also
submitted to the president of the church. Did you answer the ques-
tion?

Mr. JENSON. The presidents of the stakes are, as I understand it.
I answered it.

Senator DUBOIS. They all are. In your semiannual conferences
after the president makes his selection he submits those names to the
conference of the people and they sustain them by raising their hands?

Mr. JENSON. That is correct.

Senator DUBOIS. Do the apostles join with the first presidenc}7 in
submitting these names to the conference?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; they do not join. It is generally done by one
of the members of the first presidency.

Senator DUBOIS. Are not their names submitted by the first presi-
dency and the quorum of apostles?

Mr. JENSON. That I could not say from personal knowledge, because
I do not meet with them in their councils.

Senator DUBOIS. I am quite sure that has been testified to before.

Mr. JENSON. I think that is correct.

Senator DUBOIS. I may be mistaken about it.

Mr. JENSON. But I wish to state simply what I know. I do not meet
with them in council.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know Heber J. Grant?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. JENSON. I do' not know. He has that reputation. In fact we
have his own word to that effect.

Senator DUBOIS. Has Heber J. Grant been at the head of the mis-
sions in Japan in recent years ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. How recently ?

Mr. JENSON. He went there, if I remember aright, in 1901.

Senator DUBOIS. When did he return?

Mr. JENSON. He returned last year.

Senator DUBOIS. Who sends an apostle to preside over the missions
in any foreign country ?

Mr. JENSON. The presidency of the church.

REED SMOOT. 529

Senator DUBOIS. Do the apostles themselves have anything to do
with missionaries going abroad, or sending them abroad £

Mr. JENSON. I think not. They are called just like other subor-
dinate officers in the church are called, and they respond to the call.
They can go if they^ choose and refuse if they choose, but the rule in
our church is that we do not go on missions until we are sent. We
do not, as a rule, express a desire or ask to be called on a mission.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 have been led to understand that the apostles
had to do with the missionary work. You say the president of the
stake is the one who sends people on missions?

Mr. JENSON. I did not mean to say that. I thought you were ask-
ing me about the presidency of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. The presidency of the church, I mean. I meant
the presidency of the church. The president of the church does ?

Mr. JENSON. When it comes to such an important position as that
of a president of a mission, I think, generally, the president of the
church passes upon it, but when it comes to an ordinary missionary,
or set of missionaries, the apostles attend to that. They preside over
the missionary affairs of the church; but I was just referring to the
president of a mission, such as the opening up of a new mission, and
sending out an important officer to preside. I have reason to think
that the president of the church passes upon that, as a rule.

Senator DUBOIS. Without consulting anyone at all?

Mr. JENSON. I could not say as to that.

Senator DUBOIS. You do not know whether he advises or consults
with anyone at all-
Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. When he appoints anyone to preside over a foreign
mission ?

Mr. JENSON. I think the president always consults with his coun-
cillors.

Senator DUBOIS. With the apostles?

Mr. JENSON. No. I have reference now to his two councilors.

Senator DUBOIS. Oh; his two councilors.

Mr. JENSON. The apostles, I should judge, in most instances, would
also be consulted, because they preside over or they stand at the head
of the missionary operations throughout the world.

Senator DUBOIS. Where is Heber J. Grant now?

Mr. JENSON. It is understood he is in England.

Senator DUBOIS. What is he doing there?

Mr. JENSON. He is presiding over the European missions.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know whether he had one wife in Japan,
and now has another and different wife in England?

Mr. JENSON. That I do not know.

Senator DUBOIS. When did he go to England?

The CHAIRMAN. What is his reputation in that regard, if you know?

Mr. JENSON. The only information I have of that is the testimony
given before this committee. I heard President Smith say that he
took his last wife to Europe — to England. 1 know nothing more than
that.

The CHAIRMAN. Allow me a question right here.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 am through.

The CHAIRMAN. Was Grant reputed to be a polygamist at the time
the president of the church designated him for the Japan mission ?

s— 34

530 REED SMOOT.

Mr. JENSON. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. And he took a wife with him there?

Mr. JENSON. That is what I have been informed. I do not know as
of personal knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your information as to his taking- another
wife with him to England ?

Mr. JENSON. That I know nothing of. I do not know whether it is
the same one he had with him in Japan or another one. The other
one 1 know nothing about.
, The CHAIRMAN. How many wives has he ?

Mr. JENSON. That I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Ity reputation ?

Mr. JENSON. By reputation he has two.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I have some questions to ask.

Senator FORAKER. Let me ask a question. Are women ever made
elders ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Only men ?

Mr. JENSON. Only men.

Senator FORAKER. The women are not allowed to hold any official
positions in the church?

Mr. JENSON. They are not ordained to any degree of priesthood.

Senator FORAKER. Do they hold any official position of any kind in
the administration of church affairs ?

Mr. JENSON. Only in the case of organizations such as the relief
societies and the young ladies' mutual improvement associations.
They are what we call auxiliary organizations of the church. They
preside in these. There are such organizations throughout the church.

Mr. TAYLER. You spoke a moment ago of the general authorities of
the church. I think that that term has not been defined, but it includes,
as I understand, the first presidency, the twelve apostles, the patriarch,
the first council of seventies, and the presiding bishopric?

Mr. JENSON. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Those are the general authorities of the church?

Mr. JENSON. That is correct. There are other general officers-
Mr. TAYLER. I understand.

Mr. JENSON. But they are not called general authorities.

Mr. TAYLER. They are not called general authorities. And when,
for instance, the Thatcher manifesto — that is not a correct description
of it, but it identifies it — was issued it was signed by those general
officers, or all of them who were available?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. It is so printed here. Now, how many elders are there
in the church in Utah?

Mr. JENSON. It is hard for me to segregate Utah from all the other
stakes, because you will remember that quite a number of our stakes
are in Idaho and elsewhere.

Mr. TAYLER. In the United States, then, how many elders are
there?

Mr. JENSON. I think there are about 10,000.

Mr. TAYLER. About 10,000?

Mr. JENSON. I think so.

REED SMOOT. 581

Mr. TAYLER. Each elder is empowered by the church to solemnize
marriages, is he not?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir. The great majority of the elders are not
active officers. They are not called to do anything. They are elders
only by title.

Mr. TAYLER. I merely want the facts. Just define who it is that,
under the law of your church, is empowered to solemnize marriages.

Mr. JENSON. Really all would be empowered to do it if they were
appointed to do so, but there is an order in the church that the
bishops, as a rule, shall attend to that; or the higher officers.

Mr. TAYLER. Does the statute of the State give authority to an
elder of the Mormon Church to solemnize a marriage?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is not the statute here?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I think not. I am willing to answer the
question.

Mr. TAYLER. I am asking only for information.

Mr. JENSON. I think the term " minister" is used.

Mr. VAN COTT. Elder or minister.

Mr. JENSON. That may be.

Mr. TAYLER. Elder or minister?

Mr. JENSON. 1 did not recall that the word "elder" was there. But
I knew it was minister.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 think the word "elder" is there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said that the elders are appointed by the
president of the stake?

Mr. JENSON. Let me explain that. Whenever a man is to be ordained
an elder his name is submitted to a general conference of the stake,
and then if he is passed upon by the general conference of the stake,
then he is ordained an elder. Then he becomes a stake officer —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that all the general officers have to be sub-
mitted to and approved by the general conference of the whole body
of your church — the members of the first presidency and the apostles
and the other general officers?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. They are nominated, as we say, and submitted
to the general conference of the church, and are approved, or, as you
say, sustained?

Mr. JENSON. That is right.*

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And if not sustained by the people they do not
become their officers ?

Mr. JENSON. That is correct.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. All the stake officers are in like manner sub-
mitted to the conference of the stake?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And if their people do not want them they turn
them down ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And so as to the wards?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So that in your church organization no man can
become an officer until he has been approved by the people over whom
he is to preside?

Mr. JENSON. There is what we call the law of common consent

532 REED 8MOOT.

throughout the church. All the people must consent to their officers —
accept or reject them. Every member of the church can vote.

Senator DEPEW. Have you any rule as to the number that constitutes
a cabinet of the stake president?

Mr. JENSON. Two; that is the rule.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said that Heber J. Grant is reputed to be
a polygamist. Do you mean reputed to have more than one wife, or
reputed to be living with more than one?

Mr. JENSON. Reputed to have more than one wife. I should like
that to be understood, so that in case I should ever make use of that
term again — we allow that term to go unchallenged — a polygamist does
not mean anything more than that he is reputed to have two wives
or more. ,

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have mentioned here, I think, for the first
time in this hearing about the teachers, and I should like to have this
record complete by having you tell us what are the duties of the
teachers. They are ward officers?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; they are ward officers. Their business is
only to assist the bishop in a local capacity; to visit with the people.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How about visiting with the people? What
are their duties in that respect?

Mr. JENSON. To preach the gospel to them and pray with them and
to teach them, we may say, in general, the principles of the gospel.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know anything about their being
required, as a general thing, to make visits around through the wards
to the members of the church and their families?

Mr. JENSON. They are required to do that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How often do they go around?

Mr. JENSON. They should go around once a month.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So it is the business of the teacher to go to
each household in the ward ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; and pray with them, and teach them the
the principles of the gospel.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is their duty in relation to finding out
whether anything wrong is going on; whether there is any violation
of the church rules?

Mr. JENSON. That is one of their duties, to see that there is no
iniquity anywhere in the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is done every week or two?

Mr. JENSON. Every month.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And if a teacher ascertains that there is any
violation of any rule of the church then it is his duty-
Mr. JENSON. It is their duty.

Mr. WORTHINTON. To report it to the bishop?

Mr. JENSON. To report it to the bishop, and for the bishop to take
action upon it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then it is the duty of these people, if anyone
is violating a rule of the church, to ferret it out, and bring it to the
attention of the bishop?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir. It almost invariably begins with the teachers.
That is one of their special duties.

Senator OVERMAN. Please tell me where I can find that text where
the word " stake" occurs? I wish to read it for my own information.

REED SMOOT. 533

Mr. JENSON. If the Senator will excuse me until I am excused from
the stand I will hand it over to him when I can get hold of a Bible.

Senator OVERMAN. I thought you might give it offhand.

Mr. JENSON. I will give it to you later.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Suppose that the president of the church or
one of the apostles resides — he resides in some ward, of course — in a
ward, and suppose that he is violating a rule of the church, whose
business is it to call him to account or to report him to the bishop ?

Mr. JENSON. He is no exception to the general rule. The teachers
visit him just like a lay member of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Suppose the president of the church is violating
a rule of the church and an apostle knows it, is it, so far as your
church organization is concerned, any more the duty of the apostle
than it is the duty of anybod}7 else in the ward to call attention to it?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir. He would naturally say, "Why does not the
teacher do his duty?"

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If he came from some other ward or bailiwick
and interfered in that matter he would be considered as going out of
his jurisdiction?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; it is a rule that the general officers of the
church never interfere with local affairs.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When any member of the church, whether he is
a high officer or not, is violating a rule of the church that is consid-
ered a local affair ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; because he always belongs to some ward.

Mr. HOAR. What?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He says it is a local affair and it is the business
of the teacher to call him to account.

Mr. JENSON. As to moral conduct, there is no officer of the church,
no matter how high, the president not excepted, who is not amenable
to the bishops and the teachers. As an officer he is responsible to
them for the act.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Jenson, going back to Mr. Grant again, what
would have been the procedure if one of the apostles objected to Mr.
Grant being appointed to preside over the foreign missions in Japan?
Suppose Apostle Smoot had objected to the appointment of Grant to
preside over the missionaries in Japan, what would have been the
proceeding?

Mr. JENSON. Possibly I do not —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He becoming an apostle ten years after that?

Senator DUBOIS. I will state that he was appointed to Japan and also
to England after Mr. Smoot became an apostle.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understood the witness to say he was appointed
in 1891.

Mr. JENSON. 1901.

Senator DUBOIS. 1901.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I beg pardon. I thought he said 1891.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to know what would have happened
had Mr. Smoot, as an apostle, objected?

Mr. JENSON. I can not tell what would have happened, but I am
sure, I feel satisfied, from my knowledge of affairs, without partici-
pating in the councils, that it would have had considerable weight if
anyone would make objection. But in this case I do not know that

534 REED SMOOT.

it was submitted to Mr. Smoot, because, as I said, the president of
the church may pass upon these higher appointments alone, or may
consult the apostles at will. I can not say as to that.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Grant was of equal authority in the church
with Mr. Smoot, save and except that he occupies a higher position in
the apostolate ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; he is senior.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to know what you think would have
occurred if his brother apostle had objected?

Mr. JENSON. I am not competent to testify on that, because I am
not a member of the quorum and I can not tell what takes place in
their councils. That, it seems to me, would have been more proper
to have a member of the quorum answer.

Senator DUBOIS. From your knowledge of the situation do you
think Mr. Smoot did object?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I do not say that, because I do not know that.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you one question. President Smith
stated that while violating the law since 1890, he had not been prose-
cuted. Has he been prosecuted that you know of?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I do not think he has.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know why?

Mr. JENSON. I can not tell why, except that he has not been prose-
cuted.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you mean in the church or in the State ?

The CHAIRMAN, in the State, I mean, or by the church, either. He
has not been ?

Mr. JENSON. He has not been prosecuted.

The CHAIRMAN. He has not been interfered with ?

Mr. JENSON. Not that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Are non-Mormons prosecuted for like offenses which
they commit in the State of Utah?

Mr. JENSON. 1 do not know that there are any non-Mormons in
Utah who live with more than one wife, openly. 1 have never heard
of a case.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any Mormon living in the relation
that the president does who has been prosecuted since 1890?

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, may we have that question read to
him? We think perhaps it is not understood.

The CHAIRMAN. The reporter will read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any Mormon living in the rela-
tion that the president does who has been prosecuted since 1890? "

Mr. JENSON. For what?

The CHAIRMAN. For the offense he admits he is committing.

Mr. JENSON. For unlawful cohabitation ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENSON. 1 do not know of any.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any non-Mormons who have been
prosecuted for adultery — I will put it plainly— in the State?

Mr. JENSON. 1 can not recall any.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did you hear Mr. Harmer's testimony yester-
day?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; 1 heard that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any non-Mormons—

REED SMOOT. 535

Mr. JENSON. I do not recall any non-Mormons, but there may have
been cases; 1 do not recall any.

Senator BEVERIDGE. May I ask a question ?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were you present yesterday when Mr. Har-
mer gave his testimony ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. He was prosecuted, according to that testimony,
and sent to the penitentiary.

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. For this very offense ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So, as a matter of fact, you know of people

Mr. JENSON. The chairman asked for non-Mormons. That is the
reason I answered in that way.

Senator BEVERIDGE. For non-Mormons alone ? I thought your ques-
tion first was as to Mormons ?

The CHAIRMAN. It was, in the first instance.

Mr. JENSON. Of course I know of the case which was yesterday
stated.

Senator BEVERIDGE.' That was a Mormon ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. A bishop?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; he was a bishop.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Wh&t became of him?

Mr. JENSON. He ,was immediately called to account and removed
from being bishop of one of the wards of Springville.

Senator BEVERIDGE. The reason why I asked the, question was
because I understood you to say you did not know of anybody who had
been prosecuted.

Mr. JENSON. I understood the chairman to ask me if non-Mormons
had been prosecuted. 1 thought that was the way the question was
put.

The CHAIRMAN. And you know of no case of that kind?

Mr. JENSON. No; I do not recall any.

Senator HOAR. The distinction has not been made clear in any ques-
tion, so far as I have heard them, between the two cases. I suppose
what the chairman meant to ask — at any rate I should like to ask it — is
whether any Mormon who lives with a plural wife in a state of cohabi-
tation, which, of course, is adultery according to the law, has been
treated as a non-Mormon would be treated who committed adultery.
That is the precise point of the question.

Mr. JENSON. I think if complaint were lodged it would be precisely
the same.

Senator HOAR. It is not what would happen if a complaint were
lodged. I think your answer is an entirely proper one to be added
after }^ou have answered the first question. But in fact has any
Mormon who lives with a plural wife, with whom he had had the
religious ceremony of marriage since 1890 — I mean living with her
since 1890 — been prosecuted for adultery, to your knowledge, or con-
victed of it?

Mr. JENSON. I do not know of any such case, Senator.

Senator HOAR. This instance of which you have just spoken was the
case of a Mormon who was convicted of adultery, not having married

536 REED SMOOT.

the woman with whom he committed adultery, as I understand it. Is
that true '(

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Very well. If you wish to add anything about your
belief in the existing conditions, it is proper to do it. •

Mr. JENSON. I should like to say this in answer to the Senator's
question : The Mormon people draw a clear distinction between adultery
of that kind, that was presented here yesterday, and the man living
with his wives, who once were his wives; that is, women who have
been married to him before the manifesto. They would draw a line
from a moral standpoint, a great distinction, between the two kinds
of adultery, if the latter should be adultery. If a complaint was made
and there was a prosecution, the outcome would be the same, }ret there
would be less willingness to prosecute on those lines because one is
condonable and the other would not be. The Mormon people would
find no justification at all for one, whereas they would for the other.

Senator HOAR. You say there would be less willingness. Is it not
true beyond any question that the Mormons would be absolutely
opposed to punishing criminally, if they could help it, a man for the
mere offense of continuing to live with a plural wife whom he married
before 1890?

Mr. JENSON. If complaints were made —

Senator HOAR. No.

Mr. JENSON. They would prosecute it.

Senator HOAR. 1 am going beyond that.

Mr. JENSON. I think you are right in stating that there would be a
reluctance on the part of many of our people to prosecute on those
lines.

Senator HOAR. Certainly. You never have heard of a complaint
being made of a Mormon for that offense, have you?

Mr. JENSON. I think not.

Senator HOAR. Is there any doubt in your mind that if a Mormon
should make a complaint for that offense and press it through the
courts he would do an act which would make him odious to all your
people ?

Mr. JENSON. They would testify truthfully in every case; but I do
not think they would try to make it odious.

Senator HOAR. I am not speaking of telling the truth. If there
were a person living in open adultery in an ordinary community, any
good citizen who took it up and carried through the prosecution — col-
lected witnesses and applied to the district attorney and had it brought
before the grand jury — would be treated as doing a public service; and
I suppose that would be equally true in your community in the case of
ordinary adultery ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. But if anybody were to do that in regard to Mr.
President Smith — if any Mormon, having heard Mr. Smith's testimony
here, were to go back to Utah and swear he heard him say that here
and insist on his being prosecuted, he would do an act which would be
odious to all good Mormons, would he not? That is the feeling, is it
uot?

Mr. JENSON. 1 think so. Yes; I think so.

Senator HOAR. Do not understand me as expressing an opinion one

REED SMOOT. 537

way or another as to the propriety of it; hut I am merely asking the
question for information.

Mr. JENSON. I think there would be; in fact, I know there would
be a great deal of difference, as I have already explained, between
the one kind and the other kind. One is heinous, in our estimation,
and the other would not be so much so.

The CHAIRMAN. The other what?

Mr. JENSON. The other would not be so much so.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you not know that since the manifesto several
Mormons, to say the least, have been arrested and convicted, or have
plead guilty ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. You have not testified to that? I know it is so.
You know it.

Mr. JENSON. I think my testimony corroborates that.

Senator DUBOIS. No; I think not. 1 do not think it was plain at all.

Mr. JENSON. Then, perhaps, I have not understood the questions.

Senator DUBOIS. There is no question about it whatever. I do not
see why you did not state it plainly. I know it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was asked about prosecutions by Mormons.

Senator DUBOIS. No. I think we all understand that he said he did
not know whether there had been any or not.

Mr. JENSON. If you will give me another question, I will endeavor
to answer it.

Senator DUBOIS. There is no question that there have been prosecu-
tions since 1890.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is admitted in the pleadings.

Senator DUBOIS. Certainly.

Mr. JENSON. I understood Senator Hoar to mean church prosecutions.

Senator DUBOIS. I wanted to clear this up.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Among those prosecuted since the manifesto is
Heber J. Grant, the apostle.

Senator HOAR. For what?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. For unlawful cohabitation, and he pleaded
guilty.

Mr. JENSON. I think he was

Senator DUBOIS. Did he not declare, after that, publicly, to the pub-
lic schools, before the children, that he was a polygamist?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; that is what the papers said. I was not
present.

Senator DUBOIS. After he was prosecuted?

Mr. JENSON. 1 have never heard that statement in the papers denied.

Senator DUBOIS. No.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You know that the assertion was made and not
denied. You do not know whether it is so or not?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I was not present, but I saw it in the papers.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What?

Mr. JENSON. I was not present to hear him make that statement,
but I read it in the papers the next morning.

Senator DUBOIS. When he was convicted, what was his sentence?

Mr. JENSON. 1 think he paid a tine.

Senator DUBOIS. He did not go to jail ?

Mr. JENSON. No; I think not.

538

REED SMOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. He did not go to the penitentiary ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You have referred to the Harmer case, which was
introduced here by a question of Senator Beveridge, where the offense
for which he was sent to the penitentiary was that of adultery?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You, of course, heard his statement that he wa * living
openly with his plural wife somewhere near where this woman, for
adultery with whom he was sent to the penitentiary, was living? You
recall that here yesterday, do you not?

Mr. JENSON. I do not know whether I understand your question ?

Mr. TAYLER. You recall that he testified that he had a plural wife ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Living in Richmond — was it .Richmond?

Mr. JENSON. Springville.

Mr. TAYLER. And also about his relations to this woman ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; now I understand you.

Mr. TAYLER. And his statement that he thought that Senator Smoot
had had something to do with his prosecution?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; I heard him state that here.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, the statement you have given us as to the view
that the Mormons take of polygamous cohabitation and the treatment
that they would accord any Mormon who would prosecute anyone
charged with polyamous cohabitation, furnishes, does it not, the
explanation why Mr. Smoot, seeing this man Harmer living with a
polygamous wife openly and notoriously, and also committing adultery
with a third woman, determined to prosecute him for adultery and to
leave him unpunished for polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. JENSON. Of course I can not say as to whether Mr. Smoot knew
of his plural wife at that time. I did not know it until yesterday. I
did not know Mr. Harmer had a plural wife until he stated it on the
witness stand here yesterday.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, assuming that knowledge of it, that explains
why he was prosecuted for one and not for the other offense ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, 1 submit that that is a question
which any man could answer just as well as the witness.

Mr. TAYLER. He has been talking about the effect —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He has been speaking about what he knows of
the general feeling of the Mormon people.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly; and I am asking him if that does not furnish
the explanation why Mr. Smoot did not undertake to prosecute this
man, whose flagrant conduct was before his eyes, for polygamous
cohabitation, but did prosecute him for the other offense against the
law.

Mr. JENSON. 1 should like to explain that so far as I know the Mor-
mons morally—

Senator HOAR. Mr. Tayler, I think that in the discussion you should
not undertake to deal rhetorically with the matter. You say his
flagrant conduct was before his eyes. That is not necessary in your
question.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course I sometimes have to repress the necessary
inferences from the observed facts, but I do not want or desire to be
rhetorical.

How far, Mr. Jenson, is Provo from Springville?

REED SMOOT. 539

Mr. JENSON. Six miles.

Senator McCoMAs. I should like to ask you a couple of questions.
Before a Mormon runs for a local office in his county he must have
the consent of who, in the church, to run for the office?

Mr. JENSON. 1 do not think he needs to have the consent of any-
body.

Senator McCoMAS. What do you know about it? You say you do
not think.

Mr. JENSON. Simply because, from personal experience, I know
men who have run for office independent of any advice asked for or
given.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There is a written rule of the church, adopted
by the high officers of the church and promulgated some years ago,
on the subject. It is in the record. It applies only to certain high
officers of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. All those occupying the high offices which you
have described, which are presented to the president of the church for
his sanction, have to receive such consent?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; and for this reason —

Senator DUBOIS. I do not care for the reason. I want to get at the
facts. 1 ask the witness if that does not include the apostles, the
patriarch, the seven presidents of the seventies, and the three pre-
siding bishops, the president of the stakes, and the bishops?

Mr. JENSON. I should like to explain that it includes officers who are
supposed to devote all their time in the interest of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. Have I named them correctly ?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; the general officers.

Senator McCoMAS. I wish to ask you a question. It is whether it
is true that any Mormon before he runs for a public office — for a count}T
or State office — must get the consent of some of the higher church
officials?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir. If the Senator has heard that, it is not true.

Senator McCoMAS. It is not true of any Mormon ?

Mr. JENSON. It is not true of any Mormon except the general offi-
cers of the church, because they are supposed to have agreed to devote
all their time and interest to the church the same as a man who is
employed by somebody else.

Senator McCoMAS. Then the higher officers, or the general officers
as you call them, before they are candidates, either before the people
or before the legislature, must obtain the consent of the president of
the church?

Mr. JENSON. For this reason —

Senator McCoMAS. Answer must they or must they not.

Mr. JENSON. According to the rule they must.

Senator McCoMAS. They must?

Mr. JENSON. According to the rule laid down by the general au-
thorities.

Senator McCoMAS. You stated the reason a while ago.

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. The same men may engage in any private busi-
ness, as officers of corporations, railroads, or otherwise, and they need
not get the consent of the head of the church to engage in such private
business, which would distract their minds and take their time from

540 REED SMOOT.

the business of the church. But if the}r run for political office they
must get the consent of the head of the church. Is that true?

Mr. JENSON. I think not.

Senator McCoMAS. What is the fact?

Mr. JENSON. I think they would naturally, in the one instance as in
the other, consult with those to whom they were responsible as to
whether they could engage in some other business whereby they might
neglect their ecclesiastical duties. They would not be compelled to
get consent, but I think both in political matters and in secular affairs
they would naturally ask advice — not get permission, but ask advice —
whether they could neglect their church duties and engage in business.

Senator McCoMAS. You are the historian of the church, and observe
the people and their general conduct very closely ?

Mr. JENSON. That is the reason-
Senator McCoMAS. And you have never known a case in which the
Mormons voted solidly together?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. You never have ?

Mr. JENSON. No, sir; I never have.

Senator McCoMAS. They usually divide on political lines?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; ever since 1892 that has been the rule.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You will find the rule to which I have referred
on page 168.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee *will now suspend the hearing.
After a brief executive session, a recess will be taken until 2 o'clock
this afternoon.

At 11 o'clock and 45 minutes a. m. the committee went into executive
session, and upon its conclusion took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, before I call the next witness I would
like to have a little more definite understanding as to the information
which Mr. Jenson was to furnish respecting the authorities of the
church. I may state what I would like to have — and I rather think
that is what he understands he is to furnish — the names of all the
authorities of the church, beginning with the first president and down
to and including the bishops.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of course it will take some time to do that.

Mr. TAYLER. He can get that and send it after he goes home if he
does not have it here. I suppose he does not have it here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understood you to say you wanted that infor-
mation before you put on another witness.

Mr. TAYLER. No; I wanted to have it understood what he is to
furnish to the committee.

Senator DUBOIS. I want to ask Mr. Jenson a question.

TESTIMONY OF ANDREW JENSON— Continued.

ANDREW JENSON, having been previously sworn, was examined, and
testified as follows:

Senator DUBOIS. I understand there is a Mormon colony in Mexico
and there are missions in other places. I want to know whether or
not the manifesto is considered the law of the church in Mexico,
where you have a colony, where plural marriage is not prohibited?

REED SMOOT. 541

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir; the manifesto is in force all over the world.

Senator DUBOIS. It applies to Mexico and all the balance of the
world as well as the United States 2

Mr. JENSON. So I understand it; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one question I want to ask for information:
Suppose a member of your church in good standing is directed by the
president or any of the men in authority to sell his property and
remove to some locality. Is that binding upon him ?

Mr. JENSON. No; he is under no obligation at all.

The CHAIRMAN. He can disobey it if he wants to?

Mr. JENSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the effect of it?

Mr. JENSON. The effect would not be serious at all. He might be
called disobedient to counsel, if it was given as counsel, but the church
does not dictate in these matters.

The CHAIRMAN. The}7 never do that?

Mr. JENSON. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, in the earlier days
of the church, many years ago, in the early settlement of Utah, for
instance, when they settled St. George and sent missions to what is
now Nevada, when they called men to go on temporal missions, the
same as they might do on preaching missions; but that was back in
the earlier days in Utah, when that was necessary, and they were
simply called to go, and they could refuse or accept as they chose, the
same as any other mission. But of late years no such call has been
made that could be called binding at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was going to ask about one matter. A wit-
ness here stated about the officers of the church giving advice to the
members about their flocks and keeping their buildings in repair and
being frugal, and that sort of thing. What binding effect has that
sort of instruction or advice?

Mr. JENSON. It has no binding effect at all. That is also something
that dates back to the early days of Utah and the pioneers there, ana
it was necessary for President Young and others at that time to give
the younger people that advice, with his experience as to the building
of meetinghouses, making water ditches, and so on; but nothing bind-
ing. It was simply advising; giving what we call good counsel; giv-
ing the people the benefit of his own experience.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Suppose they do not accept that sort of advice
and counsel; does anything follow?

Mr. JENSON. Nothing at all.

Senator DUBOIS. To illustrate now: Suppose the authorities should
ask the president of the stake up in Cache Valley to select 20 families
and take them up to the forks of Snake River, in Idaho, what would
the president of that stake do ?

Mr. JENSON. The president undoubtedly would call for volunteers
and say that so many families were wanted up there, "Are there any
here who want to go?"

Senator DUBOIS. Would he be likely to get 20 families?

Mr. JENSON. He would not be under obligation to get 20 families.

Senator DUBOIS. I say would he be likely to get 20 families ?

Mr. JENSON. If there were 20 who volunteered to go; otherwise
he would not call them.

Senator DUBOIS. Would 20 likely volunteer to go?

542 REED SMOOT.

Mr. JENSON. In many instances the people are very anxious to go
to a new country if they find there are openings for settlers.

Senator DUBOIS. Then if 20 families were called for by the authori-
ties they would go, would they not?

Mr. JENSON. 1 remember nothing of that kind since 1873, as far as
I am acquainted with the history of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. I am asking about the present day. I suppose you
can say no if you want to.

Mr. JENSON. I will say no. It has not happened for twenty or
thirty years that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Critchlow, take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF E. B. CRITCHLOW.

E. B. CRITCHLOW, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Critchlow, where do you live?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Continuously since 1883.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you born?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In Mississippi.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you go to Utah ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1873.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you lived there ever since?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Ever since with the exception of five years, when
I was absent from Utah at universit}^ and law school.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you educated?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Princeton University and Columbia Law School.

Mr. TAYLER. You are a lawyer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am.

Mr. TAYLER. You are one of the protestants in this matter?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you begin to practice law in Salt Lake?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1883.

Mr. TAYLER. That was the beginning of your professional career,
was it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you hold amr official position shortly after that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1885 I was appointed assistant United States
attorney and served as such two terms in that year, the May and Sep-
tember or October terms, in the southernmost district of the then
Territory.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you ever after that appointed United States
attorney ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; in 1890 I was requested to and again did
take the office of assistant United States attorney under Mr. Varian,
at Salt Lake City, having my office there.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did you serve in that capacity at that time ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. One year.

Mr. TAYLER. What other public position have you held in Utah ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, outside of school trustee nothing, excepting
one term a member of the State legislature — in the first State legisla-
ture.

REED SMOOT, 543

Mr. TAYLER. After the admission of the State, the first legislature?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you been familiar with the course of events since
you went back there in 1883?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Quite so.

Mr. TAYLER. And have you given more attention to it than people
in general ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. .1 think I could say so; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course you are familiar with the fact that the
Edmunds law was passed in 1882?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And that that was the first law that made unlawful
cohabitation unlawful ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The law of 1862 having made bigamy unlawful?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Will you state first of all, so that we may have it here,
just what the legislation was of 1882 and 1887, and what followed that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Speaking generally, the legislation of 1882, known
as the Edmunds act, was an amendment of the law of 1862, adding to
the penalties of that law for bigamy, or defining, rather, another crime
known as the unlawful cohabitation of a man at the same time with
more than one woman as his wife. It also provided for the disfran-
chisement of those who were guilty of the crimes of bigamy or polyg-
&my, and appointed a commission for the operation of the election
laws.

Mr. TAYLER. Following that, in 1887?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1887 there was added, for the first time, the
definition and punishment prescribed for the crime of adultery. There
was also

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I did not know the Edmunds act punished
adultery.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I may be in error about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is in force in this district.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. There was also a clause of the act which provided
for the disestablishment of the corporation of the church and a pro-
vision made that the supreme court of the Territory should proceed to
make the proper distribution of the property. The perpetual immi-
gration fund, as I remember it, a corporation, was also dealt with in
that act, and dower was established. Provisions were made for the
vacation of the office of probate judge, and a few other things of that
sort.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Mr. Critchlow, will you state briefly what,
within your knowledge as an official and a citizen interested in public
affairs, knowing what was going on in Utah, was the situation in Utah
after the passage of the law of 1882 and the attempt at its enforcement?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The first prosecution of note —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I understood we were confined
in these matters to what transpired after the manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. This is only in order that we may understand what
preceded it. It is not affirmative for the purpose of holding anybody
responsible.

The CHAIRMAN. That was in regard to marriages, I think, Mr.
Worthington.

544 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If this is merely a general review of the
situation-
Mr. TAYLER. This is merely a general review of the situation, and
indeed I do not know that 1 had in my mind any thought of reference
to any polygamous marriage that might have been contracted, but
prosecutions under that law, just to show the movement of the public
mind.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The first prosecution of note was that of Rudger
Clawson, the present apostle of the church, who was convicted, as I
now remember, in either October or November, 1884, and sentenced
to a term of four years. That was under the act of 1862, as amended
by the act of 1882, and under the machinery of that act, which pro-
vided for certain challenges to jurors on account of their beliefs, etc.

The next prosecution of particular note was that of Angus M. Can-
non, the presiding bishop of the Salt Lake stake, for the crime of
unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you mean president, Mr. Critchlow?

The CHAIRMAN. In what year?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That was in 1885 He was called President Angus
M. Cannon. He was president of the Salt Lake stake. That was made
a test case in a way to test the meaning of the term " unlawful cohabi-
tation," it being contended that the term required something more in
the way of proof than the mere association of a man with a woman as
his wife; that it required further proof as to their actual relations.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, continuing on, what occurred between that time
and—

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1885, and from that time on, prosecutions were
conducted with great vigor throughout the entire State. Many of the
men of the Mormon Church, and the women as well, went into hiding,
and, first and last, as I now remember the figures, considerably over a
thousand people were convicted and sentenced.

In all these cases the opportunity was given by the court, before
sentence was imposed, to the defendant to save himself from the pun-
ishment of incarceration if he would promise in the future that he
would obey the law. This was made a uniform practice from the time
of the very first convictions, in the spring of 1885, as I remember it.

There never were any of the members of the church who complied
with or took advantage of the promise so made by the court, or rather
the leniency so held out, excepting, as I now remember, three or four.
Three are all that I remember. Bishop Sharp, a director of the Union
Pacific Railroad at that time, and a bishop of one of the larger wards
in the city, an elderly man of considerable prominence, agreed to abide
by the law in the future, having been found guilty under the law as
construed by the court, and was promptly removed from his bishopric,
the reason given by the church authorities in the papers being that
it was the policy of the church to stand firm in their principles, and
that any man who was inclined to be recalcitrant or to give up this
principle, which they deemed a part of their religion, was no longer
worthy to hold offices of that kind.

I may say generally that that was their attitude, and that later, in
the year 1889, as I now remember it, Governor Caleb W. West went to
the penitentiary where a number of them were incarcerated and
promised to intercede with the President for a general pardon, or
amnesty, if they would agree to in the future abide by the laws; but

REED SMOOT. 545

in their publication in the Deseret News and in their sermons, and
especially at a conference held in Logan, they adopted resolutions and
made declarations and professions, etc., protesting that they could
not give up this doctrine, because it was a part of their religion; and
they were asked —

Senator HOAR. About what date?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That extended from 1885 along up until 1889.
In 1887, the Edmunds law having been passed, we first began to hear
that the church had given up the practice of plural marriage. It was
supposed by non-Mormons, and I may say was currently supposed in
the community, that perhaps the passage of the Edmunds law, which
forfeited all their property except such as was devoted exclusively to
the worship of God, might have had something to do with that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean the Edmunds-Tucker law?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I meant the Edmunds-Tucker law; yes. Did I sav
the Edmunds law ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said the Edmunds law.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The Edmunds-Tucker law, I meant. But whatever
may have been the reason for that it was continually asserted by theii
leading men and by those who were not in authority in the church that
as a matter of fact the church had given up the practice of entering
into new plural marriages. They even went so far as to say that the
church authorities had set themselves against the doctrine, or practice,
rather, of unlawful cohabitation; and in 1888 it had become quite
generally understood among the Mormon people, according to their
statement to non-Mormons and by their statements in public prints,
and by the declarations, as I have said, of their public leaders, that
this, as a doctrine, was no longer observed, the doctrine of plural mar-
riage; in other words, that no new plural marriages were being entered
into.

As time went on, by virtue of these continued professions and pro-
testations and declarations, there seemed to be a sort of an idea grow-
ing up in the community that matters were changing in that respect.
So general had that become that in 1888, when an examination was
held at which Angus M. Cannon was examined with reference to the doc-
trines and practices of the church in a case which involved some of the
property of the church, he called attention to that, and gave testimony
to the effect, which appears now in one of the reports of a committee
of Congress, that plural marriages were no longer being celebrated,
at least in the particular stake of which he was the president, and
explained at some length that there had not been any for about a
year — that would make it from about 1887 — and that he knew this
was the fact, and for the reason, as he explained, and as was a matter of
common knowledge to us all there in that community, that no one
could go through the endowment house, as it was called, or the
temple, in order to take these sealings, or endowments, for a celestial
marriage without being approved by the presiding authority of the
particular stake in which he lived.

As I have said, so general was that order accepted as a fact, without
close inquiry into the causes which brought it -about, that in 1892,
when a hearing was had before a committee of Congress with reference
to the passage of a certain act which was then proposed, known as the
Faulkner bill, their attorney or agent or representative, whatever he
might be called, Hon. F. S. Richards, who is here, assured the com-
s 35

546 REED SMOOT.

mittee that it was well known in that community that plural marriages
had absolutely ceased; that there were no plural marriages after 1887,
and he also assured the committee, just as we had been assured in that
community, that the practice of unlawful cohabitation was at least
upon the wane, and that it was no longer encouraged by the authori-
ties of the church.

Now, of course, during all this time the non-Mormons in that com-
munity looked upon those protestations ani professions, if I may call
them such, or declarations as to the actual state of affairs, with some-
what of suspicion or misgiving, I may say, because of the fact that
after the conviction of Rudger Clawson, owing to the peculiar manner
in which the people live, and the solidarity, if 1 may use that expres-
sion, of the community, it was absolutely impossible to get evidence
of the fact of the entering into plural marriages except in certain rare
instances, as, for instance, down in some of the outlying counties
where admissions which were testified to, etc., or peculiar circum-
stances arose, which made it possible to convict of the crime of polyg-
amy— that is, the entering into the state of plural marriage— ordi-
narily, in all these cases where this state was entered into the fact was
that the parties simply kept the matter quiet for the period of three
years so that the statute of limitations applied, and then there was no
more concealment about it, and the only thing they could be prose-
cuted for at that time was unlawful cohabitation.

So that in 1887, from the beginning of 1887, as I have said, and from
that time on it was understood from all the circumstances that 1 have
narrated that the practice of plural marriages had ceased. Of course,
as a matter of fact, we all know that it did not cease and that every
little while there was evidence given-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to this witness testifjdng unless he
gives the source of his information as to plural marriages after 1887.

Mr. TAYLER. We have had three of them testified to here on the
stand.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then let him say those are the ones he refers
to and we will be content.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Critchlow, counsel would like to have you
name the instances.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It would be impossible, Mr. Chairman, for me to
give the names of all I know, because I have never made any examin-
ation as to them; but I can name at a venture a number of people who
have been married and who must have been married after 1889.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before the manifesto?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Some of them, I think, were married after, but I
do not know about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to his stating any of the details as to
any individual transactions of this kind before the manifesto, Mr.
Chairman, because the committee decided and so announced to us all
that matters of that kind would not be gone into prior to the manifesto.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that a district attorney or
a lawyer in full practice might be permitted to state that lynching, for
instance, had been prevalent in the last few years in this country as a
matter of common knowledge, or that homicides were frequent in
Massachusetts, as unhappily they have been during the last few year's.
The question of whether this attitude of the church is a question of
good faith might be materially affected by the question whether, as a

REED SMOOT. 547

matter of common knowledge, a certain offense continued. It is not
to charge the offense on anybody, but it seems to me it is a part of the
showing and that this gentleman, who knows generally these things,
may go as far as that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If I may be permitted, Senator, I think there
is a very great difference, of course, in the case that you refer to.
Lynch ings are matters that are public. Ever}^ body- knows of .them,
not only in the community, but in the land practically; and so if homi-
cides be committed they are matters of common notoriety and knowl-
edge. The witness has just stated there was very great difficulty dur-
ing this period of proving that plural marriages took place. Now he
is about to state the result of something. It must be from informa-
tion that he has« received as to private and secret matters, which can
not be within anybody's public knowledge and which are denied.
Further than that we had a very extended argument, the committee
will remember, on this subject, and the committee had an executive
session and announced to us that matters of that kind would not be
gone into prior to 1890. Since then we have been allowed to dismiss
witnesses who had very important information on that subject and
whom we would have examined in regard to it had we known that this
subject was to be gone into.

Senator HOAR. I have heard of no such decision of the committee.
This is the first information I have of it. I think we should hear testi-
mony to the effect that a gentleman who was or had been a district
attorney of the United States understood that up to a certain time a
certain offense was common in the community and that at a later time
it existed occasionally, but more rarely.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At the time I objected he was being asked as
to specific names.

Senator HOAR. No; I do not think so. He was asked as to the gen-
eral act, and he was beginning to answer something about specific
cases, and then the objection came.

Mr. TAYLER. I understood that Mr. Worthington started out and
insisted on his giving the names, which we do not care anything about
at all. The witness then proceeded to give them, and then came the
objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The ruling of the committee was that the question
of the practice of plural marriages previous to the manifesto, as an
affirmative matter, could not be inquired into; but this witness is tes-
tifying to a general condition of things, and the chair thinks it is
proper for him to answer the question.

Mr. TAYLER. And of course, Mr. Chairman — I do not want to take
time, and the chair knows I have not done so — even if that was a settled
decision of the committee, the situation as to this would be changed
even now, because a new issue appears in the case, to wit, a question-
Senator HOAR. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman has ruled that the
question is competent, 1 move that the question be put without further
discussion.

Mr. TAYLER. I only want to say that we have a question of good
faith here now that was not in it at first — the statement that it had
stopped in 1887.

The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest, Mr. Tayler. that that would pro-
voke discussion on the other side, and that the proper way would be
to have the question read to the witness and let him answer.

548 REED SMOOT.

The reporter read the last part of the testimony of the witness, as
follows:

" The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Critchlow, counsel would like to have you
name the instances.

"Mr. CRITCHLOW. It would be impossible, Mr. Chairman, for me
to give the names of all I know, because I have never made any exami-
nation as to them; but I can name, at a venture, a number of people
who have been married, and who must have been married after 1889.

"Mr. WORTHINGTON. And before the manifesto?

"Mr. CRITCHLOW. Some of them, I think, were married after, but
I do not know about that."

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Critchlow, you were going on to state what the
understanding of the people in Utah was as to the good faith of the
Mormon people in asserting that they had ceased the practice of plural
marriages as far back as 1887?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know that I was making quite that dis-
tinction, because 1 want to be rather precise when I speak of the good
faith of the Mormon people. I was speaking, however, of the pro-
fessions of the leaders of the church as to the practice of the church,
they having the authority, as was well understood, of fixing the prac-
tice, and I was saying that it was declared by them and echoed by the
entire people, and finally the belief became prevalent to a certain
extent among the non-Mormons, that the church had at last frowned
upon and discountenanced the actual entry upon new polygamous rela-
tions. I do not now quite understand whether I was requested to give
the names of such as those I knew had entered into it after 1888 or not.

The CHAIRMAN. You may omit that.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The next matter of immediate interest, perhaps,
was the attempt upon the part of the leaders of the church to secure
: a State constitution in 1887. A constitutional convention or rather
conventions throughout the Territory were called by the People's
Party, which was the Mormon people acting in a political capacity,
and during that summer conventions were called and primaries were
held, you might call them, and a convention was finally held in June
or July of that year and a new constitution was adopted in which the
crime of polygamy was absolutely prohibited. No one but Mormons
took part in these events, and, so far as I am now advised and can
remember, no one but Mormons took part in attempting to further
this attempt to secure statehood in 1887.

A committee was appointed by leading members of the church, who
came down here in the' fall of that year, and I think in the fall of the
next year. Mr. Joseph F. Smith, I think Mr. Richards — I am not
certain about that — and some others came down and attempted to for-
ward the adoption of that constitution and the admission of Utah as a
State. This was strongly resisted by the non-Mormons, acting in the
political capacity of Republicans and Democrats alike — an alliance
between them — they retaining there in the State merely the skeleton
of an organization for national political purposes. A hearing was
had down here in that year, and instead of statehood being accom-
plished and permission given to form a State under that constitution,
additional legislation was proposed even more stringent in many
respects than that which had gone before.

In 1888 or 1889 — I can not remember the date precisely— there had
been considerable legislation in Idaho directed against the Mormon

REED SMOOT. 549

eople, and a test oath had been formulated up there and had been
eclared to be constitutional after the requisite appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States.

Senator DUBOIS. Will the witness allow me to get the dates correct?
The test oath was passed in Idaho in the winter of 188-1-85.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; it may have been earlier than I thought.

Senator DUBOIS. And the Supreme Court of the United States
affirmed the constitutionality of it in the spring of 1890.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In May, 1890.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; I remembered the main facts — that the appeal
was pending for quite a little while.

Then, too, under the Edmunds-Tucker Act, suits were brought in
escheat, and a great deal of the property was taken away from the
church, so that in the spring of 1890 the Mormon Church" had found
that its property was taken away from it, and the test oath was
declared to be constitutional, as given in Idaho. Many of their peo-
ple were under indictment in Idaho for having entered into a conspiracy
to leave the church in a body in order that they might escape the test
oath. The constitution of Idaho had been adopted by the people and
Idaho was about to be admitted as a State, and in addition to all that
more stringent legislation than ever, in the nature of the Struble bill
in the House and the Cullom bill in the Senate, had been introduced,
and the Cullom bill had been reported back favorably, which absolutely
disfranchised the Mormon people.

Mr. TAYLER. This was in 1890?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. This was in 1890. At that time we began to hear
it was reported among the people of Utah that something would have
to be done in order to place the Mormon people right before the coun-
try, ar this bill would go through and statehood would be indefinitely
postponed. This one in 1887 was the seventh or eighth attempt that
had been made by the Mormons to secure statehood. Some of their
prominent men, as 1 remember it, Mr. John T. Caine and Mr. Cannon,
who was his secretary and others, brought back word from Washing-
ton that some public declaration must be made by the church which
was reformatory in its nature and which would serve to put them-
selves in accord with the American people, or these acts would be
passed and they could not obtain statehood. Some interviews were
had. As I remember it an interview was had with Secretary John W.
Noble — I can not just now remember whether the interview took place
before September 26, 1890, or just after September 26 — in which he
stated that he had suggested to the heads of the church that something
of this kind must be done. So that in 1890, in September, the mani-
festo, so called, of Wilford Woodruff was promulgated.

Of course, the prosecutions which were going on for unlawful
cohabitation still proceeded, but there were no prosecutions, so far as
I know, for the crime of potygamy itself — that is, the entering into
the relation. This changed attitude of the Mormon people did not at
first commend itself to the non-Mormons of the State and of the
western country, and very serious opposition was made to any profes-
sions upon their part of sincerity in making this change; but still it
was pointed out that so far as the prosecutions showed, and any evi-
dence that was available, no new marriages were taking place, and to
a certain extent some of the men were obeying the law as to unlawful

550 REED SMOOT.

cohabitation in that there were no new cases being brought up and
prosecuted, only the old ones.

In 1891 the central committee of the People's Party, which was the
Mormon Church, as I have said, in its political capacity, met and dis-
banded the People's Party and announced the intention of thencefor-
ward working upon political lines of the national political parties.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Critchlow, to make it clear, the People's
Party, as I understand it, was composed entirely of Mormons.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Entirely of Mormons.

Senator DUBOIS. And the Liberal party was composed entirely of
Gentiles, non-Mormons.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Entirely of non-Mormons. The line was drawn
as sharply as, in the nature of things, it could be drawn in a matter
of that kind.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand — if it is not a fact you ma}^ say so — that
the Mormon leaders themselves at that time and since have always
proclaimed that the People's Party was the Mormon party, the Mor-
mon Church's party, or rather the party of the people of the Mormon
Church.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Oh, yes; there never was any question about that.
The Mormon people themselves — and by the Mormon people 1 mean
what is ordinarily spoken of as the rank and file of the people exclusive
of these authorities of the church — had for some time been restive
under the conditions which had been imposed upon them. The two
things which had kept the community, or the Territory, rather, out of
the Union for so many years were recognized by everyone as being the
practice and belief in polygamy and the absolute control of the church
in matters temporal; and the pressure from within was beginning to
make itself felt in the way of unrest, and that of course had its effect
upon the minds of the non-Mormons in their acceptance finally of the
professions of the leaders of the church of their absolute sincerity in
the matter of this division upon the two national party lines.

It was not until the fall of 1891, I think, that the non-Mormons to
any great extent accepted this division upon the two party lines and
the abolition of the People's Party as being a matter which was so
far sincere that they could join in with them; and in the fall of that
year many of the more prominent non-Mormons in both parties,
Republican and Democratic, finally concluded to join with the rest of
the party of the State in the attempt to obliterate all the past differ-
ences and to form the people into parties, Republican and Democratic,
just as they exist in any other State. The leaders of the church them-
selves entered, of course, heartily into this matter and in every way
that they could — by interview, personal, and in the press — gave expres-
sion not only to the good faith of the people themselves, but to the
good faith of the leaders themselves, which was practically the only
thing which the non-Mormons doubted.

I say that for the reason that I think I correctly state the feeling of
the great majority of non -Mormons, if not all of the non-Mormons of
the State and of the Western country, in saying that the people them-
selves, if relieved from the domination and the control, political and
ecclesiastical, of the authorities of the church, would make rather short
work of the domination in political affairs and the control in political
affairs and temporal affairs, and also of the practice of polygamy.

It was in the hope and in the expectation and in the belief that the

REED SMOOT. 551

leaders, having committed themselves absolutely to the doctrine, first,
that potygamy and unlawful cohabitation was a thing of the past, and,
secondly, to the fact that they themselves would no longer attempt to
interfere in the temporal and political affairs of the people of the
State — it was relying on those promises and feeling that the leaders
themselves would be estopped by them to such an extent that they
would lose their hold upon the people, if it was ever broken, that
led the non-Mormons to join with them in these parties. At least, that
was the argument that was used repeatedly. The celebrated— I mean
celebrated in a local sense merely — interview of two of the three
heads of the church in the Salt Lake Times, which was published in
August, was a carefully prepared interview for the purpose of enforc-
ing the idea —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What were you referring to there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The Salt Lake Times interview.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, he is stating now what was the
purpose of the interview.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Excuse me. I have the interview here. I per-
haps ought not to state that. There was an interview between two
of the heads of the church, Mr. Joseph F. Smith —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is, there was published in the paper what
purported to be an interview?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. There was no question about its being an interview.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In a sense; not exactly. I was actively identified
with the movement at that time. Senator Rawlins, my partner, and
myself were both very much interested in this movement, believing it
to be the solution of the entire Mormon question; and I might say, in
answer to your question, Mr. Worthington, that 1 was connected
financially and a little more closely than that with the Times itself,
and knew of the preparation and publication of this interview. I,
perhaps, ought to let the interview speak for itself, except to saty it-
was prepared for the purpose and was taken by the people as meaning,
without any equivocation, that at least so far as two of the heads of
the church — Mr. Joseph F. Smith being still in hiding — Wilford
Woodruff and George Q. Cannon, were concerned, it was the steady
purpose of the leaders of the church to keep their hands entirely off of
politics and let the people run things themselves, as well as to adhere to
their manifesto of 1890; and it was rather assumed that polygamy and
unlawful cohabitation would be a thing of the past an}^how.

The non-Mormons at first — I may say the majority of the non -Mor-
mons under the Liberal party — refused to accept these protestations
and declarations upon the part of the leaders.

I perhaps ought to go back one moment in speaking of the condition
of things just before the manifesto. There had been an inquiry by
one of the courts of the State into the question as to whether the mem-
bers of the Mormon Church were fit subjects for naturalization, and it
had been adjudicated, after a lengthy examination, that those who
belonged to the church were not persons who were fit to be natural-
ized and become American citizens, and that ruling had been adopted
in other districts of the State. 1 ought to state, perhaps, in that par-
ticular that I believe Judge Zane (who was the chief justice of the
State, and who presided in the third district, together with other judges)
did not adhere closely to that ruling. But from the spring of 1890

552 REED SMOOT.

every judicial district of the State, excepting that particular court of
the third district over which Judge Zane presided, refused to natu-
ralize the members of the Mormon Church. Immediately after the
manifesto of President Woodruff in 1890 the judges regarded that as
being a declaration of the church that the doctrine in reference to the
practice of these matters had been changed, and I think from that time
on no objection was made.

Speaking now again of the attitude of the non-Mormons it was
pointed out that this declaration was not based upon any revelation,
and various other objections were made, and the fact was pointed to
that the belief in the rightf ulness of plural marriage was something
that could not be eradicated from the system and certainly would be
practiced. But little by little the non-Mormons were won over in one
way or another, and I think I may say that finally, by 1892, the only
possible objection made was on the part of a few people who con-
tended not that poly gamy and unlawful cohabitation were doctrines of
the church, because it was understood that they had been abandoned, or
the practice of them rather, but that the interference in politics would
be the great objection.

But in 1892, there being before Congress a certain act known as the
Faulkner bill, to give us a measure of local self-government there, a
few non-Mormons appeared here, and a great body of non-Mormons
also supported that bill. It was supported mainly, however, I may
say, by Democrats, because it was understood to be a Democratic
measure. But at least the attitude of the non-Mormon people of the
State had so far changed that the majority of them were in favor
either of local self-government or of the admission of the Territory
into the Union as a State.

This sentiment continued to grow until, in 1893, the statehood bill
was passed. Mr. Rawlins was the delegate at that time, and it wras
actively advocated by nearly every one of them, I think. A very
inconsiderable minority of the non-Mormons in the State were still
objecting.

Mr. TAYLER. That was 1894, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1893, I think, the bill was passed.

Mr. VAN COTT. You speak of the enabling act.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; in the spring of 1894—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The enabling act was in 1894.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The convention was held in the spring of 1894. I
may have got that one year wrong.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was July 16, 1894.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The enabling act was passed in 1894 and in 1895
the convention was held. The practice of polygamy was a matter — I
do not mean the practice of polygamy* but the act of marking more
than one woman — was scarcely ever heard of after that time. After
1887, that is to say, no non-Mormon at least, or scarcely any, could
ever say that an instance occurred in which he was satisfied that at a
particular time and place a new wife had been taken b}r anybody. The
practice of unlawful cohabitation was not very prevalent, and yet of
course there were many instances where the practice of unlawful
cohabitation was known.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of what time are you now speaking?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am speaking of the time between 1887 and the
time of the constitutional convention in 1895. It was what might pos-

EEED SMOOT. 553

sibly be called an era of good feeling. Nobody cared to disturb the
apparent prosperity that was coming to the State, and the circumstances
that had allayed the old bitternesses, as it was thought, and the fact that
the church had given up the practices which had kept us aloof from
the rest of the United States, led anybody to minimize any objection
which might be made upon the score of want of good faith in carrying
on these practices.

Of course, I think I ought to say right here that in the view of non-
Mormons the mere act of entering into plural marriage between a
man and a woman, nothing else appearing, although it was punished
in the law as being the substantive offense, the punishment for which
was very severe, was, comparatively speaking, a matter of indiffer-
ence to the non-Mormon people. I am speaking now comparatively,
because it made very little difference to any person in the community
if, secretly and without an}7thing else appearing, there being nothing
to indicate that a woman was a man's plural wife, he had married her
on a certain day. Sensibilities were not outraged in any way, but the
real offense, as felt by the non-Mormon people then and now, is the
practice of unlawful cohabitation; or, as the Supreme Court says,
the holding out or flaunting in the eyes of the community of more
than one woman as a wife, and the semblance of a family relation of
that kind.

So that, when it was spoken of as the abandonment of polygamy, I
think I may state with entire fairness that we did not care so much as
to whether the people abandoned the practice of entering into new
marriages as that they should abandon the active and — I think I may
use the word— offensive practice of unlawful cohabitation.

In 1894 the enabling act was passed, and the constitutional conven-
tion was held in 1895. The reports of the constitutional convention
will show, of course, what was done.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 have them here if you want to refer to them.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, I do not care to refer to them ; but I say they
will show, of course, what was done and said by the various persons
as to what pledges ought to be given by the people of the State of
Utah with reference to the practice of unlawful cohabitation and
polygamy.

Senator HOAR. Was this constitutional convention composed of per-
sons of the Mormon faith and others, or solely those of the Mormon
faith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was composed — I can not give the relative pro-
portions, but there were both Mormons and non-Mormons, both prom-
inent Mormons and- prominent non-Mormons in the constitutional
convention.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How about polygamists?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think there were 17 polygamists in there, and of
the polygamists one, at least, had a child born to him at the time he
was presiding over the constitutional convention. That was Apostle
John Henry Smith.

Senater HOAR. Do you remember which way the majority was in
the constitutional convention ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The majority was Mormon.

Senator HOAR. I will not interrupt you any further.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Such instances us that were not spoken of partic-
ularly excepting as a matter of comment in the case of a prominent

554 REED SMOOT.

man like Apostle John Henry Smith, and then, of course, the non-
Mormons could not but remark on the fact that while he was presiding
over this convention there was evidence given to the world of the fact
that so far as he was concerned at least he had not kept the letter or
the spirit of the manifesto; but, as I said before, it was the desire on
the part of the non-Mormons that these things should cease, and if
matters of that kind did happen now and then it was regarded as being
in the interests of good citizenship and the interest of a final solution
of the question that no particular concern should be taken to prosecute
matters of that kind.

I do not know that anything else in that particular connection needs
to be dwelt upon to give an idea of what did happen up to the time of
statehood.

Mr. TAYLER. Proceed now to the period after statehood.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I may say this, however, that it was contended by
many people at that time that the manifesto did not really suspend the
practice of unlawful cohabitation as the practice of the church in its
ecclesiastical capacity.

I do not know that 1 expressed that quite <jleaiiy. It was contended
at that time, when their attention was brought to it, that, after all, that
was a matter of which they were hot called upon to pledge themselves
to the people of the United States. Quite an effort was made in the
constitutional convention, as appears in the reports and as was a mat-
ter of common knowledge there in the community at that time, to have
the distinct pledge as to unlawful cohabitation put into the constitu-
tion— I mean privately, among the members, as we all understood,
Mr. Varian, Mr. Goodwin, and others; but various reasons were given
why they should not go beyond the exact terms of the pledge, if you
call it a pledge, or the provision which was exacted from the new
State by the enabling act which had just passed Congress.

Under this constitution the State was declared a member of the
Union and came in on January 6, 1896. That first legislature remained
in session ninety legislative days, and of course a great many bills came
before them for the purpose of adjusting the Territorial condition to
that of statehood.

The first thing that came to our attention was the fact, which was
disclosed only at the end of the session, that there had been during
the period of that legislasure, and, so far as appeared, during its entire
session, a committee appointed by the heads of the church to super-
vise the legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. What time was that, Mr. Critchlow?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That was the first State legislature.

The CHAIRMAN. What date was it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was in the first three months of 1896. We came
in as a State on the 6th of January. And that has appeared from the
evidence. All of the bills which had been submitted to the legislature
for passage had been turned over to this committee of elders of the
church for the purpose of being passed upon by them to see whether
they were proper legislation for the legislature of Utah to act upon.

Senator DUBOIS. On what ticket were you elected to the legislature ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. On the Republican ticket.

Senator DUBOIS. On the straight Republican ticket?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, there was but one. The Republican and
the Democratic tickets were the only tf.ckets in the field.

REED SMOOT. 555

Senator DUBOIS. Then you are a Republican?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The next thing that appeared in the way of a violation of what we
have been apt to speak of as pledges there or promises of the leaders
of the church was the deposition of Moses Thatcher for his action in
becoming a candidate for United States Senator contrary to the
expressed wish of his quorum.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to understand, Mr. Critchlow. Were you
a member of the legislature when this discovery of the committee of
the Mormon Church took place?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; go on.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Moses Thatcher was one of the twelve apostles,
and rather prominent on account of his wealth and social position, and
he had rather a large personal following. He had been one of the
twelve apostles who were Democrats.

Let me explain the situation in just a moment. Utah was under-
stood to be Democratic under Territorial times. That was because, as
we all understood, the Republicans were furthering the legislation
which was attempting to bring to an end the conditions out there, and
the Democrats being in opposition on political lines, it was rather
natural that the Mormons should ally themselves with the Democratic
party.

Moses Thatcher was a Democrat, and a rule was adopted in the
presidency and the twelve apostles — this quorum of the leaders of the
church — that the Republicans might go out and proselyte among the
people all they pleased, but the Democrats must stay quiet and not do
it, because it was thought best by the leaders of the church that there
should be somewhere near an equal division of the people. In fact, it
went even further than that, and as a part of the history of the times
we know that the secretary of the first presidency sent out a letter to
one of the bishops of the church sa}7ing that the policy was to—

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you the letter, Mr. Critchlow ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think the letter is embraced in the report of the
Utah Commission, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. All right; excuse me for interrupting.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who is the secretary to whom you refer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Gibbs. That is the name, is it not, Mr. Van
Cott?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think so. I did not intend to interrupt you, Mr.
Critchlow.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Gibbs, the secretary of the first presidency,
sent out a letter to Bishop Wright saying the policy of the leaders
was to let the people divide as nearly as possible, and then have in
reserve a contingent which would be floated either way in order to
affect the election.

It is only fair to say that the presidency of the church affirmed,
when they were brought to task about that, that this letter was sent
out without their knowledge, and they disaffirmed any such polic}^ as
that; but that was a part of the history which led up to Moses
Thatcher's relations with his quorum there. He persisted in going
out and talking among the people and proselyting to the Democratic
cause, whereas the Republicans who went out at the same time insisted
that it was a rule of the quorum that the Democrats should stay quiet.

556 REED SMOOT.

Moses Thatcher and others of the Mormons, among others Mr.
Brigham H. Roberts, insisted that that was not in accordance with the
pledges that had been given and was a practice which would be destruc-
tive of the liberties of the people in the long run, and an intense con-
troversy arose over that. The history of this controversy in large
part is in the report of the Utah Commission, as I remember it, for
1895, or it may he 1896—1 think 1896.

In the spring conference of 1896 Moses Thatcher's name was dropped
from the quorum of the twelve apostles. That is, his name was not
put up to be sustained as a member of the twelve apostles. Of course,
under the practices of the church, that simply left him out of the
twelve apostles, and there was no way of getting him in, because such
a thing as nominating from the body of the house or nominating from
the people a man to take his place in the quorum of the twelve apostles
was not heard of and could not be thought of. So that it left that
vacancy in there until the fall conference.

Meanwhile, during this summer of 1897, Mr. Thatcher carried on
quite a spirited controversy by way of pamphlet, and his personal fol-
lowing, which was quite large in the church, was quite at variance with
the other members of the church with reference to the rightfulness of
the action of the quorum in deposing him in that way. Finally, in the
fall conference of 1896 — that was in October— he was again withheld
from the nominations for apostleship, and was finally dropped out of
the quorum.

The election was held in October, 1896, for the succeeding legislature
which sat beginning about January 1, 1897, and Moses Thatcher and
Mr. Rawlins, afterwards Senator, were put up, as I remember now,
both of them for candidates for the United States Senate. I think that
must be wrong, too, because there was only one of them to be elected.
At any rate, Moses Thatcher carried on a very active campaign in the
fall of 1896 for election by the succeeding legislature. This was under-
stood to be in absolute disregard of the rule of the quorum. The rule
of the quorum of the church, as the rule of every other quorum of the
church, as exemplified in their acts and in their public proclamations
of their doctrine to the people and in the conduct of the people with
regard to those things, is that a man must be in absolute harmony and
accord with his quorum. The moment he is out of harmony with his
quorum he is in rebellion against it, and he must step down and out.

He was not tried upon any charges at all, and I think perhaps the
controversy in part is shown by a pamphlet which has been put in evi-
dence here, called "The Thatcher episode." He was not tried upon
any charges in anyway; but it was proven against him that he was not
in accord with the other members of his quorum in going before the
people, and therefore he was dropped from the quorum.

He still persisted in maintaining his right to run for office against
the consent of his brethren there, and it was taken up by the church and
by the Deseret News actively as a church matter, and it was actively
proclaimed in numerous editorials in the Deseret News from a time
beginning as early as the first part of 1896 until after the legislature
of 1897, in February, had elected the Senator, who happened to be
Senator Joseph L. Rawlins; that this matter of a man's running as a
candidate for the Senate of the United States was a matter in which
the church was interested, and they had a perfect right to interfere in
that and advise and control the members of the church, as a church mat-

EEED SMOOT. 557

ter, as to their duties in the premises. As I say, this is a matter of
current history of the time as expressed in the editorials and other
puplic utterances of the church. 1 refer to the editorials in the Deseret
News.

The final result of the matter was that, I think, some fifty-odd ballots
were taken before election finally occurred. Judge Henderson was
the minority candidate, so to speak; that is, receiving a less number
than the other two; but the two principal candidates were Senator
Rawlins and Mr. Thatcher. The personal adherents of Mr. Thatcher
were those Mormons who were attached to him by business ties, social
ties, etc., and who were the more progressive, and the non-Mormons
of the State, almost to a man, were sympathetic, both Democrats and
Republicans, with Moses Thatcher, for the reason that it is understood
that he stood for the principle which the Mormon leaders had said should
thereafter control them, namely, absolute liberty in political affairs.
There were some non-Mormons — I myself was one of them — who were
in favor of Mr. Rawlins, although it was none of my fight at all,
largely for personal reasons on my own account, but a great many
were fearful that Mr. Thatcher would not finally stand the strain and
would not stand for the principles finally which he was there enunci-
ating.

The result was that during that legislature, after that many ballots —
1 do not know that I ought to state this as a matter of my own
knowledge, because it is not. I was going to speak of the current
reports as to the manner in which the church interfered.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As to what?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As to the manner in which the church interfered
in that election — but 1 think I perhaps ought not to speak of those
current rumors and reports, although they come almost in the domain
of history.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It would have been better to speak of them
while the head of the church was here.

Senator McCoMAS. Mr. Chairman, I think he has a right to speak
of them if they are matters of which he had knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if he had knowledge of them.

Senator DUBOIS. How many Republicans were there in that legis-
lature?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Three.

Senator DUBOIS. You were a gentile, of course. Were the other
two Mormons?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not understand you, Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. Were the other two Republican members Mor-
mons or gentiles?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. This was the second legislature.

Senator McCoMAS. You were not in that legislature?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I was not in that legislature. There were but
three Republicans in the legislature.

Senator DUBOIS. In that legislature ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In that legislature.

Senator DUBOIS. As a matter of current history, did not one of those
Republican Mormons furnish the vote which finally beat Thatcher, and
does it not show in the proceedings of the legislature?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so, Senator; but I would not like to

558 REED SMOOT.

speak positively about that without refreshing- my recollection. That
is my recollection.

Senator DUBOIS. Of course, it will appear in the proceedings of the
legislature.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Senator HOAR. Where does the election of Mr. Cannon come in?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The election of Mr. Cannon was in the first State
legislature. He was one of our two first Senators.

Senator HOAR. He was a Mormon, was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, was it not a Gentile Republican and
not a Mormon Republican who decided that Senatorial election ?

Mr. CHRITCHLOW. Mr. Van Cott, I can not now remember the man's
name. I could perhaps tell you if—

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it not Elmer Taylor?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think it was Elmer Taylor, Mr. Van Cott,
but you may be right.

Mr. VAN COTT. All right; I thought may be I could refresh your
recollection.

Mr. TAYLER. Whatever you know about the repute of the church's
attitude I think is proper under this line of testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that, Mr/ Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Wrhatever he knows about the current repute and
report as to what the church was doing about it.

The CHAIRMAN. You may state that, Mr. Critchlow.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It is a matter of a little more than current repute.
It was known to all of us who lived there in Salt Lake, where the
legislature sat, that apostles were taking an active part in the cam-
paign. Mr. John Henry Smith, who is a Republican in politics, and
Heber J. Grant, who is a Democrat in politics, were both interesting
themselves and did interest themselves in campaigning in behalf of
one of the other candidates and against Mr. Thatcher. It must be
understood that the church was not in favor particularly, so far as
appeared at least upon the surface, and as 1 think the facts were, in
favor of either Mr. Rawlins or Judge Henderson for Senator, but they
were directly opposed to Moses Thatcher, because, as expressed by the
Deseret News in repeated editorials, his candidacy was a direct blow
at the right of the church to control the action of the members of its
quorums.

The matter drifted along for days and days. As I say, 50 or 53, I
think, ballots were taken before a final result was reached, and it was
proclaimed in the papers that the result was going to happen on a cer-
tain day, and that the church would bring over a certain number of
men to one or the other of the candidates, and it was understood the}7
would bring them from Judge Henderson to Mr. Rawlins to elect
him — not that they were particularly advocating Mr. Rawlins as against
Judge Henderson, but that he seemed to be the one who could beat
Thatcher.

This is a part of the common report and knowledge of the commu-
nity. I can not speak of it from my own knowledge excepting as I
get itdirectl}r from the candidate, Judge Henderson, himself, whom 1
should much prefer would speak upon this subject; but word did
come from the church authorities that these men should go over to
Mr. Rawlins and elect him as against Mr. Thatcher, and every one of

REED SMOOT. 559

the men who were Mormons and were advocates of Judge Henderson
did leave him excepting- one man. One man stayed with him. Those
who were non-Mormons went to Mr. Thatcher, as I now remember
the circumstances — every one of them. At any rate, on the last ballot
Judge Henderson had but one man. He was a Mormon, and he
refused to go.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Could you tell us there how many Mormons
voted for Thatcher?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not without the record before me.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What became of the man who refused to go ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The man who refused to go is in Utah. He is the
court reporter of the second judicial district court.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Was he turned out of church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were any pains or penalties visited on him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am not aware that there were.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is the office he holds now an elective office ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; it is an appointive office.

Senator BEVERIDGE. By whom ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. By the judge of the court.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is the judge of the court an elective office?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is he a Mormon ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that 1 should judge from that that his
refusal to go subjected him to no pains or penalties or unpleasant con-
sequences afterwards?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. So far as I know it did not, and I think not.

Senator HOAR. What was the majority of Rawlins on the final vote,
about; do you remember?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Rawlins, as I recollect, had the exact number
necessary to elect, which was 32 out of 63.

Senator HOAR. So that the going over or not going over of this man
made no difference.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; they had enough.

Senator HOAR. They had enough to elect even if the one man did
not go ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

I want to say one thing further — that, as currently reported, the
statement made by this man-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. I suppose the committee has decided that what-
ever is currently reported is evidence?

Mr. VAN COTT. And what is in the newspapers?

Senator HOAR. No; the fact that it is currently reported or accepted
as a matter of current history does not prove the fact. It does prove a
condition of public sentiment and belief in the Territory, which may or
may not be important on the final question of whether there is a sub-
mission on the part of a large number of voters to an ecclesiastical
authority in civil affairs.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Perhaps I ought to say, in further explanation of
the matter referred to by Senator Beveridge, that in connection with
this matter 1 have understood the fact to be, from a direct source, that
the statement was made by him, when the word came to him to go
(and he was a personal friend of Judge Henderson), " I will not do it,

560 REED SMOOT.

and I know just exactly what it means, and I know that I will be sent
on a mission." Now, whether the fact that he said that prevented him
from being sent on a mission, or whether there were other reasons, of
course, is a matter of surmise.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Was he sent on a mission?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was not.

Senator BEVERIDGE. It appears from that that he did not go, after all.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He did not go.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Critchlow, I do not want to hurry you, but you
may proceed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. May I be permitted to ask a question there, Mr.
Chairman ? Could you give us amr idea of the number of Mormons
who voted for Thatcher, approximately ? You said you could not tell
how many on the final vote.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I should say at least 10, Mr. Worthington.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know what was done with them, or if
anything was done?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; I can not say. I do not know whether any
steps were taken to discipline them or not.

Of course, if the chairman pleases, I am not asked, as I understand
it, nor do I pretend to state, the general situation at all as to the inter-
ference by the church in temporal affairs, but to give those instances
of which I have an}7 general knowledge of the direct interference of
the heads of the church, and I wish to be understood in this way. Of
course, the church could be taken in a collective capacity to represent
not only the heads and authorities, but the man at the very lowest part
of the list, the teacher or the deacon ; but when in Utah we speak of the
church we do not speak of anyone but the authorities of the church.
The presidency and the twelve apostles are the church in a practical
sense to us in Utah, and the rest of them do not amount to anything.
That is to say, they have to live in accordance with the counsel that
they receive and act in accordance with the counsel. If they do not,
they have to get out of their quorum. So that, after all, we speak of
the church as the presidency and the twelve apostles.

The Evans polygamy bill, which is referred to in the protest which
has been put in here, is a matter in which, as we understand in Utah,
there is no question in my mind —

Mr. TAYLER. At this point you had better state the substance of that.
It is in the record here, but the members of the committee may not
be familiar with its terms.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. By the Evans polygamy bill is meant that act
which was introduced —

Senator McCoMAS. If it does not disturb you and divert }^ou from
the line of your evidence, before you leave the matter of that election,
will you state what happened to Thatcher from this effort to be elected
against the direction of the church, as you say?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Moses Thatcher was the subject of sermons by, I
think, all of the twelve apostles who were present at that time at the
October conference in 1896. The attitude of the quorum of the twelve
apostles with reference to his conduct was explained. That was before
his candidacy before the legislature. In 1897 — will }rou hand me that
chronology a moment, Mr. Tayler? I simply want to get the date.

Senator HOAR. As I understand you, this discussion of Mr. Thatch-
er's conduct was before he was a candidate before the legislature ?

EEED SMOOT. 561

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator HOAE. What was the contumacy, if we may call it contu-
macy, that was the subject of this sermon?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The contumacy, as expressed by them in their
sermons, was his lack of harmony with his quorum.

Senator HOAR. His general lack of harmony ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. His lack of harmony, it being explained, as of
course everyone knew who knew the practical workings of the mat-
ter, that as soon as a man does not see eye to eye with a majority of
the quorum he is out of harmony with them, and then only two
courses are open to him — either to put himself into absolute harmony
by being submissive to its will, or to get out of the quorum.

Senator HOAR. I do not want to interrupt the examination as you
were stating it, but I want to know in general what the want of har-
mony consists in ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was stated by the president of the twelve apos-
tles, Lorenzo Snow, at that time, as being a want of harmony, which
began when he persisted in going out among the people and not obey-
ing the mandates of the presidency and the twelve apostles with regard
to preaching politics. That was one thing.

Senator HOAR. Then the contumacy for which he was then reproved
related to political action ? That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. TAYLER. Just read what the chronology says about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 do not understand that that chronology proves
anything.

Mr. TAYLER. It is in evidence, however?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No; I do not understand that it is.

Mr. TAYLER. It is in evidence here. It is marked there, Mr.
Critchlow.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, I know; but I understood Senator Hoar to
ask the question as to what he was charged with in the October con-
ference in 1896.

The CHAIRMAN. What it was that constituted the subject of the ser-
mons in relation to Mr. Thatcher.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Those sermons are in part in that pamphlet which
was introduced in evidence here, I think, called "The Thatcher epi-
sode," and the position of the church as understood by the people liv-
ing in Utah at that time was fully expressed by the editorials in the
Deseret News, one of which was the commendation of the letter of
Judge E. D. Woolle}7, of St. George, to his sons in Salt Lake, which
set that forth as being the reason why he was not in full harmony with
his brethren and why they should deal with him. That letter came out
and that pamphlet came out during the Senatorial campaign.

Senator McCoMAS. Now, you have restated to Senator Hoar what
was the contumac}7, will you answer. my question, What happened to
Moses Thatcher thereafter, and what was said or done by the heads of
the church in respect to Moses Thatcher thereafter, because of his
independent course in politics, in being a candidate for the United
States Senate against their will ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; in April, 1897, just before the April confer-
ence, according to the reports made both by Mr. Thatcher and by the
church authorities, a declaration of principles, originally called — let
me see; that manifesto was in 1896, but in 1897—

562 REED SMOOT.

Senator McCoMAS. Do you mean this manifesto to the saints, on
page 168?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Permit me to have a copy of the record.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; that is the first.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; that was presented to Moses Thatcher in
1896 as the declaration which he was to sign, and he refused to sign it.
That was a part of his contumacy before the quorum, and that was a
part of what he was disciplined for.

Now, answering the question of the Senator directly, in the suc-
ceeding year he was requested to appear before the presidency of the
stake and be tried for his offenses, upon a charge which was made by,
I think, Lorenzo Snow as president of the 12 apostles and the church,
and the official statement of what was done to Moses Thatcher and his
reconciliation with the church was published in August, 1897, in the
Deseret News, and appears in full there. I can give the exact date.
The findings of this council were published there in full, and in order
that 1 may not misquote the matter at all, I would prefer to have that
statement go in as a part of my statement of what did occur. He was
tried for these matters, and he acknowledged that he had been wrong
all the way through. He acknowledged he had been in the dark.
He acknowledged that all the harsh things he had said about the 12
apostles were untrue; that he did not mean them, and that they had
been acting in accordance with the spirit of God and he without it,
and he subscribed to that, and, as the church chronology says, he
retained —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to proving matters by that church
chronology.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what was the result ?

Senator McCoMAS. Before you get to the chronolog}T, do I under-
stand you to say he recanted, and the church gave him absolution and
put him back into the fold, or not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I should use the word recant in that sense. He
acknowledged the error of his ways and retained his fellowship only
upon condition that he subscribe that recantation.

Mr. TAYLER. But not his apostleship?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. May I have permission to get the document to
which I have referred?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator McCoMAS. He is not now an apostle, and has not been since?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; he is not, and has not been since.

The article to which I refer in the Deseret Evening News appears
in the issue of Saturday, August Itt, 1897, on the editorial page, and
is headed: "The case of Moses Thatcher." It is four columns and
one-half in length.

Senator McCoMAS. That is the official paper of the church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is the official paper of the church — 3^es, sir.
The complaint was signed by Brigham Young —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is the organ of the church for the publication
of various matters. The president of the church declared that the
church is not responsible for its editorials.

Mr. TAYLER. It is the organ of the church; so announced by the
church.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Critchlow.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The complaint was dated July 30, 1897, which was

REED SMOOT. 563

/our or five months after the legislature had adjourned. The com-
plaint is signed by Brigham Young, Francis M. Lyman, and Heber J.
Grant, and is in these words:

"To the Presidency and High Council of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion.
"DEAR BRETHREN: We hereby prefer a charge against Brother
Moses Thatcher of apostasy and un-Christianlike conduct, exhibited in
public speeches, private conversations, in interviews through newspa-
pers, and in other ways, showing a departure from the spirit of the
Gospel and the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints such as to forfeit his right to fellowship and
standing in the church.

"Your brethren, "BRIGHAM YOUNG.

"FRANCIS M. LYMAN.

"HEBER J. GRANT."

Those were three of the apostles.

The decision of the high council, consisting of Angus M. Cannon,
Joseph E. Taylor, and Charles W. Penrose, the editor of the Deseret
News, is as follows:

"We therefore decide that the charges against Brother Moses
Thatcher have been sustained, and that in order to retain his standing
and fellowship in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints he
publish a statement to the satisfaction and approval of the presidency
of this stake of zion, fully covering the following points, viz:

"That in taking the position that the authorities of the church, by
issuing the declaration of principles, on April 6, 1896, acted in viola-
tion of pledges previously given, and contrary to what they had pub-
lished in the Deseret News and given to the Salt Lake Times, he was
in error and in the dark.

"That he now sees there is no conflict between that declaration and
their former utterances in reference to political affairs.

"That he was mistaken in conveying the idea that the church author-
ities desired and intended to unite church and state, or to exercise
undue influence in political affairs.

"That wherein the public have been led to believe through his utter-
ances that the leaders of the church were forging chains to bind the
members of the church, an impression was created which he did not
intend and does not wish to prevail.

"That wherein he has placed the authorities of the church in a false
position, however unintentionally, he has done them an injustice and
is ready to make such amends as lie in his power.

"That he acknowledges the first presidency and council of the apos-
tles as God's servants, as prophets, seers, and revelators, and their
authority as supreme in the church.

"That when one man is out of harmony with them in the enuncia-
tion of a rule for the guidance of the church he must submit to the
rule or be regarded as not in full fellowship.

"That no member of the church has the right to oppose and bring
into contempt any rule of the church which has been formulated by
proper authority, especiall}7 when it has been adopted by the church
as a body.

"That he was in error in stating in his published letter to President
Lorenzo Snow :

564 TCKED SMOOT.

'"During all these weary months, while friends and physicians
believed I was on the verge of the grave, I was administered to only
once by members of our quorum, although day after day engagements
made for that purpose were for reasons unknown to me not kept.'

44 In this connection he may state that one such engagement was not
kept, but that this was not an intentional breach of promise.

"That in speeches and published letters he has used expressions
which had been better unsaid, and that he regrets their utterance.

" That he knows of no higher allegiance or more solemn and binding
obligations than those of a religious character, between a man and his
God.

" That in speaking of i chains,' 'oppression,' ' curtailment of liberty,'
'malice,' 'anger,' 'spite,' and 'revenge' he did not intend to reflect
upon the authorities of the church in any way, and is grieved that his
language has been so construed.

"That in failing to attend the meeting of the twelve apostles on
November 12, and again on November 19, he made a grave mistake,
which he now regrets, though he did not see it then in that light.

"That he believes his brethren of the apostles have been actuated
by a desire for his salvation, and not his destruction, and that though
their rebukes have been sharp, they were intended to bring him to a
sense of his true position.

"That wherein he has wronged any of his brethren by word, deed,
or improper understanding of their spirit and intent, he now asks their
forgiveness.

"That he has obtained light wherein he was in the dark, and can
sustain in his faith and feelings the authorities of the church, its doc-
trines, rules, and regulations, and desires the fellowship of the church,
and humbly asks forgiveness for all his faults.

"ANGUS M. CANNON.
"JOSEPH E. TAYLOR.
"CHARLES W. PENROSE.

BROTHER THATCHER'S INDORSEMENT.

"Without qualification or mental reservation I accept this decision
in full.

" MOSES THATCHER."

Then follows a letter from Moses Thatcher, which is published in
addition to that, and the acceptance of the letter by the high council.

The article in the Deseret Evening News above referred to is as
follows:

THE CASE OF MOSES THATCHER.

For more than a week past there has been a great deal of curiosity
manifested and great interest created by the fact that Moses Thatcher
was upon trial for his fellowship in the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints before the presidency and high council of the Salt
Lake stake. Many false statements of "the causes and proceedings in
the case have been given through the public prints, the information
generally being only of a hearsay character, where not actually coined
in the brain of the imaginative reporter. In order to correct the
wrong impressions that have been made, and to present the case truth-
fully in all its aspects for the information of all interested, the News

REED SMOOT. 565

now gives a brief account of the trial, with the signed documents that
go to make up the record.

The proceedings before the high council were commenced by a com-
plaint (which appears below) entered by a committee of three of the
council of the apostles on behalf of the church, and Brother Thatcher
at once signified his intention to appear. The case was tried under
the ordinary rules of the high council, except that greater latitude
than common was allowed in the introduction of evidence and in state-
ments on either side, and adjournments were taken from time to time
in consideration of the still feeble condition of the defendant's health.
Thus the proceedings, which- commenced on Friday, August 6, con-
tinued, with daily sessions (excepting Sunday) to August 13. Every
opportunity which he could desire was given him to explain his posi-
tion and feelings, and after hearing the speakers on both sides of the
council, and also those who filed the complaint, he made a plea in his
own behalf, in which he expressed his willingness and his desire to
make right all the wrong that he had done to any of his brethren and
also to comply with the decision of the council, whatever that might
be. He admitted that he had been in error and in the dark; that he
had been seeking for light and that it had come to him through what
had been developed in this trial.

It will be seen from the findings and decision given below that the
matter did not rest, as stated and supposed by some, upon Brother
Thatcher's refusal to accept the declaration of principles, but rather
upon his general course of hostility to his brethren, particularly those
who stand at the head of the church. It appeared, however, that
much of that was predicated upon a misunderstanding of their motives
and purposes; and instead of taking that declaration as it stood, he
assumed to make an interpretation of it corresponding to his precon-
ceived notions of what he thought the leaders of the church intended
to do. His public utterances by letters and speeches were reviewed;
some of these were much modified by his explanations; others which
were generally understood to refer to the presiding authorities of the
church were explained as having no reference to them at all; thus
the " bondage" and "oppression" and "trouble" to which he had
alluded were explained to be such as he feared would come from
sources outside the church and not from its leading authorities.

Great plainness of language was used in presenting to Brother
Thatcher the position in which he stood and the effect produced on the
public mind by the course he had pursued. After the hearing was
concluded and the presidency of the stake had taken the matter under
advisement, they presented the findings and decision given below,
which were unanimously sustained by the high council and were satis-
factory to those who filed the complaint. Time was given to Brother
Thatcher to consider whether he could and would fully comply with
the decision, and to formulate such a document in his own language as
would express his views and feelings — this limit of time being fixed at
thirty days. From his letter, which follows, it will be seen that he
has at once acted in the matter, indorsing the decision in the most
unequivocal manner, and manifesting a spirit of humility and repent-
ance that will be very gratifying to all who have a real interest in his
welfare. By the final approval, on the part of the presidency of the
stake, of his conduct in this matter he retains his standing and fellow-
ship in the church.

566 EEED SMOOT.

We now present, without further comment, the documents in the
case, these being, in their order, the complaint, the findings of the
presidency of the stake, their decision, Brother Thatcher's indorse
ment of that decision and his letter to the stake presidency, and the
latter's acceptance of his letter and indorsement as a satisfactory com-
pliance with the decision:

THE COMPLAINT.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July 30, 1897.
To the Presidency and High Council

of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion:

DEAR BRETHREN : We hereby prefer a charge against Brother Moses
Thatcher of apostacy and un-Christianlike conduct, exhibited in public
speeches, private conversations, in interviews through newspapers, and
in other ways, showing a departure from the spirit of the gospel and
the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, such as to forfeit his right to fellowship and standing in the
church.

Your brethren,

BRIGHAM YOUNG.
FRANCIS M. LYMAN.
HEBER J. GRANT.

THE FINDINGS.

Apostasy, as has been argued here, varies in its extent. In a gen-
eral way apostasy means revolt. It is so denned in the dictionary.
But the prophet, Joseph Smith, says in this connection: "The moment
we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power."
(Compendium, p. 288.) On this ground "apostasy" includes any
revolt or departure from a rule or regulation established by the Lord,
whether in person or by His appointed servants.

We consider that Moses Thatcher exhibited an apostate spirit and
was unchristianlike in his conduct.

First. In his interview published in the Salt Lake Tribune, which
he has admitted to be in the main correct as to his views, though
not as to his exact language; he there virtually charges the authorities
of the church with bad faith, in declaring, first, that they would not
interfere in politics, and next, that they intended to and would so inter-
fere, and that this u practically annulled their former declaration."
He also announced his readiness to champion "the cause imperiled w
by the latest declaration of the church authorities.

Second. In giving to the public private correspondence between him
and President Lorenzo Snow, which related only to church and quorum
matters.

Third. By using language as follows in his reply to President
Lorenzo Snow, published in the Tribune and Herald of November 11,
1896:

"Although the judges before whom I am to be arraigned have
nearl}7 all expressed an opinion as to the merits of my case; although
my accusers are to sit in judgment over me; although a verdict has
already been delivered against me and without a hearing.

"In a conversation with President Lorenzo Snow on a train between
Salt Lake and Brigham City last Saturday, November 7, I was given

EEED SMOOT. 567

the impression that I have absolutely nothing to hope for in any other
than a public hearing such as I now request."

Fourth. In writing to President Lorenzo Snow, November 11, 1896,
saying:

"I shall not trouble my brethren, therefore, to convene in a special
meeting named for Thursday at 2 o'clock p. m. in the historian's
office."

And this after the meeting had been called at his special request.

Fifth. By resorting to the quibble that he was "not invited" to the
meeting one week later, when he was notified that his case would be
considered, and in stating, "since judgment in these matters has been
already passed."

Sixth. In charging President Lorenzo Snow with publishing " mat-
ter in order to gratify the apparent curiosity of five young men," and
describing his (Brother Snow's) explanations as "a bitter and acrimo-
nious communication."

Seventh. By endeavoring to make it appear that the authorities of
the church in publishing the Declaration of Principles had contra-
dicted what the}7 had previously announced in the Deseret News and an
interview with the Salt Lake Times as to the political liberty of the
members of the church. He used this langauge:

"As I have already stated, I understood the manifesto at the time it
was handed me for approval just as I understand it now. While it
ostensibly appeared not to restrict the liberties of the people, yet there
was no limitation to its application, and in view of the fact that nearly
every male member of the church holds some office, and, as there has
as yet be^n no public decision announced as to the officers to be con-
trolled by it, there have arisen disputes and differences of opinions as
to its intent. This being true, and the danger being that it could be
applied to restrict the liberties of the people, I can not sustain it. I
thought then, as I think now, that such a course would be a stultifica-
tion. I had never dreamed that a condition would arise in my life
where I could not serve God fully and yet yield my complete alle-
giance to my country and to my State. The spirit of the manifesto,
as it appealed to me, was in violent antagonism to all 1 had believed
and publicly proclaimed for many years, and 1 could not, and, so far,
have not been able to bring myself to a point where I believed I should
yield my political judgment to any set of men, however praiseworthy
their intentions.

" When the manifesto was presented to me it appeared to my mind
as a command on all to recognize the right of the church authorities
to control political concerns; it meant, so far as I was concerned, a
recantation of the principles I had for years advocated — a receding
from the ground I had occupied during the division movement, and,
above all, it made me feel that 1 would be untrue to myself. I do not
claim that I can not be wrong; but with the light 1 have, the manifesto
(applied as its construction will allow, or as it would be interpreted by
men whose personal ambitions might control and subvert their sense
of right) could be operated to the injury of the State."

Eighth. While protesting against the mingling of religion and poli-
tics, he repeatedly thrust his differences with the church into political
speeches; as, for instance, in the legislature at the close of the sena-
torial contest and at a reception given to him at Logan February 12,

568 EEED SMOOT.

189T, and also a reception to the Idaho legislature at his house Febru-
ary 21, 1897:

u There is room in this new State for all societies and all organiza-
tions, but they must confine themselves within proper limits. The
men who enacted the supreme law of this State made a covenant with
the citizens thereof and with this nation that certain things should be
done and performed, and we must keep those covenants. He who
desires peace and prosperity for Utah will draw the line sharp between
the rights of the citizens and the powers of the State and those of the
church. He who votes for the union of the two or the overriding of
the church by the State is no friend of Utah. He who invites the
intervention of the church in State matters is an enemy to Utah. If
we think we can bring peace and continual prosperity to this new State
by temporizing with this question we will be mistaken."

*******

" With the same honesty of purpose, but with a much more joyful
heart, he had voted with his quorum to grant the Saints entire political
freedom. He meant it then; he just as sincerely meant it now. He
who thinks because we are surrounded by the walls of statehood that
it is now safe to unsay that which has been said, to proclaim by word
or act that there was any duplicity or double dealing in order to secure
deserved concessions, is mistaken. He had not laid aside his office in
the church to obtain political honors, but because he saw dire calamity
confronting the people if this course were taken. His audience knew
the position he had occupied for forty years on the question of liberty,
and he could not now with one act expunge that record and stultify
the avowed sentiments of a lifetime."

*******

" He spoke of the struggles of the Mormon people in the early days,
and dwelt on the relations between the church and the state under a
republican form of government. He described the position he had
taken on this subject and reviewed some of the circumstances connected
with the recent manifesto and his refusal to sign it. He conceded
that the church had a right to discipline its members for the infraction
of church rules, but it had no right to carry church matters into
political affairs."

Ninth. In his own published explanation of the remarks he made
in the legislature about a higher allegiance, as follows:

"No legislator can keep his oath of office inviolate, if he or she
allows the officials of an ecclesiastical organization to control his actions
within the province of the State.

4 'The day must come in Utah when he who [being an officer in the
State] holds a higher allegiance [to the chiefs of any alien or church
organization] than that which [under his solemn oath] belongs to the
State, must not be a lawmaker in the halls of the State."

Tenth. In the same article he uses this language:

"Doubtless a great struggle is now inaugurated in Utah, a struggle
for freedom, for liberty, for the integrity of free government, for the
principles incorporated in American institutions. If the State is to be
controlled by the dictation of the church its sovereignty is lost and its
independence is a myth, an irridescent dream. It is a cause of pro-
found gratitude and thankfulness that so many noble and true women
and men, chosen as the representatives of a great and earnest people,

REED SMQOT. 569

have stood unflinchingly in the face of intense and unscrupulous oppo-
sition day after day for more than half a hundred ballots as exponents
and advocates of the principles of Jefferson and Jackson.

"It is only in this spirit that Utah will continue redeemed from a
thraldom as obnoxious as that of African slavery or Russian serfdom."

Also this:

"The State demands of its citizens and lawmakers duty well and
faithfully performed under oath. The church demands of its members,
the same individual, another and different thing. The 4 higher allegi-
ance' to which I referred would require obedience to the church.
Here is a conflict. Who is responsible? Under our State constitu-
tion the church is responsible. That being so, the proper solution of
the conflict and difficulty is simple. Let the church vacate the for-
bidden ground and all will be well.

"I repeat, those holding such 'higher allegiance' should find no
place in the halls of the legislature."

Eleventh. The same ideas were elaborated in his speech introducing
Mr. Warren Foster at Logan, February 17.

Twelfth. No matter what were his intentions, the effect of his utter-
ances and course on the public mind was that he was fighting the church
on a vital question, namely, the political liberties of the members of
the church. That he was the champion of freedom as against the
chains which the church was forging to bind them; that the church
was endeavoring to dominate the State and interfere with its functions,
and he was opposing that attempt; that the leaders of the church had
promised political liberty to the people in order to gain statehood,
and then had changed their policy and promulgated a new rule to
dominate them and restrict their political liberties and were thus
guilty of double dealing and punic faith.

This is shown by the letter introduced by Brother Thatcher from the
Presbyterian preacher at St. George; the article by the Catholic priest
at Denver, introduced by Brother Grant; the letter written by Brother
E. G. Woolley at St. George; the rallying around Brother Thatcher
of the enemies of the church; the indorsement of the hostile press,
and the cheers of the multitude who were antagonistic to the church
leaders.

Thirteenth. The letter written by Elder B. H. Roberts to Brother
Thatcher shows that Brother Roberts perceived the effect which had
been produced on the public mind by their united course; and in not
listening to the appeal thus made and not endeavoring to correct that
wrong there was an un-Christian spirit exhibited by Brother Thatcher.

We recognize the fact that Brother Thatcher's bodily afflictions have
been great, and that they weakened him in mind to some extent, or
rather that they tended to cloud his brain while in the time of his
greatest trials. This should be considered when the degree of his
wrong is determined.

Brother Thatcher evidently fostered the idea that his brethren of
the twelve, or some of them at least, were his enemies and that they
desired his injury, to crowd and crush him; and this affected his mind
as much, perhaps, as his bodily infirmities. In this he was wrong, as
he now appears to perceive.

He also evidently allowed the idea to be magnified in his mind that
he was under great obligations to his party, and that these were such
as to overshadow his previous obligations to the priesthood and the

j

570 KEEP SMOOT.

church. Yet there was nothing in them to prevent Brother Thatcher
from consulting with his brethren in reference to matters so impor-
tant as affecting the welfare of the whole people.

Now as to the Argus matter: Brother Thatcher has cleared himself
of the suspicion that he was financially interested in that paper or was
responsible for its utterances and cartoons. But he might have repu-
diated those libels and shameful pictures in some public way, and we
think he ought to have done so. The fact that prominent men have
refrained from replying to or noticing falsehoods in the public prints
reflecting on themselves does not apply to nor does it touch the case
of Brother Thatcher's neglecting to repudiate things that reflected
upon his brethren and exalted him and created the impression that he
favored them. We think he erred in not condemning those things in
some public manner.

As- to his plea that he sustained the church authorities so strongly
that he would have gone to the middle of Africa, if they had whispered
to him that this was their wish, the fact that he would not conform to
the simple rule which they submitted to him for his signature, weighs
very heavily in contrast.

But in all Brother Thatcher's departures from the true spirit of a
servant of the Lord, he was laboring under a misapprehension of the
purpose of the church authorities and of the meaning of the rule in
the Declaration of Principles. This was what led him to place them
in a false light before the public, and thus bring them into disrepute
and cause disaffection and division among the Latter-day Saints.

The spirit he has now manifested, and his expression of willingness
to do all in his power to make right such wrongs as have been brought
about, though unintentionally, by his course and writings, commends
itself to our consideration. We are glad that light has come to him,
and that he can see he was in error when he set up his individual judg-
ment against that of all the leading authorities of the church.

It was a monstrous notion that all those leading brethren were guilty
of "double dealing and Punic faith." It was one that should make any
man pause and reflect, and ask himself if he himself was not in the
wrong and had misjudged his brethren.

We are thankful that this investigation has been conducted in kind-
ness and patience and deliberation, and with a desire to bring forth the
truth. Brother Thatcher had the right to place his case, as he viewed
it, before his brethren with as much detail as he desired. Having done
so, he has submitted it to this council in a spirit of humility, which is
very gratifying to us and, we believe, pleasing to the Lord.

It was also very gratifying to hear Brother Thatcher acknowledge
the apostles as the mouthpieces of the Lord, clothed with authority as
prophets, seers, and revelators, and acknowledge that they were seek-
ing his salvation while probing his ailment to the very bottom. Such
acknowledgments are indicative that Brother Thatcher is ready to
comply with our decision, which is as follows:

DECISION.

Wre therefore decide that the charges against Brother Moses Thatcher
have been sustained, and that in order to retain his standing and fellow-
ship in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints he publish a

REED SMOOT. 57 i

statement to the satisfaction and approval of the presidency of this
stake of Zion fully covering the following points, viz:

That in taking the position that the authorities of the church, by issu-
ing the declaration of principles on April 6, 1896, acted in violation
of pledges previously given and contrary to what they had published
in the Deseret News and given to the Salt Lake Times, he was in error
and in the dark.

That he now sees there is no conflict between that declaration and
their former utterances in reference to political affairs.

That he was mistaken in conveying the idea that the church author-
ities desired and intended to unite church and state or to exercise
undue influence in political affairs.

That wherein the public have been led to believe through his utter-
ances that the leaders of the church were forging chains to bind the
members of the church, an impression was created which he did not
intend and does not wish to prevail.

That wherein he has placed the authorities of the church in a false
position, however unintentionally, he has done them an injustice, and
is ready to make such amends as lie in his power.

That he acknowledges the first presidency and council of the apostles
as God's servants, as prophets, seers, and revelators, and their author-
ity as supreme in the church.

That when one man is out of harmony with them in the enunciation
of a rule for the guidance of the church he must submit to the rule
or be regarded as not in full fellowship.

That no member of the church has the right to oppose and bring into
contempt any rule of the church which has been formulated by proper
authority, especially when it has been adopted by the church as a body.

That he was in error in stating in his published letter to President
Lorenzo Snow:

"During all these weary months, while friends and plrysicians
believed I was on the verge of the grave, I was administered to only
once by members of our quorum, although day after day engagements
made for that purpose were for reasons unknown to me not kept."

In this connection he may state that one such engagement was not
kept, but that this was not an intentional breach of promise.

That in speeches and published letters he has used expressions which
had been better unsaid, and that he regrets their utterance.

That he knows of no higher allegiance or more solemn and binding
obligations than those of a religious character between a man and his
God.

That in speaking of "chains," " oppression," "curtailment of
liberty," "malice," "anger," "spite," and "revenge," he did not
intend to reflect upon the authorities of the church in any way, and is
grieved that his language has been so construed.

That in failing to attend the meeting of the twelve apostles on
November 12, and again on November 19, he made a grave mistake,
which he now regrets, though he did not see it then in that light.

That he believes his brethren of the apostles have been actuated by a
desire for his salvation, and not his destruction, and that though their
rebukes have been sharp they were intended to bring him to a sense of
his true position.

That wherein he has wronged any of his brethren by word, deed, or

572 REED SMOOT.

improper understanding of their spirit and intent he now asks their
forgiveness.

That he has obtained light wherein he was in the dark, and can sus-
tain in his faith and feelings the authorities of the church, its doctrines,
rules, and regulations, and desires the fellowship of the church, and
humbly asks forgiveness for all his faults.

ANGUS M. CANNON.

JOSEPH E. TAYLOR.

CHARLES W. PEN ROSE.

Without qualification or mental reservation I accept this decision in
full.

MOSES THATCHER.

HIS LETTER.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,

August 13, 1897.

Presidents ANGUS M. CANNON, JOSEPH E. TAYLOR, and CHARLES W.
PENROSE.

DEAR BRETHREN: I have before me your decision, as approved by
the high council of the Salt Lake stake of Zion, specifying the condi-
tions by which I may retain my standing and fellowship in the church.

In connection therewith it is, I believe, well understood that all
arguments, deductions, and conclusions based upon erroneous premises
partake of the nature of the premises themselves.

My case has proven no exception to this general rule. When it
came before the council for a hearing, I informed you that I was seek-
ing light and believed that the Lord would manifest it in the findings
of that tribunal, having well-defined powers and competent jurisdiction.

So when it determined and definitely decided that there existed no
disagreement or conflict as between the former authoritative public
announcements respecting the individual liberty and personal political
freedom of the members of the church and the announcements con-
tained in the "declaration of principles" on the same subject (except
as defined in the latter document wherein certain prominent church
officials are required to seek counsel before accepting political office or
entering into other engagements that would interfere with obligations
already made) there appeared to my mind the light earnestly prayed
for, and under the guidance of which 1 can accept the "declaration of
principles" without stultifying myself. In accepting it,' as defined by
the council, I need violate none of the engagements heretofore entered
into under the requirements of party pledges respecting the political
independence of the citizen who remains un trammeled as contemplated
in the guarantees of the State constitution.

Having repeatedly affirmed willingness to make amends where I
have wronged my brethren in public utterances or otherwise while
under misaprehensions as to the true situation; and as you have in-
formed me that I may do this by accepting your decision, and as that
course would prevent arguments and disputes as to whether or not I
had complied in full with all requirements, I make the decision, just
as you rendered it, a part of this communication, accept it by attach-

REED SMOOT. 573

ing my signature, affix it hereto, and authorize you to make it public
in any manner you may deem proper.
Here attach the decision.

Very respectfully, your brother in the gospel,

MOSES THATCHER.
[The decision appears above.]

THE ACCEPTANCE.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, August /£, 1897.

We hereby accept the foregoing letter from Moses Thatcher and
his indorsement of the decision of the high council on his case given
August 13, 1897, as a satisfactory compliance with that decision, and
rejoice in the light and spirit of submission which have come to Brother
Moses Thatcher and his readiness to yield to the findings of the coun-
cil and the authority of the presiding officers of the Church of Christ.

ANGUS M. CANNON,
JOSEPH E. TAYLOR,
CHARLES W. PENROSE,
Presidency of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Critchlow, do you know whether or not Mr.
Thatcher, in addition to being deprived of his position in the quorum
of apostles, was also deprived of temporal positions which he held
under the church ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no recollection as to that, Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. It was generally understood, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no recollection of anything of that kind,
Senator.

Senator HOAR. Mr. Critchlow, either you or one of the gentleriien
who put a question to you just alluded to this letter of Mr. Edwin G.
Woolley to his sons. Who is Mr. Edwin G. Woolley?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If I am correct about it, that is the Edwin
Woolley who was formerly probate judge in Washington Count}^, but
I speak subject to correction on that point. .

Senator HOAR. It was written from St. George to three sons, who
seem to be —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am quite certain that is Judge Woolley. There
is an Edwin D. Woolley and an Edwin G. Woolley.

Senator HOAR. This letter on page 271 of the record contains these
two or three sentences, and 1 want to know if you can give any. light
upon that subject. I read from the last paragraph on page 272:

"He exhibited the cloven hoof the moment he announced himself a
candidate for the Senate on a platform opposed to the rule of the
church, and this was done even before he had been deposed, and while
he still pretended to expect to hold his position."

Do you know what the political platform which was considered as
being opposed to the rule of the church was?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The political platform of 1895, as I now remember
it, is the one there referred to. In 1895 the Democrats held a conven-
tion. They went out into the Territory with their speakers and cam-
paigners, and professed to find that the Republican apostles were using
what we call church influence against them; that the presidency and
the apostles were going to people and saying: "Now, it is the will of
the Lord that you shall vote the Republican ticket this time;" and they

574 REED SMOOT.

came back and laid the matter before the executive committee of the
Democratic party, composed of Mormons and non-Mormons, and after
a session of that executive committee, the proceedings of which were
taken in shorthand, as I am informed, by a shorthand reporter, Miss
Lawler, who is a clerk of one of the Senate committees here now, I
think. They determined, the Mormons being even more fierce in their
denunciation of these matters than the non-Mormons, if possible, to
reconvene their Democratic convention and give forth a declaration of
principles condemning the action of the church authorities, and con-
demning certain apostles, Mr. Lyman, by name, for one, for their dis-
tinct acts in using their influence as apostles of the church against the
Democratic party.

Senator HOAR. Did the platform

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I had not quite finished. At this reconvened con-
vention they adopted a supplemental platform upon that particular sub-
ject of the right of the church to interfere with the political rights of
the citizen, and I understand this which the Senator has just read from
this page about the cloven hoof, etc., to refer to his standing upon
such a platform.

Senator HOAR. What I want to get at, if you can throw any light
upon the question, is whether this Democratic platform on which
Thatcher stood, opposed to the rule of the church, was a platform which
declared anything except that the church had no right to exercise its
rule in political affairs, which the chuch itself disclaimed.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. To my recollection, nothing, Senator. I can verify
that, however, very easily by getting the platform, and I think it is
in the report of—

Senator HOAR. It is now nearly 4 o'clock and perhaps you can pre-
sent that in the morning if your testimony is to go on then. What I
want to know is whether this gentleman, being a leading or influential
Mormon, one of the apostles, was denounced because he declared
against the rule of the church in a purely political matter. You under-
stand my question ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do; yes, sir.

Senator HOAR. Now, before the committee goes to something else,
I want to read, in connection with this, on page 273, a sentence in the
same letter, toward the bottom of the page:

u While there may be a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of
the course being pursued by the Deseret News in threatening the sup-
porters of Thatcher for the Senate with church power, still I would
rather have an open fight at any time than to be stating one policy for
the outside to hear and pursuing another in secret, so that I am will-
ing to stand by the church in an open fight for any principle of right
and at no matter what cost."

Do you know anything of the threat of the Deseret News of the
supporters of Thatcher for the Senate with church power?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The only answer I can give to that, Senator, is
that there was scarcely an issue of the Deseret News during the period
from the time of the election of the legislature and the open candidacy
of Mr. Thatcher, until the election of Senator was finally made, that
was not an editorial upon that subject.

Senator HOAR. It is a threat of church power?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can only say that it is, but I should have to
appeal to the record to say just what I, or anyone else, might consider

REED SMOOT. 575

a threat. But in that connection permit me to call attention to one
editorial on the 18th of November, 1896, upon this subject, as follows:

4 'The candidacy of the person to whom all this has reference is
antagonized by the News, because it is an assault upon the doctrines
and organic existence of the church, of which this paper is the official
organ. His appearance in the political arena at this time is nothing
more nor less than this, and every candid voter in the commonwealth
will admit it. He himself announces that he stands upon a platform
equivalent to this very proposition. It is not a political question, for
the candidate's politics cut no figure in it. It is religious, pure and
simple, in that it involves nothing more nor less than questions relative
to the integrity of a religious organization, the maintenance of its dis-
cipline, and the perpetuity of its doctrines."

Permit me to say that the address which was made by the Demo-
cractic reconvened convention in 1895 is found, beginning on page 17
of the report of the Utah Commission to the Secretary of the Interior
for 1896, and that purports to give the correspondence to which I
referred a little while ago.

Senator HOAR. In order that you may find what you are looking for
after the adjournment, I want to call attention to another sentence in
this connection in the last paragraph on page 273:

"As to Thatcher's chances for the Senate, I am unable to give an
intelligent opinion, as I am not acquainted with a great number of the
legislature, but I think no one who is a firm Latter-Day Saint will vote
to place him there, because he has announced himself as standing on a
platform which is positively opposed to the discipline of the church,
and which rules of discipline have been approved by nearly all the
members thereof. When he takes that stand he is opposing the church
in a vital place."

Now, what I want to know is — the counsel may, perhaps, have some-
thing to furnish on that subject — whether that means simply that Mr.
Thatcher is opposing the church in a vital place and is positively oppos-
ing the discipline of the church merely by standing on a Democratic
platform which declared that the church had no right to use its power
in merely political affairs. That seems to me a pretty important
question.

Now, can you tell me what office — you have stated it, no doubt, but
it has escaped my memory — the editor of the Deseret News held in
the church or now holds in the church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is one of the first seven presidents of seven-
ties, as I remember it — no; he is counselor to the president of the
Salt Lake stake of Zion.

Senator DUBOIS. He is counselor to the president of the stake ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. And is one of the members of the high council of
that stake,

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be able to conclude with this witness
to-night, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. I think, as far as I am familiar with the period to be
covered, we are nearly through.

The CHAIRMAN. It is after 4 o'clock, and I think the committee will
now adjourn.

Senator McCoMAS. You will be able to cover the period from the
time of the second legislature down to the time of the election of Sena-
tor Smoot, will you not?

576 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I hardly think I should presume to do that, Sena-
tor. There are certain salient features that are, I think, within my
knowledge as a matter of history, but I have not actively engaged in
politics.

Senator McCoMAS. I should like to hear in regard to that matter, so
far as you have it in your knowledge.

.Senator HOAR. There is one other question. In your history of the
political affairs of the State, so far as it related to the election of Sena-
tors, you said nothing about the election of Mr. Cannon, a Mormon.
Was that done in the time when they expected harmony, and by a con-
sent of both parties, or was that a political contest in which the church
took a side, or how was that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The situation was about this —

Senator HOAR. Perhaps you spoke of that when I was out.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, I think not, Senator. The situation, in brief,
was about this: As I understand frequently happens in such cases,
there is a sort of tacit agreement in the State, either upon geographical
lines or upon certain other lines — in Utah it happened to be upon the
line pertaining to old conditions there; in other words, it was rather
agreed that there ought to be at all times one Senator who represented
the non-Mormons and one who represented the Mormons; and by vir-
tue of the fact that he had been quite prominent in the bringing about
of statehood, it seemed to be a rather logical thing that Mr. Frank J.
Cannon, who was a Mormon, should be one of the Senators, and that,
I think, went practically, I may say, among the Republicans, without
any particular question, so that it left the only contest to be made
between the non-Mormons, which was between Mr. Arthur Brown,
Judge Bennett, and Mr. Trumbo.

Senator DUBOIS. At that time there was no rule such as exists now,
was there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The first time we ever heard of this rule about
people getting the consent was the time it was submitted to Mr.
Thatcher in 1896. That is the first time it was ever put in writing,
and so far as I am concerned, and so far as I know the history of it,
we never heard of any such rule prior to statehood.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 want to ask you one question, Mr. Critchlow*
You have spoken of the Idaho test oath. Have you the Idaho test
oath?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have seen it in the constitution.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to have it incorporated in your
remarks. I think it will be of use to Senators probably in the future.
I should like to have that test oath incorporated, if you can find it
without difficulty.

Mr. RICHARDS. It is in 133 U. S., in the Beason case.

Mr. TAYLER. We would like to have this entire News editorial, con-
taining the findings of the commission in the Thatcher case, incorpo-
rated in Mr. Critchlow's testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; that may go in.

Senator McCoMAS. And it should go in at the point where Mr.
Critchlow refers to it.

Mr. TAYLER. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now adjourn until to-morrow
morning at half -past 10.

Thereupon (at 4 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m.) the committee
adjourned until Friday, March 11, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

EEED SMOOT. 577

WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 11, 1904'.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, Foraker, Beveridge,
Dillingham, Hopkins, and Overman; also Senator Smoot; also Kobert
W. Tayler, counsel for the protestants; A. S. Worthington and
Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S.
Richards, counsel for Joseph F. Smith and other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Critchlow, will you resume?

Mr. TAYLER. I may echo- the chairman's statement, and ask Mr.
Critchlow to resume.

TESTIMONY OF E. B. CRITCHLOW— Continued.

E.'B. CRITCHLOW, having been previously duly sworn, was exam-
ined, and testified as follows:

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I was asked yesterday afternoon as to where the
Idaho test oath might be found. It will be found in 133 U. S., pages
335-336.

I was also asked as to Mr. Woolley. I was not then able definitely
to identify the gentleman, but I do now. Being a man I know very
well, and being refreshed by the autobiographical sketch of his life
found in the Biographical Encyclopedia, I recall that he has been prose-
cuting attorney, member of the constitutional convention, member of
the Territorial legislature, and probate judge. It is also stated in the
sketch that he is an alternate high councilor in the Washington stake.

My attention was called by Senator Smoot last evening to the fact
that in replying to the question of one of the Senators as to what was
meant by the declaration or platform of Moses Thatcher, I had stated
that it was the platform of the reconvened convention of 1895, and he
recalled my attention to the fact that there was a more specific plat-
form or declaration made by Apostle Moses Thatcher in the fall of
1896, which was spoken of as the platform upon which he was making
his canvass or campaign for the United States Senate.

1 now recall the fact that there was published in one of the papers
what purported to be an interview with him, in which he stated the
principles upon which he was making his campaign, and reiterated
his allegiance to the platform of 1895, of the reconvened convention,
and made therein an appeal to " young Utah" to stand by him in his
fight for political independence and the right of the citizen to seek
political preferment independently of the dictates of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Of whom are you speaking?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Moses Thatcher, the former apostle, but who at
this time had been deposed by the quorum of the apostles.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you find that declaration?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I was proceeding to say that my memory is refreshed
that there was such a declaration, but it, so far as I know, was not
published in the Deseret News, and that being the only newspaper to
the files of which I have access at this time, I am unable to find among
any memoranda which I have here or elsewhere this particular decla-
ration to which he referred.

I may say, however, in that connection, that in December, 1896, at
the time this campaign of Moses Thatcher was in progress, the apostles
had met just previously and deposed him from the apostleship. He

s 37

578 REED SMOOT.

had been before that time in a state of what might be called suspen-
sion. He had not been deprived of his apostleship, but he had not
been confirmed or sustained by the people at either the April or
October conferences. But in November, as I now remember it, he was
formally deposed by the apostolate, and at that same time there was
published and circulated veiy largely a rather elaborate pamphlet,
gotten up by a friend of his, Mr. Calvin Reasoner, which set forth the
entire situation from Mr. Thatcher's standpoint, including a long
open letter from him to Lorenzo Snow, the president of the quorum
of the twelve apostles, setting forth, among other things, the declara-
tion of the principles upon which he was making his canvass for the
United States Senatorship.

That pamphlet I have here, and, as I say, the letter to which I refer
is very long, but the latter part of it contains the declaration of prin-
ciples, which I now recall without having his interview — which might
be called the platform — before me, as being substantially what was in
his platform.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you that letter there before you?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have.

Mr. TAYLER. If his position respecting the church's interference
with politics is therein briefly stated, I wish you would read it to us.

Senator BEVERIDGE. This is a letter from whom to whom ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. This is an open letter from Moses Thatcher to
Elder Lorenzo Snow, president of the twelve apostles, and is dated
Logan, Utah, December 12, 1896. It is chapter 11 of the pamphlet to
which I have referred, called "The Late Manifesto in Politics. Prac-
tical Workings of Counsel in Relation to Civil and Religious Liberty
in Utah." The particular portion to which I refer is found upon page
134 of this pamphlet, as follows:

" I do not claim that I can not be wrong. But with the light I have
the manifesto (applied as its construction will allow, or as it would be
interpreted by men whose personal ambitions might control and sub-
vert their sense of right) could be operated to the injury of the State."

Perhaps I ought to say that the word "manifesto," as used here,
refers not to the Woodruff manifesto of September, 1890, but to the
declaration which was submitted to Moses Thatcher, in April, 1896,
and which he refused to sign.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And which i* on page 168 of the record.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the rule in regard to politics.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Politics or business, or anything else.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I continue the reading:

"If, as I hold, the people have enough intelligence to deserve citi-
zenship, then the}r have sufficient intelligence to become acquainted
with the responsibilities of citizenship, and they have no more right to
yield their judgment in respect of the exercise of the franchise than
nave any set of men to attempt to control that judgment.

" Whatever the cost, with the knowledge now guiding me, I must
still stand where I have stood for years. My whole life and its work
contradict the charge that I could seek office on a platform antagonistic
to any church. 1 should oppose any man who stood upon such a plat-
form!" 1 did say that if the voters of the State of 'young Utah'
believed 1 represented principles they deem deserving of recognition,
and was, therefore, tendered the United States Senatorship, I would

REED SMOOT. 579

accept. For the information of those interested, it must be understood
that I am a Democrat, with all the word signifies. As a Democrat, I
hold it a duty for every citizen to enjoy the privileges conferred upon
him by our Government, and that it is given to no man, to no corpo-
ration, and to no body of men, to control the citizen in the exercise of
his franchise."

Omitting certain portions that state what seem to be cardinal doc-
trines of Democratic belief, I read from page 185:

"I am with the State constitution in the declaration that there shall
be an absolute separation of church and state; that the State shall not
control the church, nor the church encroach on the prerogatives of the
State, and to this end I have indorsed and still indorse the declarations
of the Democratic reconvened convention of a year ago.

"I invite neither the support nor the opposition of the church. It
has no concern in political issues. The members of my former quorum
have deemed it expedient to deprive me of my priesthood. If I dis-
cuss their action, it is as a church member. As a citizen and a Demo-
crat I concede their right to discipline me for any cause whatever.
As a member of the Democratic party, as a citizen, I deny their right
or their intention to interfere with my politics, the threat of the
Deseret News, as the church organ, to the contrary notwithstanding."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Does it say "their intention?"

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; "their intention."

"In conclusion, I desire to say that I do not complain of the treat-
ment accorded me, nor do 1 murmur at the humiliation to which I have
been subjected; but I can not think the threatened excommunication
from the church, as intimated in some quarters, can be seriously enter-
tained. Am I to be driven out of the church because of the manifesto?
I shall try and live the religion of our Savior. I want to live and die
among my brethren and friends. I desire to do my duty to my church.
I wish my children to observe the principles of the Gospel that they,
too, may desire to live, die, and be buried by the side of their father
when they shall reach, on the hillside, a final place of peace and rest.

"With sentiments of esteem, I am, as heretofore, your brother in
the gospel,

" MOSES THATCHER."

In reply to the question of Senator Hoar last evening as to what, if
any, threats were made by the Deseret News against supporters of
Moses Thatcher, I can only say that in the limited time which I have
had to scan over the files of the News I can only refer to the editorials
of November 17, 18, 19, and 20, on which last date there were two
editorials, and of the 21st, of 1896, which I may say I assume, from
the dates in Judge Woolley's letter, to be the editorials, in part at
least, to which he refers.

I had no means of bringing in all these editorials, the}- being in the
files of the News in the Congressional Library.

I want to say further, in this connection, that after this letter of Mr.
Woolley's was written, and after this pamphlet which is now in the
record, called the Thatcher Episode, was distributed, on January 8,
1897, there appeared in the Deseret News a long letter from someone
whose name was not given, but who purported to be a member of the
Mormon Church, residing at Ogden, addressed to Elder Brigham H.
Roberts, and a very lengthy reply, taking up the question of the man-

580 KEED SMOOT.

ifesto of April, 1896, and discussing it from the standpoint of the
church, as to its real or alleged interference with political rights, and
this by an editorial in the same newspaper and the same date, was
indorsed by the Deseret News.

In the legislature which convened in January, 1901, there was intro-
duced a measure which is referred to commonly in Utah as the Evans
antipolygamy bill. It was referred to as such by the press. It did
not, however, in terms purport to in any way amend the penal
statutes referring to polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, or the kindred
offenses, but it was called the Evans antipolygamy measure for the
reason that its purpose, as understood by the people and as claimed
by the author of the bill upon the floor of the senate, was to limit the
prosecution for certain classes of offenses.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Give us a reference to the place where the
author stated that on the floor.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; it is in current publications of the News.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Never mind.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 have the papers here if 3^011 desire the citation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not want to interrupt you now. I thought
you had it there.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have it here.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you say 1891?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did and corrected it to 1901.

This measure was not very extensively referred to in its editorial
columns by the Deseret News, as I now recall, prior to its passage.
There were, however, in the public press of Utah interviews, or pur-
ported interviews, with various apostles of the church. 1 think some
five or six of them were interviewed upon the question of their atti-
tude with reference to this measure. It had by that time stirred up
a very great deal of opposition among the non-Mormons, not only in
the State but outside the State, so that the press of the country to a
very large extent were discussing the measure and its supposed effect
upon the question of the observance of the law in Utah in regard to
polygamy and kindred offenses.

In these purported interviews, which appeared in some of the local
papers in Salt Lake, none of the apostles of the church, so far as they
were quoted in the papers, was opposed to the bill. Two of them,
President Snow and Joseph F. Smith, as I recall, were in favor of the
bill and others were noncommittal, Apostle Smoot, as I recall, stating
that he proposed to leave it to the good sense of the legislature.

The ministerial association, which is understood to be an association
of the evangelical ministers who reside at Salt Lake City, took up the
matter quite vigorously, and a very great many interviews, both from
Mormons and non- Mormons, were published in the local press, giving
their views with respect to the advisability of the passage of such a
measure. This was before its passage. The proceedings upon the floor
of the senate, where the bill originated, and also in the house, were
featured very extensively in the press. So it became a very burning
and vital question. Senator Rawlins, at that time in the Senate,
expressed himself in an interview as to the advisabilit}7 of it.

Senator HOPKINS. The State senate?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The United States Senate. Doctor Paden, one of
the signers of the protest, and one of the leaders of the ministerial
association, also expressed himself in an interview.

BEED 8MOOT. 581

The measure passed, however, and after some little time had elapsed —
I do not remember the number of days — and while this agitation and
these interviews were being published and the matter was being ex-
tensively advertised throughout the country, the governor finally
vetoed the act. After it was vetoed it failed to receive the requisite
number of votes in either house of the legislature in order to insure
its passage, and, in fact, some of those who had supported the bill in
the senate, and I believe also in the house, voted to sustain the veto
instead of sustaining the bill.

Senator BEVERIDGE. There was a vote taken on it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How many votes were there for the passage
of the bill over the governor's veto?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I would have to refer to the memorandum to tell
that,

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you remember about ? It is not necessary
to be scientifically accurate. What was the proportion? What did
the bill pass by originally — what were the proportions?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the senate, as 1 now remember, it was 11 affirm-
ative and 7 negative. In the house, as I recollect it, it was 25
affirmative and some 12 negative.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How many Mormons were there in the senate ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think 12 or 13, perhaps.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In the senate?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How many non-Mormons ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The remaining number out of 18.

Senator BEVERIDGE. When it came to passing the bill over the gov-
ernor's veto, do you remember substantially how the vote was ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; I can not give that. I have not charged
my mind with it, having it directly at hand in a memorandum.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Have you it conveniently there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Let us have it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I observe that when the bill was passed in the
house it was by a vote of 25 In the affirmative to 17 in the negative
In the issue of March 15, 1901, which was the day succeeding the day
when the veto of the governor was given-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. The issue of what?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Of the Salt Lake Herald. I observe it is stated
that the senate would sustain the veto by a vote of 11 to 7, and it
gives interviews with the members stating their attitude upon the
question. I think I can get the number —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I suppose the law required a two- thirds vote in
each house to override the veto?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If you can not find it easily, pass it by.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I will endeavor to get it and place it in the record.

Senator BEVERIDGE. The governor vetoed the bill?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Was he a Mormon or a non-Mormon ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A Mormon.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were any Mormon votes cast against the bill
in the house?

582 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Some gentiles voted for the bill?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. What was the feeling in the country at the time
of the vetoj Were there any expressions outside of Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the press.

Senator OVERMAN. What was the general sentiment all over the
United States, so far as you could gather?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The sentiment over the United States, so far as I
could gather from the press, was that it was recognized as being a
measure which had been intended to further the practice of polygamy
and that it was a very proper and man!}7 act on the part of the gov-
ernor to veto it, although —

Senator OVERMAN. Prior to the time when he vetoed it, was there
any indignation expressed or aroused in the country generally?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Very largely.

Senator OVERMAN. That is the point I want to get at.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you a copy of the veto?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Here?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would give us the reason assigned. Is
the veto lengthy ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. About a half column.

The CHAIRMAN. Does he assign any reason?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Read that portion of it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Very well.

"In my opinion nothing can be clearer than that this bill, if passed,
would be welcomed and employed as a most effective weapon against
the very classes whose condition it is intended to ameliorate. Further-
more, I have eveiy reason to believe its enactment would be the signal
for a general demand upon the National Congress for a constitutional
amendment, directed solely against certain social conditions here, a
demand which, under the circumstances* would assuredly be complied
with. While it may be urged that in any event only the few could be
made to suffer, is it not an odious thought, repulsive to every good
citizen of whatsoever creed or party, that the whole State should thus
be put under a ban?"

The CHAIRMAN. If the counsel desire it the veto message will be
inserted in the record. I think that would be better.

The copy of the veto message of the governor, as found in the Salt
Lake City Herald of Friday, March 15, 1901, is as follows:

To the Senate:

I have the honor to return herewith, without approval, Senate bill
No. 119, "An. act amending section 4611 of the Revised Statutes of
Utah, 1898, in relation to the making of complaints and commencing
of prosecutions in criminal cases."

No official act of my life has been approached by me with a sense of
responsibility so profound as is involved in the consideration of this
bill. It is a measure of the supremest importance, and in its conse-
quences for good or ill it easily surpasses any other proposition that
ever came before this Commonwealth for legislative and executive

KEED SMOOT. . 583

determination. It has been argued in both branches of the assembly
with splendid force and ability, while its provisions have doubtless
been eagerly discussed in the remotest hamlet of our State. With due
allowance for the exaggerations that may be expected from those who
warmly support and from those who with equal warmth antagonize
the measure I accord to all of them, without any reservation what-
ever, full credit for absolute sincerity, breadth of sympathy, and a
desire for the public welfare, which of themselves render it a note-
worthy and unique piece of proposed legislation.

But these conditions only serve to make the responsibility of the
executive the more weighty, and I could have wished to be spared the
test. Nevertheless, the recollection of my oath of office, the require-
ments of my duty as I understand it, and the convictions of my own
best judgment and my conscience unite in demanding of me that I
withhold approval from this bill. If 1 know myself, I can sincerely
say that I am anxious that the very best and wisest thing shall be done
in respect to all matters that have vexed us so much in times past.
And knowing this whole people as I do, it is my firm conviction that
whatever the present feeling may be, they will be sincerely grateful
in the days to come if this measure is not written upon the statute
books.

The patience, loyalty, and conservatism of our citizens are so widely
recognized that only by the passage of such a bill as this can their rep-
utation be injured. The broad-minded and intelligent everywhere
accept the situation here as it exists, and are content to let time com-
plete the solution of the problem. Even the bigoted and the meddle-
some have to admit that with some exceptions the conduct and integrity
of the people are above reproach.

In my opinion nothing can be clearer than that this bill, if passed,
would be. welcomed and employed as a most effective weapon against
the very classes whose condition it is intended to ameliorate. Fur-
thermore, I have every reason to believe its enactment would be the
signal for a general demand upon the National Congress for a constitu-
tional amendment directed solely against certain social conditions here,
a demand which, under the circumstances, would assuredly be com-
plied with. While it may be urged that in any event only the few could
be made to suffer, is it not an odious thought, repulsive to every good
citizen, of whasotever creed or party, that the whole State should thus
be put under a ban ?

Surely there is none so selfish and unpatriotic as to argue that this
is preferable to the endurance of a few isolated instances of prosecu-
tion—unbacked as they are by either respectable moral support or
sympathy. All of us can readily recall the conditions of the past as
compared with those of to-day. In the shortest memory still remain
instances, incidents of that distressing period shortly before statehood,
during which so much sorrow and bitterness stalked through our com-
munity. Of still more recent date — no longer than two years ago —
another outburst was threatened, and to some extent was manifested;
but as a termination of the first came concession and amnesty and
evidences of good faith and at length statehood, in which everybody
rejoiced, and while, as a result of the second, the sun of our prosperity
was for a time obscured, the clouds at length have rolled away and
Utah, united, hopeful, and vigorous, is marching bravely forward to
the music of Union.

584 REED RMOOT.

I yield to no one in affection for those of my people who from the
highest motives and because they believed it a divine command entered
into the relation of plural marriage. Born and reared in Utah, myself
a product of that marriage system, taught from infancy to regard my
lineage as approved of the Almighty, and proud to-day, as I have ever
been, of my heritage, it will be granted, I trust, that every instinct of
my nature reaches out to shield my friends from harm and to protect
them from unjust attack. Their cause is my cause, and when they are
hurt I am hurt, for I am part of them. But in that same heart which
is filled with S3anpathy for them I find also the solemn feeling that this
bill holds out only a false hope of protection, and that in offering a
phantom of relief to a few, it in reality invites a deluge of discord and
disaster upon all.

For these reasons, briefly and imperfectly stated, and for many
others which might be given at length, I am unable to approve the
bill now before me.

Very respectfully, • HEBER M. WELLS,

Governor.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. At the time when it was pending before the gov-
ernor, very prominent non-Mormons, both members of the ministerial
association and others, appealed to the governor in the interest of the
citizens of the State to veto the measure, practically upon the grounds
as stated by the governor in the message which I have read.

After the measure had passed, and while it was in the hands of the
governor for action, there appeared an editorial in the Deseret News,
I think under date of March 12, 1901, and then after the veto message,
which was on the 14th, there were numerous editorials in the Deseret
News upholding the bill and contending in favor of the wisdom of that
class of legislation, and of this bill in particular.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And the members of the legislature did not
respond to the views of the church as expressed through the News?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did the church authorities favor this bill?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Those of the church authorities who expressed
themselves did.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Some expressed themselves and some did not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know of none of the authorities who expressed
themselves against it.

Senator BETERIDGE. Some of them expressed themselves for it and
some did not express themselves ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You say the governor was a Mormon?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did those church authorities express themselves
to the governor also?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no means of knowing that.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If they did, he did not heed it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know what expression —

Senator BEVERIDGE. He vetoed the bill, anyhow?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is the contention of the prosecution here, that
the Deseret News is the organ of the church and that the church,
through the News, insisted that the bill should be passed over the veto.

REED SMOOT. 585

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The next legislature after the one to which I have
referred was the legislature of 1903, by which Senator Smoot was
elected. The campaign which led up to this election was made by
Senator Smoot from rather an early date, politically speaking, he hav-
ing announced himself as early as the summer of 1902; and it was gen-
erally understood and conceded throughout the State that Senator
Smoot would, in all human probability, be the next United States Sen-
ator provided the Republicans should be successful in electing a major-
ity of the legislature of 1903.

That, however, aroused a great deal of opposition upon the part of
those who were in any manner participating in partisan politics in the
Republican party, and was, in at least one or two cases, the subject of
quite sharply defined issues at the political convention. It was so in
Salt Lake City, where the Republican convention for the nomination
of members of the legislature was held for that particular district.

The Republicans were sucessful, and the ticket was elected, and
immediately upon that, and even I think before election, certainly
immediately after the election, there was very determined opposition
upon the part of the Ministerial Association, and very determined
expressions of opinion upon the part of non-Mormons, and Mormons
as well, upon the question as to the propriety of the election of Apostle
Smoot to the Senate of the United States. This was expressed both
in print and in private conversation. Of course I can not recall-, and
I do not believe that it would be found, that any of the members of
the legislature or any members of the Mormon Church expressed
themselves in print in respect to that matter; but it was well known
to all of us that his candidacy evoked a very wide opposition among
what may be called the lay members of the Mormon Church. Many
of those who were elected upon the Republican ticket to the legisla-
ture expressed themselves with more or less openness in opposition to
the idea of an apostle going to the United States Senate. Of my own
knowledge 1 have knowledge of only two such, but that was under-
stood to be the attitude of quite a number of those who were elected.
The Ministerial Association in November, over the signature of its
secretary — •

Mr. VAN COTT. The year, please.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1902; published an address in which it charged
that a majority of the members of the quorum of the first presidency
and twelve apostles were living in open defiance of the law, and inter-
views were sought, as appeared by the public press at that time, with
Mr. Smoot upon the question. ' It was stated in some of these press
articles-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. It does seem to me that when we get down to
what Mr. Smoot is alleged to have said, if we are not to have the evi-
dence of the person to whom he made the statement, we ought at least
to have the statement itself, and not have hearsay in a double degree.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Critchlow, have you the statement?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I have the statement.

Mr. TAYLER. I suggest that it is proper to produce a newspaper
which has an open challenge to Senator Smoot that if he wants proof
of the fact which he denies, it exists.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I deny the fact, and I object. Now that the
witness says he has the papers here, I object to his offering any of
them in evidence, on the ground that if Senator Smoot is to be charged

586 REED SMOOT.

here — and we have now reached something that everybody will see
may bear upon the case— with having made certain statements, we
should have here the persons to whom the statements are said to have
been made, in order that they may be cross-examined, because I am
authorized by Senator Smoot to say that most or all of these interviews
are falsehoods — that the interviews never took place, or if they did,
were incorrectly reported.

Let me say I dispute what my friend says that, because some news-
paper chooses to publish what it says a public man has said and chal-
lenges him to deny it, that is any evidence, by his not accepting a
newspaper challenge and entering into a controversy with it in its
columns or elsewhere, that he admits the charge. If that be so I
could prove, I suppose, that every member of the Senate has done
something in violation of law.

Mr. TAYLER. The thing I seek now to have presented to the com-
mittee is, that in a Salt Lake paper, published there in his neighbor-
hood and where he was which must have come to his attention or
which will be presumed to have come to his attention, was an article,
issued by the Ministerial Association, addressed to or intended for Mr.
Smoot and perhaps a copy of the letter which they said they had sent
to him, and referring to his denial of a certain thing and saying they
proffered to prove it to him. That may not be the absolute establish-
ment of the fact that that newspaper fell under Senator Smoot's eye.
But it- will not do for these gentlemen, or even for Mr. Smoot and the
people who profess not to know the thing all men are familiar with,
to say that it does not present a cogent representation, and such that
Mr. Smoot must have known, that that sort of a publication was made
before his eyes, and it called upon him, or did riot call upon him,
according to the view the committee may take of it, for some reply.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me ask the witness a question before we
proceed further. Will the witness tell us what the ministerial asso-
ciation is which has been so often referred to by the witness, and now
by counsel?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It seems, as 1 understand it, and as I am informed
by members of it and from their publications, to be an association of
evangelical or protestant ministers of the city of Salt Lake,, excepting,
however, the —

Mr. VAN COTT. There is no need to name them.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Excepting those of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
I think that is the only exception,

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It does not include the Roman Catholics or the
Episcopal Church or the Mormon Church ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It does not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Does it include all the others?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. So far as I am aware, it does. They have weekly
meetings, as 1 understand, to discuss general matters of interest to all
of them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If I understand what Mr. Tayler has just now
suggested, it goes to prove that there was published in the newspapers
something in the nature of accusations or charges by this association
of which Senator Smoot is supposed to have taken notice. That is not
what 1 was objecting to. What I was objecting to was what purported
to be interviews with Senator Smoot, either in reference to the charges
made by the association or anything else. I am not objecting to their

REED SMOOT. 587

showing that there were published in the newspapers charges against
Senator Smoot, if the committee think the time and the space here
may be occupied by proving that charges were made against a public
man in the newspapers, and that the making of the charges has a-ny
tendency to establish their correctness. What I do earnestly object
to is the introduction of newspaper interviews or what purport to be
interviews with Senator Smoot, as in the nature of admissions by him.

Mr. TAYLER. We do not want that. I do not ask it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well. Then the counsel did say that he
proposed to offer something in the nature of a challenge to Senator
Smoot, and I make the same objection to it — that because some news-
paper chooses to say " We accuse some public man of committing an
offense against the law, or doing something which might subject him
to expulsion from the office he holds, and we challenge him to deny it,"
and he does not take any notice of the newspaper publication, that
that is a thing which ought to be put in here and receive any considera-
tion whatever at the hands of the committee.

Here, for instance, are the Leilich charges. The Leilich charge is
one which was presented to the Senate, signed by Leilich only, in
which it is charged that Senator Smoot is a polygamist, that he has
plural wives, and it is charged that he has taken an oath as an apostle
inconsistent with his Senatorial oath. Those charges have been pub-
lished all over this country, and I presume it is true that Senator Smoot
has never taken any notice of them. And yet when we come here we
find that even the father of this charge will not come here and say he
ever has had any proof to justify the making of it, and counsel have
specificalty announced, from the beginning to the end, that so far as
they know there is no truth in either of those charges.

I am told that Mr. Leilich is a member of this ministerial association.
Is that true ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think not now. I think he was at that time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was at that time a member of the ministerial
association. He is one of the signers of both protests. He is one of the
nineteen, and then he also filed this individual protest of his own. So
there is a case of specific charges formally published against Senator
Smoot, published all over the country, which he has never deigned to
take notice of. And yet when we come to the facts of the case we find
that the charges are absolutely without foundation, and that there is
nobody who will come here and stand sponsor for them. If it is
charged that Senator Smoot has made admissions to anybod}^, let
those persons be brought here. The subpoena of the committee will
reach them whereever they may be. Let us have their statements,
made under oath, with the opportunity to cross-examine — the two
sure tests of the weight of testimony.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me read the heart of *this. This is the kind of a
statement —

The CHAIRMAN. 1 should like to ask a preliminary question before
you do t hat. You speak of a certain publication ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In a Salt Lake paper?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Charging Mr. Smoot with certain things?

Mr. TAYLER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is it?

588 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. I will read it and you will see.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That will put it in the record. Let us see what
it is.

Mr. TAYLER. Let me read this.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understand that this is not to go into the rec-
ord, and yet the stenographer is taking it down.

Senator FORAKER. Let us pass on the question before anything is
read.

Mr. TAYLER. Let the stenographer not take it down.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Can 3^011 not tell us what it is?

Senator FORAKER. Tell us whether what you propose to put in the
record would tend, Iry any other evidence, to bring it home to Mr.
Smoot in such way as to charge him with responsibility for it. If so,
it would be competent.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course we will, but the committee will see at once
that to a certain extent some responsibility may be laid upon Mr. Smoot
by this very thing.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Go ahead and read it. That will be shorter
and sweeter.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The reporter is still taking notes.

The CHAIRMAN. The reporter will not take this down.

By direction of the chairman the reporter at this point ceased to
report the proceedings for some minutes.

Senator FORAKER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe in conducting an
investigation with a stenographer to make a record and then keeping
anything that is said out of the record. I think everything ought to
go into the record. Something arises and some one suggests, "Now,
do not take this down," and it is not five minutes until what you had
the stenographer omit becomes absolutely essential to a proper under-
standing of what follows. Every word of this debate ought to have
been in the record, and I supposed it was in -the record.

Mr. TAYLER. I supposed it all was being taken down except my
quotation.

Senator FORAKER. No; that ought to have been put in the record,
too.

I want to suggest that hereafter when somebody suggests that the
stenographer "do not take this down," he wait until the committee
make a ruling before acting on that suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. The suggestion was made by Mr. Worthington.

Senator FORAKER. I do not know who made it.

The REPORTER. I did not stop taking notes until directed to do so
by the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Worthington, while the controversy was going
on about the admissibility of the evidence, protested against a record
being made of the discussion.

Mr. TAYLER. I want the reporter to get Mr. Worthington's state-
ment.

Senator FORAKER. I suggest that it all ought to go out down to this
point or it all ought to go in.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It can not go in because it has not been taken
down.

Senator FORAKER. Then expur^e everything from the point where
Mr. Tayler offered to read the article.

Mr. TAYLER. Now let me read it or insert it, just as the chairman
may see fit.

REED SMOOT. 589

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to read that?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to the reading of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Wait a moment. The Chair is inclined to exclude
it. I do not think it is permissible at this time.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course, the record now will not show what it is that
the Chair is excluding, or that the Chair is familiar with the subject
which he is excluding. All 1 want to get in the record here is the
statement Mr. .Worthington made that they themselves, as counsel,
and by the direction of their client, Senator Smoot, deny that Senator
Smoot gave out an interview.

"The CHAIRMAN. Then, that purports to be the statement of Mr.
Smoot, or is that the statement of the ministerial association?

Mr. TAYLER. That is the statement of the ministerial association.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything in it which purports to be a state-
ment by Mr. Smoot?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. This is the language, if the Chair will excuse me:

" Apostle Smoot, in his interview with the Telegram, recently pro-
fessed not to know whether any of the apostles were now practicing
polygamy."

Senator HOPKINS. Mr. Tayler, if Mr. Smoot were upon the witness
stand it might be proper for you to ask him if he had an interview of
the kind stated. But is it, as affirmative, independent evidence,
competent ?

Senator FORAKER. Certainly not, unless it is accompanied by the
statement of counsel that he will by other testimony connect it.

Mr. TAYLER. We expect to do that.

Senator FORAKER. The proper way to prove a matter of that kind
is to present the paper to the witness when he is on the stand and ask
him whether or not he made such a statement, and if he admits that
he made such a statement it is competent to go in.

Mr. TAYLER. There is not the slightest controversy about that. I
understand that the committee has ruled it to be incompetent.

Senator FORAKER. At this- stage of the proceeding.

Mr. TAYLER. But everything that occurs here ought to- go in the
record, as Senator Foraker has properly said. Now, I had a colloquy
with counsel here, which is just as much a part of this case as any-
thing that has happened. I said, "Does Senator Smoot deny that he
had this interview?" To which the counsel made reply that he did;
that they denied it for Senator Smoot and denied it on authority of
Senator Smoot.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Let me have the paper and I will put that in
the record.

Senator FORAKER. I did not want all this colloquy in the record
because I thought there was anything in it of special importance to
either side, but because it is necessary to be there in order that the
record may be intelligible to anyone reading it. Your colloquy gave
rise to certain questions, and then the colloquy does not appear.

However, I understand that counsel's statement has now been taken
down, and that it is to be accompanied by the statement of counsel for
Mr. Smoot that he denies that he ever made any such statement.

At 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m. the committee took a recess until
2 o'clock p. m.

590 REED SMOOT.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is ready to proceed.

Mr. TAYLER. I believe we had nothing pending except the witness.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

TESTIMONY OF E. B. CRITCHLOW— Continued.

E. B. CRITCHLOW, having been previously sworn, was examined and
.testified as follows:

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Chairman, there are two statements I desire
to make a slight correction upon. One is with reference to the edito-
rial utterances of the Deseret News in respect to the candidacy of Mr.
Thatcher in the fall of 1896. I stated, I think, that practically every
issue of the Deseret News contained editorial utterances on the subject.
Upon reference to memoranda I think that oifght to be qualified. Not
nearty every issue of the News, but a very great number of them,
from the time that Mr. Thatcher announced his candidacy up to the
time of the election, contained such editorial utterances.

Again, in speaking of the expressions of opinion as indicated in news-
paper interviews of the presidency and apostles of the church with
regard to the Evans bill, I said that Presidents Snow and Joseph F.
Smith declared themselves in favor of the bill. I should have said
President Joseph F. Smith and Apostle John Henry Smith. Upon
refreshing my recollection from memoranda, I find that President
Snow was noncommittal upon the subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Are those all the corrections you desire to make?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now will you proceed; and may I ask you to pro-
ceed as rapidly as }rou can?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir. I have only this further to say with
regard to the expressions of opinion and protests against the election
of Mr. Smoot, that in conversation as well as in the public prints, both
in Utah and elsewhere, the attention of the people was drawn to the
fact that the entry of an apostle into the political arena, clothed, as
the apostolate and presidency of the church are recognized as being
clothed, with such tremendous power in the State of Utah, a power
which extends into the most minute details of religion and business
and politics, was such as could not be tolerated under our system of
government, and that was the objection to Mr. Smoot.

I think I ought to say in that connection that never at any time, so
far as I am aware, were the personal qualifications of Mr. Smoot or
his fitness, outside of his relations to the presidency and apostolate of
the church, brought into question by anyone.

Senator DILLINGHAM. May I inquire, in that connection, who was
responsible for this form of petition that was sent broadcast from over
the country ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You are referring to the protest?

Senator DILLINGHAM. I am referring to the petitions that have come
into the Senate from every State and almost every town in the coun-
try protesting against the seating of Mr. Smoot.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can only speak from information, and that is to
the effect that it is due to the concerted action of certain organizations

REED SMOOT. 591

of women, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the Interna-
tional Congress of Mothers, or some such organization as that, and, I
think, the Interdenominational Council of Women, if I have the name
correctly, but I speak only from information on that subject, there
being no organization among the protestants or any efforts of an3^ kind
made by the protestants.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Did the ministerial association have any thing
to do with that, so far as you know?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know nothing about it, but I assume from the
general situation that as far as possible they were in sympathy with
and probably forwarding certain of the petitions. I may say, Senator,
there were certain of the petitions forwarded which I think practically
all of the non-Mormons of Utah deprecated; that is, those charging, in
express terms, Mr. Smoot with being a polygamist. 1 do not know that
I saw any such petitions, but I heard there were such circulated; and,
speaking again only from information and belief, I would hardly think
that any of the members of the ministerial association were engaged
in forwarding those petitions or sympathized with them, that not
being understood to be the basis of the protest.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You do not understand, then, that Mr. Smoot
himself is a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no understanding upon the question as a
matter of fact at all.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Well, you understand he is not; do you not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I would like to be precise upon that subject. My
understanding is largely a matter of deduction. I have known Mr.
Smoot fairly well for a number of years, and I never heard him
charged with being a polygamist.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You have spoken quite freely here of general
repute and general opinion and a whole lot of other things with which
you seemed to be extreme^ familiar.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is it of general repute that Mr. Smoot is a
pol}7gamist or not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It is not of general repute that he is a polygamist.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection I wish to ask you, if it is not
objectionable, you were one of the gentlemen who signed this remon-
strance ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state to the committee who the other gen-
tlemen are, if you know them ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know them all.

The CHAIRMAN. Just state in a general way who they are. The
names are already before the committee, but I want to know where
they live and who they are.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Dr. W. M. Paden is the pastor of the First Pres-
byterian Church of Salt Lake City, and has been for some three or four
years. He formerly was pastor of the French Mission Church in the
Latin quarter in Paris and of the Holland Memorial Church in Phila-
delphia. He is a graduate of Princeton Universit}^.

P. L. Williams is the general counsel of the Oregon Short Line
Railroad Company in Utah and the Western States.

Mr. E. W. Wilson is the cashier of the Commercial National Ban!
and has been a resident of Salt Lake for twelve or fourteen }^ears.

592 REP1D SMOOT.

*

Mr. C. C. Goodwin was for some twenty years the editor of the
Salt Lake Tribune and was formerly from California and Nevada.

Mr. W. A. Nelden is the president of the Nelden-Judson Drug Com-
pany, a wholesale drug company doing business in Utah and the West-
ern States.

These gentlemen all reside at Salt Lake City, or did at that time.

Dr. Clarence T. Brown was at that time pastor of the Congrega-
tional Church at Salt Lake City; now at San Diego, Cal.

Ezra Thompson is a native of Utah, a mining man, and has just
concluded his second term as mayor of Salt Lake City. He was born
in Utah, as I remember it.

J. J. Corum is a real estate man. He has been a resident of Utah
for some sixteen years, and is a man whose business, I think, is largely
concerned with real estate.

George R. Hancock is a mining superintendent and has resided in
Utah since 1880.

W. Mont. Ferry is a nephew of the late Senator Thomas W. Ferry,
of Michigan, and is a mining man.

J. L. Leilich was at that time, as I understand, the superintendent
of the missions in Utah of the Methodist Episcopal Church. I under-
stand he is now in California, but I know him very slightly.

Mr. W ORTHINGTON. He is the same man who put in a separate
remonstrance charging polygamy ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is; yes, sir.

Harry C. Hill* was upon the staff of General Butler in the late war.
He was a mining man and is now retired, a capitalist.

C. E. Allen is general manager or superintendent, I do not know
which, of the United States Mining Company, a large mining corpo-
ration. Mr. Allen originally went to Utah as a professor.

Mr. TAYLER. He was a member of Congress — the first Repre-
sentative ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was the first Representative to Congress under
statehood.

Mr. George M. Scott is not now a resident of Salt Lake. He resides
in San Francisco. He was for a great many years the head of George
M. Scott & Co., a large wholesale and retail hardware establishment.
1 think he has retired from business.

S. H. Lewis was at one time an assistant United States attorne}% and
is now the standing master in chancery of the United States circuit
court for our district.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the last?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Samuel H. Lewis. He is the standing master
in chanceiy of the United States circuit court for our district.

Mr. H. G. McMillan is a capitalist and mining man.

Abiel Leonard was, up to the time of his death, in November last,
the bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, diocese of Utah.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Who got this protest up, Mr. Critchlow?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The material of it was supplied in large part by
Doctor Paden, and it was written, so far as the form of it and the con-
necting matter, etc. , was concerned, by nryself .

Senator BEVERIDGE. Who got the signatures to it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You got up the protest, then, practically ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; to the extent I have suggested.

REED SMOOT. 593

Senator BEVERIDGE. You are a lawyer, are you not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am.

Senator BEVEKIDGE. What is your firm?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Up to the first of the year it was Pierce, Critchlow
£ Bar ret te. It is now Henderson, Pierce, Critchlow & Barrettc.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed with your narrative, Mr. Critch-
low, if you have anything further to say.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think I have nothing further to say, except —

Senator BEVERIDGE. What is your business connection with Mr.
Rawlins ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I was his law partner for six years.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were you his partner at the time of his last
election to the United States Senate ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; we dissolved our partnership when he
came to Washington as Senator.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You had been partner with him up to that
time ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. For six years prior to that tiioe.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Rawlins was defeated for the Senate by
Mr. Smoot?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, I hardly would say-
Senator BEVERIDGE. He was a candidate, was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was a candidate in a legislature which was
Republican.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Of course; but he was a candidate before the
legislature, and so was Mr. Smoot?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And Mr. Smoot got the votes?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Rawlins got 6 votes and Mr. Smoot got —

Senator BEVERIDGE. Got the remainder?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not all the remainder; nearly all.

Senator BEVERIDGE. At least, Mr. Smoot was the successful man
and Mr. Rawlins did not return ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is what 1 mean when I -say Mr. Smoot
got the votes That is the ordinary expression.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further, Mr. Critchlow ?

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Critchlow, }7ou may state what was the general
history and movement of opinion growing out of the fact, if it was a
fact, publicly proclaimed, that Mr. Smoot had received the consent of
his associates in the church to become a candidate for the Senate.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The opinion among the non-Mormons and a very
large number of the Mormons was that in the event that men who
were of the general authorities of the church, such as the presidency
and twelve apostles, were to become candidates for the United States
Senate, there was no opportunity amongst the lay members of the
church, so to speak, to ever aspire to any high office, for the reasop
that it would be understood that consent given under the circumstances,
as it must necessarily be given by those in the quorum, would be
equivalent to the practical indorsement of the presidency and twelve
apostles, and that no member of the Mormon Church would ever dare
to aspire to political preferment in opposition to the men holding such
positions.

s 38

594 REED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Now, in reference to that. You say " Dare to
aspire?"

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What would happen to them if they did dare
to aspire? Suppose some member of the Mormon Church did dare to
aspire, what would happen?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He would undoubtedly be dealt with if he persisted
in his political canvass in opposition to the will of the members of the
higher quorum. He would undoubtedly be dealt with for his fellow-
ship as being out of harmony.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What do you mean by being dealt with?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I mean he would be called in question as being one
who is out of harmony, and who is not disposed to take counsel from
those who are above him.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You are speaking, now, of a member of the
church as well as an officer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Of a member as well as an officer.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Still, what could be done with him? Out of
harmony, you say. What would be done with him ? Would he be
punished ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He would be disfellowshipped from the church
and ostracised from the society of those who were formerly his core-
ligionists.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you know of anyone who is not an officer
who has been excommunicated from the church ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know a great many persons who have been
excommunicated from the church for being out of harmony with it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. For the offense of independent political action?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not at this moment recollect any one indi-
vidual man for independent political action, but in business.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you speak from knowledge or just from
general vague report?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I speak from this sort of knowledge, Senator, that
there are a great many men throughout the State who are known as
being no longer members of the church and as having been cut off for
this or that or the other thing, for obstinacy for carrying on a certain
line of business conduct contrary to the counsel of their superiors.

Senator BEVERIDGE. As for example, now.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As for example, the Walker Brothers; as for
example, Eli B. Kelsey,

Senator BEVERIDGE. I think this is very serious. Let us hear about
Walker Brothers and Kelsey. What was there about them?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. These are comparatively old matters, Senator.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Well, what about them ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Walker Brothers refused, as I understand it, and
as the report is, to comply with the wishes of the leaders of the church
in regard to the carrying on of mining operations. It was the
policy-
Senator BEVERIDGE. What did the church want them to do?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The church wanted them, as I understand the facts,
to cease to engage in mining operations for the reason that it was not
the policy of the leaders of the church at that time to open up the
mineral resources of the State, for the reason that it would bring in
non-Mormons.

REED SMOOT. 595

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were these people Mormons?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They were Mormons.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And they continued to open up the mining
resources ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What happened to them 4

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They were cut off from the church.

Senator BEVERIDGE. They are not Mormons now?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They are not Mormons now. There are hut two
of them living.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You say you understood so. From whom did
37ou understand it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. From the current history of the State. These
things happened before I came to the State.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Are there any writings on those subjects?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; those matters have been reduced to print
many times.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you mean in the newspapers ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; controversial writings on the subject,
occurring through a great many years.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Now, you have given one instance. We have
something specific. What is the other instance?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The instance of Mr. Eli B. Kelsey.

Senator BEVERIDGE. First of all, how long ago was this instance
you have mentioned?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That, if I am correct, occurred in the early sixties.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Oh, well, let us have something of modern
history.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The latest information I have is in regard to the
Brigham City —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I submit we ought to have something since the
manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness had stated that these were old matters.

Senator BEY BRIDGE. I know, but he had formerly stated that this
was the general rule. He has given one instance that occurred forty
years ago. I want him to give another one.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Up at Brigham City, according to my informa-
tion— and my information is information only, not my own knowl-
edge— within the past year there has been a controversy between the
leaders of the church in that particular stake and many of the mem-
bers of the church with regard to certain municipal affairs. The presi-
dent of the stake —

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is this a business transaction you are going to
tell about?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. All right.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The president of the stake, Mr. Charles Kelly,
desired to have the municipal corporation of Brigham City become
interested in an electric-lighting plant, and for that purpose if the
Senator will permit me, I would like to refer to some memoranda I
have on that, because I was careful to put my information in the form
of memoranda.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Oh, you expected this, then ? Go ahead and
get your memoranda.

596 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. If he has a memorandum, he has ti e right to refer
to it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Of course. It is very interesting.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where is Brigham City, by the way?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Brigham City is in Boxelder County.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is in Utah ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In Utah.

The people of Brigham City wanted to own their own electric -light
plant, and a private corporation there which was engaged in the
electric-lighting business induced President Kelly to favor this by
offering him a present of 1,000 shares of stock. Kelly then told the
mayor of the city that he had had a revelation on the subject; that he
was right, and that God had told him that the city ought to be lighted
by a private company, of which he, Kelly, should be the president.
This matter was brought up at a meeting at the tabernacle at which
were present the mayor, Mr. Bowden, Apostle Clawson, Peter Knud-
son, a member of the city council; Isaac A. Jenson, a member of the
council, and J. P. Christiansen, a member of the council. This was
called, as I understand it, on Sunday afternoon to pass a resolution
which Apostle Rudger Clawson and Kelly had presented to them upon
this subject.

The people had an election upon the subject and, without going into
details, a very acrid controversy arose between the authorities of the
church and the people, and for the offense of standing in opposition to
the priesthood on the subject of a municipal lighting plant a number of
the people in Brigham Cit}^ were brought up before the high council
and lectured and tried for their fellowship.

Again, in that same stake, they had an amusement association. It
was a matter —

Senator BEVERIDGE. Before you go into that — I am very much inter-
ested. This is an interesting incident. You read from memoranda
there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Where did you get the information?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. This memoranda came to me from the city attor-
ney of Brigham City.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Who is he?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. B. H. Jones.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is he Mormon or non-Mormon ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not say whether he is in good standing as a
member or not. He is of Mormon parentage.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How was he in this controversy?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was against the action of these ecclesiastical
authorities.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So he told you and wrote out a memorandum
from which you testify that this man said he had a revelation from
the Lord on the subject of a municipal lighting plant?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He did not write out the memoranda. I wrote
out the memoranda. •

Senator BEVERIDGE. From what he told you?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. From an extended conversation; yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that you are giving to the committee here
as one of the instances what a gentleman told you and what you then
reduced to writing?

REED SMOOT. 597

Mr. CRITCIILOW. That is true, but is not all of the facts, if I may be
allowed, Senator.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Certainly.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. This is a matter of very great notoriety in that
part of the country, and the accurate information in regard to it I
was attempting to get from one whom 1 thought would be accurate.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Of course I have observed the testimony all
the morning in regard to general notoriety and current history and all
that sort of thing, all of which is more or less vague; but that is spe-
cific. Details are to the point and are of interest. The reason of my
question is to see whether there was something you knew yourself or
something you had heard of, and if you had heard of it from some-
body, whether it was from an interested person.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was from the city attorne}^ of Brigham Cit}T,
who was a part of the controversy.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Was he present at that meeting?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know whether he was or not.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Where did he get it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did not ask him that. I have my supposition on
the matter.

Senator BEVERIDGE. As a citizen of Utah, do you yourself believe
that anybody out there told the common council that they had a reve-
lation from the Lord on an electric-light plant?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have not the slightest doubt of it, Senator; not
the slightest doubt in the world.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the next incident you were about to mention?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The other incident is one about which a great deal
has been written in the papers in Utah, in Salt Lake City, and in Brigham
City — a matter of very great notoriety — and has been commented upon
by the Deseret News editorially, and refers to the action of the authoi-
ities in BrighUin City in cutting off from the church members of the
church for going to a certain dance hall to dances, contrary to the
counsel of the priesthood. As 1 say, it is rather a long story. 1 had
not thought of venturing to weaiy the committee with the relation of
all these matters.

Mr. TAYLER. Before you go on, do you mean they were cut off
because they went to a dance hall because dancing was wrong?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all, but because it was a dance hall that was
not favored by the authorities of that State.

Mr. TAYLER. Why not favored — because it was an immoral place?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all, but because it was run by people who
wrere not in favor of the priesthood. They were members of the
church, but they had ventured—

Senator DILLINGHAM. That incident was referred to b}^ President
Smith the other day.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; that is the one about which I inquired of President
Smith. I only wanted to eliminate any question of whether a moral
question was involved in it.

Senator OVERMAN. Do they have theii»own dance halls?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do you mean the people in these various com-
munities?

Senator OVERMAN. The church itself?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not the church; the church as an organization of
the church body has no dance halls that I am aware of.

598 REED SMOOT.

Senator OVERMAN. They have dance halls that the church encour-
ages against other dance halls directed by other people?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; I hardly think so. This matter of the dance
hall in Brigham City, or rather the controversy, arose over the dance
hall, not because it was a dance hall, but because the business enter-
prise which was here in question happened to be a dance-hall enter-
prise or an amusement-company enterprise.

Mr. TAYLER. Had the church an opera house or something of that
sort down there ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The church had an interest, as I understand it, in
an opera house that was in opposition to this amusement company. I
ought to say, I think, for my own sake, that I had not at all expected
to speak of this, and therefore had not refreshed my recollection from
the memoranda, of which there is an abundance upon this subject.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said for these things the members were cut
off. What do }^ou mean by ' ' cut off ? " Do you mean excommunicated ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; disfellowshipped. As the expression goes in
that community, the right hand of fellowship is withdrawn from them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Does that mean they are out of the church
altogether, or in some sort of suspended state ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The understanding we have in the community is
that they are cut off from the church and out of the church from
that on.

The CHAIRMAN. This related to a business enterprise?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You say it was reported that Mr. Smoot in his can-
didacy for the Senate had received the indorsement of the church or
the church authorities — the consent of the church authorities?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How general was that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Why, it was absolute!}? unanimous', so far as I
know. There never was any question about it, and it appeared in a
public interview of Mr. Smoot's, and was never questioned.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I move to strike that out and leave it out of
the record. I understood we reached that conclusion before the
recess — that what was published in the prints about interviews with
Senator Smoot would not be competent evidence to go into this record.

The CHAIRMAN. My question was as to the general repute.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was understood as going without question, as
being a fact which must of necessity exist, because under the rules
and practice of the church he could not become a candidate without
obtaining the consent.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it or not generally understood that he had
received such consent?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It certainly was generally so understood.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Let me ask you a question or two, if you
please. I assume — if I am not right, you can tell me — that the mem-
bers of the Mormon Church usually accept the so-called revelations
when their superiors give the*m. Is that correct, do I understand?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Speaking as a practical matter, Senator, I say that
they do accept them in the sense that they act in accordance with them,
whether as a matter of conscience and belief—

Senator BEVERIDGE. I mean as far as their actions are concerned.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

KEED SMOOT. 599

Senator BEVERIDGE. You further state that there was a revelation
from this mayor, was it — that the mayor got a revelation on the sub-
ject of electric lighting, which he laid before the council?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Pardon me. I said the president of the stake.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Well, the president of the stake; it is the same
thing. And the whole matter then occasioned a ver}^ bitter controversy
between the president of the stake and the people on this subject of
electric lighting?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How do you reconcile that with the people
accepting in their actions these revelations which you say it is their
custom to do ? They did not accept it in that instance, did they ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do you ask for nry explanation of the fact?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In this particular case they went before the people
and the people refused to take the revelation from Mr. Kelly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 assume that is the explanation to be made.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Evident^ the people did not think Mr. Kelly's
revelation was valid in that instance on electric lighting.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that is so. I might say in this connec-
tion-
Senator BEVERIDGE. The reason I asked that, Mr. Critchlow, is
because although you said you stated this upon the information of the
district attorney up there, you yourself believed it as a citizen of Utah.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Pardon me. I did not say that 1 believed that he
had had a revelation or that they accepted it —

Senator BEVERIDGE. No; that you believed the occurrence.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I believed the occurrence as to the fact that Mr.
Kelly would state to these people that he had a revelation or that it
was the will of the Lord that such and such things be done. I have
not the slightest doubt that that thing might happen.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You said you had no doubt it did happen.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. What 1 meant to say by that is —

Senator BEVERIDGE. It amounts to the same thing. There is no
use splitting hairs.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. What I meant to say was that there was nothing
incredible about that sort of a statement.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Very well.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Critchlow, there is nothing I recall now to ask you
on this general subject of political influence. Is there anything you
have to say in that connection?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I only have this to say, that I have not attempted
in any way to make an}^ exhaustive statement as to the effect or extent
of the element of the interference by church authorities, either in bus-
iness or political affairs. I merely spoke of one or two things here.
There are many things, of course, which are within my general knowl-
edge as a member of that community and of which I could only speak
as a member of the community. There are many of these things that
are within the direct knowledge of very many persons who could
undoubted^ be brought to speak of them, but I have not attempted to
go into such matters as that. There are very many matters, too, I may
say, with regard to the direct interference of minor officials of the
church in political affairs which ought not, I think, be traced or laid

600 REED SMOOT.

at the door of the leading authorities of the church any further than
the leading authorities of the church are understood to be responsible
for the general practices and course of conduct in the church. I might
refer, and I do refer, in that particular, to such minor matters as the
influence of the voters in a certain locality by church officials, as such.

Senator DILLINGHAM. To what?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The influence brought to bear upon the voters in
any subdivision or locality by leaders of the church, as such, in the way
of giving counsel as to the proper method of casting their ballots. 1
say those would be matters pertaining to a particular localit}T, and
which ought not be brought home to the general authorities of the
church any further than the}7 might be argued to be responsible for
that course of conduct which grows out of the giving of counsel in
matters of that sort.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Critchlow, one question: Under the constitu-
tion of the State of Utah, are there some general officers designated
and appointed by the legislature, do }7ou know?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not now recall such officers. There are quite a
number of officers who are appointed by the governor and confirmed
by the senate.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I asked is that it has been stated here in
some way that officers in the State government are appointed by the
legislature. I want to know whether }7ou know that to be the fact or
not, whether there are any such ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not recall any officers now appointed by the
legislature, save their own officers while they are in session.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You helped prepare this case, did you not,
with Mr. Tayler?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Only since 1 have been here, since I arrived in
Washington; not at all before that.

Senator BEVERIDGE. It is perfectly proper for you to do so, of course.
You are not employed ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived in Salt Lake City?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Continuously since 1883.

Mr. TAYLER. Over twenty years. During the past six or eight
years what has been the general repute of Joseph F. Smith, the presi-
dent of the church, as to living with plural wives?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That he is a polygamist and that he is living in
the practice of his faith as a polygamist, living with his wives, in
cohabitation with them.

Mr. TAYLER. As to Francis M. Lyman?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am hardly able to say with regard to him in the
communit}^ of Salt Lake specially, because his home was supposed to
be for a number of years in Tooele.

Mr. TAYLER. I want to know if he has a general reputation there in
that respect If he has, say so; and if he has not, say so.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He has the general reputation of being a polyga-
mist, as all the apostles have of living with their wives where they
are polyganiists.

Mr. TAYLER. All the apostles, do you mean?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. All the apostles who are polygamists.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I suppose the others live with their wives, too.

REED SMOOT. 601

Mr. TATTLER. John Henry Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The same as regards him.

Mr. TAYLER. John W. Taylor?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The same.

Mr. TAYLER. Apostle Merrill?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The same.

Mr. TAYLER. Heber Grant?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The same.

Mr. TAYLER. M. F. Cowley?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The same.

Mr. TAYLER. Brigham Young, jr., before he died?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 am unable to say with regard to Brigham Young,
jr., because, according to my present recollection, he was away from
the State considerable of the time.

Mr. TAYLER. Cowley?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Cowley you asked me about; the same with regard
to him.

Mr. TAYLER. Teasdale?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 am unable to say that there was any general
reputation with regard to Mr. Teasdale.

Mr. TAYLER. How many judges are there of the nisi prius courts in
Utah?

The CHAIRMAN. Before you get to that, Mr. Tayler, may I ask on
question ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. How general is this reputation as to the apostles ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I would say as general as the reputation of any
person with reference to his status as to being a married or an unmar-
ried man.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. How many judges?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Ten, as I now remember it.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know how many of them are non-Mormons ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can tell you upon a moment's reflection. I have
not the data at hand.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not know as to the history. We will find that
out otherwise. I would rather have that all complete, beginning with
the constitution and running on down. You may inquire, gentlemen.
We will take that up later.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I want to ask one question. You said you got
up this protest and that you secured the signatures to it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How did you happen to do that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It happened in this way. Before the Roberts mat-
ter was on before the House of Representatives, I was applied to by
my friend, Doctor Paden, who was a college mate of mine, to assist him
in getting up the protest. I wrote the protest in the Roberts case.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who did you say?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Doctor Paden, the first signer of this protest. I
wrote the protest and advised the committee as to the proper method,
in my judgment, of getting it before the House of Representatives.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is, in the Roberts case?

602 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the Koberts case.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were you employed in that case?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all. I never received any employment in
any of these matters.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is all right.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. When this matter came up he again applied to me
and said that he was one of the committee of the ministerial associa-
tion; and again, as a matter of general interest as a citizen, I took the
matter up and studied over it considerabty, and with him drafted this
protest. It was then to have been submitted as a protest from the
ministerial association. I stated to him that, on account of the preju-
dices which had been engendered in the State against the ministerial
association — because up to that time they had been the only persons
who had ever protested against the condition of affairs there — if others
than members of the ministerial association could be gotten to sign
that protest it would have much more weight locally and perhaps
some more weight in the country at large. He expressed himself as
more than gratified if that would be done, and I told him 1 had no
doubt I could secure from my own acquaintance at least fifteen or
twenty persons to sign that. I did secure all but the names of the
three persons who are there as members of the ministerial associa-
tion— Doctor Paden, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Leilich.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So these signers consist of three names of the
ministerial association, yourself, and your friends?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I do not mean by that necessarily per-
sonal friends, but acquaintances — friends and acquaintances.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I thought you said your friends?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; not intimate friends of mine, but acquaint-
ances.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Then are we to understand that this move-
ment was really inaugurated and pushed b}7 the ministerial association
in the first instance ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the first instance it was inaugurated by them
because, if I may say so, they were up to that moment the only per-
sons who ever made any public protest against the condition of affairs
in that State.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I understand you to say that that association
has among its members representatives from all of the churches except
the Kornan Catholic and the Episcopal.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think I am correct in saying that. If there were
any that were outside at that time I am not aware of them, but just
now I think the representative, for instance, of the Congregational
Church, who is a person other than Doctor Brown, is, I think, not a
member of the Ministerial Association.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Then, in the past, it is true, I suppose, that
all of the religious denominations, through their ministers and their
chief officers, have taken an active interest in the politics of Utah ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so; yes, sir.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Is that true or not true in respect of the
Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; and when I say that they took an active
interest in politics it is on[y in the sense that the politics and the
religion of Utah have been so absolutely interwoven that a man could
not take an interest in the religious aspect of the matter without tak-

REED SMOOT. 603

ing an interest in the effect of the religious system upon the political
status.

Senator BEVERIDGE. As I understand you, Senator, you want to
know what they do?

Senator DILLINGHAM. Yes; I was asking simply what they did.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They take the same interest in politics that mem-
bers of the same denominations do, within my observation, in other
States.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Is it not true that they have been a combined
force against the force of the Mormon Church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They have endeavored to be, I think, sir.

Senator DILLINGHAM. That is what I wanted.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In politics?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think not in politics, sir. I do not think they
have ever run for office or taken any interest in politics-
Senator BEVERIDGE. Do they advise the members of their churches ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not to my knowledge.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What is the current understanding?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The current understanding is that they never
attempt to do such a thing.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Have the members of their churches been
candidates for office.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Against Mormons?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I want to ask you whether these 19 protes-
tants here are all of one political party ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They are not.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you state their politics in a general way ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. My recollection is that about twelve or thirteen of
them are Republicans and the remainder are either Democrats or their
political faith is not known to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Speaking about the various denominations, was not
the last signer there the bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was.

Senator OVERMAN. Do you mean to say the Episcopalians and Cath-
olics are perfectly satisfied with the condition of affairs out there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. That would seem to be the effect of your answer
to Senator Dillingham.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I understood the witness to say that the min-
isterial association was made up of representatives of all the other
churches except those. If I misunderstood you, I want to be corrected.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is the way I understood it, Senator.

Senator OVERMAN. What I want to understand is whether the Epis-
copalians and Catholics are satisfied with the condition of affairs out
there.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Judging from their expressions, by no means; not
any more so than any other. The ministerial association I do not
understand to be an association for the purpose of interfering in civic,
affairs or political affairs or in temporal affairs, but merely for the
purposes for which such associations ordinarily exist in other commu-
nities. That is my understanding of it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 understand you consider it politics for reli-

604 KEED SMOOT.

gious organizations to get a man into the Senate, but it is not politics
to try to get him out.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no understanding upon that subject. In
fact, I have not known that they made an}7 effort to get anybody into-
the Senate.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said the Mormon Church did. The effect
of what you said is that the Mormon Church has put Mr. Smoot here,
and that is politics.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I say the leaders of the Mormon Church have

§iven their consent, and that Mr. Smoot comes here, and that Mr.
mith and his coleaders of the Mormon Church are responsible for the
condition of things there, and that Mr. Smoot is responsible for things
there, because by one word Mr. Smoot could either stop what is going
on there, or would no longer be an apostle of the Mormon Church.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Are you testifying to a fact ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 am testifying to a fact; yes, sir. I beg your
pardon — a deduction.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Are you testifying to a deduction?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am testifying to a deduction which the whole
community of Utah makes from the known facts which exist there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What you are saying has no reference to what
I asked, Mr. Critchlow. I understand one complaint here is that the
Mormon Church is in politics, and that one thing they have done in
politics is to send a Senator here. Is that so?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the sense in which you ask it, I think so. In
the sense in which the words might be understood, I think not, Mr.
Worthington.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I thought that was the principal complaint.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Have }rou any more questions, Mr. Worth-
ington ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have not cross-examined him yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you through, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Worthington.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Van Cott will conduct the cross-examination.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, how many times did you meet with
the ministerial association in preparing this protest?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not once.

Mr. VAN COTT. How many times did Doctor Paden ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. With me?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Many times.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who was the first person who suggested this protest ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. To me ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Doctor Paden.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then you worked with him a while on it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 worked with him all the time on it.

Mr. VAN COTT. All the while ? When did you next or first take any-
one into your confidence, if I may use that expression, in regard to the
protest ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You mean myself personally?

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, so far as you know?

REED SMOOT. 605

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think the fact that Doctor Paden and I were
preparing this protest was known to the committee that had been
appointed by the ministerial association to draft it all the time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who were the committee that were appointed?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As I said, as I understood it, Doctor Paden, Doctor
Brown, and Mr. J. L. Leilich.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was the committee appointed by the ministe-
rial association?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As I understood it.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that, as (you understood, before that the minis-
terial association had met and considered the matter and had appointed
this committee?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is what 1 understood.

Mr. VAN COTT. About how long were you engaged in its prepara-
tion, Mr. Critchlow?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 should think about four or five days; that is, in
such time as 1 could spare from my office to devote to it.

Senator OVERMAN. Let me ask a question right there. Were there
any expressions, either by newspapers or general expressions, that
this matter ought to be taken up, and warning the people against elect-
ing Smoot, that something might happen?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That was contained in various publications by the
ministers' association as early as November, in 1902.

Senator OVERMAN. But outside of the ministerial association?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Why, Senator, the situation is this: People there
talk freely among themselves, and not for publication; they are very
chary about talking for publication or taking an}^ active part in mat-
ters of this kind. Therefore, while the expressions among friends of
mine and acquaintances of mine were uniform and very, very com-
mon, indeed, }ret it never got into print, because people who are prac-
ticing law or people who are selling merchandise or people engaged
upon a salar}^, or work of that kind, do not care to incur enmity.

Senator OVERMAN. Was there any protest among the people gen-
erally, in addition to the formal protest gotten up by you?

Mr. CRITCHLOWT. You mean a protest expressed in words only ?

Senator OVERMAN. I mean a protest among the public.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Very generally among the non-Mormon people;
I might say almost universally, except among those who had particu-
lar reason-
Senator OVERMAN. I understand you reduced this to form?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I reduced this to what I supposed to be a proper
form of protest.

Senator OVERMAN. And you sajr that expresses the general senti-
ment of the people?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; I do.

Mr. VAN COTT. As to this general sentiment that you have men-
tioned, did any of them come forward and volunteer to sign your
protest?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir. They knew nothing about it until they
were asked to sign it.

Mr. VAN COTT. And they never formed any affirmative movement
to have a protest filed ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. With the exception of the ministerial association?

606 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is all.

Mr. VAN COTT. When you prepared this protest did these 19 prot-
estants meet together?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You obtained signatures separately?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In large measure, separately. On one occasion
four or five came together to my office and two or three of them took
the protest home to read it. 1 remember Mr. P. L. Williams particu-
larly took the protest and read it carefully and scanned it over. He
had it overnight, as 1 remember it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. By the way, on that point will you let me inter-
rupt you ? Did an}rbody sign the protest without reading it, as they
so often sign petitions?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 can not say about that, unless there is one
instance. I think there is one man who did not read it in my pres-
ence, and I do not think had an opportunity of reading it at all. The
substance of it was stated to him, and he signed it without its being
read over. All the rest of them read it over carefully, so far as I
know.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You just said to them something like this:
" Here is the protest against Smoot and Mormonism. It is all right;
sign it." And they signed it — just the way those things are usually
done. Is that it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That was not the way this was done.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Then the wa^y this was done was how?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The other gentlemen were there and read it over,
and some o£ them were reading it over. There were one or two copies.
Some of them had already- signed it and started to tell this gentleman,
whom I have no hesitation in saying was Mr. Ezra Thompson, at that
time mayor of the cit}^, and he said, "That is all right; I know what
is in it," or words to that effect, and signed it.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood Mr. Critchlow to say he stated the
substance of it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; I think he knew before he came there what
the substance of it was.

Mr. VAN COTT. If you stated the substance to him, Mr. Critchlow,
you must have taken some time to state all that is in this protest of
about 26 pages of printed matter.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to the first protestant,
Mr. P. L. Williams — he has always been bitterly opposed to the Mor-
mon Church, has he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He has always been bitterly opposed to the prac-
tices of the Mormon leaders. I do not think he has been opposed to
the Mormon Church.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you not say a while ago that you meant by the
expression, "the leaders," that that included the church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I said and meant that in all concerted action there
they are the ones we look to as being the church.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you not say in substance that the rest did not
amount to anything?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then he has always been bitterly opposed, in the
sense that you explain, to the Mormon Church?

REED SMOOT. 607

Mr. CRITCHLOW. To the Mormon Church in that sense; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, Mr. Critchlow — not intending it for anj>
offense at all, but simply to get information — you have been, too, have
you not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have always taken occasion to oppose the domi-
nation of the church and their practices.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is not quite the question. You have always
been bitterly opposed to the Mormon Church, have you not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not admit the word "bitterly," Mr. VanCott.
1 admit the word "opposition" toils very fullest extent.

Mr. VAN COTT. C. C. Goodwin — he has always been, has he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He always has been opposed to the Mormon
Church; }res, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He has been the editor for many years of a princi-
pal gentile newspaper in Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And a ver}^ influential paper?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. J. L. Leilich was one of the members of the minis-
terial association?

Mr. CRIT.CHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he is the one who signed the other protest?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 am so informed. I know that from the record
only.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do }^ou not know it by general repute?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. There is no question about that, is therej

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not in my mind.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he swore to it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I see by the record that he does, and I assumed
that he did, from general repute and from what there appears.

Mr. VAN COTT. Which one of these was prepared first, Mr. Critch-
low, the protest that you signed or the one that Leilich signed indi-
vidually? '

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know absolutely nothing about the Leilich pro-
test. The first I heard of it was when it was filed at Washington,
whereupon, as perhaps the record shows, the protestants in Salt Lake
disavowed the allegations of that protest.

Mr. VAN COTT. And is it not a matter of current rumor — general
report — believed by you, that Leilich did not file his protest until after
yours was filed?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; that is my understanding of it, that he
used the first protest as a basis for his, as I understand it.

Mr. VAN COTT. And I call your attention to this, that the first pro-
test, that is, the protest that is signed by the nineteen, is dated Janu-
ary 26, 1903, and the protest signed by Mr. Leilich alone is dated the
25th of February, 1903 — about a month later. That would be about
your judgment, would it, from what you know?

Mr. GRITCHLOW. That is about my recollection of the relative dates
when I heard of them and knew of them.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that when Mr. Leilich signed this first protest
and said in substance that the protestants accuse Mr. Smoot of no
offense cognizable by law, Mr. Leilich had read over the protest?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; he had, I know.

608 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then a month later, after signing a statement to
that effect, under oath he states that Senator Smoot is a polygamist,
and that he is advised by counsel that it is inexpedient at this time to
give further particulars concerning such plural marriage and its results,
or the place it was solemnized, or the maiden name of the plural wife.
That is correct, is it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, it is correct, as you state, that that was put
into his protest; but perhaps I ought to say. Mr. Van Cott, that Mr.
Leilich urged upon Mr. Paden and myself to put in many things which
we refused to put in because we did not know of the absolute truth
of them, and this subsequent protest of Mr. Leilich was, as I am
informed, prepared and filed while Mr. Leilich was in Washington.
I speak only from information on that point, however.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did Mr. Leilich give you that particular informa-
tion that I have read?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That he was a polygamist?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He told me that —

Mr. VAN COTT. Now—

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I beg pardon.

Mr. VAN COTT. I thought perhaps that would admit of -an affirma-
tive or negative answer.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; he gave me what he said were sources of
that kind of information. Does that answer the question?

Mr. VAN COTT. Did he in substance give you the information that
is here stated, namely, that Mr. Smoot was a polygamist; that there
was a secret record of the marriage, and that he knew the name of the
plural wife, and where she lived, and things of that kind. Did he
give you that information ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; he gave me what he said was such informa-
tion, but I knew it was not information at all.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was not information at all?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was not anything upon which he had informa-
tion or what would be information to me.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it not the general repute in Utah that Mr. Smoot
is not a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you any doubt?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Up to the time when Mr. Smoot became an apostle
there was no question of that kind raised among any people, and I
should say that it was his general repute beyond any queation.

Mr. VAN COTT. How about since his election as an apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The only thing that comes in to qualify that is the
question whether they would permit anybody to go into the quorum of
the twelve apostles who had not become sealed to somebod}7. That is
the only thing which questions it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is that the general opinion?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The general opinion is that he is not a polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it the general opinion out there that a man
had to be a polygamist to be an apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It is among many people who are, or who profess
to be, well acquainted with the doctrines of the church.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What is your opinion ?

REED SMOOT. 609

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have not any fixed opinion about it. It depends
entirely upon the person at the head of the church at the particular
time. If a person comes into the church at the present time I should
think the chances were in favor of Joseph F. Smith requiring him to
live his religion in some form or other before he could become an
apostle. With Lorenzo Snow, I do not think it was so. With Wilford
Woodruff, there might

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you think at the present time Mr. Smoot
is a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you think at the present time that it is nec-
essary, in order that a man may become an apostle, that he shall in
some form be such?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not say that I have any definite and fixed
belief upon that subject. It is a matter of inference and deduction
only, and the arguments for and against are so weighty on either side
that I can not say I have any fixed belief about it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Though you have a fixed belief about Smoot
himself.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have a fixed belief about his status, that he is not
a polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. You are well acquainted with George A. Smith ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is an apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. What is the general repute as to whether or not he
is a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The general repute is that he is not a polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. Hyrum M. Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The general repute is that he is not a polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. What about Anthon H. Lund ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The general repute is that he is not a polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. John R. Winder? You know his present status?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. That he is not a polygamist?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Are all those men apostles?

Mr. VAN COTT. These men are all apostles with the exception of
JohnR. Winder?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. John R. Winder is first counselor to President
Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that Lund is an apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I misspoke myself there. He belongs to the first
presidency instead of the apostolate.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is an apostle, is he not, notwithstanding that he
is in the first presidency? He is also an apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is not numbered in the twelve now, as I under-
stand it.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; I do not ask you whether he is in the twelve.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 am not acquainted with the doctrines enough to
know whether a man ceases to be an apostle when he rises to the
presidency or not.

s 39

610 EEED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. The first presidency is still higher ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It is.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Then the point is the same.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did I understand you to say, in answer to a que^
tion propounded by Senator Beveridge, that }rou did not believe
Joseph F. Smith would allow an apostle to come into the quorum
unless he was a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; I did not say that; at least I did not mean
to say it. I meant to say that I very much question whether Joseph
F. Smith would consent to a man coming into the apostolate without
he either was then or was willing to live up to the principles of the
religion as he preaches and professes them, which includes the sealing
for eternity, as is commonly understood.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, you said before, to quote some of your
words, "unless he would live his religion?"

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Live his religion. That is a common phrase used
in Utah.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you want the committee to understand by that
expression that he is a polygamist when he goes in, or that he has to
become a polygamist thereafter?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I want the committee to understand only this:
That I do not believe — and it is a matter simply of my own private
belief, deduced from what I know of the man and his teachings and
his course — he will permit a man to be an apostle unless he were either
at the time of his election in the status of having lived his religion to
that extent, or that he would become such, unless he were a member
of the Smith family.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, if he were a member of the Smith family
you think he would allow a person to become an apostle without either
being a polygamist or expecting him to become one?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that would very largely influence Mr.
Smith in permitting a man to become an apostle. If he were his son
or his nephew, I think he might be willing to waive any qualification
of that sort.

Mr. VAN COTT. You heard Mr. Smith's testimony on the stand here?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You heard his emphatic declaration to the effect that
plural marriages had stopped?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You think, notwithstanding those declarations, he
would not allow a person to become an apostle except under the cir-
cumstances you have named?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have stated my impression and belief upon that
subject as fully as I know how.

Mr. VAN COTT. Since Senator Smoot became an apostle, that would
not apply to him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not understand. You mean as —

Mr. VAN COTT. That Smith was not then the president of the
church ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Smith was not the president at that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; you have also stated just now that your belief
is that John R. Winder is not a polygamist at the present time, and
you have also stated that he holds a higher office. How do you recon-

EEED SMOOT. 611

cile your statement in regard to Winder with what you have just
stated?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 stated, I think, my belief as to his present status.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. And his repute?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no method of reconciling that or a great
many other things that I see. Mr. Winder has always been a promi-
nent man in the church, and has been moved up step by step, and is a
very popular man both with Mormons and with non-Mormons; a very
estimable man.

Mr. VAN COTT. How do you explain this statement with reference
to Anthon H. Lund?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 can explain it only from information, and that is
that his first wife will not consent to his taking another wife, and has
never consented to it.

Mr. VAN COTT. From the impression you have given the committee,
have you not endeavored to have the committee understand that the
influence of the church with one of its prominent members is more
influential than the influence of a wife?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know that I have attempted any such
thing. I know of a great many instances —

Mr. VAN COTT. No. Has not that been the general purport of
your testimon}^, and of the impression that you have wished to convey
to them — that that is true ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I hardly think so, Mr. Van Cott. The influence
of the wife, as 1 have observed it, is stronger even than the influence
of the church. In many instances —

The CHAIRMAN. In order to have it appear in the record in connec-
tion with th^s, will you permit me to ask a question right here?

Mr. VAN COTT. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. I will wait, if you prefer.

Mr. VAN COTT. Proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. You speak of the influence of the wife against the
habit of taking a second wife.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know any instance of that kind ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A number of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Among high church officials?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would name them.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. President Hatch, of Wasatch County, is one not-
able instance which comes to my mind. Bishop — president, I think
he was; President Cluff — was he president or bishop?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think he is neither at the present time.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know he is not.

Mr. VAN COTT. President Cluff, he was.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. President Cluff, of Summit County, is another
notable instance.

The CHAIRMAN. What about that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The reputation among non-Mormons always was
that the reason why they were not polygamists was because their wives
would not tolerate it, and they were women of exceptional strength of

612 REED SMOOT.

mind and of character, and the men were willing to respect the wishes
of their wives even against whatever other influence might have been
brought to bear upon them. I am not saying that influence was
brought to bear upon them especially.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any other instances?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; I rather dislike to mention them, however,
but only from the fact that they are within the circle of my personal
acquaintances. I will do so if the committee desires it. Mr. Miller,
who is now dead, whose widow is a lady that we all know, 1 think, and
respect very highly in Salt Lake, was a man in the same position, who
refused to take a wife at the behest of the church because of his —

Senator DILLINGHAM. Before or since 1890?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. These were all before 1890.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not wish the committee to understand that this
is by any means exhaustive, but it illustrates a class of people in the
community.

Tne CHAIRMAN. We do not care to go into the details of it. You
know of many instances of that kind?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know and have known of many instances of that
kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do your answers as to President Smith extend to
his nephew, George A. Smith, with respect to going into the apostolate
without the expectation of becoming a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think that Mr. George A. Smith would
go into the apostolate without being willing to subscribe to all the
doctrines arid live up to all of the practices of the church, and upon
that basis I make the same remark as to him that I would as to any
other apostle who was elected at this time, with the single saving
exception that possibly, inasmuch as he is a relative of ^he president
and of two of the other apostles, there might be some exception. I do
not mean to say that he would necessarily be required to promise that
he would do this, that, or the other, but that he would be of that class
of people who would be willing to live their religion.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you mean by that that he would marry a plural
wife in the face of the manifesto?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I believe that if he were commanded by his quorum
to marry another wife he would do so.

Mr. VAN COTT. In the face of the manifesto ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the face of the manifesto.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the statements that have been made by Presi-
dent Smith, in regard to the manifesto, I understand you do not
believe. I want to get your mental attitude.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I would have to ask you to particularize with
regard to what statements.

Mr. VAN COTT. When he says that plural marriages have stopped.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. When he says that plural marriages have stopped,
I understand him to use the words in a different sense from what I
would use them, or anyone else would use them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then you do not believe him in that particular ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the sense in which I would use those words, I
do not think he is correctly stating the fact.

REED SMOOT. 613

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not believe him. I want to see if I under-
stand you correctly, and 1 want to get your mental attitude.

Mr/CRiTCHLOW. I believe Mr. Smith, when he says plural marriages
have stopped, is using the words in a sense different from that in
which those words would be understood by yourself or myself or any-
one else.

Mr, VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, you are a lawyer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 have asked the question several times about that:
Do you believe that President Smith is not speaking the truth when
he says that plural marriages have stopped?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I believe he is not speaking the truth, if you wish
me to say it. He is not speaking the truth with regard to conditions
as they exist in Utah, which I suppose he must know as everyone else
knows them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention back to the protest, did }^ou
have correspondence with anyone regarding the procedure that would
be adopted in regard to filing the protest in the United States Senate?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who filed it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was sent by registered mail, as I now remember
it, to President Frye of the Senate. If it was sent to anyone else
officially I do not now recall it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you been assisting Mr. Tayler?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In what way ? Since I have been here ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have been rendering such assistance as I could.

Mr, VAN COTT. That, is in regard to questions, and papers, and
things of that kind?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you assist him by correspondence before you
came ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all. I never corresponded with Mr. Tayler
in my life.

•Mr. VAN COTT. Where were you subpoenaed?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I was not subpoenaed in a technical sense. 1 was
telegraphed by the Sergeant-at-Arms to come here at the very earliest
moment.

Mr. VAN COTT. You came in answer to the telegram?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. What date did you come ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I left on Tuesday, the 16th, and arrived on Friday,
whatever date the succeeding Friday would be, on the 19th, I think.

Mr. VAN COTT. Of February ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Of February.

Mr. VAN COTT. What date did you get the telegram?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I received the telegram the Tuesday previous,
which would be the 9th.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, calling your attention now back to
"..902, you know Jacob Moritz ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You have known him for some time?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

614 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a nominee on the Republican ticket that
year, was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the Republican ticket was elected with the
exception of him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was defeated?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT.- Did the ministerial association make a fight on Jacob
Moritz?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think they 4id.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a gentile?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And a Republican?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he runs a brewery?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Moritz is an excellent gentleman, is he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. A good citizen?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. A gentile?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. A Republican ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he runs a brewery in Salt Lake City?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. The ministerial association made a fight on him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he was beaten?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you any doubt but that it was the result of
that fight which defeated him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have not any doubt that they influenced enough
votes to defeat him.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How did they influence the votes? Did they
advise people to vote against him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They and the W. C. T. U. and other organiza-
tions-
Senator BEVERIDGE. Did they advise and counsel people to vote
against him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have not any recollection as to how they worked.
I know they expressed their disfavor of a man who was engaged in
that business.

Senator OVERMAN. In what business?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The brewery business.

Senator BEVERIDGE. They did take an active part in politics, then ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They took a part, a somewhat active part, in that
respect.

Mr. VAN COTT. They printed resolutions in the newspapers against
him?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Resolutions which they themselves had adopted
at their meetings.

KEED SMOOT. 615

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Since you mention it, I think probably they did.
I do not recall them.

Mr. VAN COTT. In that same year, and I think about October 15,
1902, and maybe it was a little later, did not the Ministerial Associa-
tion meet and discuss the proposition of selecting Gentiles from the
Democratic and Republican tickets, and that the non-Mormons would
support them alone?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did not know that that had come up that year,
but it is possible it did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you hear —

Senator BEVERIDGE. What was the general understanding about
that? Excuse me, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. Certainly.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What was the general understanding, appar-
ently, about it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not recall, Senator, whether it was that year
or later when it was done.

Senator BEYERIDGE. Has it been done at any time?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It has been done.

Senator BEVERIDGE. At any time has there been a general under-
standing of that kind?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That was the fact.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You have been testifying as an expert on gen-
eral understanding and I thought you might know what the general
understanding was as to this matter.

Mr. VAN COTT. What did you answer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I answered that I did not recall whether it was that
year or some later year that it happened — in 1903. But it is entirely
probable that it happened in 1902.

Mr. VAN COTT. Whatever year it was, you remember the fact?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I remember some such action as that having been
taken by them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember the names of the ministers who
took part in that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Only by remembering in a general way the names
of the members of the association, and I can remember many of them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Doctor Paden ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Doctor Paden was one.

Mr. VAN COTT. Doctor Brown?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was a member.

Mr. VAN COTT. Rev. Mr. Axton?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think he had gone away by that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Rev. Mr. Wake?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Rev. Mr. Simpkins?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think he was a member.

Mr. VAN COTT. Rev. Mr. Washington?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not recall that man.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Oh, he was a colored man, I believe.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think so.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He died; but whether he died prior to the fall of
1902 or since I do not recall.

616 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, in 1902, the proposition there was to get up
a printed ticket, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not recall the particulars of it at all, and I have
not seen any memoranda or newspaper that referred to it in any way,
and so I have not had my memory refreshed at all.

Mr. VAN COTT. In the Mpritz campaign, then, you understand, do
you not, that the ministers did work with the members of their churches
to defeat Mr. Moritz ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think they worked with the members of
their church any more than they worked with the community at large.

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not believe I limited my question quite in that
way. I asked you if they did not work with the members of their
chnrches —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And with others?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did not they preach in their churches against the
election of Mr. Moritz?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not so far as I know.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were they not so reported in the newspapers?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is possibly true.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember it ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to 1900, do you know
the Reverend Mr. Jayne?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you ever —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I beg pardon. I knew there was such a man, and
I may possibly have met him, but 1 had no acquaintance with him.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you hear of the circumstance that Mr. Jayne
labored with the members of his church to support the Republican
ticket ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; I never heard it.

Mr. VAN COTT. You never heard that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You stated that you thought you had more infor-
mation on current affairs and things of that kind in Utah than people
generally. What do you mean by that statement?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I mean only this, that I would have, I think, more
information on current matters than people who had not paid any par-
ticular attention to them, and who were not interested in the questions
which have vexed the State of Utah for so many j7ears, as I always
have been, without speaking of the profession of law, which we gen-
erally regard as putting us more closely in touch with political and
civic matters than other professions do.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1885, you said, you were assistant United States
prosecuting attorney for two terms?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Under whom were you a deputy?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. W. H. Dickson.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a gentile?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And prominent and vigorous in the prosecution of
polygamy and unlawful cohabitation '(

KEED SMOOT. 617

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Exceedingly so.

Mr. VAN COTT. For some time?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You stated that you served two terms. Where?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. At Beaver, in Beaver County, where the court was
held at that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. About how far is that south of Salt Lake City ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I should think about 280 miles; 250 or 280 miles.

Mr. VAN COTT. And over what period of time did those two terms
extend ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. For about five weeks, as I now remember, in the
May term, and about the same length, as I now remember, in the
September or October term.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1890 you again held that office?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. For a year ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Under whom was that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW, Mr. Varian.

Mr. VAN COTT. Charles S. Varian ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is a Gentile?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And always has been?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He has been vigorous and successful in the pros-
ecution of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation cases?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, in 1890 and in part of 1891, you served in
Salt Lake County as assistant to him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Under Mr. Varian?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you prosecute Joseph F. Smith during that
time?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did not. I have no recollection of prosecuting
him. There may have been an indictment in the office against him,
but he was not arrested during my time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Or John Henry Smith ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not recall that his name came before our
office at the time I was in there.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember of one conviction in Salt Lake
County during the year 1890 or 1891, either for polygamy or for
unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not recall any at the present time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Not one?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 can not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you attempt to prosecute Joseph F. Smith or
John Henry Smith in either one of those years for unlawful cohabita-
tion?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no recollection of attempting it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention now—

Senator BEVERIDGK. You would have a recollection if you had pros
ecuted them 4

618 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so: except for the fact that Joseph F.
Smith-
Senator BEVEKDIGE. Joseph F. Smith was a prominent man, the
president of the Mormon Church, and if you had attempted to prose-
cute him you would have a recollection of it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So, as a matter of fact, you can answer whether
you did attempt it or not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can answer according to my recollection, that 1
did not.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Of course, we answer everything according to
that.

Senator OVERMAN.. Why did you not prosecute him ? You were a
Government officer and you knew he was living in unlawful cohabita-
tion ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Joseph F. Smith was not in the country at that
time, as I no*v recall.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is that the reason why you did not prosecute
him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not say that was the only reason. Of course
prosecutions were based upon information brought in and put before
the grand jury by those who were willing to volunteer it, or those of
the deputy marshals who were able to procure it; and it is by no
means easy to procure. Whenever information was brought in it cer-
tainly was laid before the grand jury, which was the only method of
prosecution.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did you attempt prosecutions against Mr.
Smith or any of these men ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 can not say I attempted it any further than to
take charge of the information which the deputy marshals would bring
in. They were the ones who were seeking out this information, and
whenever it was obtained it was used against any of the Smiths or the
apostles or anyone else.

Senator BEVERIDGE. As a high officer of the law, if you yourself
had knowledge, if you knew it was a matter of common repute, if you
yourself knew the circumstances, of any violation of the law by any of
these gentlemen, would it be your duty simply to sit there and wait
until some person brought you information in a formal way on that
subject or would it be your duty to take the initiative?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It would be my duty to attempt to stir up the
proper officers of the law, who at that time were supposed to be the
deputy marshals, to procure the information?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did }^ou do that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Against Mr. Joseph F. Smith?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Or any of these prominent men as to whom
you have testified as having been notorious in this regard?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not recollect that I did.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Why not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Because I had no information with regard to
it that was not common to everybody else, and it was not information
sufficient to convict. But the information that was before us all with
regard to these matters at that time was that polygamy had stopped,
and that unlawful cohabitation, while it was going on after September,

KEED SMOOT. 619

1890, that it was going to be stopped. There was rather a disinclina-
tion upon the part of everybody connected with the prosecution of
offenses to stir up these matters, because we thought it would work
itself out; that the situation would become alleviated by the general
progress of time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, Mr. Critchlow, that was just the situation,
was it not, that there was a general disinclination on the part of any-
one in Utah to prosecute for unlawful cohabitation at that time?

Mr. CKITCHLOW. You mean after the manifesto?

Mr. VAN COTT. After the manifesto.

Mr. CKITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was true. You knew that the general reputa-
tion was that Joseph F. Smith was a poly gamist and was -living in
unlawful cohabitation, did you not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 think Mr. Joseph F. Smith was not in the
country.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am inclined to think it will turn out differently.
I am calling your attention to this —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am speaking largely with reference to what we
knew about him around Salt Lake.

Senator BEVERIDGE. If he was there at that particular time did you
know these facts?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think I did. 1 think 1 knew the reputation as
to the facts.

Mr. VAN COTT. You would not have prosecuted him if he had been
there, would you? I mean you would not have initiated the prosecu-
tion?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. After the manifesto?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that in all probability, as near as I can get
at my state of mind at that time, it was, that very shortly after the
manifesto, under the conditions that existed and that we thought were
going to exist, there was no inclination on the part of the prosecuting
officers to push these matters as to present cohabitation — I think that
is so — thinking it was a matter that would immediately die out.

Mr. VAN COTT. John Henry Smith was there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was well known that he was living in unlawful
cohabitation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That was our understanding of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. So well known was this, was it not, to non-Mormons
there generally, that where they knew that a prominent Mormon was
living in unlawful cohabitation they made no objection to it in the way
of protesting to the officers? Is not that true?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do you mean the non-Mormons generally?

Mr. VAN COTT". I mean the non-Mormons generally.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. They were disposed to let things go?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was the general feeling?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

Senator OVERMAN. When was that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. During the time of the manifesto, in September,

620 REED SMOOT.

1890, on down to very recent times; pretty nearly up to date, or prac-
tically up to date. Perhaps even now, if 1 was going to say what was
the general inclination-
Senator OVERMAN. The general inclination in Utah is not to prose-
cute Mr. Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Tho general inclination in Utah is not to proei-ute
Mr. Smith.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Then what have you to say, on that point, as
showing the great popular indignation?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. There is no inclination on the part of the non- Mor-
mons, and I suppose the Senator refers to non-Mormons, rather than
to Mormons — there is no sentiment there in Utah, no great amount of
sentiment there in Utah, that would favor putting Joseph F. Smith
in the attitude of being persecuted for his religion.

Mr. VAN COTT. You speak of the general disinclination to prose-
cute Mr. Smith at the present time. That is true generally of polyg-
amists who were such before the manifesto, is it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; it is so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention now to a little different sub-
ject, do you know Frank J. Cannon?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was United States Senator?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He had also been a Delegate in Congress when Utah
was a Territory, had he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. At that time he was on the Republican ticket?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. When he ran for Delegate? Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is what I meant. To refresh your recollection,
I think I state it correctly when I say that was 1894, the fall of 1894?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. Van COTT. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you go on the stump for Frank J. Cannon?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1894? Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You spoke at a good many places in Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Advocating Republican principles ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. And advocating the election of Frank J. Cannon?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And right up to the time of his election ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I certainly did not cease my efforts until the time
of the election, although I may not have spoken up to the time of the
election.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the intent of my question.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; up to the time of the election

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember particularly whether, at the
grand rally that is usually held by the political parties in Utah, in
Salt Lake theater, in Salt Lake City, just before the election, you

spoke at that for the Republican party ?
Mr. CRITCHLOW. i do not now recall.

Mr. VAN COTT. You remember a little political document that was
circulated by Republicans in that campaign called Nuggets of Truth?
Mr. CRITCHLOW. I remember it.

REED SMOOT. 621

Mr. VAN COTT. I have not one here to show you, but I may have
before you leave the stand. In that pamphlet, Nuggets of Truth,
which you say you saw often during the campaign-
Mr. CRITCHLOW. Too of ten.

Mr. VAN COTT. You saw it very often, anyway?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was a little document that was issued for the
purpose of converting the Mormon voters to Republicanism, was it
not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I assume that was the object. That was appar-
ently the object of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Right on the front page of that little pamphlet
there was a picture of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon
Church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, it might as well have had it. If you suggest
it as being there, I have no doubt of its being there.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think it was there. It also had the name and
picture of Brigham Young.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no doubt that it was there, if you suggest
that it was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Daniel H. Wells?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The same answer as to that.

Mr. VAN COTT. And on the back, Frank J. Cannon?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The same answer as to that.

Mr. VAN COTT. There was an argument made all the way through
that these men were very ardent protectionists ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And that the Mormon people should support Frank
J. Cannon on the ground that all their leaders had been protectionists?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, you went on the stump advocating the elec-
tion of Mr. Cannon ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And you knew that pamphlet was in circulation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And I understood you also to say that you saw it
too often ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do I assume by that that that particular kind of
political proselyting did not have your approval ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It did not.

Mr. VAN COTT. You knew it was used ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I knew it was used. It received our very severe
disapprobation and the disapprobation of nearly every leader of the
Republican party.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did it not also have the emphatic disapproval and
condemnation of Joseph F. Smith, who is now the president of the
church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It may have had.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he is a strong Republican ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is said to be. I think he is.

Mr. VAN COTT. You know he is a strong Republican?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think he is. I have never talked with
him on the subject or heard him make a speech.

Senator OVERMAN. Who issued that paper?

622 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. I was just going to that. Shall I proceed, Senator?
I would just as soon that you should.

Senator OVERMAN. Go ahead. I would rather have you do it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who was the chairman of the Republican party in
Utah at that time?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am inclined to think it was Charles Crane. He
was either the chairman of the county committee or the Territorial
committe; I think of the Territorial committee.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think so. Charles Crane was a gentile?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And had been for many years ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; and is still.

Mr. VAN COTT. And is still ? Had he ever been a Mormon ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Never, to my knowledge.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you know who got it up?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 only know by repute.

Mr. VAN COTT. By repute, who got it up?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Charles Crane and Ben Rich.

Mr. VAN COTT. Ben Rich is a Mormon ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A Mormon elder.

Mr. VAN COTT. Crane and Rich got up that pamphlet, and it was
circulated all over the State of Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think so. It was suppressed as far as
possible.

Senator BEVERIDGE. On account of the severe condemnation it
received at the hands of the Republican leaders ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Outside of Crane and Rich and some others?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. The Republican leaders did not approve of
that sort of campaigning ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was Cannon a polygamist at that time?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. This was Mr. Frank J. Cannon.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 know it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He never has been a polygamist, nor has he ever
been reputed to be such, to my knowledge.

Mr. VAN COTT. Coming to a different subject, calling your attention
now up to just before the constitutional convention, you remember
the agitation that there was to enable the Territory to become a State ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. In a general way ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In a general way.

Mr. VAN COTT. You know that the Republican party had up mem-
bers for the constitutional convention that year?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. That would be 1895?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1894, would it not? In 1894 we elected, and in
1895 they met, did they not?

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, which ever was the year, and I do not remem-
ber the year, the Republican party had its ticket in the field?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to Salt Lake County —
that is where you live ?

REED SMOOT. 623

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the principal county in Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Salt Lake City is situated there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you vote for your ticket in Salt Lake County
that year?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I undoubtedly did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you vote for John Henry Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Known to be a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you think you were encouraging polygamists
to live in unlawful cohabitation because you voted for John Henry
Smith to be a member of the constitutional convention?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did not think I was voting on that subject; no;
I did not think I was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Elias Morris was a polygamist ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was on the ticket?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If you suggest it, I have no doubt it is so.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Richard G. Lambert?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did you vote for Morris?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not remember whether he was a Republican
or a Democrat. I did not vote for him if he was a Democrat.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; he was a Republican.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If he was on the ticket I probably voted for him.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am only mentioning the Republicans to you.
How about Richard G. Lambert?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If he was on the Republican ticket; }^es.

Mr. VAN COTT. You went out on the stump also, as late as 1894,
with John Henry Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a Mormon apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Living in polygamy?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. I mean living in unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You traveled with him disseminating Republican
principles ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As best I knew how.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was done for. some time?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Let me ask you a question right here. Did
you protest to him against his practices ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Against the practices of Mr. Smitb 3

Senator BEVERIDGE. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; except

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did you admonish him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; "not at all.

Senator BEVERIDGE. When you were assistant United States dis-

624 REED SMOOT.

trict attorney did you admonish any of these gentlemen or warn them
to cease their practices ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you prosecute any of them?

Senator BEVERIDGE. He has answered that he did not.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 can not recollect. 1 think I did. I think I prose-
cuted a number of them. I am very sure I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. But not in 1890 or 1891?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. I thought you answered to the contrary?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 think I said I did not recall any, but I think we
did prosecute a number.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You said in answer to a question that you did
not prosecute or attempt to prosecute Mr. Smith and other gentlemen
who were high in authority and whom you knew to be guilty of these
offenses. That is what I supposed you had reference to.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Smith said he was away from 1884 to 1890
in Hawaii. He was there in 1891 and signed the manifesto.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you finished?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you go out on the stump with other polygamists
besides John Henry Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know; but I think that John Morgan was
a polygamist. I think he was.

Mr. VAN COTT. You were out with him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I was in 1892 and 1893, but whether in 1894 or not
I do not know, because he died along about that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, is it not the fact that the general
feeling in Utah, among non -Mormons — leaving the Mormons out of
view — has been that if all plural marriages had ceased since the mani-
festo, these relations of unlawful cohabitation they were practically
willing to close their eyes to ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I tnink so, except in cases where they were really
absolutely offensive, or where they occurred in such a manner as to be
really examples to the people. Amongst the higher officials, and even
with them, I think it would be fair to say that people were inclined to
minimize these things as much as possible for the peace of the State
and the community and for its upbuilding, and to remove the
reproach of it before the country.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, as to John Henry Smith, the fact that a child
was born to one of his plural wives during the time of the constitu-
tional convention non-Mormons, as a general rule, were disposed to
overlook if they felt satisfied that there were no more plural marriages ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so, and felt that the thing would
work itself out in the future.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, the other matter that you spoke of — this
offensive flaunting. I wish you would give to the committee a little
more in detail what you understand by that, and I call your attention
now to the language used by the Supreme Court of the United States
where it has quoted that particular phrase.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. What would be offensive to one person of course
might not be to another. If a man had a polygamous wife and family
right by my door side, and his children associated with mine, and he
visited a half or a third of his time there and a half or a third of hie

REED SMOOT. 625

time somewhere else, and it was placed there under my face, it might
be offensive to me, while to you or to somebody else, living in another
part of the town, it might not be offensive.

Again, where a man takes two sisters under the same roof, that
might be offensive to the whole community. Then again, it might be
entirely innocent and unoffensive to a great class of people who do not
care anything about those things.

Again, I may say, where a man has a polygamous wife in a commu-
nity and brings other polygamous wives there and makes a sort of
a colony of it, then it becomes offensive even to a whole community.
That sort of thing becomes offensive, in a greater or lesser extent,
dependent entirely upon the sensibilities of the people immediately
affected.

Mr. VAN COTT. But where the polygamists have had their wives
living in separate houses, and have simply kept up the old relations
without an offensive flaunting before the public of the relations, it has
been practically passed over, has it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; as a matter of fact it has been. A
man-
Mr. VAN COTT. Is not this the fact also, that you did not deem your-
self as being lowered in the community in any way when you went on
the stump with John Henry Smith?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I certainly did not, or I should not have gone.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; I mean that was the general feeling with the
non-Mormons?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in the questions I have put to you, you under-
stand that I do not mean to say that you belittled yourself or that you
lowered yourself in any way by doing those things. You did not
consider it so ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did not.

Senator OVERMAN. The Mormon church is divided politically out
there?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Did you ever know it to vote as a body for any
one ticket?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is a hard question to give a definite answer
to. The strangest things *do result and a person's analysis, or the
temperament and disposition with which he came to make the analysis
of a particular vote, would influence the conclusion at which he arrives.

Senator OVERMAN. What did you arrive at?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In many cases the conclusion I have arrived at is
that they have voted almost solidly for some men.

Senator OVERMAN. All over the State ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Perhaps I ought not to use the -phrase ''almost
solidly," but there has been a large contingent whose vote was sus-
ceptible to the influence of their leaders, which has been thrown as a
solid mass in favor of one candidate and against the other. I might
take, for instance —

Senator OVERMAN. Sometimes for a Republican and sometimes a
Democrat ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; for instance, when Mr. Van Cott's part-
ner, Mr. George Sutherland, ran for member of Comgress, Mr. Suth-
erland complained, and, as I think, had great reason to complain, that

626 REED SMOOT.

a large mass of the Mormon vote had been thrown solidly against him,
and, while he was elected, it was by a greatly reduced "majority over
the rest of the ticket. I can not give the instances of it now, but
many and many circumstances came up to prove to my mind and to his
that that had been done.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Why were they against him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Because the man who was running against him
was a Mormon, and a popular man as well as a Mormon, and was
favored, as we thought, and as Mr. Sutherland thought, and many of
his friends thought, by the leaders of the church for election at that
time.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That might be the case in any State with any
church, with a popular member of any denomination, might it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Truly; and that is the reason why I gay these
instances are hard to recognize, arid that the question whether the
instances given will be persuasive as proof upon any mind depends
largely upon the attitude with which you approach them.

Senator BEVERIDGE. But —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. M&y I proceed for just a second?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Go ahead.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. There were instances which occurred in this cam-
paign of a particular character which led to this belief. That was that
we knew of circumstances in which teachers of the church, or those in
authority in the church, had taken tickets arid left them as samples for
the brethren and sisters to vote, in which, while they were asked to
vote the Republican ticket as a whole, they were asked to scratch the
name of Mr. Sutherland and to vote for Mr. King.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Notwithstanding all that, Sutherland was
elected ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. That is to say — assuming that the church- did
attempt to throw its membership solidly against Sutherland — it did
not succeed in doing so?

•Mr. CRITCHLOW. If you would make that assumption, but that is an
assumption 1 do not make.

Senator BEVERIDGE. At all events Sutherland was elected, notwith-
standing the fact that his opponent was a Mormon and a popular man?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; but elected by a very narrow majority.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Is it true that the majority of the voters are
Mormon or not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A majority are Mormon.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that, in a constituency where a majority are
Mormons and where he was running, he being a gentile, against a
Mormon, who was also, you say, a popular man, Sutherland neverthe-
less was elected?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; Mr. Sutherland was elected in common
with the rest of the Republican ticket.

The CHAIRMAN. What year was that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1900.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that in that instance the influence of the Mormon
Church against Mr. Sutherland was much less potent than was the
influence of the Ministerial Association against Jacob Moritz?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 have no means of making a comparison, because
they are so different.

EEED SMOOT. 627

Mr. VAN COTT. It was more successful? I will put it that way.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; more successful.

Mr, VAN COTT. I was asking you about going on the stump with
John Henry Smith at the time of the question by Senator Overman.
So well did men, like John Henry Smith and others who are polyga-
mists, stand in Utah that non-Mormons thought nothing of this asso-
ciation with them in political affairs and business affairs, and things of
that kind?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. Suppose John Henry Smith had come to your house
with a plural wife under circumstances so that it was appropriate for
him to stay over night, would you have invited him to stay ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If I knew it was his plural wife, I do not think 1
should have.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not think }TOU should have?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 do not think I would have.

Mr. VAN COTT. After thinking back of the feeling there has been
in Utah in reference to these men, do }^ou think }^ou would not have
invited them to stay over night in your house, under circumstances
which were appropriate for you to invite him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can speak only for myself. 1 do not think I ever
would have.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you believe that is the general feeling among
the gentiles of Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; I do not think it was.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is not the general feeling?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. If he came there with a wife and introduced you to
her as Mrs. Smith and you did not know which wife it was, would you
have inquired before you had extended an invitation to them to remain
over night at your house ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 certainly would not.

Mr. VAN COTT. You would have invited him and her to stay ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that your answer simply goes to the extent that
if you knew that it was a plural wife you think you would not have
invited him to stay over night?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You were asking me if John Henry Smith and a
plural wife should come to my house

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can answer that because I knew that Mr. Smith
was a polygamist, and 1 would be apt to find out in some way which
Mrs. Smith it was that came along with him.

Mr. VAN COTT. I put the supposition if you did not know which
wife he had with him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Van Cott, that is a very difficult question to
answer, because many men have put away their first wives and are
living with their second or their third wives exclusively, as the case
may be. I do not think I can give a satisfactory answer to your
question.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am anxious to probe that a little further and to
get your mental attitude on the question. If John Henry Smith had
come to your house, under circumstances that were appropriate for
you to ask him to stay overnight, with your acquaintance with him,

628 REEf) SMOOT.

and he had a wife with him who was introduced to you as Mrs. Smith
simply, would you have invited them to stay over night?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If I understood that the woman he had with him
was the woman he was living with regularly, whether she was his first
or second wife, or anyone else, so that she was the woman who for
the time being was occupying that status in the community, I should
not hesitate a moment to say that that was Mrs. Smith; but 1 certainly
should not have wanted to have Mr. Smith come with, or to put
myself in the attitude of having him come one time with one Mrs.
Smith and come into my family and meet my children and stay one
night, and then have him come with another Mrs. Smith. That is as
near as I can analyze my mind.

Mr. VAN COTT. You have answered a question which I did not ask
you, about bringing one wife one time and another wife another time.
I have asked you if Mr. Smith, at the time you were associated with
him and friendly with him, had come to your house, and, under cir-
cumstances appropriate to invite him to stay overnight, and he had a
wife with him whom he introduced as Mrs. Smith, and you did not
know which Mrs. Smith she was, you would have hesitated to ask
them to stay overnight?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 do not think I can answer your question any
more fully or satisfactorily than I have.

Mr. VAN COTT. The feeling among gentiles would have been to
invite him to stay overnight?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is true not only of John Henry Smith, but of
men generally ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Polygamists generally ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I mean polygamists generally.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; I do not think so — not of polygamists gen-
erally. Mr. John Henry Smith was a different man from polygamists

generally.
Mr. VA

Mr. VAN COTT. You were very intimate with him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not very intimate; politically intimate.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is what I mean.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Friendly, as we are to-day.

Mr. VAN COTT. You associate with him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do when occasion warrants.

Mr. VAN COTT. I suppose you would be perfectly willing to trust
Mrs. Critchlow to associate with Mrs. Smith ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I never met his wife.

Mr. VAN COTT. You would not have any doubt from what you know
of Mr. Smith's family?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. While it would not be true of every one, would it
not be true of other men whom you know in Utah who are polygamists ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. The same answer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And particularly of a man with whom you are inti-
nately acquainted and intimately associated?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I am interested in the revelation about the

EEED SMOOT. 629

light plant. I understood you to say that you got this information
from an attorney out there ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And that he, of course, got his information from
somebody else outside of general repute?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Necessarily, I assume.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that that testimony amounts to this — that
you say that a man said to you that somebody else said to him that the
president of the stake had a revelation on the subject of an electric-
light plant at this place, that he laid it before the council, and there
was a disruption, etc. ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A disruption?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Between the council or the people or somebody ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I take it in a legal sense that is as close as it comes
to being evidence.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I was very much interested in the revelation
with respect to the light plant.

At 4 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m. the committee adjourned until
to-morrow, Saturday, March 12, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 1%, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Hoar, McComas, Dillingham,
and Overman; also Senator Smoot; also Robert W. Tayler, counsel for
the protestants; A. S. Worthington and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel
for the respondent, and Franklin S. Richards, counsel for Joseph F.
Smith and other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Cott, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF E. B. CRITCHLOW— Continued.

E. B. CRITCHLOW, having been previously sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, do you expect any compensation for
any work or services which you have performed in this case?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not the slightest.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you hold any official position in the church over
which Doctor Paden presides?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Nothing at all?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Nothing at all.

Mr. VAN COTT. You are not a deacon in the church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. When I asked you the question yesterday whether
Mr. P.. L. Williams and Mr. C. C. Goodwin and yourself, respect-
ive^, were bitterly opposed to the Mormon Church, did you under-
stand by that that I was simply indicating the state of mind and was
not using the word u bitterly" as a term of reproach?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think 1 understood that. I understood you to use
the word in the sense that the Deseret News always refers to anyone
who speaks against the practices of the Mormon Church or its domi-

630 REED SMOOT.

nation in the affairs of the State. They call eveiy man " bitter" who
dares to speak out and who does not apologize for them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did 3^011 understand it in the sense that it was a
vigorous, emphatic opposition, and did you answer it in that sense?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can hardly say now in what connection you asked
the question, but I mean to say, as to the state of mind on the part of
Mr. Williams, Mr. Goodwin, and myself, or any of the protestants, I
do not believe it is fair to say that there is the slightest bitterness. I
simply—

Mr. VAN COTT. A vigorous, emphatic opposition ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Emphatic and outspoken opposition instead of
apology.

Mr. VAN COTT. When I came to read over the examination I thought
that the word ''bitterly" might be construed to have a meaning that I
did not intend, and that was the sense in which I put the question to
you. Did you answer those questions in that sense — that it simply
meant a vigorous, emphatic opposition?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think I did; at least I think I have now made
myself clear.

Mr. VAN COTT. You know from experience, do you not, Mr.
Critchlow, that as a general rule it is very easy to inflame the public
mind where charges of polygamy are made in Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think it is very hard to inflame the public mind.
It is very difficult to get anybody to believe it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Of the people of the United States?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Of the people of the United States.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am speaking of the people of the United States.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, I think it is; because we have been saying
that the leaders of the church were disobeying the laws for years, and
the people of the United States would not believe it until the president
of the church came here and said so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you not think that the Leilich charges, for
instance, did create a great wave of popular indignation among the
people of the United States?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think not; rather a mild surprise than anything
else.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not think it created among the people of
the United States any sentiment, or a great popular wave of senti-
ment against Mr. Smoot when that charge was made?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am hardly in a position to judge as to that. I
know it was denied immediately so far as it coulcl be, by the protest-
ants, and I think that ought to have had some weight. Whether it
did or not I do not know.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you, before persons other than Mr. Leilich,
make the statement to Mr. Leilich that }^ou testified to yesterday, to
the effect that he had no legal evidence at all in regard to Mr. Smoot
being a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Leilich submitted his statements as to what
could be shown by this one and that one, and persons not named, to me
in the presence of Doctor Paden — to Doctor Paden and myself.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were there any others?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir. I never met Mr. Leilich except at Doctor
Paden's study, except it was once in my office.

REED SMOOT. 631

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you, or Doctor Paden in your presence, com-
municate that information to others of the committee?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did not, and whether Doctor Paden did or not 1
do not know. I met no one of the ministerial association, as I said,
except Doctor Paden, and Mr. Leilich on one or two occasions, in the
presence of Doctor Paden.

Mr. VAN COTT. After you made this statement to Mr. Leilich he
filed his sworn protest down here charging polygamy ag-ainst Mr.
Smoot?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It must have been, because I never saw Mr.
Leilich after ours was filed.

Mr. VAN COTT. After the protest of Leilich had been filed here, did
you ever see or know of any public statement being made to the effect
that Mr. Leilich had no information sufficient to make that charge
against Mr. Smoot ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do you mean a public, printed statement?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think the Deseret News has made that statement
time and time again, and I think other papers have.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you, or did Doctor Paden, or any of the com-
mittee ever make a statement to the effect that Mr. Leilich had no
sufficient basis on which to make that charge?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; we did not know what he might have
gotten, of course, after he left Utah. We did not believe he had any.

Mr. VAN COTT. I wish to call your attention back to 1892. You
will remember that you stated in substance that when the hearing was
had on the Faulkner bill, the statements and arguments that were
made were principally by Democrats, because it was a Democratic
measure. Calling your attention generally to that statement, H. W.
Smith was one of those who made an argument before the committee,
was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. So the report says, and that is according to my
recollection.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he is the reputed author of the Idaho test-oath
bill, also?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a judge in Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Appointed by President Cleveland while Utah was
a Territory ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. John W. Judd was appointed by President Cleve-
land to Utah as a judge?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was from Tennessee?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did Mr. Judd afterwards hold the position of
United States district attorney ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. T. J. Anderson; where was he from and what posi-
tion did he hold?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was appointed from Iowa to a Territorial
judgeship by President Harrison.

632 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge Anderson made a statement before the com-
mittee on the Faulkner bill, did he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I should have to refer to the record. 1 do not
recollect, Mr. VanCott.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, if the record shows that it was T.
J. Anderson, that is the same individual?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Undoubtedly.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Mr. Judd also?

Mr. CRITCHLOW, Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now Frank H. Dyer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I remember him.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who was he?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The United States marshal of Utah, appointed by
President Cleveland in his first term.

Mr. VAN COTT. He made a statement before the committee ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. So the record shows.

Mr. VAN COTT. Ex-Senator Rawlins made a statement?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who is he?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Ex-Senator Rawlins?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do you mean me to give his record?

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a Delegate in Congress from the Territory
of Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And United States Senator ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And a gentile ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; in the sense that he is not a Mormon.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will say a non-Mormon.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is of Mormon parentage.

Mr. VAN COTT. Caleb W. West; who was he?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was appointed governor of Utah, from Ken-
tucky, by Cleveland.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he was a non-Mormon?

Mr CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. All these gentlemen made arguments before the
committee on the Faulkner bill?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. So the record shows.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to some of the various things
that led up to statehood, in a general way — and if I state them inaccur-
ately just correct me — before statehood, and before the constitutional
convention met in Utah, there had been hearings, had there not, down
here at various times, all tending toward new legislation for the Ter-
ritory of Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. There had been a number of such.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1882 there had been a hearing at the time the
Edmunds bill was passed ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I should have to refer to the record, because I was
not then living in Utah and have no personal knowledge of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to 1886, was not a hearing
then had on the Edmunds-Tucker bill?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. There were a number of those hearings. I can
not be precise as to dates.

REED SMOOT. 633

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember the hearings that were. had in
1888 and 1889, both in the House and the Senate?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 only know that there were such hearings. 1 have
not examined the record as to them and have no special recollection now.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember that Robert N. Baskin was down
here a number of years endeavoring to have legislation passed to cor-
rect the evils in Utah ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. You remember that the non-Mormons — practically
all of them — were contributing toward keeping him here on these
matters ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. All those who felt sufficient interest and could.

Mr. VAN COTT. Up to the time the enabling act was passed, do you
know of anything in the Territory of Utah or the State of Utah in the
way of polygamy, in regard to unlawful cohabitation, in regard to the
church interfering in politics, in regard to the church interfering
with the temporal affairs of the people, or anything of that kind, that
had not been ventilated before the different committees of Congress?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do you ask me as to a specific instance, Mr. Van
Cott?

Mr. VAN COTT. No; generally.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 do not think that any hearings before Congress,
which were merely arguments as I understood them and not trials in
the sense of the giving of evidence, ever disclosed or attempted to dis-
close specific instances with respect to them, but were more arguments
from a given standpoint as to what were the general conditions exist-
ing out there. I do not know that 1 can answer your question any
more plainly than that, further than to say that I do not now recall any
specific instances of things that might have been spoken of in those
hearings if the counsel, because that is all they were, cared to speak
of them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me see if this refreshes your recollection. Did
not Mr. Baskin in these various hearings call attention, for instance,
to the Mountain Meadow massacre? Did he not mention specific
instances of the church interfering in politics, interfering with tem-
poral affairs ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And testimony being taken and statements being
made in great detail, and that the printed records here show it. Are
you familiar with those things, if they exist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am not familiar with these records at all. I never
have examined them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Also you remember the hearing before Judge T. J.
Anderson, who is mentioned, in regard to naturalization?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 will ask you whether all of that was not brought
out.

Mi. CRITCHLOW. All of it?

Mr. VAN COTT. Wait just a moment. I will see about it. [A pause.]
I will leave it for the moment. I am not sure just now whether it was
all or the major portion of it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 beg pardon.

Mr. VAN COTT. Maybe I had better reframe the question. Do you
know whether the testimonv which was taken before Judo-e Anderson

634 REED SMOOT.

on naturalization was either wholly or the material parts of it brought
out before the committees of Congress, so that they knew the general
character of that testimony ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not know?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know the testimony was in existence; that is all.

Mr. VAN COTT. If that all appears by printed record, as indicated
by the different questions I have asked, Mr. Critchlow, in a general
way, do }^ou know of anything now in Utah that had not been developed
up to the time of the enabling act?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do I understand you to ask me whether J know
of facts existing in Utah of a different kind from those which existed
prior to the enabling act? Is that the question?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; and what I have recited here in a general w&y.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No. All I have been trying to say is that the facts
as they now exist are all too much similar to the facts that did exist
prior to 1892, or similar.

Mr, VAN COTT. I have not asked you in my question with respect
to the time since the enabling act. I was asking you if you know of
&ny general line of facts before the enabling act other than what I men-
tioned to you.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It is difficult for me to get the scope of your ques-
tion, but if 1 understand it correctly this would be an answer: The
condition of affairs as we supposed they existed, and as we hoped and
supposed they would thereafter exist, were fully set forth in the hear-
ings on the enabling act. As to whether or not any different state of
facts now exists —

Mr. VAN COTT. I have not asked you about that.
• Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think the condition was as fairly set forth as the
rather biased character of the hearing would permit, because there
was no contest made upon the question that the church had given up
polygamo'us cohabitation and polygamy.

Mr. VAN COTT. If I make nryself clear, the exact point is, do you
know of anything in a general way that could be charged against the
Mormon people in Utah up to the time of the enabling act that had
not been disclosed to Congress up to that time? That is the exact
point.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; I do not think so — more or less fully disclosed.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge McBride was also down here in aid of some
of those bills?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Judge McBride was quite frequently in Washing-
ton on public matters for the Liberal party, whether in one year or
another.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was the non-Mormon party ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. C. E. Allen was also here before statehood, was he
not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW, In 1892.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was here in opposition to the bill?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was here in opposition to the Faulkner bill in
1892.

Mr. VAN COTT. Orlando W. Powers was here in opposition to the
Faulkner bill in 1892?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. So the record shows.

REED SMOOT. 635

Mr. VAN COTT. All these men, and supported by others, were vig-
orous in their opposition to statehood for Utah up to and before the
time of the enabling- act, were they not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You mean Powers, Allen, Baskin —

Mr. VAN COTT. And others.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. McBride.

Mr. VAN COTT. And others.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. There was a large number who were all at times
in opposition to it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, at the present time, Mr. Baskin is chief justice
of the supreme court of the State of Utah ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And after statehood, was Mr. Allen sent here as
Congressman ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was our first Congressman.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Judge McBride has left the State?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

- Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention now to the time of the first
State legislature, and that would be the legislature which was elected
in the fall of 1895, would it not—

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the legislature which would meet in January,
1896?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were you a member of the legislature?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is that the session of the legislature at which Arthur
Brown was elected United States Senator?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you know a man at that time by the name of
Arthur Stayner?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did }^ou move to make him minute clerk?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 do not know. If he were the caucus nominee of
the Republicans, I certainly did. 1 might have done so. We had a
caucus to decide upon our officers, and 1 think I moved the slate.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was he a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was reputed to be at the time he died. Whether
he was in 1896 or not I can not remember, but I think he was.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was reputed to be a polygamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. When you were in the legislature at any time did
you ever propose the repeal either of sections 2833 or 2848. 2849, and
2850 of the Revised Statutes of Utah ? Those are the sections to which
Senator Hoar called attention the other day. If you would like to
refresh your recollection I will hand you the book.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I remember what they are. I do not think I ever
did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you know who was the author of the sections
commencing with 2848 and ending with 2850?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Let me see them. It was in the legislature of
1892 that those were passed.

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not remember. This book would not show the
authorship.

636 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; no, I could not say.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me refresh your recollection. Do you remem-
ber that Judge J. G. Sutherland drafted section 2849?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; he drafted it for the purpose of a certain
specific lawsuit that he wanted to win.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he was a gentile, was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; he was a gentile, but he did not take any very
active part in politics.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not mean by that that he was, or ever had
been, a Mormon?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was the attorney for the Mormon Church, and
of course he never took any great part in the Liberal party.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is Judge Sutherland, of Michigan?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; the author of Sutherland on Damages.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you mean to convey the impression, in any way,
that he ever was a Mormon ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all; but he was not what is frequently
referred to as an anti-Mormon — that is, a man who worked and spoke
against the leaders of the Mormon Church.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, he was quiet.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Very quiet, indeed.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, let me ask you are you sure that Judge Suth-
erland was ever attorney for the Mormon Church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; he was attorney for the Mormon Church,
my recollection is, in the Cannon case and in the Musser case. He was
the attorney in a number of matters of litigation. I can not recall
them now, but I know very well that he was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me ask you whether it is not —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think he was in the escheat case as well.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will ask you about the escheat case. Are you not
mistaken in saying that he had anything to do at all with the escheat
case?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, I am, of course, speaking from recollection
of matters that are quite aged now, and I may be mistaken, of course.

Mr. VAN COTT. In the Cannon and the Musser cases, have you any
means of saying that he was not representing those defendants per-
sonally rather than being employed by the church to represent them?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, 1 can only say this, that at that time I was
associated in a business way with Mr. Arthur Brown, and he was in
the case, and the understanding in the office was that he was in for the
church, and that Judge Sutherland was. Those were test cases, you
will remember.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The Cannon case; the Musser case was to a certain
extent

Mr. VAN COTT. Was Senator Brown in those cases ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was in the Musser case, I know.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were you associated with Senator Brown?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the sense of being at that time his associate in
the office under a salary; that is all.

Mr. VAN COTT. Would you designate yourself, as you did Judge
Sutherland, as a church attorney ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not by any means. I never received any fee at all ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to the legislative ticket that

REED SMOOT. 637

was voted on in 1895, Ernelino B. Wells was on the Republican ticket,
was she not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. For State senator?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is my recollection.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was Angus M. Cannon, sr., on the Republican
ticket for State senator ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. My recollection is that Emeline B. Wells did not
remain on the Republican ticket up to the election, but was taken off
because — no; I can not remember about that.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not remember?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not recollect of her sitting in the seriate.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is not that the year that the Republicans lost?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You said 1895?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; the Republicans won, and sent two Senators
to Washington.

Mr. VAN COTT. Probably she is the one who lost, then ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 do not think so, because we won out on the
whole ticket in Salt Lake County.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was there an election in 1896 also?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Oh, yes; for the legislature of 1897.

Mr. VAN COTT. I was in error in asking you about 1895. In 1896
was Emeline B. Wells on the Republican ticket for -State senator?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. She may have been. If you suggest it as being

Mr. VAN COTT. I show you what purports to be a certified copy —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have not any doubt, since it appears here, that
she was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Angus M. Cannon was one of the candidates
for State senator on the Republican ticket?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think at that time he was a Democrat, but he
may have been a Republican at that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Angus M. Cannon, sr., was always a strong Repub-
lican, was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I thought he was a Democrat for a while.

Mr. VAN COTT. Look at this paper and see if you can not refresh
your recollection by the company he was in as to whether he was not
on the Republican ticket.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. From this diagram it seems he was on the Repub-
lican ticket. I was only giving you my impression — that he was at
one time a Democrat and acted with them. I ma}^ be in error about
that. If you suggest this as being correct, I have no hesitation in
saying that that is probably it.

Mr. VAN COTT. I have no information except what the certified
copy shows.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think I took no part in that campaign.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you vote your ticket that year?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And if Angus M. Cannon, sr., was on the Republi
lan ticket, you voted for him ?

Mr. CRITCHOW. No, sir; 1 do not think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not think so?

638 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have not voted for any polygamist for a number
of years.

Mr. VAN COTT. You voted for John Henry Smith in 18952

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Why would you draw a distinction between voting
in 1895 for John Henry Smith and in 1896 for Angus M. Cannon, sr. '{

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It would be difficult to say; but anyone who knows
the two men can readily see why a distinction might be made as to
Angus M. Cannon for any public position.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you vote for Emeline B. Wells?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not remember whether I did or not. I would
not want to say.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to the Edmunds bill of 1882,
both adultery and unlawful cohabitation were defined in that act?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. My recollection is that adultery was not defined
until 1887. I would have to appeal to the record, but that is my dis-
tinct recollection. We never prosecuted for adultery until after 1887.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I prosecuted under the Edmunds Act in this
District for adultery in 1885.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I will not be positive about it when it is so easy
to get the record .

Mr. VAN COTT. Whichever year it was, whether it was 1882 or 1887,
those two offenses were both clearly defined, were they not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They certainly were in 1887.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, polygamy was defined as a separate and
distinct offense from unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the difference between those two acts was
further made plain by judicial decisions, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 do not think there was any special difference
between the two acts which needed judicial determination. One was
an amplification of the legislation of the former act.

Mr. VAN COTT. Probably, Mr. Critchlow, you do not understand
me, or I have not asked the question plainly?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not understand you.

Mr. VAN COTT. These two offenses, unlawful cohabitation and polyg-
amy, were further made plain by judicial decisions, were they not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that when those acts were passed, whether it
was in 1882 or 1887, the difference between unlawful cohabitation and
polygamy was clearly understood by the people in Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It ought to have been clearly understood. It was
the most vital question we had there in Utah.

Mr. VAN COTT. Many cases came to the supreme court of the
Territory ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And cases going to the Supreme Court of the United
States?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Of course, there were different questions that came
up. The same questions, I do not think, came more than once each.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; but I mean pointing out the difference — point-
ing out what was unlawful cohabitation in its various phases?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 understood the Supreme Court of the United

KEED SMOOT. 639

States to say that they did not care to point out definitely what was
unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. VAN COTT. They did point out in that case whether the acts
constituted unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They pointed out in the Cannon case —

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The fact that the mere holding out, as we expressed
it, or the " flaunting," to use the word of the Supreme Court, without
proof of more intimate relations between the parties, was sufficient to
constitute the offense.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, in a general way, polygamy, as denned by that
act, was the marrying of more than one woman ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Whether the husband lived with her or not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the unlawful cohabitation consisted in the hold-
ing out of more than one woman as a wife?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. In whatever shape it was done?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that in Utah, particularly, people, from the news-
papers and from judicial decisions and trials in court, knew very well
the difference between polygamy and unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think they ought to, and they must have.

Mr. TAYLER. If it will not interrupt you there, because we do not
want to take it up later, I wish to insert the fact here that the Edmunds
Act did not make adultery an offense. It was the Edmunds-Tucker
Act that made it, and the prosecutions to which Mr. Worthington has
referred must have been for unlawful cohabitation, if they occurred
between 1882 and 1887. I have the statute here.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is practically immaterial.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand, but it seemed to discredit Mr. Critchlow.

Mr. VAN COTT. Oh, no.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not mean it was intended for that purpose.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 did not understand Mr. Critchlow to give more
than a tentative opinion; that he thought it was not in 1882.

Mr. TAYLER. The statutes are here in full.

Mr. VAN COTT. It makes no difference. The acts will go in later,
which will make it clear.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, can we send for the twenty-
second volume of the Statutes?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. Tayler, do you want any of those
sections inserted in the record?

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN. You have just called attention to the fact?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that whenever the act punishing adultery was
passed, the serious punishment was for which — adultery or unlawful
cohabitation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Do you mean serious in the sense of the penalty
imposed ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The severest penalties were imposed for polygamy,
the marrying, which involves proof of marriage and the ceremony.

640 REED SMOOT.

The next most severe penalty was for adultery, as I now remember it;
and the slightest for unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. VAN COTT. For polygamy what was the punishment?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. My recollection is a maximum of five years. That
is nry recollection.

Mr. VAN COTT. What was it for unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A maximum of six months' imprisonment and
$300 fine.

Mr. VAN COTT. It could be both ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Or both.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was there not a fine, also, for polygamy ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember what amount ? Have you any
idea what it was ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not now remember. I think the maximum
was $1,000, but I speak subject to correction.

Mr. VAN. COTT. So that the Edmunds bill punished polygamy and
unlawful cohabitation in 1882?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the severer punishment was for polygamy?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, when the constitutional convention met h*
Utah, what year was it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1895.

Mr. VAN COTT. And there were many gentiles in it, comparatively
speaking ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A large number of gentiles were there.

Mr. VAN COTT. And a good many gentile lawyers ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think perhaps five or six.

Mr. VAN COTT. And a number of Mormons, of course?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And C. C. Goodwin, the editor of the principal
Gentile paper in Salt Lake, was a member of the convention ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. At any rate there were a great number of these men
who knew the difference between polygamy and unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think they must have known it, of course.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you the least doubt about it ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not the slightest.

Mr. VAN COTT. Some of the lawyers had been engaged in the pros-
ecution of those cases — that is true, is it not — Mr. Varian, for instance?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is one I know had. I was trying to think
whether there were any more.

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not know whether Mr. Van Home had. David
Evans had?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. At Ogden?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that many of these people well understood the
difference between the two offenses?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As I have stated, I have no doubt in the world
that they did.

Mr. VAN COTT. During the discussion of the provision in the Utah
constitution prohibiting further plural marriages is it not a fact that

REED SMOOT. 641

Mr. Varian, who was at one time United States district attorney,
expressly avoided putting anything into the constitution in regard to
unlawful cohabitation, and mentioned the other offenses that had been
made punishable by the Edmunds bill and the Edmunds-Tucker bill;
and for the purpose of refreshing your recollection I call your atten-
tion to volume 2 of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention
of Utah, on pages 1736, 1737, and particularly the marked part or
page 1738.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I, of course, recognize and identify this volume as
containing the printed reports of the proceedings of the constitutional
convention, and I only wish to say that I do not understand that thu
pretends to be anything more than what occured publicly on the floor.
I have an understanding as to what occurred between the member?
that is not reported in there.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am asking you now so far as the printed report-
goes

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I identify that book, and the whole of it, as being
the published reports of the debates in the constitutional convention
and the proceedings.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is there anything in the discussions that you know
of or that you have ever heard of, so far as they are reported and
put in the bound volumes, that is any different from what I have called
your attention to ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW (after examining the volume). I can not undertake
to say. I never made the examination, Mr. Van Cott, upon any such
theory as that, but I do remember of having looked at one time or
having my attention called at one time to some remarks of Mr. Good-
win with regard to the inclusion of the offense of unlawful cohabita-
tion in the pledge or guaranty that was required to be inserted in the
constitution of the State. But where to find it, or whether, indeed, I
correctly recollect the purport of it, I would not attempt to say with-
out investigation.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, we should like to have pages 1736,
1737, 1738, commencing on page I7b6 with the president's declara-
tion-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mark it.

Mr. VAN COTT. On page 1736 I notice that Mr. Goodwin speaks,
also.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He is one of the protestants here?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; he is one of the protestants.

The CHAIRMAN. Indicate to the reporter what you wish to go into
the record and it will be inserted.

Senator HOPKINS. What is the object of the offer of it?

Mr. VAN COTT. The purpose of the offer is to show that when the
attention of the constitutional convention was called to the enabling
act, namely, prohibiting forever the celebration of plural marriages,
the convention had before it a condition that had existed in Utah,
namely, that they had been punishing unlawful cohabitation and polyg-
amy; that when they came to the adoption of the constitution it was
no oversight in omitting the punishment of unlawful cohabitation
from the constitution; that their attention was invited to it, and they
expressly omitted legislating on the subject of unlawful cohabitation,
but instead legislated against polygamy.

Mr. WORTIIINGTON. That is in the constitution.

642 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. There is no doubt there was a law passed by the State
forbidding unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is a different thing, Mr. Tayler. So as to get
in the whole discussion, because I might have overlooked some-
thing-
Senator HOPKINS. Does what you offer purport to give the speeches
of members of the constitutional convention?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; a stenographic report of their speeches.
I now offer it, beginning on page 1736, going down to and including
the vote on page 1749, where it is marked as carried.

Senator HOPKINS. Who are these men who are speaking ? Do they
speak with any more authority than any other members of the consti-
tutional convention?

Mr. VAN COTT. These are all the members, as I understand, who
spoke on that subject. And I shall proceed, after it is in, to ask Mr.
Critchlow about it.

The matter referred to is as follows:

"The president declared the article adopted and referred to the com-
mittee on compilation and arrangement.

"The convention then proceeded to the third reading of the article
entitled schedule.

""Sections 1 and 2 were read.

"Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. President, I desire to offer a section to be
known as section 3, as follows :

" 4 SEC. 3. Persons who at the time of the admission of the State into
the Union may be confined under lawful commitments or otherwise
lawfully held to answer for alleged violations of any of the criminal
laws of the Territory of Utah shall continue to be so confined or held
until discharged therefrom by the proper courts of the State.'

"The section was adopted.

"Mr. VARIAN. Mr. President, 1 offer an amendment to section 2, to
insert at the end of section 2 the following:

" ' The act of the governor and legislative assembly of the Territorj7
of Utah, entitled "An act to punish polygamy and other kindred
offenses, approved February 4, A. D. 1892," in so far as the same
defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to be
in force in the State of Utah.'

"I desire to give a reason for this amendment, which I am impressed
is a strong one. The enabling act requires the convention to provide
by irrevocable ordinance that polygamous or plural marriages are
forever prohibited. In the ordinance adopted by this convention this
declaration is made: 'The following ordinance will be irrevocable with-
out the consent of the United States and the people of this State.'
First, among other things, polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited. Now, while this is strictly in accord with the letter of
the act of Congress, it is not in accord fully with the spirit of that act,
because it must be confessed, 1 think, that it was the intention of the
people of the United States assembled in Congress that a prohibition
in fact, as well as by words, should be evidenced by the organic law
of this State. Of course, the declaration that we have already adopted
in the ordinance is not self-executing. It amounts to nothing except
like one of the ten commandments.

"It might have the effect of a moral law upon the minds and con-
sciences of those who look upon the constitution as a guiding instru-

REED SMOOT. 643

ment for their lives. Nor have we accomplished the purpose, as I
view it, by our declaration, in the schedule sought to he amended,
that all laws of the Territory of Utah now in force shall he continued
in force. The moment this State enters into the Union all Congres-
sional acts of this kind fail, so far as their operation is concerned,
within this State. There was passed in 1892 by the legislature of the
Territory an act substantially — indeed, I may say, literally — in accord
with or following the act of Congress upon the subject. That act
defines and provides penalties for the specific offenses, polygamy,
unlawful cohabitation, adultery, incest, and fornication. Now, that
law I apprehend is not in force in Utah to-day, and the reason is that
Congress entered upon that field of legislation and covered the whole
subject-matter.

4 'There was nothing left for the Territorial legislature to act upon.
That being so, it is not included within this provision of section 2, and
if it is desired that there shall be a compliance with the intent of the
act of Congress, and with the understanding everywhere, in spirit as
well as in letter, it would be necessary for this convention to make
some positive declaration, adding the force of law, which would be
self -executing; that is, that the courts would undertake to execute it
without further legislation upon the subject. This act of the Territo-
rial legislature entered a field that was already occupied, and as long as
the Congress had occupied that field, of course nothing was left for
the Territorial legislature to act upon, and, as I desire that there shall
be nothing thrown in the way of the approval of this constitution by
those in authority at Washington, I make this suggestion to this con-
vention for their consideration, whether or not it will not be wise,
having in mind the general conditions and circumstances attendant
upon the passage of this enabling act and the difficulties that thereto-
fore had existed in bringing to a conclusion a long and laborious
struggle, to in terms adopt and enact this first section relating to this
particular offense already enacted by the Territorial legislature.

"Mr. MALONEY. You say the legislature in 1892 invaded the field
already occupied by Congress. On the approval of this constitution
by the President, would not that act of the legislature be in just as
full force and effect as any act of the legislature which is continued in
full force by section 2 of this act?

"Mr. VARIAN. No.

"Mr. MALONEY. Why not?

"Mr. VARIAN. Because you can only continue in force a law. If
there is anything in the form of an act that is not a law, for instance,
we will say it were unconstitutional. Simply b}^ a declaration con-
tinuing a dead act in force when it never was in force does not accom-
plish wbat you purpose doing. It is clear what this convention
intended to do — all laws now in force. It did not intend to revivify
laws or acts purporting to be laws which were never in force or which
were unconstitutional. We take the Territorial legislation as we find
it, and every law that is in force at the time of the adoption of the
constitution will be continued. I personally care nothing about it.

' 4 Mr. RICHARDS. The purpose of this, as I understand, is to make this
act irrepealable, so far as polygamy is concerned; is that not so?

" Mr. VARIAN. No; I was not thinking of that so much as 1 was of the
positive declaration —

"Mr. RICHARDS. Would not that be the effect of the amendment?

644 REED SMOOT.

Mr VARIAN. No; I. do not think-

'Mr. RICHARDS. I asked you to look at it and think—

" Mr. VARIAN. Well, I have said no. I say no again. It would not be
the effect of it, and I was going to say, Mr. President, that there is no
power on earth, in the Congress of the United States, that can force
from this people an irrevocable law. That is the merest illusion in the
world. This people can next }rear amend this constitution, and strike
out everything concerning polygamy if they want to. Every lawyer
knows that. It is just a question of their own good sense and judg-
ment whether they shall do it or not.

"Mr. RICHARDS. It seems to me that my question was not appre-
hended. When I spoke about a law being irrepealabje, of course 1
did not refer to the amendment to the constitution. That could not be
repealed by the legislature, I take it.

"Mr. VARIAN. I don't know why the gentleman should ask me a
question like that. Of course, if it is in the constitution it can not be
repealed by the legislature. I care nothing about it myself; I am
firmty convinced that it will add very materially in aid of the adoption
of the constitution.

" Mr. THURMAN. I desire to ask, Mr. Varian, if the amendment you
propose would not enact a great deal more than Congress requires of
us in the enabling act.

"Mr. VARIAN. In what way?

"Mr. THURMAN. Well, if I remember that act, it goes into detail.

"Mr. VARIAN. Well, but the amendment confines it to that partic-
ular matter. It does not touch the other offenses mentioned in this act
at all. It does not touch cohabitation, nor adultery, nor incest, nor
fornication.

"Mr. RALEIGH. Mr. Varian, will this be in the hands of the legis-
lature ?

"Mr. VARIAN. Yes; perhaps I did not make myself clear. The leg-
islature can, of course, enter upon this field; but here we are in this
situation: When this constitution goes back, after it has been adopted
by this people, if there is any opposition to it it will be concentrated
at Washington. I presume there are a number of things, possibly,
that may be brought up by those who are opposed to the admission of
Utah as a State, numbering a large number of classes of people in the
United States.

"Then it will be said, I apprehend, the Congress of the United
States, as a condition of giving this enabling act to the people of Utah,
exacted or attempted to exact from them an impossible condition;
that is, that they should make the enactment of a penal prohibition
irrevocable; but it was the intention of the act. They will say to the
people of the United States that this people would not only literally
but in spirit conform to this enabling act and the wishes of the people
of the United States in that particular. They have not done it. They
have evaded that question by putting in a mere declaration which is
not self -executing, and the moment the President of the United States
issues his proclamation there is not a law in the State of Utah that
affects this question; and who will say when the legislature will act
upon it? Who can say whether you can get votes enough in the leg-
islature to pass affirmatively an act? That is what they will say; at
least that is what I offered this for, upon the theory that some misap-
prehension of that kind may exist.

REED SMOOT. 645

"Mr. JAMES. Mr. President, of course lam not able to discuss this
question from the legal standpoint, but 1 do believe that there is a
great deal in what the gentleman from Salt Lake has just said. You
will remember, Mr. President, when this matter came up in the bill of
rights, it was suggested by the gentleman from Cache that it was not
broad enough to cover the requirements of the enabling act, and he
made some remarks upon it and so did I at the time, and I believe still
that the words used in the bill of rights, that it shall be forever pro-
hibited, are not sufficient to cover the requirements of the enabling
act. The enabling act. to my mind, requires of this convention that
they should do something specific, that it should be understood, that
it should not be a general declaration.

' ' The language is such that perfect toleration of religious sentiment
shall be secured, etc., and ends, 'provided that polygamous or plural
marriages are forever prohibited.' Now, you see it is the language of
the enabling act. It is based upon a condition, and in order to carry
out the requirements of that enabling act you must say something
specific regarding what this constitution shall be and how it shall be
enforced, and 1 believe the gentleman from Salt Lake (Mr. Varian) is
very correct in his position. I believe that it will raise a question,
when this constitution goes back to Washington, whether we have
complied with the enabling act strictly regarding this provision.

44 Mr. EVANS (Weber). Mr. President, I am of opinion, as I stated
before when we had the question of ordinance before the convention,
that we have already strictly complied with the enabling act. I do not
believe that there is any danger respecting the proclamation of the
President on that question. 1 do not think any issue will ever be made.
We have upon our statute books a law punishing polygamy and kin-
dred offenses, and which, as has been stated by Mr. Varian, is properly
ineffectual and void, because Congress had invaded the same field of
legislation. There has always been a difference of opinion between
lawyers respecting that particular question. I believe that the law
upon the statute books would be in force upon the adoption of this con-
stitution under section 2 of the article we are now considering.

"If the view be taken that that law was unconstitutional and inef-
fectual at the time of its passage, a nice constitutional question arises
here upon Mr. Variants amendment — that is, as to whether a void law
can be revived and given life by reference to it in the constitution
which we are framing. It is a generally well-understood question
that constitutional conventions have no legislative power. Although
we say that we are legislating all the time in our constitution, yet in
the broader sense we have no power to legislate in a general way, such
as is generally given to a legislature. Now, is not this an attempt to
do that very thing? Is not it an attempt here in this convention to
legislate upon the statute books a penal law punishing the offense
named? That is to say, this convention is attempting to revive what
is termed by the gentleman a void law. It is attempting to revive
something upon the statute books which in itself was a nullity. Now,
I don't take that view. I believe the law was valid. I have always
entertained that view, and I believe that it would be in force upon the
adoption of this constitution, and for one I can not support this amend-
ment, because I believe it to be wholly unnecessary and an unusual
method of making a constitution. To revive a law or to make a law

646 HEED 8MOOT.

out of that which is pretended to be ineffectual and void by reference
to it merely in a constitution is certainly a very singular thing.

"Mr. SQUIRES. I would like to ask the gentleman, provided this act
approved February 4, 1892, is a valid law, what is to prevent the next
legislature or any succeeding legislature from repealing it ?

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). There is nothing at all.

"Mr. SQUIRES. Then, we certainly will not be complying with the
enabling act.

" Mr. EVANS (Weber). There is nothing at all. No. The Congress
never understood that the people of Utah would not repeal this par-
ticular law which punishes the offense named. As has been properly
stated by Mr. Varian, as a matter of constitutional law, we have the
right at any time, when we secure statehood, to revise and repeal and
amend our constitution and to leave this out altogether. The people
in their sovereign capacity would have the right, if they saw fit, to
resume the practices which they have practiced heretofore, by proper
amendments to the constitution. This is an inherent power, an
inherent right. Judge Cooley lays it down as clearly as can be in his
work on constitutional limitations, and I think no lawyer will dispute it.
As I understand it, this is simply designed for the purpose of satisfy-
ing the authority which will proclaim Utah a State. That is all. Now,
that being the only purpose of it, I think we have full}7 complied with
the enabling act when we use its exact language and 'say that polyg-
amy shall forever be prohibited in the State.

"Mr. EICHNOR. Do you mean to say that any constitutional conven-
tion in the future could nullify the compact with the United States?

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). Oh, no. That is because of the fact that
that would be prohibited by the Constitution of the United States
itself, but the Constitution of the United States does not place any
restriction upon the States with respect to the practice of polygamy
or kindred offenses. Consequently, we would have a right to reform
our government just as we please.

"Mr. KERR. I would like to ask Mr. Varian or Mr. Evans a ques-
tion. In the article on ordinance, is the statement that polygamous or
plural marriages shall forever be prohibited. I desire to ask if, under
this provision, the legislature could repeal the law which defines those
offenses and provides punishments for violation ?

"Mr. VARIAN. Does the gentleman ask me?

"Mr. KERR. Either gentleman.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). I think it would have that right.

" Mr. VARIAN. I prefer to answer it m}Tself, if the gentleman is
asking me. I am quite satisfied that my position is confused and not
understood, or at least it seems so, from the remarks of Mr. Evans.
It is this: First, that there is no Territorial law on the statute books
(when I say law I mean valid law) touching upon this question. That
may be tested by any canon of common sense. There was a Congres-
sional law on the statute book fixing certain penalties. Supposing the
Territorial law had fixed other penalties, which would prevail? You
can not occupy the same space with two different lawmaking bodies
at the same time. Second, that being so, the}7 will say when this
constitution is adopted there is no law touching this question. There
is nothing that will evidence the good faith of this people upon this
question. And it will be a makeweight upon the proposition, is my
idea, unless something of this kind is done, showing that this conven-

REED SMOOT. 647

tion intends to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the enabling
act.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). If that is your purpose, why not say in the
ordinance it is declared to be a felony ?

"Mr. VARIAN. Because I do not agree with you at all in your criti-
cism, that this convention is not able to legislate in this wa}^. I draw
a distinction between legislating in matters now existing in the Terri-
tory and legislating in the constitution for the future State.

"Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, Mr. Evans says it would be an
unusual proceeding, and probably it would, but the circumstances are
unusual. This has never confronted any other Territory when apply-
ing for statehood, and the point in it is this, when Mr. Thurman the
other day thought that the article in the ordinance was not sufficient,
that it ought to he strengthened, I was in hopes his idea would be
carried out by the convention solely as an evidence of good faith. It
won't make any difference in the future. There is no State where the
laws are enforced against the public sentiment of the people.

"Now, if public sentiment of the people of this Territory is that
the ordinance shall be backed by legislation which will make penalties
and enforce them; that will be done. If a change should come and the
sentiment should be that it was nobody's business, we will do what we
please. That will be the rule. The question that confronts us is just
this: We know that almost every church organization outside of Utah
in the United States will scan this constitution. They will study it
with a disposition to, if possible, find some fault in it. Now, when
they do that, and there is merely a declaration that there will be no
more polygamy, they will simply laugh. They will say, 'Those people
have simply made a declaration and have provided no means on earth
to enforce it.' It is not what is to be after statehood is obtained, but
it is how to obtain statehood. For instance, the President of the
United States is, I am fold, a member of the Presbyterian Church. I
think he is a little lax [laughter], but no matter. He may have
fixed it all right with his own soul. He professes to be a Presbyterian.
He has a great many Presbyterian friends. He is a lawyer. He con-
strues things exactly as 1 would construe them, when he has the
capacity to [laughter].

"Now, when this constitution is carried up to him, we will suppose
a case. We will suppose in the same election by which this constitu-
tion is approved there should be Republican officers elected all over
this State. He not only will have the Presbyterian Church behind
him, but he will have every Democratic officeholder in Washington
and all through the country telling him that there is a point where he
can afford to delay. It won't make a bit of difference to Utah what is
in this constitution in regard to that particular matter. The idea is
to have something to present to the President which he and his friends
can find no flaw in — that is, that the enabling act has not only been
carried out in the letter, but the means have been provided to enforce
its mandate.

"I had intended to offer and try to argue an amendment to the
ordinance. This amendment this morning co\ ers the case, and what
objection is there to passing it? Are we at this time in the conven-
tion going to say it is legislation ? It is on a theme that we have no
precedent for. We are confronted here with this condition. The
enabling act tells us that we must (and I presume means in an effective

648 REED SMOOT.

way) declare forever against polygamy and plural marriages. We
ought to do it in such good faith that there would be no question
about it. If two years hence, or four years hence, the legislature
desires to do anything else, it can do it. If the constitution is adopted
and Utah is admitted as a State, the people can revise or call a conven-
tion, and make a new constitution within a .year or two. Let us go
as the sovereign States went. Every one of them had statutes. They
had provisions in regard to slavery, that there should be no more
slavery or involuntary servitude. It was finally enacted in the Con-
stitution of the United States, and other provisions; and while some
of them did not intend to keep those provisions there was nothing in
what they presented that there could be any criticism of.

"As far as the words go, the words were apt. They said, cl care
nothing about the future. I am perfectly willing to trust it. I have
perfect faith it will be all right.' But let us fix it so that the Presi-
dent of the United States, at least, can not, in his obstinate way, say,
'It does not suit me; you had better go back and try it over.' You
know, Mr. President, he does not want any more silver Congressmen.
You know he has peculiar ways. Once or twice he has pretty nearly
neutralized the law, and when eight or ten of his constituents get
around him and tell him he ought to do it, then he takes it upon him-
self to think that he was raised up by God Almighty to be the savior
of the United States, and when a man gets in that frame of mind there
is no telling what he will do. Let us fix it so that neither he nor his
friends can criticise one word. It will make no difference to Utah.
Let us act in absolute good faith, so far as our words are concerned,
and have it fixed so that a penalty, if that is disobeyed, can be inflicted.

" Mr. MALONET. Mr. President, I do not concur in the views of the
gentleman from Salt Lake. The Congress of" the United States pro-
vided that in Utah we should stop these practices, and in a great meas-
ure have enforced that law. In 1892, through our legislature, we
said we would quit that. Now, the position of the first gentleman
from Salt Lake who spoke is that the act of 1892 is an absolute nullity,
that it is null and void, because the legislature of Utah had invraded a
field previously occupied by Congress and therefore it is void. I do
not agree with him on that, but, of course, if the two acts were in
conflict the law of Congress must prevail. But they are not in con-
flict. As I remember, in our act of 1892 we went still further than
the Edmunds-Tucker bill. Now, there is no court that has ever
declared the act of 1892 of our legislature unconstitutional or null and
void that I ever heard of. I claim it is in force now and has been ever
since it was enacted. The reason it has never been enforced is because
the prosecuting attorney of the Territory preferred the Congressional
enactment, and preferred the penalties imposed by the Edmunds bill,
and the Tucker-Edmunds bill. If Mr. Varian is right, and that act is
void, I say section 2 of this act breathes life into it and makes it just
as valid as any other Territorial enactment.

"Mr. VARIAN. How can you take that position when it says the
laws of the Territory of Utah now in force —

"Mr. MALONEY. 1 sa^y it is in force, but 1 say, conceding for the
sake of the argument that it is a nullity, it is in force by section 2 of this
act. I do not agree with Mr. Varian that it is not in force and never
has been. I do not think the proposition is tenable. Now, if the
President is so hard pressed for an excuse that that will be the excuse

SMOOT. 649

for not issuing the proclamation when the enabling act makes it oblig-
atory upon him, it is a mighty slim excuse and other excuses will be
provided if he does not have this one. Now, I say we have strictly
and literally complied with the enabling act, and 1 think it is wholly
unnecessary.

"Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, 1 am opposed to this amendment.
I think that the enabling act is fully complied with at present, and I
do not think that it is necessary that we pursue this question with any
further special legislation. Therefore, I am opposed to it and will
vote against it.

"Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, at first I was opposed to the amend-
ment proposed by the gentleman from Salt Lake until he stated his
reasons for it, and having heard his reasons, I shall now support the
amendment. I think it ought to prevail. I agree with him (while
not wishing to engage in any discussion on that branch of the ques-
tion) in believing that the law of 1892, passed by the legislature, was
absolutely void and of no effect, and never has been, for the reason
suggested by him. I had occasion to go over that ground, in 1888, in
the legislature, and came to the conclusion that the Territorial legisla-
ture had no power whatever to deal with that question, unless it might
have been perhaps some ancillary legislation — something that had not
been touched upon by- the Congress of the United States. When he
first proposed his amendment, I did not think that that act, not being
in force, could be revivified, and thought it was fully covered by sec-
tion 2 as it stands.

"I have some doubts whether the ordinance that we have adopted
is a sufficient compliance with the enabling act, at least in spirit. It
is true that we use the exact words of the enabling act, but if this Ter-
ritorial act is without force and is void we will at least find ourselves
in this position that while we have declared in the constitution that
polygamous marriages are forever prohibited, when the constitution
goes into effect and before the legislature sits we must say there will
be no effective law upon this subject at all in force in this State. The
declaration that we make in the ordinance is not effectual, except in a
normal sense. The moral effect of the whole State by its representa-
tives in convention declaring that a certain thing shall be forever pro-
hibited of course has great weight, but there is a view that may be
taken of that which "is this, that at most it is merely an inhibition upon
the legislature ever sanctioning an establishment of that kind, but it
is not a law against it with penalties. In other words, it is without
effect.

"Now, I think I have taken the position to do everything that I
think 1 can conscientiously and consistently do to present this to the
President of the United States, without the instrument containing
anything in itself which will afford him a just reason for rejecting it
by saying that it does not comply with the enabling act. 1 think,
gentlemen, we who have labored here to make this constifution up to
this time ought now to obtain the fruits of it, to do everything we
can upon this or any other occasion to put this" matter before the
President of the United States in a way that he will have no excuse in
performance of his duty. For the reason suggested, and by way of
showing a more determined disposition upon our part to comply not
only in the letter, but in the spirit, with the demands of the enabling
act, I shall support it.

650 BEED SMOOT.

" Mr. MALONEY. Do you suppose the Congress required us to leg-
islate in the constitution ?

" Mr. THURMAN. Well, I wish to say to the gentleman from Weber
that upon this proposition it has come very near requiring it. If it
was anything else, 1 would agree with you; but they say that we must
provide by ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United
States, that a certain thing shall forever be prohibited.

"Mr. MALONEY. Which we have done.

"Mr. THURMAN. Have we provided it, or have we merely declared
it shall be prohibited?

"Mr. MALONEY. We have literally followed the language of the
enabling act.

"Mr. THURMAN. Have we prohibited it?

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). Let me ask you a question. Is not it just as
much prohibited as slavery is prohibited in the Constitution of the
United States?

"Mr. THURMAN. It seems to me —

"Mr. MALONEY. The language is 'polygamous or plural marriages
are forever prohibited.' If that is not prohibiting, I don't know what
they could do to prohibit. But while on the floor I will say I will
vote for the amendment, but 1 think it is absolutely unnecessary.

"Mr. THURMAN. I want to ask you a question. Suppose a polyga-
mous marriage is contracted after we become a State, is there anything
to prevent it ?

"Mr. MALONEY. There is a constitutional declaration against it.

"Mr. THURMAN. Does that prevent it?

"Mr. MALONEY. I think it does.

"Mr. THURMAN. In what way?

"Mr. MALONEY. By the very language.

"Mr. THURMAN. It says it shall not be done. Where is your
penalty?

"Mr. MALONEY. There is an act of the legislature already in exist-
ence.

"Mr. THURMAN. I am taking the position that it is not in existence.

"Mr. MALONEY. There is where I differ from Mr. Varian.

"Mr. THURMAN. You have made your speech on that. I am mak-
ing one on the other side.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). Then point out the penalt}^ if you can find
it — where the penalty is for slavery.

"Mr. THURMAN. I believe that when the Constitution of the United
States said that slavery should forever be prohibited every State in
the Union had a provision of that kind in force.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). Oh, no.

"Mr. THURMAN. Well, they came pretty near it.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). They were compelled to put it in after that.

"Mr. THURMAN. They did put it in, but that has nothing to do with
the question. The Constitution of the United States, with that pro-
vision, did not have to be passed upon by some functionary above the
United States. We are talking here now about what this great— his
majesty, may do. I believe we are all in good faith on this question.
I do not understand that anybody here impugns the good faith of this
convention, but the question is to show it.

"Mr. VARIAN. May I answer that question as to the Constitution of
the United States?

BEED SMOOT. 651

"Mi\ THURMAN. Yes, sir.

"Mr. VARIAN. The thirteenth amendment provides that neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States. That would be made operative simply by the
affirmative action of the Federal courts, by releasing men from
slavery. It would require no further legislation.

" On motion, the convention then took a recess until 12.30 p. m.
"AFTERNOON SESSION.

"The convention met pursuant to adjournment, President Smith in
the chair.

"The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, section 2, with the amendment of
Mr. Varian, is now before the house.

"Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am in favor of adopting the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from Salt Lake. I think, sir, that it
should prevail. First and principally, that it may appear without any
equivocation whatsoever, that in absolute good faith, the people of
Utah intend to carry out the condition upon which statehood is to be
granted to the Territory, for Congress did require, by its enabling act.
an express stipulation upon this subject, and I believe its intention was
to have a declaration that would be effective and not merely an empty
assertion, and I think a provision of this character is absolutely neces-
sary to the document we are drafting in order to establish beyond all
question the fact that we intend to carry out to the letter our agree-
ment as expressed in the compact with the United States; but, sir, I
do not think that this amendment should be adopted by this conven-
tion in the spirit in which it was discussed by the gentleman from Salt
Lake (Mr. Goodwin) this morning.

"One of the reasons urged for having a stenographic report of these
debates, as I understand it, was for the purpose of assisting those who
will interpret the constitution, in understanding what the intent of the
convention that framed the constitution was; and, sir, if we adopt this
amendment in the spirit in which that gentleman discussed it, those
who shall interpret the constitution in the light of what was said upon
the various propositions would be led to conclude that this amendment
was not adopted by the convention with any real intention to have it
put in force, but merely for the purpose of removing from the eyes of
the President of the United States, who is to pass upon this instru-
ment, and his counselors, and to silen.ce any opposition that might be
raised against it on the part of sectarian peoples throughout the United
Stated, and that it was not a real bona fide determination on the part
of this constitutional convention to carry out that provision with good
intent.

"Now, sir, I scorn all such proceedings as that. I believe that what
we do here we do with real intent of heart and without nonsense, and
for that reason and in this spirit we should adopt this amendment and
then have it carried out just as it is intended to carry it out. I hope,
sir, that these remarks and the remarks that other gentlemen have
made and doubtless will make upon this provision of the constitution
will have the effect of removing from the proceedings of this conven-
tion this seeming insincerity which ought not to exist in a convention
of this character. Why, sir, we would give little credit to the Intel-

652 EEED SMOOT.

ligence of the man who is to pass upon this instrument before our
labors shall be finally completed, in bringing Utah into the Union, if
we suppose that he could not see through this flimsy screen that it is
proposed to cast over our conduct here if we let this provision go in
under the spirit of that discussion; and, sir, I hold that we ought to
adopt it in a spirit of earnestness and with honest intention to make it
effectual.

"Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, it seems to me that the discus-
sion of this question raises a question of construction on the intent of
the enabling act; and if that be so, it occurs to me that the way in
which we propose by the amendment to remedy any doubt which might
exist is not the proper way of proceeding in this case. The enabling
act provides that the convention shall provide by ordinance, irrevocable
without consent of the United States and the people of said State, that
perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no
inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property
on account of his or her mode of religious worship, provided that
polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited. In accord-
ance with that, and in the strict pursuance of the letter of the require-
ment, we have by ordinance provided directty what we had to provide
under that enabling act. The question comes simply on our compli-
ance with the spirit of the enabling act. No one doubts but the letter
has been complied with.

"If it be necessary for us to comply with the spirit of the enabling
act as well as with the letter of that act, would it not have been the
proper way for us to have put into the ordinance, irrevocable, with-
out the consent of the United States, and all the people of the State,
the necessary legislation to show that we intended to carry out the
spirit of that enactment? If so, the article should have been put in
directly following the first subdivision of the ordinance. That not
having been done, the question comes as to what is the better way
to provide for this meeting the spirit, or supposed spirit, of an enact-
ment by Congress. It seems to me that the kind of amendment con-
templated is improper and not the best plan for several reasons. The
constitution is not complete in itself. It refers to something outside
of the constitution, as a means of interpreting the intent of the framerS
of the constitution. It leaves to future construction the question of
whether that was a law, or whether by our reference to it in this con-
stitution we made it a law that was binding upon the people of this
Territory and could be enforced.

" My idea is that if Congress intended anything by the requirement
that we should pass such a provision in an article irrevocable without
the consent of Congress — if they intended an}^thing more than is meant
by the moral prohibition, that would be included in the strict fol-
lowing of the words of the enabling act. It intended that by putting
a provision of that sort in the constitution Congress might, by legis-
lation, refer the enforcement of that compact to United States courts.
If they did so intend, the question before us is, Does the amendment,
as it is now proposed, meet that objection of the act?

" The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time has expired.

" Mr. CHIDESTER. Mr. President, I desire to move the previous
question.

"The PRESIDENT. With the permission to Mr. Varian to close, as it
is Mr. Varian's motion.

EEED SMOOT. 653

"Mr. VAN HORNE. Mr. President, I wish to move the insertion of
a provision to be called section 3 in this article.

"The PRESIDENT. We have just had section 3.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). If the convention will permit it, I want to
make a suggestion or two. I am of opinion, Mr. President and gen-
tlemen of the convention, that the proposition made by Mr. Van Ho;~ne
is right. We are now considering what we call a schedule. If we are
simply attempting to comply with the enabling act, and want to make
a prohibition of polygamy effectual, we should put it in the ordinance,
as it is required that an ordinance be passed which would be irrevoc
able without the consent of the United States. Of course, I do not
recede from the position which I took this morning upon this question,
and I now simply want to call attention, gentlemen, to one fact, that
the amendment proposed by Mr. Varian points out one class of offenses
and seeks to revive and bring into life a law which is admitted by the
gentleman to have been ineffectual and void, and it only revives that
one particular class of offenses.

"There are kindred offenses in the law of 1892; indeed, all the
offenses which were named in the act of 1887. If this amendment
prevails the result will be this, that if that law is ineffectual, or whether
it is effectual or not, the one class of offense only named in the amend-
ment will be continued in force. So far as the other class of offenses,
and many of them are more odious than the one aimed at, it will be
repealed, and the people of Utah will be permitted to violate those
laws or engage in that class of offenses with impunity. Mr. Varian
will not dispute this proposition, because this constitutional conven-
tion is simply pointing out the one class of offenses, that of polygamy;
whereas numerous other classes of offenses in the same law are not
covered, not only by any law of Congress, but are not covered by any
law of the Territory, and it is class legislation of the worst sort, and
not only that, it seems to me like impugning the good faith and the
integrity of the people of Utah when they renounced this practice.
If we are not ready to go into the Union under the present condition
of things as we understand them let us stay out.

"A law which does not have the moral sentiment of the people can
never be enforced in any way. That is a common and well-known
maxim of law. Why, then, point out a particular offense in the man
ner in which it is pointed out in the amendment of the gentleman, and
why undertake to insert in the schedule, which the enabling act does
not provide for at all, upon the shallow pretense that it will be satis-
factory to the Executive of the nation? Gentlemen, if you want a
State, do that which is sensible, and do that which is right; do that which
is patriotic, that which is honorable. If we can not get statehood b}^
going through the front door, let us not sneak around like a burglar
through the back door, for the purpose of securing that which we are
all desirous of obtaining. If you want to defeat statehood, transcribe
from the reporter's notes the remarks from the gentleman this morn-
ing, castigating the Chief Executive of the nation and holding him up
in ridicule, and send a transcript of those notes to the President and
show him the estimation in which he is held in a convention sitting
under an enabling act, whose actions he must approve, and then see
what the result will be, and that, too, by one of the leaders of the
majority upon this floor. I do not entirely agree with my friend Mr.
Roberts on this, but 1 agree with him upon one point, that such

654 REED SMOOT.

remarks coming from any gentleman respecting the Chief Executive
of the nation are an insult to that officer.

"Mr. ANDERSON, i would like to ask if the substitute of Mr. Van
Home is before the house ?

"Mr. YARIAN. No, sir. Mr. President, I do not propose to.attempt
to answer the arguments of my friend from Weber County. Driven
from position to position, he flutters about and appeals to this sort of

Erejudice and the other sort of prejudice, when we are dealing with a
igal question first and a question of expediency next. Whether this
shall be admitted into the schedule or the ordinance makes no differ-
ence. The question we are disposing of now is the question as to whether
it shall be put in at all or not, and after that shall have been disposed
of we may determine in what part of the constitution it shall be placed.
It is the sheerest pettifogging to distract and disturb the attention of
the convention to a point of that kind.

" In 1888 a similar law was introduced into the Territorial legisla-
ture of this Territor}^. My distinguished friend, Mr. Thurman, from
Utah County, whose keen and analytical legal niind always adorns and
adds to every question he discusses, then was chairman of the commit-
tee on judiciary, and he wrote a report to the legislature right on the
line of his speech to-day, in the line of nry thought and argument this
morning. 1 do not remember who his associates were upon the com-
mittee. I have not been able to get the volume of the journal of that
year, but the proposed act was rejected, because it was in conflict with
the law of Congress.

uln 1892, four years later, my distinguished friend from Weber
County was chairman of the judiciary committee of the council. This
present act was presented. It was reported by that committee through
its chairman, with Mr. Baskin, now mayor of this city, a lawyer of
forty years' standing, presumably acquainted with the jurisprudence
of the Territory and of the United States, presenting a minority report
at great length upon the same line, resurrecting and adopting with
approval the report of my friend, Mr. Thurman, the chairman of the
judiciary committee of 1888. It went through, but there was no other
lawyer on the committee on judiciary, except my friend, Mr. Evans,
as I remember it. It went into the house, there passed without ques-
tion, a layman beino- chairman of the judiciary committee. I take it
that the people of this Territory have once decided in the legislature
that this act which was subsequently passed in 1892 was in conflict
with the law of Congress and void.

"Now, if that be so, what sort of a law have }7ou upon the statute
book to indicate to the people of the United States and to the Congress
that you are in earnest and in good faith in your manifesto that you
all adopted here two or three years ago ? Gentlemen say that it ought
not to go into this part of the constitution, and yet in the preceding
lines of this very section you have undertaken to carry into effect in
the coming State all laws which are in force in the Territory of Utah.
If this act were a law, if it were in force, of course it would be included
within the general provision, and there would be no necessity to make
special provision for it; but not being in force, it is necessary, in order
to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the act of Congress
and the intention of the people of the United States, and as my friend
from Davis sa}^s, the bona tide intention of the people of Utah, that
you should place this declaration upon the statute book.

REED SMOOT. 655

"I am tired of quibbling and playing with these questions. I am
here in good faith. I gave up two years and a half ago. I want state-
hood, and I want it the coming January, and I do not desire to play
fast and loose with these questions. If you are in good faith, as you
say you are, it will be asked, Why do }^ou object to placing upon this
statute book, the organic law of your Commonwealth, the fact you do
intend to prevent the crime of polygamy ? What does ' prohibit' mean ?
Does it not mean prevent? I ask my friend from Salt Lake, and col-
league, more learned in philological lore than myself, whether it is one
of the synonyms of prevent, and if the interpretation must not be put
upon the use of that language in the act of Congress, that it means to
prevent the practice of polygamy and plural marriage? How are you
going to prevent it, unless you put some penal anactment into force,
that the courts and executive officers under your State government
may be able to administer your law well in that behalf? In reply to
the gentleman who last spoke, I did not undertake to inject into this
organic law legislation on the subject of other offenses. It was not
involved in the act of Congress. I care nothing about them, and simply
seek to meet the issue which I believe is tendered to these people, and
I want to remind you all that in the construction of law, civil law as
well as the law of God, and religious law, that it is the letter that
killeth, and the spirit giveth life.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask you a question. The
gentleman will agree with me that your amendment will repeal the
other kindred offenses in that statute?

"Mr. VARIAN. No; there is nothing to repeal. If you want the
other kindred offenses, my answer is, prohibit them by law under pen-
alties. Your legislature that meets in March next must enact a law.
I do not enter upon that subject because I am not meeting that issue.
I am simply meeting the issue which is tendered here, as I think, to
carry out in spirit the act of Congress and the will of the people of
the United States, so that no stumbling block may be thrown in the
way of this onward march toward statewood; and I agree with my
friend from Davis — I do not put it upon the grounds that were stated
here this morning — I do not like a sneak. I would not desire anything
to be done that was not done in good faith, but I believe that this
people intend this in good faith, and therefore I believe that they will
ratify this action here to-day.

"Mr. EVANS (Weber). I would like to ask a question. Suppose the
act of 1892 were valid ?

"Mr. VARIAN. If the law were valid, I should not then introduce —

"Mr. EVANS { Weber). Wouldn't it then repeal everything except
the polygamy ? "

"Mr. VARIAN. If the law were valid it might repeal by implication,
although repeals b}^ implication are not favored.

"The motion for the previous question was agreed to.

"Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. President, I arise. to a question of personal
privilege. I find that the harmless remarks of mine this morning have
been construed into very great disrespect to the President of the
United States. I wish to say no gentleman has more reverence for the
high office of President of the United States than I. I wish to say
that the man in that office is entitled to just as much respect as he can
inspire, and if the present incumbent is entitled to any more respect
now than when he was sheriff of Erie County it is because of his acts.

656 REED SMOOT.

I ask this convention to put this thing, that there might be nothing in
the way of statehood, and I pointed out that he has before now nulli
tied certain 4aws of the United States — one, the silver law for four
months; one, the Chinese law for four months. I wish now to point
out further that he has thrown every opposition over all the West,
kept people poor, from settling the lands —

"Mr. THURMAN. Mr. President, I arise to a point of order.

"The PRESIDENT. I think the gentleman is overstating the question.

uMr. EVANS (Weber). Let the gentleman proceed if he wants to
drive a nail in his coffin.

"Mr. GOODWIN. I only want to say this — my friend from Weber
can put it in with the balance of the speech to send to his majesty, as
the gentleman from Utah called him, to show that the Republicans in
this convention do not care one straw for him personally.

"Mr. MALONEY. Mr. President, I wish simply to state now, for the
purpose of explaining my vote, that since speaking I have investigated
the question carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that the act
of February 4, 1892, is still in force, and this is simpty unnecessary.

"The roll being called on the adoption of Mr. Variants amendment
to section 2, the result was as follows:

"Ayes, 72. — Allen, Bowdle, Brandley, Button, Cannon, Chidester,
Christiansen, Coray, Corf man, Crane, Creer, Cunningham, Gushing,
Driver, Eichnor, Eldredge, Emery, Engberg, Farr, Francis, Goodwin,
Green, Hammond, Hart, Halliday, Hill, Hughes, Hyde, Ivins, James,
Johnson, Kiesel, Kearns, Kerr, Kimball (Salt Lake), Lambert, Lar-
sen, L. ; Larsen, C. P.; Lemmon, Lowe, Win.; Lowe, Peter; Lund,
Maeser, Mackintosh, Morris, Moritz, Murdock (Beaver), Murdock
(Wasatch), Murdock (Summit), Nebeker, Page, Partridge, Peterson
(Sanpete), Preston, Raleigh, Richards, Roberts, Robertson, Ryan,
Sharp, Shurtliff, Snow, Squires, Stover, Strevell, Thompson, Thur-
man, Van Home, Varian, Wells, Whitney, Williams.

"Noes, 16.— Anderson, Boyer, Call, Evans (Weber), Evans (Utah),
Hey bourne, Howard, Jolley, Low (Cache), Maloney, Maughan,
McFarland, Peterson (Grand), Robison (Wayne) Thorne, Warrum.

"Absent, 16. — Adams, Barnes, Birrs, Clark, Gibbs, Haynes, Keith,
Kimball (Weber), Lewis, Miller, Peters, Ricks, Robinson (Kane),
Spencer, Symons, Thatcher.

"Paired, 2. — Pierce, Thoreson.

"The president declared the amendment adopted/'

Mr. VAN COTT. Is the Mr. Varian who speaks on this subject the
same person to whom you have already referred ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Malone}^ — who is he?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is a lawyer living at Ogden, at one time United
States commissioner, and now 1 think one of the referees in bank-
ruptcy of the United States circuit court.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is a gentile?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. "Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in politics a Democrat?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And from Tennessee?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to Mr. Richards — who is he?

EEED SMOOT. 657

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know whether it is C. C. or F. S. Richards
I think it is F. S. Richards.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Richards, were you a member of the constitu-
tional convention?

Mr. FRANKLIN S. RICHARDS. I was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was your brother?

Mr. RICHARDS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is Mr. F. S. Richards. Is Mr. F. S. Richards a
lawyer?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Both are lawyers.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Richards is a Democrat and belongs to the
Mormon Church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to Mr. Thurman, who is he?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Thurman is a Mormon, a lawyer living at
Provo; a member of the constitutional convention.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. A polygamist or monogamist?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Evans?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Is that Dave?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was at that time a resident of Ogden City, a
lawyer, of Mormon birth and parentage, but non-Mormon, liberal,
and formerly an assistant United States attorney.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. James?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. James is a non-Mormon, living at Salt Lake
Cit}T; mining man, retired.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Squires?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Squires is a non-Mormon. He lives at Salt
Lake City, or in its vicinity.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Kerr?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Kerr is at present a Mormon, a polygamist,
and the head of. the agricultural college at Logan.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Goodwin?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Goodwin I have already spoken of as the
editor.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is right. Do you know who Mr. Anderson is,
whose name appears in the discussion?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Andrew Smith Anderson. 1 do not know him. I
do not recall him.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Brigham H. Roberts.

Mr. VAN COTT. The one who has been mentioned ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Mr. Van Home?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Van Home was a non-Mormon. He is judge
of the court of first instance, at Cairo/Egypt.

Mr. VAN COTT. I believe I have covered the number, although 'I
am not sure.

Now, in the enabling act for Utah there was no provision against
unlawful cohabitation, was there, Mr. Critchlow? Would you like to
look at the book to refresh your recollection ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think there is.

Mr. VAN COTT. Will you find it, please?

658 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think that the Congress of the United States
when they passed the act saying that "polygamous or plural marriages
are forever prohibited," meant to prohibit the marriage ceremony,
which was a comparatively immaterial thing, and the actual living in
the state of polygamy. That has always been my contention about it.
Of course, I am no more capable of judging of that than is anyone else.

Mr. VAN COTT. No one in the constitutional convention took that
view of it, did he ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know whether they did or not. They were
very tender in treating that subject; very tender.

Mr. VAN COTT. The provision in the enabling act is this:

"First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be
secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested, in
person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious wor-
ship: Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited."

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is there anything in the enabling act bearing on the
question, except what I have read?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not to my recollection.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it not a fact that you stated yesterday that gen-
tiles generally regarded the offense of polygamy as more serious than
the offense of unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; it is just the opposite.

Mr. VAN COTT. Just the opposite ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Just the opposite. In a punitive sense, if I may
use that term, where a man was convicted of the offense, of course the
penalty was the more serious for polygamy; but in the moral sense, in
the civic sense, the offense that touched us and touches us in Utah, is
the actual living in, the practice of polygamy.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then when Congress provided the severe punish-
ment for polygamy and a comparatively light punishment for unlawful
cohabitation your idea is that Congress meant that unlawful cohabita-
tion, which was punished lightly, comparatively, was the serious offense,
and that polygamy, for which there was a severe penalty, was the light
offense?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I would not want to say what Congress understood
or thought.

Mr. VAN COTT. But is that your construction of it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. My theory of it is that they did not properly grad-
uate the penalties. They ought to have made a maximum penalty
quite severe, and more severe, even, for unlawful cohabitation than
for polygamy. But every case must stand upon its own particular
features.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, you think that Congress was wrong in the
legislation it passed ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Oh, no. I do not think it was wrong. 1 think
that is a question of detail which, of course, must be left to the dis-
cretion of Congress, and Congress, sitting here at Washington, could
•aot appreciate all the circumstances that existed in Utah.

Mr. V AN COTT. Do you not think that the people of the United
States are offended more by polygamy than they are by simple unlaw-
ful cohabitation?

REED 8MOOT. 659

Mr. CKITCHLOW. Do you mean the sovereignty of the United States,
in view of the law as it exists ?

Mr. VAN COTT. -I mean the people; I am talking of the people.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, I do not. I think the people of the United
States have the same view of those things that we do there in Utah
who do not believe in practicing polygamy.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then, when Mr. Rawlins, whom you have mentioned
as a lawyer and a gentile, got through Congress this enabling act pro-
hibiting polygamous or plural marriages, and said nothing about unlaw-
ful cohabitation, did you regard that as a breach of faith on his part?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A breach of faith against whom — against the United
States or against the Government of the United States?

Mr. VAN COTT. Against the Government of the United States.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Against the Government of the United States?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You did not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. VAN COTT. When the constitutional convention met, and they
passed a provision in the constitution prohibiting plural marriage?
forever, but not mentioning unlawful cohabitation, do }^ou think that
C. C. Goodwin and Varian and all the gentiles —

Senator McCoMAS. Mr. Chairman, the witness was asked what the
people of the United States thought — some 80,000,000 — and now what
these certain people who participated in a debate in the constitutional
convention thought about this provision. He can not know and he
can not tell us, and because that is a vain thing, I think perhaps Mr.
Van Cott might suspend that character of examination.

Mr. VAN COTT. I have stopped that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In his direct examination, Mr. Critchlow testi-
fied as to what he thought the people of the State of Utah thought.

Senator McCoMAS. He may give what he thinks is the public senti-
ment in a community, but you are now asking him what five or six
members of the constitutional convention thought, and what they
thought is of very little consequence here. If you are allowed to put
in the record what the}^ said, 1 think that will suffice on that subject,
for they themselves said what they thought on that point, and I think
we ought to rest on that.

Mr. VAN COTT. I should like to have the question read.

The reporter read as follows:

"•Mr. VAN COTT. When the constitutional convention met and they
passed a provision in the constitution prohibiting plural marriages
forever, but not mentioning unlawful cohabitation, do you think that
C. C. Goodwin and Varian and all the gentiles "-

Senator McCoMAS. I think an examination of that character will
not enlighten us or influence our minds or the mind of the Senate.

Mr. VAN COTT. The question I was about to ask, and which is unfin-
ished, is on an entirely different subject. It must be remembered that
Mr. Critchlow has gone over this subject, giving general history and
current matters, and giving his opinion to a great extent. So we are
forced, to a certain extent, to go into the matter of his opinion.

Senator McCoMAS. Because there may have been a failure to object
to it in the examination in chief is no reason why we are bound to sit
here and listen to improper cross-examination. We want to hear

660 REED SMOOT.

everything that is within the limit here and relevant in some sense;
but I do not like the prolongation of an examination, such as to ask a
witness as to what he thinks the people of the United States think,
and by such questions as what Mr. Rawlins thought, what Congress
thought, and what these members of the convention thought, especially
after counsel has been allowed to put in exactly what they did think
on this particular point as represented by what they said. It is clearly
wasting time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 think the record should show that we did
object to this line of examination. I think Senator McComas was not
here. When this reputation testimony by this witness was attempted
to be put in, we did object over and over again; but, as it was put by
Senator Hoar, it was determined that it was competent for this com-
mittee, sitting as a grand jury, to go into these matters, whether they
referred to Senator Smoot or not.

Senator McCoMAS. I was here at the time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Worthington, the proceedings to which you
have called attention are in the record. Now, if Mr. Van Cott will
go ahead, and if Mr. Critchlow will answer the questions directly,
without enlarging on them, we can get along with this matter a great
deal more rapidly.

Mr. VAN COTT. This question was on a different subject entirely.
I will ask the reporter to read it again.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. VAN COTT. When the constitutional convention met and they
passed a provision in the constitution prohibiting plural marriages
forever, but not mentioning unlawful cohabitation, do you think that
C. C. Goodwin and Varian and all the gentiles "-

Mr. VAN COTT. I did not finish it.

The CHAIRMAN. He can not know what the people of the United
States might have thought.

Mr. VAN COTT. I submit that he can know that just as well as he
can know what all the people of Utah thought.

The CHAIRMAN. He lives in Utah; and while he lives in the United
States generally, he does not know what the people of the United
States, for instance, in Alaska, may think about it.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will ask the reporter to read the question.

The reporter again read the question.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will finish it.

When the constitutional convention met and they passed a provision
in the constitution prohibiting plural marriages forever, but not men-
tioning unlawful cohabitation, do you think that C. C. Goodwin and
Varian and all the gentiles purposely omitted all reference to unlawful
cohabitation ?

Senator McCoMAS. That is the very question to which I object, now
that you have been allowed to put in the record exactly what they said.
You know from that what they thought about this particular proposi-
tion. Why ask this man what he supposes they thought, or whether
they purposely omitted something which was in their minds and did
not include it in their speech, or vote, or act?

The CHAIRMAN. You ask him to interpret what their language and
their votes mean. They speak for themselves.

Senator McCoMAS. You have given their language.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and it speaks for itself.

BEED SMOOT. 661

Mr. VAN COTT.
this point, so
tant, and I still
McComas and others if I may be excused for doing so.

It is this: Mr. Critchlow has answered that the gentiles in Utah
consider the serious ofi'ense unlawful cohabitation and not polygamy.
Now, with a view of testing him on that, I called his attention to the
Edmunds bill and the Edmunds-Tucker bill, which provided the more
serious punishment for polygamy and the lesser penalty for unlawful
cohabitation. Then I called his attention to the enabling act, which
did not mention unlawful cohabitation, but only polygamy, and then
I called his attention to the constitutional convention, which, in its
action, mentioned polygan^ and not unlawful cohabitation. Then I
asked him about the discussion in the constitutional convention by
such men as Goodwin, who had always been opposed to polygamy —

The CHAIRMAN. All that has gone into the record — every word of it.
All that they said is now in our record.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is for the purpose of testing that that I wish to
put to Mr. Critchlow the direct question, as to whether he believes
that these men thought —

The CHAIRMAN. They thought what they said.

Senator HOPKINS. You were asking something about what Congress
understood about that. Is it not fair to presume that a man who was
not in Utah and who was not familiar with Morman practices, would
understand that if plural marriages were stopped, unlawful cohabita-
tion would cease?

Mr. VAN COTT. That is an argument —

The CHAIRMAN. The chair does not think it is material. I want to
get along as rapidly as possible.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to Mr. Smoot' s candidacy,
did Mr. Smoot announce that he was a candidate before the election of
1902?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; at least if he did not personalty announce
it it was announced for him in such a way that it was understood to
be authoritative from him.

Mr. VAN COTT. How far back?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. My recollection now would be as early as June.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it not as far back as 1898, and did not the
minority in the legislature, the Republicans being in the minority,
vote for Mr. Smoot for United States Senator?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They voted for him and they voted for me. They
had only 3 votes out of 63, and it was a compliment which was passed
around to a lot of us.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was not Mr. Smoot, though, later, and before^ 1902,
discussed more seriously as a candidate for the United States Senate
than any other gentleman in the Republican party?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was prior to his appointment as an apostle of
the church-— prior to April, 1900, that would be.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was known that he was going to be a candidate,
in all probability, before he became an apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. His name was mentioned as a Senatorial possibility,
if I may use that expression.

Mr. VAN COTT. Coming down to the convention in September, 1902,

662 REED SMOOT.

which was held in Salt Lake County, were you a member of the
convention ?

The CHAIKMAN. What convention was that?

Mr. VAN COTT. The Republican convention.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of 1902?

Mr. VAN COTT. 1902.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your answer?

Mr. CRTTCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. You mean a State convention, I suppose?

Mr. VAN COTT. A county convention. Mr. Critchlow, it was well
known at that time that Smoot was a candidate for United States Sen-
ator, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And it was well known in the selection of sena-
tors—

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. I mean the state senators and representatives —

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. That he was .going to be a candidate?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will show you the paper if you do not recollect;
but did you move to make unanimous the nomination of those senators
and representatives who were for Mr. Smoot?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. You did?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 did. That might be misunderstood, and I think
I ought to be allowed to explain.

The CHAIRMAN. We have your answer, and you may explain it if
you want.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I fought them as hard as 1 knew how. I fought
every man who I thought would vote for Mr. Smoot if he went to the
senate. There was quite a good deal of feeling, and it was rather a
three-cornered fight. 1 was there in the interest of Mr. George Suth-
erland, attempting to forward his hopes, and when we were beaten,
as a mere matter of courtesy, in order to win as much as possible for
future tights, or any other reason you please, 1 moved to make it
unanimous. That was all there was to it. They had us beaten, and
I thought they might as well have it unanimous.

Mr. VAN COTT. You knew that meant Reed Smoot for United States
Senator if the Republican party won?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you go out on the stump that fall, too?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 think not. 1 do not now remember of going.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me ask }^ou in particular, as I have been informed
to that effect, and I have no more definite information that 1 can give
you—

The CHAIRMAN. Ask your question, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, I am asking it.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you were stating what you had been
informed; that you had been informed so on and so forth. Ask the
question.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 am stating that because I am not able to show him
the paper. May the reporter read the question ?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

REED 8MOOT. 663

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. VAN COTT. Let me ask you, in particular, as I have been
informed to that effect, and I have no more definite information that
I can give you "-

Mr. VAN COTT. I will finish the question.

Let me ask you, in particular, as I have been informed to that effect,
and I have no more definite information that I can give you to refresh
your recollection, whether you did not speak at Springville for the
Republican ticket in that campaign ?

The CHAIRMAN. That was 1902?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I believe I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. You knew, then, that if the Republican party won,
as you stated yesterday, in all human probability Mr. Smoot would be
the candidate?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Unless we could dissuade him, or the people from
electing him, we knew he would be elected.

Mr. VAN COTT. You also knew from the Thatcher incident, did you
not, that Mr. Smoot would have to get leave of absence from his
quorum to become a United States Senator, or get consent?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. As defining your mental attitude at this time, is not
this correct? If Mr. Smoot were a non-Mormon at the present time,
he would be entirely unobjectionable as United States Senator?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 may say even more than that. If he were not a
member of the presidency and the apostolate, he would be unobjec-
tionable to me as a member of the United States Senate.

Mr. VAN COTT. If he were a member of the church, but not of the
general authorities?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not of the general authorities. That is a better
way to put it, perhaps.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is because he is one of the general authorities ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You knew that when you moved to make unanimous
the nominations of senators and representatives?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was not Mr. Eichnor, a gentile, chairman of the
Republican county committee in Salt Lake County in that year?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If you suggest it as being the fact, I have no doubt
of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 will put the question generally to you. In the
principal counties in that campaign were not the chairmen of the
county committees gentile Republicans ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 have no recollection upon that subject, Mr.
Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it not your opinion that the rank and file of the
members of the Mormon Church are just as much controlled by the
leaders as the general officers of the -church are controlled by the
leaders?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; as a general statement put in that way, I think
not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you not state yesterday that the people, of
themselves, practically amount to nothing, and that it is just the
leaders ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I say, when we speak of the church, we do not

664 KEED SMOOT.

consider the mass of the people. We consider the leaders, and their
policy, and their aims. The church is controlled by the leaders. In
that sense I say the people do not amount to anything in political or
ecclesiastical considerations.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, they can be controlled absolutely by the
leaders?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; if the leaders TV ant to control them.

Mr. VAN COTT. If that is true, then, how is it the leaders have any
less control over a lay member in the Mormon Church than they have
over one of the apostles in the Mormon Church ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Read that question.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. VAN COTT. If that is true, then, how is it the leaders have any
less control over a lay member in the Mormon Church than the}7 have
over one of the apostles in the Mormon Church ? "

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They do not, if you consider a single individual
member; but if you consider the whole body of the church, less. Do
1 make myself plain ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I will take the answer. But your other answer has
been, as I understand it, that they have just as much control over a
lay member as they would have over an apostle — that is in regard to
controlling his action.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If you take a la}7 member, an individual lay mem-
ber, yes.

Senator HOPKINS. I want to understand you on that point. Do you
say that the Mormon Church has no more influence over Senator Smoot
now than it would have if he were United States Senator without hold-
ing the position he does in the church?

Mr, CRITCHLOW. I do riot know that I can answer that question yes
or no. What I meant to say is this: Given any individual lay member
of the Mormon Church, and the leaders of the church gave to him a
command to obey certain counsel, that thus and so is the will of the
Lord, and we want you to do it, that man must do it or he must get out
of the church.

I would say that would be the attitude of a member of the quorum
of the apostles and first presidency. If the president or the quorum
of the apostles said to a member thus and so you must do, he must do
it or get out of the quorum of apostles. When I say that they do not
have the control over the people as a mass I mean to say this: That
they can not go, nor so far as I have observed or ever heard do they
ever go, out in the community and say to the people as a mass so and
so must be done.

Their orders, and behests, and counsel are given to individuals; and
in respect of the control of the people in political affairs, they never
do say, and indeed it would be subversive of the very object of their
control if they did, to the Mormons as a mass, "You become Repub-
licans," or "You vote the Democratic ticket this year." That would
be subversive of the very element of control which is valuable to them.
There are certain persons in the Mormon Church, in a community, to
whom they may say, "I want you to see that So-and-so votes this
ticket" or "the other ticket," and enough are set apart or controlled
in that way from this floating contingent to make the thing go any-
way they please.

Senator HOPKINS. Now, is Senator Smoot any more under the con-

HEED SMOOT. 665

trol of the Mormon Church in the discharge of his duties as United
States Senator than he would be if he were simpty a lay member of
that church, holding* no office whatever in the church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That I arn unable to saj- except in this way: He
would have to obey the members of his quorum or his particular
ruling file leaders in any particular; and, viewing it in that sense, any
good member of the Mormon Church is just as much under the control
of the president of the church, of course, as is the quorum, and if pos-
sible it might be even more so, because of the difference in elevation
between the president and subordinate member.

Senator HOPKINS. In other words, he has more to lose now if he
should disobey the church than if he were a lay member?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator HOPKINS. That is, he has his ecclesiastical position to lose,
in addition to the good will of the church, a position he could not lose
if he were simpty a member, because he would not hold it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. True; but if I might be permitted to add just one
observation there, from the history ef the church and its practical
operations we know that the president of the church and the quorum
of apostles are always one, absolutely one, in unison and in harmony
upon any particular question, or if one gets out of harmony, as Moses
Thatcher did, he gets out of the quorum of apostles.

The CHAIRMAN. You said, but 1 did not quite understand you, that
if the president and the apostles directed a certain thing to be done
by an individual he would have to do it. Do you mean one of the
quorum ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I mean any member of the church, because all
power centers in the president. He is the man, of course, who has
control, riot only over the quorum of apostles, but over all the mem-
bers all the way down — absolute control.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the president and a majority of the twelve
apostles should direct a certain thing to be done by one of the apostles.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Then he must do that thing or get out of the
apostolate. He is no longer in harmony with them the moment he
does not cheerfully and readity and willingly acquiese in the mandates
of the church. Those, we say, are what' they have proclaimed as
being their doctrine and beliefs and practices, and those are what we
find to be the results in actual practice in the community.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean to say that it must be done, whatever
the command upon the individual?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do; yes, sir; whatever the command.

Mr. VAN COTT. If Mr. Smoot were a bishop instead of being just a
lay member, and as United States Senator, if he did not obey counsel,
according to your view, he would be disfellowshiped, and in that case
he would have more to lose than a lay member, would he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In a temporal, pecuniary sense, 1 think; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Regarding offices in the church as different from
fellowship.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; and if he were a counselor to a bishop instead
of simply a teacher in a ward, and if he were United States Senator
?nd should disobey counsel, he would be disfellowshiped and in a sense

7ould lose more ?

666 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 think, so far as one may speculate upon those
subjects, that would be true.

Mr. VAN COTT. But in regard to the real control, from your stand-
point, that the Mormon Church has over its members, the~ church has
no more control over Mr. Smoot now than if he were not an apostle.
Is that correct?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is correct.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that if, hereafter, airy Mormon should be a United
States Senator, he could be charged with being subject to the will and
dictates of the church absolutely just the same as Mr. Smoot is in this
case?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir. If he is a member of the quorum the will
and the practices and the control of the church are his will, his con-
trol. His views are absolutely molded into harmony with those of the
head of the church, whereas if he does not belong to that quorum, then
it can not so be said. That is what I am trying to enforce.

Mr. VAN COTT. Suppose Mr. Smoot, then, belonged to the bishops'
council, and that he were elected United States Senator.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then, if he is not in harmony with them and not
subject to their will, he is just as liable to be disfellowshiped as
though he were a twelve apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And just as subject to obey counsel as if he were a
twelve apostle?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Did you know Orson Pratt?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Orson Pratt, sr. ?

Senator OVERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think he died before I was born.

Senator OVERMAN. Did you ever see a book printed by him, called
" Orson Pratt's Works?" In other words, I want to ask you whether
this, which I am about to read, is their teaching now. This is a book
printed in 1881, b}^ one of the apostles, from which I read the following:

" The kingdom of God is an order of government established by
divine authority. It is the only legal government that can exist in
any part of the universe. All other governments are illegal and
unauthorized. God, having made all beings and worlds, has the
supreme right to govern them by His own laws, and by officers of His
own appointment. Any people attempting to govern themselves by
laws of their own making, and by officers of their own appointment,
are in direct rebellion against the kingdom of God."

Is that the teaching now of this church, as you understand?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am unable to say— .

Mr. WORTHINGTON. From what page do }7ou read ?

Senator OVERMAN. Page 41. It is a book which was handed to me
this morning.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the title of the book?

Senator OVERMAN. 1 will read it:

"A Series of Pamphlets on the Doctrines of the Gospel, by the late
Elder Orson Pratt, one of the twelve apostles of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

u Printed at the Juvenile Instructor office, Salt Lake City, Utah,
1884."

REED SMOOT. 667

Mr. TAYLER. What is the date?

Senator OVERMAN. 1884. This book was handed to me as being in
circulation in the State of Tennessee to-day. I want to know whether
this, so far as you know, has been indorsed or condemned by the
church. I should like to ask Mr. Jenson, unless gentlemen object,
because I think he knows more about it.

Senator McCoMAS. I think you ought not to interrupt the order of
examination.

Senator HOPKINS. That is something foreign to the point now under
consideration.

Senator OVERMAN. It is on this very point as to the right of Mr.
Smoot to obey or disobey the church. Here is a paragraph that says
that everything is subordinate to the church, and that is the reason
why I brought it in here. I want to know if that is their teaching
to-day.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It undoubtedly is, if the Senator please. It is a
theocracy, a hierarchy, a government of priests, and the highest priest
must necessarily govern, and that may be illustrated and enforced by
almost every issue of the Deseret News, in which the sermons of their
presidents, and seventies, and so on, are published every week and
nave been for ten years past. That is true of current volumes and
the volumes of former years.

Senator McCoMAS. I was trying to get a chance to ask you a ques-
tion. A while ago you said: "In a pecuniary sense," speaking of the
apostles. Did }^ou mean that the president and the councilors and the
apostles are salaried officers ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am unable to say about that. The only thing I
meant was that they certainly get a living in some way. I never knew
of Joseph F. Smith having property of any particular amount until
he became president of the church. Many of the apostles are men
who have no particular business, and yet live, and it is understood
live off some sort of revenue from the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is that competent? He says it is understood
they live off the revenues of the church.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 have no knowledge on the matter at all.

Senator McCoMAS. He can say- in respect of what he has heard; that
is, what is the general reputation in the community. If I understand
the witness, he says that that is a matter of general repute and accept-
ance in the community.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; and 1 have seen it stated that the}T do
receive a salary, but I can not now recollect what it was. They
receive something for their services.

Senator McCoMAS. Just there, 1 would be very glad if counsel are
able to say whether the president of the church and the first councilors
and the apostles are paid salaries or are given something for mainte-
nance or support out of the church revenue.

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not know. I will have to inquire and find out.

Senator McCoMAS. Will you find out?

Mr. VAN COTT. I am not advised on those things. I will have to
inquire and find out the details.

Senator McCoMAS. Will you inquire?

Senator HOPKINS. I suppose the president of the church has a salary
the same as a bishop in the Methodist Church

668 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not think the bishops receive any compensation.

Senator McCoMAS. I am not asking about the bishops-
Mr. VAN COTT. Senator Hopkins spoke of the bishops.

Senator McCoMAS. But whether the president and the counselors
and the apostles hold salaried offices, because, in answer to a question
by Senator Hopkins, Mr. Critchlow said that as between a lay mem-
ber and these high officials there was this difference — that the high
Morman officials had much to lose, naming several things, and saying
also "in a pecuniary sense." It is easily ascertainable, 1 suppose.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We will ascertain the fact.

Mr. VAN COTT. We will, so as t<3 have it accurate.

Senator McCoMAS. Proceed, gentlemen.

Mr. VAN COTT. Shall I proceed?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. I understood you to say yesterday that Mr. Smoot
had been indorsed by the church for United States Senator. Will
you please give us the information on which you based that statement?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The information was that of current understanding
and report in the State of Utah at the time, and since reenforced \>y
the statement which I heard Joseph Smith make, that he had received
the consent of the members of the apostolate, the first presidency.

Mr. VAN COTT. When you said "indorsed" did you mean that Mr.
Smith had given consent?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is all I meant.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all you meant?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is all I meant.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do }^ou remember a circumstance of Apostle Lund
being beaten in Sanpete County when he ran for the legislature?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; I do not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to the Thatcher episode,
I understood you to say the other day —

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Cott, how much time will }^ou need for the
completion of the cross-examination of this witness?

Mr. VAN COTT. I can not tell exactly from my notes, but I should
think it would be an hour, anyway.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the committee will take a recess at this time.

Thereupon (at 12 o'clock and 50 minutes p. m.) the committee took
a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with Mr. Critchlow, Mr. Van Cott.

TESTIMONY OF E. B. CRITCHLOW— Continued.

E. B. CRITCHLOW, having been previously sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, .you spoke the other day of the polit-
ical rule that was announced by the church in regard to its leading
officials going into business and politics and things of that kind, and I
understood you to say, in substance, that nothing had ever been heard
of that rule until that time. Do 1 state you correctly?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I think so.

REED SMOOT. 669

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you mean by that, or do you wish to be under-
stood by that, that the rule you have mentioned was not in force before
that time ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I could have no knowledge on the subject. . I was
only speaking as to the state of my own information.

Mr. VAN COTT. Your statement is founded on common understand-
ing, is it — common talk?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; so far as it came to my knowledge.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you read the "Thatcher episode?"

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it partly founded on that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think not.

Mr. VAN COTT. I believe you have already stated that you thought
that Wilford Woodruff was an honest, conscientious man?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was so regarded by the non- Mormon commu-
nity as being such a man.

Mr. VAN COTT. And you so regarded him ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 had no personal acquaintance with WTilford
Woodruff.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was his general reputation among the non-
Mormons, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. That rule contains this statement, does it not? I
call attention to page 168 of the printed record, just reading the par-
ticular part that bears on this:

"Feeling the necessity of a correct understanding of this principle,
we deem it proper at this sixty-sixth anniversary of the organization
of the church in these last days to prepare and present a statement
on the subject embodying the doctrine which has always prevailed
in the church, and our views upon it."

Do vou notice what it says about having "always prevailed in the
church?"

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I note that.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is signed by Wilford Woodruff, is it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you wish the committee to understand that you
contradict that statement ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do, in so far as it seems to indicate, if it does
indicate, or express publicly a rule that was well known in the com-
munity; and in that connection, and in view of the inference, I wish
to say that President Woodruff was an exceedingly old man at that
time, being .over ninety — I think he was over ninety-four when he
died — and recognized, I think, by non-Mormons and by Mormons as
being very largely under the control of his counselors and the leading
men of the church; that he was mentally not as strong as he had been
in his }rounger days.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, he was not too old, in your opinion, was he,
to speak the truth?

Mr. CRITGHLOW. Of course not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, John Henry Smith also makes a statement in
this Thatcher episode about this rule. Do you regard him as a truth-
ful man?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In anything where his church is not involved I
would.

670 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Where his church is involved?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I regard him as being like any of the rest of them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, how is that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Making statements that are not true as to matters
of fact as respects their practices.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, to save time in going over this
Thatcher episode, so as not to take up a great deal of time in reading
it, I just ask to have the pamphlet go in.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is in, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all I care for. Mr. Critchlow, in giving
your opinion as it bears on the Thatcher episode, 1 understood you
expressed not only your opinion but what was the common under-
standing among the non-Mormons of Utah of this rule.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As to the prevalence of the rule and its notoriety
before that time, do you mean?

Mr. VAN COTT. And as to its propriety.

Mr. CRITCHLOW'. If 1 made any statement about the propriety of it,
I do not now recollect it, Mr. Van Cott; but I have attempted to
speak and to distinguish wherein I hold different opinions personally
from those of the non-Mormons generally.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it not your intention to convey the idea to the
committee that the propriety of the rule was questioned and denounced
by the non-Mormons of the State of Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 think so. I think I did express that opinion.
Anyhow, I do intend now to express that opinion.

Mr. VAN COTT. In part, when you say that does that come from the
editorial expressions of the principal Republican gentile newspaper
of Utah *

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Oh, 1 think not. I do not think that 1 gather my
views on those subjects to any great extent from any one paper.

Mr. VAN COTT. In part, did you?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In so far as any such editorials may have expressed
my own views they may have been intensified or, rather, corroborated
by editorials. I would hardly want to say they were not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Without going over those editorials at the present
time, so as not to take the time to do that, 1 call your attention to the
fact that the principal Republican gentile paper in Utah approved of
that rule. Do you remember that as a fact?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not remember it as a fact, but it may have
been done, because the Tribune, for a while, took a very peculiar
stand upon many things.

Mr. VAN COTT. And that was one of the peculiar stands, was it
not, in your opinion?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. The principal gentile paper in Salt Lake Cit}^ is a
Republican paper, is it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes. Well, I do not want to distinguish between
the Herald and the Tribune. They are both gentile papers.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you call the Herald a Republican paper?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. But you asked me whether the principal paper is
not a Republican paper.

Mr. VAN COTT. I did not mean to put it that way. Probably I did.

The CHAIRMAN. What rule are you speaking of, Mr. Van Cott?

REED SMOOT. 671

Mr. VAN COTT. The rule in regard to politics and business, on page
168 of the record.

As you have mentioned the Tribune, I will call it that. That is the
principal gentile Republican paper in Utah, is it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And was, away back during the Thatcher episode?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. If that paper expressed approval of that rule and
defended its propriety, then your opinion in part is not taken from
that paper at all, is it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not at all, because the Tribune opposed anything
that seemed to be Democratic or that the Democrats seemed to be in
favor of, and the Democrats were making a sort of campaign issue
against that rule, and the Republican paper took the opposite view, I
suppose, for party reasons.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; and where the Tribune, for instance, the prin-
cipal gentile Republican paper of Utah, defends a rule like that, then
you disagree with it on that point as to the propriety of the rule, and
your opinion in regard to current rumor and current history is not
made up from a source of that kind. - Is that true?

Senator HOPKINS. Mr. Van Cott, suppose it is or is not, what is the
point of that examination?

Mr. VAN COTT. It is simply this, Senator, to find out whether or
not Mr. Critchlow's opinion is in part formed from the gentile Repub-
lican paper. That is the purpose of it.

Senator HOPKINS. One question, I think, would settle that.

The CHAIRMAN. Ask him that question directly, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the question I have asked.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can answer it in no other way than I have, that
in so far as the paper expressed my views on matters of general pub-
lic interest, in important matters of that kind, I can not say, of course,
but what my views were strengthened by anything the Tribune might
say; but I was almost always in opposition to the Tribune.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did these papers help to form your opinion ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The witness did state over and over again, as
we all remember, that the opinions he formed about the general repu-
tation and sentiment of the community were formed very largely from
what he saw in the newspapers.

The CHAIRMAN. He has answered the question, Mr. Worthington.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I understand the Senator's question to apply par-
ticularly to this manifesto rule, and so answered.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I agree with the Senator from Illinois, that if
there is any pertinency I think it is a direct question.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on with your questions.

Mr. VAN COTT. You spoke of the Democratic reconvened conven-
tion. That was called, was it not, because the Democrats were of the
opinion that the church was meddling in the politics, Mr. Critchlow?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And they adopted a platform and quite severely
denounced the church, did they not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They denounced the leaders of the church; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Thev denounced the leaders of the church ?

672 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Some of them.

Mr. VAN COTT. The great majority of that convention were Mor-
mons, were they not?

Mr! CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; I rather think so. 1 am pretty certain
that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. And did you, on the stump in that year, ridicule
the Democrats for meeting again and denouncing the church for inter-
fering in politics?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I did not.

Mr. VAN COTT. I asked you the other day if Elmer Taylor left Moses
Thatcher and voted for Mr. Rawlins. Have you refreshed your recol-
lection, or have you any way of refreshing it, since the other day?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have not had time to go to the only source of
information I have, which would be the Deseret News files.

Mr. VAN COTT. The other day, Mr. Critchlow — and I call attention
to the typewritten record, page 83 — you spoke to this effect, that the
"word did come" from the church authorities that these men should

fo over to Mr. Rawlins and elect him as against Mr. Thatcher. How
id you know about that word coming, as you have stated it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. From many* conversations I have had with Judge
Henderson.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did Judge Henderson tell you?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And who told Judge Henderson ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Judge Henderson was there and in the midst of it,
and they were his supporters.

Mr. VAN COTT. But who told Judge Henderson ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know who told him, if it was a matter of
telling at all. If it was a matter of oral communication at all, 1 do not
know.

The CHAIRMAN. You got the information from Judge Henderson?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in regard to the statement that this particular
person made about being sent on a mission, did you also get that
information from Judge Henderson ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You also spoke of the threats that the Deseret News
made on different occasions in regard to the persons who were support-
ing Moses Thatcher. Of course those were directed against Mormons,
were they not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1. presume that they were; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You also stated in substance, did you not, that the
supporters of Judge Henderson left him and voted for Mr. Rawlins?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 did not say they all voted for him. Some of them
went to Mr. Thatcher, you remember, when they left Judge Henderson.

Mr. VAN COTT. They all left Mr. Henderson but one?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is my recollection of the fact.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Daniel Hamer is the one, is he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. I looked it up from the record. Some of the sup-
porters of Judge Henderson were Gentiles, were they not? To refresh
your recollection on that, Mr. Critchlow, I call your attention to the
senate journal, second session of the legislature of the State of Utah,
1897, and to page 130, where it mentions those for Henderson.

REED SMOOT. 673

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, while the witness is looking at that, I
want to say just a word, in justice to myself, but not in reference to
this question or this line. Many things have been asked that I thought
were not relevant or in any way competent. 1 have not objected,
because I shall not object to any question that is asked this witness.
If the committee should feel that the examination is going along lines
that are not profitable, I want the committee to interpose, because we
do not want to be accused of attempting to narrow the inquiry.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You do not mean that suggestion to apply to
this inquiry?

Mr. TAYLER. Not at all. 1 only took advantage of thjs little time
to make that statement.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I recognize two and possibly three as being non-
Mormons. There were three, as I am now reminded.

Mr. VAN COTT. How do you explain, Mr. Critchlow, in view of the
testimony- you gave about the church having these men leave Hender-
son and support Rawlins or Thatcher, the fact that the gentiles left
Judge Henderson?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Because they wanted to elect Thatcher if possible.
They were in favor of some one who was not to be elected by the
church, and, Thatcher running against the church, the gentiles went
to Thatcher, as I have said, because that was the general idea in the
community, that he stood for the opposition to church domination.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did those same gentiles vote for Thatcher?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. These three that you have spoken of?

Mr. VAN COTT. That you mention.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. All three; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. All three went to Thatcher?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. During the time it was charged that the church was
interfering in politics, was not the church at the same time denying it
in just as strong terms as it was charged?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And President Woodruff was one of them, was he
not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not remember whether he ever came out in
any signed interview, and when you ask me about the church, I had in
mind particularly the Deseret News. I can not remember that the
presidency came out in any signed statement. The Deseret News did
deny it, as I remember it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do I state it correctly, Mr. Critchlow, that you
stated the other day that the sympathy of the non-Mormons was with
Moses Thatcher ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As a class, it was.

Mr. VAN COTT. That he should be allowed to run for the United
States Senate?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As a class, I think that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, Moses Thatcher was a polygamist at that time,
was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Living in unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I think probably he was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Afterwards the non-Mormons very properly went
ifter B. H. Roberts, when he came here to Congress, did they not?

674 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You ask me as to the propriety or as to the fact?

Mr. VAN COTT. As to the fact or both, or whichever you want
to put.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I say yes as to both.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Thatcher was in exactty the same condition as
Roberts, so far as being a polygamist and living in unlawful cohabita-
tion was concerned ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Senator HOPKINS. The one stood for the church and the other against
it, as 1 understand your testimony ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; that is distinctly it.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1895 when Mr. Roberts ran he ran just as much
against the church as Moses Thatcher did, did he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In 1899?

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1895.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Did he run ?

Mr. VAN COTT. That was the time he was defeated. I have the
date right, I think.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know whether he did just as much or not,
because just about that time he was labored with for six weeks by the
apostles and he finally recanted and came in, just as Moses Thatcher
did afterwards. Now, whether he recanted before the election or
afterwards 1 am unable to say without looking at memoranda.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you not remember this, though, Mr. Critchlow,
that he went through the first campaign fighting the church?

Mr. CKITCHLOW. The campaign of 1895?

Mr. VAN COTT. The first campaign.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The campaign of 1895, do you refer to?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not remember whether he had quit fighting
the church by the time the election came around or not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was he not fighting the church all through the first
election ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I say I can not remember. Just about that time,
between the reconvened convention and some time in the next year,
he got into line with the church and listened to the counsel of the
apostles.

Mr. VAN COTT. To identify the time, Mr. Critchlow, was it not dur-
ing his first political campaign that he was in the fight with the church,
and was it not during the time he was in harmony with the church
that he was elected?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He was in harmony with the church when he was
elected. There is no question about that; and he had come back into
harmony with the church by April, 1896. Now, whether he was back
in harmony with the church at the time of the election in November,
1895, is what I say I can not just now recall.

Mr. VAN COTT. You can not tell. All right. Calling your atten-
tion to that naturalization case that you mentioned —

Senator HOPKINS. Mr. Van Cott, before you leave that point, you
asked him if in 1895 he was fighting the church. What do you mean
by that? Was the church taking an active part in that campaign?

Mr. VAN COTT. No, sir; I mean this, Senator, that Mr. Roberts in
1895 refused to sign this rule in regard to politics and business, etc.,

REED SMOOT.

675

and that he waged his first campaign just like Mr. Thatcher waged his
campaign for United States Senator.

Mr. TAYLER. Now let us have that explanation.

Senator HOPKINS. But you do not mean to convey by that expression
that the church was taking an active part in that?

Mr. VAN COTT. Not at all. I simply mean that he was in exactly
the same position as Mr. Thatcher, and no other.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, what was your question ?

Mr. TAYLER. I was going to suggest it would be a good time for
Mr. Critchlow to explain that episode.

Mr. VAN COTT. I have asked Mr. Critchlow, and I understood him
to say he could not tell whether he was in the same position as Mr.
Thatcher or not, but if Mr. Critchlow can explain it 1 would be glad
to have him. do so.

Mr. TAYLER. I understood him to say he does not know whether he
recanted before or after the election.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the reason I dropped the subject, because
he could not tell.

Mr. TAYLER. Whether he recanted or not, I would like to know
about that.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I know as to the question whether he recanted or
not, but the exact date

Mr. VAN COTT. I did not ask you about that. What I asked you
about was whether he went through the first campaign in the same
position as Thatcher, namely, that he would not sign that rule.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have already said I can not give the date when
he recanted.

Mr. VAN COTT. I did not ask you, Mr. Critchlow the date when he
recanted. That was not my question. What 1 asked you was this:
Whether when Mr. Roberts went through that first political campaign
he, during all that time, had refused to sign this rule?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 can only say that the date of the reconvened con-
vention, which was in October, I think, he was apparently in the same
attitude as to that rule that Moses Thatcher was. Now, whether he
recanted between that date and the election, which would be the end
of the campaign, I say I am unable to recall or state.

Senator OVERMAN. Did he recant at all ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; as I have stated, there is no question about
that. It is a matter of record that he did.

Senator OVERMAN. How?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the sermons of the apostles and leaders of the
church explaining this manifesto matter, that he was for some six
weeks prayed with and labored with by the apostles, and finally he
stated that he had a vision in which a number of his dead and gone
ancestors came to him and he saw them in a'state of—

Mr. VAN COTT. Coma?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No; he saw them lost and in perdition because of
the fact that he could not go into the temple and be baptized to save
their souls; and for the sake of his dead ancestors, and in order that
he might enjoy the privileges of the church and be baptized for them,
he put himself in harmony with the apostles of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is this Roberts?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Brigham H. Roberts.

676 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOPKINS. Then, by putting himself in harmony, he was to
abandon his political ambitions at that time. Was that it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was to subscribe to this manifesto. That was
made the test with him whether he was in harmony or not. If he was
not willing to subscribe to that manifesto of April, 1896, he was not
in harmony with them and could not enjoy the privileges of a member
in full standing in the church, which included the privilege of going in
the temple and being baptized.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me suggest this and see if it refreshes your
recollection at all on it. Was it not some time after the election in
1895 before Mr. Roberts signed that rule?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If you suggest that that be the fact, I have no
doubt that it is so, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, I will let it go if you do not remember it.
Calling your attention, Mr. Critchlow, to the naturalization case which
you mentioned, who presided at that case?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Judge Thomas J. Anderson.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is the same judge who came down and spoke in
favor of the Faulkner bill in 1892, is he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in regard to not allowing persons who belonged
to the Mormon Church to become naturalized, that was all done away
with a short time afterwards, I believe you stated ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Immediately after the manifesto, I am reminded
by the church chronology that Judge Anderson ruled that he would
adhere to his former position on that subject, not believing that the
manifesto was in good faith, but that shortly after that he did change
his ruling on that and the Mormons were admitted to naturalization.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You are speaking now of the manifesto of 1890 ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I am; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Right here, if you will .excuse me, 1 suggest that the
ruling of Judge Anderson be put into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to it?

Mr. VAN COTT. I do think it is proper to put it in on our cross-
examination.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not care to put it in at this point, but I make the
suggestion here that it go in.

Mr. VAN COTT. We would like to meet that when we come to it.

Mr. TAYLER. Then I make the offer now. It has been referred to
here for the first time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you copies here? For one, I would like
to see what they are.

Senator HOPKINS. I suppose, technically, if they object to it, it
could not be put in on their cross-examination.

Mr. TAYLER. It would hot interfere with the examination at all, nor
need it be put in at this point of the examination.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand it is simply suggested by Mr. Tayler,
and counsel would like to examine it before the question is passed upon.

Senator OVERMAN. Where are the opinions found?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Did you ask me, Senator?

Senator OVERMAN. Yes; where do you find the opinions?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The opinion, I suppose, will be found as a part of
the records of the third judicial district court. It has, however, been
printed and circulated within the last year.

REED SMOOT.

677

Mr. VAN COTT. Who was the principal counsel in that case in
endeavoring to prevent the Mormons from being naturalized?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It would be hard to distinguish between Judge
Baskin and Mr. Dickson.

Mr. VAN COTT. They were both in it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Robert N. Baskin is now the chief justice of
the State of Utah?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. What year was that that that case was tried?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. My best recollection is it was the spring of 1890,
though it may have been in 1889 or the winter of 1889-90.

Mr. VAN COTT. At that time the non-Mormons had on a very
warm political campaign, did they not, in an endeavor to carry Salt
Lake City?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If it was any time subsequent to the summer of
1889, that would be true.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will ask you now if this fight that was made to pre-
vent these Mormons from being naturalized was not just before that
election, when the gentiles were attempting to carry Salt Lake City?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If it was, as I surmise, in the winter of 1889-90,
that would be true.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, before that there had never been an objection
to Mormons being naturalized in the courts, had there?

• Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the way of a studied, formal objection, with
people prepared to furnish proofs, no.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge Zane was the principal judge out there, in
the sense that he had tried most of these unlawful cohabitation and
polygamy cases, was he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He had tried the most important cases. As to
number it would be hard to say as between him and Judge Hender-
son, at Ogden.
Mr. VAN COTT. And Judge Zane refused to follow the ruling?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; as I stated.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention now to the Evans bill, will
you state just what is the substance of that bill and the particular
point in it that you consider objectionable; or, if you do not remem-
ber it, I will undertake to state it to you.

The CHAIRMAN. That bill is in the record, is it, Mr. Van Cott?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The page is 11 of the record, if I correctly note
your question.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes. I wanted to get the point, so the committee
will have right before it the particular point.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, it is provided that no prosecution for
adultery shall be commenced, except on complaint of the husband or
wife or relative of the accused within the first degree of consan-
guinity, or of the person with whom the unlawful act is alleged to
have been committed, or the father or mother of such person.

As to that, the proviso is objectionable in Utah.

uAnd no prosecution for unlawful cohabitation shall be commenced
except on complaint of the wife or alleged plural wife of the accused."

Mr. VAN COTT. Will you just keep the section before you, Mr,
Critchlow, please?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

678 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. The bill did not aim at polygamy at all, did it, as
to who might make complaint?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. As to polygamy?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Apparently not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to the unlawful cohab-
itation, the particular objection was as to the people being limited who
might go and swear to a complaint, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it because such legislation was unusual that it
was objectionable in your mind, or because it was passed in Utah as
to this particular kind of an offense?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You are speaking now of unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; of unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have no knowledge of any other community
where that is practiced, so it must be dealt with with reference to the
particular conditions in Utah.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Of course the objection to it was that it left it
within the power of the members of the Mormon Church to prosecute
or not, just as they pleased, and if they were practicing unlawful
cohabitation, polygamous cohabitation, of course they must have done
it because they thought it was right, or at least not objectionable, and
of course they would not complain of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. There are many States, are there not, Mr. Critch-
low, where they have a provision that, for instance, in cases of adul-
tery only the husband or wife may complain?

Mr. (JRITCHLOW. I have been told there are a number of States of
that kind. I have never made any investigation.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then the point you made in mentioning this is
because it dealt with the subject of unlawful cohabitation in limiting
who might prosecute ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; the adultery part of it is practically as
objectionable.

Senator HOPKINS. If you will allow me right there, there are not
many States that have such laws as that, are there?

Mr. VAN COTT. Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and
North Dakota have statutes to this effect, that only the husband or
wife can complain; and in Michigan and several other States it is to
the effect that they can only complain within one year after the offense
is committed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You are speaking of where the offense is
adultery?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; that is the reason I wanted to get the
point of Mr. Critchlow's objection.

Senator HOPKINS. Do the States make any distinction between cases
of adultery and living in an open state of adultery ?

Mr. VAN COTT. In Illinois, and in a great number of States that have
adopted the Illinois statute, there is no offense that is known as forni-
cation or adultery as we know it, but it is only punished when persons
are living in an open state of adultery. That is the rule in Illinois

REED SMOOT. fi79

and a great many States. That is the reason 1 was questioning Mr.
Critchlow on this particular point of unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Unlawful cohabitation, of course, is adultery.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. VAN COTT. There was very great opposition to the legislature
passing this bill at all, was there not, Mr. Critchlow?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. In the legislature itself?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Very great opposition; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And while the bill passed the legislature, it was
vetoed by the governor?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, you stated yesterday, in substance,
if I quote you correctly, that the church had interfered in the politics
of Utah. Is that correct?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir. I think that is the way I stated it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to the election of 1895—
and I call your attention to Richard W. Young and Thomas Maloney—
would those returns, in your judgment, bear out that statement? And,
so that you may have it before you, 1 call your attention to the certified
copy of the returns so that you can look at it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Is that all of the question?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think I or anyone else — well, I will say
myself — I do not think I could take the returns of any election and
analyze them so as to prove to a moral certainty to myself or to any-
body else that the church had interfered in any election.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me ask you this question, then, in view of your
answer. You have already mentioned the attitude and position that
Mr. Baskin held in Utah and has always taken in regard to the Mormon
church. When Mr. Roberts ran and Mr. Baskin ran, one for Congress
and one for the supreme court, their vote was practically the same,
was it not, speaking from recollection ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I would be unable to state as to that, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. You can not state from memory ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that in 1895?

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1895.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I wish to say in regard to that question that if I
have inadvertently said that Judge Baskin's attitude in regard to the
church and matters of public interest in which the church is concerned
has always been the same and is now, I would like to qualify it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Oh, no.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. You embodied it in your question.

Mr. VAN COTT. The fact is, is it not, that Judge Baskin, since state-
hood, has been what? I will let you state it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He has been an indifferentist as to many things.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you mean by that that he has been too much in
harmon}^ with the Mormon church?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 can only say that he is indifferent with regard to
a great many things about which he was not at all indifferent before
statehood.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is a gentile still?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Oh, yes, sir.

680 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. And up to the time of statehood he was one of the
main fighters against the church ? That is, up to the enabling act, I
will put it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, I call your attention now to the
election returns for the year 1901, and I call your attention to this: I
understood you to state yesterday, either in answer to my question or
the question asked by one of the Senators, that the church took a strong
hand against Mr. Sutherland when he ran for Congress. Have 1
stated you substantially correct?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think I said "took a strong hand," but
that the church did interfere; but I am not particular about the words,
because an}^ thing that they did would be done with strength if they
started out to do it.

Mr. VAN COTT. I may be mistaken. I thought Senator Beveridge
asked you if they threw their whole influence against Sutherland
and in favor of King, but I may have forgotten the language. Invit-
ing your attention to that subject, the opponent of Mr. Sutherland
was William H. King, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who has been a member of Congress?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. William H. King is a very strong campaigner, is he
not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. A very hard man to beat?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; he is a strong man in the Democratic
party.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he is a good campaigner, is he not ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. He is a good campaigner.

Mr. VAN COTT. And even if the church should keep out of the fight
and not get into it at all, Mr. King would be a very strong man in a
campaign, would he not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes; it requires a very strong man to beat him.

Mr. VAN COTT^ Just for the purpose of asking the next question,
will you tell us what was the difference between King and White-
cotton, for instance, according to those returns; and Mr. Whitecotton
was on the Democratic ticket, was he not, that year?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Will you point them out? I do not know on what
system this chart is constructed.

Senator HOPKINS. Mr. Van Cott, what is the purpose of pursuing
this examination along this line?

Mr. VAN COTT. The purpose is this, Senator: That Mr. Critchlow
stated yesterday, in substance, as I remember, that the church had
used influence against Mr. Sutherland and in favor of Mr. King. 1
wanted to ask two questions to show that the difference between Judge
Bartch, who was a gentile, and Mr. Sutherland, who was on the same
ticket, in their vote, was as much as the difference in the vote between
King and Whitecotton, to show that church influence was not used.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And if it was used, it did not amount to any-
thing.

Mr. VAN COTT, I will ask you if the total vote for Whitecotton is
not 44,472?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It so appears on this record.

REED SMOOT. 681

Mr. VAN COTT. And the total vote for William H. King was 45,1

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. They were both Democrats?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Both running through the State?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, I call your attention to Mr. Sutherland's vote.
Mr. Sutherland was a Republican ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And running through the State?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. His vote was 46,180?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1 call your attention now to Judge Bartch; he was
a gentile?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he had sentenced some Mormons for unlawful
cohabitation and polygamy when he was United States district judge
in territorial days?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. If you suggest it as being so it is probably tru"e.
I did not remember.

Mr. VAN COTT. His vote was 47,443, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. There was just as much difference between Judge
Bartch and Sutherland as there was between King and Whitecotton,
was there not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir. That is one of the elements of the figur-
ing that we rather relied upon in coming to the conclusion that we
did; that he had been hurt; that Judge Bartch got so many more than
Sutherland did, although George Sutherland, as we thought, was a
much stronger campaigner, or ought to have been, than Judge Bartch.

Senator HOPKINS. How are these tickets prepared?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. We have the Australian ballot system.

Senator HOPKINS. So that all the Democratic candidates are on one
ticket?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is the county attorney in Salt Lake County at the
present time a gentile ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And has been for how long back?

Mr. TAYLER. Just wait one moment. Is Judge Bartch of the same
party as Mr. Sutherland?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Could you not give us the difference between the
majority that Mr. Sutherland had for Congress, as the Republican, and
the majority that Judge Bartch had for judge?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It is a mere matter of figuring from this.

Mr. TAYLER. I wish you would state that. I infer that one is about
1,000 and the other 4,000.

Mr. VAN COTT. Four thousand ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. One was a few hundred and the other was some-
thing over 1,000.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, the figures will show. We could figure it out,
Mr. Tayler.

682 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TATTLER. Just pass it up here and I will do that while you pro-
ceed.

Mr. VAN COTT. The county attorney in Salt Lake County has been
a gentile for how long back?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The county attorney's office in Salt Lake County
has been filled by gentiles, or non-Mormons, rather, for some five or
six years, I think.

Mr. VAN COTT. Are some of the twelve apostles Democrats ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You mentioned that the church interferes in the
minutest details of business. I believe that was you-r expression.
Will you give us some instances where they have interf erred in busi-
ness affairs, say within the last five years ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not know that I said that they do interfere at
all times, or I certainly did not mean to be understood as saying that
they do interfere at all times in the slightest business affairs, but that
they may, and the church does interfere, I think I stated, and as to
instances —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the last five }^ears he asks you.

"Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was pretty widely understood at Salt Lake City
that the church interferred as to the erection of a union depot there
between the Rio Grande Western and the Oregon Short Line Railroad
Conrpany in the action of the city council. Of course I do not sup-
pose it could be proven at all. That is the sort of thing that is always
talked of and understood.

Senator HOPKINS. That is one item.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, the church by its authorities, namely, the
president of the stake and the apostle, Rudger Clawson, unless every-
body is mistaken, certainly did interfere in Brigham City in the
amusement company matter.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the one that has been gone over ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was not thoroughly gone over. It was men-
tioned.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, what others, Mr. Critchlow?
. Mr. WORTHINGTON. In the last five years ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not attempt to say, Mr. Van Cott. I can
not recall any matters of public interest now in which they have inter-
fered; and as to a man's private business, that is a subject on which I
have no personal knowledge.

Mr. VAN COTT. By the way, Mr. Critchlow, in that electric-light
business you mentioned the other day, has your firm any connection
with litigation that has grown out of that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Not the slightest. There are other matters which
now occur to me. The instances are very numerous in law practice
where a man has been taken through the high council and an arbitra-
tion forced upon him and afterwards phases of it get into the civil
courts.

Mr. VAN COTT. For instance ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, one case in which your firm was involved.

Mr. VAN COTT. What was it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. A water case, down there below Salt Lake City.

Mr. VAN COTT. What case ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was a case which Mr. Sutherland was trying
about a month or six weeks ago.

KEED SMOOT. 683

Mr. VAN COTT. Could you give me the name of it ? I do not recog-
nize it. That is the reason I ask you.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. The party represented by your firm was a woman.
My only information on the subject comes from Mr. Sutherland.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who represented the other party, so that we may
identify it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can not recollect who were on the other side.
'Possibly Mr. Richards's firm; I can not recollect now. I can not
recollect, Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. RICHARDS. I never heard of the case.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, I would refresh your recollection,
but I do not know anything about it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I can give another instance, if you desire.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; in the last five years.

Mr. CRITCHLOW-. The case of the Deep Creek Land and Live-Stock
Company against Jenson; or the parties were reversed, I think, oa
the record.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it not true, Mr. Critchlow, that in that matter it
was a simple case of where the .parties agreed on three arbitrators and
that the church absolutely had nothing to do with it ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; I do not think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is not true ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not think so; because I — excuse me.
. Mr. VAN COTT. Proceed, if you had not finished.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I understood it was a trial before the high council
of these particular stakes. The Jenson matter did not go into a trial
before the high council, because it was a verdict rendered in a court of
law. According to my information Mr. Jenson was appealed to and
an attempt was made, after the judgment was rendered, to compel him
to submit to an arbitration by the high council. I do not mean to say,
Mr. Van Cott, that it was the presidency and the twelve apostles in
each of these instances that did this, but you asked me about the
church, and I took it to mean the priesthood.

Mr. VAN COTT. All right. Now, any other instance, Mr. Critchlow,
in the last five years.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. None other occurs to me just now, Mr. Van Cott.
[A pause.] Oh, yes; there is one other that I can mention.

Mr. VAN COTT. All right; I would like to have it.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is the interference of certain church authori-
ties (I do not know whom) in certain water litigation between the city of
Salt Lake and various canals leading down to Salt Lake City. The
West Jordan Canal people, if I get the name just right, were approached
by persons exercising influence emanating or purporting to emanate
from the priesthood in order to get them to do certain things and sub-
mit to certain things in the litigation which was prevalent there in the
courts.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, do you think of any other at present ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. None within my observation or about which I
could give any tangible sort of information.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, yesterday you mentioned in regard
to a committee of elders of the church being appointed to supervise
legislation that was passed by the legislature of Utah in the beginning
of 1896?

Mr. CKITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

684 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who were those men?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Mr. Charles W. Penrose, W. W. Riter, James
Sharp, William H. King, F. S. Richards, and one other. I will think
of him in a moment, but I can not recall his name now — Joseph M.
Tanner.

Mr. VAN COTT. The matter that you mentioned of Eli B. Kelcey—
was that covered by your answer to Senator Beveridge that that was
in the sixties?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Covered as to date ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. That is my best recollection. It is a matter purely
historical. It is not at all within my recollection, although I know
his sons.

Mr. VAN COTT. You also mentioned the rumors in regard to unlaw-
ful cohabitation, polygamy, etc. Was one of those <iases you refer to
the case of H. S. Tanner?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

M. VAN COTT. That is one of the cases you want the committee to
understand you refer to ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And that is the same case that was investigated by
the grand jury afterwards, was it not?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Investigated by the grand jury of Salt Lake
County; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is what I mean.

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; that is one of the cases.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Critchlow, under the amnesties of President
Harrison and President Cleveland, you remember the language, do
you not, to the effect that those people who live within the law are
granted amnesty ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. In the future; yes — who in the future comply with
these laws.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; that is the point. Do you know of any mem-
ber of the Mormon Church who obtained amnesty and who lived
within the law at the time the amnesty was granted who afterwards
disobeyed the law and violated the amnesty that had been granted to
him?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No, sir; I have no knowledge of my own on the
matter and have no information, save that we have been told by mem-
bers of his family and members of the church generally that George Q.
Cannon did observe the terms of the amnesty.

Mr. VAN COTT. And President Woodruff?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Well, President Woodruff was some 80-odd years
old, and it was supposed that he was observing any law of that kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. You stated, I believe, the other day, did you not,
that there were thousands who did obey the law in regard to unlawful
cohabitation. Do I state you correctly on that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I do not remember of making that statement,
Mr. Van Cott.

Mr. VAN COTT. I 'may be mistaken, Mr. Critchlow. It may be your
statement was in reference to another matter — the opposition to Sen-
ator Smopt. You do not remember, anyway, of any persons at the
present time who obtained amnesty who afterwards violated the par-
don that had been granted to them?

KEED SMOOT. 685

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Why, hundreds of them. If I correctly under-
stand your question, all of the polygamists obtained amnesty and have
violated it. Do I misunderstand your question, Mr. Van Cott?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think so, Mr. Critchlow.

Senator HOPKINS. Two questions back you must have misunderstood
him, because you cited two instances there which are not in harmony
with this answer now.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is correct. I will ask it again. Mr. Critch-
low. under the amnesties of President Harrison and President Cleve-
land, the amnesty was granted on condition that in the future they
should live within the law ?

Mr. CKITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that all those persons who did live within the
law in the future were pardoned ?

Mr. CKITCHLOW. I so understand the effect of an amnesty.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, do you know of any of those persons who
commenced to obey the law as to unlawful cohabitation so as to be
pardoned who afterwards violated the law of unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I so understood your question, and I said that the
only persons — that I could not know as to whoever, if anyone, started
to obey the law, but if my information is correct, George Q. Cannon
did start to obey it and did obey it, so that his amnesty held good to
him as long as he lived.

Senator HOPKINS. Right there, Mr. Witness; when you answered
a few questions back in regard to that you were simply giving the
exceptions — those who obeyed the law rather than the reverse of that?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir; that was my intention.

Mr. VAN COTT. The further question I would like to have answered
is this, please: Do you know of anyone who commenced to obey the
law and then afterwards disobeyed the law as to unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I have said repeatedly that I could have no means
of knowing who did begin to obey the law, because —

Mr. VAN COTT. Then you do not know of any person who com-
menced to obey the law and then afterwards disobeyed it?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. No. For aught J know they may have every last
one of them disobeyed it all the way through.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; that is right. Mr. Critchlow, I am reminded
of just one point. Calling your attention to this committee that you
have mentioned, consisting of Penrose, Riter, Sharp, King, Richards,
and Tanner, to supervise legislation, how do you know the church
appointed those men to supervise legislation ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. By the church, I suppose you mean the leaders of
the church, as I mean it?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes. How do you know?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. By the admissions made by George Q. Cannon and
by Heber J. Grant and by certain of the members of the committee in
public interviews, which were had with them directly after the charge
was made, which was in April, 1896.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in what papers were those interviews reported?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. They were reported in the Salt Lake Herald, at
that time edited by Brigharn H. Roberts; in the Salt Lake Tribune,
and I think the interviews with George Q. Cannon and Heber J. Grant
were also in the Deseret News, but of that latter I can not speak with
definiteness.

686 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you other sources of information on this sub-
ject than you have mentioned?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir. Mr. Joseph Monson, who was a member
of the house from Cache Valley, had given me the information, and
before it was made public he wrote me a letter stating exactly what
had occurred at the beginning of the session between himself and
Bishop Stevens, who was a member of the house from Ogden, stating
that the leaders of the church had thought it was best that, inasmuch
as the legislature was inexperienced, there ought to be some members
of the priesthood or some members of the church appointed as a com-
mittee to look over legislation and pass on it and see that it was all
right; and that letter was published in the paper, together with the
other evidence of the fact of the existence of this committee.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then you have the letter?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. 1 have not the original letter with me, Mr. Van Cott.
I can not find it. It is perhaps among my correspondence; but the
letter was published in the papers.

The CHAIRMAN. What paper was it published in ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. It was published in the Herald and in the Salt Lake
Tribune, and I am rather inclined to think in the News. It was also
published in some of the eastern papers — the New York Evening Post, 1
remember, for one.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you any questions?

Mr. TAYLER. Just one question. The Edmunds Act, besides punish-
ing polygamous cohabitation with certain penalties, disqualified for
office what were called polygamists ?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And the word polygamist has been defined by the
Supreme Court of the United States as being one who lives in polyga-
mous cohabitation, has it not?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you not give a reference to the case, Mr.
Tayler?

Mr. CRITCHLOW. I would not like to speak definitely or precisely in
reference to that.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I think it can be found.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It would be better to get it from the decision
than to get it from the witness.

Mr. TAYLER. The Supreme Court of the United States has defined
a polygamist not as one who is in the act of taking a plural wife, but
one who lives with plural wives.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I only want the case to which you refer.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I will give it to you in a moment. It is a case
decided by Justice Matthews, anyhow.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is that the Murphy-Ramsay case ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; that is it. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Hiles, will you take the stand!

Let me give you the figures. If they are not correct we can correct
them at some later time. They are taken officially. At the election
in Utah, in 1900, Sutherland, Republican, received for Representative
in Congress 46,108 votes, and King, Democrat, 45,939, being a majority
of 241 for Sutherland.

The Republican candidate for supreme judge received 47,443 votes
and the Democratic candidate 44,472, showing a majority of 2,971.

REED SMOOT. 687

The Republican candidate for mayor received 47,600 and the Demo-
cratic candidate 44,447, indicating a Republican majority of 3,153.

Mr. VAN COTT. But, Mr. Tayler, what was the difference between
Whitecotton and King? That was the particular point.

Mr. TAYLER. In the East we figure the result by majorities.

Mr. VAN COTT. You have compared people on opposite tickets.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand that Mr. Sutherland was the Republican
candidate for Congress and King the Democratic candidate. That is
right, is it not?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. And that Mr. Bartch was the Republican candidate
for judge. Is that right?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And Mr. Whitecotton was the Democratic candidate
for judge?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. The majority of the Republican candidate for judge
was 2,971, and of the Republican candidate for Congress, Mr. Suther-
land, was 241.

Mr. VAN COTT. The point is this: See the difference between Judge
Bartch, who wTas on the Republican ticket, and Mr. Sutherland, who
was also on the Republican ticket. See what that difference is. Then
look at Mr. King and Mr. Whitecotton and see what the difference is.

Senator HOPKINS. These figures will show that.

The CHAIRMAN. The figures will go into the record, and the infer-
ence to be drawn is a matter of argument.

TESTIMONY OF OGDEN HILES.

OGDEN HILES, having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Judge, where do you live?

Mr. HILES. I live in Salt Lake, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there?

Mr. HILES. Some seventeen or eighteen years; about eighteen years.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did you come from to Utah ?

Mr. HILES. From California, San Francisco.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you receive an appointment at that time?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. As what?

Mr. HILES. An appointment as assistant United States attorney for
Utah Territory.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did you continue to act as assistant United
States attorney ?

Mr. HILES. About three years and a half.

Mr. TAYLER* Did you hold any other official position after that?

Mr. HILES. I was in 1895 elected as one of the judges of the third
judicial district court and served five years.

Mr. TAYLER. You are not now holding office ?

Mr. HILES. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You are practicing law \

Mr. HILES, Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER, In Salt Lake City?

688 REED SMOOT.

•

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Judge Hiles, we do not desire to go over the
ground that Mr. Critchlow went over except in so far as you have
special information respecting the field that he covered, nor do I want
to arrest you by asking questions where it seems unnecessary. What
special information have you respecting the condition of affairs there
between 1883 or 1884, or the time you went there, and the manifesto?

Mr, HILES. Well, as I have said, from 1886 to 1889 I was in the
United States attorney's office as assistant.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. HILES. And during what were called the polygamy prosecutions
I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under the Edmunds
law and the Edmunds-Tucker law than any other officer. My duties
called me from Ogden to Salt Lake, to Provo and to Beaver, in all
parts of the Territory; and, as I say, I drew more indictments and
prosecuted more cases under those laws than any other officer. I
examined hundreds and I may say thousands of witnesses during that
time.

Mr. TAYLER. Now proceed.

: Mr. WORTHINGTON. What time does that refer to, Judge?
j Mr. VAN COTT. 1886 to 1889.

Mr. HILES. Yes. My first direct acquaintance with public affairs
In Utah was, as I say, commenced in 1886, when I was appointed. At
that time, under orders from the Attorney-General's office here in
Washington, we were directed to proceed and prosecute offenders
against these laws with as much vigor as we could, and we did proceed,
commencing in the forepart of 1886. There had been some prosecu-
tions in 1885. We had not proceeded far before it was made very clear
as a general fact — it was already pretty well known in the community—
that the people of Utah were living under a theocracy, under a gov-
ernment of priests. This state or condition was dislosed by the exam-
ination of witnesses before the grand juries by the examination of
jurors touching their qualification to sit as jurors in polygamy cases,
as they were called —

Mr. TAYLER. Now tell us definitely what you mean by that — what
answers were given ?

Mr. HILES. Invariably, if we would ask a Mormon whether he
would obey the laws of the United States or the laws of the church,
he would say that he would obey the law of the church. As stated
by Mr. Critchlow yesterday, in every case — or in most every case —
the judge would offer the defendant who was convicted the clemency
of suspension of judgment if he would agree to obey the law, and he
would be asked whether he would in future obey the law. He would
say no. " Why not? " " Well," he would say, "1 choose to obe}^ the
law of God rather than man-made laws." If we suggested that the
laws of the Republic were mild and that any lady or gentleman of
standing might live under them without coming in hostility to them,
he would say it made no difference. If we asked him what the law of
God was, he said it was that which was revealed to them in their doc-
trine and covenants and in the Bible, and as expounded to them by the
authorities — that is to say, the authorities of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Were such declarations exceptional, or the rule?

Mr. HILES. They were universal at first. For the first two years
there was no case except the case mentioned by Mr. Critchlow, Bishop

EEED SM00T. 689

Sharp, where they would agree to obey the law. It was regarded by
the Mormons and by the priesthood as a badge of apostasy to agree to
>bey the l»»w. I do not know that anyone was disf ellowshipped for it,
)ut it was c Considered an act of apostacy to agree to obey the law.

These prosecutions continued for some time and until the passage of
the Edmunds-Tucker law in 1887, which added to the offenses of polyg-
amy and unlawful cohabitation the offense of adultery.

The CHAIRMAN. We can not hear you, Judge.

Mr. HILES. I say the Edmunds-Tucker law was passed in 1887, and
it added to the offenses of polygamy and unlawful cohabitation the
offense of adultery and provided a quite severe penalty for it. I do
not remember what it was, but we immediately took advantage of that
in every case where we could bring a case of adultery. Instead of
unlawful cohabitation, we prosecuted for adultery, and after the pres-
sure upon the people became so great — many of them were poor peo-
ple and could ill afford to pay their fines and costs out of their hard
earnings — they commenced, and many of them would promise to obey
the law, and did promise to obey the law, and judgment was suspended
in every instance.

After this, in 1889, there was a more evident disposition on the part
of the Mormon people to obey the law, and, as has been said, the peo-
ple became restive under the continuous hammering of the Government
to enforce the law, and they began to insist that something should be
done. About 1889 or 1890 the Supreme Court of the United States
confirmed the validity of the Idaho test oath. About the same time
the Cullom bill was introduced into Congress, and the Struble bill, and
we told the people that unless they made a change the Congress of the
United States would certainly pass a law disfranchising them, and
upon those representations and under those conditions the people, I
say, insisted that something should be done. It was a matter of gen-
eral discussion between Mormons and Gentiles. Mormons and Gen-
tiles at that time began to meet and discuss the situation. Before that
they would not discuss the matter at all of the differences between
Gentile and Mormon.

In 1890 it was concluded that something would be done by the
church toward an amelioration of these conditions, and upon that the
Government seemed to relax its prosecution. There were prosecu-
tions, however, all the way through 1890 up to the issuance of the
manifesto in 1891, but there was some relaxation of the pressure of
the law officers upon the people. There was a general disposition
among all kinds of people to do something that would ameliorate these
conditions, because it was a hardship upon the Mormon people.

In 1891 the manifesto uas issued —

Mr. TAYLER. In September, 1890, the manifesto was issued.

Mr. HILES. September, 1890; yes. I was thinking it was 1891, but
it was in September, 1890.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry to trouble you, Judge, but we can not
hear what you say.

Mr. HILES. I thought I was speaking loud and distinctly.

The CHAIRMAN. Now you are.

Mr. HILES. I say that the manifesto was issued in September, 1890.
Upon that it was given out in the public press in interviews with the
heads of the Mormon Church that polygamous cohabitation was
included within the manifesto as well as polygamy, the taking of new

s 44

690 REED SMOOT.

wives, and i believe for a time there was an observance of that, I do
not know for how long; but gradually since statehood, as it is called,
there has been a recurrence of those old conditions. Potygamous
cohabitation has become more flagrant. We see continually coming
on a new crop of polygamous children, and it seems to a great many
people — I have not watched the thing personally myself much; I have
taken no interest in politics in late years, or in general public affairs —
but it seems to a great many people with whom I talk that they are
ge.tting back to old polygamous conditions and that they are not obey
ing the law of the State of Utah in that respect.

After the admission of Utah as a State, the polygamists took the
position that there was no inhibition in the constitution of the State ol
Utah against polygamous cohabitation; that the inhibition was against
polygamy merely, and that the framers of the constitution, having put
in an interdiction against polygamy—

Mr. TAYLER. Polygamous marriages?

Mr. HILES. Polygamous marriages, new marriages, having omitted
to say anything about polygamous cohabitation or unlawful cohabita-
tion and those other offenses that were mentioned in the Edmunds law,
that therefore there was no offense in Utah such as unlawful cohabita-
tion and adultery. When I was judge a case came up before me upon
a habeas corpus in which counsel took that position, and I decided that
the law was constitutional.

Mr. TAYLER. You mean they invoked the rule expressio unius,
exclusio alterius?

Mr. HILES. Yes; that was the rule they invoked. They said the
constitution having made an interdiction only against potygamy there
was no such offense, and that it was unconstitutional for the legislature
to pass a law. I may add here that the constitution, in what is called
the schedule, continued in force those old United States or Territorial
laws against polygamy and unlawful cohabitation.

Mr. TAYLER. Continued them in force until you passed laws of
your own?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir; that case, however, was not appealed to the
supreme court. I decided that they would have to obey the law; that
the law was a good law; but subsequently a case from Cache County
went to the supreme court involving the same question, and the supreme
court held the same way, that the laws against polygamous cobabita-
tion were good and valid.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean the supreme court of the State, do
you not?

Mr. HILES. The supreme court of the State; yes.

Senator DILLINGHAM. May I ask one question right there?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I understood you to say they took the ground
that the State had no constitutional right to pass a law against adultery ?

Mr. HILES. Against adultery or against unlawful cohabitation?

Senator DILLINGHAM. Did you use them synonymously, those terms ?

Mr. HILES. Yes. When I speak about polygamous cohabitation, I
include everything. Of course they are not technically so.

Senator DILLINGHAM. But, as between persons to whom they were
not married plurally, the legislature had no right to pass an act against
adultery; that is, adultery with a person outside?

Mr. HILES. Yes; it included everything, not only under the guise

KEED SMOOT. 691

of plural marriage, but adultery in any respect. That was the conten-
tion, and it was overruled, as I have said. Subsequent to that this
Evans bill was introduced into the legislature, which has been men-
tioned by Mr. Critchlow, which, if it had passed, would, I suppose,
have nullified the law against these practices.

Mr. VAN COTT. Which practices, may I ask right there, Judge?

Mr. HILES. These malpractices that 1 am speaking about.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Adultery and polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. HILES. Polygamy, adultery, and unlawful cohabitation. They
are kindred offenses.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It did not affect polygamy at all?

Mr. HILES. The Evans bill had no reference to polygamy. I am
going on as rapidly as I can because I want to get through. I can not
stop to make explanations unless it is desired, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Judge.

Mr. HILES. In addition to these complaints which are made against
the church for its infraction of these laws is the continual complaint
that they are interfering with the political and secular concerns of the
people. Those complaints are made in different ways and come in dif-
ferent forms. Sometimes they come in the form of public addresses.
Senator Frank J. Cannon only a year or two ago held a meeting in
the Salt Lake opera house or Salt Lake theater and denounced to the
people these alleged interferences by the Mormon Church with the
government of politics and the business concerns of the people.

As I say, I can not give you specific instances of these interferences
in politics and in business of the Mormon Church with the people, but
it is a matter which is of common knowledge. It is what we call
community knowledge. Everybody in town seems to think and to
know that they do interfere, not, of course, in every election, that is
to say, in the election of every particular man who is on a ticket, but
whenever they do interfere it is effectual. Whenever they indorse a
man he will be elected. Whenever they put upon him the seal of their
disapprobation, he will not be.

Senator HOPKINS. Now, Judge, is it the practice of the church at
each election, local and general, in the State to take part and select
some for election and others for defeat?

Mr. HILES. No; not as a rule. It is only occasionally. They do
not take up each man on the ticket and say whether he shall be elected
or shall not be elected, but if they do take up a man and say that he
shall be elected, he will be elected.

Senator HOPKINS. Is it any more than where a good Methodist is
running, other good Methodist brothers think he is a little better by
reason of that, and give him their vote? Or do they exert a wider
and more potential influence in elections ?

Mr. HILES. Yes; their influence is more effectual because it is an
organization which controls large masses of men and women. It is an
organization which is distinct from the Government of the United
States and the government of the State of Utah, and exercises political
and secular control over the affairs of the people.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you anything else in mind, Judge, to say?

Mr. HILES. No; that is all.

Mr. TAYLER. You may inquire, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 want to ask a question. I understand that it is
contended that the constitution of the State of Utah and the laws of

692 REED SMOOT.

the country prohibit the entering into plural marriages but do not
prohibit polygamous cohabitation. Is that the contention ?

Mr. HILES. That was the contention until the decision by the Supreme
Court. That was the contention. I do not say that they would con-
tend for it now. Mr. Roberts, in his argument in favor of the reten-
tion of his seat in Congress, used the same argument, if I remember;
but it is not now put forth because the Supreme Court has everruled
them.

Senator HOPKINS. How recent is that decision, Judge?

Mr. HILES. I can not remember when it was. It was as many as
four years ago. I can not remember the title of the case nor the
report. It is as many as four or five years ago, because it was decided
before I left the District bench.

The CHAIRMAN. You may inquire, gentlemen.

Mr. VAN COTT. Will you give an illustration of your statement to
the effect that the church interferes in secular and political affairs in
the State of Utah, say, within the last five years? What you know,
say, of your own knowledge, to start with.

Mr. HILES. Do you want an instance ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. HILES. Well, the election of Mr. Smoot is one. Smoot would
not have been elected to the United States Senate if he had not been
approved by the authorities of the Mormon Church.

Mr. VAN COTT. Right there, Judge, before you go on, do you mean
by that that if Mr. Smoot had been a lay member in the church and
had run for United States Senator he would not have been elected, or
do you mean if he were an apostle and did not get a leave of absence
or consent, that then he would have been defeated ?

Mr. HILES. I mean that Mr. Smoot would never have been elected
United States Senator unless he had been an apostle and had received
their consent and their indorsement. When Mr. Smoot's candidacy
was announced and it was known that he had the consent of the
church, it was then known that he would become Senator of the
United States.

Mr. VAN COTT. But Mr. Smoot was a candidate for Senator, was
he not, before he became an apostle ?

Mr. HILES. Yes; a perfunctory candidate.

Mr. VAN COTT. A perfunctory candidate ?

Mr. HILES. Yes. He was not seriously considered until he became
an apostle and after his candidacy, subsequent to his apostolate.

Senator HOPKINS. Do you mean that his standing in the Republican
party of the State was such that he was not seriously considered until
they learned that the church was for him ?

Mr. HILES. His standing in any party — the Republican party, the
Mormon party, or any party. I mean he had no standing as a candi-
date for the United States Senate, and when it was known that he was
a candidate, then everybody said, "Why, that is the end of it. That
settles it."

Mr. VAN COTT. And your opinion is, Judge, that he would not have
been selected for United States Senator if he had not been an apostle?

Mr. HILES. He would not.

Mr. VAN COTT. And do }TOU mean by that that no Mormon Repub-
lican would be selected for United States Senator unless he wa.s an
apostle, or do you not go to that extent ?

REED SMOOT. 693

Mr. HILES. Oh, no; a Mormon may become a United States Senator
without being an apostle, but I say that in Smoot' s case he would not
have been unless he was an apostle.

Mr. VAN COTT. Please state the basis on which you make that
statement, your means of knowing it, what knowledge you have in
making it.

Mr. HILES. Why, his standing in the community of Utah and his
relation to other men who would be candidates.

Mr. TAYLER. Louder, Judge.

Mr. HILES. His relations there to the community of Utah, and his
standing as compared to other candidates for the Senate, or who
might become candidates.

Mr. VAN COTT. For instance, name one candidate for the United States
Senate belonging to the Mormon Church and to Republican politics
whom you consider more prominent for the position than Mr. Smoot.

Mr. HILES. Why, Governor Wells.

Mr. VAN COTT. Go ahead; who else?

Mr. HILES. I do not know many Mormons who are Republicans.
They are Mormons.

Senator HOPKINS. Do you mean by that that they are Mormons
before they are Republicans or Democrats?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir; that is what I mean. That is the fact.

Mr. VAN COTT. Senator, may I have that answer read ? Some one
spoke to me and I lost it.

The CHAIRMAN. The reporter will read the question and answer.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. VAN COTT. For instance, Judge, name one candidate for the
United States Senate belonging to the Mormon Church and to Repub-
lican politics whom you consider more prominent for the position than
Mr. Smoot.

"Mr. HILES. Why, Governor Wells.

"Mr. VAN COTT. Go ahead; who else?

"Mr. HILES. I do not know many Mormons who are Republicans.
They are Mormons.

"Senator HOPKINS. Do you mean by that they are Mormons before
they are Republicans or Democrats?

"Mr. HILES. Yes, sir; that is what 1 mean. That is the fact."

Senator HOPKINS. The evidence, as 1 have understood it, is that
Mr. Smoot has always acted with the Republican party out there and
that his influence has been strong with that party and that he has
favored the election of men who belonged to that political faith.

Mr. HILES. Yes; I think that is the history of it. Heber J. Grant
is now a Republican. He has been a Democrat.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That sometimes happens in other States, does it
not?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Senator HOPKINS. Is or is it not a fact that Mr. Smoot has been a
consistent, straightforward Republican all his mature life, or ever
since he took any part in politics ?

Mr. HILES. Well, I have heard so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you know anything to the contrary ?

Mr. HILES. I know nothing to the contrary.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, Judge, to come back to the other question,
how do you know that Reed Smoot would not have been a candidate

694 HEED SMOOT.

for the United States Senate if he had not been one of the twelve
apostles ?

Mr. HILES. I say he would not have been elected. He might have
been a candidate. I do not know what his ambitions are, independent^.

Mr. VAN COTT. Tell how you know he would not have been elected.

Mr. HILES. Sir?

Mr. VAN COTT. What are your means of knowledge that he would
not have been elected if he had not been one of the twelve apostles?

Mr. HILES. Because there are men in politics in Utah who have
much more influence simply as politicians than he has and whom the
people would prefer.

Mr. "

VAN COTT. And yet

Senator HOPKINS. Do you mean by that that his position in the party
has been such that he had no reasonable claim to such a promotion ?

Mr. HILES. Yes; no reasonable claim to such a promotion, and if he
had he could not obtain it, in my judgment. Of course, that is a mat-
ter of opinion.

Senator HOPKINS. You are giving it as your opinion. Have you
anything upon which you predicate that, which you can give to this
committee, which will enable us to judge from those facts?

Mr. HILES. It is only from the general talk of men in the Repub-
lican party and in the Democratic party. They say, to use slang par-
lance of the day, he would not be "in it" if he were not an apostle.

Mr. WOETHINGTON. "Theysay."

Mr. HILES. That is the general public opinion. That is the popular
sense of the thing, and of course the popular good sense is a pretty
accurate guide. It controls me.

Senator HOPKINS. When Mr. Smoot was first a candidate, or was
first mentioned as a candidate, were there other Republicans mentioned
as competitors of his for the Republican nomination ?

Mr. HILES. No; not after it was known that he was a candidate.
Nobody presumed —

Senator HOPKINS. Before he was mentioned, were there any other
Republicans in Utah who were mentioned as probable candidates to be
taken up by the Republican party of that State and advanced to the
position of United States Senator?

Mr. HILES. Yes.

Senator HOPKINS. Who were they?

Mr. HILES. There were Governor Wells, I think Governor Thomas,
Arthur L. Thomas, and others. I can not remember them just now,
but there were other men there.

Senator HOPKINS. Is Senator Smoot a man who has in former cam-
paigns taken an active part and gone out and spoken for his party,
and exerted his influence to see that the local and State tickets should
be elected, and the Republicans should win not only in the State but
that the electors from the State should be Republicans?

Mr. HILES. I think he has been active in politics, but the extent of
his activity I do not know. I never spoke to him but once in my life,
and that was to-day, although I have known him for many years, and
I do not know much about it.

Senator HOPKINS. You have been speaking about reputation and
general knowledge. What is the general knowledge and reputation
as to Mr. Smoot being an active participant in Republican politics out
there?

REED SMOOT. 695

Mr. HILES. He has been reasonably active in politics. Just how
active I do not know. I do not know whether he ever made a speech
for the Republican party or not. I never heard and never read of any
of his speeches.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask a question. I understood you to say
that Mr. Smoot could not have been elected to the Senate if he had not
been an apostle, and if he had not had the consent of the church. Was
Mr. Frank Cannon an apostle?

Mr. HILES. Frank J. Cannon?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HILES. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He is a Mormon ?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And he was elected to the Senate ?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How do the Mormons come to allow some men
to come to the Senate who are not polygamists ?

Mr. HILES. Sir?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I asked you how you account for the Mormons
allowing some men to be sent to the Senate, including one of the pres-
ent Senators, who are not Mormons?

Mr. HILES. That is a matter of policy with them. I do not know—

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. VAN COTT. The first Senators from Utah were Frank J. Can-
non and Arthur Brown ?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Arthur Brown was not a Mormon?

Mr. HILES. No; he was not a Mormon.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, the next Senator was J. L. Rawlins?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is not a Mormon ?

Mr. HILES. Yes; he is a Mormon.

Mr. VAN COTT. Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon ?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. All this other information and testimony that you
have given —

Mr. HILES. I have heard Mr. Rawlins say he was not a Mormon.
He was baptized a Mormon. He was reared among them. His father
was a bishop — his father was Bishop Rawlins.

Mr. VAN COTT. Because he was born of Mormon parentage and
because his father was a Mormon, do you understand that that makes
him a Mormon ?

Mr. HILES. Pretty close.

Mr. VAN COTT. Pretty close?

Mr. HILES. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that if persons leave the church and if they hap-
pen to be of Mormon parentage, in your opinion they are pretty close
to being Mormons. Is that right ?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is right. Is all the testimony you have given
along the line on which you have testified and do you speak with just
as much knowledge on other matters as this, namely, that Joseph L.
Rawlins is a Mormon?

696 HEED SMOOT.

Mr. HILES. He is a Mormon under the qualifications I have named;
yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Under the qualifications you have named?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, he is pretty close to being a Mormon ?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And all your other testimony is just along that same
line; just as close?

Mr. HILES. No; I do not qualify my other testimony as I qualify
that. I know what I am talking about, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do know that?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir; I know-
Mr. VAN COTT. That Rawlins is a Mormon ?

Mr. HILES. With those qualifications. He told me the other day
that he is not a Mormon.

Senator HOPKINS. Is Senator Rawlins a man who stands up against
the church, as 1 take it you and the gentleman across the way here do?

Mr. HILES. Yes; he will stand out now against the church.

Senator HOPKINS. Rawlins will?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir. He is opposed to these interferences. Mr.
Frank J. Cannon is the same way. Mr. Smith said here the other da}^
that Cannon is a poor Mormon, but Frank Cannon is a good Mormon,
in my judgment. I know he is a good Mormon, and he is opposed to
these interferences, and so are many of the Mormon people. They
are protesting against it all the time.

Mr. VAN COTT. You say that Senator Rawlins is "now" opposed
to the church. Do you mean by that that formerly he was in accord
with the church?

Mr. HILES. No. He believed once in their good faith. He does
not now believe in their good faith.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was there ever a time since you went to the Terri-
tory of Utah that Rawlins was either a Mormon or counted by the
public as being a Mormon?

Mr. HILES. Oh, yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. There was?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Most of the time?

Mr. HILES. When I first went to the Territory he was regarded as
a Mormon.

Mr. VAN COTT. The next Senator was Thomas Kearns, a gentile ?

Mr. HILES. Thomas Kearns is a gentile.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Reed Smoot?

Mr. HILES. And Reed Smoot comes next.

Mr. VAN COTT. You class three of them as Mormons — that would
be Mr. Smoot, Mr. Rawlins, and Mr. Cannon — who have gone to the
United States Senate?

Mr. HILES. Mormons with this qualification, that they are opposed
to the church's interferences— those two Mormons, Rawlins and Frank
J. Cannon.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were they when they were elected?

Mr. HILES. I think they were; yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, you also spoke of the church interfering in
political and secular afi'airs, and I will ask you whethei your testimony
on that point applies to, say, the last five years ?

EEED SMOOT. 697

Mr. HILES. Yes; it applies to all the time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Will you mention some instance or instances in the
last five years that you know of?

Mr. HILES. No. I told you that I had no knowledge of any specific
instance, because I have no connection with the Mormon priesthood,
but these are things which are constant sources of complaint. I hear
these complaints that are made by Mr. Critchlow. I see them in the
newspapers.

Mr. VAN COTT. You also heard Mr. Critchlow say, in one instance,
that some one had told him that some one had said that some other
person had said so and so. You heard that statement made, too,
Judge?

Mr. HILES. I have heard a good deal of hearsay testimony here;
yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, in your experience on the bench, is not hear-
say testimony very dangerous?

Senator HOPKINS. I object. That is improper.

Mr. VAN COTT. I withdraw the question.

Let me call your attention to another circumstance you mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will pass on the value of the evi-
dence.

Mr. VAN COTT. I withdraw the question. It was simply with a view
of reaching Judge Hiles's mental attitude.

Calling your attention to the matter you mentioned in connection
with the Utah State convention, in regard to plural marriage, do you
mean to say that the claim that was made that a statute could not be
passed punishing unlawful cohabitation, because it would be unconstitu-
tional, was made by the Mormon Church or was made by some attor-
ney in a particular criminal prosecution ?

Mr. HILES. It was made by attorneys in court.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was made by an attorney in court?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir; and as I say, further, by Mr. Roberts when he
was trying to defend his position before the House of Representatives.

Mr. VAN COTT. Confining ourselves at present to the court pro-
ceedings

Mr. HILES. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. You did not understand it was the church that was
making that claim ?

Mr. HILES. Oh, no. I do not know that the authorities ever put
forth that.

Mr. VAN COTT. No.

Mr. HILES. I will not say that.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was simply in some criminal prosecution where
the claim was made?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. You also mentioned an occasion when the Mormon
people first commenced in the prosecutions to say they would obey
the law. I want to get the date when that was.

Mr. HILES. That was after the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker law—
in 1887, I think it was. These prosecutions had been going on for
about two years.

Mr. VAN COTT. Before that they had refused to obey the law?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir; some did after that.

Mr. VAN COTT. And some did after?

698 REED SMOOT.

Mr. UILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. But the majority promised to obey the law ?

Mr. HILES. I should think not a majority.

Mr. VAN COTT. You think not?

Mr. HILES. No; a good many of them did in order to escape tht
penalty.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did I understand you correctly that it was given
out in the press after the passage of the manifesto that the Mormon
people would obey the law as to unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. HILES. It was given out in interviews

Mr. VAN COTT. In interviews?

Mr. HILES. That were published in the press.

Mr. VAN COTT. I see.

Mr. HILES. And I think in the testimony before Mr. Loofbourow,
the commissioner.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was the escheat case?

Mr. HILES. Yes; that was the construction which the headmen of
the church put upon the manifesto, that it included unlawful cohabi-
tation and adultery as well as polygamy.

Mr. VAN COTT. I wanted to know if that was the matter you
'referred to. I wanted to identify it.

Mr. HILES. That matter and other matters.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, you stated that at first the Mormon people
commenced to obey the law as to polygamous cohabitation. Do you
know that of your own knowledge, or is that a matter of general
reputation ?

Mr. HILES. It is not my own knowledge, but a matter of general
public belief. The people thought that " old things are passed
away * * * and all things are become new." They thought that
for two or three years.

Mr. VAN COTT. What is the basis for your statement that polyga-
mous cohabitation is now more frequent than it was formerly?

Mr. HILES. You hear of a greater number of polygamous children
being born. You will see a polygamist driving down the street with
his polygamous wife. You would not see that between 1886 and 1890.

Mr. VAN COTT. And, for instance, Judge, who?

Mr. HILES. I know one instance, but I do not want to mention his
name, because he is a friend of mine, although he is a polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. We will excuse you from mentioning his name.

Mr. HILES. That is to say, 1 have received acts of kindness from
him, and I would not say anything that might be to his injury.

Mr. VAN COTT. We do not ask you for his name. Will you give
us the name of any other person, if you know it?

Mr. HILES. No. I can not now recall where I have seen a polyga-
mist with his wife.

Senator HOPKINS. On that point, President Smith testified that he
went to St. Louis with one woman and to California with another.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is very true. I was simply asking the Judge
for the basis of the statement he made; that is all.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Have members of the committee any questions to
ask?

Mr. TAYLER. L* that all?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Have you any questions?

REED SMOOT. 699

Mr. TAYLER. A few. Relating to the subject concerning which you
have just testified, that different conditions exist now, and have
recently— in the last four or five years— from those that existed from
1886 to 1890, do you recall a circumstance in the case of Mrs. Mattie
Cannon, who sat in the legislature; did she?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir. That is an instance-
Senator DILLINGHAM. 1 misunderstood the witness. I understood
him to say that the period when the improvement began was in 1890,
and since that time it had been growing more flagrant.

Mr. HILES. Since statehood; since 1896.

Mr. TAYLER. Say from 1887 to 1896.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I mean since statehood.

Mr. HILES. There was a period between the manifesto and the
admission of the Territory of Utah as a State when we thought the
old things would pass awa}^ and new conditions would come about.

Senator HOPKINS. Some of the witnesses who have testified here
have conveyed the impression, at least to my mind, that these-children
that you speak of are the result of polygamous marriages that took
place prior to the manifesto, and that since that time they have not
taken on plural wives. What is your knowledge on that subject?

Mr. HILES. I have no knowledge. I have no knowledge of any
marriage since the manifesto, and 1 have no knowledge of any mar-
riage before the manifesto.

Senator HOPKINS. You speak in your testimony here of seeing a
resident of the State come down the street with a plural wife.

Mr. HILES. Yes.

Senator HOPKINS. Is that instance that you had in mind and to
which you gave expression in your testimony, one where the woman
was a plural wife prior to the manifesto or since?

Mr. HILES. That I do not know. I doubt if she was a plural wife
before the manifesto, because they are young people; comparatively
young.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then we must have the name.

Senator HOPKINS. What I want to know is whether or not the testi-
mony which has been given here is testimony that we can rely upon,
and that these plural marriages have been stopped substantially since
the manifesto, and that the offense is in continuing to cohabit with
plural wives that were plural wives before that time.

Mr. HILES. Senator Hopkins, I dislike to pass judgment upon the
trustworthiness of other witnesses, and that 1 can not do. 1 will sa%y
this, however, that in all these deliverances which are given upon the
subject of polygamy and upon their polygamous relations, the testi-
mony of the witnesses must be taken with reserve.

Senator HOPKINS. Yes; very well, Judge. What place is your
home in Utah ?

Mr. HILES. Sir?

Senator HOPKINS. Where do you live in Utah?

Mr. HILES. At Salt Lake City.

Senator HOPKINS. What is the population?

Mr. HILES. About 60,000.

Senator HOPKINS. Do you know of any instances in Salt Lake City,
where you have lived for the last seventeen years, of any Mormon
taking a plural wife since the manifesto?

Mr. HILES. 1 can not say that 1 do.

700 REED SMOOT.

Senator HOPKINS. Do you knovv of any instance in the State of Utah
since the manifesto where a professed Mormon or anybody, whether
a professed Mormon or not, has taken a plural wife?

Mr. HILES. In what time?

Senator HOPKINS. In the State.

Mr. HILES. In the seventeen years I have been there?

Senator HOPKINS. No; since the manifesto.

Mr. HILES. No;. I cannot say that I do, and 1 can say further that I
do not know of any case where they took them before the manifesto.
Those marriages are always secret.

Senator HOPKINS. 1 want, for my benefit, to know whether there is
a distinction between the cases that existed before the manifesto and
since. You say you do not know of any since. Have you an}7 evi-
dences that you can present to the committee, either in Salt Lake City
or the State, where Mormons have taken plural wives since the mani-
festo?

Mr. HILES. I know of no instance.

Senator HOPKINS. Can joa state to the committee that it is even
your belief that they have taken plural wives since that time?

Mr. HILES. I can say it is my belief that they have, because there
are as many polygamists in Utah now as there ever were, I believe.

Senator HOPKINS. You say "there ever were." You mean, of
course, that with the increased population the proportion goes on
just the same as it did prior to the manifesto?

Mr. HILES. Well, I do not know that it increases in the same ratio
as the population does. I would not say that.

Senator HOPKINS. If that condition exists is it not within the range
of such gentlemen as yourself, who are opposed to polygamy, to pro-
duce some evidences to the committee of that by pointing out that in
Salt Lake City

Mr. TAYLER. I ought to state here that we do not claim that Judge
Hiles knows anything on this subject. We have a large body of proof
upon that point —

Senator HOPKINS. Very well.

Mr. TAYLER. Ready to be presented to the committee.

Senator HOPKINS. Then I will not pursue it further. As I sa}^,
the witnesses who have already been examined on that point have
stated —

Mr. TAYLER. I understand.

Senator HOPKINS. That it ceased at the time of the manifesto, and
as this witness entertains different views, I wanted to know what he
knew upon the subject.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course the Senator will discover the difficulty of
securing proof of that character.

Senator HOPKINS. I recognize it.

Mr. TAYLER. We had an instance a day or two ago which we con-
cluded, and will perhaps continue to conclude, was polygamy — in the
case of Lorin Harmer — but he contended that it was a common illicit
relation.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask you if you know of any instance
where children have been born since 1890 to persons who were living
in polygamy before that date and now continue that relation. Do you
know anything about it?

Mr. HILES. Yes.

. REED SMOOT. 701

The CHAIRMAN. What do you say about that?

Mr. HILES. I think—

Senator HOPKINS. I think that is not denied by Mr. Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. No; it is not denied by Mr. Smith, but I want to
know what the witness knows about it.

Mr. HILES. I know that such is the case.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the case; that children are being born?

Mr. HILES. Yes; children are being born and the}^ have been born
since statehood.

The CHAIRMAN. Since statehood and since the manifesto?

Mr. HILES. Since the manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. Of parents married previous to 1890?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how general that is ?

Mr. HILES. The polygamists are all having children the same as
before.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further question ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Senator HOPKINS. I want to ask one further question. Witnesses
thus far have spoken of the percentage of Mormons who are polyga-
mists. Have you any figures upon that subject?

Mr. HILES. I never have figured upon that subject at all and what I
know is only in a general way.

Mr. HOPKINS. The percentage of polygamists among the Mormons,
as stated by witnesses who have already testified, is exceedingly small,
and I want to know whether you have any figures which would either
corroborate or disprove the figures which have already been presented
to us.

Mr. HILES. I have no figures as to the percentage of the population
which is polygamous.

Mr. TAYLER. The figures vary from 3 to 25 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Senator HOPKINS. I have never been here when it was stated as 25
per cent. 1 have been here when the witnesses said it was 3 per cent.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you answer Senator Hopkins that you believed
this man whom you mentioned had taken a plural wife since the
manifesto?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Your friend.

Mr. HILES. I believe it only from the circumstance that they are
comparatively young people. The manifesto was twelve or fourteen
years ago.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not think under the circumstances he ought to
be compelled to disclose the name. He did not volunteer it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Either way. It can either go out or else we want
the name, because we want to put the man on the stand.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not think it ought to be allowed to go out.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness does not state that it was since state-
hood.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; since the manifesto.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The great point, or one of the great points, is
whether plural marriages have been given up, and here is a specific
instance given, and the fruits of it appearing in the man driving around
in Salt Lake City with his children. We think that being the case, we

702 • REED SMOOT.

ought to have the name, so that the committee can know and we may
be able to show whether or not the relation began before the manifesto.

Senator OVERMAN. The whole matter was brought out on cross-
examination, and therefore he ought not to be required to give the
name, 1 think.

Mr. VAN COTT. I beg pardon.

Senator OVERMAN. I may be wrong.

Mr. VAN COTT. You are.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you state to the committee that the people of
whom you speak were married since the manifesto?

Mr. HILES. No, sir; I do not know it.
'The CHAIRMAN. You have no knowledge on that subject?

Mr. HILES. No, sir; I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think you should be compelled to disclose
his name.

Mr. VAN COTT. We will not press it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old are the people ? I will ask as to the
husband first. How old is he?

Mr. HILES. The husband, I should say, is about forty; maybe he
is older than that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old is the wife ?

Mr. HILES. The plural wife is past thirty.

The CHAIRMAN. Past thirty?

Mr. HILES. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old is their oldest child?

Mr. HILES. That I do not know. They have several children.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have seen them out driving?

Mr. HILES. But it was with a young child, a babe in arms.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. For all you know they may have children 15
years old?

Mr. HILES. Yes; I do not know anything about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further of this witness? There
was an intimation from one side or the other that the attorneys desired
to recall Mr. Jenson for other questions.

Mr. TAYLER. We have completed the testimony of the witnesses
who have responded to the subpcenaes sent out, and the committee
will readily understand that it was not until we examined those who
have been examined that we could know in some respects what other
testimony would be required. We are anxious, of course, and insist,
if it is possible to accomplish it, that the witnesses who have been
subpoenaed, and are not here, should be here at such time as the
committee may determine, and also that some other witnesses, whose
testimony is discerned now to be ^valuable, should be brought here.
I simply give that information to the committee so that it maj7 deter-
mine what may be done and fix a time —

The CHAIRMAN. For the present you have no other witnesses?

Mr. TAYLER. We have no other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask you to confer with the chairman and
other members of the committee as to your witnesses, who they are,
where they reside, and what you expect to prove by them.

Mr. TAYLER. We will do so.

The CHAIRMAN. So that we may have some idea —

Senator HOPKINS. I should like to know from the lawyers whether

REED SMOOT.

703

the defense have any witnesses whom they are willing to put on now,
or do they prefer to wait until Mr. Tayler closes his case.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We should prefer to wait, Senator, until the
case for the prosecution has been closed ?

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. Tayler, if you will see me and let
me know about the witnesses, I shall be obliged.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Perhaps there ought to be conferences with
counsel on both sides.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, counsel for the respondent have
indicated that they do not now desire to call any witnesses.

Senator DILLINGHAM. I mean as to the adjournment.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other witnesses present, the Chair
will suggest that if it is agreeable to the committee I will confer with
Mr. Tayler and ascertain where these witnesses are and how soon they
can be got here, and the moment they can be got here I will call the
committee together.

Mr. TAYLER. Most of them are in Utah, and of course it will take
some time, and it will certainly be ten days or two weeks before we
could reasonably expect to get them.

The CHAIRMAN. As soon as I can ascertain this, there will be a
meeting of the committee. Perhaps we will have a meeting on Monday,
so that at the very earliest date

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Tayler, why did you wait until the exam-
ination of this witness was concluded before having the others sub-
poenaed, thus creating this hiatus ?

Mr. TAYLER. Of course that is a matter of detail in the control of
our side of the case, but I have conferred with the chairman about it.
1 am very sure there are several apostles of this church whose attend-
ance I asked Mr. Smith to procure (and he stated that he had control
of their movements), whom I want, and they know I want them.

Mr. VAN COTT. The}'- are being looked up.

Mr. TAYLER. And they are the ones I want first. The others will
follow.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps, Mr. Worthington, you will remember
that 8 witnesses who have been subpoenaed have not appeared.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And I understand Mr. Tayler desires to have them
here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If those are the witnesses he asks for, I under-
stand it, but he spoke of having a large number of witnesses, or a
large amount of proof on the subject of plural marriages since the
manifesto, and I thought he had some witnesses on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned, subject to call.
I want to ask the attorne}rs if they require the presence of Judge Miles,
Mr. Critchlow, or Mr. Jenson. If not, they will all be discharged.
[A pause.] They are discharged. If they will come to the desk here
arrangements will be made with them.

Thereupon, at 4 -o'clock and 25 minutes p. m., the committee
adjourned subject to the call of the chairman.

704 KKKD SMOOT.

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 20, 1904..

The committee mot at 10.30 o'clock n. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Depew, Beveridge, Hopkins,
Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senator Smoot ; also John
G. Carlisle and It. \V. Tayler, counsel for protestants; A. S. Worth-
ington and Waldemar \'an Cott, counsel for the respondent; and
Franklin S. Richards, counsel for certain witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. TAYLKR. I believe so.

The CHAIRMAN. Call your first witness.

Mr. TAYLEK. I should like to have Mr. Roberts sworn.

TESTIMONY OF BBIGHAM H. EGBERTS.

Bm<;n\M 11. ROB K UTS, being first duly sworn, was examined, and
test! lied as follows:

Mr. TAYLKR. Where do you live, Mr. Roberts*

Mr. ROBKKTS. I live in Centerville, Utah.

Mr. TAYLKR. You have lived in Utah the greater part of your life?

Mr. ROBKRTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLKR. I believe you were born in England and came to this
country when a boy?

Mr. ROBKRTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLKR. What, if any, official position do you hold in the Mor-
mon Church (

Mr. ROBKRTS. I am one of the presidents of seventy.

Mi*. TAYLKR. Are they called first presidents of seventies or presi-
dents of seventies'?

Mr. ROBKRTS. They are called first presidents of seventy.

Mr. TAYLKR. What other official position do you hold?

Mr. ROBKRTS. 1 am one of the assistant historians of the church and
am also an assistant to President Smith in an organization of young
men, an auxiliary organization of the church, however.

Mr. TAYLKR. Do you hold any other official position (

Mr. ROBKRTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLKR. You have written some books respecting your church,
have you not '*

Mr. ROBKRTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLEK. What are their names?

Mr. ROBKRTS. I wrote the Biography of John Taylor; A New Wit-
ness for God; Outlines of Ecclesiastical History; a work called The
Gospel; The Missouri Prosecutions; Tin1 Rise and Fall of Nauvoo; a
work recently published, a controversial work with a Catholic priest,
on the subject of the Deity; and lately there have been issued two
volumes of a documentary history of the church, of which I was the
editor and compiler, a controversial work called Succession in Presi-
dency, meaning of the Mormon Church.

Mr. TAYLKR. Then there was a little book that we have had here in
evidence.

Mr. ROBKRTS. A pamphlet i

Mr. TAYI.KR. Yes; a pamphlet. \Vhat was the title of that*

Mr. ROBKRTS. Mormonism.

REED SMOOT. 705

Mr. TAYLKII. That is rather a general description, fully covered by
other things that you have written, I suppose; a popular exposition of
Mormonisin '*

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. In brief form?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. How many assistant historians are there in the church?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think there are four.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is the historian?

Mr. ROBERTS. Anthon H. Lund.

Mr. TAYLER. And Mr. Jenson, who was a witness here, is one of
the assistant historians?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; he is.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been a first president of seventies?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 think I was chosen in 1888.

Mr. TAYLER, So far as the control of the membership of the church
is concerned, as a church organization, where do the first presidents
of the seventies rank as respects the apostles, for instance?

Mr. ROBERTS. They rank next to the apostles.

Mr. TAYLER. How many first presidents of the seventies are there?

Mr. ROBERTS. Seven.

Mr. TAYLER. What, if any, relation exists between the first presi-
dents or the presidents of the seventies and the stake presidents ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No relation whatever, further than a common relation
of brotherhood.

Mr. TAYLER. The first presidents, therefore, have no authority over
the stake presidents ?

Mr. ROBERTS. None at all.

Mr. TAYLER. Nor the stake presidents over the presidents of the
seventies, except as they would have over them in their individual
capacity ?

Mr. ROBERTS. As members.

Mr. TAYLER. As members of the church. When did you first enter
politics in Utah?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was about 1889. Pardon me. [A pause.]
Well, I think likely that is about right, as nearly as 1 can fix it from
recollection.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you then elected to some office ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What do you mean? lam not so particular about
this, I think. But what do you mean by entering politics?

Mr. ROBERTS. I began making political speeches and exercising an
interest in political matters.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you naturalized ? Had that date anything
to do with the date of your interest in politics?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you first become a candidate for office?
That is what I had in mind when I asked the question.

Mr. ROBERTS. 1894.

Mr. TAYLER. What were you a candidate for then ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was a candidate for member of the constitutional
convention of our State.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you elected?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was elected.

706 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you a member of the constitutional convention
which drafted the present constitution of Utah ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. That was the constitution which was submitted to the
people at the election of 1895 ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, in 1895, you were a candidate for Congress?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was.

Mr. TAYLER. And were defeated at the polls by Mr. Allen, 1 believe.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you, with respect to that candidacy for Congress
at that time, have differences with the church authorities ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Some differences.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 wish you would describe what those differences were
as well as you can.

Mr. ROBERTS. If you will allow me to give the full history of that
matter, if that is what you wish, I will do so.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Previous to my becoming a candidate for member of
the constitutional convention, there had some unpleasantness arisen
about men in high church standing having anything to do in politics,
and the presidency of the church at that time decided that members of
the quorum of apostles, members of my own council, the presidents of
the seventy, and the presidents of the stakes, and the bishops of the
wards, would better stay out of politics, and to that I consented or
agreed. But during my brief absence from the State in the fall of
1894 1 was nominated by our county convention to be a member of the
constitutional convention, and on my return, being informed of the
nomination, in conversation with some friends I stated that it was a
nomination I could not accept owing to the previous arrangement
that men of my standing in the church should not take part in politics.

But I was informed that during my absence that order had been
somewhat changed, at least, and that it was thought there would be too
many men of standing in the community eliminated from so important
a gathering as a constitutional convention, and that it had been decided
better that liberty be granted men of the character I have described
to enter into politics, and at least to accept these nominations. I
inquired of the authorities of the church if that was correct, and was
informed that it was. I then wrote my acceptance of the nomination,
and Mr. Rawlins being a candidate — I think, however, that it was pre-
vious to that time that he was a candidate for the House. 1 believe he
was nominated at that time as Senator. In company with him I stumped
the State of Utah in the interest of our party.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you inquired of the authorities of the
church. Of whom did you inquire?

Mr. ROBERTS. I inquired of one of the first presidents of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Of anybody else?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. When you speak of the authorities of the church,
do you mean one of the first presidents ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not necessarily.

Mr. TAYLER. You mean somebody superior in authority to yourself,
I assume ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 70 7

Mr. TAYLER. Such persons were to be found only in the body of the
apostles or the first presidency?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you made this inquiry of the first presidency?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; one of the presidents of the church. 1 asked
him if the rule with which I was acquainted had been altered, and he-
informed me that it had been. This was in 1894.

The CHAIRMAN. Who constituted the first presidency at that time?

Mr. ROBERTS. Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph
F. Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. Of which one did you inquire ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Smith.

In 1894, in company with Mr. Rawlins, I stumped the State and was
elected to the convention. After the close of the constitutional con-
vention I was nominated by my party a candidate for Congress and
took an active part in the campaign of that year. In the midst of the
campaign, at a meeting of the priesthood of the church in Salt Lake
City, Mr. Smith made some reference to Moses Thatcher and
myself—

Mr. TAYLER. You mean Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; I mean Joseph F. Smith, as having accepted
these importent nominations, which would take us away from our ecclesi-
astical duties, without consultation with any of the apostles or the first
presidency; and his remarks were in the nature of a complaint of that
conduct. Whereupon a number of men who had heard these remarks
took it upon themselves to circulate the idea that Mr. Thatcher and
myself were out of harmony with the church authorities, and that it
would be agreeable to them to have us defeated. And very naturally
we protested. I protested, and I think Mr. Thatcher also protested,
against the action of these lesser authorities of the church making use
of the casual remarks of Mr. Smith. The country was considerably
agitated. Newspapers' took it up; and that agitation resulted in the
reconvening of the Democratic convention for the purpose of defining
the attitude that the Democrats would take in that issue.

Mr. TAYLER. What issue?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is, of the alleged exercise of religious influence
in a political contest.

The CHAIRMAN. You have stated that your defeat would be "agree-
able to them." Whom do you mean by them?

Mr. ROBERTS. I mean that the parties who carried this report from
the priesthood meeting represented that it would be agreeable to the
first presidency and the apostles for us to be defeated. It was out of
these circumstances that the friction counsel refers to arose between
the authorities and myself.

Mr. TAYLER. You were about to speak about this reconvened con-
vention that occurred in October, 1895, did it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 think it did.

Mr. TAYLER. Tell us what took place at that convention.

Mr. ROBERTS. There was a long preamble reciting alleged facts —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is not that in print already?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; but it is well to describe it. It is not going to
hurt us. (To the witness.) Have you a copy of that here?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I am not referring so much to the details or the word-

708 EEED SMOOT.

ing of any written document as I am to the things that happened at
that convention.

Mr. ROBERTS. There was a long preamble reciting alleged interfer-
ences on the part of high church officials, followed by a declaration of
principles, 1 think some eight or ten, or nine, in number. I do not
now recall how many.

Mr. TAYLER. That declaration of principles was confined, was it riot,
to the proposition that the church should keep its hands off from
politics 'I

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think, certainly, if we are going into the
matter of the preamble and the declaration of principles, we ought to
have them instead of the witness' recollection of their contents.

Mr. TAYLER. Counsel misconceives the purpose of my question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not know what the purpose is, Mr. Chair-
man, and I do not think it makes any difference. The purpose is to
get before the Senate and the committee these documents, or their
contents, and I see no reason why the statement of anybody as to what
is in any of them should be admitted when the documents themselves
are easily procurable and should be in the record if they are to be
referred to at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Read the question.

Mr. TAYLER. I am dealing with the witness wholly and not with a
matter of substantive proof.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose it is for identification.

Mr. TAYLER. And as to the witness' attitude respecting it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the reporter read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. That declaration of principles was confined, was it
not, to the proposition that the church should keep its hands off from
politics?"

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts, you may answer that. What is your
answer?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. You were in that convention?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you speak in it?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think I did.

Mr. TAYLER. In that convention and through that campaign you, in
very bitter terms, inveighed against this intrusion of the church into
politics ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir. I should like to disclaim any bitterness in
the matter.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not want to characterize improperly the language
that you used vigorously and most earnestly then ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. So vigorously and so earnestly that the higher author-
ities of tjie church assumed a similar attitude toward you — of vigorous
and earnest opposition to your position ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that is right.

Mr. TAYLER. And after the election, at which the Republican can-
didate was elected, the authorities of the church took up your recal-
citrancy ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 709

Senator OVERMAN. Was your opponent, Mr. Alien, who defeated
you, a Mormon?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; he was a gentile.

Mr. TAYLER. State what occurred between you and the authorities
of the church with respect to your attitude in the campaign of 1895.

Mr. ROBERTS. The authorities took the position —

The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by " the authorities?"
. Mr. ROBERTS. I mean the first presidency and the twelve. The}^
took the position that my attitude during the campaign had misrepre-
sented, before the people, their intentions and their wishes, and they
desired to go over the matter with me, to consider it and, if possible,
to bring about a reconciliation as between them and myself.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In what respect did they say that your position
had misrepresented their attitude ?

Mr. ROBERTS. They disclaimed many of the things that were recited
in the preamble on which the democratic declaration of principles was
made, disclaiming any intention or desire to interfere with the politi-
cal rights or liberties of the people.

Mr. TAYLER. I was not going to ask Mr. Roberts anything more
about the subject of political interference, and if any Senator has in
his mind any questions he desires to ask about it, this will be a good
time to ask them.

The CHAIRMAN (after a pause). You may proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Roberts, you are familiar with the history of
Utah, and the history of the church, the history of the Territory, and
of the State, I suppose?

Mr. ROBERTS. In a general way.

Mr. TAYLER. You of course have always known of the legislation
respecting bigamy and polygamy?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Of the law which was passed in 1862, and .of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Reynolds case in 1878? I sup-
pose every intelligent man in Utah has had knowledge of those things.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think so.

Mr. TAYLER. And also of the act of 1882, known as the Edmunds
Act, and the act of 1887, called the Edmunds-Tucker Act?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Those are things with which you have been always
familiar ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And of course with the manifesto of 1890 respecting
the subject of polygamy ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You were at the time, I suppose, and are now,
familiar with the statements made by Wilford Woodruff and Joseph
F. Smith, and others, after the manifesto, that the manifesto referred
to the subject of unlawful cohabitation as well as to the taking of
plural wives?

Mr. ROBERTS. I understand it in that way.

Mr. TAYLER. You have been married how many times?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have been married three times.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you married to your several wives?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was married to my first wife in 1877, to my second
wife in 1886, and to my third wife in 1890.

710 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you married to your first wife?

M r. ROBERTS. I was married in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. What was her last name.

Mr. ROBERTS. Smith.

Mr. TAYLER. You had children by her?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And where were you married to your second wife?

Mr. ROBERTS. In Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. Her name was Dibble, 1 think?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was Dibble.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have you by her?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have eight.

Mr. TAYLER. You have had children — and I look to fix the time —
born of this first plural wife, Celia Dibble, since you were elected to
Congress in 1898?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is, in. what year— 1901 or 1902?

Mr. ROBERTS. My election?

Mr. TAYLER. I mean when the children were born; the last children.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By the second wife.

Mr. TAYLER. By the second wife.

Mr. ROBERTS. The last children were born some two years ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were you married to your third wife ?

Mr. ROBERTS. In Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. By whom?

Mr. ROBERTS. By Daniel H. Wells.

Mr. TAYLER. Where?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 do not know that I can say just where. It was in a
house on First street in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. What time in the year?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was in the month of April.

Mr. TAYLER. Who were the witnesses to this marriage?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The last one?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; the one in April, 1890.

Mr. ROBERTS. There were no witnesses.

Mr. TAYLER. Who was Daniel H. Wells? What was his position?

Mr. ROBERTS. Daniel H. Wells at that time was sustained as coun-
cilor to the apostles. He had been a councilor to President Brigham
Young, and was continued in that capacity — that is, as a councilor to
the twelve apostles, who were during an interim the presiding
authorities, of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, your language is somewhat guarded Jn that
respect, and no doubt it is in order to be accurate about it, and not for
any other reason. Do you mean he was not what we now understand
to be one of the councilors to the first president?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; he was not, because there was no first presidency
in existence at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly. But his status was akin to that of a coun-
cilor to the first presidency?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had he been a councilor to the first president imme
d lately preceding?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he a councilor to the next first president?

REED SMOOT. 711

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. The first president himself selects the councilors, 1
believe ?

Mr. ROBERTS. He does.

Mr. TAYLER. Daniel H. Wells had been for many years a very
prominent official in the Mormon Church?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You say that you have no recollection of anybody
being present at the ceremony ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was either of your other wives present?

Mr. ROBERTS. Neither of them.

Mr. TAYLER. In whose house was it?

Mr. ROBERTS. My recollection is that it was in the house of a son of
Mr. Wells.

Mr. TAYLER. Has your attention ever been directed to the statements
made by high authorities of the church, for instance, that only one
plural marriage had occurred in the church since 1887?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are 3^ou familiar with the frequent arguments that
were made before committees of Congress and elsewhere, that such
was the fact — that only a single plural marriage or so —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We had understood that it had been deter-
mined by the committee not to go back of the manifesto. All this is
about matters that occurred previous to the manifes-to.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 suppose the purpose is to show that the witness
has lived in polygamous cohabitation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Counsel is inquiring into ail the details of a
marriage that occurred prior to the manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. We were talking about things that occurred after the
manifesto relating to things that occurred before — that is to say, the
statement of high officials of the church after the manifesto as to what
had occurred within two or three years before. 1 do not care any-
thing about that. • I had in mind the language of the manifesto, and I
want to call the attention of the witness to it.

Mr. Roberts, of course you have read the manifesto, so called, of
September, 1890?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That manifesto seems to have proceeded, issued out,
from a claim made that plural marriages had been contracted. I want
to refresh your recollection by reading its opening sentence:

"To whom it may concern —

This is the manifesto:

" Press dispatches having been sent out for political purposes from
Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that
the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the
Interior, alleges that plural marriages are still being solemnized, and
that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since
last June, or during the past year; also that in public discourses the
leaders of the church have taught, encouraged, and urged the contin-
uance of the practice of polygamy, I, therefore, as president of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, do hereby, in the most
solemn manner, declare that these charges are false."

712 REED SMOOT.

"One case has been reported in which the parties alleged that the
marriage took place in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in
the spring of 1889, but 1 have not been able to learn who performed the
ceremony. Whatever was done in this matter was without my knowl-
edge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House
was, by my instructions, taken down without delay."

That was not jour marriage which is referred to in the manifesto ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Wilford Woodruff at the time of your marriage held
what position ?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was president of the church. Pardon me. I
think he was. He may have been, however, president of the apostles.
1 can not recall that just now.

Mr. TAYLER. If he was not president of the church, who was?

Mr. ROBERTS. No one, if he was not.

Mr. TAYLER. That is to saj^, if he was not, there was an interregnum ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What relation did Daniel H. Wells sustain to Wilford
Woodruff in April, 1890?

Mr. ROBERTS. I could hardly define that. Daniel H. Wells was
continued after the organization of the presidency as councilor to the
apostles, and 1 do not know what relation would be thought to exist
between a councilor to the apostles and the president of the church,
though I should say it was nearly in the relationship of one of the
members of the apostles to the presidency of the church.

Mr. TAYLER. Did Daniel H. Wells in the first instance oppose
marrying you to Mrs. Shipp?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. How did you come to arrange with him ? Did you go
to him with Mrs. Shipp and say, "We want }^ou to marry us," and he
proceeded thereupon to marry you 2

Mr. ROBERTS. If you will allow me, the relationship between Mr.
Daniel H. Wells and myself was very friendly. 1 had been an asso-
ciate of his in the British mission a few years before, and closely asso-
ciated with him, and had relations that were very friendly, and when
I desired this marriage I went to him, as understanding that he had
authority to perform the ceremony.

Mr. TAYLER. When did he die?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can not now recall the date, but I think it was about
a year after that time, in 1891.

Senator OVERMAN. Was it necessary to get the consent of any of
the authorities of the church to marry a plural wife ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was necessary to get those who were understood to
hold the "authority to perform the ceremony.

Senator OVERMAN. Did your first wife or your second wife consent
to your marrying the third wife ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Did they protest against it?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not hear the question.

Senator OVERMAN. Was there any protest on their part ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they know of it at the time?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not at the time.

Mr. TAYLER. When did they learn of it?

REED SMOOT. 713

Mr. ROBERTS. I can not answer that question.

Mr. TAYLER. I mean about when — how long afterwards ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Two or three years afterwards, I think.

Mr. TAYLER. Did anybody know about it, so far as you know, until
several years had elapsed?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. How is that? I understand you to say, sir,
that your marriage to your third wife was not known to apy of your
wives for three years.

Mr. ROBERTS. No; 1 can not say when they knew it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Well, for a considerable period?

Mr. ROBERTS. Hardly that. There were a number of our friends
who knew it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. But not your other two wives?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Other friends knew it, but not your two wives?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did your third wife — 1 will speak of her as
Mrs. Shipp, because that will identify her more easily, or Mrs. Maggie
Roberts —

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask a question right here?

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you conceal this third marriage from your
other wives?

Mr. ROBERTS. Chiefly for the purpose of relieving them from any
embarrassment should the discovery of the marriage be made. Of
course we understood that the marriage was illegal.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Then, how could they be embarrassed ?

Mr. ROBERTS. If called upon to testify, they would not wish to testify
against me.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Oh!

The CHAIRMAN. You understood at that time that the marriage was
illegal?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did Mrs. Maggie Roberts live from the time
of your marriage on ?

Mr. ROBERTS. She lived in Salt Lake.

Mr. TAYLER. In whose house?

Mr. ROBERTS. She was a practicing pt^sician and had both her own
residence and office; that is, I mean to say, a hired residence.

Mr. TAYLER. Her first husband -was Doctor Shipp?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was she divorced from him?

Mr. ROBERTS. She was.

Mr. TAYLER. Where, and how?

Mr. ROBERTS. In Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. In the courts?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; she was a plural wife to him, and their mar-
riage had no legal standing. The divorce, however, was sanctioned
and approved by the church authorities.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know when she was divorced from Doctor

ROBERTS. Not precisely.

714 REED SMOOT.

Senator OVERMAN. You say she had no divorce in the courts, but
only a divorce by the church?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. She could not have had any divorce from the
courts, because she was not legally married to him.

Senator OVERMAN. Yes; it was an illegal marriage.

Mr. TAYLER. She continued to live for some years at the house in
which she lived when you married her, did she not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did she live during the period following her
marriage to you ?

Mr. ROBERTS. She lived on Main street, in rooms in one of the build-
ings on that street. I do not now remember the number.

Mr. TAYLER. That is where she lived when you married her?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir. I think she was not living there at the time
I married her.

Mr. TAYLER. Where was she living at the time of this marriage?

Mr. ROBERTS. In the Eleventh Ward of Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did she live when you courted her, if I may
use that expression?

Mr. ROBERTS. She lived in the Eleventh Ward.

Mr. TAYLER. Whereabouts?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 really could not locate it precisely.

Mr. TAYLOR. You called on her?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not at her home. We met at mutual friends.

Mr. TAYLER. You never called on her at her home?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not in the Eleventh Ward, according to my recollec-
tion.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you do not know just where she lived in the
Eleventh Ward?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not precisely.

Mr. TAYLER. That is it?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Never having been at her home in the Eleventh Ward?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did she live, then, when you married her?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that was the place of her residence then.

Mr. TAYLER. Where?

Mr. ROBERTS. In the Eleventh Ward.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Mr. Roberts, pardon me. You constantly,
when Mr. Tayler asks you a question about having been at her home,
reply uNo; not in her home in the Eleventh Ward." Do you mean
that you were not at her home in the Eleventh Ward, but had been at
her home in some other ward?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I noticed that you put that in constantly.

Mr. ROBERTS. I stated that our meetings were at the homes of
mutual friends.

Senator BEVERIDGE. My attention was called to the fact that in
answering the question you said " No; not in her home in the Eleventh
Ward." Did you insert that because you meant that you had called
on her in some other ward ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that you never were at her home at all ?

REED 8MOOT. 715

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In the Eleventh Ward or any other place ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is as I understood you. You met her prior to
your marriage to her at the home of mutual friends ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Immediately after the marriage, where did she live?
Did she change her home?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not until about a year or more.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you never at her home

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. After your marriage to her for a year or more?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. She continued then to live, as you remember, in the
Eleventh Ward at the same place, which was unseen by and unknown
to you?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. For a year or more. Then where did she go?

Mr. ROBERTS. She took rooms on Main street.

Mr. TAYLER. About when ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can not fix the time more definitely than that it was
a year or so after my marriage.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you live with her there ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I sometimes visited her there.

Mr. TAYLER. You say that was on Main street?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was that 64 or 18?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was 18.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know how long she lived there?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know who lives at 18 South Main street now?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The place where she lived? Do you not know that
her former husband, Doctor Shipp, with a couple of his wives, lives
there?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. I will put it in this form: You do not know whether
Mrs. Maggie Shipp Roberts for two or three or four years after the
spring 1890, when you married her, lived in a house in which since
that time her first husband and a couple of his wives have been living?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I do not know that.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you first make known the fact generally
that Mrs. Maggie Shipp was your wife?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was known to a number of our friends I think
shortly afterwards — that is, a few months afterwards. But it was not
generally known until some time in 1895 or 1896, perhaps.

Mr. TAYLER. She continued to call herself Maggie Snipp for some
five or six years or more after you married her?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And you never, unless it was in some confidential con-
versation with your immediate friends, referred to her as your wife?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did the first presidency or any of the apostles
know of it?

716 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. I could not answer that question.

Mr. TAYLER. So far as you know, when did it come to you that they
knew it?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have nothing by which I could fix any recollection
of that. I know, however, that it became generally known to them.

Mr. TAYLER. How long afterwards; about 1895 or 1896?

Mr. ROBERTS. Along about that time.

Senator DUBOIS. Could you, occupying the position which you did
in the church, take a plural wife without the knowledge of the author-
ities?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did do so, with the exception of Mr. Wells.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Wells was one of the authorities ?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was.

Senator DUBOIS. Did Mr. Wells represent the authorities?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think likely he did.

Senator DUBOIS. Then you took your plural wife with the knowl-
edge and consent of the authorities, did you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did not know of any of them having any knowledge
of it except Mr. Wells.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Wells, as I said awhile ago, represented the
authorities, did he not?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was one of the authorities.

The CHAIRMAN. What was his position at that time?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was councilor to the twelve apostles.

Senator BEVERIDGE. To get to the point of Senator Dubois's ques-
tion, do you know of anything that has come to your knowledge that
leads you now to understand that Mr. Wells, when he learned of this
contemplated marriage, told the other authorities, of whom he was
one of the councilors ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Can you state any more definitely, Mr. Roberts, at
whose house this marriage occurred?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can not. 1 understood, however, that Mr. Wells
was making his home at the residence of his son. Well, understand
that Mr. Wells at this time had charge of the temple in Manti and
came up from Manti to attend the spring1 conference. While there I
met him and made the arrangements for this marriage. I think it was
at the home of one of his sons.

Mr. TAYLER. Which son was it?

Mr. ROBERTS. I believe it was the residence of Junius F. Wells.
I could not, however, be positive as to that.

Mr. TAYLER. But Mr. Wells's son was not present at the ceremony,
nor was anybody else?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you get a certificate of marriage?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. You have no record, and there is no record, so far as
you know, of the marriage ?

Mr. ROBERTS. None that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Was the ceremony a simple ceremony, whereby—

Mr. ROBERTS. I understood it was the usual ceremony used by the
Mormon Church in the temples.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it the same ceremony, practically, as that by
which you married Celia Dibble ?

REED SMOOT. 717

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it the same as that by which you married your
first wife?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was, as I understood it.

Mr. TAYLER. At the time you married Mrs. Shipp you knew, as you
have stated, about the several laws that Congress had passed?

The CHAIRMAN. Just a question before you go to that.

Mr. TAYLER. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. At the time of your last marriage, did the party
who performed the ceremony know you had wives living?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you tell him?

Mr. ROBERTS. He had previously married me to my second wife.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he know you had a wife before that?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Living?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So that at the time the last ceremony was performed
by him as a leading member of the church he knew you had two living
wives ?

Mr. ROBERTS. He did.

Senator PETTUS. Mr. Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator.

Senator PETTUS. Did the authorities of the church, when they
learned of this marriage, take any action against the priest?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator PETTUS. Did he continue his relation as councilor ?

Mr. ROBERTS. He did; to the time of his death.

Senator PETTUS. And there was no sort of action taken against him
by the church for performing this ceremony ?

Mr. ROBERTS. None that I knew of.

The CHAIRMAN. Did any of the apostles take any action about it?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or reprimand you for it?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And they have not at any time ?.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Roberts, you have stated that you were familiar
with the legislation prior to 1890 and with the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Reynolds case and other cases prior to that time, and that
notwithstanding that fact you took another plural wife in 1890. I
should like to give you an opportunity, if you desire it, to give such
explanation as you care to give, why you thus felt yourself called
upon to violate the law of the land.

Mr. ROBERTS. In explanation of that conduct 1 wish to say that
from my boyhood I had been taught the rightful ness of plural mar-
riage. I believed that doctrine and believed it to be a commandment
of God. I knew that the law of God was in conflict with the statutes
enacted by Congress. I regarded it as binding upon my conscience to
obey God rather than man, and hence I accepted that doctrine and
practiced it; that is all.

Senator BEYERIDGE. When was the last marriage celebrated?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In April, 1890, six months before the manifesto.

718 EEED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In answer to a question put by Senator Pettus,
you said that none of the apostles had reprimanded you or taken any
action. When this marriage was celebrated was Senator Smoot an
apostle ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I think not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Not f or ten years.

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, no; not for ten years.

Senator BEVERIDGE. It was ten }^ears before he became an apostle.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not remember just when Mr. Smoot became an
apostle.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; that is right.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is in the record. It is ten years.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask you a question. You say that you
believed that polygamy was a divinely directed institution and you
believed in it?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is the reason why you took the wife?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you still believe in that ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do. "

The CHAIRMAN. Did you understand the manifesto of 1890 to sus-
pend plural marriages?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you understand it to suspend polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. You so understood it. Are you living in polyga-
mous cohabitation ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am.

The CHAIRMAN. This revelation or this manifesto of 1890 you think
was inspired by God ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; in a way.

The CHAIRMAN. You are living in defiance of the law—

Mr. ROBERTS. I suppose I am.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are living in defiance of the law both of
God and of man?

Mr. ROBERTS. I should like to explain in relation to that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is very simple.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not wish to be defiant in the matter, but I found
myself in the midst of these obligations and am trying to the best of
my ability to meet them according to the dictates of my conscience,
and therefore I am continuing the relations I entered into.

The CHAIRMAN. In living in polygamous cohabitation you are living
in defiance of the manifesto of 1890, are you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; in defiance of the action of the church on
that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. And that was divinely inspired, as you understand?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. And vou are clearly living in defiance of the law of
the land?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you are disregarding both the law of God and
of man ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I suppose I am.

REED SMOOT. 719

Senator OVERMAN. You say the manifesto was a revelation of God?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. What do you mean by being inspired of God?

Mr. ROBERTS. I believe that a revelation from God, of course, is a
direct, uncolored communication from the Divine to man. I believe
that a man may be an inspired man, but yet more or less of the human
characteristics of the man may enter into his actions. I believe,
however, that this manifesto was an official act of the church, that
the church was perfectly competent to pass it, and I believe it binding
upon the members of the church.

Senator OVERMAN. That it was a human institution, rather than
from God?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would not like to say it was not inspired of God.

1 rather think that President Woodruff, to meet the hard conditions
confronting him, was inspired of the spirit of the Lord to take that
course.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In your explanation you said something about
having contracted the obligation and that the reason why you con-
tinued the relations was because they were contracted before the man-
ifesto. Is that the situation ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes sir.

At 11 o'clock and 50 minutes a. m. the committee took a recess until

2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session.
TESTIMONY OF BRIGHAM H. ROBERTS— Continued.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Roberts, before I proceed along the line that I
was following at the moment of adjournment, I desire to have you
answer an inquiry that was just suggested by a member of the com-
mittee, as to what constitutes what you call the seventies. You are
one of the presidents of the seventies ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. What are the seventies?

Mr. ROBERTS. The seventies constitute in the church with the twelve
apostles what is recognized as the foreign ministry of the church.
They are the propaganda of the church.

In further explanation 1 will say that the quorums consist of TO
persons, and over each quorum there is what we call a council of 7
presidents. Then the first quorum, organized in the same way, has a
general jurisdiction over the entire body of seventies.

Mr. TAYLER. You are one of that governing body ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Over the seventies, who are in immediate charge of the
missions?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is right.

Mr. TAYLER. Does that answer your inquiry, Senator?

Senator OVERMAN. How many seventies are there ?

Mr. ROBERTS. There are about 145 quorums. All of the quorums,
however, are not full. We estimate, perhaps, that there are between
nine and ten thousand men in the body.

720 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. How many are there in your body— 7?

Mr. ROBERTS. There are 7 in the council and (>3 in the first quorum.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Roberts, in 1889 you were prosecuted under the
Edmunds Act or the Edmunds-Tucker Act, were you not ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was in 1889.

Mr. TAYLER. It was prior, anyhow, to your marriage to Mrs. Shipp?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You served a term in the Utah penitentiary upon your
conviction of that crime or your plea of guilty, whichever it was ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; 1 did.

Mr. TAYLER. The fact, then, that you were living with two wives
was generally known in Utah, was it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 think so.

Mr. TAYLER. The fact that you were living with three wives did not,
as I understand you to say before lunch, become public until along
about 1895 or 1896?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that is right?

Mr. TAYLER. That was when it first became generally known ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. So far as you know ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you discharged from the penitentiary under
this conviction in 1889? Do you recall the time of the year?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was in the fall of the year; I think likely in the
month of September.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not quite see the pertinency
of interrogating the witness in that way about his conviction, and
unless it is for some purpose connected with the case I object.

Mr. TAYLER. I recognize the impropriety of the inquiry, and I was not
intending that the questions should be personal, nor indeed offensive,
but only that I might emphasize the public character of the fact and
the universal knowledge of it.

Senator BAILEY. As I understand Mr. Roberts, he says that he
married this woman knowing it was against the law. He makes no
concealment of the fact that he did know it was against the law. He
makes no concealment of the fact that he continued to live in violation
of the law and the fact that he has been in the penitentiary for an
offense of that character.

Take my own case. I did not know that, and I served with Mr.
Roberts — or, at least, he was not admitted to the House, but was elected
to the House when I was there. I knew him. I believe I probably
stopped at the same hotel with him. 1 did not know of that convic-
tion, however, until this minute. I take it, it is regarded as a political
matter from the answer that has been made, but I hardly think it is
necessary to make a witness sit here and relate about his imprisonment
unless it has some relation to this inquiry.

Mr. TAYLER. That was the only purpose. Mr. Roberts knew that
I knew that it was public knowledge. It developed in the inquiry in
the House, and the purpose of the inquiry here was to show in the
evidence of this case that it was a matter of general public knowledge.

And therefore the next question is, Mr. Roberts, Was there ever
any action taken by the authorities of the church respecting your
living with three wives ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

EEED SMOOT. 721

Mr. TAYLER. That, Senator Bailey, was the purpose of this whole
examination — to lead up to that question.

Now, Mr. Roberts, you have characterized this manifesto of 1890
in such a way as to leave the impression upon my mind that you would
not call it a specific and direct revelation, such as other revelations
that the people of your church believe in. Was that inference of
mine justified by your statement?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was.

Mr. TAYLEB. Then, will you define the character that }^ou attribute
to that manifesto as a revelation or inspiration, its origin and its force?

Mr. ROBERTS. I regard the manifesto as an administrative act of the
president of the church, accepted by the church, and of binding force
upon its members. But I regard it as an administrative act which
President Woodruff, holding in his own hands the direct authority
controlling that particular matter — that is, the matter of marriages —
had a perfect right to make, and the acceptance of that action by the
church makes that a positive binding law upon the church.

Mr. TAYLER. And those who do not obey it are subject to the pains
and penalties such as a church under its discipline may inflict upon its
members who disobey it ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, in what respect does that rule of the church,
emanating from and originating in the manifesto, differ from the rule
of the church against polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not think I quite understand your question.

Mr. TAYLER. Let the stenographer read it. It may be involved.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. Now, in what respect does that rule 6f the church,
emanating from and originating in the manifesto, differ from the rule
of the church against polygamous cohabitation ? "

Mr. TAYLER. That is the rule of the church against the taking of
plural wives.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. How does its force differ from the force of the rule
against polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not at all.

Mr. TAYLER. Then the disobedience of the one is as offensive to the
church as the disobedience of the other?

Mr. ROBERTS. I should think it would be.

Mr. TAYLER. I think that is all I want to ask Mr. Roberts.

The CHAIRMAN. And both are of equal binding authority ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to ask —

Senator OVERMAN. The one is respected by the church, and by some
the other is not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that is true.

Of course, if you will permit me to make an explanation, the part
of it relating to plural marriages prohibits the bringing into existence
of those relations. In the other case the relations exist and men in
my status are confronted by a very awkward and trying situation.
Of course, we know that our lives are in violation of the law of the
land, and by this action of the church they are brought in violation of
the rules and law of the church, and yet there are moral obligations
and responsibilities that we feel, in our relations with our wives, we

s 46

722 REED SMOOT.

can not easily — at least I can not — set aside. Consequently, under
those trying circumstances, I presume that others, with myself, are
doing the best we can to meet what we regard as our moral obligations
to those families. That is my status on the subject at least.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you a question right in this connection ?
In view of the manifesto and the law, do you consider yourself morally
bound to cohabit with all your wives ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you in that connection how many children
you have?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have 13 children living.

The CHAIRMAN. And how many not living?

Mr. ROBERTS. Two.

The CHAIRMAN. When was the last one born ?

Mr. ROBERTS. About two years or two years and a half ago; I do
not quite remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Have the members of the committee any further
questions? If not, counsel for the respondent will proceed.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts, do you regard the manifesto just as
binding on the church as though it were a revelation ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you believe it is inspired ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you believe that it is right, since the manifesto,
to contract any plural marriages ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you know of any polygamous marriages since
the manifesto?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not.

Mr. VAN COTT. What position did Daniel H. Wells hold in the
church at the time he performed the last ceremony you have mentioned?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was recognized as councilor to the twelve apostles.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is that any office in the church?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think not. It is a position not created by anything
in the recognized revelations of the church that 1 know of.

Mr. VAN COTT. At that time what special duties did he discharge?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think Mr. Wells at that time was in charge of the
Manti temple.

Mr. VAN COTT. Where is that, in reference to Salt Lake City ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It is south of Salt Lake City, I should think, per-
haps 150 miles; something like that.

Mr. VAN COTT. About when did Daniel H. Wells die after that
ceremony which he performed for you in 1890 ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have no special recollection of the date of his death,
but as I remember it, it was something like a year after that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Your marriage in 1890 was not known as a general
rule for five or six years after it was performed?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention, now, back to 1894, was it
not in that year that Mr. Joseph L. Rawlins ran for Congress?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was.

Mr. VAN COTT. The year that the constitutional convention was
elected?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 723

Mr. VAN COTT. It was in the following year that you ran for
Congress ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to 1895, have you stated
the details of the conflict that was said to exist between you and the
church in regard to this political rule?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think I did not in detail.

Mr. VAN COTT. You think you did not?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention then to that subject, will you
please state in chronological order just the facts about the dispute that
arose, and state in detail, so that the committee will understand, the
points of the conflict, if any, between you and the church and how
they were finally fixed up and settled.

Mr. ROBERTS. The commencement of the difficulty arose out of the
remarks of Mr. Joseph F. Smith at a priesthood meeting in which he
made complaint that Mr. Thatcher and I had accepted nominations for
political office, which would take us from our religious duties, without
leave of absence or without obtaining the consent to be released from
our religious duties by the first presidency or any of the twelve.

In explanation of their insistence that that is what we ought to have
done, they made declarations in the press and out of that, as I say,
grew the general excitement of the campaign. After the close of the
campaign they proposed to reduce to writing, to a written rule, the
idea or the doctrine that men upon whose whole time the church had
a claim should obtain leave of absence or permission in that sense to
engage either in business that would take them away from their reli-
gious duties or in receiving political nominations.

I was unwilling at first to subscribe to that rule, for the reason that
it had been charged in the prologue or preface to the Democratic
declaration of principles that through that means they might seek to
control the political affairs of the State. It was charged, I think, in-
speeches and in the papers, that they might give their consent, for
instance, to one man to participate in politics and withhold it from
another, or the people might be led to interpret their willingness to
excuse one man from religious duties to mean that they favored both
his nomination and his election and in this way bring their influence
to bear upon the politics of the State.

It was upon that point especially that I made my contest against
them. In the course of several meetings with them for the purpose
of discussing these matters, however, they satisfied me that it was not
their intention to control the politics of the State, but they sought
only the management of their own ecclesiastical affairs; and in con-
sequence of being convinced that that was their purpose I joined with
them in signing the rule that hereafter men should not accept positions
of any kind that would take them from the performance of their eccle-
siastical duties without the consent of their superiors.

Mr. VAN COTT. I call your attention to the record in the case of
Reed Smoot, commencing on page 168, and ask you if that is the writ-
ten rule to which you have referred?

' Mr. ROBERTS (after examining the document). I identify the rule in
that connection in this document.

Mr. VAN COTT. How long do you know of this rule being in force
before it was reduced to writing?

724 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know that .specifically it was in force at all.

Mr. VAN COTT. What do you mean by " specifically in force?"

Mr. ROBERTS. There are misunderstandings among us in relation to
it. Some say they always understood it, and for one I said that I did
not have such understanding, but 1 did understand that it had been
decided to be a wise policy for men holding certain offices in the church
to refrain from participation in politics. That was my understanding
of the rule preceding this written one.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you understand this rule to be anything more
than a leave of absence ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; i think not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Or authorizing a leave of absence?

Mr. ROBERTS. Authorizing a leave of absence, and excusing men
from the performance of their official duties in the church.

Mr. VAN COTT. Since 1895 you have been through another political
campaign in the State of Utah, have you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have.

Mr. VAN COTT. How is this rule understood, in your opinion, Mr.
Roberts, as to whether it is an indorsement of any particular candidate
who gets the leave of absence or whether it is understood as a mere
leave of absence?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 understand it to be the prevalent opinion that it is
not an indorsement, but merely that the person is excused from his
official duties in the church.

Senator OVERMAN. When you ran the second time did you have to
get leave of the church, under that rule, to run ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I obtained the leave of absence on the second occa-
sion.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts, I want to understand the leave of
absence. Was it a written permission?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; in my own case, when I presented the mat-
ter, some one of the members of the council of apostles said that he
moved I be excused from duties during the probable time of my incum-
bency of office. There was no written consent about it at all.

Senator OVERMAN. Was any person ever selected by the church to
run for any office?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; not that I know of.

Mr. VAN COTT. This rule you signed in April, 1896, did you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Was permission given to you, Mr. Roberts, before
you were nominated, to seek the nomination, and also to be a candi-
date after the nomination ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; before nomination.

Senator DUBOIS. Before nomination ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know whether permission was given to any
other member of your party by the church to be a candidate ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. For the same office, do you mean ?

Senator DUBOIS. For the same office.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I do not know of any other permission being
given to anyone else.

Senator DUBOIS. Were you successful in your first canvass?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

REED SMOOT. 725

Senator DUBOIS. You were successful, I believe, in your second
canvass?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Roberts, suppose your fellow-citizens were to
nominate you for a political office, without either consulting you or
consulting your church associates, and after your nomination your
church associates should refuse you permission to accept the nomi-
nation and make the race, would you consider it your duty to disregard
the wishes of your party friends in a political matter in order to obey
the wishes of your church associates in a political matter, or would
you obey the church and refrain from engaging in politics and thus
deny the claims of your fellow-citizens upon your services in a politi-
cal way ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think, Senator, that that perhaps would depend upon
the circumstances. I can conceive the emergency arising, and per-
haps it might be one's duty to respond to the wishes of his fellow-
citizens. I do not know as to that.

Senator BAILEY. Can there be any such thing as a religious obli-
gation to deny your State your services in a political way, whether
the occasion be a political emergency or not? Is not a man's duty as
a citizen perfectly consistent with any conception that exists in this
country of his religious duty ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, I, perhaps, could not determine that offhand,
Senator.

Senator BAILEY. Would you think it possible ? I am not speaking
about the religious phase of it. I am concerned here about the politi-
cal phase. Do you think it consistent with good citizenship that you
must secure permission of a nonpolitical organization before you are
permitted to exercise your political rights as a citizen ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I regard this matter as I would those agreements that
are sometimes entered into in business firms and law firms, and that if
a man judged the emergency, the political emergency, of sufficient
moment to call upon him to discharge the duties of his citizenship to
his fellow-citizens, it would be his duty, perhaps, to resign either from
the firm or from his official duties in a church organization.

Senator BAILEY. You are a lawyer, are you not, Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; I am not a lawyer.

Mr. BAILEY. I was going to ask you if you would regard a contract
or agreement of that kind, made either by a lawyer with his associates
in the practice of the law, or by a business man with his partner, as valid
and binding. There could be no such thing in this country as a con-
tract that denies a man the right to serve his fellow-citizens when they
call on him for his services. I think such a contract would be void as
against public policy. I express that opinion merely without exam-
ining the law, but 1 know that if the law in any State does counte-
nance a contract that deprives a man of his political rights or denies
him opportunity to meet his political obligations, that law ought to be
changed, and I should say that a religious organization transcends its
proper province when it undertakes to control the political action of
its members.

Mr. ROBERTS. You see, in this connection, it seems to me the mat-
ter is not so much political as it is religious. I think it would be nec-
essary for a person who is in the obligation that I am in either to
follow his agreement and obtain the approval of his associates for leave

726 REED 8MOOT.

of absence, or else resign his position. Which I would do in any
emergency 1 can not say. It would depend upon that emergency.

Senator BAILEY. Do I understand that under these rules a resigna-
tion is contemplated ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It could be so.

Senator BAILEY. Of course, a man might find it necessary to close
his law office in order to come to Congress, as most of us do, and it is
for him to determine, looking to all his relations and obligations,
whether he can afford to discontinue his business to come here in the
public service. Such a consideration as that must, of course, address
itself to everybody. I take it that a minister of any of the churches
in this country might consider that his duties as a pastor precluded
him from engaging in a political contest, but if he were to sign an
agreement with any of his members that he would not offer himself
for a nomination, or, if nominated, offer himself for an election, with-
out their consent, that would be a line of conduct that I would regard
as irreconcilable with the duties of good citizenship. It seems to me
a man must always leave himself free to serve his country in any
capacity where his country might require his services, and he must do
that without agreeing that he will first obtain the permission of any
religious, industrial, or business association.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I will say, if the committee will pardon me,
that this rule does specialty provide for the matter of resignation. It
says on page 171 :

" We hold that unless he is willing to consult with and obtain the
consent of his fellow-laborers and presiding officers in the priesthood
he should be released from all obligations associated with the latter
before accepting any new position."

Senator BAILEY. That is not a resignation. That is practically
forcing him out. That is simply admonishing him that he will be
disestablished.

Mr. ROBERTS. Pardon me, Senator, we do not have any such under-
standing of it.

Senator BAILEY. You do not ?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is not my understanding of it. My understand-
ing of it is that this matter rests upon the same basis as the associa-
tions between lawyers who enter into the kind of political agreement
about which we have been speaking.

Senator BAILEY. I had not looked at it before. It is a little worse
than I thought. It says:

"Our position is that a man having accepted the honors and obliga-
tions of ecclesiastical office in the church can not properly, of his own
volition, make these honors subordinate to, or even coordinate with,
new ones of an entirely different character."

I should regard any organization in this country — religious, indus-
trial, or of any other character — as not to be tolerated if it teaches that
those who profess to follow it can not perform the duties of a good
citizen. You are a man of great intelligence and you are thoroughly
familiar with the subject, and I would like to hear what explanation —
you can give as good a one as any man connected with the church — they
have for declaring that a man can not be a good Christian and a good
citizen at the same time, in effect.

Mr. ROBERTS. Of course I fail to recognize the "effect."

Senator BAILEY. You do, however, recognize that that declares that

REED SMOOT. 727

as long as he has any office in the church he can not perform his duties
as an officer of the State, and that is certainly one of the duties of a
citizen.

Mr. ROBERTS. The plain understanding that we have of the matter
is this, that one is not entitled to seek political preferment until he
first obtains leave of absence or is excused from his official duties in
the church. That is all.

Senator BAILEY. You use the word "seek." I use the word
u accept." You are not permitted to accept it, if it were tendered to
you by your fellow citizens who put your name on the ballot and elect
you a Representative in Congress of the State of Utah. You could
not accept that without first obtaining the permission of the church?

Mr. ROBERTS. Or resigning one's official position in the church.

Senator BAILEY. Yes; I understand that. If you resign your posi-
tion in the church you sever your religious connection.

Mr. ROBERTS. Not at all.

Senator BAILEY. Well, you sever your religious status; you dises-
tablish yourself as an officer of the church, do you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, yes; but remain, however, a member of the
church, with all those privileges that attend on membership.

Senator BAILEY. I understand; because the rule is not aimed at what
we call the layman in the church.

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Senator BAILEY. There is no obligation upon the average member,
nonofficial, to seek permission, as I understand it, either in theory or
in the practice of your church?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BAILEY. But your prohibition rests upon those who are
most apt to be sought by their fellow-citizens for public service. In
other words, a man who is of ability and character sufficient to hold a
prominent position in the church would be apt to be the very man
designated by his fellow-citizens for a political service, and that very
man who might be best able to serve the state is the man denied the
right to serve it by this rule of the church, and he is denied the right
upon the ground that the two are incompatible. Of course, as a mat-
ter of fact, nobody is ever forced to accept an office, and when they
are elected, even without their consent, there are generally statutes
that permit their resignation; but you readily recognize that the law
might compel a man to accept an office. We have a provision in the
Revised Statutes for the President resigning in case he does not want
to serve. That is there to provide for contingencies that are never
apt to arise, and so it might be that a man could be drafted into the
civil as well as the military service of the Government. If that should
happen you have an ordinance, rule, or regulation that forbids you to
accept unless you sever your relations with the church, and we recog-
nize that there is a conflict here between the church and the state.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Sever his relations with his office, Senator, not
with the church.

Senator BAILEY. He severs the relation that exists at the time of
his election, and assumes a new relation, that of a lay member. In
other words, they reduce him to the ranks. Now what I can not quite
reconcile in my mind— and I have no prejudice about it either — is the
idea that there is a necessary conflict between your duty as an officer
of the church and your duty as a citizen.

728- REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. In the event of such a crisis confronting one, I think
you would have to rely upon the patriotism and the judgment of the
individual concerned.

Senator BAILEY. I never like to see a man's religion and patriotism
in conflict. That is the embarrassing thing to me.

Senator OVERMAN. Suppose there is a conflict, is your church the
first duty, or the state ?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is hypothetical. I can not tell what I would do.

Senator BAILEY. It would depend somewhat on your frame of mind.
One time you did defy the church, as I understand it, out there.

Mr. ROBERTS. I did, to some extent.

Senator BAILEY. But they beat you that time?

Mr. ROBEKTS. No; I think, Senator, they enlightened me in refer-
ence to their purposes.

Senator BAILEY. I do not mean the church. I mean you were
defeated at the polls-
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, ye,s, sir.

Senator BAILEY. When you did not submit to the discipline of the
church.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. Then the next time when you did submit you were
chosen.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. With a view of arriving at just how much influ-
ence the religious question exerted upon the political decision I will
ask you how the vote of the respective parties stood at the two elec-
tions. You were defeated first — was it in 1895 ?

Mr. ROBERTS. In 1895.

Senator BAILEY. When was the State of Utah admitted?

Mr. ROBERTS. In 1896, I think.

Senator BAILEY. I think not.

Mr. VAN COTT. January 4, 1896.

Senator BAILEY. The act was not passed then, for I happened to be
in the chair, serving as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, the
day it was passed in the House, and in 1896 the Speaker of the House
was the Hon. Thomas B. Reed, who would not have been very apt to
call me to the chair.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The enabling act was passed two years before
the State was admitted.

Senator BAILEY. I know the enabling act was passed during the
Democratic administration of the House.

Mr. VAN COTT. Utah became a State January 4, 1896, Senator.

Senator BAILEY. You were a candidate —

Mr. ROBERTS. In the fall elections of 1895.

Senator BAILEY. To represent the State at the first election held
'under the constitution ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. No; at the same election at which the constitution was
adopted.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; that is right.

Mr. TAYLER. The enabling act providing for the first election of
Representative in Congress.

Senator BAILEY. Then that would be that Mr. Roberts was a candi-

REED SMOOT. 729

('jiio for election to represent the State at the first election held under
t:.'* constitution.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. I was unfortunate in stating it. I intended to ask
that.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Senator BAILEY. You were defeated?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 was defeated.

Senator BAILEY. You were on the regular Democratic ticket?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. At that election the whole State ticket was chosen ?

Mr. ROBERTS. :No, sir; it was defeated.

Senator BAILEY. State officers were not chosen at that time ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; State officers were nominated and elected,
but the whole Democratic ticket was defeated.

Senator BAILEY. When you were next a candidate, were there any
State officers elected at that time?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think the whole Democratic ticket was elected.

Senator BAILEY. So that, as a matter of fact, you shared the fate of
your party on each occasion ?

Mr. ROBERTS. On each occasion.

Senator BAILEY. And if there was any religious influence exerted,
it was exerted against the whole party and not againsjb you because of
your particular position ?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 think that is right, and it might add some light to
the matter if I were to say that in the first election I ran, I think it
was, something over a thousand votes ahead of the Democratic ticket.

Senator BAILEY. However, this convention about which you have
told us, in October, the convention which adopted the preamble and
the declaration of principles, was a convention called under the author-
ity of the regular Democratic; organization?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. And thus the entire organization was placed in an
attitude of hostility toward the church, the same as you were? Is
that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Senator BAILEY. Who was the candidate against you when you were
successful, Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Eldridge.

Senator BAILEY. In order to determine whether politics had any-
thing to do with the religion, or the religion anything to do with the
politics, I desire to ask you whether Mr. Eldridge was a Mormon?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. And so were you?

Mr. ROBERTS. So was I. Mr. Eldridge, by the way, I think was
connected with one of the presidencies of the stake. He was a coun-
cilor in the Summit Stake of Zion, as I remember it.

Senator BAILEY. Holding an official position in the church?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Do you know whether he got permission to run?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Was his office one of the class that would require per-
mission?

730 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, ,sir; I think so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was the president of a stake, did you say?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was a councilor in the presidency of the stake.
That is my recollection of the matter.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Roberts, what was the majority against you
when }^ou were defeated?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not remember the majority.

Senator BAILEY. What was the majority when you were elected?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was over 5,000.

Senator BAILEY. The same legislature chosen at the time you were
defeated was a Democratic legislature, was it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. At the time I was defeated?

Senator BAILEY. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not remember as to that, Senator?

The CHAIRMAN. It was Republican.

Senator BAILEY. I believe it was, because Mr. Rawlins came to the
Senate.

Senator SMOOT. It was Mr. Allen.

Senator DUBOIS. That legislature elected Mr. Cannon and Mr. Brown ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. The State administration — the governor, State
officers, and legislature — was Republican when you were defeated?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILE*Y. You have already said the Democratic ticket was
elected at the same time you were elected; and I believe the legislature
was also Democratic.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was.

Senator BAILEY. That was the legislature that elected Mr. Rawlins to
the Senate, as I remember it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. So whatever influence the church ma}7 have exerted
was exerted as a whole, I take it, and not against any particular man;
that is all.

Senator OVERMAN. Did the Democratic platform have the same pro-
visions in it that it had in it when you were defeated ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will you permit me, Senator, before answering that,
to add a remark to Senator Bailey's last question ?

Senator OVERMAN. Certainly.

Mr. ROBERTS. I feared the remark of the Senator, that the influence
exerted by the church authorities went against the whole party-
Senator BAILEY. No; I did not say that. I said if there was any.

Mr.* ROBERTS. Well, if we understand the "if" in there. Of course
they disclaimed the exercise of any influence against the party.

Senator BAILEY. I did not assume that there was any.

Mr. ROBERTS. Now, Senator, I should be glad to answer you.

Senator OVERMAN. I asked you whether the platform under which
you were elected had the same provisions in it, in reference to the
preamble you have named, as when you were defeated.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think you have confounded the reconvening of the
convention in 1895 with the regular convention of the Democratic
party.

Senator OVERMAN. The reconvened convention had the preamble in
which the church was arraigned ?

REED 8MOOT. 731

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; it was the reconvened convention and not the
nominating convention.

Mr. TAYLER. But the question was before that convention as to
whether the ticket nominated at the first convention should still stand
before the people?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, it was.

Mr. TAYLER. So that practically it was a renomination of the same
ticket, was it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 think in effect it was, since you remind me of that.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 did not want to interfere with the examination at
all. You were not through, I thought.

Mr. VAN COTT. I was waiting for the Senators to finish their ques-
tions.

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask whether the convention of 1895 did not
have a declaration against the church interfering in politics?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not recall that there was any plank or declara-
tion in the first convention that was held in 1895 on that subject,
although it was generally understood that the Democrats had taken a
very strong position upon the subject of the relations of church and
state; but whether its position was reduced to any resolution or plank
in the platform 1 do not now remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you not recall that that declaration was made?
Is not that your recollection?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; it is not my recollection.

The CHAIRMAN. At the time you were elected to Congress who did
you say you had against you?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Alma Eldridge.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a Republican or a Democrat?

Mr. ROBERTS. He is a Republican.

The CHAIRMAN. And he was not a polygamist, I believe.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think not.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Roberts, when you were a candidate for Con-
gress the first time, Mr. Thatcher, 1 believe, was a candidate for the
Senate ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. The Democratic convention that year nom-
inated the men that the party was pledged to support as candidates for
the Senate.

Senator DUBOIS. And he was a candidate for the Senate and you
were a candidate for Congress, and the Republicans elected their State
ticket and elected the legislature also, which defeated you both.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. When you ran for Congress the second time, Mr.
Thatcher was again a candidate for the Senate, but not, as I under-
stand it, nominated by the State convention.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is right.

Senator DUBOIS. Was he understood pretty generally by the Dem-
ocrats to be the Democratic candidate for the Senate?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think there was an understanding that Mr. Thatcher
would still be a candidate for the Senate.

Senator DUBOIS. You and Mr. Thatcher, as I understand you, in
the reconvened convention both refused to accept this pronunciamento
of the church that those holding high positions should get the consent
of the church ? You both opposed that, Mr. Thatcher being at that
time an apostle and you being one of the seven presidents of seventies?

732 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. The rule at that time was not reduced to writing or
formulated.

Senator DUBOIS. But in the reconvened convention the rule had
been invoked, I think, as you have stated yourself. The reconvened
convention, as I understand, was to protest against such an order.

Mr. ROBERTS. It was not only to protest against the insistence
upon that rule, but there were a great number of alleged cases of
interference that we were protesting against.

Senator DUBOIS. Well, you and Mr. Thatcher then stood together,
practically ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.

Senator DUBOIS. In the position you took in reference to the church
in the reconvened convention?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Subsequent to that, when you were a candidate
the second time,, you had been persuaded that the rule was a just one,
and had acquiesced in it, had you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Had Mr. Thatcher at that time come to the same
conclusion that }^ou had, and acquiesced in the justice of this rule?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not now remember as to that, whether he had
acquiesced in the rule or not, by the fall campaign of 1898. I do not
remember that.

Senator DUBOIS. Do }rou not know whether or not Mr. Thatcher
had signed the letter or statement which was prepared, acquiescing in
this rule of the church ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I know that he did sign the document, but as to the
time of it I do not recall.

Senator DUBOIS. You do not recall that this was not until consider-
ably after the Senatorial election ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Of 1898?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; 1 do not recall as to that.

Senator DUBOIS. What majority did the Democrats have in the leg-
islature selected at the same time that you were elected to Congress?

Mr. 'ROBERTS. I do not remember.

Senator DUBOIS. Is it not a fact that they had all the membership
of that legislature excepting three?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not think the Democratic majority was so com-
plete as that. I have no recollection of it, Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. There may have been more than three; but do you
recall the fact that the Democrats had a majority in that legislature i

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. You also recall the fact, 1 presume, that Mr.
Thatcher was not elected to the Senate?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not at that time; no.

Senator DUBOIS. Nor at any other time ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Nor at any other time.

Senator DUBOIS. And also that the balloting continued for some time
before a selection was finally made?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Senator OVERMAN. I do not know that I exactly understood you, Mr.
Roberts. You say that in the reconvened convention, in the preamble,

REED SMOOT. 733

there was a strong protest against the interference by the church in
politics.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is, in the preamble, there were recited quite a
large number of alleged instances of interference, and that was followed
by our Democratic declaration of principles on that subject.

Senator OVERMAN. You were defeated at that time?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was defeated at that time.

Senator OVERMAN. The second time, when you were elected, when
you announced your principles, did that have a similar protest against
the interference of the church in politics ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, in spirit I think there was something to that
effect, but lean not recall now just what declaration the platform made
on that subject.

Senator OVERMAN. Was there anything in that platform against the
interference of the church in politics?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not remember anything specific.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Roberts, I want to ask you a flat question.
Is it not true that in the politics of Utah the parties seek to enlist the
favor of the church, just as in other States we seek to enlist the sympa-
thy and support of the people by reason of their nationality or race or
some thing of that kind — for instance, as we appeal to the German vote
in Ohio, the Irish vote in New York-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. The labor vote.

Mr. BAILEY. Everywhere.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think not, as to the parties. I believe there are
individuals who have sought to trim their sails according to those
ideas.

Senator BAILEY. Utah has been rather impartial in bestowing her
favors on parties. She goes for one at one time and for the other the
next time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Senator BAILEY. I suppose that is possible, but it is a little singular.

Mr. ROBERTS. Would you permit me a word on that, Senator Bailey ?

Senator BAILEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that Senators ought to have before them in
this investigation the fact that the people in Utah have occupied rather
an anomalous condition. I know that I grew up from boyhood to
manhood without coming in contact with national politics, and was
practically a stranger to both Democratic arid Republican principles.
Our whole community grew up isolated, you may say, from the great
national issues, and when we were brought in contact with them through
our efforts to obtain statehood, and our final obtaining of statehood,
you can understand that the people generally were unfixed in any sub-
stantial political convictions, and hence, I think, the condition that you
speak of. There was a very large element there uneducated in matters
of party politics, and I think that would account for the fortunes and
misfortunes of political parties in the State of Utah to a large extent.

Senator BAILEY. I believe in your first election under the constitu-
tion the Republicans carried the legislature; in the next one the
Democrats carried it, and probably in the next one the Republicans
carried it?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Senator BAILEY. I believe it is our time next.

734 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. I hope so. Senator.

Senator BAILEY. I am free to say that that condition, which had
occurred to me, had been partially explained in my mind by the prob-
ability of church interference, and that whichever side prevailed was
the side upon which the church cast its influence. That was the reason
I wanted some explanation of the statement. I understand, of course,
that it might happen without any fixed and definite political creed;
they might veer from party to party; but it still appears to me that
men might be a little more constant in their prejudices, even if not in
their convictions, than to change every election.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts, I want to ask you a question right in
the line of those Senator Bailey has propounded to you. If you were
invited by your fellow-citizens and your party to accept the nomination
for an office, would you feel at liberty to accede to that request until
you had first consulted with the church?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not unless I resigned my position in the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you feel at liberty to accept without first
consulting the church?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. If upon that consultation you were not permitted, or
your request was refused by the church, you would not then feel at
liberty to run?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, as I said a few moments ago, Senator, I think
it would depend upon the emergency. 1 would have to determine
which was most binding upon me, which I regarded as most binding,
my duties as an officer in the church or my duties as a citizen.

The CHAIRMAN. If, upon examination, you came to the conclusion
that your obligation to the church was first, then you would refuse to
run?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would decide accordingly, of course.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and you would refuse then to be a candidate
for office?

Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose the church should refuse to give its per-
mission and you should nevertheless accept the nomination and strive
for the office, what action would you expect on the part of the church ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Realty, I could not say.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes; you have an opinion about it, have you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I suppose I should very likely be called upon for
some explanation, at least.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you should make an explanation that you
regarded your duty to the State first, and therefore you had accepted
this office?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 think I would be relieved of my official duties in
the church or my official position in the church.

Senator BAILEY. And what would likely be the attitude of the church
toward your canvass — one of hostility?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can not say as to that, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. In the event you did not get permission of the
church and should still run?

Senator BAILEY. That is what I mean.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the attitude of the church toward
you in the election?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would not expect any action on their part, politically.

REED SMOOT. 735

Senator DUBOIS. I presume if such an emergency should arise the
church would give their consent to some one else to run ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did not understand your question.

Senator DUBOIS. The church does not give its consent, as 1 under-
stand it, except to one individual ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, it may give it to several.

Senator OVERMAN. Give its consent to several running for the same
office?

Mr. ROBERTS. I know of nothing that would hinder them from
doing so.

Senator DUBOIS. I asked you if they had given their consent to any-
one else besides yourself to run for Congress when they gave their
consent to you, and you said you thought not.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think not. •»

Senator DUDOIS. I have not found yet that the§T have given their
consent except to one man. I myself never knew of their doing so.

Mr. ROBERTS. Neither do I; but your question is entirely hypo-
thetical. I do not know what would happen.

Senator DUBOIS. I asked as to the policy. 1 presume if they refused
to give their consent to you, and some other or preferred member of
the church should ask their consent, and his reasons were good, they
would give their consent to him ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Certainly.

Senator DUBOIS. Then he would be running with the consent of the
church and you would be running against their wishes?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Would that affect you among the voters of the
Mormon Church?

Mr. ROBERTS. I presume likely it would affect me among some
voters.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No such case has arisen, as I understand you?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; not that 1 know of.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you think that affected Mr. Thatcher at all?
Did the fact that the church refused to give their consent to his can-
didacy, and he insisted that he would run without their consent, have
any effect on him ?

Mr. ROBERTS, i do not know as to that. I was not in the State
during that Senatorial contest. I was in the East throughout that
Senatorial contest, with the exception of a few days in Salt Lake, but
I had been in the East for some months and returned only for a few
days and then again returned to the East, so that I was not present
during that Senatorial contest, and can form no judgment as to what
effect it had upon the candidacy of Mr. Thatcher.

Senator DUBOIS. Now, I will ask you for your best judgment. Do
you think it would be possible for anyone running without the consent
of the church to be elected if the church had given their consent to
another member of the organization to run for that same office?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; I think it would be quite possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we interrupted you, I think, in your
examination.

Mr. VAN COTT. Senator Pettus was about to ask a question.

Senator PETTUS. The question I want to ask Mr. Roberts is, Do you
know of any instance where the church gave its consent to two of its
officers to run for the same office ?

736 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, .sir; I do not recall that.

Senator BAILEY. I take it there would be no difficulty in obtaining
consent for two officers to run as the candidates of opposing parties,
because in that way the church, assuming that it wanted to take a part,
would be bound to elect one or the other.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Senator BAILEY. And that was the instance I had in my mind a while
ago, when you ran against Mr. Eldridge.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Senator BAILEY. Of course, in that case, a Mormon would certainty
be elected; but I would like it better if there was an instance where
the church had given its permission to two of its members to run
against each other in the same party, and thus jeopardize the election
of a Mormon.

Senator DUBOIS^ I would like for Mr. Roberts to give us an instance
where a candidate for one of these high offices, who has received the
consent of the church to be a candidate, has been defeated.

Mr. ROBERTS. I could not do so.

Senator BAILEY. Do you know of any instance in which one who
has run without its permission has ever been elected ?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 do not recall any circumstance of that kind.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have knowledge of that, would you not,
if it were so ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think likely 1 would, Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. Of course we only know of two instances. You
received their consent to be a candidate for Congress, and were elected.
Mr. Smoot received their consent to be a candidate for the Senate, and
he was elected. I would like to know if there is any instance where
a candidate who had received their consent to be a candidate for one
of these high offices has been defeated?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can not recite any such case.

Mr. VAN COTT. Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts, do you know of any instance where
two persons in the same political party have applied to the church to
run?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. For instance, when you ran in 1898 do you know
of any other Democrat who wished to be a candidate for that same
office?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who was a member of the church, I mean, of course ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. VAN COTT. And during any of these years since statehood, or
since 1890, do you know of an instance where two members of the
church belonging to the same party have applied as candidates to the
church for permission?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know of any such case.

Mr. VAN COTT. For instance, in 1898, did you ever hear that Mr.
Alma Eldridge had not obtained a leave of absence to run for Congress?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I did not hear anything of the kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. No such question was mooted or broached in the
campaign ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not at all.

REED SMOOT. 737

Mr. VAN COTT. But you were of opposing political parties ?

Mr. ROBERTS. We were.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you understand there is anything in this rule
that prevents }^ou from resigning at any time?

Mr. ROBERTS. Nothing at all.

Mr. VAN COTT. You are free to resign whenever you desire ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Absolutely.

Mr. VAN COTT. Without getting a leave of absence from the church ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you understand, Mr. Roberts, that this rule as
applied to the members of the church— that is, the high officers — has
any different application than it would have as a rule that was pro-
mulgated by a railroad company, to the effect that its employees shall
not seek political preferment, and neglect their railroad duties?

Mr. ROBERTS. I understand that to be the exact basis of that rule.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling attention to 1895, that was the first
time you ran?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Your opponent was Clarence E. Allen?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a gentile?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was a gentile.

Mr. VAN COTT. And a Republican?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he was elected?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was elected.

Mr. VAN COTT. At that time you had the largest majority of any-
one on the Democratic ticket, did you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. And I think you have stated that was about 1,000?

Mr. ROBERTS. Approximately 1,000.

Mr. TAYLER. You mean the least minority.

Mr. CARLISLE. The largest vote.

Mr. VAN COTT. I mean of anyone on the Democratic ticket.

Mr. TAYLER. You said the largest majority.

Mr. VAN COTT. I meant the largest vote, by 1,000.

Mr. ROBERTS. By 1,000.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1898 your opponent, at that time, was Alma
Eldridge?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And you were elected ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was elected.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the whole Democratic ticket?

Mr. ROBERTS. The whole Democratic ticket.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to 1896 and 1898, is
there any special reason you have in mind for the large Democratic
vote and the majority in the State of Utah?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; I do not remember.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me call your attention to the silver craze.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; that is one circumstance.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is not that the year that William J. Bryan carried
the State of Utah by such an enormous majority ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was.

Mr. VAN COTT. After calling your attention to the particular ques.-

s 47

738 REED SMOOT.

tion that was before the people, and particularly in the western States,
at that time, have you any reason for the large Democratic majority?

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, yes.

Mr. VANCOTT. Is that it?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is it.

Mr. VAN COTT. At the time Mr. Thatcher failed of election as United
States Senator his opponent was Joseph L. Rawlins?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was he a gentile?

Mr. ROBERTS. He, was a gentile.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think the question was asked you, Mr. Roberts,
and you acquiesced in it, to the effect that the church refused Moses
Thatcher permission to run for Senator. Had Moses Thatcher ever
asked the church to be relieved of his ecclesiastical duties ?

Mr. ROBERTS. My understanding is that he did not apply to be
relieved.

Mr. VAN COTT. Since Joseph F. Smith has been president of the
church, has there been any reason that you know of to even suspect
that there has been any influence whatever in politics, or in favor of
one candidate as against another in any way whatever?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I think not.

Mr. VAN COTT. By the church, I mean, of course.

Mr. ROBERTS. No.

Mr. VAN COTT. At the time that the Democrats reconvened their
convention, in 1895, did they announce a declaration of principles?

Mr. ROBERTS. They did.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will ask you whether you stand by that declara-
tion of principles the some to-day as then?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to the time just previous to
the signing of the rule in regard to politics and business, that you
have mentioned, and which is found on page 168 of this record, did
you at that time state to anyone that you changed your mind in regard
to that matter on account of a vision which you had in which a number
of your dead ancestors appeared before you?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Or anything like that ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I had no such vision?

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you ever make a statement to that effect?

Mr. ROBERTS. To the effect that I had had a vision ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you ever state it to E. B. Critchlow?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. On what page is that?

Mr. VAN COTT. On page 675 of the record.

Or did you ever say that you saw your ancestors lost in perdition
and that they were not allowed to go through the temple and be bap-
tized, etc. ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I never made any such remark or statement.

Mr. VAN COTT. Are you acquainted with what is called the Nuggets
ol Truth?

Mr. ROBERTS. I used to be.

EEED SMOOT. 739

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you see that document in various parts of the
State of Utah?

Mr. ROBEKTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. How general would you say that it was circulated
as a campaign document 4

Mr. ROBERTS. I would say that it was very general.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were you all over the State in that campaign ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I covered the entire State, as I remember.

Mr. VAN COTT. Since }^ou became one of the first presidents of sev-
enties, have you been promoted in an ecclesiastical way?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you had new duties to perform or to discharge ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts, do you know of any of the first pres-
idency or of any one of the twelve apostles knowing of your third
marriage within five or six years after the ceremony was performed?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Or until long after Mr. Wells's death ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It would have been some time after Mr. Wells's
death.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am through, unless Mr. Worthington wants to ask
something. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLER. I have a few questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Roberts, for many years prior to 1890 the Mor-
mon Church, as a body — I do not mean that ecclesiastically it acted,
but the Mormon Church as a body — did take an active part in politics,
did it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not directly; but there was in existence what was
known as the People's Party, and that was composed exclusively, I
think, of Mormons.

Mr. TAYLER. Then there was the opposition party, called the Liberal
party ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. It was as if the two parties were called the Mormon
party and the Gentile party.

Mr. ROBERTS. In effect, that was it.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, in the campaign of 1895, feeling ran very high
on the subject of alleged church interference in politics, did it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Very high. And doubtless there were a good many
inflammatory and perhaps ill-considered statements made by those on
either side of that question?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that is true.

Mr. TAYLER. You yourself talked rather heatedly on the subject,
did you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think I did, sometimes.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember the statement that was made during
that campaign that Apostle Lyman had attended a meeting of his peo-
ple somewhere outside of Salt Lake City, elsewhere in Utah, in which
he urged them to divide up — part of them to go on one side, part of
them to the other side, and part of them to stay in between — so that
they might switch at will from one side to the other?

740 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. My recollection is that such a charge was made against
Mr. Lyman, which, however, in justice to him, I ought to say he
disclaimed.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he not merely disclaim that he had made it at a
certain place, at which it was said to have been made, when the fact
was that it was made at another place ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; my understanding was that he disclaimed it
entirely.

Mr. TAYLEK. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts, there is another subject upon which
I want to ask you a question. It has been stated here that the endow-
ment bouse was taken down in 1890.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think earlier than that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, at sometime it was taken down?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever go through the endowment house ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was in 1877.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you been present at times when others have
passed through the endowment house?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Frequently.

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the ceremony that used to be performed in what
was called the Endowment House performed now ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Where ?

Mr. ROBERTS. When?

The CHAIRMAN. Where, I say.

Mr. ROBERTS. In the temples, as I understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. How many temples are there in Utah ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I believe there are four.

The CHAIRMAN. And the ceremony that used to be performed in the
Endowment House is now performed in the temple?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He says he thinks it is. He does not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember the ceremony?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I do not remember the ceremonies distinctly.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember any portion of it ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Only in a general way, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know, Mr. Roberts, of any change in the
ceremony performed in the endowment house, and as it is performed
to-day in the temple?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The ceremony is the same. Now, will you state to
the committee what that ceremony was, or is, as nearly as you can?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the ceremonies consist of what would be con-
sidered a series of ceremonies, I take it, of which I only have a gen-
eral impression.

The CHAIRMAN. You have something more than a general impression
v.n your own case ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No; I think not.

REED SMOOT. 741

The CHAIRMAN. How many days did it take you to go through the
Endowment House ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, part of one day.

The CHAIRMAN. Who were present at the time ? Do you remember ?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you tell the committee any portion of that
ceremony ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, for one reason, I do not feel at liberty to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Because I consider myself in trust in relation to those
matters, and I do not feel at liberty to make any disclosures in relation
to them.

The CHAIRMAN. It was then a secret?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Does this religious denomination have, as one of its
ceremonies, secret obligations or covenants?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think they could not be properly called secrets.
Of course they are common to all worthy members of the church, and
generally known by them.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, secret from the world?

Mr. ROBERTS. Secret from the world.

The CHAIRMAN. The obligations and covenants, whatever they are,
then, you are not at liberty to disclose?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir. I would be led to regard those obligations
as similar to those who perhaps have passed through Masonic fraterni-
ties, or are members of Masonic fraternities.

The CHAIRMAN. Then your church organization in that particular
is a sort of Masonic fraternity ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It is analogous, perhaps, in some of its features.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you can remember, of course, what occurred,
but you do not feel at liberty to disclose it, and for that reason you
will not disclose it ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not specifically. I do not wish, however, Senator,
to be understood as being in any sense defiant in that matter.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not so understood, Mr. Roberts, at all.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not wish to put myself in opposition or raise any
issue here at all.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason you have assigned is accepted. The
obligation, whatever it is, taken in the Endowment House, is such that
you do not feel at liberty to disclose it?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Should you do so, what would you expect as the
result?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would expect to lose caste with my people as betray-
ing a trust.

Senator OVERMAN. Do all members of the church have to go through
that?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not all members.

Senator OVERMAN. What proportion of them, and how is it regu-
lated?

Mr. ROBERTS. It is governed chiefly by worthiness — moral worthi-
ness.

742 EEED SMOOT.

Senator BAILEY. And is it somewhat a matter of degrees, as it is in
Masonry? I believe they have several degrees.

The CHAIRMAN. The apostles go through the Endowment House.

Mr. ROBERTS. I understand so.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall whether any penalty was imposed
upon a person who should disclose the covenants?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not remember?

Mr. ROBERTS. Beyond the disfavor and distrust of his fellows.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever been present at a marriage ceremony
in the temple?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you tell what that is?

Mr. ROBERTS. I could not, only in a general way. The ceremony
is of some length. I remember performing the ceremony in the case
of my own daughter when she was married, and, not being familiar
with the ceremony, a copy of it was placed in my hands and I read the
ceremon}7, but I could only remember the general terms of it.

The CHAIRMAN. If the members who have gone through the Endow-
ment House, then, keep faith with the church, the}^ will not disclose
what occurred?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BAILEY. Do you feel at liberty, Mr. Roberts, to say whether
or not there is anything in that ceremony that permits a man — I will
adopt a different expression — that abridges a man's freedom of polit-
ical action, or action in any respect, except in a religious way ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Senator BAILEY. I do not quite understand whether you mean b}^
your answer to say that you do not feel free to answer that or that
there is nothing?

Mr. ROBERTS. I mean to say that there is nothing.

Mr. TAYLER. When was the last time you witnessed this ceremony
in the Endowment House?

Mr. ROBERTS. You mean the marriage ceremony ?

Mr. TAYLER. Or in the temple when this obligation was taken?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, it is several years since.

Mr. TAYLER. Is it many years ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It must be three or four years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are you referring, Mr. Tayler, to the marriage
ceremony or the endowment?

Mr. TAYLER. I mean whatever the ceremony was in this obligation
of the Endowment House, which he says he does riot care to disclose.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I so understood it, but I did not know whether
the witness did or not.

Mr. TAYLER. That ceremony and that obligation were the same in
1877 that they were when you saw it a few years ago ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; as I remember it.

Mr. TAYLER. You married your daughter ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. A short time ago. You spoke this morning about your
own marriages. Were you not married to these several wives by the
same solemn ceremony as occurred when your daughter was married?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it long, in the same way ?

KEED SMOOT. 743

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; I understood that it was the same ceremony in
each case.

Mr. TAYLER. Then it took Mr. Wells some time to marry you to
Mrs. Shipp, did it?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, speaking of the length of the ceremony, 1 should
think likely that it would occupy, at a reasonable rate of reading, per-
haps two minutes, or less even than that.

Mr. TAYLER. How long were you marrying your daughter?

Mr. ROBERTS. It took about that length of time to read the ceremony.

Mr. TAYLER. Then the ceremony must be simple — not complicated,
is it?

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, no.

Mr. TAYLER. If it takes only two minutes.. Now, I want to ask for
information, this question. 1 have had the impression that the revela-
tion respecting polygamy required a consultation with the existing wife
before the husband took another.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that is the rule.

Mr. TAYLER. In your case you did not seek that consent?

Mr. ROBERTS. In the second case I did not.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what 1 mean; in the case of the second plural
wife?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask Mr. Roberts one further question.
What is there in these obligations — I will not use the term " oaths "-
that makes it necessary to keep them from the world?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not know of anything especially, except it be
their general sacredness.

The CHAIRMAN. Their general sacredness ? Ought sacred things to
be kept from the world?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think some sacred things out to be.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you name one sacred thing in connection
with this ceremony that should be kept from the world ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why? Because you can not remember?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, 1 could not say that. I would not say that,
Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. You do remember it, then — the sacred thing that
you mean ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Some sacred things I do.

The CHAIRMAN. But you can not state to the committee what they
are?

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask to be excused from stating them.

The CHAIRMAN. But I can not understand exactly how the church
organization has things that the world must not know of. I did not
know but you could give some reason why.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not think I could throw any light upon that
subject.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; I will not press it.

Senator OVERMAN. You said the marriage ceremony took about two
minutes to read — to read, you said. You emphasized that word. Is
there any other thing in the ceremony except reading?

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, no. I think a person can read considerable of a
ceremony in two minutes.

744 REED SMOOT.

Senator OVERMAN. There is nothing else then, except just the read-
ing of the ordinary ceremony?

Mr. ROBERTS. That is all.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts, are you a Mason?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Are you an Odd Fellow ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. In any of these ceremonies that took place in the
Endowment House or the temple, is there an}7thing in any way that
binds you to disobey the laws of the land, or to make any agreement
against the Government, or its officers, or anything of that kind?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; absolute!}7 nothing of the kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. Or anything that is contrary to the discharge of all
the duties of a good citizen ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have you any more objection to stating what you
consider the sacredness of these ceremonies than you would have, for
instance, of the obligation, if you had made one, as a Mason?

Senator PETTUS. One minute, Mr. Witness. It seems to me, Mr.
Chairman, that the committee would be the best judge of that matter
by knowing what occurred, and if he can not tell what the obligation
was I do not see how the conclusion of the witness would enlighten
the committee at all.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was about to suggest that the witness
having refused to state what the obligation was, as he now interprets
the obligation, we have a right to have what the obligation is, and we
will see if your interpretation of it is correct, unless the witness still
declines to answer.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think my last question was on a different subject.
Was there an objection to my last question?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not remember the last question.

Mr. VAN COTT. I would like to have the reporter read that. It is
the only question I had to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. I think Senator Pettus's objection is pertinent.
The witness having refused to state what the obligation was, it is a little
broad to allow him to give the interpretation of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will ask the reporter to read the last question.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. VAN COTT. Have you any more objection to stating what you
consider the sacredness of these ceremonies than you would have, for
instance, of the obligation, if you had made one, as a Mason? "

Mr. ROBERTS. Is that question before me to answer ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir. I ask you the question whether you would
have any more objection to stating some obligation that you had agreed
to keep secret with the Masons or with the Odd Fellows than you have-
as to tne particular matter that has been mentioned in the ceremonies?

Mr. ROBERTS. Of course I can hardly judge of the obligations of a
Mason or of an Odd Fellow in the matter. I am not acquainted with
them.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not know but that that obligation compels
people to commit any sort of a crime, do you — the obligation to be a
Mason?

Mr. ROBERTS. So far as I know, it may.

Mr. TAYLER. Your answer is perfectly proper.

REED SMOOT. 745

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like my associate, Mr. Worth-
ington, to ask a question he desires to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I would like to ask, Mr. Roberts, whether this
obligation or ceremony to which you refer, in the Endowment House,
relates entirely to things spiritual, or whether it relates to things tem-
poral also ?

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be better, Mr. Worthington, to let
him state what the obligation is ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes, so far as I am concerned, I would very
much prefer it; but I understand the suggestion by Senator Pettus
was that he was interpreting that which he would not state. Of course
I do not know anything more about this than the members of the
committee do, but I think it. might very well be that a witness might
be allowed to state, and might properly say, that he would answer
here as to anything that related to any temporal affairs, but as to
things which related to matters between him and his God, or which
he conceived to be between him and his God, he would not answer
here or anywhere else, and that would not be an interpretation, but
would simply be taking the protection which I understand the law
gives to every man — that as to things which do relate entirely to reli-
gious matters, they are matters which he has a right to keep within
his own breast.

The CHAIRMAN. Your question was whether these obligations related
to spiritual affairs or temporal affairs.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; that was my question.

The CHAIRMAN. The trouble is he interprets a thing which is
unknown and unseeable to us, and which he considers spiritual.

Mr. CARLISLE. What he consisders spiritual we might consider
temporal, if the matter itself was disclosed.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that the witness having refused to
state what the ceremony is, or what the obligations demand, ought
not to be questioned and permitted to state what he thinks it did riot
convey, or what obligation it imposed, or what it did not impose.
The committee can judge of that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Of course, we are here not representing the
witness, but representing only Senator Smoot.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And it is the witness pleading a privilege and
making the refusal, and not Senator Smoot or his counsel. We would
like to have this question answered.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the question?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The question is whether this obligation refers
to things spiritual or things temporal.

Senator BAILEY. I do not think it makes any difference to the com-
mittee in the end, or will affect its conclusions, whether that is
'answered or not. I am partly responsible for that line of questions,
and I asked the first question myself because I really intended to insist,
if it related in any way to the duties of a citizen, that the committee
was entitled to know what that was, and if it did not, then I had no
further interest in it.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the witness answer that question.

Mr. ROBERTS. May I have the question read ?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

746 REED SMOOT.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. WORTHINGTON. I would like to ask, Mr. Roberts, whether
this obligation or ceremony, to which you refer in the Endowment
House, relates entirely to things spiritual or whether it relates to
things temporal also?"

Mr. ROBERTS. I regard them as relating to things spiritual, abso-
lutely.

Mr. TAYLER. If we were in a court of justice, and insisted upon it,
I think that opens the door so wide that the whole oath would come in.

The CHAIRMAN. I think so, too.

Mr. TAYLER. But I do not care to do it.

We have a witness here, Mr. Chairman, whose testimony is so brief
that I think we had better take it this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you want of this witness?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 will ask the attorneys whether Mr. Roberts may
be discharged at this time ?

Mr. TAYLER. No; I would like Mr. Roberts to remain over for
one day.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts, you may remain over one day.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD E. BARTHELL.

EDWARD E. BARTHELL, having been duly sworn, was examined,
and testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Barthell, where do you live?

Mr. BARTHELL. Nashville, Tenn.

Mr. TAYLER. What is }Tour business ?

Mr. BARTHELL. I am a lawyer, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been practicing law?

Mr. BARTHELL. Something over fifteen years.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you a member of some law firm in Nashville ?

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What is it?

Mr. BARTHELL. Slemmons & Barthell.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Barthell, did you recently chance to get up a
kind of academic interest in the subject of Mormonism?

Mr. BARTHELL. Within the past year.

Mr. TAYLER. You may state how you came to be interested in that
subject, so we may understand how you pursued it.

Mr. BARTHELL. In 1899 I was West, and stopped at Salt Lake City
for a short time, and that was the first active interest I had in the
matter. I made some inquiries — nothing very deep, of course. Then
about a year ago a society of which I am a member assigned another
member and myself to lead in a discussion, and we selected Mormon-
ism as our subject.

Mr. TAYLER. Now proceed and tell us what occurred in consequence
of that.

Mr. BARTHELL. I did not want to write a paper without knowing
something about the subject, and I wrote to the president of the Mor-
mon propaganda at Chattanooga, and asked him to send me some liter-
ature from the Mormon standpoint about his religion. He did so,

REED SMOOT. 747

and I wrote my paper. During this investigation I wrote a letter to
a Senator, which I believe was shown to you.

Mr. TATTLER. Yes; that is the way it occurred. Now, certain books
came to }^ou in response to }^our request for literature upon that side
of the case ?

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And later, did you have any conversation with any-
body professing to represent the propagandists at Chattanooga ?

The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand to whom he wrote.

Mr. BARTHELL. I wrote to the president of the Mormon propaganda
at Chattanooga. The Mormons maintain a mission at Chattanooga,
and have for a number of years.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is his name?

Mr. BARTHELL. Ben E. Rich, I think, or Ben E. Hill. His name is
in one of these books. Within a very few days, probably in due
course of mail, the two books I have here and several loose sheets in
the nature of tracts came by post; and that day or the next a gentle-
man introducing himself as a Mormon elder, by the name of Fox-
George E. Fox is my recollection — came, bringing with him the letter
which I had written to Mr. Rich, to discuss the matter with me.

Mr. TAYLER. Did }^ou have some discussion with him ?

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes; I did.

Mr. TAYLER. Were the books that you received, which you have in
your hand, referred to by him?

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes; the package was opened in his presence and
he looked through- it and said, t% Well, now, that is all good literature;
that is standard." And especially he mentioned the works of Orson
Pratt. He said Orson Pratt's works were accepted by the Mormons
as absolutely authentic.

Mr. TAYLER. I will ask the reporter to identify these two books.

The two books produced by the witness, entitled, "Orson Pratt's
Works" and "Tracts," from Southern States Mission, Chattanooga,
Tenn., were marked by the reporter, respectively, "Barthell No. 1"
and"BarthellNo. 2."

Mr. BARTHELL. The second book is a compilation of publications.
It has various numbered pages. I think it runs up to ten or twelve
three or four times.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Will you read the portions of the books you
expect to rely on ?

Mr. TAYLER. Of course i do not do anything by the witness, so far
as the books are concerned, except to identify them. We are quite as
competent as he is to see what is in them.

Mr. BARTHELL. I think you are; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did }^ou state the name of the gentleman who
appeared to see you ?

Mr. BARTHELL. His name was Fox; and my recollection is it is
George E. Fox. He gave me his address, and asked permission to
appear before our club, and in looking through my correspondence I
find I addressed a note to George E. Fox, saying he might appear.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he state what position he held ?

Mr. BARTHELL. Well, he was a traveling missionary. I think he
said he was an elder. He was at least a traveling missionary for the
Mormon Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,
and he brought with him the letter which I had written to Mr. Rich.

748 REED SMOOT.

Senator OVERMAN. Did he address your club?

Mr. BARTHELL. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you present at the meeting of the club?

Mr. BARTHELL. I led the discussion; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give the committee some idea what this
missionary said about the church and its doctrines?

Mr. BARTHELL. Well, he said a great deal, Senator. Among other
things, he said that there was no trouble at all in performing miracles;
that if a person had only one arm there was no trouble to give him two.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I would like to see him. [Laughter.]

Mr. BARTHELL. We asked something about speaking in tongues. I
called attention to some of the literature which said that it was per-
fectly useless to undertake to study different books; that all you had
to do was to talk. He said that was absolutely true; that he had seen
it himself even in Indian dialects, and a great many curious things of
that general character.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he say anything of the creed of the church —
the tenets of their faith?

Mr. BARTHELL. I would not undertake at this time to state just
what he did say in reference to that. We did discuss it, though, for
two or three hours — not the Mormon all the time, however. The rest
of us had something to say. Our information was purely academic,
Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he impart to your association his ideas on the
question of polygamy ?

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And the teachings of the church in that regard ?

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What did he say ?

Mr. BARTHELL. He said that polygamy was taught of God; that it
was right, but that it had been abandoned; that it was not now followed
by the good Mormons; that polygamous cohabitation still continued.
In other words, he did not exactly say that. He said the cohabs still
followed their customs. He referred to them as cohabs, which was an
expression we did not at first understand.

The CHAIRMAN. He explained it to you, 1 suppose.

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes; he undertook to explain it to us.

Senator BAILEY. Did he make any statement about the authority
of the church over men and matters that are commonly considered
politica ?

Mr. BARTHELL. No, Senator; he did not. At the first call of Mr.
Fox at my office he stayed but a very short time, and I thought he
was a very intelligent man. Possibly his stay was only two or three
minutes, and on those matters of which I spoke with him at that time
he was very well posted; but when he appeared before the club, we
did not think that he had sufficient breadth of information to treat,
certainly from an intellectual standpoint, that question, and we did
not press him. He was our guest.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say he stated that these were
the authorized and accepted doctrines.

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Of the men with whom he was working?

Mr. BARTHELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will counsel need this witness any further?

REED 8 MOOT. 749

Mr. TAYLER. No, sir.
Mr. VAN COTT. No, sir.
Senator BAILEY. We need his books.
Mr. TAYLER. His books are here.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you will be discharged, Mr. Barthell, and the
committee will adjourn until to-morrow morning at half past 10.

The committee (at 4 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m.) adjourned until
Thursday, April 21, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 21, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), McComas, Beveridge, Pet-
tus, Dubois, and Overman; also Senator Smoot; also John G. Carlisle
and R. W. Tayler, counsel for tho proiostants; A. S. Worthington
and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S.
Richards, counsel for certain witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to have Mr. Roberts recalled this
morning?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir; we would like to ask him a question or
two.

TESTIMONY OF BRIGHAM H. ROBERTS— Recalled.

BRIGHAM H. ROBERTS, having been previously sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts, when the first election was held under
the Utah State constitution were all of the State officers who were
elected Republicans?

Mr. ROBERTS. All fhe Republican State officers were elected.

Mr. VAN COTT. Passing to the next election, in 1896, was that when
the silver question was agitating the West?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the Democrats carried that election ?

Mr. ROBERTS. They did.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in 1898 the same?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1900 was the second State election?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And did the Republicans carry that election ?

Mr. ROBERTS. They did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Have the State officers in Utah always been Repub-
lican ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Always.

Mr. VAN COTT. With the exception of the legislature elected in
1896?

Mr. ROBERTS. I had in mind, of course, the administrative offices.
I except, of course, the legislature on one occasion, or two, perhaps.

Mr. VAN COTT. That was during 1896, when the silver question
was on?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was.

750 REED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. When the legislature was carried by the Democrats
in 1896 Mr. Joseph L. Rawlins was elected Senator?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, he was.

Mr. VAN COTT. With the exception of the one Democratic Senator,
has there ever been a Democratic United States Senator from Utah?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Has there ever been a Democratic Congressman
elected from Utah, with the exception of yourself?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. The}7 have all been Republicans?

Mr. ROBERTS. They have all been Republicans.

Mr. TAYLEK. Was William H. King elected at the special election?

Mr. ROBERTS. To fill my unexpired term he was elected.

Mr. VAN COTT. I call your attention also to 1898, and to one mem-
ber of the supreme court, Robert N. Baskin. Was he a Democrat?

Mr. ROBERTS. He was a Democrat.

Mr. VAN COTT. With the exception of yourself as Congressman and
Mr. King, who followed you, and with the exception of Mr. Rawlins,
who was elected Senator, and with the exception of Judge Baskin,
elected to the supreme court, have all the general officers been Repub-
lican ?

Mr. ROBERTS. They have all been Republican.

Mr. VAN COTT. From the beginning of statehood up to date?

Mr. ROBERTS. Until now.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Roberts, who ran against Mr. King?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Hammond, the present secretary of state.

Senator DUBOIS. Did Mr. Hammond have the consent of the church
to run?

Mr. ROBERTS. I think Mr. Hammond was a layman in the church,
practically as much so as Mr. King.

Senator DUBOIS. "Did Mr. Hammond have the consent of the
church to run? " is my question.

Mr. ROBERTS. Not that I know of.

Mr. TAYLER. Are }7ou sure that Mr. Van Cott has given the full
catalogue of Democratic successes in Utah for general officers?

Mr. ROBERTS. So far as I can remember them.

Mr. TAYLER. W^as not Mr. King your predecessor as well as your
successor in Congress ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He was a Delegate.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a Delegate, Mr. Worthington.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think ou\y under Territorial conditions.

Mr. TAYLER. Who was elected in 1896 to represent the State of Utah
in Congress?

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not remember.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it not William H. King, a Democrat?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 really could not say whether Mr. King was then
elected or not.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you are not a very good expert on political con-
ditions, anyhow?

Mr. ROBERTS. Perhaps not.

Mr. TAYLER. No.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to ask Mr. Roberts who ran against
Mr. King when he was elected the first time ?

REED 8MOOT. 751

Mr. ROBERTS. I think it was Mr. Cannon.

Senator DUBOIS. Did he have the consent of the church to be a
candidate ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Not that I know of.

Senator DUBOIS. You had the consent of the church, I believe you
stated, when vou were elected ?

Mr. ROBERTS. In 1898.

Mr. TAYLER. While Mr. Roberts is on the stand, I wish to ask him
a question or two. Do you remember. Mr. Roberts-
Senator DUBOIS. Let me finish what I was asking him about.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you recollect any time when anybod}^ in either
party who has had the consent of the church has been beaten?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; 1 have no recollection upon the subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all ?

Senator DUBOIS. That is all.

Mr. TAYLER. Some reference was made yesterday to the campaign
of 1895, and probably reference was made to an interview which you
gave out during that campaign. Do you remember giving out an
interview ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; I think I do.

Mr. TAYLER. That was an interview which you yourself wrote out?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember where you wrote it?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. That interview was published in the Herald, was it not ?

Mr. ROBERTS. It was.

Mr. TAYLER. And in the Salt Lake Tribune?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And possibly in other papers. Were you at that time
the editor of the Herald ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you been before?

Mr. ROBERTS. I had.

Mr. TAYLER. But were not then ?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; not then.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, I have here before me the Salt Lake Tribune
for Monday, October 14, 1895, and I want to read that interview, and
1 wish to ask you if, according to your recollection, it is correct. I
suppose you read the interview at the time it was published in the
papers?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you ask him whether he is correctty
reported, or whether the facts are correctly stated?

Mr. TAYLER. Whether this states correctly what he said:

"STATEMENT BY ROBERTS — CLAIMS THAT HE CONFRONTS A GRAVE CRISIS.

"The following authorized statement by B. H. Roberts, in the form
of an interview, was given out at the Democratic State headquarters
last evening.

" Being asked for his views upon the present political situation, Mr.
Roberts said:

" 'I have always regarded myself as properly respectful and atteri-

752 REED 8MOOT.

tive to church authority. In my labors in the church, whether a mis-
sionary or literary affair, I have always consulted with the presidency
when communication was possible, and their wishes have been respect-
f u\\y followed. All the manuscripts of tracts and books of which I
am the author that have been written in advocacy or defense of the
Mormon faith have been invariably submitted to their personal inspec-
tion or to the inspection of committees appointed by them.

" 'Nor has my respectful consideration to their wishes been confined
purely to matters of the above description, as will be seen in the fol-
lowing circumstance. Several years ago, when conditions were favor-
able for carrying out what had been with me a long-standing intention
to enter into the study of the law, with a view to practicing that pro-
fession, I submitted the proposition to them for their advice, expect-
ing to follow whatever suggestions they had to make. I never received
from them any direct decision as to what, in their judgment, I ought
to do, but learning indirectly that it was contrary to their wishes for
me to enter into the practice of the law, as they considered it would
interfere with my labors in the church, I gave up what had been with
me, up to that time, a life purpose. I mention these matters that it
may be understood that I have not been inattentive to the wishes of
my brethren in whom I recognize a divine authority.'

"KEPT OUT OF POLITICS.

" 'But have you been likewise attentive to their wishes in political
affairs?"'

That seems to be a question which was here interpolated.

'"I think I have, within proper limits. Several years ago — per-
haps only two years ago — it was stated that it was thought wise for
members of the quorum of the twelve, the first seven presidents of the
seventies, presidents of stakes, and bishops not to take active part in
political affairs, in consequence of their ecclesiastical relations with the
people. While there were some things involved in such an order that
did not meet with my personal views, there were others in it which
appealed to my judgment, and, on the whole, I accepted it with pleas-
ure, and looked upon it as the promulgation of a general church regu-
lation, which both then and now I think the church authorities had a
perfect right to issue, and if any church authority upon whom the
general order had effect did not like it he had the alternative of resign-
ing his position. I say on the whole my judgment approved it, and
hence I accepted it. But I was somewhat surprised to find soon after,
what every one knows to be the case, that notwithstanding the above
order one of the twelve and one of the members of the council of
seventy, to which I belonged, were again actively engaged in politics
in the interest of the Republican party; and, indeed, such was the
large number of the exceptions almost immediately made to the general
order, by permitting men that were prohibited b}7 said order to accept
nominations and otherwise become active in politics, that the excep-
tions well-nigh destroyed the force of the rule.

" 'This was a source of much annoyance to me, because individual
Democrats and delegations of Democrats waited upon me and insisted
that I should also take part in political affairs, especially as one of the
members of the council to which I belonged was active, and I was
plainly told that my silence was construed into meaning that I was

REED SMOOT. 7-53

silenced by the church leaders, and that the apostles in question and
my fellow-president were sent out by the church, and my silence on
the one hand and their activity on the other was being- accepted out in
the settlements as an indication that it was the wish of the presidency
that the Republican party should succeed. I remained true, however,
to the order of the church, and took no part in political affairs, except
that at a gathering of Democratic societies at Saltair that met to rejoice
over the prospect of the passage of the enabling act, I accepted an invi-
tation to be present and make a few remarks. That I thought I could
do without any impropriety."1

It is a good deal longer than I thought it was. I do not know that
the committee want to hear it all, but I will put it all in so that it may
appear in the record. I wish to call }7our attention especially to this:

"But what about the present iesue?"

And your answer is:

"For several weeks before the Ogden convention met my name was
used in connection with the nomination for Congressman. Indeed,
ever since the constitutional convention adjourned my name has been
discussed in connection with that office, a Senatorship, or the gover-
norship. At last the Ogden convention met, and I was nominated for
Congressman by acclamation. There had been no word of warning
given me by the first presidency during the discussion of my name for
Congressman or any of the other positions in connection with which
my name was used. The day after the Ogden convention I met one
of the presidents as we were both leaving the train on its arrival at
the Ogden depot. In his presence a number of brethren whom we
met on the platform congratulated me on my nomination, but he was
silent. He did not take me aside and reprove me for any breach of
church regulation, and doubtless he thought that, if either unthought-
edly I had done so, or even from self -will had been guilty of an impro-
priety, it was imprudent to do so.

"A few days, or a week or two after that, the presidency sent for
me to come to their office on a matter about which they desired to
consult me, and I obeyed the summons. On that occasion I was alone
in the presence of all three of them."

By that you mean the first presidency?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

"On that occasion I was alone in the presence of all three of them,
and consulted with them on the business referred to some fifteen or
twenty minutes. No complaint was then made to my course in accept-
ing the nomination for Congressman, though they seemed to have no
special business on hand, and both time and opportunity conjoined to
give a chance to correct me if I had made an error. ?'

Then a question comes here:

"Then you were, to say the least, greatly surprised at what occurred
at the priesthood meeting Monday last?

"Yes, very greatly surprised, though I know the impulsiveness of
the gentleman who referred, yet in indirect language, to Moses Thatcher
and myself. I was surprised that anything should be said there when
such excellent opportunities for complaint had before existed, if com-
plaint was to be entered to my conduct. Now, understand that I believe
that the church authorities have the right to say that certain officers
in the church shall not participate in political affairs, and it is for those
officers to submit to the regulation or resign that office; and if they

754 REED SMOOT.

retain their positions and violate the regulation the church can con-
sistently discipline them for violation of church regulations, and no
political party can justly complain at their conduct, or interfere with
the church in its proceedings against one of its high officials for a vio-
lation of church regulations.

"I hold myself respectfully answerable to the church for any viola-
tion of its discipline or regulations. Of course, in this case I consider
that I have violated no church rule, and if arraigned before my quorum,
or any other church tribunal on such a charge, I should answer not
guilt}7, and go to trial. But all of this is personal. What the Demo-
cratic party can and does complain of, as I understand it, is not that I
am complained of, but that I am complained of and accusation made
against me at such a time and in such a manner that the Democratic
party is being injured by it, and not only is my own election likely to
be defeated, but the election of all the candidates who stand with me
on the ticket is likely to be defeated on account, not of what was actu-
ally said or done at the priesthood meeting but upon the use made of
it by Republicans in various parts of the country."

Now do you understand that the interview as printed in the Salt
Lake Tribune is a correct printing ?

Mr. ROBERTS. 1 think it was. My recollection is that it was quite
accurate.

Mr. TAYLER. And in so far a"s it has been read it accords with your
memory of what you did write and which was printed?

Mr. ROBERTS. Entirely so.

Mr. TAYLER. We will put the entire interview in the record.

Mr. VAN COTT. At this point in the record ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes. I supposed it was a newspaperman's interview,
but as Mr. Roberts himself wrote it, like any other man who writes
his own views, it is more lengthy than the newspaper man would have
made it.

The entire interview is as follows:

STATEMENT BY ROBERTS — CLAIMS THAT HE CONFRONTS A GRAVE

CRISIS.

The following authorized statement by B. H. Roberts, in the form
of an interview, was given out at the Democratic State headquarters
last evening.

Being asked for his views upon the present political situation,
Mr. Roberts said:

4kl have always regarded myself as properly respectful and attentive
to church authority. In my labors in the church, whether a mission-
ar}7 or literary affair, I have Iways consulted with the presidency
when communication was possible; and their wishes have been respect-
fully followed. All the manuscripts of tracts and books, of which I
am the author, that have been written in advocacy or defense of the
Mormon faith have been invariably submitted to their personal
inspection or to the inspection of committees appointed by them.

"Nor has my respectful consideration to their wishes been confined
purely to matters of the above description, as will be seen in the fol-
lowing circumstance: Several years ago, when conditions were favor-
able for carrying out what had been with me a long-standing intention

KEED SMOOT. 755

to enter into the study of the law with a view to practicing that pro-
fession, I submitted the proposition to them for their advice, expecting
to follow whatever suggestions they had to make. I never received
from them any direct decision as to what, in their judgment, I ought
to do, but learning indirectly that it was contrary to their wishes for
me to enter into the practice of the law, as they considered it would
interfere with my labors in the church, I gave up what had been with me
up to that time a life purpose. I mention these matters that it may be
understood that I have not been inattentive to the wishes of my breth-
ren, in whom I recognize a Divine authority."

KEPT OUT OF POLITICS.

' ' But have you been likewise attentive to their wishes in political
affairs?"

"I think I have, within proper limits.

" Several years ago — perhaps only two years ago — it was stated that
it was thought wise for members of the quorum of the twelve, the first
seven presidents of the seventies, presidents of stakes, and bishops not
to take active part in political affairs, in consequence of their ecclesi-
astical relations with the people. While there were some things
involved in such an order that did not meet with my personal views,
there were others in it which appealed to nry judgment, and, on the
whole, I accepted it with pleasure and looked upon it as the promul-
gation of a general church regulation which both then and now I think
the church authorities had a perfect right to issue, and if any church
authority upon whom the general order had effect did not like it he
had the alternative of resigning his position. I say on the whole my
judgment approved it, and hence I accepted it. But I was somewhat
surprised to find soon after, what everyone knows to be the case, that
_notwithstanding the above order one of the twelve, and one of the
"members of the council of seventy to which I belonged, were again
actively engaged in politics in the interest of the Republican party;
and, indeed, such was the large number of the exceptions almost imme-
diately made to the general order by permitting men that were pro-
hibited by said order to accept nominations and otherwise become
active in politics, that the exceptions well-nigh destroyed the force of
the rule.

"This was a source of much annoyance to me, because individual
Democrats and delegations of Democrats waited upon me and insisted
that I should also take part in political affairs, especially as one of the
members of the council to which I belonged was active, and I was
plainly told that my silence was construed into meaning that I was
silenced by the church leaders, and that the apostles in question and
my fellow president were sent out by the church, and my silence on
the one hand and their activity on the other was being accepted out in
the settlements as an indication that it was the wish of the presidency
that the Republican party should succeed. I remained true, however,
to the order of the church, and took no part in political affairs, except
that at a gathering of Democratic societies at Saltair that met to rejoice
over the prospect of the passage of the enabling act, I accepted an
invitation to be present and make a few remarks — that I thought I
could do without any impropriety.

756 REED SMOOT.

"CONVENTION NOMINATION.

" While I was absent from the Territory, either in August or Sep-
tember of last year, the convention in Davis County, which assembled
to nominate candidates for the constitutional convention, nominated
me as one of the delegates. Upon returning to Utah a few weeks
after that convention I learned of my nomination and understood from
reports coming from a member of the county convention that the
general rule before alluded to had either been utterly disregarded by
the people or had been set aside by the authorities, for there was quite
a number of church officials on the prohibited list put in nomination.
On inquiry, I learned from gentlemen in this city that the ' strings ' —
such were their words — 'had been taken off' the church officials here-
tofore prohibited from participating in politics.

" Inquiry of one of the members of the presidency confirmed what
had been told me. I said to him that my acceptance of the nomina-
tion for delegate to the convention would involve me again in active
politics, as even then pressing invitations were coming to me from all
parts of the Territory to do political work. The gentleman in ques-
tion said that would be all right, and I again entered the political arena
and accompanied Mr. Rawlins in his tour through the Territory, and
have been active in politics ever since, as everybody knows, and that,
too, without any complaint to me from the church authorities for that
activity; and with the understanding on my part that the general
order of some two years ago, to which I say my judgment on the whole
assented, had been abrogated."

NOT REPEOVED.

"But what about the present issue?"

"For several weeks before the Ogden convention met my name was
used in connection with the nomination for Congressman. Indeed,
ever since the constitutional convention adjourned my name has been
discussed in connection with that office, a Senatorship, or the gov-
ernorship.

"At last the Ogden convention met, and I was nominated for Con-
gressman by acclamation. There had been no word of warning given
me by the first presidency during the discussion of my name for Con-
gressman or any of the other positions in connection with which nry
name was used. The day after the Ogden convention I met one of the
presidents as we were both leaving the train on its arrival at the Ogden
depot. In his presence a number of brethren whom we met on the
platform congratulated me on my nomination, but he was silent. He
did not take me aside and reprove me for any breach of church regu-
lation, and doubtless he thought that if either unthoughtedly 1 had
done so or even from self-will had been guilty of an impropriety, it
was imprudent to do so.

"A few days, or a week or two after that, the presidency sent for
me to come to their office on a matter about which they desired to
consult me, and I obeyed the summons.

"On that occasion I was alone in the presence of all three of them
and consulted with them on the business referred to some fifteen or
twenty minutes. No complaint »vas then made to my course in accept-
ing the nomination for Congressman, though they seemed to have no

REED SMOOT. 757

special business on hand, and both time and opportunity conjoined to
give a chance to correct me if I had made an error."

"Then you were, to say the least, greatly surprised at what occurred
at the priesthood meeting Monday last?"

" Yes; very greatly surprised, though 1 know the impulsiveness of
the gentleman who referred, yet in indirect language, to Moses
Thatcher and myself. I was surprised that anything should be said
there, when such excellent opportunities for complaint had before
existed, if complaint was to be entered to my conduct.

"Now, understand that I believe that the church authorities have
the right to say that certain officers in the church shall not participate
in political affairs, and it is for those officers to submit to the regula-
tion or resign that office, and if they retain their positions and violate
the regulation the church can consistently discipline them for violation
of church regulations, and no political party can justly complain at
their conduct or interfere with the church in its proceedings against
one of its high officials for a violation of church regulations. I hold
myself respectfully answerable to the church for any violation of its
discipline or regulations. Of course, in this case, I consider that I
have violated no church rule, and, if arraigned before my quorum, or
any other church tribunal on such a charge, I should answer ' not guilty'
and go to trial. But all of this is personal. What the Democratic
party can and does complain of, as I understand it, is not that I am
complained of, but that I am complained of and accusation made against
me at such a time and in such a manner that the Democratic party is
being injured by it, and not only is my own election likely to be
defeated, but the election of all the candidates who stand with me on
the ticket is likely to be defeated on account, not of what was actually
said or done at the priesthood meeting, but upon the use made of it by
Republicans in various parts of the country."

FEARFUL OF ITS USE.

"You think, then, that Republicans will use it against you and the
party?"

"You might as well ask me if water will run down hill or a flame
of fire leap upward. Of course they will use it. They are already
using it. The day after the priesthood meeting a man in this city had
so far added to what had been said at the meeting that it was being
rumored that I was given so many days in which to resign my nomi-
nation or lose my standing in the church. At Willard, in Boxelder
County, we met the rumor that B. H. Roberts was out of favor with
the presidency of the church, likely to be disfellowshipped; therefore
must be defeated in the election. The following letter was received
by Judge Powers from Brigham since my visit there.

" 'BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH, October 12, 1895.
"'Hon. O. W. POWERS,

" ''Chairman, Salt Lake City.

" ' DEAR SIR: When Mr. Roberts was here he asked me if the impres-
sion had got out relative to the first presidency calling himself and
Moses Thatcher down, etc. My reply was that I had not heard any-
thing, and I thought no harm had been done us. Since then, however,
1 have found out differently. Republicans approached Democrats with
an exulting smile, and asked how they enjoyed the priesthood meet-

758 REED SMOOT.

ing. Some unwise Republicans are elated. Democrats are sick. A
bishop's councilor told me that he heard Republicans say when leaving
the meeting that had it not been for what had been said at the meet-
ing their votes would have been cast for Roberts, but now they were
in doubt. There is no denying the fact that the remarks hurt us.
Perhaps not so much among the pronounced Democrats as the doubt-
ful voters and favorable Republicans. Our county is doubtful, and we
can not afford to lose one vote by this grapevine method. You must
suppress "Brother Joseph," if you have to use as radical means as he
uses himself.' '

"Similar statements," said Mr. Roberts, "come from all over the
Territory. I take it, therefore, that while, so far as I know, the Dem-
ocratic party does not propose to attempt to say what course the
church shall take in the matter of prohibiting its high officials from
entering political life, and ma}7 discipline them for breaches of church
regulations, when methods are adopted which, owing to the pecul-
iar state of things in our community, reach beyond the individual
complained of and threaten the success of the party and all the candi-
dates that it has put into the field, rendering all the time, work, and
expense fruitless, I think the political party whose success is thus
threatened had just cause of complaint against such proceedings."

RIGHT OF THE CHURCH.

"But, Mr. Roberts, all this is preliminary to what is really the
chief issue. Do you recognize the right of the church to dictate what
a member's politics shall be, or that an official of the church in poli-
tics ought to take counsel with the superior church officials as to
whether he may accept a nomination for office or not?"

"I shall divide 3^ our question into two parts. To the first part I
answer, No; the church has no right to dictate what a man's politics
shall be, and it is only just to the presidency of the Mormon Church
to say that they claim no such right, but have repeatedly disclaimed
any such pretension. Second, 1 believe the church has a right to say
whether or not its high officials shall be allowed to participate in politics
or not. If they decide that certain officials shall not enter politics, it
is for those officers to submit to the regulation or resign. But if the
church permits its high officials to enter politics at all, then those men
ought to be absolutely free to follow their own discretion as to what
their politics shall be, and the extent to which the}7 shall engage in
the affairs of Government, as anything short of this would render
party loyalty impossible. I do not believe the Democratic official
ought to be expected to go to Republican church official for counsel in
political affairs, or vice versa. Such a requirement in our community
would place the control of the respective parties under the church offi-
cials, and would give up political affairs entirely into their hands. I
see no middle ground between absolute and complete retirement on
the part of high Mormon Church officials from politics, or else perfect
freedom of conduct in respect to politics — trusting the individual's
own discretion and judgment in political concerns.

HIS COMPENSATION.

" I ought to say, in explanation to some who think I ought to have
consulted my superior church officers before accepting the nomination

REED SMOOT. 759

for Congress, because the church pays rne a salary and has a demand
upon my time, etc., that in answer to that I receive no regular salary
for my services in the church. I have, from time to time, had appro-
priated to me varying sums to aid me in meeting my current living
expenses, when I have applied for it, and 1 appreciate the kindness
which from time to time has ministered to my necessities; but the
sums appropriated have come nowhere near meeting my wants, and 1
have had to depend upon my own exertions to make up the very large
balance, and therefore considerable latitude has been accorded me in the
management of my time, and mine was far from being the case of a
salaried officer in the church."

SAYS THERE IS A GRAVE CRISIS.

"All this is interesting, but how do you propose to meet the issue
before you?"

"Preliminary to answering that, let me say that I appreciate the
gravity of the crisis with which I am confronted. Next let me say
that the church authorities have in the most authoritative manner dis-
claimed that it was their intention to interfere witn the members of
the church in political matters, or attempt, as church officials, to dom-
inate the State.

"I accept their declarations as having been made in good faith. To
believe anything else would be to charge them with perfidy of the
blackest character; so that while I admit their right to make such rules
and regulations for the church officials, and may try them and con-
demn them for violation of those regulations, I do not concede to them
any right to dominate the State or control the political affairs of this
State that is to be, nor do I believe they claim the right to do so, and
if they do, then that claim must be resisted. A constitution has been
framed which says 'There shall be no union of church and state nor
shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions.'
I signed that document in a most solemn manner, and so did the rest
of the delegates in the constitutional convention. I did it in good
faith and i mean to maintain it in like good faith. The people of
Utah are going to vote on that constitution this fall, and if it carries
it will be the supreme law of the land and made so by the solemn act
of a people acting in their sovereign capacity. I mean to maintain, so
far as 1 am concerned, that supreme law of the land at whatever cost.
On that issue I stand ready to risk all that 1 am or can ever hope to
be. It is a matter that must not be trifled with, and all who vote for
it stand in the same attitude or are guilty of the blackest perfidy that
men in the name of honesty can be guilty of.

WHAT HE PROPOSES TO DO.

" Now, what do I propose to do in the present crisis? I mean to do
this: Since the Republicans are in various localities taking advantage

I of this incident in the priesthood meeting to encompass my defeat,
and, through that, defeat of the Democratic party, I am willing to
resign my nomination, if the Democratic party has become frightened
of defeat and proposes to cringe before this incident that has hap-
pened and the influence that rises from it, and let another man be
nominated who will not encounter this species of opposition. Or, if
the Democratic party, responsive to that noble spirit of democracy

760 REED SMOOT.

which ever rises higher as difficulties increase, wants to meet and
crush this church influence, not used by the first presidency- of the
Mormon Church, but by the Republicans, who have taken advantage
of this unfortunate circumstance to inject it into our politics to save
what was virtually a lost cause by religious influence, then I stand
ready still to be their standard-bearer, and in every town and hamlet
will appeal to the people to resist the employment of such church
influence in political affairs, and put the people of Utah to the test as
to whether, when they vote on the constitution, they do so in good
faith, and find out whether or not they are in earnest when they vote
for a constitution that prohibits church interference with political
affairs.

"I was not nominated for Congress because I was a Mormon or
because I held a high position in the church. I was nominated because
I was a Democrat and because some of my best endeavors were made
to support its principles. 1 was nominated because my party had con-
fidence in me. Suppose, then, I had so far met the displeasure of the
church authorities as to even lose my place in the church, inasmuch as
it was through no act of immorality which shocked the moral sense of
the people, would I not still be entitled to the support of the Demo-
cratic party ? I think I would, and I propose to make that appeal to
them, and I believe I can win and so can the Democratic party, not-
withstanding Republican trickery in various sections of the country
where they would seek to gain an advantage b}^ an appeal to the reli-
gious prejudices of the weak and the ignorant.

44 1 do not know what the result will be to my religious standing, but
in this supreme moment I am not counting costs. I shall leave all
that to the divine spirit of justice which I believe to be in the author-
ities of the Church of Christ. I shall trust that spirit, as I have ever
done; and I say to the Democratic party that, while my position in
the Church of Christ is dearer to me than life itself, yet am I ready
to risk my all in this issue. Let no man depreciate the crisis which
confronts us. It is one of those moments on which the fate of a State
trembles in the balance. Let the Democratic part}7 now ground its
arms, call off its candidates, and statehood is defeated and all our pains
go for nothing. I believe the people of Utah are worthy of statehood,
and if given an opportunity will prove that they are worthy of it. I
shall give my best effort in having the test applied, and I know they
will not be found wanting. "

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further from this witness?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all I wanted — to identify this interview. I
have one question which I forgot to ask him yesterday, however.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. TAYLER. After your return to Utah, when you were denied a
seat in the House of Representatives, you were again prosecuted for
violation of the law against unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir; I was.

Mr. TAYLER. That was in the year 1900?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes; in the year 1900.

Mr. TAYLER. You were not convicted?

Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir; I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. Well?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have this in mind, Mr. Counsel. The case went to
the jury on an agreed statement of facts. The jury first disagreed.

REED SMOOT. 761

L was again tried, and I do not quite remember whether the jury
returned a verdict of guilty the second time or not. It was somewhat
complicated. But I think the jur}7 did, and the matter went to the
supreme court and on a question of law was thrown out of court.

Mr. TAYLER. Then once the jury disagreed on the agreed statement
of facts and once it agreed ?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And the case went up, and upon some other matter
was thrown out?.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think, Mr. Counsel, the object was to test the law
in that phase of it, and in the second instance my counsel stated that
he did not expect an acquittal upon the agreed statement of facts.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is not the case reported ?

Mr. TAYLER. My purpose in this inquiry was rather to show the
course of conduct of the prosecution of the case rather than with any
special reference to Mr. Roberts.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I suppose the reported case will show what the
question was.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not know that it was reported.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before Mr. Roberts is discharged I should like
to say that two books were identified here yesterday, and we would
like to have counsel point out the portions of them, if any, which they
expect to put in the record. It is possible that after that is done we
may wish to ask Mr. Roberts some questions in relation to the subjects
which are so put in evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, I suppose you want some time to look
over the two volumes?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, sir; and I have not had time. I turned them
over to counsel last night.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps, Mr. Roberts, you can remain until to-
morrow without great inconvenience.

Mr. ROBERTS. If that is the wish of the committee, I can.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. Tayler —

Senator DUBOIS. In this connection, in case Mr. Roberts is not
called again, 1 wish to ask who is Ben E. Rich?

The CHAIRMAN. Let me finish. Mr. Tayler, will you be prepared
by to-morrow morning to indicate the portions of the volumes that
you desire to put in evidence ?

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We should like to have it indicated to-day, if
possible, so that we can look at them overnight.

The CHAIRMAN. Counsel can arrange that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON (to Mr. Tayler). Let us have them in time to-
night.

Mr. TAYLER. I would have done it this morning only you had the
books.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dubois wishes to ask a question.

Senator DUBOIS. The witness who testified yesterday and presented
these books said he wrote to Ben E. Rich at Chattanooga, and Ben E.
Rich sent the books to him. What official position does Ben E. Rich
hold in the church?

762 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think he is one of the seventy, and in charge of
the Southern States' mission.

Senator DUBOIS. That is, he has the general direction of the mission-
aries for the Southern States and of the missionary work in the Southern
States?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You said you thought that he was so and so. You
know it, do you not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Mr. VAN COTT. We are through with the witness.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the next witness?

Mr. TAYLER. Call Mr. Cobb.

TESTIMONY OF CALVIN COBB.

CALVIN COBB, being first duly sworn, was examined, and testified
as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. If the Idaho constitution is here, I should like to have
it. I arranged to have it sent here.

The CHAIRMAN. I will send for it.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Cobb, where do you live?

Mr. COBB. Boise City, Idaho.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there?

Mr. COBB. Since 1889.

Mr. TAYLER. What is your business?

Mr. COBB. Publisher of the Idaho Daily Statesman.

Mr. TAYLER. What is the politics of that paper?

Mr. COBB. Republican.

Mr. TAYLER. You, of course, have made yourself familiar with poli-
tics and society in the State of Idaho?

Mr. COBB. 1 have.

Mr. TAYLER. Your paper, I suppose, you claim to be the leading
paper of the State?

Mr. COBB. Yes. We are one of the papers which claim that.

Mr. TAYLER. You are familiar with the general conditions prevail-
ing throughout that State?

Mr. COBB. I think so.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know about what proportion of the population
of Idaho is Mormon?

Mr. COBB. 1 should think about 20 per cent.

Mr. TAYLER. Is it generally supposed that in some parts of Idaho
polygamy is practiced by Mormons?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are we to go into what is supposed?

Mr. TAYLER. That is just what I want.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We can only object to it. If general supposi-
tions are to be put in evidence —

The CHAIRMAN. I think Mr. Cobb ought to disclose that he has
some knowledge on the question. He may state if he knows that
polygamy exists, and to what extent.

Mr. COBB. My knowledge is by hearsay. I hear that certain men
live in polygamy, and it is generally understood that there are men
living in polygamy. I do not know it myself.

REED 8MOOT. 763

Senator OVERMAN. Is it generally understood that there have been
plural marriages there since the manifesto ?

Mr. COBB. No, sir; it is not generally understood.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there a statute in Idaho against polygamous cohabi-
tation?

Mr. COBB. I believe not.

Mr. TAYLER. What do you know as to any efforts that have been
made to enact such a statute?

Mr. COBB. There have been several bills introduced in the different
legislatures — I can not remember just which ones — and they have all
died, as they say.

Mr. TAYLER. None of them have been enacted into law ?

Mr. COBB. None of them, 1 believe. We have no such law.

Mr. TAYLER. How many members are there in the two branches of
the Idaho legislature, or about how many ?

Mr. COBB. 1 think about 27.

Mr. TAYLER. No; I mean in the entire legislature.

Mr. COBB. How many ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; how many? What is the whole membership?

Mr. COBB. Seventy-nine, I think.

Mr. TAYLER. What proportion of the members of the legislature is
Mormon ?

Mr. COBB. I do not know. What we call the Mormon counties
would have possibly a third.

Mr. TAYLER. A third of that membership?

Mr. COBB. 1 think so.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Mr. Cobb, 1 wish you would describe in a gen-
eral way what has come to your observation respecting the activity of
the Mormon Church or its officials in the politics of Idaho.

Mr. COBB. I do not know how to describe that exactly. It is the
general feeling among both political parties that the Mormon Church
is to be dealt with as a political quantity.

Mr. TAYLER. How — tell us how?

Mr. COBB. In the campaign it has always been my experience that
the State chairmen of both of the great parties alwa}^s go to Salt Lake.
I am usually acquainted, in fact in almost every case, with both of
them, and just before the election it has been my experience that they
come to me, each one, and whisper to me that they have been down
there and that it is all right.

Mr. TAYLER. Down where?

Mr. COBB. In Salt Lake. And the day after the election, or the
second or the third day, one of them usually feels that he slipped a
cog somewhere and has gone wrong; but the other one is satisfied.

Mr. TAYLER. The other one knows it is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cobb, you say " they come." Whom do you
mean by u they?"

Mr. COBB. I mean both the chairmen.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairmen of both the Republican and Demo-
cratic committees?

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN.- They come to you and state what you have stated,
that the}7 have been to Salt Lake ?

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir; to Salt Lake.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Both say the church is with them?

764 REED SMOOT.

Mr. COBB. They do not say it. They say "it is all right."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is equivalent to it.

Mr. COBB. I will bring out, if you will allow me, the condition in
which that leaves us now.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what we want.

Mr. COBB. The effect of that carried through in all our political
work there is that every political leader, when the Mormon Church
wants anything, or he thinks it wants anything, is willing to grant it.
So the great mass of our people are perfectly powerless in that condi-
tion of affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. Why powerless ?

Mr. COBB. Because the leaders, the ones who direct the policies of
both of the parties, will make the platforms to carry out the wishes of
this church, without any regard to the wishes of the great mass of the
people.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Cobb, what else have you in your mind respect-
ing this matter of dominion, or influence, or interference?

Mr. COBB. The point we are all interested in now is the calling of a
constitutional convention, and that is going to be of absorbing interest
to our people in this campaign.

Mr. TAYLER. So far as the public know, what purpose is there in
having a new constitution ? In what respect is the constitution now in
force criticised ?

Mr. COBB. If I can go back I will state that the first appearance of
this question was in 1897, when Senator Joe Rich, of Bear Lake
County, a Mormon-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1897?

Mr. COBB. 1897.

The CHAIRMAN. Bear Lake County in Utah ?

Mr. COBB. In Idaho. All these matters of which I am speaking
occurred in Idaho. I have no knowledge of Utah.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the politics of Mr. Rich?

Mr. COBB. He was a Democrat, He introduced a resolution asking
to have a vote taken on a constitutional convention.

The CHAIRMAN. He introduced a resolution where?

Mr. COBB. In the senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Was he a member of the senate?

Mr. COBB. He was a member of the senate. And the paper of
which I am publisher opposed it vigorously, and a good many of his
political friends advised him against it and it was finally abandoned,
and he stated at that time, so I am informed, that the object of that
would be, in drafting a new constitution, that certain clauses of our
constitution; which we call the antipolygamy clauses, could be omitted,
under the plea that they are now obsolete. I think this question did
not appear again until the last session of the legislature, early in Jan-
uary, when Price, of Latah County, presented a similar resolution,
and we opposed that and it was allowed to die. It did not come up
again for six weeks.

The CHAIRMAN. In this connection, who is the Mr. Price, of whom
you have spoken ?

Mr. COBB. I do not know who he is. He is from Latah County,
which is not a Mormon county.

The CHAIRMAN. A member of the legislature?

REED SMOOT. 765

Mr. COBB. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know his politics?

Mr. COBB. Probably Republican; but I do not know.

Senator McCoMAS. Is he a Mormon?

Mr. COBB. Not to my knowledge. Six weeks after that the question
came up in our legislature and was rushed through, and this resolution
carried by an almost unanimous vote; and prior to that — two weeks —
Apostle Smith came to Boise — John Henry Smith —

The CHAIRMAN. Of Utah?

Mr. COBB. Of Utah, and he met the editor of the Statesman, Mr.
Balderston, in the lobby of the hotel, the Idana, and he said, "Do you
think it would be advisable to ask for a resolution for an amendment
of the constitution to take out those clauses which are so objectionable
to our people?"

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This is what Balderston says that Smith said to
him?

Mr. COBB. That is it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are we to have what Mr. Smith said to Mr.
Balderston and by him repeated to this witness, instead of having Mr.
Balderston?

The CHAIRMAN. You had better confine your statement to matters
within your own knowledge.

Mr. COBB. Then I can say that the resolution was brought forward,
carried, as I told you, almost unanimously without any discussion.
There had been at no place in the State any request for a change in the
constitution.

Senator OVERMAN. Was that after Mr. Smith came there?

Mr. COBB. Mr. Smith was there two weeks before this passed.
There was no discussion at the time. There had been no one asking
for any important amendment of the constitution, and the constitution
seemed to please the State in every way. Then after it was passed the
gossip was—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One moment. Are we to sit here and hear
gossip?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; we are. That is the way we prove a lot of things
in connection with public sentiment.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If Mr. Tayler is to decide this question I wi
not make any objection.

Mr. TAYLER. Of course not.

The CHAIRMAN. State what you know about it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The committee ought to know whether he knows
anything.

The CHAIRMAN. He can state whether he does or not. He stated
that the resolution was passed about two weeks after the visit of Mr.
Smith, from Utah. Mr. Cobb,do you know anything more connected
with that subject?

Mr. COBB. May I state the general opinion and under what influ-
ence the resolution was passed ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Not if our objection can be listened to, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. COBB. My position as the publisher of a paper —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If Mr. Smith came there and talked to anybody,
the people to whom he talked can be reached.

766 v REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. No; they can not necessarily be reached. I think in a
matter of such public character, the thing in the air, the thing the
papers published, and the thing people talked about — the only way is
to prove the general repute of Mr. Smith's errand and what he accom-
plished—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What could not be proved about almost any
member of the Senate if that sort of evidence were admissible — public
gossip and newspaper talk about anybody.

Senator PETTUS. It seems to me we ought only to have in such evi-
dence as we can act on.

The CHAIRMAN. It appears already by this witness that Mr. Smith,
while there was pending in the legislature a proposition for a consti-
tutional convention, came up from Utah; that Mr. Smith was one of
the members of the Mormon Church, an apostle, and that he came
there in the interest of this amendment, and some two weeks after-
wards it was passed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It does not appear that he came there in the
interest of the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. I so understood the witness.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Only by hearsay. To that we object as being
gossip.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness has already stated that Mr. Smith came
there and had a discussion with gentlemen, as I understand, in his
presence, about the feasibility-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. The discussion was not in your presence, Mr.
Cobb?

Mr. COBB. Not in my presence.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was it with?

Mr. COBB. The editor of the Statesman. He reported this conver-
sation to me at once.

The CHAIRMAN. He will be a competent witness on that point.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not contend that a mere conversation with a third
part}r substantive^7 proves anything more than that that conversation
occurred and that a specific thing was said, but that which describes
what was in everybody's mouth and in everybody's mind is the kind
of thing that is properly proved in an inquiry of this kind where we
are seeking to learn public sentiment, and such an inquiry can not be
conducted otherwise.

Senator McCoMAS. You do not mean what the witness himself says?

Mr. TAYLER. Not at all. The conversation with Mr. Balderston
would not be competent.

Senator McCoMAS. He says that certain things are gossip. Do you
maintain that what he himself characterized as gossip would be rele-
vant?

Mr. TAYLER. Not at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I submit that it does not dignify the evidence
to change the name of it from "gossip" to " public sentiment" or
"hearsay." Now, take this particular incident: Here is Mr. Balder-
ston, who says he had a conversation with Mr. Smith, and Mr. Balderston
repeats it to this witness; it gets into the newspapers and gets to be
common talk, and because everybody talks about it does that make it
competent?

The CHAIRMAN, We need not spend any time on that. Mr. Balder-

EEED SMOOT. 767

ston is a competent witness and will be called. There is no trouble
about it.

Senator DUBOIS. Is there much interest in Idaho with regard to the
forthcoming" constitutional convention?

Mr. COBB. There is great interest in it.

Senator DUBOIS. What is the opposition to a constitutional conven-
tion ? What is it based on ?

Mr. COBB. It is based on the theory that the new constitution will
have these clauses of which I speak eliminated.

The CHAIRMAN. Which clauses?

Mr. COBB. The antipolygamy clauses, we call them.

Mr. TAYLER. 1 now have this book; and right at this point I will
read these clauses, because that part of the examination hangs on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Please do so, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. It will take but a moment.

Section 4 of article 1 of the constitution of Idaho, which was adopted
in 1889, is as follows:

" SEC. 4. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship
shall forever be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil
or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his religious
opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be
construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, or excuse acts of
licentiousness or j ustif y polygamous or other pernicious practices, incon-
sistent with morality or the peace or safety of the State; nor to per-
mit any person, organization, or association to directly or indirectly
aid or abet, counsel or advise, any person to commit the crime of big-
amy, or polygamy, or any other crime. No person shall be required
to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect,
or denomination, or pa}r tithes against his consent; nor shall any pref-
erence be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of wor-
ship. Bigamy and polygamy are forever prohibited in the State, and
the legislature shall provide by law for the punishment of such crimes."

Now, section 3 of article 6 — I will omit the part of it that does not
relate to this subject at all — is as follows:

"SEC. 3. No person is permitted to vote, serve as a juror, or hold
any civil office who is under guardianship, idiotic, or insane, or who
has, at any place, been convicted of treason, felony, embezzlement of
public funds, bartering or selling or offering to barter or sell his vote,
or purchasing or offering to purchase the vote of another, or other
infamous crime, and who has not been restored to the right of citizen-
ship, or who at the time of such election is confined in prison on con-
viction of a criminal offense; or who is a bigamist or polygamist, or is
living in what is known as patriarchal, plural, or celestial marriage,
or in violation of any law of this State or of the United States for-
bidding any such crime; or who in an}^ manner teaches, advises,
counsels, aids, or encourages any person to enter into bigamy, polyg-
amy, or such patriarchal, plural, or celestial marriage, or to live in
violation of any such law, or to commit any such crime; or who is a
member of or contributes to the support, aid, or encouragement of
any order, organization, association, corporation, or society which
teaches, advises, counsels, encourages, or aids any person to enter
into bigamy, polygamy, or such patriarchal or plural marriage, or
which teaches or advises that the laws of this State prescribing rules
of civil conduct are not the supreme law of the State,"

768 EEED SMOOT.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Why not let these extracts go in without
reading ?

The CHAIRMAN. It will ta^e only a moment.

Mr. TAYLER. There is only a short sentence left.

Section 4 of article 6 is as follows:

USEC. 4. The legislature may prescribe qualifications, limitations,
and conditions for the right of suffrage additional to those prescribed
in this article, but shall never annul any of the provisions in this
article contained."

Senator DUBOIS. 1 should like to ask Mr. Cobb if he knows whether
there was any objection particularly by any members of the constitu-
tional convention when that constitution was framed?

Mr. COBB. My memory is not good on that point. 1 think there
was some objection to it, but I am not competent to reply to the ques-
tion. I have forgotten.

Senator DUBOIS. When it was submitted to the people for their rat-
ification, was that clause urged at all b}^ anyone as a reason why they
should vote against the constitution ?

Mr. COBB. I do not remember whether it was.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the constitutional convention been called?

Mr. COBB. The resolution calling for the vote has passed the legis-
lature. Our method is to vote on that next fall. Then the following
legislature will provide means and dates—

The CHAIRMAN. This simpty provides that the people shall vote upon
the question whether they will have a constitutional convention ?

Mr. COBB. It is the first step.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be voted upon this fall at the election ?

Senator BEVERIDGE. I understand the legislature passed a resolution
submitting to the people the question of a new constitution. Is that
correct?

Mr. COBB. It is correct.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And that the people are to vote upon that
proposition this fall. That is right?

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. By what majority did the resolution pass the
legislature.

Mr. COBB. Almost unanimous.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Almost unanimously ?

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Are a majority of the legislature of Idaho Mor-
mons or the reverse?

Mr. COBB. The majority are gentiles.

Senator BEVERIDGE. And they passed this resolution, as you say,
two weeks after Mr. Smith came there?

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I was interested in that, because you stated
that it was the general sentiment, as I understood it, that the polyga-
mous sections of the constitution, or the sections relating thereto, con-
stituted the real question that was to be handled by a constitutional
convention if called. Is that correct?

Mr. COBB. That is the opinion of most of the people.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Were there no other questions as to the revi-
sion of the constitution, save only the question of the polygamous
sections of the constitution?

REED SMOOT. 769

Mr. COBB. There was no argument about it whatever and no reason
for it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In the general public discussion as to whether
your constitution needed revision or not was there any other question
except this one?

Mr. COBB. There never has been any discussion of it until now, as
the question is coming up for a vote and is appearing before our con-
ventions.

Senator BEVERIDGE. What attracted my attention and somewhat
confuses me — I have no doubt you can clear it up — is why it was, if
this be the question which concerns the, people, and which you say was
the reason for calling the convention, the resolution was passed by a
legislature almost unanimously, which legislature was heavily gentile?

Senator DUBOIS. It was stated before you came in—

Senator BEVERIDGE. I was necessarily absent. Of course you do
not object to my hearing it.

Mr. COBB. I stated that any request that the Mormon Church makes
of our leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, is acceded' to and
allowed by them.

Senator BEVERIDGE. So that the influence of the Mormon Clrirch
is as strong upon gentiles as upon Mormons in your State?

Mr. COBB. Upon political leaders.

Senator DUBOIS. In other words, the politicians of both parties want
to have the favor of the Mormon Church ?

Mr. COBB. I do not know of any politician in Idaho to-day but who
is in favor of granting to the Mormon Church any request they make.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Are all the members of your legislature poli-
ticians, in that sense?

Mr. COBB. They seemed to be on that resolution.

Senator BEVERIDGE. You think, then, that the members of the leg-
islature of Idaho do not represent the people ?

Mr. COBB. They did not in that, except that of course the people
did not — in fact, there was no discussion of it. There was no chance
for the people to express themselves before the resolution was passed.
It came up quietly, and was put through without any discussion what-
ever. ,

Senator BEVERIDGE. Do you know of any other question, such as
corporate questions, or any question like it, which might be a reason
for calling the constitutional convention?

Mr. COBB. There is nothing spoken of now that could not be treated
by amendment.

Senator BEVERIDGE. I notice that in New York, for instance, ten
years ago there was a constitutional convention, of which Mr. Joseph
Choate was chairman, and I think most of the States have revised
their constitutions. We have done so once. So the point with me
was whether, a majority of the legislature being gentiles, there was
any other question save this. They certainly did not call a constitu-
tional convention for no reason and with no public demand for the
same.

Mr. COBB. There was no public demand shown anywhere. You
can not find a record of any demand.

Senator DUBOIS. Was it ever mentioned at all in the public press
before the legislature met? Was it an issue in any way, directly or
indirectly, in the campaign preceding the election of the members of
the legislature?

770 REED SMOOT.

Mr. COBB. It was not an issue. It never was spoken of in the cam-
paign or pending the election of the legislature.

Senator DUBOIS. Did the people of the State know that they were
to vote upon a new constitutional convention until some time after this
resolution was passed?

Mr. COBB. Not until after the legislature had passed the resolution,
and it was not generally known until some time after that. It is just
beginning to be discussed now, as the question comes up.

Senator McCoMAS. In the resolution to submit to the people the
question whether or not they want a new convention was it also pro-
vided that if the vote was in the affirmative there should be an election
of delegates to the convention?

Mr. COBB. That is all provided for in our law. The next legisla-
ture following this vote provides —

Senator McCoMAS. The next legislature ?

Mr. COBB. Yes; the one that is elected next fall.

Senator McCoMAS. That legislature will call the convention ?

Mr. COBB. That legislature will call the convention and provide
means and the time and the method of election.

Senator McCoMAS. If you were present and know, was there a dis-
cussion in either or both branches of your legislature preceding the
vote on the resolution to call a convention?

Mr. COBB. Practically no discussion whatever.

Senator McCoMAS. You were there ?

Mr. COBB. I was not there. The reports were brought to me. It
is a question we have been opposing right along.

Senator McCoMAS. So far as there was any discussion — you say
there was practically none — was the reason that you suggest as the
motive of the call assigned at all, or were other reasons given; and if
so, what reasons were given for passing the resolution to call a con-
vention?

Mr. COBB. 1 think no reasons were given except that it was about
time to have a new constitution.

Senator McCoMAS. Can you say, from examining the record, whether
all the Mormons in the legislature voted for the resolution or not?

Mr. COBB.- Nearly all the members voted for it.

Senator McCoMAS. 1 want to know if all the Mormons who were in
the legislature voted for it?

Mr. COBB. I think they must all have voted for it.

Senator McCoMAS. You do not know as a fact?

Mr. COBB. There were only one or two votes against it.

Senator McCoMAS. Only one or two votes against it?

Mr. COBB. Yes; and there must have been a good many Mormons
in the legislature.

Mr. W OKTHINGTON. Was it a record vote ?

Mr. COBB. It is all in the record — the discussion and the vote.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Was there a discussion?

Mr. COBB. There was no discussion.

Senator BEVERIDGE. 1 thought you said the discussion and vote
would be in the record.

Mr. COBB. What there was of it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Was there anything of it?

Mr. COBB. No. A man simply got up and presented the resolution

REED SMOOT. 771

in the house, I believe, and said he thought it was about time for a
new constitution.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Did he give no other reason than that?

Mr. COBB. No other reason, 1 believe, as I remember it.

Senator BEVERIDGE. He ]ust got up and said "I think it is about
time to have a new constitution," and they passed the resolution?

Mr. COBB. In effect.

Senator BEVERTDGE. That is extraordinary.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know whether that legislature, unani-
mously, regardless of party lines, telegraphed Senator Reed Smoot
their congratulations by resolution ?

Mr. COBB. I think they did.

Senator DUBOIS. Democrats joining in as well as Republicans.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Congratulations on what?

Senator DUBOIS. His election to the United States Senate.

Senator McCoMAS. Have you heard any members of the legislature
discuss the matter of the call for a constitutional convention and make
any statement of their reasons for voting for it ?

Mr. COBB. I have not discussed it with any member of the legislature.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Have you the journals of the legislature here
with you ?

Mr. COBB. Not with me.

Senator McCoMAS. I understand there was no preamble to the reso-
lution at all.

Mr. COBB. I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Cobb, have you any knowledge — information — as
to any other interest which the Idaho legislature or people professing
to represent any body of that legislature took in the election of Mr.
Smoot and his retention in his seat here?

Senator BEVERIDGE. Let the reporter read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

uMr. TAYLER. Mr. Cobb, have you any knowledge — information —
as to any other interest which the Idaho legislature, or people pro-
fessing to represent any body of that legislature, took in the election
of Mr. Smoot and his retention in his seat here?1'

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to that question, so far as it calls for
information, on the same ground on which the committee has already
ruled out what the witness proposed to recite as coming from other
people.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose it relates to personal knowledge.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No; the question distinctly says "information."

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any knowledge on the subject, Mr. Cobb?

Mr. COBB. I have knowledge of the visit of a delegation to one of
the Senatorial candidates at the time we were preparing for a Repub-
lican caucus as to what Republican should be elected Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Just tell us about that delegation;
where it was from.

Mr. COBB. I can tell you what the Senatorial candidate told me took
place. Shall I say that?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Tayler says "Yes." I presume the com-
mittee will answer the question.

Senator OVERMAN. For Senatorial honors in Idaho or Utah?

Mr. COBB. For United States Senator.

772 REED SMOOT.

Senator OVERMAN. For United States Senator from Idaho?

Mr. COBB. From Idaho.

Senator OVERMAN. In regard to Reed Smoot's candidacy in Utah?

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. I did not hear the answer.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He says somebody told him something- about
it. He was not present when the delegation did anything.

Mr. TAYLER. The Senatorial candidate himself told him what the
committee had said to him.

Senator McCoMAS. If that is relevant-
Senator OVERMAN. Was the committee from Utah ?

Mr. COBB. It was a committee of members of the Idaho legislature.

Senator BEVERIDGE. Of what?

Mr. COBB. They came to this candidate for the Senate, Mr.
Borah-
Senator McCoMAS. Unless the witness was present and knows, it
seems to me that it is not admissible.

Mr. COBB. I can only state what he told me.

Mr. TAYLER. The point is that it is the statement of this witness as
to what a candidate for the United States Senate, one of the counsel
in this case, indeed, stated to him.

Senator BEVERIDGE. About what?

Senator McCoMAS. You can ask the candidate.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand that; but I do not know why it is not a
part of the political history to know what a candidate for the Senate
said was demanded of him.

Senator BEVERIDGE. In Idaho?

Mr. TAYLER. In Idaho.

Senator McCoMAS. If it is competent, the candidate is the source to
communicate that to us.

Senator OVERMAN. Was that after Mr. Smoot's election ?

Mr. TAYLER. It was after Mr. Smoot's election. This is not a ten-
der jur}r, which need be disturbed. A committee came to Mr. Borah,
who had almost a majority of votes in the caucus, as many practically
as all the other candidates together, and demanded of him to know
what he would do respecting the retention of Reed Smoot in the United
States Senate if he, Borah, were elected, to which Mr. Borah replied,
as many Senators on this committee have replied to similar inquiries,
that he assumed a judicial attitude in respect to that question and could
not pretend to pronounce beforehand what his opinion would be.
Now, this is a witness at first hand, who repeats what that Senatorial
candidate himself told him was demanded of him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In other words, it is hearsay evidence in the
second degree. This witness is to tell what Mr. Borah told him that
somebody else said to him, Mr. Borah being alive and the members
of the committee being presumed to be alive.

Mr. TAYLER. It is substantive testimony. It is not hearsay. It is
not a question whether they were going to do something or not, but
the question is as to whether or not that is the thing a Senatorial can-
didate said, and it becomes as much a part of the history of the case
as any other circumstance.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me inquire who the delegation was ? Do }rou
know the membership of the delegation that waited on the Senatorial
candidate?

REED SMOOT. 77 3

Mr. COBB. By names?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. COBB. 1 do not.

The CHAIRMAN. How many of them were there?

Mr. COBB. I understand there were three.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know any of them ?

Mr. COBB. I did not ask their names.

The CHAIRMAN. You know none of them ?

Mr. COBB. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Were they all from Idaho?

Mr. COBB. All from Idaho.

The CHAIRMAN. They called on a gentleman who was a candidate for
the United States Senate ?

Mr. COBB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As you understand?

Mr. COBB. As I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you present at the conversation?

Mr. COBB. I was not.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know anything that occurred at that con-
versation, from anyone of the committee?

Mr. COBB. Of the delegation ?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. COBB. I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any knowledge on the subject except
what the candidate for the Senate told you?

Mr. COBB. No other knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is he now ?

Mr. COBB. In Boise City.

The CHAIRMAN. The hour for a recess having arrived, the committee
will take a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

Thereupon (at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes p. m.) the committee took
a recess until 2 o'clock p. in.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, have you any cross-examination of Mr.
Cobb?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cobb will take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF CALVIN COBB— Continued.

CALVIN COBB, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Before you interrogate Mr. Cobb, he has a correction
to make in his testimony.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That may do away with the necessity of my
question.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Cobb, have you informed yourself of the number
of members composing the legislature of Idaho ?

Mr. COBB. I think 1 said this morning 79. If I did, I wish to cor-
rect it. We have 21 in the senate and 48 in the house; 69 I should
have said. If I said 79, 1 want to correct it.

774 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all I wanted to ask.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understood you to say that one-third of them
are Mormons.

Mr. COBB. It is about one-third, I believe.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is it not, in fact, only 11 out of the 69?

Senator DUBOIS. I think the testimony was that one-third of them
are from Mormon counties. He was asked about the Mormon vote,
as I remember, and he said the Mormon counties sent about one-third
of the legislature. That is my impression.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You did not mean to say that one-third of the
members of the legislature are Mormons ?

Mr. COBB. Of the last legislature?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Mr. COBB. No; I was not thinking of the last legislature at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said something about a telegram. I think
you said a telegram of congratulation was sent to Senator Smoot ?

Mr. COBB. I think not. I said a resolution, as I remember, passed
the legislature, of congratulations. That is as I remember my
testimony.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You did not say a telegram ?

Mr. COBB. I do not think it was asked me. I had no knowledge
about the telegram.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I wish you would tell us which are the counties
you call the Mormon counties in Idaho.

Mr. COBB. Beginning with Fremont, Bear Lake, Oneida, Bing-
ham, Bannock, and Cassia. Those are pronounced Mormon counties.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Those are the counties which you say elect
about one-third of the legislature ?

Mr. COBB. It is my impression — about a third.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is it not a fact there were but eleven Mormons
in the last legislature ?

Mr. COBB. I think that was the number.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DUBOIS. Have the Mormons any considerable number of
people in other counties besides these counties which you designate as
Mormon counties?

Mr. COBB. In our southern tier of counties, Elmore, Ada, Boise,
Washington, and Canyon, there are Mormon communities in all of
them. Quite a congregation in the capital, in Boise, 1 think, has been
organized during the last year — I think during the last legislature. I
think perhaps there are two or three hundred Mormons living in
Boise and the immediate vicinity — I do not know the exact number;
and in those other counties there have been a good many Mormons
coming in in the last year or two.

Senator DUBOIS. Did you mention Blaine County ?

Mr. COBB. Yes. I think I mentioned Elmore, too.

Senator DUBOIS. What proportion do you think the number of Mor-
mons in Blaine and Canyon counties, for instance, would sustain to the
majority either party has been receiving there for the past year?

Mr. COBB. The majority in those counties is not fixed, but it is
usually small. It is sometimes in Washington County as low as 50.
In some others it runs to a hundred and two hundred, and it is my
opinion that the settlement of Mormons now is greater in all those
counties than the usual majorities.

REED SMOOT. 775

Mr. TAYLER. Has there been any increase in the Mormon popula-
tion in Idaho in the last five or six years?

Mr. COBB. Oh, 1 think so. The population has increased in Idaho
in all directions, Mormon and gentile both.

Mr. WOETHINGTON. That is all we have to ask, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You speak of certain counties that are Mormon
counties. Were those counties Mormon when you first went to Utah,
fifteen years ago ?

Mr. COBB. I believe they were.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is your next witness, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Angus M. Cannon.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you need Mr. Cobb any further?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think not.

The CHAIRMAN. You can be discharged, Mr. Cobb. Mr. Angus M.
Cannon will please take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF ANGUS M. CANNON.

ANGUS M, CANNON, having been duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there?

Mr. CANNON. Since 1849, very near continuously.

Mr. TAYLER. The Mormon colony went to Salt Lake before 1849,
did it not?

Mr. CANNON. In 1847.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you a Mormon before you went there?

Mr. CANNON. I was.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been a member of or connected
with the Mormon Church?

Mr. CANNON. I was blessed in the church when I was 5 years old.

Mr. TAYLER. How old are you now, Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I will be 70 years of age on the 17th of next month.

Mr. TAYLER. Then your father was a member of the Mormon
Church?

Mr. CANNON. He was.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position do you now hold in the church?

Mr. CANNON. I am a patriarch in the church now.

Mr. TAYLER. What are the duties of a patriarch ?

Mr. CANNON. Well, it is to be a father to the people — to bless the
people.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you duties wholly ecclesiastical ?

Mr. CANNON. In the church they are.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you been patriarch ?

Mr. CANNON. I think it is a couple of weeks.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 would like to ask there what constitutes a patriarch ?
When does one reach that stage ? What steps are necessary ?

Mr. CANNON. He is called upon to bless the people under the author-
ity of the priesthood.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he designated by some one as patriarch ?

Mr. CANNON. He is designated by the prophet of the Lord and
ordained to that office.

The CHAIRMAN. To the office of patriarch?

770 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Tayler.

Senator HOPKINS. Just one word further. Can a patriarch betaken
from the body of the church or must he have held office of some kind
before he is designated as patriarch ?

Mr. CANNON. He may have been just an elder in the church and
designated as a patriarch as he advances in years. I was asked who
designated me, I believe.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. President Joseph F. Smith.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Cannon, what rank does a patriarch hold in
dignity?

Mr. CANNON. High priest.

Senator DUBOIS. I understand that the first presidency are highest
in authority, and next to them are the apostles. Then what comes?

Mr. CANNON. The first seven presidents of seventies.

Senator DUBOIS. Then the patriarchs ?

Mr. CANNON. Well, the patriarchs are supposed to rank next to the
twelve in local ministry.

Senator DUBOIS. I wanted to get their rank. They rank ahead of
the presidents of the seventies?

Mr. CANNON. No; the seventies are a traveling ministry associated
with the twelve, under the direction of the first presidency. The
patriarchs are local in their ministrations. There is one presiding
patriarch in the church. I am simply a local patriarch in the Salt
Lake Stake of Zion.

Senator DUBOIS. I understand; but my understanding was that the
order was something like this: The first presidency, the apostles, the
patriarchs, the bishops, and then the seven presidents of seventies.
Where would you locate the patriarch in rank? That is all I desire to
ask you.

Mr. CANNON. The presiding patriarch of the church is associated
with the twelve. The twelve are the traveling ministry of the church,
to regulate and set in order the affairs of the church in all the world,
under the direction of the first presidency. The seven presidents of
seventies are their assistants, and all the body of seventies are asso-
ciated as traveling ministry when called upon.

Mr. TAYLER. The patriarchs are, as it were, one arm of the apostles
and the seventies are another?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; the patriarchs are situated locally in the
church. I happen to be a patriarch in the Salt Lake Stake of Zion

only-
Senator HOPKINS. Is there any limitation to the number of patri-
archs that the church can have?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, I ask your pardon for interrupting
your course of inquiry.

Mr. TAYLER. I wanted to have an understanding about this matter
of the patriarchs. There is no relation of superior and subordinate
either one way or the other as between the seven presidents of the
seventies and the patriarchs, is there?

Mr. CANNON. The patriarchs do not preside.

Mr. TAYLER. Neither do the seventies preside over them?

Mr. CANNON. The seventies are a traveling ministry.

EEED SMOOT. 777

Mr. TAYLEE. Exactly. How many patriarchs are there?

Mr. CANNON. They are not limited. I can not tell how many.

Mr. TAYLER. I mean are there many of them ?

Mr. CANNON. In the whole church there may be 100 or 200.

Mr. TAYLER. How many are there in the stake of Zion ?

Mr. CANNON. The Salt Lake Stake of Zion is limited now. It once
included 6 counties. Now there are 11 stakes in those 6 counties.
The Salt Lake Stake of Zion now is only one-eleventh part the size
that it was twenty-eight years ago.

Mr. TAYLER. How many patriarchs are there in the Salt Lake Stake
of Zion ?

Mr. CANNON. As recently organized — it has been organized now
within three weeks — I think there are probably four or five.

Mr. TAYLER. How much of the city of Salt Lake is situated in what
you call the Salt Lake Stake of Zion ?

Mr. CANNON. It embraces 7 wards, if I remember correctly.

Mr. TAYLER. Out of how many in all ?

Mr. CANNON. That is, of the city?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. There are 35 wards within the city.

Mr. TAYLER. Prior to your being designated as patriarch, what
official position did you occupy in the church?

Mr. CANNON. President of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion.

Mr. TAYLER. The Salt Lake Stake of Zion, as presided over by you,
had a different boundar}% as I gather, from what it has now?

Mr. CANNON. In 1876 it embraced the counties of Salt Lake, Tooele,
Davis, Morgan, Summit, and Wasatch.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you at that time made president of that stake ?

Mr. CANNON. I was.

Mr. TAYLER. And you continued to remain president of the Salt
Lake Stake of Zion with, I suppose, constantly reduced boundaries
until a few weeks ago ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What was the magnitude of the Salt Lake Stake of
Zion when you ceased to be the president of it?

Mr. CANNON. It embraced 37 wards.

Mr. TAYLER. All of the city of Salt Lake?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; and several wards outside.

Mr. TAYLER. How were you chosen president of that stake?

Mr. CANNON. I was designated by Brigham Young as president and
sustained by vote of the people in conference.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you sustained more than once?

Mr. CANNON. I was sustained four times a year.

Mr. TAYLER. Are all of the officials of the church in like manner
sustained in their positions ?

Mr. CANNON. They are.

Mr. TAYLER. The president of the church is sustained in that way,
is he?

Mr. CANNON. He is.

Mr. TAYLER. By whom is he sustained ?

Mr. CANNON. By the entire church, represented in conference
annually and semiannually.

Mr. TAYLER. Four times a year or twice a year ?

Mr. CANNON. Twice a year; that is, by the general conferences.

778 REED SMUOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely. At that general conference all of the
people of the church, whether officials or not, are entitled to be present
and vote, are they ?

Mr. CANNON. All are entitled to be present and vote.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Joseph F. Smith has been sustained regularly
since he was first made president ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are the apostles, all of them, separately sustained at
these conferences?

Mr. CANNON. Their names are called in the order in which they
stand in their respective boards.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they sustained as a body or separately?

Mr. CANNON. As a body.

Mr. TAYLER. That is, their names are read in the order of their
seniority of appointment, from one down to the twelfth man, and the
assembled people are asked if they sustain them?

Mr. CANNON. They are.

Mr. TAYLER. Or in substance that; and by the uplifted hand their
sustaining is indicated?

Mr. CANNON. If there is no objection.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Cannon, is that sustaining, in your view of it,
substantial, or merely a colorable sustaining?

Mr. CANNON. It is as substantial as anything can be.

Mr. TAYLER. If the call were made, for instance, to sustain the first
president of the church, and you felt that there was any obligation or
duty laid upon you to oppose his being sustained, you would suitably
indicate that fact, would you not?

Mr. CANNON. 1 would.

Mr. TAYLER. Is there any duty which, as a member of that church,
you feel is laid upon you more seriously or solemnly than the duty to
sustain or not sustain an official of the church according to the dictates
of your conscience and judgment?

Mr. CANNON. There 4s nothing.

Mr. TAYLER. And do you think that the people of your church gen-
erally recognize the solemn character of that duty as you do?

Mr. CANNON. I think the majority do.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you think that if Mr. Smoot had any reason to
object to the sustaining of President Smith, that would be his time and
opportunity to make known his objection, would it not?

Mr. CANNON. Now, in answering that question, I will say that I
would not approve of any man rising up and making an objection on
such an occasion, when he had an opportunity to do it privatety before-
hand.

Mr. TAYLER. I see. Your church teaches obedience to the law, does
it not?

Mr. CANNON. It does.

Mr. TAYLER. And to the civil magistrate?

Mr. CANNON._ It does.

Mr. TAYLER. It teaches it seriously ?

Mr. CANNON. It does.

Mr. TAYLER. Those of you who may be violating some law, without
going into any explanation of it, have for yourselves a justification to
yourselves for so doing, do you not?

Mr. CANNON. I presume we do.

BEED SMOOT. 779

Mr. TAYLER. Then, if you objected or had any grounds for object-
ing to a person whose position you were called on to sustain or not to
sustain, you would feel that it would be better — and I think most men
would agree with you — to make known that objection privately to the
person whose sustaining was in question ?

Mr. CANNON. I would endeavor to do so beforehand.

Mr. TAYLER. Has your position in the church been such as to call
upon you to make a study of the doctrines of the church, beyond the
study that a layman would make?

Mr. CANNON. I think it has.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you preach sermons?

Mr. CANNON. I have done so.

Mr. TAYLER. Are you in the habit of talking to your people respect-
ing the church, what it stands for, and what they ought to do as
respects spiritual things, like any preacher in any other church?

Mr. CANNON. On every occasion when I felt required to do so.

Mr. TAYLER. I have no knowledge of what your habit may have
been in that respect. Has it been often?

Mr. CANNON. I felt it was my duty as a presiding officer rather to
call men than to occupy all the time myself.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes, exactly. Now, as president of the Salt Lake
Stake of Zion, what, in a practical way, were your duties?

Mr. CANNON. I was called on, as president of the stake, with my
associate councilors — two councilors — to meet with the bishopric once
a month in a general assembly and impart such instructions to them
as we felt was necessary for the government of the church under their
supervision; to meet with the elders of the quorums; to oranize elder
quorums as we thought was necessary; to increase their number and
to advance young men from the lesser to the higher priesthood; and to
watch over the church as faithful ministers and shepherds to the
flock of Christ.

Mr. TAYLER. How much of your time was taken up with these
duties ?

Mr. CANNON. The principal part of my time.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you did not devote any considerable time to any
outside or secular business ?

Mr. CANNON. Not over a quarter of my time.

Mr. TAYLER. Do the presidents of the stakes generally devote the
greater part of the time to their work ?

Mr. CANNON. I presume they do, in connection with their manual
labor for the support of their families.

Mr. TAYLER. Next to you were your two councilors, who are ana-
logous to the councilors to the first president ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Next to them were the bishops ?

Mr. CANNON. Next to them were the high council.

Mr. TAYLER. What is the high council ?

Mr. CANNON. The high council has original as well as appellate
jurisdiction in church affairs.

Mr. TAYLER. What is it made up of?

Mr. CANNON. It is made up of twelve high priests.

Mr. TAYLER. Residents in the jurisdiction, I suppose.

Mr. CANNON. Within the stake.

Mr. TAYLER. Then after this high council come what?

V80 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CANNON. The bishopric of the wards.

Mr. TAYLER. So that in your stake of Zion, with 37 wards, there
were 37 bishops ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Below, next to the bishops, came what?

Mr. CANNON. I will explain, however, that one of those wards was
dissolved, was weakened, so that we divided it between —

Mr. TAYLER. I am not particular about that.

Mr. CANNON. I will say there were only 36 wards.

Mr. TAYLER. I was merely getting at the frame of it, and not any
unimportant detail. Then after the bishops come what?

Mr. CANNON. The bishops have associated with them the lesser
priesthood, who minister under their direction.

Mr. TAYLER. What are they called — the lesser priesthood under the
bishops ?

Mr. CANNON. Priests, teachers, and deacons.

Mr. TAYLER. The term elder, then, is a term that applies to a large
body of the male members of the church, irrespective of the office
they m&y hold, does it?

Mr. CANNON. It does, irrespective of the office they hold; but it
also applies to men who are ordained especially elders, who belong to
elder quorums.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you have elder quorums?

Mr. CANNON. We have elder quorums throughout the State. It is
made up of elders resident in different wards. We had in the stake
some eighteen quorums of elders, if I remember correctly, when it
was dissolved.

Mr. TAYLER. And how many elders to a quorum ?

Mr. CANNON. Ninety-six elders to a quorum; that is, if it is a full
quorum.

Mr. TAYLER. Their time was not wholly given up to the church?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Cannon, when were you first married?

Mr. CANNON. On the 18th day of July, 1858.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you then married?

Mr. CANNON. Sarah Maria Mousley.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married?

Mr. CANNON. 1 would like to ask a question of the chairman, if you
will permit, before I answer these questions.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to
say that I was brought into great trouble nineteen years ago and sent to
prison for eight months because I paraded the mothers of my children
before the community — acknowledged them, recognized them as my
wives. My crime was said to consist in that I held them out as wives.
I had the option given me to desert the mothers of my children, except
one, or go to prison. 1 went to prison. I endured an eight-months'
term. I remained there under sentence for six months, a term of eight
months, to have that case advanced in the Supreme Court of the United
States to test its legality.

Having been married before the passage of the antipolygamy law,
known as the law of 1862, 1 felt that I could not desert the mothers of
my children, who were married to me under those circumstances, and
look them in the face with honest pride. Hence I went to prison. In

REED SMOOT. 781

prison I said to my associate prisoners: "You could not come here in
honor; I could not stay out in honor." The Supreme Court confirmed
the decision in my case. I was then led to be noncommunicative
regarding my children and their mothers, and I have dwelt quietly with
them from that time to this. I have not paraded them, but with
modest pride I have nourished them and cared for them, never having
known any woman but the mothers of my own children.

Now, I have noticed in the public press that my president has been
caricatured and his family has been caricatured throughout the United
States and throughout the world. I am here to-day, and I would ask
that I be protected against making a public exhibit of my family,
that if I am imperiled in my liberties for acknowledging them, I would
like, at least, to be made safe when I cease to parade them and I would
ask that it be not made public here to-day. I will answer any ques-
tions that are put to me regarding our church, its influence, and its
conduct, but I would ask that you permit me to be as modest now as
I have been asked to be in the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States regarding the relationship that exists between the
mothers of my children and myself/ I do this in the interest of my
family, for they have not been provoked by the marrying and multi-
plicity of wives, and parading them before them, but we have dwelt
in tranquil peace, and existed with fellowship and love.

I would ask that I be favored, if you please to do so, as represent-
ing one of the highest tribunals that is a glory not only to this
country but the crowning glory of the world, in the dignity that you
represent.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Cannon, may 1 ask if you have any counsel
to advise you about what your rights are ?

Mr. CANNON. I have no counsel; no, sir. I am here at your mercy.

Mr. WOKTHINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I think, in view of the state-
ment of the witness, he ought to be informed that he is under no
obligation to answer any questions that will incriminate himself.

Mr. TAYLER. Pie can not incriminate himself before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose the statute of the United States protects
him entirely.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No, Mr. Chairman, the statute of the United
States does not protect him. While he is not my client, I think he
ought to be informed of the law. The law, as decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States, is that that statute to which you refer,
section 180 of the Revised Statutes, is no protection, inasmuch as it
simply says that the testimony that a witness shall give before a com-
mittee of Congress shall not be used against him. It does not provide,
as a later statute does, in reference to proceedings by the Interstate
Commerce Commission, that there shall be no prosecution for the
offense. The Supreme Court has held that in the first case the wit-
ness can not be required to answer, because the statute does not pro-
tect him from a prosecution, and that it would be a vain thing to
require him to give all the details of his alleged offense so that those
who wish to prosecute him would know where to go for evidence, and
simply say that what he had said here should not be used against him;
but when the statute goes further, as it does in the Interstate Com-
merce Commission case, and says he shall never be prosecuted, then
the Supreme Court has held that he can not be prosecuted either in

782 REED SMOUT.

the Federal courts or the State courts. That statute protects him
everywhere, and then he must answer; but there is no statute which
takes away the right to prosecute him in giving testimony before a
Congressional committee, and the Supreme Court has decided that he
is not required to answer, and they discharged a witness on a habeas
corpus on that ground.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness is at liberty to decline to answer any
question.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He is not at liberty to decline to answer any
question. If he declines to answer on the ground that the answer
would incriminate him he is excused. If he refuses to answer any
other question — a question which relates to the subject-matter which
is before the committee — he is in contempt of the Senate and he com-
mits an indictable offense.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Read the question, Mr. Reporter.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married?"

The CHAIRMAN. He stated his first marriage.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not want him to admit before the committee that
he committed an offense against a law forbidding polygamy, if that
was done during the period over which the statute of limitations does
not run.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you answer that question, Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I would like to have the question read.

The question was again read by the reporter.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your "answer to that, Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. 1 understand the Chair to decide that I shall answer
that question?

The CHAIRMAN. I think you should answer it.

Mr. CANNON. I was married at the same time to Ann Amanda
Mousley — the same hour.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you say ?

Mr. CANNON. I was married in the same hour to Ann Amanda
Mousley.

Mr. TAYLER. By the same hour, do }Tou mean by the same ceremony?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; at the same time.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1858. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married?

Mr. CANNON. I would ask, Mr. Chairmain, if this is to be followed
up, if I am to relate all my family matters. I was sent to prison
because I did do it. Am I now to be placed in peril if 1 do not do it?
I would ask that to be ruled upon.

Senator HOPKINS. You heard what the attorney has said, that cer-
tain questions you could decline to answer if you choose to. I think,
perhaps, it might be well for him to designate some attorney.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He ought to have counsel of his own.

The CHAIRMAN. You have stated your first marriage was in 1858,
and named the person. Your second was in what 3rear?

Mr. CANNON. The same hour.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He married at the same time two sisters.

The CHAIRMAN. At the same time you married another person.
That was your second marriage. This question is, when were you
next married?

Mr. CANNON. My question is, am I to be placed in peril if I do not

REED SMOOT. 783

answer this question as I was placed in peril because I did parade the
mothers of my children as my wives nineteen years ago?

The CHAIRMAN. It is for you to answer or decline, as you prefer.
These questions have been answered by all the witnesses, including
the president of the church, frankly and openly. You can answer or
decline, as you see proper.

Mr. CANNON. Of course if you rule that I shall answer, I will answer.
I will try to obey the law.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the question is proper in this investigation.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do I understand the Chair to rule that he thinks
a witness is bound to answer a question that incriminates himself ?

The CHAIRMAN. I say the question is proper in this investigation.
In view of the course to be pursued by the committee, the question is
regarded as proper. Repeat the question, Mr. Reporter.

The reporter read as follows:

"Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married?"

Mr. CANNON. I was next married to Mrs. Clara C. Mason.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you married to her, Mr. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I think it was in September, 1875. I would not be
positive of it without having my record here.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married ?

Mr. CANNON. I was next married to Martha Hughes.

Mr. TAYLER. And when were you married to her?

Mr. CANNON. On the 6th day of October, 1884.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married?

Mr. CANNON. I was next married to Maria Bannion.

Mr. TAYLER. When were you married to her?

Mr. CANNON. On the llth of March, 1886.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married?

Mr. CANNON. I was married to Johanna C. Danielson in the fall of
1886. 1 do not remember the date.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom were you next married ?

Mr. CANNON. I have not been married since.

Mr. TAYLER. Are all of your wives living?

Mr. CANNON. They are.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you remember a prosecution against you in 1886
in which you were charged with having married or were cohabiting
with Mattie Hughes Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I remember being charged.

Mr. TAYLER. Was there a hearing before a United States commis-
sioner ?

Mr. CANNON. Not that I have any recollection of. I remember that
1 was arrested, but I do not remember what the charge was— whether
it was with her or someone else. I was charged, an investigation was
held, I underwent an examination, and was discharged.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you testify in the case?

Mr. CANNON. Sir?

Mr. TAYLER. Did you testify in the case?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do these six wives live?

Mr. CANNON. Sarah Maria Cannon lives in what is known as Forest
Dale, a suburb of Salt Lake City. Ann Amanda Cannon lives in Salt
Lake City. Clara C. Cannon lives in Salt Lake City. Martha H.
Cannon lives in Salt Lake City. Maria Bannion Cannon lives at what

784 EEED SMOOT.

is known as North Jordan. Johanna C. Cannon lives at Sandy, all in
Salt Lake County.

Mr. TAYLER. Do they all live in separate houses?

Mr. CANNON. They do.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you a family by all of them?

Mr. CANNON. I have families by five of them.

Mr. TAYLER. And you live with all of them now ?

Mr. CANNON. I am sorry to say I do not live with all of them.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean because at this present moment you are
in Washington, you do not?

Mr. CANNON. I mean because the agreement we have made has been
so strenuous — that is, that the church has made regarding this matter —
that I feel obligated to be as modest as I can in visiting them and pro-
claiming them.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have you?

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question right there. You say

Mr. CANNON. In view of the instructions given by the presidency
of the church regarding these matters. I now refer to the manifesto,
in view of the agreement made?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you allude to the declaration of the president of
the church at the recent conference held in April ?

Mr. CANNON. I allude to the manifesto issued in 1890.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; I understand now.

Mr. TAYLER. What effect has the manifesto had upon your relations
with these six wives ?

Mr. CANNON. I say it has made me more modest in acknowledging
them, and 1 have only been as attentive as I felt common humanity
required me to be.

Mr. TAYLER. You have not proclaimed them as your wives con-
stantly and officiously, you mean by that, do you?

Mr. CANNON. That is what I mean.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not mean that they are any the less your wives
now than before, do you ?

Mr. CANNON. I mean that I am more cold in my treatment of them
than I should be.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children have been born to you since the
manifesto?

Mr. CANNON. Three.

Mr. TAYLER. By which wives?

Mr. CANNON. Maria Bannion Cannon has borne me one little girl,
who now slumbers in the tomb, born the 10th day of January, if I
remember correctly, 1891.

Mr. WORTKINGTON. 1891, do you say?

Mr. CANNON. The year 1891; and she has borne a son to me who
was six years old the 6th day of July last, I think. Martha H. Can-
non bore me a little girl five years ago this present month, if I
remember correctly.

Mr. TAYLER. George Q. Cannon was your brother, I believe.

Mr. CANNON. My mother told me so.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you the son of a plural wife? You were not,
were y ou ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I supposed not. The revelation of polygamy was
long after you were born.

REED SMOOT. 785

Mr. CANNON. I was born in 1834.

Mr. TAYLER. You knew Abraham H. Cannon in his lifetime?

Mr. CANNON. I did.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know his wife, Lillian ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You do not know that he had a wife Lilliap ?

Mr. CANNON. I did not.

Mr. TAYLER. I think that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 want to ask one or two questions upon this sub-
ject. You have had three children since the manifesto of 1890 ?

Mr. CANNON. I have.

Mr. TAYLER. What was your understanding as to that manifesto?
Did it do anything more than prohibit future plural marriages?

Mr. CANNON. That was the understanding I had of it when it was
issued, that it prohibited future plural marriages.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it your understanding, and the understanding
of others, that it prohibited polygamous cohabitation?

Mr. CANNON. I did not so understand it until I read President
Woodruff's declaration, on the 1st day of November, in Logan, in 1891.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you understood that it prohibited polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. CANNON. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Since that time you have cohabited with these
wives ?

Mr. CANNON. It has been my practice, if I can not live the law as
the Lord gives it to me, I come as near to it as my mortal frailty will
enable me to do.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that from statements. I only want to
get at the fact, Mr. Cannon, that you have had three children born
to you since the manifesto.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you understood its scope to prohibit polyga-
mous cohabitation since 1891 — these children were born to you since
that date?

Mr. CANNON. I have understood so, but —

The CHAIRMAN. Then you were living in violation of the manifesto,
were you not?

Mr. CANNON. I presume I come under the head of those that James
spoke of.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you regard the manifesto, and do you regard
it as of Divine origin?

Mr. CANNON. I read that all Scripture comes as holy men of old
were wrought upon to write and speak as dictated of the Holy Ghost,
and I believe President Woodruff was dictated of the Holy Ghost.

The CHAIRMAN. When he made this manifesto?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Therefore you believe it was Divine ?

Mr. CANNON. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, in cohabiting with these wives since the
manifesto, you have violated the law of God, have you not?

Mr. CANNON. I know I can not live without violating His laws.

The CHAIRMAN. Answer that question, whether you have violated
that particular law we are talking about.

Mr. CANNON. I presume I did.

s 50

786 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you violating the laws of the United States in
having children in polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. CANNON. I presume it is so construed.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you, as a patriarch, are violating both the law
of your church and the law of the land.

Mr. CANNON. Yes; I am only mortal.

The CHAIRMAN. Was this violation known to the authorities and the
president of the church when, three weeks ago, you were made a
patriarch ?

Mr. CANNON. I am sure 1 do not know what the president of the
church understood about my family relations. He knows I have been
a very circumspect man.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. CANNON. But I do not know what he knows about my families,
for he is not very intimate with my families.

The CHAIRMAN. Then }rou have no knowledge, of course, upon that
subject, whether he knew it or not ?

Mr. CANNON. I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you kept this a secret ?

Mr. CANNON. I have tried to regard the officers of the courts and
tried to regard the counsels of God.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not recognize these wives as wives ?

Mr. CANNON. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Publicly?

Mr. CANNON. I am doing so now.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you not heretofore ?

Mr. CANNON. I have not been parading them around; no.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not asking about parading them. If you
would meet one of them on the street, would you recognize her as
your wife?

Mr. CANNON. I think I would. I would speak to her, at least.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not call her by some other name than
Mrs. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I would not call her Cannon. I would speak to her
as the mother of my children.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cannon, it is a simple question. You recognize
your wives, of course.

Mr. CANNON. I do. I say I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You recognize them in public, do you not?

Mr. CANNON. When I am required to do so, as I am doing now.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recognize your children?

Mr. CANNON. Always.

The CHAIRMAN. Publicly?

Mr. CANNON. Everywhere.

The CHAIRMAN. Do your wives attend service with you?

Mr. CANNON. Not with me. 1 am sorry they do not.

The CHAIRMAN. They do not attend church with you ?

Mr. CANNON. Not with me; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many children have you in all?

Mr. CANNON. 1 have 19 living children.

The CHAIRMAN . And how man}^ on the other side ?

Mr. CANNON. I have buried 8 and I have raised 4 orphan children.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Cannon, i believe you stated that you are sus-

REED SMOOT. 787

tained in your office four times a year, twice in the general conference
of the church.

Mr. CANNON. No, not in the general conference. I am never sus-
tained in general conference.

Senator DUBOIS. Oh, you are not sustained in the general conference ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Whom does the general conference sustain?

Mr. CANNON. The general authorities of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. And who are the}7 ?

Mr. CANNON. The first presidency of the church, the quorum of
three, the twelve, the seven presidents of seventies, the patriarch, the
presiding bishopric, the church historians, and the general board of
education.

Senator DUBOIS. When was the last general conference of the church
held?

Mr. CANNON. On the 6th of this present month.

Senator DUBOIS. Was Joseph F. Smith sustained at that conference?

Mr. CANNON. He was sustained as president of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. Was there any opposition ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Was Mr. Lyman, the president of the quorum of
apostles, sustained at that conference ?

Mr. CANNON. He was.

Senator DUBOIS. Was there any opposition to him?

Mr. CANNON. Not that I know of.

Senator DUBOIS. Was Brigham H. Roberts sustained at that confer-
ence ?

Mr. CANNON. He was.

Senator DUBOIS. Has he been sustained at previous conferences since
the action of Congress in his case?

Mr. CANNON. He has.

Senator DUBOIS. Has there ever been any opposition to his being
sustained, that you know of?

Mr. CANNON. I never knew of any.

Senator DUBOIS. Did your people in Utah have any idea of the tes-
timony which President Smith and Mr. Lyman gave when they were
down here?

Mr. CANNON. 1 would like to hear that again.

Senator DUBOIS. Did you know anything about the testimony
which Mr. Smith and Mr. Lyman gave here previous to the 6th of
April?

Mr. CANNON. I read it in the papers.

Senator DUBOIS. Did your people generally have any knowledge of
the testimony which those gentlemen gave here?

Mr. CANNON. I think probably they read it in the papers. I do not
know.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know whether any of your people ^ com-
plained about any of these men being sustained — complained in private?

Mr. CANNON. I think the people sympathized with them in the posi-
tion in which they were put.

Senator DUBOIS. And gladly sustained them ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then I understand you to say that since the presi

788 REED SMOOT.

dent of the church testified before this committee as to his six wives
and a number of children the church in the recent conference sustained
him.

Mr. CANNON. They did.

The CHAIRMAN. And there was no criticism about it?

Mr. CANNON. Well, the}^ regretted that circumstances had conspired
to bring him to occupy the position he did before this committee,
knowing the trial he was going thro ugh r in sympathy with the mothers
of his children, the obligations he had taken upon him with those
mothers, and the obligations he was under to his country and to the
church of God. That was their sympathy.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, they regretted the disclosure.

Mr. CANNON. I will not say that. They were pleased that he dis-
closed the valor to tell the truth. They were pleased with that.

Senator DUBOIS. Did President Smith issue — not a manifesto,
but an announcement to the church at the last conference in
regard to polygamy ?

Mr. CANNON. He did.

Senator DUBOIS. Did Mr. Lyman offer a resolution embodying, I
might say, the ideas advanced by Mr. Smith, to the conference?

Mr. CANNON. There was something of that kind. I can not remem-
ber now exactly the form of it. I would like to see it. I could tell
if that was it.

Senator DUBOIS. I am sorry that I haven't it here. I would like to
have it put in the record. In that resolution and in the announce-
ment which the president of the church made to the people it was
stated that the church would deal with offenders against the law in
regard to polygamy, was it not?

Mr. CANNON. I can not now announce the sentiment that was in it.
I failed to put a copy of it in my pocket.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It referred to plural marriages ?

Mr. CANNON. It related to any attempted plural marriages in the
future and I was the one who seconded the resolution.

Senator DUBOIS. Very well. Now, did you call upon the Federal
authorities, or the State, the civil authorities, to aid the church in see-
ing that the law was obeyed ? Did you promise to give the support of
the church to the civil authorities in their efforts to see that the law of
the land was obeyed ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. You simply announced to the people that Joseph
F. Smith and the church authorities would deal with violations of the
law, as I understand it.

Mr. CANNON. That is what I understand.

Senator DUBOIS. There was no promise to aid the civil authorities?

Mr. CANNON. I did not think they needed any.

Senator DUBOIS. That the people should leave it in the hands of the
authorities of the church. That was your advice, and the announce-
ment to them?

Mr. CANNON. My advice would be to the people to render them-
selves in conformity with the laws of the land and the laws of God as
speedily as they could do.

Senator DUBOIS. But there was no announcement on the part of the
church that they would aid the civil authorities in enforcing the laws
against polygamy ?

KEED SMOOT. 789

Mr. CANNON. We have always done so.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cannon, 1 want to ask you a question right
there. In this resolution passed at the conference, protesting against
further plural marriages, was there anything said or any action taken
in relation to future polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not remember that there was. I do not remem-
ber the sentiment. That is why I would like to see it, if it had been
here, that I could have read it.

The CHAIRMAN. I read it hastily, and I thought you remembered it.

Mr. TAYLER. There is nothing in it about polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not think there is anything in it relating to polyg-
amous cohabitation. If there had been, I would not have seconded it.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not have seconded it if there had been
a protest against that?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not? Do you intend to continue polygamous
cohabitation ?

Mr. CANNON. I will have to improve if I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, in other words, you intend to continue to
violate the law of the land and the law of God, as you understand it?

Mr. CANNON. I intend to try and be true to the mothers of my
children until death deprives me of the opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. And the only way you can be true to them, I sup-
pose, in your idea, is to live in polygamous cohabitation ?

Mr. CANNON. As near as I can, according to the dictates of my con-
science and the requirements of the obligation I took upon me with
them.

The CHAIRMAN. Does your conscience, of which you now speak,*
control you more than the revelations from God and the laws of the
land?

Mr. CANNON. 1 would ask you, Mr. Chairman, if you would repeat
that?

The CHAIRMAN. Just read the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"The CHAIRMAN. Does your conscience, of which you now speak,
control you more than the revelations from God and the laws of the
land?"

Mr. CANNON. I can not say that it does, but I do say that I consider
them all — the obligations to the mothers of my children, the import-
ance of obeying the manifesto, and regarding it as of Divine origin.
Considering it all, I try to make my life conform to it, to satisfy my
conscience the best I can.

The CHAIRMAN. Is your conscience satisfied in disobeying the
revealed will of God, as you say this manifesto was ?

Mr. CANNON. I never did a wrong in my life that I did not feel bad
over it.

The CHAIRMAN. Did not what?

Mr. CANNON. That I did not feel bad over it.

The CHAIRMAN. Please answer the question, if you will. Just repeat
the question.

The reporter read as follows:

"The CHAIRMAN. Is your conscience satisfied in disobeying the
revealed will of God, as you say this manifesto was?"

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

790 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIKMAN. That satisfies your conscience?

Mr. CANNON. It satisfies me, just as it would to get an ox out of the
mire on the Sabbath day, when I am told by the Lord 1 must not
work.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, this manifesto, or this command of God, is
binding upon }7our conscience whenever you want it to be?

Mr. CANNON. Whenever I feel that I can make my life to conform
to the will of the Lord.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Cannon, when you married your first two wives
there was no Federal statute prohibiting polygamy, 1 believe you said ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. There has been a contention that the common law
controlled as to that subject at that time, has there not?

Mr. CANNON. I have been told so since, but I did not entertain the
idea at the time.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand you did not. When you married your
third wife, in 1875, the law of 1862 was in force.

Mr. CANNON. Well, it was dead on our statute books.

Mr. TAYLER. The Supreme Court, in 1878, resurrected and revivi-
fied it, did it not?

Mr. CANNON. It did.

Mr. TAYLER. Then when you married the last three wives you mar-
ried them against the law as declared by statute and by the Supreme
Court?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you undertook, as you have described, to justify
your remaining with these wives, although the original relation came
'about by a violation of the written law?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cannon, are you familiar with the ceremonies
of the endowment house ?

Mr. CANNON. I have passed through the temple and the endowment
house.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any difference between the endowment
house and the temple ?

Mr. CANNON. One was a temporary structure; the other is a per-
manent structure.

The CHAIRMAN. The endowment house, I believe, was removed in
1890, was it?

Mr. CANNON. Somewhere about that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Somewhere about that time, I think Mr. Smith
said. The ceremony of the endowment house, however, has been
continued?

Mr. CANNON. The ceremonies of our temple have been continued.
The ceremonies of the temple were used in the endowment house.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the ceremonies that occurred in the endow-
ment house are now continued in the temple?

Mr. CANNON. They are.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you go through the endowment house,
or take these endowments, as they are called ?

Mr. CANNON. I went through ^there in 1859.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you witnessed the ceremony since that time?

Mr. CANNON. Oh, yes.

REED SMOOT. 791

The CHAIRMAN. How frequently ?•

Mr. CANNON. What ceremonies have you reference to ?

The CHAIRMAN. In the endowment house.

Mr. CANNON. They are varied, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any of them, or all of them?

Mr. CANNON. I have been through there very many times — very
many times.

The CHAIRMAN. The marriage ceremony and other ceremonies ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you witness the ceremony last in the
endowment house or in the temple?

Mr. CANNON. Well, the last "I have seen in the endowment house,
I think, was in 1883.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember the covenant you took when you
went through the endowment house ?

Mr. CANNON. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you state the ceremony?

Mr. CANNON. I would not like to.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not?

Mr. CANNON. Because it is of a religious character, and it is simply
an obligation that I enter into to be pure before my Maker, and worthy
of the attainment of my Redeemer, and the fellowship and love of my
children and their mothers, my departed ancestry, and my coming
descendants.

The CHAIRMAN. What objection is there to making that public?

Mr. CANNON. Because it is sacred.

The CHAIRMAN. How sacred ?

Mr. CANNON. It is simply a covenant that 1 enter into with my
Maker in private.

The CHAIRMAN. All the tenets of your religion are sacred, are they
not?

Mr. CANNON. Sir?

The CHAIRMAN. They are all sacred, are they not — the teachings ?

Mr. CANNON. All of those are sacred — yes; all of those things.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not quite understand why you should keep
them secret.

Mr. CANNON. It is because it is necessary to keep them secret. If
you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, we admit only the purest of our
people to enter there.

The CHAIRMAN. People like you and the president of the church? I
suppose the president of the church is admitted ?

Mr. CANNON. The presidency of the church, if he continues in good
standing, and our people whoever are in good standing and deemed
worthy to the proper recommends, are permitted to enter there.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you enter into any obligation not to reveal these
ceremonies ?

Mr. CANNON. I feel it would be very improper to reveal them.

The CHAIRMAN. I say, do you enter into an obligation not to?

Mr. CANNON. There are sacred obligations connected with all the
higher ordinances of our church.

The CHAIRMAN. In words, do you promise not to reveal?

Mr. CANNON. I feel that that is the trust reposed in me, that I will
not go and —

792 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 think you do not understand my question. Do
you promise specifically not to reveal what occurs in the endowment
house?

Mr. CANNON. I would rather not tell what occurs there. I say
this—

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Cannon, you do not understand me.
Do you promise not to reveal what occurs in the endowment house
when you go through?

Mr. CANNON. I feel that that is an obligation I take upon me when
I do that.

The CHAIRMAN. When you go thro.ugh the endowment house do
you take that obligation upon you in express terms?

Mr. CANNON. I think I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, do you know, whether you do or not?
Why do you take that obligation not to reveal these things ?

Mr. CANNON. Because we are — I do not want to be disrespectful to
this committee.
, The CHAIRMAN. I know you would not be.

Mr. CANNON. The Lord gave us to understand that we should not
make common the sacred things that he committed to his disciples.
He told them they must not do that lest they trample them under their
feet and rend them.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember whether there was any penalty
attached if they should reveal ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not remember that there is any penalty.

The CHAIRMAN. None whatever?

Mr. CANNON. I do not remember.

The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any change in the ceremony of the
endowment house since you went through in 1859, up to the present
time, that you are aware of ?

Mr. CANNON. No.

The CHAIRMAN. No change in the ceremony or obligations ?

Mr. CANNON. No.

Senator OVERMAN. Could a person be an apostle without going
through the endowment house ?

Mr. CANNON. Oh, yes.

Senator Ov ERMAN. Do you know whether the present twelve apostles
have gone through the endowment house ?

Mr. CANNON. I presume they have.
j Senator OVERMAN. You only presume they have ?
i Mr. CANNON. Yes.

I Senator OVERMAN. Have they or not; do you know?
* Mr. CANNON. I can not know a thing, only as 1 observe it, and I
presume they have passed through those ordinances.

Senator OVERMAN. The twelve apostles, as they are now constituted,
have all gone through?

Mr. CANNON. I presume they have.

Senator HOPKINS. Do laymen in the church go through the endow-
ment house?

Mr. CANNON. There are some that enter there.

Senator HOPKINS. Men and women both ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever witnessed a marriage ceremony in
the endowment house?

REED SMOOT. 793

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you describe that to the committee?

Mr. CANNON. Why, they simply take upon them the obligation to
be true to each other, husband and wife, and the blessing of the Lord
is pronounced upon them in their union by the officiating priest.

The CHAIRMAN. .Well, that is a very simple ceremony. That could
be performed anywhere. Is that all there is of it?

Mr. CANNON. That is all there is of it.

The CHAIRMAN. It differs, then, in no way from an ordinary marriage
in a private residence.

Mr. CANNON. Well, it differs somewhat from some other marriages.
I find most of the denominations have their marriage ceremonies dif-
ferent, one from another.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not think the witness understands your
question.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have you state, if you can, what
the ceremony is, if you feel at liberty to do so.

Mr. CANNON. I do not remember it.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not remember the ceremony ?

Mr. CANNON. I can not remember it.

The CHAIRMAN. You were not married in the temple in any of your
marriages? In any one of your six marriages, were you married in
the temple?

Mr. CANNON. No; not one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you married in the endowment house?

Mr. CANNON. One.

The CHAIRMAN. Which one?

Mr. CANNON. I was married to Martha Hughes.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not care, Mr. Cannon, about the name, if you
can tell the date.

Mr. CANNON. The 6th of October, 1884.

The CHAIRMAN. That marriage occurred in the endowment house.
Can you tell the committee the ceremony?

Mr. CANNON. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Why not?

Mr. CANNON. Because I can not remember it.

Senator OVERMAN. What do you mean by a sealing-for-eternity
ceremony?

Mr. CANNON. A marriage for eternity.

Senator OVERMAN. As different from a marriage upon this earth ?

Mr. CANNON. Sir?

Senator OVERMAN. Different from the ordinary marriage?

Mr. CANNON. Oh; there is a ceremony for marriage for time and
also for eternity.

Senator OVERMAN. Are your wives sealed to you for time or for
eternity ?

Mr. CANNON. Time and eternity.

Senator OVERMAN. Time and eternity both — all six of them?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Are there such marriages as sealing for time
and sealing for eternity, and some for time' and some for eternity?

Mr. CANNON. I have witnessed many marriages for time. I never
witnessed any for eternity and not for time.

Senator OVERMAN. Are there such marriages as that?

794 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CANNON. I can not say whether there are or not. Of course
there are marriages performed between living people and dead people,
by having persons act vicariously for the dead.

Senator OVERMAN. There are such marriages, then, with dead people ?

Mr. CANNON. That is necessarily for eternity. It can not be for
time.

Senator OVERMAN. I say, you do have such marriages as that?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. A living person marrying a dead person?

Mr. CANNON. By the dead person being represented by a living
person.

Senator OVERMAN. By having a representative here on earth he
marries a living person here ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; vicariously, the same as Paul spoke of bap-
tism for the dead.

Senator OVERMAN. Have you seen such marriages as that?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; acting for the dead.

Mr. TAYLER. That does not result in the marriage for time between
the proxy and the person who is married to the other for eternity
only, does it?

Mr. CANNON. No; it only relates to the dead.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you recall any instances in the history of the
church where the proxy vicariously representing the dead person has
insisted that for time the woman was his?

Mr. CANNON. No; I never heard of such a thing. We would cut
them off the church if they did.

Mr. TAYLER. I would think so. That is all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cannon, if you will step this way the clerk will
arrange with you for expenses. Do the attorneys desire this witness
further?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We do not.

Mr. TAYLER. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would rather not take up
the next witness until to-morrow.

The CHAIRMAN. It is nearly 4 o'clock. The committee will adjourn,
then, until to-morrow morning at half past 10.

The committee, at 3 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m., adjourned until
Friday, April 22, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 82, 1904.

The committee met 10. 30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), McComas, Foraker, Hop-
kins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senator Smoot; also
R. W. Tayler, counsel for protestants; A. S. Worthington and Walde-
mar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S. Richards,
counsel for certain witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, who is your witness this morning?

Mr. TAYLER. Judge Powers.

REED SMOOT. 795

TESTIMONY OF ORLANDO W. POWERS.

ORLANDO W. POWERS, being first duly sworn, was examined, and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mr. Powers?

Mr. POWERS. At Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived there ?

Mr. POWERS. With the exception of the year intervening between
about the first of September, 1886, and the first of September, 1887, 1
have lived there continuously since May, 1885, about nineteen years.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did you live prior to going to the Territory?

Mr. POWERS. At Kalamazoo, Mich.

Mr. TAYLER. How did you come to go to Utah ?

Mr. POWERS. I was appointed by President Cleveland associate jus-
tice of the supreme court of Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. And immediately went to Utah and took up the duties
to which you were appointed?

Mr. POWERS. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the year of your appointment?

Mr. POWERS. 1885.

Mr. TAYLER. And you continued to act as judge until what time?

Mr. POWERS. Until the middle of August, 1886.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you left the Territory for a year and returned,
and have ever since lived there?

Mr. POWERS. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. You have been living in Salt Lake City and practicing
law all the time?

Mr. POWERS. Continuously since September, 1887.

Mr. TAYLER. I assume, from the origin of your appointment, that
you are a Democrat ?

Mr. POWERS. I am a Democrat.

Mr. TAYLER. At the time that you went to Utah prosecutions under
the Edmunds Act were going on, I suppose?

Mr. POWERS. At that time they had just begun enforcing the
Edmunds Act.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you sit in cases in which those prosecutions were
being conducted?

Mr. POWERS. I did.

Mr. TAYLER. Were there very many of them ?

Mr. POWERS. During my incumbency upon the bench I should say
approximately 100 in my court.

Mr. TAYLER. Prosecutions for what?

Mr. POWERS. For polygamous cohabitation, and also for polygamy.

Mr. TAYLER. Was Lorenzo Snow prosecuted before you?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. TAYLER. That was the case in which he was convicted?

Mr. POWERS. That was the case.

Mr. TAYLER. During the time that you—

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask the judge what position in the church
Snow held at that time ?

Mr. POWERS. He was one of the twelve apostles.

Senator DUBOIS. Was he afterwards president of the church?

Mr. POWERS. He was afterwards president of the church.

796 HEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLEK. I believe he was sent to the penitentiary ?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. TAYLER. By you ?

Mr. POWERS. By me.

The CHAIRMAN. And was made president of the church after his
conviction and sentence?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. TAYLER. During your incumbency as judge, did you hear appli-
cations for naturalization?

Mr. POWERS. I did. While I was associate justice of the supreme
court, I was ex officio judge of the first judicial district, which included
the city of Ogden and the city of Proyo, the Salt Lake district cutting
that district in two, Judge Zane's district being between Provo and
Ogden.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have occasion to refuse naturalization to
applicants on account of their apparent allegiance to some other author-
ity than the United States?

Mr. POWERS. I did.

Mr. TAYLER. Was that frequent or infrequent?

Mr. POWERS. I could not say that that was frequent. I have one
particular case in mind which arose at Provo, and following that case
I examined the applicants with more care, and refused some after that.

Mr. TAYLER. If this case at Provo was typical, and you recall the
incidents, state briefly what they were.

Mr. POWERS. As 1 recall the name, and my memory is faulty with
regard to names, it was Niels Hansen. Upon interrogating him as to
his familiarity with our laws and our Constitution I drew from him
the statement that he was a member of the Mormon Church, so called,
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I interrogated him
as to whether, in the event the rules of the church and the wishes of
the authorities of the church should run counter to or be in conflict
with the laws of the United States, which he would obey, and he told
me that he would obey the church. I then explained the matter to
him, so as to make sure that he understood me, but as he continued so
to state I declined to give him citizenship, and filed a written opinion
on the subject..

Mr. TAYLER. Judge Powers, have you made a study, historical^,
of the political conditions in Utah from the beginning — the develop-
ment of parties, what they stood for, and so on ?

Mr. POWERS. I have.

Mr. TAYLER. I think it will aid us if I ask you merely to state what
you know about that subject, and not interrupt you by constant ques-
tioning about it.

Senator DUBOIS. Before the judge goes to that, if it will not dis-
turb him, I should like to ask a question. I understand him to say
that he had cases before him for polygamous cohabitation and polyg-
amy. Were any convictions secured for the crime of polygamy?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. How many ?

Mr. POWERS. I recall specifically one, but I have an impression of
two.

Senator DUBOIS. Of two?

Mr. POWERS. Two or three.

Senator DUBOIS. Wiry were there not more, if you know?

i

EEED SMOOT. 797

Mr. POWERS. Because it is a hard offense to prove. At that time
such marriages took place in secret. There was no marriage law in
the Territory whatever and it was next to impossible to prove the
marriage ceremony.

Senator DUBOIS. So that all of these other convictions were for
unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. POWERS. They were.

Senator DUBOIS. That is all.

Mr. POWERS. Many, of course, under the plea of guilty; they were
not all trials.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, you may proceed, in answer to the attor-
ney's question.

Mr. POWERS. In order to make myself understood, possibly 1 should
say that from the earliest history of the Mormon Church it has been
more or less a political institution. In the time of Joseph, the Prophet,
he was a candidate for President upon the platform of free trade and
sailors' rights.

Mr. TAYLER. President of the United States?

Mr. POWERS. President of the United States. His apostles took the
stump on his behalf through different sections of the country. At
that time the Mormon people were all Democrats. As late as 1894
Mr. \V illiam Gill Mills, then a leading citizen of Salt Lake City, pro-
cured and published statements from three citizens of Tooele County,
Utah, who were acquainted with the Prophet Joseph in his lifetime
and with the political conditions that existed at the time that he was
a candidate for the Presidency; and their statements I think have been
substantially incorporated in Mr. Roberts's History of Utah. They
stated that at that time they were all Democrats; that with the excep-
tion of the prophet voting for a man by the name of Walker, for whom
he had promised to vote, there were no Republican ballots cast in the
election of that fall, and just prior to the election the Prophet Joseph
stated in a meeting that his brother Hyrum had had a revelation that
the people should all vote the Democratic ticket, and he said ' ' Hyrum
never has a false revelation, but I am bound to vote for Walker."
The prophet had had some trouble with the Democratic assessor, and
Walker, who I understand was a lawyer, had aided him at a time when
he needed assistance.

After the migration into Utah there were no national party politics
for a long time. Most of the members of the Mormon Church in the
early days were American born, but latterly the ranks have been
largely recruited from foreign nations. They landed in Utah with
more or less bitterness in their hearts, and they had cause for it. They
had left the grave of their murdered prophet. Naturally, they would
take very little interest in our national politics under those circum-
stances.

Their church organization is the most complete and perfect organi-
zation that I am cognizant of, and the officers of the Territory who
were elected in the early days were selected by the leading officials of
the church. Prior to the formation of what was known as the Liberal
party — and I should say right here that the Liberal party was a party
in Utah composed entirely of gentiles— the People's Party was a party
composed entirely of Mormons —

Mr. TAYLER. W hen was that organized ?

Mr. POWERS. The Liberal party was organized in 1870. The peo-

798 REED SMOOT.

pie then divided upon religious lines, and the political contests were
waged along those lines, which naturally tended to create bitterness,
because the two systems are entirely antagonistic.

From the election of the first Delegate to Congress, John M. Bern-
heisel, in 1851, down to the organization of the Liberal party in 1870,
I do not think there was a single vote ever cast in opposition to the
candidate of the People's Party. I have a memorandum of the votes
with me, if you desire to refer to it.

Mr. TAYLER. I should like to have it go in the record, if it will not
take too long.

Mr. POWERS. In 1851 John M. Bernheisel was elected to Congress
by 1,259 votes, and no opposition. On August 1, 1853, Bernheisel was
reelected without opposition. In 1855 Bernheisel received 2,005 votes;
no opposition.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That was after the organization of the Liberal
party?

Mr. POWERS. No, sir. In 1857 Bernheisel was reelected by 2,298
votes without opposition. In 1859, William H. Hooper was elected
Delegate to Congress by 5,521 votes — no opposition. In 1861, John
M. Bernheisel was reelected Delegate to Congress by 3,081 votes — no
opposition. In 1863, John F. Kinney was elected Delegate by 8,300
votes without opposition. In 1865, William H. Hooper was elected
by 15,431 votes and no opposition. In 186Y, William H. Hooper was
reelected Delegate bj- 16,169 votes and no opposition.

In 1870 the Liberal party or Gentile party was organized. William
H. Hooper was the candidate of the People's Party for Delegate, and
George F. Maxwell was the candidate of the Liberal party.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, will you please, as two members of the com-
mittee have just come in, explain again the difference between the
Liberal party and the People's Party.

Mr. POWERS. The People's Party was composed entirely of mem-
bers of the Mormon Church, and was known as the Church party.
The Liberal party, organized in 1870, was composed entirely of non-
Mormons or gentiles, or outsiders as they are sometimes called in
Utah.

In 1870 Mr. Hooper received 21,656 votes and George F. Maxwell
received 1,444 votes, Hooper's majority being 20,212. In 1872 George
Q. Cannon was nominated by the People's Party. Mr. Maxwell was
renominated by the Liberal party. Cannon received 20,969 votes,
Maxwell 1,942 votes, Cannon's majority being 19,027. In 1874 George
Q. Cannon was renominated by the People's Party for Delegate, and
Robert N. Baskin, a very prominent gentile, was nominated by the
Liberal party. Cannon received 22,360 votes, while Baskin received
4,513 votes, Cannon's majority being 17,847.

In 1876 George Q. Cannon was renominated by the People's Party
and Robert N. Baskin by the Liberal party. Robert N. Baskin, in
national politics, was known as a Democrat. Cannon received 21,534
votes, Baskin 3,812 votes, Cannon's majority being 17,692.

In 1878 Mr. Cannon was the only candidate before the people, being
the candidate of the People's Party, and he received 14,221 votes.

In 1880 Mr. Cannon was renominated, and A. G. Campbell, a lead-
ing gentile and prominent mining man, was nominated by the Liberal
party. Mr. Cannon received 18,568 votes, Mr. Campbell 1,357 votes,
Cannon's majority being 17,211.

REED SMOOT. 799

At that time the contest was made against Mr. Cannon in the House
of Representatives.

In 1882 John T. Caine was nominated by the People's Party, and
P. T. Van Zile, now of Detroit, Mich., who went to Utah as United
States district attorney, was nominated by the Liberal party. At that
time the women voted. Caine received 22,727 votes, Van Zile 4,884
votes, Caine's majority being- 17,843. I should say that in national
politics Van Zile was a Republican.

In 1884 John T. Caine was renorninated by the People's Party, and
Capt. Ransford Smith, a Democrat in national politics, a gentile, of
Ogden, was nominated by the Liberal party. John T. Caine received
21,120 votes, Smith 2,214 votes, Caine's majority being 18,906.

In 1886 the Liberals or the gentiles of the Territory determined to
take a new tack. The Mormons were all claiming to be Democrats in
national politics; that is, nearly all.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to inquire, before you go to that sub-
ject, whether these various candidates whom you have mentioned from
the beginning, who were elected by these majorities, were Mormons?

Mr. POWERS. They were all Mormons.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was Kinney a Mormon ?

Mr. POWERS. No; Kinney was not.

The CHAIRMAN. All but Kinney ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to ask }^ou, if it will not interrupt you,
what became of the contest which was made against George Q. Cannon ?

Mr. POWERS. 1 understand he lost his seat in Congress.

Senator DUBOIS. What was the ground of the contest?

Mr. POWERS. The ground of the contest was that he was a polyga-
mist.

Senator DUBOIS. When was this contest?

Mr. POWERS. My recollection is that it was in 1880.

Senator DUBOIS. That was before the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker

-tiLCL .

Mr. TAYLER. The Edmunds Act.

Senator DUBOIS. The Edmunds Act?

Mr. POWERS. The Edmunds Act.

Mr. TAYLER. How were these various Mormon candidates for Dele-
gate nominated, if you know?

Mr. POWERS. My information, gleaned from the best sources from
which I have been able to obtain it, is that they were selected by the
church leaders.

Mr. TAYLER. That is—

Mr. POWERS. Sometimes a convention would be held, and 1 know of
no contests in the conventions.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you may proceed, Judge.

Mr. POWERS. I was about to say that the Liberals concluded to take
a new tack, the great majority of the Mormons contending they were
Democrats. Residing at Park City was a very eminent Democrat, a
mining man, a most excellent' citizen, Hon. William M. Ferry, a
brother of Hon. Thomas Ferry, formerly of Michigan, and formerly
President of the Senate. John T. Caine was nominated by the People's
Party and William M. Ferry was nominated as a Democrat and no
Liberal candidate was put in the field. Caine received 19,605 votes,
Ferry received 2,810 votes, John T. Caine's majority being 16,795.

800 . REED SMOOT.

In 1888 many of the younger and more independent Mormons were
becoming restless and were desirous of taking part in national party
politics, and there was organized that year what was known as the
Sage Brush Democracy. The name was given to them at the outset
as a slur, but they accepted the name. Hon. S. R. Thurman, of Provo,
a very able lawyer and a fine gentleman, a very good member of the
Mormon Church, who has been honored b}7 his church by being sent
on a mission to Europe, and who has held official positions, elected by
the people, was one of the leaders of that movement. He was nomi-
nated by the Sage Brush Democracy for Congress, and he made a
campaign. John T. Caine was nominated by the People's Party In
national politics John T. Caine was then and is now a Democrat.
Robert N. Baskin, who was then and is now in national politics a
Democrat, was nominated by the Liberal party. Caine received 10,127
votes, Baskin 3,494, Thurman (Sage Brush) 511, Caine having 6,633
plurality. The Sage Brush Democracy then went out of business.

Senator FORAKER. There seems to have been a pretty light vote cast
that year in comparison with the vote of other years that you have
given. What was the occasion for it?

Mr. POWERS. One reason was that under the Edmunds Act the women
were not permitted to vote. Prior to the passage of the Edmunds Act
we had woman's suffrage, as we have now again, and that accounts for
the reduction in the vote all around.

Senator FORAKER. This was the first vote after that?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. That year Baskin polled a larger vote upon the
Liberal ticket than had ever been polled, except when the women voted.

In the winter of 1889 the Liberals, after a very active campaign,
carried the city of Ogden at the municipal election by something over
400 votes. In Weber County, which is the county in which Ogden is
situated, in Salt Lake County, in Summit County, the Liberal vote was
increasing rapidly, owing largely to the influx of population from the
East. The Liberals carried the city of Ogden at the municipal elec-
tion, and that gave courage to the Liberals of Salt Lake City, and in
the early spring of 1889 a large number of young men, Democrats and
Republicans — gentiles — united in an organization called the Young
Men's Liberal Club, at Salt Lake City, and began a campaign for the
purpose of carrying the city of Salt Lake. They honored me by select-
ing me as the chairman of the Liberal city committee.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you before that time held any official position in
connection with the party organization?

Mr. POWERS. 1 had prior to that time been chairman of the Lib-
eral State committee. I was, during the campaign known as the " Sage
Brush campaign," and was in 1889 chairman of the Liberal State com-
mittee.

The Liberals of Salt Lake City began a very thorough organiza-
tion, basing it largely upon the plan of the Mormon Church. It had
its city central committee, its superintendents of ecclesiastical wards, its
president over each ward, its leader upon each block, and then it
turned to Indiana as an example and divided its voters into blocks of
10, with a captain over each 10, having 440 captains of tens prior to
the municipal election.

The parties came together at the election on August 4, 1889. There
was an election for members of the legislative council, certain county
officers, and, to the surprise of the gentiles of Salt Lake City, when the

EEED SMOOT. 801

votes were counted up that night they had 41 majority in the cit}T of
Salt Lake.

Digressing now from this, I call attention to the fact that prior to this
time it was nothing unusual for the leaders of the Mormon Church to
take an active part and speak in their ecclesiastical capacity to the
voters of the People's Party. While I was chairman of the' Liberal
party in 1889, of the State organization, there was a man of an independ
ent frame of mind by the name of Don C. Bobbins, from Huntington.
Emery County, in the ninth council district, who offered himself as
an independent candidate, and issued what he called his declaration of
independence against church interference in political affairs.

Shortly prior to the election Apostle John Henry Smith visited Mr.
Hobbins's council district and in a public speech to the members of the
People's Party he told them that he was there in his capacity as apostle,
and to say to them to vote the People's ticket. That is the substance.
His remarks may be found in the report of the governor of Utah to
the Secretary of the Interior for the j^ear 1889. That same year there
was a contest in Davis County, which is the county north of Salt Lake
County. Two men were candidates for selectmen, both Mormons, and
I should say that Robbins was a Mormon. Shortly prior to the elec-
tion George Q. Cannon, who held no political position whatever,
appeared in Davis County and advised the people to vote the straight
ticket, to vote for those whom God wanted. That is also found in the
report of the governor of Utah to the Secretary of the Interior for
the year 1889.

The CHAIRMAN. Did Cannon at that time hold an official position in
the church?

Mr. POWERS. He was an apostle at that time, I believe. Let me
see. [After a pause.] Or a councilor.

Senator HOPKINS. Did he profess to speak for the church, or simply
to give his individual views?

Mr. POWERS. Let me refer to that. He said:

"Now, brethren "-

Senator FORAKER. What are you reading from ?

Mr. POWERS. From the report of the governor of Utah to the Sec
retary of the Interior for 1889, page 28.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who was the governor?

Mr. POWERS. The governor was Arthur L. Thomas, now postmaster
of Salt Lake City.

"Now, brethren, you will shortly have an election here. How will
you act? After the order of the world, to stir up strife and conten-
tion, or will you do it after the order of God, and elect the men whom
God wants?"'

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What page do you read from ?

Mr. POWERS. Page 28. About that time, and in 188T, it was
deemed —

Senator FORAKER. Before you pass away from that there is a little
difference of opinion here as to whose language that is. Is that the
language of the governor?

Mr. POWERS. That is the language of George Q. Cannon, quoted by
the governor.

Senator FORAKER. Somebody suggested that it was the language of
the governor.

Mr. POWERS. No.

s 51

802 KEED SMOOT.

Senator FORAKER. The governor simply quotes Mr. Cannon's lan-
guage.

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Senator FORAKER. On what occasion did Mr. Cannon use that lan-
guage ?

Mr. POWERS. In the campaign in Davis County.

Senator FORAKER. Was it in a public speech?

Mr. POWERS. In a public speech.

Senator FORAKER. While he was making a canvass?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There were two Mormon candidates for the
same office?

Mr. POWERS. There were two Mormon candidates for the same
office, one being the nominee of the church party and the other being
an independent candidate.

Senator FORAKER. I understand.

Mr. POWERS. In 1887 the Mormons were taken to task who advo-
cated obedience to the laws of Congress and who opposed church inter-
ference. One case with which I am familiar is that of Joseph Dan
Jones, of Provo, and I have the original papers in his case. They are
brief, and they state the matter more clearly than I could state them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What is the name?

Mr. POWERS. Joseph Dan Jones.

The CHAIRMAN. Please read them.

Mr. POWERS. I first read the complaint or summons, signed by J. E.
Booth, bishop of the Fourth Ward of Provo City, who is now a district
judge of Utah, of the Fourth judicial district. I beg to read these
because they are the original papers and I desire to retain them.

"PROVO CITY, UTAH, January 1%, 1887.
"JOSEPH D. JONES, Esq., Provo.

"DEAR SIR: I have learned from sources that are considered reliable
that you have identified yourself with an organization known as the
Loyal League of Utah, and as some of their principles are in direct
opposition to some of the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints — for instance, the principle of celestial marriage and
local self-government — and as you are an officer in the said church I
consider that it is inconsistent to hold both positions.

"Now, 1 do not question your right to belong to either party, but
1 do your consistency to belong to both. I shall be pleased to have
you exercise your choice and decide which side you will take,. and shall
be pleased to hear from you at your earliest convenience.
"Yours, truly,

" J. E. BOOTH,
' ' Bishop, Fourth Ward, Provo City.

"Received 15th day of January, 1887.

" J. D. JONES."

The answer of Mr. Jones to Bishop Booth is as follows:

"PROVO CITY, January 15, 1887.
" J. E. BOOTH,

"BisTwp, Fourth Ward, Provo City.

"DEAR SIR: In answer to your note of the 12th instant, requesting
my resignation as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-

EEEB SMOOT. 803

Day Saints, for the reason, as set forth in your note, that I am a mem-
ber of the Loyal League of Utah, and giving as your reason that some
of the principles of the league are in direct opposition to some of the
principles of the church, I think you are mistaken as to the principles
of the league, some of which are, as I understand them to be, opposed
to the political control and law-defined practices of this or any other
church. And further, we recognize the laws of Congress, made in
pursuance of the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, and
advocate obedience to the same, anything in the laws of any State,;
Territory, or church to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Believing these to be the true principles of civil government, I
feel justified in advocating the same, with malice to none. If from
this explanation you find that I have violated any tenet of the above
church, or that it is inconsistent for me to remain a member, you will
please erase my name from the church records.

" With the best of feeling, I remain,

" Yours, truly, J. D. JONES."

The next paper appears to be a citation from the high council of the
Utah stake of Zion.

" In the high council of Utah stake of Zion. In the matter of the fel-
lowship of Joseph Dan Jones, of Provo, Fourth Ward. Citation.

" The high council of the Utah stake of Zion send greeting to Joseph
Dan Jones, esq.

' ' You are hereby cited to be and appear before said council, at the
council room in the stake house, Provo City, Utah County, Territory
of Utah, on Friday, the 2d day of November, A. D. 1888, at 7 o'clock
p. m. of that day, and then and there to show cause, if any you have,
why the decision of the bishop's court of Provo, Fourth Ward, dated
March 17, 1887, withdrawing the hand of fellowship from you, should
not be sustained, and that you be excommunicated from the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

" Witness: Abraham O. Smoot, president of the high council of the
Utah stake of Zion, this 31st day of October, A. D. 1888.

4 'JAMES W. BEAN, Clerk."
The decree is. as follows:

"PROVO CITY, UTAH, January 3, 1890.

u At a meeting of the high council of the Utah stake of Zion held
on the above date, on motion of Charles D. Glazier, the rules were
suspended, and Joseph D. Jones, of the Fourth Ward, Provo City,
of this stake, be, and is hereby, excommunicated from the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, for apostasy.

"V. L. HALLIDAT,
" Clerk of the High Council."

The CHAIRMAN. Did this loyal league which has been referred to
stand for anything more than obedience to the laws and noninterfer-
ence by the church in public affairs ?

Mr. POWEES. I know of no other purpose of the organization.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are its principles printed ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes ; they were at that time. I have not them with me.

804 REED SMOOT.

Senator McCoMAS. Was there any appeal from that order to any
higher authority ?

Mr. POWERS. There was not. That was the end of the case. Mr.
Jones seemed to be satisfied with the result.

It was not an unusual thing prior to 1890 for the various city coun-
cils of the various cities of the Territory to refer matters that were
properly within their province to high church officials and to the stake
presidencies of their respective stakes. Take the history of Salt Lake
City.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the civil council?

Mr. POWERS. In civil matters.

Mr. TAYLER. And the civil authorities ?

Mr. POWERS. And the civil authorities referred these matters to the
church authorities.

I recall an. incident from the city of Provo that occurred about the
time of this Jones matter. The question was up before the city
council as to whether they would prohibit the sale of liquor, and they
referred the matter to the church high council. The high council
took action upon it and voted upon it and decided to sustain the city
council, and the special committee of the city council to whom the
matter was referred, who had sent it over to the high council of
the stake, reported back to the municipal authorities the action of the
high council of the stake.

So, too, at the very inception of the organization of the various
cities in the Territory the civil business of the cities was so inter-
mingled with the action of the church authorities that it is no wonder
that many of the people feel that the church authorities have a right
to take part in their ecclesiastical positions in political affairs.

After the Liberal Party had secured control of the city of Salt Lake,
1 procured an investigation to be made of the city records, which had
been written up by the Mormon city recorders from the earliest time,
and from those records I prepared a paper showing the close inter-
mingling of ecclesiastical affairs with the municipal affairs of that city.
Some of the instances come to my mind.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you make this examination yourself?

Mr. POWERS. It was made under my direction. 1 did not do all the
manual work myself, but as chairman of the Liberal city committee
the examination was made under my direction, and the records are
there and the excerpts were made from them, and I can give you the
pages of the record if you want references.

Brigham Young was not a member of the Salt Lake City council,
but frequently the city council of Salt Lake City would hold its meet-
ings in his office, in the office of the first presidency. He organized
the police force of Salt Lake City, and upon the records of the city of
Salt Lake is an abstract of the address which he delivered to the police
force, instructing them as to their duties, among other things saying
to them it was an office which required more wisdom than had ever
been displayed by any President of the United States.

The fire departments of the city of Salt Lake were, by direction of
the city council, organized by the bishops of the ecclesiastical wards.
The bishops of the ecclesiastical wards were empowered to collect the
land taxes of the city. The bishops of the ecclesiastical wards were
in control of much of the public land of the city.

The leading officials of the church seem to have had access to the

REED SMOOT. 805

city's treasury. On one occasion Brigham Young borrowed from the
city of Salt Lake $10,000. I think that was in 1871. On another
occasion he borrowed $2,000. In 1873 he borrowed $14,000. The
records show that other leading church officials at times borrowed
from the city.

The city of Salt Lake at that time ran a saloon — a city saloon. It
had a city billiard hall. It had a city bathing establishment. It ran
a distillery. Its recorder kept an account with the trustee in trust for
the Mormon Church, which trustee was credited with tithing — and the
tithing, by the way, is the 10 per cent that good Mormons are supposed
to pay into the church — due from the various church officials, and they
were charged with liquor, and for bathing, and for things of that kind.

At the occasion of the dedication of the first city hall of Salt Lake
City the leaders of the Mormon Church were invited, as they were to
the~ dedication of the second city hall. There have been three city
halls built there, and the speeches that they made indicated an inter-
mingling of affairs of church and of state. So that condition of affairs
continued, and there was really no separation of church and state.

In the Mormon Church almost every man above 21 years of age
has some church position; a position of some kind. There must be
thirty or thirty-five thousand church officials in the State of Utah; a
large number.

Now, in 1890 the Sagebrush Democrats had gone out of business.
They were discouraged by the small number of votes they had received
and the contest was again between the People's Party and the Liberal
party. John T. Caine was the candidate of the People's Party and
C. C. Goodwin, the then editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, a Republi-
can and gentile newspaper, was the candidate of the Liberal party.

Mr. TAYLER. For what office ?

Mr. POWERS. Delegate to Congress. Caine received 16,343 votes,
Goodwin, 6,912; Caine's majority being 9,431.

In that campaign the Liberals were very active. They went all over
the Territory. Where they could not obtain a hall to address the peo-
ple and where the people would not come out to listen to them — because
in those early days the Mormons did not like to listen to us — we held
our meetings in the public streets. We took with us a drum corps, to
attract attention, after the plan of the Salvation Army. We would
march up the streets of a town, set our drum corps going, attract the
attention of the people, and they would come out and stand in line on
the opposite side of the road. But we talked to them and we made an
active campaign, and the tenor of Judge Goodwin's remarks to them
through that campaign was the desire to make the Territory like the
rest of the nation.

The election of August, 1889, in Salt Lake County, at which time
the Liberals carried the city by 41 majority, was followed up by the
most remarkable campaign ever held there or anywhere else. As I
say, I was then chairman of the Liberal party, and my friend, the hon-
orable Franklin S. Richards was chairman of the city committee of the
People's* Party.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When was this?

Mr. POWERS. In the fall of 1889 and the beginning of 1890, the
election being in February, 1890.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you stated that Caine was an adherent of the
Mormon Church ?

806 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWEKS. Yes, sir; John T. Caine belonged to the Mormon
Church. Both the People's Part}r and the Liberal party put forth the
most strenuous exertions in that campaign. I think both parties took
a canvass of the city as often as every two weeks; at least the Liberal
party did. A man could not remain in the city much more than two
weeks before both sides knew who he was, where he was from, and
what he was doing there.

As a result of that campaign the Liberals elected George M. Scott,
a Liberal, mayor of the city, and the entire city ticket and city coun-
cil, Mr. Scott's majority being 820.

Immediately after, the talk of dividing on party lines became more
pronounced, and in the year 1891 the voters began, although it had
its inception, I think, back in the fall of 1890, to talk about it; that the
time had come when Utah should have a different form of government;
when the people were far enough advanced to take part in national
politics. But as was stated by my friend Roberts in his testimony,
the large majority of the people of Utah at that time were exactly in
the same condition he stated he was. They went to Utah without
knowing a thing about the principles of the Democratic party or of
the Republican party. The great proportion of them came from the
Old World, unacquainted with our institutions and unacquainted with
our system of government. They were taken out there to Utah, awa}7
from these great cities of the East, where their immediate associates
were members of the Mormon Church, and where they were taught to
look up to and to follow the leaders of the Mormon Church.

The Mormon Church alwa}7s impresses upon its followers the neces-
sity for unity — unity of action; the necessity of obeying counsel; the
propriety of following your file leader; of not questioning that which
may be said to you by men claiming to be inspired.

Those people had had no training in our politics. They had not, as
Mr. Roberts said, a clear conception of the principles dividing the two
great parties, and very little conception of the fundamental principles
of the National Government. They had been taught to vote the Peo-
ple's ticket and to vote it straight, and to vote for the men on the ticket
without question, because that was the church ticket.

However, many Democrats and Republicans, Gentiles, began to feel
that they ought to divide upon party lines. There had been a skele-
ton organization of the two national parties for national purposes only.
The Republicans at an early day had organized the Republican party
in the Territory, and the Democrats had organized the Democratic
party in the Territory, but the Mormon people had not taken part in
those conventions with the exception of one time.

We had a Democratic convention up at Ogden to elect delegates to
the national convention. The Mormons had not sent delegates to those
conventions, and, to our surprise, the day before our convention was
held at Ogden all over the Territory Democrats sprang up as thick as
mushrgoms in the spring.

Senator McCoMAS. What year was that? t

Mr. POWERS. I will have to refresh my memory about that. It was
in 1888, if that was the Presidential year. They went to Ogden and
claimed they were Democrats. We had a contest. The Gentiles were
too much for them. They then went off by themselves and held a con-
vention of their own and elected a contesting delegation to the national
convention.

REED SMOOT. 807

With the exception of that time I do not know of any other time
when they took part in national politics until after 1890. As I say,
both parties had these skeleton organizations and would elect delegates
to the national conventions quadrennially. Many of the Gentiles
believed that the time had not come to divide on party lines, and I was
one of them.

The Liberal party was not disbanded when the People's Party dis-
banded, but continued until the fall of 1893 and elected members to
the Territorial legislature. I was elected to that legislature that fall
as a Liberal. Thereafter the Liberal party dissolved, and I acted
through the session with the Democrats of that body, joining in with
the other gentile and Mormon Democrats who had been elected.

There was a great deal of talk — it became a matter of public history—
that at the time the People's Party disbanded it disbanded under the
direction of men holding high positions in the People's Party and high
positions in the Mormon Church. There was a meeting at what was
called the Gardo House. The Gardo House is sometimes called the
Amelia Palace. It was built by Brigham Young for his favorite wife,
so-called, Amelia. At that meeting there was a discussion concerning
the dissolution of the People's Party. There were present from dif-
ferent sections of Utah high church officials who were members of the
People's Party. Apostles were there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you there ?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I thought not. Let me ask you, were the pro-
ceedings of that meeting reported?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. They are a matter of common knowledge. I
oan refer you to them, if you like, or the substance. At any rate, it
was where the party was dissolved.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I should like to have a reference to the place
where it is stated.

Mr. POWERS (to Mr. Tayler.) Give me that large book.

The CHAIRMAN. In what year was that?

Mr. POWERS. In 1891.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I ask about this because my information is that
the party was not dissolved.

Mr. POWERS. That it was not dissolved in 1891 ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That it was not dissolved at that meeting. You
stated it as a matter of history, and it is a matter of history which I
am informed is controverted. I want to know what your authority is.

Mr. POWERS. My authority is the speeches made by Heber J. Grant
and John Henry Smith and Joseph F. Smith on~May 3, 1896, at
Logan. , At that meeting it was deemed advisable to disband the
People's Party. Joseph F. Smith said "it was attended by many of
the authorities "

Mr. TAYLER. What was attended?

Mr. POWERS. The meeting at the Gardo House.

The CHAIRMAN. You are now about to quote from Joseph F. Smith's
speech made in 1896 ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir; 1896.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do you read from ?

Mr. POWERS. From the report of that meeting which appeared in
the Salt Lake papers of May 10, 1896, this particular report being a
report from the Salt Lake Tribune. It has been published. It has

808 KEED SMOOT.

been referred to by writers. I do not know whether it is contro-
verted or not.

He stated in the meeting at Logan that at the Gardo House meeting
"it was plainly stated that men in high authority, who

believed in Republican principles, should go out among the people,
but that those in high authority who could not indorse the principles
of Republicanism should remain silent." I know this of my own
knowledge; that there were men in Utah, when we came to divide upon
party lines who, for years, I knew, claimed to be Democrats, who sud-
denly were Republicans. John Graham, of Provo, published a paper
down there. He claimed to run a Democratic newspaper while I was
there on the bench in 1886, and after I began the practice of the law.
There was another newspaper published also in that city which claimed
to be a Democratic paper. When we came to divide on party lines,
John Graham suddenly discovered that he was a Republican and began
running a Republican paper, and the other paper continued Demo-
cratic. So in Logan. There were two Democratic papers up there,
but one of them became Republican.

In 1892 Joseph L. Rawlins was nominated by the Democratic party
for Delegate to Congress. Joseph L. Rawlins many of you know.
He is a man who was born in Utah and raised in Utah; a most excel-
lent character, a sterling man of great ability.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Judge, if you will pardon me, it will be nec-
essar}7 to suspend at this point on account of the session of the Senate.
1 should like, however, to ask you one question about the change in the
political character of those papers. Was that unusual ?

Mr. POWERS. My experience has been that it is unusual. I have
been an earnest advocate of Democratic principles all my life. I have
been a missionary in the cause; I have labored on the stump and 1
have labored with them individually and I never was able to convert
a man between sunset and sunrise.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you account for that change, or have you
not any theory?

Mr. POWERS. I account for it in this way: That they were set
apart, part of them to be Republicans and part of them to be Demo-
crats— the sheep from the goats.

Senator DUBOIS. Set apart by the church officials ?

Mr. POWERS. Set apart by the church officials.

The CHAIRMAN. Set apart by the church officials ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Thereupon (at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m.) the committee took
a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Powers, you may, if you please, resume your
statement where you left off when the committee took its recess.

TESTIMONY OF ORLANDO W. POWERS— Continued.

ORLANDO W. POWERS, having been previously sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:

Mr. POWERS. Mr. Chairman, if I conveyed the impression in my
testimony this morning that the People's Party dissolved at the Gardo

REED 8MOOT.

House meeting, I desire to correct it. I did not intend to say that it
there dissolved. My intention was to state that it virtually was agreed
upon there that the People's Party should dissolve. The action by
which the party was dissolved was taken on the 10th day of June, 1901,
when the People's Party Territorial central committee met at Salt
Lake City and adopted certain resolutions, iind I will say that on pages
45 to 58, inclusive, of the report of Arthur L. Thomas, Governor of
Utah, to the Secretary of the Interior for the year 1891, there may
be found all the various resolutions that were adopted by the People's
Party, by the Liberal party, by the Democratic party, and by the
Republican party pending the division upon party lines, giving the
dates also.

I desire also to state that in connection with the testimony that I have

fiven to the effect that the church leaders have claimed the right to
irect in temporal matters as well as spiritual, I want to make refer-
ence to the Doctrine and Covenants, section 1, verse 38, where it is
said:

"Whether by my own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is
the same."

And also to the Doctrine and Covenants on page 248, verse 4, whe- e
it is stated:

"And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy
Ghost shall be Scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the
mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice
of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

And also to the work that was introduced in evidence, written by
Orson Pratt, and to a case before the supreme court of Utah, entitled
"The United States, complainant, against the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints and others, respondents," which is found in 5 Utah,
on page 367, and which was a case in which there was a praj^er for a
decree f of eiting the charter and dissolving the corporation of the Mor-
mon Church under the act of Congress of March 3, 1887. Chief
Justice Zane, a distinguished jurist, speaking for the court, found as
a matter of fact certain things, among others being this paragraph,
speaking of the Mormon Church:

"This corporation, at the time of its organization, embraced nine-
tenths of the inhabitants of the Territory, many thousands of people.
At the present time it includes probably more than 120,000, and if in
the future people should continue to be gathered in from all quarters
of the globe as they have in the past their number at no distant day
will reach a quarter of a million. The corporation extends over the
whole Territory, including numerous congregations in various locali-
ties. At the head of this corporate body, according to the faith pro-
fessed, is a seer and revelator, who receives in revelations the will of
the infinite God concerning the duty of man to himself, to his fellow-
beings, to society, to human government, and to God. In subordina-
tion to this head are a vast number of officers of various kinds and
descriptions, comprising a most minute and complete organization.
The people comprising this organization claim to be directed and led
by inspiration that is above all human wisdom and subject to a power
above all municipal government, above all man-made laws. These
facts belong to history. Therefore we have taken notice of them."

This decision was rendered in June, 1887

810 REED 8MOOT.

Senator HOPKINS. What was the issue in that case, Judge, that
caused Judge Zane to use that language? '

Mr. POWERS. It was, briefly, a case in which the complainants
prayed for a decree forfeiting the charter and dissolving the corpora-
tion of the church under the act of Congress of March 3, 1887.

I stated that in 1892 Mr* Rawlins was nominated as Delegate for
Congress by the Democratic party. Frank J. Cannon, son of George
Q. Cannon, and a very brilliant man, was nominated by the Republi-
can party, and Clarence E. Allen, who was afterwards a Delegate to
Congress and is now a prominent mining man of Utah, was nominated
by the Liberal party. Rawlins received 15,201 votes, Cannon 12,390,
and Allen 6,987, Rawlins having a plurality of 2,811.

During that campaign it was reported quite generally that an effort
was being used to elect Mr. Cannon by reason of church influence so
•called. There was one instance that was quite well known that occurred
in the first municipal ward of Salt Lake City. Bishop John Siddoway
was a Democrat and Bishop Warburton was a Democrat. Bishop War-
burton called in a number of Democratic Mormons occupying positions
in the church, told them that most of them had been through the temple
and understood their obligations, and said he had received a message
from the first presidency to the effect that it was the desire that Frank
J. Cannon should be elected to Congress.

j Mr. WORTHINGTON. One moment, Judge. Were you present?
1 Mr. POWERS. No; I was not present, but the matter has been, as I
stated above, widely circulated; and I have a publication here in regard
to it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That the bishop said the presidency had sent
him a message?

Mr. POWERS. That the bishop so stated that the presidency had sent
him a message.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I object to that as being within the double
hearsay rule we had up yesterday.

Mr. POWERS. It is a matter, I say, that has been generally discussed,
and I have the substance of it here.
. Mr. TAYLER. It is a matter of public history of Utah, is it?

Mr. POWERS. It is. It is a matter that has been published in all of
the newspapers. It is a matter that has been circulated in pamphlet
form under the head of "A Plea for Liberty," in an open letter to
President Lorenzo Snow.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you may proceed with the statement.

Mr. POWERS. That the church being in a bad way financially, could
do better with Mr. Frank Cannon in the Congress than with the apos-
tate Joe Rawlins, he should be elected, and inquired whether those
present were willing to vote for Mr. Cannon. They agreed so to do,
one of them saying that he was a mugwump and it would not bother
him ; and the others were requested to see some of their friends and
carry the word to them. One man was directed to see Bishop John
Siddoway and tell him that it was all right.

However, Mr. Rawlins was elected, and he was renominated the suc-
ceeding year; and Frank J. Cannon was likewise renominated. There
was also a Populistic candidate by the name of H. L. Gaut, who was
nominated as Delegate to Congress. In that election Mr. Cannon
received 21,343 votes; Rawlins, 19,324 votes, and Gaut (Populist), 550
votes. Cannon having a plurality of 1,819 votes.

REED SMOOT. 811

Mr. VAN COTT. What year was that, Judge ?

Mr. POWERS. 1894; the Liberal party having in 1893 passed out of
existence.

In 1895 we were preparing for statehood. The State constitution
was to be submitted to a vote of the people in the November election.
The constitutional convention had been held in the fall of 1894 and the
spring of 1895. That convention was nearly equally divided between
the two great national parties, a very small majority being Republi-
can. It was composed of leading men of the Territory, among other
members being Brigham H. Roberts and Apostle John Henry Smith,
on the Mormon side, and C. C. Goodwin, the talented editor of the
Salt Lake Tribune, and Thomas Kearns, now Senator from Utah, upon
the Gentile side. Both sides were represented by able men, and so
were the political parties.

We were preparing for the first election of State officers and for
Representative in Congress under the enabling act, and much interest
of course was taken in the election. The preceding election indicated
that the State was very close, if there was any majority either way.
On the 5th day of September, 1895, the Democrats met in convention
at the city of Ogden to nominate their State ticket. I was a member
of that convention and chairman of the convention.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 did not understand, Judge, what convention that
was.

Mr. POWERS. The Democratic State convention — that is, the Terri-
torial convention to nominate State officers to take their places if the
constitution should be ratified.

Mr. TAYLER. The constitution was to be ratified at the same election
at which the State ticket was to be elected?

Mr. POWERS. Exactly; and the State officers were to take their places
the first part of January, 1896.

At that convention John T. Caine, formerly Delegate to Congress,
was nominated for governor. He was a Mormon. There was but one
candidate for Congress in the minds of the delegates, and that was
Brigham H. Roberts. He was nominated, I believe, unanimously, if
I recollect aright. The convention also made a selection of two men
as its candidates and as the candidates of the Democratic party for the
United States Senate. Under the constitution there would be elected,
with the incoming of the State, two Senators from Utah. It selected
one man, a Gentile, and the other man, a Mormon. The Gentile
selected was Joseph L. Rawlins. The Mormon selected was Moses
Thatcher. Moses Thatcher was one of the twelve apostles of the
church. He was a Democrat and a man with the blood of patriots in
his veins. His lineage was that of which he might be proud. He was
very popular with the Democratic party, and in that convention he
was named as the nominee of the Democratic party, representing the
Mormon wing of it, for the United States Senate.

At that time I never had heard of any rule that required any mem-
ber of the church to go to anybody to get permission to run for any
public office. On the contrary, nry knowledge of the political history
of the State was to the effect that at the time of the division upon
party lines there was some sort of understanding that the leading mem-
bers of the church, those holding high ecclesiastical position, should
not take an active part in political affairs. Mr. Thatcher, in a letter

£12 EEED SMOOT.

to his Democratic friends, had explained his reasons for not taking a
more active part politically, he being a Democrat, upon the ground
that he understood that to be the policy of his church. However,
many men high in church positions had taken part in political affairs,
and "these men whom I have named were nominated by us. On the
15th of September we held a ratification meeting at Salt Lake City, at
which a letter was read from Mr. Thatcher accepting the nomination,
and a speech was made by John T. Caine. 1 should say that in the
adoption of the platform at Ogden there was one plank in the follow-
ing words:

" We declare for total separation of church and state for the sake
alike of civil and religious liberty."

That, we understood, was in accord with the public position taken
by Mr. Thatcher theretofore. Mr. John T. Caine spoke regarding
that plank and indorsed it in the meeting in Salt Lake City. We began
a very active campaign. The Democratic State committee did me the
honor to select me as its chairman, and I took charge. The party was
very enthusiastic, more so than it ever has been since, and its various
members were very active. The Democratic women were organized,
and efforts were put forth to make the State Democratic. We began
our canvass, and it was made very carefully and under directions given
to the canvassers to count to the opposition those who were doubtful;
and in the latter part of September sufficient returns had been received
so that at the headquarters we estimated, upon a conservative basis,
that we would carry the State by between 2,500 and 4,000 majority.

The Mormon Church conference, the semiannual conference for the
entire church, was held in Salt Lake City the first part of October.
Conferences were held so as include the 6th day of April in each year
and the 6th day of October in each year. They are held also so as to
include a Sunday during the proceedings. Up to the meeting of that
conference, as chairman of the State committee, I had heard not one
word in criticism of Mr. Thatcher or Mr. Roberts on account of their
having accepted a nomination for political positions. Mr. Roberts
was upon the stump. . John T. Caine was upon the stump. Mr.
Thatcher-s health was such that he could not enter upon an active can-
vass. Mr. Rawlins was upon the stump.

On the Sunday of the October conference Moses Thatcher addressed
the people in the great Mormon Tabernacle making a religious address,
and apparently he was in good standing. Upon the adjournment of
the conference there was held what is called the priesthood meeting.
As I understand it, it is a secret meeting held at the conclusion of the
conference. In the afternoon, after that meeting, word came to me at
my headquarters from members of the Mormon Church that we were
defeated. I learned that some sort of action had been taken in the
priesthood meeting.

Mr. TAYLER. What is the priesthood meeting? Who, as you under-
stand it, attend that kind of a meeting?

Mr. POWERS. I can not give the names of the—

Mr. TAYLER. I do not mean the names. What sort of officials?

Mr. POWERS. 1 can not state definitely who they are. They are
officials rather high in the church and men of prominence. I never
have been able to learn exactly what language was used at that meet-
ing; but whatever was said was said by Joseph F. Smith, now presi-

REED 8MOOT. 813

dent of the church, then councilor, I think, or an apostle — a councilor
to the president of the church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you told that by &uy man who was pres-
ent at the meeting?

Mr. POWERS. That he was councilor to the president of the church?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Oh, no; that he said what was said at the meet-
ing".

Mr. POWERS. 1 have not attempted to state what was said. I say I
never was able to ascertain just what was said.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I understood you to say that whatever was said
was said by him.

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I say }^ou heard that from somebody who was
present at the meeting ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir; and that is too well known to be questioned
by anybody from Utah. Everybody concedes that.

Whatever was said, the matter was opened by Joseph F. Smith,
which was to the effect, so far as I have been able to ascertain it — and
I have made diligent inquiry — that Moses Thatcher and Brigham H.
Roberts had disolWed a rule of the church in that they had accepted
nominations for high political offices without having first taken counsel.
1 understand that George Q. Cannon spoke also upon the same subject,
and the word that came to me was that they were out of favor with
the first presidency, and that it meant our defeat.

Whatever was said at that meeting, it caused intense excitement
throughout the whole Territory, and following it there were utter-
ances made at religious meetings throughout the State that were well
calculated to defeat the party against whom they were uttered. Up
at Logan, on the 13th day of the month, on Sunday, Bishop Larson,
after the adjournment of the priesthood meeting, said to the teachers
of the church assembled that two men, one of the twelve and one a
president of the seventies, had, contrary to the wishes of the first
presidency and contraiy to counsel, accepted nominations for high
offices. He said: ult is unnecessary for me to name the men. You
know who they are. I speak of this for your own good. You know
how to vote."

On the same Sunday, the 13th day of October, 1895, in the county
south of Cache County, in which Logan was situated, Boxelder County,
at Brigham city, the county seat; the president of the Malad stake,
whose name 1 have forgotten, was present at a religious meeting of
the Mormon Church, and he there declared in substance that it was the
desire of the first presidency that Thatcher and Roberts should be
defeated.

On the same day, in the afternoon, at a religious meeting of the
Mormon Church at Snowville, in Boxelder County, the bishop used
substantially the same language, conveying to his hearers that it was
the wish of the first presidenc}^ that these men should be defeated.

On the 15th day of the month, in the southern portion of the State,
at Richfield, in Sevier County, there was a political meeting held and
Bishop Brandley, of Richfield, spoke upon the subject of Thatcher and
Roberts having been nominated for these offices, and said to the people
that it was their duty to obey their leaders.

On the 20th day of October, which was Sunday, at a meeting in the

814 REED SMOOT.

tabernacle at Moroni, in Sanpete County, which is south of Salt Lake
City, Bishop Irons made a political talk and told the people it was
their duty to obey the wishes of the first presidency, and said to them
that if their file leaders said white is black, "It is your duty to say
white is black."

About the same time a man by the name of George Parkinson, of
Idaho, who is not unknown to our people in a political way, came
down and went through the southern part of the State talking against
Thatcher and Roberts. He said to the people at different places that
the first presidency had been obliged to call those men down before,
and it had to call them down again.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you who he was.

Mr. POWERS. I can not remember the position he occupies in Idaho.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a Mormon ?

Mr. POWERS. He is a Mormon and holds and official position in the
church in Idaho.

Senator DUBOIS. He is president of a stake.

Mr. POWERS. President of a stake; yes. Of course, to meet this
condition of affairs the State committee took prompt action. 1 called
together, first, the executive committee of the Democratic party of the
State and consulted with them. The State committee was largely
made up of Mormon people. It was determined by the executive com-
mittee that it might be well for myself to prepare and give out an
interview as coming from myself individually, in order to test the
temper of the people and feel how far we could go in making a fight
for political liberty. I accordingly prepared such an interview and
furnished it to the Weekly Argus, a Republican newspaper, from
which paper it was copied in the other papers of .Salt Lake City. It
was also deemed advisable by the executive committee that the full
State committee should be called together, and accordingly I called
a meeting of the State committee to meet at Salt Lake City on the
14th day of October, 1895, at Unity Hall in that city.

The meeting was called, as I say, for the 14th of October. On the
evening prior to the day of the meeting of the State committee Mr.
Roberts had come in from the stump and met with me at the State
headquarters and discussed with me the situation and as to what the
people were saying concerning our ticket since the priesthood meet-
ing. Thereupon, in my presence, he prepared the interview, which
he has identified and which has been offered in evidence, and 1 pro-
cured typewritten copies to be made of it and myself personalty fur-
nished it to the Republican and Democratic papers of the city, and it
was published. It was published at that time, so far as I was con-
cerned, for the purpose of indicating to the members of the State
committee the views of Mr. Roberts upon this important question.

The CHAIRMAN. That interview, Mr. Tayler, was submitted yester-
day, was it not?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; it is printed in the record now.

Mr. POWERS. The Mormon people of the Democratic faith of the
State were very much excited, and among other telegrams that I
received upon the subject is one from Logan, that was sent on the 12th
of October, directed to me as chairman of the Democratic Territorial
committee, saying:

The Democrats of Cache County again unite in declaring for abso-

REED SMOOT. , 815

lute separation of church and state. We oppose the idea that men
should be compelled to get permission from ecclesiastical authorities
before exercising their political rights. We deny that Democrats are
religiously or otherwise bound to follow the advice of Republicans in
making up Democratic tickets. We shall uphold every legitimate
effort of our party to resist and disavow such pretensions, if any such
have been m^de, and stand firm for the right."

That is signed by a large number of citizens, the first name being
that of J. H. Paul, a prominent Mormon and educator of Utah.

There are two sheets of signatures, which I will not read.

Senator DUBOIS. Did any Gentiles sign that?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir; the second name was that of Noble Warrum,
jr., the then editor of the Democratic paper at Logan and a Gentile.
It was signed also by a brother of Moses Thatcher, George W. Thatcher,,
a Mormon; Joseph Monsen, a Mormon; I. C. Thoresen, a Mormon,
and a large number of prominent citizens of that county.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mostly Mormons, Judge?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

From Fairview, which is in the southern part of the State, on the
15th of the month I received a telegram signed by the Democratic
committee there, all of them being Mormons, saying:

"IZesolved, We, Democrats of Fairview, heartily indorse the action
of our worthy chairman and pledge our continuous support to our
esteemed friends, Thatcher and Roberts, in their stand for untrammeled
political freedom. Our motto: ; On to victory."

From Manti, one of the temple cities of Utah, which is in Sanpete
Count}^ there was a telegram received on the 14th of the month
saying:

"c Further declarations of noninterference from the church is useless;
they are in the field against us; give no quarters, but fight it out for
liberty and democracy and all good Democrats will stand by you."

That was signed by a large number of Mormons and Democrats.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mostly Mormons ?

Mr. POWERS. All of them, I think.

From Mount Pleasant, in the same county, was a telegram signed
by gentiles and Mormons, saying:

" We, the Democrats of Mount Pleasant, heartily indorse your action
and will uphold you in demanding noninterference of church in polit-
ical matters."

The CHAIRMAN. Pass those dispatches over to the reporter, Judge.

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reporter, let those dispatches go in, with the
signatures.

The telegrams referred to are as follows:

LOGAN, UTAH, 12.
Hon. O. W. POWERS, Chairman Territorial Democratic Committee:

The Democrats of Cache County again unite in declaring for abso-
lute separation of church and state. We oppose the idea that men
should be compelled to get permission from ecclesiastical authorities
before exercising their political rights. We deny that Democrats are
religiously or otherwise bound to follow the advice of Republicans in
making up Democratic tickets. We shall uphold every legitimate

816 EEED SMOOT.

effort of our part}7 to resist and disavow such pretensions if any such

have been made stand firm for the right.

J. H. Paul, Noble Warrum, jr., G. W. Thatcher, Joseph
Monsen, I. C. Thoresen, Arthur W. Hart, Joseph
Kimball, H. J. Mathews, Wm. Haslam, H. A. Camp
bell, E. R. Owen, Martin Woolf, Jesse S. Hancey,
Newel W. Kimball, Wm. Sparks, J. M^ Blair, John
Dahle, J. L. Payne, Aaron F. Farr, jr., Thomas L.
Obrey, Joseph H. Olsen, James C. Orr, Frank K.
Nebecker, Alma Olsen, D. A. Reavill, James Loft-
house, DonC. Musser, Thomas Leishman, Fred Turner,
Jos. Quinney, Will G. Farrell, M. A. Hendricks, S. M.
Molen, H. G. Hayball, W. G. Reese, Chas. W
Maughan, B. G. Thatcher, Jos. Wilson, William
Edwards, Samuel Clarke, F. G. Robinson, John Rob-
inson, A. D. Smith, G. M. Thompson, John Bench,
John M. Wilson.

[Telegram.]

FAIRVIEW, UTAH, 15th.
O. W. POWERS:

Resolved, We, Democrats of Fairview, heartily indorse the action
of our worthy chairman and pledge our continuous support to our
esteemed friends, Thatcher and Roberts, in their stands for un tram-
meled political freedom. Our motto: "On to victory.'5

H. DE FRIES,
F. CHRISTENSEN,
GUY WILSON,
A. TUCKER,
JOSEPH SEELY,

Committee.

[Telegram.]

MANTI, UTAH, 14th.
Hon. O. W. POWERS,

Democratic Headquarters:

Further declarations of noninterference from the church is useless;
they are in the field against us; give no quarters, but fight it out for
liberty and democracy and all good Democrats will stand by you.

Joseph Judd, Wm. K. Reid, Julius Christensen, Wm.
Richens, Alex. Tennant, Earnest Hardy, Ward Steven-
sen, Doctor Storey, Hugh Sloan, Geo. Billings, jr.,
Walter Stringam, jr., Steven Vorhees.

REED SMOOT. 817

[Telegram.]

MOUNT PLEASANT, UTAH, 14th.
O. W. POWERS:

We, the Democrats of Mount Pleasant, heartily indorse }^our action
and will uphold you in demanding noninterference of church in polit-
ical matters.

W. W. Woodring, chairman; A. B. Williams, secretary;
J. B. Porter, treasurer; Soren Christensen, chairman
campaign committee; C. M. West, C. C. E. Petersen,
A. J. Syndergaard, W. A. Averett, L. P. Neilsen,
James Wilson, M. G. Rolph, H. A. Tait, Henry Erick-
son, A. J. Peterson, D. H. Latham, T. E. McGraw.

Mr. POWERS. On the same day, if I recollect aright, of the meeting
of the State committee, October 14, there was a convention held by the
Democrats of Logan City, in Cache County, for the purpose of nomi-
nating a municipal ticket, and the following resolution was unanimously
adopted:

"Whereas, we have been creditabty informed that certain Repub-
licans now make the claim that it is a doctrine of the local dominant
church that its officers are religiously bound to get the consent of ecclesi-
astical superiors before engaging in political affairs of the State and
Nation to which they owe patriotic allegiance as citizens: Be it
therefore

"Resolved^ That we especially deprecate the latest exhibition of local
Republican inconsistency, by which it is alleged that the Democratic
nominee for mayor of this city (Newell K. Kimball, councilor to the
bishop of the Second Ward) must go to the Republican nominee for the
same office (Orson Smith, president of the Cache Stake) and get his
consent before accepting the nomination on our ticket; and we ridicule
the claim that Republican nominees have some sort of religious right
to make or to control nominations on Democratic tickets. We hold,
on the contrary, that the electors of this Commonwealth are, and of
right ought to be, free and independent in the exercise of their politi-
cal rights, and that the pretension recently set forth by our local oppo-
nents, under guise of church discipline, to the effect that American
citizens must go to them for permission to engage in political move-
ments, is an attempt on the part of local ecclesiastical officials already
nominated on Republican tickets to dictate who shall and who shall
not be nominated as their opponents. We ask the people to ponder
well on the enormity of this claim, and to rebuke its arrogance at the
polls."

The State committee met a 2 o'clock in the afternoon of October 14,
and every county in the State but three, as I recall it, was represented.
There were 27 counties, I believe, in the State. Its membership* as I
have already stated, was largely Mormon. From 2 o'clock in the
afternoon until 7 o'clock in the evening, together with prominent mem-
bers of the party who had been invited, the situation was discussed.
By some it was earnestly contended that under the circumstances Utah
was not ready for statehood and it was the duty of the Democratic
party to hold a convention to take its ticket from the field and to
oppose statehood — work against the adoption of the constitution.
Others contended that it would be better for the Territory and for the

s 52

818 REED SMOOT.

people to make a straight issue and fight it out at the polls, leaving
the ticket in the field.

Until 7 o'clock in the evening this matter was discussed. The pro-
ceedings were taken down in shorthand by Miss Lawler, whom I
understand is now clerk to Senator Platt's committee. She was pres-
ent. She was then my secretary at the Democratic State headquarters.
The discussion was carried on by some of the very best men in our
party, Mormons and gentiles. I remember that one Mormon, Mr.
Robinson, of Tooele County, a good member of the church, declared
that in view of what had been done he was satisfied that we were not
ready to go into the Union as a State.

The result of that meeting was the issuance of a call, and 1 was
directed, in an informal way, to so word that call that it would appear
not to strike too harshly at the heads of the church, but in a diplomatic
way to infer that this church interference was unauthorized by the
first presidency, and use was being made of it in a political way by
Republicans. The call was to reconvene the same convention that had
nominated these men on the 5th day of September — at Ogden — of that
year. For that reason it has always been called the reconvened con-
vention. It was composed of the same delegates and presided over by
the same officers who took part in the convention at Ogden that nom-
inated Mr. Roberts and Mr. Thatcher. The call reconvening the con-
vention read as follows:

"Since the nomination of the Democratic State ticket, through no
fault of the Democratic party, there has arisen a crisis in the political
affairs of this Territory. It has been caused by the efforts of design-
ing and unscrupulous Republicans, who have used and distorted the
ill-advised statements of high church officials in order to secure their
own designing ends. Efforts are being made to cause the people who
have been taught to reverence authority to believe that the dominant
church of Utah desires the defeat of the Democratic ticket. This con-
dition of things needs the most serious consideration of every thinking
man and woman. It presents before the people a question before
which all others are dwarfed. It relates to the rights of persons and
to the personal and political freedom of every individual. The Demo-
cratic party, which has ever been the party of the fullest freedom to
the citizen, proposes to meet this issue and to fight it out, that it m&y
be settled for all time, that peace may come to the people of Utah,
that the adoption of the constitution that is presented for the consid-
eration of the people may not be defeated.

"It has no quarrel with any church. It admits the right of every
society to govern and control its members in its own affairs, so long
as the rights of the State or the rights of other individuals are not
encroached upon. Its grievance has been caused by those who are ready
and willing to drag the cross of Christ in the mud and dust and filth
of politics to advance selfish ends. It matters not whether this was
occasioned by innocent motives or innocent action. The condition is
here and an issue has been raised. There should be no injustice done
to any man. There should be no interference with the rights of any
church or of any individual; but for the good of Utah, as well as the
good of Democracy, the question should be met in a manly way, and in
a manner that the people will know that Democracy has spoken and
will act accordingly.

"Therefore, in view of conditions existing, in order xthat there may

REED SMOOT. 819

be issued a declaration of political independence, and for the purpose
of declaring that no man or set o,f men shall hereafter use the power (>r
the name of any church or ecclesiastical authority to control the votes
or the political sentiment of any citizen, the Democratic State com-
mittee, duly assembled at Salt Lake City, on Monday, the 14th day of
October, 1895, by unanimous vote, hereby directs the reassembling of
the delegates that composed the convention that m^t at Ogden on the
5th day of September, 1895, at Salt Lake City, on Tuesday, the* 22d
day of October, 1895, at the hour of 10 o'clock a. m.

"All delegates to the late convention are earnestly requested that,
laying aside all business and excuses, they attend this convention for
the good of Utah and all the people, and thus aid in settling once and
for all one of the questions that has so long harassed all classes in
this Territory.

"The convention will also be empowered to take such other action
than that stated in this call as the exigencies of the occasion may
require."

Thereupon the reconvened convention was held, and 1 doubt if a
more remarkable convention was ever held in any State of the Union.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state the date of the reconvening?

Mr. POWERS. On the 22d day of October, 1895. It was held in the
Salt Lake Theater. Not only did the delegates reassemble, but they
were accompanied by many of the people. They came with bands and
with banners, with determination and enthusiasm. The convention
was called to order at 10 o'clock in the morning, and a committee,
consisting, as I recall it, of representation from each county in the
State, was appointed to determine what action should be taken and to
prepare a declaration. That committee was in session all day, and
the matter that it discussed was whether it should retain its ticket in
the tield, or whether it should take down its ticket and tight statehood.

During the time that the committee was in session speeches were
made by leading Mormons as well as gentiles, declaring that there
must be no more church interference with the political affairs of Utah.
There was a speech made by Brigham H. Roberts. He made a very
strong and forcible speech upon that subject. There was a speech
made by Judge William H. King to the same effect. Judge King was
afterwards a Representative in Congress. There was a letter written
by Moses Thatcher read there which clearly defined his position and
set forth the necessity for the absolute divorcement of church and
state, and at the same time submitting to the convention the question
as to whether he should remain upon the ticket, as he was ready to
resign if it was thought best by the convention that we should take
down our ticket, and, as a protest to such work, fight statehood.

The committee finally determined, in view of the enthusiasm and the
determination exhibited, that it would keep its ticket in the field, and
it reported the declaration of the reconvened convention, to which
reference has been frequently made.

Mr. TAYLER. Will you read the conclusion of that declaration con-
taining the nine points of faith, so-called?

Mr. POWERS. I will do so.

Senator BAILEY. Put it all in the record.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; it will all go in the record.

Senator DUBOIS. Judge Powers, before you do that, I did not quite
understand this point: Was there any specific declaration of the church
which caused this reconvened convention?

820 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWERS. It was the action, whatever it was, taken at that
priesthood meeting that conveyed to the people the thought that
Thatcher arid Roberts were in disfavor with the first presidency, and
that it was the will and wish of the first presidency that they should
:be defeated.

I will hand the reporter a copy of the declaration, which he can
copy into his notes, and 1 will, at the request of Mr. Tayler, read
those nine points of faith. The conclusion of the declaration was as
follows:

"DECLARATION OF TRUTHS.

"We declare the truth to be:

"I. That man may worship his Maker as his conscience dictates.

"II. That no State nor political body has the right to interfere with
this great privilege.

"III. That man's first allegiance, politically, is to his country.

"IV. That no ch.urch, ecclesiastical body, nor spiritual adviser
should encroach upon the political rights of the individual.

"V. That in a free country no man nor body of men can, with
safety to the State, use the name or the power of any religious sect or
society to influence or control the elective franchise.
. "VI. That a trust is imposed upon each citizen in a free country
to act politically upon his own judgment and absolutely free from
control or dictation, ecclesiastical or otherwise.

"VII. That no political party can be required to obtain the consent
of any church or the leader thereof before selecting its candidate for
public office.

"VIII. That no citizen, by reason of his association with any church,
can be absolved from his dut}7 to the State, either in times of war or
of peace without the consent of the State.

"IX. That all men should be, and of right are, free to think, free
to act, free to speak, and free to vote, without fear, molestation, intimi-
dation, or undue influence."

The newspaper article referred to is as follows:

[From the Salt Lake Herald, Wednesday, October 22, 1895.]

THE MIGHTY VOICE OF DEMOCRACY— IN THUNDER TONES IT HAS
DEMANDED THE COMPLETE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE-
IN A VAST CONVENTION— NEVER HAS THE CITY WITNESSED SUCH
A MOMENTOUS GATHERING— THATCHER IN LINE— A LETTER MAK-
ING PLAIN THE ISSUE NOW BEFORE THE PEOPLE— A MASTERLY
ADDRESS— IT SHOWS HOW A CHAIN OF EVENTS HAVE BROUGHT
THE CRISIS-^-CONFIDENCE IN THE PEOPLE— THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
WILL BE CONTENT TO REST ITS CASE WITH THEM.

'Resolutions to take down the ticket and defeat statehood overwhelm-
ingly defeated — Great attendance of delegates from all comities-
Enthusiasm intense and satisfaction general — Speeches from Powells,
Judd, King, Mrs. Jakeman, Robots, Rawlins, Sloan, Mrs. Fergu-
son, Harris, and other prominent Democrats — Over $1,500 raised by
subscription in fifteen minutes — An impromptu torchlight parade
that am.azed the onlookers — Music in profusion.

Address to the people.

The Democratic convention of the Territory of Utah that assembled
at Ogden city on the 5th day of September, 1895, having reassembled
in extraordinary session at Salt Lake City this 22d day of October,

REED SMOOT. 821

1895, in response to the call of the Democratic State committee, issues
this address and declaration to the people:

The Democrats of Utah, recognizing that conditions have recently
arisen imperatively demanding that the great Democratic party shall
speak in no uncertain tones and forever declare the policy that should
be taken by the State and by all followers of religious creeds in politi-
cal affairs, deems it proper to review dispassionately the series of events
that have caused the reconvening of this convention and the issuance
of this declaration.

The first settlers of Utah came here with sorrow in their hearts.
They followed their trusted leaders through travail and distress. They
came here through a wilderness filled with savages that they might
in these valleys obtain the libert}7 which they felt was unjustly refused
to them in the States. They left homes and property. They had
been harassed by mobs and had suffered from murder. As to whether
they were at fault, or were the victims of persecution, history, when
impartially written, will truthfully declare.

Naturally they looked up to those who led them to their new home
with trust and confidence. As a result there appeared to be practical
union of church and state. In most instances the political offices were
tilled by the ecclesiastical officers of the Mormon Church. At first
there were no political parties in Utah. The people were thousands
of miles from civilization, and even had they so desired, there was no
opportunity for them to consider, to discuss, and to align themselves
upon the one side or the other of the great questions that divided the
people east of the Rocky Mountains. With increased immigration
there came those who disagreed with the Mormon people upon relig-
ion, and the conditions then changed to the extent that there was
organized what was known as the " People's Party," or the " Church
party," and the ''Liberal Party," or the "Anti-Church Party."

THE HARRASSING CONTENTION.

Then began the long and harrassing contention between men of dif-
ferent religious views. As might have been expected, the contest was
waged with great bitterness, resulting in sorrow, antagonism, and
much distress to both sides, and which at times culminated in bloodshed.

With increased facilities for communication with the outer world
new questions gradually forced themselves to the front. The people
became more harmonious, and the time finally arrived when it was
thought that the old issues should be dropped, and that the bitterness
of the past should be buried, never again to be revived. The local
parties disbanded and a. new alignment of the people was made along
the lines of policy advocated by the Republican and the Democratic
parties. The Mormon Church in a most authoritative manner issued
its manifesto abandoning one of the dearest tenets of the Mormon
faith, and it thereby acknowledged the supremacy of the National
Government in all affairs pertaining to the political welfare of the
people.

Referring to this manifesto on the 19th day of December, 1891, the
first presidency and the apostles of the Mormon Church directed to the
President of the United States a petition for amnesty, saying that:

PLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENCY.

"In September, 1890, the present head of the church in anguish
and prayer, cried to God for help for his flock and received the per-

822 n«Er> SMOOT.

mission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Lattei -
Day Saints that the law commanding- polygamy was henceforth sus-
pended.

"At the great semiannual conference which was held a few days later
this was submitted to the people, numbering many thousands and rep-
resenting every community of the people in Utah, and was by them
in the most solemn manner accepted as the future rule of their lives.

"They have since been faithful to the covenant made that day.

"At the late October conference, after a year had passed by, the
matter was once more submitted to the thousands of people gathered
together and they again in the most potential manner ratified the
solemn covenant."

The action of the church with regard to politics was stated in a public
manner by the members of the first presidency.

An interview was framed for a newspaper. Certain questions were
asked and the answers written out by President Woodruff. Among
other things, speaking for the Mormon church, he said that the Mormon
church claims no right to dictate to its members in political matters.
He also said: "Personally we have felt that the time would come when
the two great parties would be organized in this Territory, and we have
felt that if an attempt of this kind should be made each would have
the fullest opportunity to la}T its principles before the people, so that
they mig-bt have a clear understanding of the issues and be able to
decide in the light of facts presented to them to which party they
would belong."

Q. Does the church claim the right to dictate to its members in
political matters? — A. The church does not claim any such right.

Q. That being true, are we to understand that the church will not
assert any right to control the political action of its members in the
future? — A. That is what we wish to convey and have you understand.
As officers of the church we disclaim the right to control the political
action of the members of our body.

THE CONFERENCE RESOLUTION.

:

. At the general conference of the Mormon Church held at Salt Lake
City, in October, 1891, the following- resolution was adopted:

" Whereas the Utah Commission, with one exception, in their report
to the Secretary of the Interior for 1891, have made many untruthful
statements concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
and the attitude of its members in relation to political affairs; and

" Whereas said report is an official document and is likely to prejudice
the people of the nation against our church and its members, and it is
therefore unwise to allow its erroneous statements to pass unnoticed:
Now, therefore,

"Be it resolved ~by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints,
in general conference assembled, That we deny most emphatically the
assertion of the Commission that the church dominates its members
in political matters and that the church and state are united. What-
ever appearance there may have been in past times of a union of church
and state, because men holding ecclesiastical authority were elected
to civil office by popular vote, there is now no foundation or excuse
for the statement that church and state are united in political matters;
that no coercion or influence whatever of an ecclesiastical nature has

REED SMOOT. 823

been exercised over us by our church leaders in reference to which
political party we shall join, and that we have been and are perfectly
free to unite with any or no political party, as we mav individually
elect; that the People's Party had been entirely dissolved, and that our
fealty henceforth will be to such political party as seems best suited
to the purposes of republican government."

NO USE OF SPIRITUAL VIEWS.

Thus the people of Utah and of the United States were given to
understand that there would be no interference by ecclesiastical
authorit}r with any political organization, and that the spiritual views
of no man would be used to induce him to adhere to, espouse, or
disagree with any political party.

This position of the church has never been receded from. As an
organization it stands to-day where it did upon the occasion of the
division upon party lines, pledged not only to refrain itself, but to
prevent so far as it can the interference with the political rights of
the humblest individual by those in ecclesiastical positions.

The utterances of the leaders of the Mormon Church and the action
taken by the church at is conference were accepted by all the people
of the Union as having been made in entire good faith. Amnesty was
granted. The enforcement of the laws was relaxed and the way was
paved for the admission of Utah into the Union.

DEMOCRATIC RESOLUTION.

On the 20th day of June, 1891, the Democratic Territorial central
committee that had been appointed by the Democratic Territorial con-
vention of 1888 — composed of 20 members, all non-Mormons — met, and
after a discussion adopted by a vote of 14 to 5 the following resolution:

"Resolved — First. That it is the sense of this committee that the
Democratic party of Utah accept the act of the dissolution of the
People's Party in all sincerity and good faith and will give to its
former members who may unite with it a cordial welcome.

"Second: That it rejoices in the belief that we are now entering
upon an era of good will, wherein the animosities engendered by past
local contentions will be healed, and that the people of the Territory,
while contending for the supremacy of the national party of their
choice, will unitedly work in peace without bitterness or strife for the
prosperity and happiness of the Territory/'

THE HOME-RULE MEMORIAL.

In January, 1892, the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah,
composed of Mormons and gentiles, addressed a memorial to the
Congress of the United States containing these words: " In the midst
of wonderful material progress her (Utah's) people have recently
turned their attention to the study of questions of government and
legitimate politics and are espousing the cause of one or the other of
the national parties.

"These new conditions have come naturally, honestly, and for the
future are absolutely secure. A patriotic people are pledged to their
preservation. Retrogression, involving as it would dishonor and dire
misfortune, is impossible.

824 REED SMOOT.

"Utah, in the feelings of her people, has been lifted from her
humilition and disgrace. To-da}^ she is imbued with the hope and
determination to be free — free in the full sense of American constitu-
tional freedom; which means something more than liberty permitted;
which consists in civil and political rights absolutely ' guaranteed,
assured, and guarded in one's liberties as a man and a citizen — his
right to vote, his right to hold office, his equality with all others who
are his fellow-citizens, all these guarded and protected, and not held
at the mercy and discretion of one man, or popular majority, or dis-
tant body unadvised as to local needs or interests."

At the national convention of the Democratic party, held at Chicago
in 1892, a memorial was presented by the Democrats of Utah, signed
by Hon. C. C. Richards, chairman of the Democratic Territorial com-
mittee, and Elias Smith, secretary, in which, among other things, it
was stated: "That the sole objections, to wit, polygamy and church
dictation in politics, against the Mormon people on political grounds
have been entirely removed, and it is most unwise and impolitic to
deny them the common rights and privileges of citizenship, or to place
a barrier in their way when they are evidently determined to turn their
backs on the past and for the future labor in harmony with the nation
for the general welfare, in strict submission to the laws, and each tak-
ing an independent course in reference to party."

CONFIDENCE ANNOUNCED.

The convention which nominated Hon. J. L. Rawlins for Congress
in 1892, among other things, declared in its platform as follows:

" We announce our complete confidence in the sincerity of the Mor-
mon people in their abandonment of polygamy, in submission to the
laws of the land, and their division on party lines, and our full faith
in the pledges of their church leaders that the freedom of the mem-
bers in political affairs shall not be interfered with by them in any
particular. We view the attempts of individuals to make it appear
that the Mormon presidency secretly desire and work for the success
of any party as a slander upon the church officials and a disgrace to
those engaged in such despicable tricker}^."

The platform further declared that Utah was prepared in every way
for the honors and responsibility of a sovereign State, and it pledged
itself to work unceasingly until Utah should be admitted into the
Union.

Upon that platform Mr. Rawlins was elected by the people of Utah,
and this result was accepted by the Democracy of the nation as satis-
factory evidence that the representations that had been made were
in fact true, and that this people were indeed free.

Following the election of Mr. Rawlins, an effort was made by the
Democratic party to secure the admission into the Union of Utah, and
it was met by suggestions and declarations that the Mormon people
were not sincere, and thereupon Mr. Rawlins, firmly believing in the
truth of that which he uttered in a speech upon the statehood bill,
wherein he urged the admission of Utah, used these words:

" But the people of Utah — I think lean speak for them on this ques-

EEED SMOOT. 825

tion — mean, I believe, what they say. They are engaged in no scheme
of fraud or treachery by which to deceive the nation. Having made
this pledge, and in this pledge asked this action by the American Con-
gress, I think I can say for them that they will stand by it, though
the heavens fall."

The Democratic party has sacredly kept every pledge that it made
to the people of Utah. It has shown its absolute confidence in the
people.

But, notwithstanding the solemn declarations and pledgee enumer-
ated, and many others to which reference could be made, they had
scarcely been given to the people before certain men who are looked
up to by those of the Mormon faith began a movement looking to the
division of the people in equal numbers, as nearly as possible, as
Republicans and Democrats. This course could but be regarded as
unwise and dishonest. At the very inception of the division move-
ment it tended to impeach the good faith of the Mormon people, for it
placed them in the position of being insincere. Leading Democrats
protested against this policy and resisted it as a matter of p rinciple.

THE GIBBS LETTER.

Also at the very inception of the movement for the division upon
national lines, in 1891, the private secretary of the first presidency of
the Mormon Church, wrote to John F. Wright, a Democrat, bishop of
Hyrum, in the county of Cache. The letter written by the private
secretary purported to come from the office of the first presidency of
the Mormon Church, and to speak from the standpoint of thos, whose
position was such that they could speak impartially, and with a view
to the interest of the people, thus conveying the impression that it
came by authority of the first presidency of the church, and aggest-
ing that the people should be divided into about an equal nui abei of
Democrats and Republicans, and that there should be another large
class who would not ally themselves with either party, and urging
Bishop Wright to go to work in his own ward, and see to it that it
was made a Republican stronghold.

A number of leading Democrats, after this letter had been sent,
went to the first presidency, read the letter sent to Bishop Wright,
and presented in addition some 33 affidavits, setting forth that it had
been stated that it was the wish of the first presidency of the church
that voters who were not known to be Democrats should vote the
Republican-ticket and that the welfare of the Mormon Church depended
upon this action upon their part.

THE REPUDIATION.

On the 17th day of March, 1892, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F.
Smith published the following card, with reference to the action of
their secretary:

As rumors have been circulated and published accusing the first
presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with
interference in political affairs, so as to control elections and to direct
members of the church as to which political party they should sup
port, we hereby declare these rumors to be false and without founda-
tion in fact. We emphatically deny that we or either of us authorized

S26 REED 8MOOT.

Mr. George F. Gibbs or any other person or persons to use our names,
so as to influence citizens to vote the Republican ticket at Logan or
elsewhere. If our names have been used in any such way it has been
entirelv without permission from us, and we hereby condemn it as
wrong^and reprehensible. If we have any desire it is that our people
in this Territory shall study well the principles of both the great
national parties, and then choose which they will join, freely, volun-
tarily, and honestly, from personal conviction, and then stand by it
in all honor and sincerit}7. Each party shall have the same rights,
privileges, and opportunities as the other.

If any man claims that it is the wish of the first presidency that a
Democrat shall vote the Republican ticket or a Republican the Demo-
cratic ticket, let all people know he is endeavoring to deceive the pub-
lic and has no authority of that kind from us. We have no disposition
to direct in these matters, but proclaim that, as far as we are con-
cerned, the members of this church are entirely and perfectly free in
all political affairs. But they should not indulge in ill feeling or per-
sonalities. President George Q. Cannon is absent, but we are sure
that if he were here he would sign the declaration with us.

WILFORD WOODRUFF,
JOSEPH F. SMITH,
Of the presidency of the Church of Jems Christ

of Latter- Day Saints.

EQUAL DIVISION MOVEMENT.

Despite this authoritative declaration men prominent in the coun-
cils of the Mormon Church without restraint or repudiation went
through this Territory advising the people in private and in priesthood
meetings that the welfare of the Mormon people demanded that there
should be more Republicans, and that the people should be about
equally divided.

When the Gibbs letter was presented to the first presidency, WTil-
ford Woodruff declared that he had never heard of the letter before,
and that he disapproved it. Joseph F. Smith also claimed that he was
innocent in regard to it, but in answer to questions propounded to him
refused to disapprove this action of the secretary.

In October, 1892, there was forwarded to the bishops of the Mormon
Ohurch a circular, containing letters from Joseph F. Smith, one of the
first presidency, and Thomas J. Stevens, bishop of the Fifth Ward of
Ogden, the residence of Frank J. Cannon, the Republican candidate
for Congress that year. The letter of Joseph F. Smith was as follows:

JOSEPH F. SMITH'S LETTER.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,

October 26, 1892.

Bishop : On learning that certain influential persons have, in

public and private, attacked the moral character of Brother Frank J.
Cannon, the Republican candidate for Delegate to Congress, for the
purpose of defeating his election, I took occasion to communicate
witn Bishop Stevens, of Ogden, in regard to the matter. He sent me
the following reply, which I send }^ou for your information, with the
request that you, in the interest of fairness, give it proper publicity,

EEED SMOOT. 827

leaving the people to judge as to the worthiness of Brother Cannon to
be Utah's Representative in the Congress of the United States.

JOSEPH F. SMITH.

It is known of all men that Joseph F. Smith is a member of the
Republican party, devoted to advancing its interests in season and out
of season.

STEVENS'S RECOMMENDATION.

The letter of Bishop Stevens referred to by President Smith is as
follows:

President JOSEPH F. SMITH.

DEAR BROTHER: In answer to questions regarding the standing of
Frank J. Cannon, will say that some years ago a charge was preferred
against him, the wording of which I do not now remember; but I do
remember that we had to rely largely on his own confession to sub-
stantiate said charge. His confession was all that we could ask, he
making a clean breast of it concerning his transgression. The decision
rendered by the bishop's court was that he confess his sins before the
ward in public meeting and ask forgiveness, which he did, to the best
of my recollection, the following Sunday; and a more humble, penitent
spirit I never witnessed in any person than that which was with him
upon that occasion. The people of the ward freely forgave him, there
being not one dissenting vote.

At this time 1 was not his bishop, but was a councilor in the bish-
opric which tried his case. I have been his bishop for four years past.
During this time he has manifested upon many occasions his devotion
to the work of the Lord. His tithing has been settled to our satisfac-
tion each year; his donations have been liberally paid to help the poor,
erecting meetinghouse, ward school, etc. In fact he has done more
than his share in these directions when financially compared with
others. He has confessed to me twice since my being his bishop of
his being guilty of taking too much strong drink and being intoxi-
cated. Upon these occasions he has shown unmistakably his respect
for those who preside over him in the priesthood, and volunteered the
information concerning his transgressions. I know for a long time he
has been working hard to overcome his appetite for strong drink, and
I fully believe that he has finally succeeded. I will further say that
if Brother Frank J. Cannon should apply to me for a recommend to
join any ward I would give him one certifying that he is in good stand-
ing and fellowship, as I consider him to be worthy of such.

THOMAS J. STEVENS,
Bishop Fifth Ward, Ogden.

It is manifest that these letters were issued and sent to the ecclesias-
tical officers of the Mormon Church for but one purpose, and that pur-
pose the advancement of the cause of the Republican party and the
election of Frank J. Cannon.

The excuse can not be made that he was about to leave one ecclesi-
astical ward and take up his residence in another, and that therefore
this recommendation was given, for he still resides in the same ward.
It is manifest that the object was to apply a religious test as a qualifi-
cation for an office under the United States, in violation of an express
provision of the Constitution of this country.

828 EEED SMOOT.

NUGGETS OF TRUTH.

During the same campaign, the year of 1892, franked envelopes
were sent out by the Republican Territorial committee containing cir-
culars that were called u Nuggets of Truth," the envelopes likewise
containing typewritten letters upon the letter head of the Republican
party, reading as follows:

SALT LAKE, UTAH, - — , 1892.

DEAR SIR: The literature that I this day send you it is desired shall
be placed in the hands of every man that is identified with the Repi^b-
lican party.

It is also desired b}7 us, that in order to reach the home of every
man in the Territory of Utah, that one copy of this work shall be placed
within his reach.

I would suggest the Sunday school, or the elders' meetings, or church
meetings, as the best means of attaining the desired result.

This will admit of no delay, and must be attended to promptly and
at once.

CHARLES CRANE,
Chairman It. T. Committee.

It must be apparent to all men that this was a most flagrant violation
of the pledges made that the church influence should not be used in our
political affairs.

USED THE SUNDAY SCHOOLS.

This action of a political committee was an effort to use the Sunday
schools, and the meetings of the people where they assemble for the
purpose of worshiping God, to advance the cause of a political party
and it has been permitted to pass unrebuked by those in authority.

The celebrated circular headed, " Nuggets of Truth," contained upon
the first page the picture of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and under-
neath that picture a mutilated extract from remarks that he made upon
one occasion with regard to politics. It contained the picture of
Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff, three presidents
of the church, and Joseph F. Smith, one of the members of the first
presidency, and upon the last page a large picture of Frank J. Cannon,
the Republican candidate for Congress. It was this document, filled
with alleged extracts from speeches and public papers of the leaders of
the Mormon Church, and which it was claimed sustained the Repub-
lican idea of government, that it was proposed by the chairman of the
Republican committee should be circulated in the Sunday school, the
elders' meetings, and the church meetings, and was thus circulated.

JOSEPH F. SMITH'S SPEECH.

On the evening of October 10, 1894, Joseph F. Smith, in a speech in
the Seventeenth Ward of Salt Lake City, used this language : ' ' If," said
the speaker, "I had been the Republican party for the last thirty years
I would not have granted statehood to Utah, because it was generally
believed that her people were, to a man, Democratic, and under those
circumstances I, as a Republican, would not have admitted Utah, hpw-
ever much she might have importuned me to do so.

REED SMOOT. 829

. u I can not believe that when the prospect changed, and the likelihood
was that Utah would be Republican, that the Democrats would of their
own volition have passed the enabling act. It is the Republican minor-
ity in Congress who are to be thanked for the boon of statehood. I
do not believe that any honor is due Joe Rawlins for the gift of state-
hood, and I believe that by the grace of the Democratic party Utah
will enter the Union a Republican State. No thinking man believes
in his heart that Joseph Rawlins deserves any credit for the passage of
the enabling act."

This extract illustrates the intense partisanship of the man, and
throws some light upon his subsequent conduct and utterances.

HOW IT WAS LAST YEAR.

In October, 1894, a Democratic speaker in a public meeting in the
city of Provo asked certain questions of the Republican candidate for
Congress, Mr. Frank J. Cannon, with reference to the plans of the
Utah Company, a corporation with vast power, of which Frank J.
Cannon was the manager, and in which the members of the first presi-
dency were pecuniarily interested. No attention was paid to these
questions for eleven days, when, upon the eve of the election, there
appeared an answer signed by Frank J. Cannon, and a card signed by
the members of the first presidency of the Mormon Church, in the
Deseret News, the official organ of that church, together with a double-
leaded editorial declaring that the issue before the people was as to
whether the church leaders could thus be attacked by a man of the
reputation of the speaker who had asked the questions, and saying
that the people would believe the first presidency before they would
believe the former, and that the people should defeat any party that
contained such a man. Tens of thousands of copies of that paper were
immediately printed and circulated through the Territory, and it was
manifest to the most casual observer that it was all a part of a scheme
to elect the Republican candidate and to defeat the Democratic candi-
date. One week before the election the canvass sent to the Demo-
cratic headquarters indicated a Democratic majority of 2,300. When
the returns of the election were received, after this action taken by
the members of the first presidency of the Mormon Church and by
the church organ, the Republican candidate, Frank J. Cannon, was
found to have been elected by 1,818 majority.

LYMAN IN PANGUITCH.

In the campaign of 1894, when Joseph L. Rawlins and Frank J.
Cannon were candidates before the people for delegate to Congress,
a prominent member of the twelve apostles, F. M. Lyman, a Repub-
lican, went through the southern counties, ostensibly on business for
the church, holding meetings in various places; and in many places,
notably at Panguitch, in Garfield Countv, advised the people that it
was the wish of the first presidency of tne church that Frank J. Can-
non should be elected. And in divers instances while traveling in the
southern counties he advised individuals in private consultation that
such was the wish of the first presidency. These facts have been cer-
tified as true to the leaders of the Democratic party by men in high
position in the Mormon Church, who knew whereof they spoke.

83U REED SMOOT.

Notwithstanding the former declaration of the presidents of the Mor-
mon Church that every member thereof was free from political church
dictation, yet, in the December number of the Juvenile Instructor,
Mr. George Q. Cannon, in an article on "The results of politics," in
answer to criticisms that had been made of the political utterances
of a high church official, denied the right of individual free speech by
asserting that even if there be apparent cause for saying severe things
and censuring members of the priesthood, no wise man will yield to
the temptation to criticise for fear of grieving the spirit of the Lord.

He further said that no necessity could ever arise for men to take
upon themselves in their individual capacity the right to judge the
Lord's servants, and that no man can talk lightly of them without
bringing himself under condemnation therefor.

THE TRUMBO TELEGRAM.

The enabling act for the admission of Utah was approved on the
16th day of July, 1894. On the 18th day of the same month Mr.
Rawlins, Democratic delegate, was still in Washington. Up to that
time the only report or cfaims in respect to the action taken in
Washington had been sent out through the Associated Press by the
Republican correspondent of the Salt Lake Tribune and Mr. Calvin
Reasoner, the Republican correspondent of the Deseret News, and by
the correspondent of the Salt Lake Herald. No claim of honor or
credit for anything done in that Congress had been made by the Demo-
cratic delegate. In this situation on the 18th day of July, 1894, this
telegram was signed and sent to Washington :

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, July IS, 1894.
Colonel TRUMBO,

The Shoreham, Washington, D. C. :

^ From the days of our travail in the wilderness we have hopefully
looked forward to the time when our Territory should be recognized
by the nation as an honored member of its family of States, and while
we now accept, with hearts full of- thanksgiving and praise to the God
of nations for what He hath so marvelously and wonderfully wrought,
we rejoice with and congratulate you on the successful termination of
your labor, which has resulted in Utah's enfranchisement and political
deliverance to her people; for while your hand has not been seen
and others claim all the honor, those who know the facts fully appre-
ciate your efforts and freely accord to you their heartfelt gratitude
for the deep interest you have taken in the matter.

WILFORD WOODRUFF.

GEORGE Q. CANNON.

JOSEPH F. SMITH.

. The effect of this telegram, whatever its intent, was, by the use
that is now being made of it, to deprive the Democratic party and the
Democratic delegate of any of the credit justly due them for securing
the passage of the enabling act.

It is in this connection significant that just now this telegram,
together with others manufactured for political purposes only, are
being sent to the presidents of stakes and bishops of the Mormon
Church of Utah.

•REED SMOOT. 831

•

PRANK CANNON'S ADMISSION.

From the circular of the bishop of the Mormon Church of the Fifth
Ward of Ogden, it appears that Frank J. Cannon is in good standing
in that church and is supposed to be familiar with the methods of
those who control its policy.

In the Ogden Standard of September 24, 1895, a Republican paper,
there appeared a stenographic report of a speech made the previous
evening by Frank J. Cannon in the city of Ogden, in which he said:
" There is another thing I want to say to the people of Ogden, and
while it will be something of a delicate subject to introduce here, the
exigency of the hour demands that I should make mention of it.
Just the night before election, if any of your friends on the other
side should come to you with the information that he has discovered
some deep occult ttfuth not known to you, to the effect that you should
remove the name of a certain candidate on the Republican ticket and
substitute the name of the Democratic candidate for the same office,
and you should ask the source of his information, and he should reply
that it came by grapevine telegraph ; if he should whisper the name of
some person to you that you highly respected, and state to you that
his wish is that you should scratch the name of C. E. Allen from your
ticket and substitute that of B. H. Roberts, it is your duty to inform
your friend that the days of the grapevine telegraph in Utah politics
have passed. * * * I say this because we near this thing going
about already. It is just the opposite to the story that was going
about last year."

Last year Frank J. Cannon was the Republican candidate for Con-
gress against Joseph L. Rawlins, the Democratic nominee, and he
practically admits, wliat we believe to have been the fact in the case,
that in that campaign the grapevine telegraph, as he terms it, was
used for the purpose of electing him and encompassing the defeat of
the Democratic candidate.

The suggestion that this man makes as to the course of high church
officials in political affairs indicates that there is reason for this people
to not only declare themselves free, but to make themselves free from
ulterior and dangerous influences.

THE PRIESTHOOD MEETING.

At the October conference of the Mormon Church in 1895, Joseph
F. Smith took occasion to preach upon the subject of home industry,
following the line of argument that is contained in the pamphlet called
" Nuggets of Truth" and which Republicans throughout the Territory
assert was strong Republican doctrine. His remarks were indorsed
by Republican papers upon the ground that they were in advocacy of
protection and bounty. On the succeeding day the priesthood meet-
ing was held, and in this priesthood meeting Joseph F. Smith, whose
Republicanism can not be doubted, arose and by necessary implication
severely criticised and condemned one of the candidates of the Demo-
cratic party for the United States Senate and the Democratic candi-
date for Congress from this Territory for having accepted a political
nomination without first taking advice and counsel of the first presi-
dency. He had not ceased speaking before the Republicans present
were possessed with the idea that the church was in politics and desired
the success of the Republican party.

832 ^KEED 8MOOT.

His remarks were indorsed by George Q. Cannon, and from this
largely attended priesthood meeting men went into many sections of
the Territory and declared that it was the wish of the first presidency
that the Republican ticket should be elected at the coming election.

Since that Mr. Smith and the president of the Mormon Church have
declared that they do not desire to influence any man's politics, but
they have yet to condemn, they have yet to criticise, any man who
used the remarks made by Messrs. Smith and Cannon for the advance-
ment of the Republican party. They have permitted their followers,
without rebuke, to convey to the people of the United States, in pub-
lic and in private conversation, the idea that the Mormon Church was
dishonest from the time it declared itself out of politics.

THE IMPRESSION THAT EXISTS.

As a consequence of the foregoing and many similar occurrences
which there is not space here to enumerate, there has sprung up in the
minds of a great many of the people of Utah the belief that the pres-
idency of the Mormon Church desire the success of the Republican
party and are working to accomplish the defeat of the Democratic
party in the coming November election. That such an impression is
widespread very many reliable people have repeatedly affirmed. Such
an impression does exist, and a result of such magnitude must have
had an adequate cause.

The Democratic people of the Territory of Utah feel that they have
been patient and long-suffering; that they have waited and hoped
against hope that an end would be put to the use of the power of the
church in our political affairs, and they have therefore called this con-
vention that the voice of democracy may be heard, not only in Utah,
but throughout the nation, declaring as it does declare now that every
Democrat is a free and independent citizen; that in Utah neither priest
nor layman, neither President nor Pope, shall now or hereafter be
allowed to manipulate those matters which belong to the people.

STATEHOOD DUE TO DEMOCRACY,

We can truthfully declare that statehood has been rendered possible
for Utah by the Democratic party. After repeated rebuffs from the
Republican party, which^had refused every application for the admis-
sion of Utah into the Union, a Democratic Delegate in Congress intro-
duced an enabling act which was passed by a Democratic House,
indorsed by a Democratic Senate, and promptly signed by a Demo-
cratic President. Nothing now stands in the way of the complete
political liberty of Utah but the interference of church influence in
political affairs. Her constitution is framed. It has but to be adopted
in good faith, and the proclamation of the President who signed the
enabling act will issue and she will become a free State. That con-
stitution declares the complete divorce of church and state.

If the people of Utah intend that this shall mean in practice what is
stated in principle, the Democratic party will vote for the adoption of
the constitution and urge the immediate issuance thereafter of the
Presidential proclamation. When men vote for that document they
should understand that it must be maintained in letter and in spirit.
Democrats have no desire to retard the great consummation. On the

REED SMOOT. 833

contrary- they are, as ever, the supporters as they have been the origi-
nators of the statehood movement, but demand that Utah shall be free
in every sense before assuming the responsibilities of the proud posi-
tion to which the Democratic party has been the means of her exalta-
tion. We are for statehoood, but that must be statehood free from
the control of any ecclesiastical institution under the sun.

"Equal and exact justice to all men and special privileges to none"
is the foundation principle of the Democratic party. It is now and
ever has been the party of civil and religious freedom. It is the party
of toleration. It has ever been the defender of the rights of individ-
uals and the advocate of personal liberty. It believes in the people
and declares that they are the source of all political power. It stead-
fastly maintains that there shall be no invasion of personal rights. It
is a stanch upholder of the doctrine that man must be allowed to wor-
ship God where he chooses and as he chooses, without molestation and
without interference, and that on the other hand he should not be
directed in his course toward governmental affairs by those whom he
has chosen to minister to his spiritual welfare.

1 DECLARATION OF TRUTHS.

We declare the truth to be:

I. That man may worship his Maker as his conscience dictates.

II. That no state nor political body has the right to interfere with
this great privilege.

III. That man's first allegiance politically is to his country.

IV. 'That no church, ecclesiastical body, nor spiritual adviser should
encroach upon the political rights of the individual.

V. That in a free country no man nor body of men can, with safety
to the state, use the name or the power of any religious sect or society
to influence or control the elective franchise.

VI. That a trust is imposed upon each citizen in a free country to
act politically upon his own judgment and absolutely free from con-
trol or dictation, ecclesiastical or otherwise.

VII. That no political party can be required to obtain the consent
of any church, or the leader thereof , before selecting its candidate for
public office.

VIII. That no citizen, by reason of his association with any church,
can be absolved from his duty to the state, either in times of war or of
peace, without the consent of the state.

IX. That all men should be, and of right are, free to think, free to
act, free .to speak, and free to vote without fear, molestation, intimida-
tion, or undue influence.

FOR POLITICAL FREEDOM.

Thus believing, whenever designing men have seized upon the cloak
of religion to hide from view their nefarious' designs, and while
appealing to man's spiritual faith have sought to direct his political
action for selfish ends, the Democratic party since its organization has
denounced such a course. It has declared in the past, and it declares
now, for every man's political freedom, whatever may be the govern-
mental views of those who guide his spiritual welfare.

We therefore in the most solemn manner say that we will not be
s 53

834 EEED SMOOT.

so dictated, interfered with, or hindered in our political duties by
those selected to minister to us the consolations of the gospel.

The people being sovereign in this free land, to the people we make
our appeal. The church being the source of man's religion, to the
church JVQ appeal when we so desire with regard to matters affecting
the conscience. We call upon the Democrats of Utah — men, women,
and children — and all other people who sympathize with our efforts to
secure political freedom, to assemble in every hamlet throughout the
Territory on the evening of Wednesday, the 30th day of October,
1895, at their usual places of meeting, then and there to read this dec-
laration; to listen to such remarks as may be properly" made in con-
nection therewith, and to solemnly consecrate themselves, their efforts,
their property, and all that they hold dear, if need be, to this cause of
human liberty.

And this cause, with the help of the One who holds the universe in
the hollow of His hand, we will ever advance and maintain.

IT FULLY MET EXPECTATIONS — THE GREAT DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
WAS A TRIUMPHANT AFFAIR.

This is a Democratic year.

The foregoing enunciation of Democratic principles represents the
labor of the most remarkable convention held in the Territory of Utah.
It was a great convention. It was the most enthusiastic of the year.
Hundreds of Democrats gathered from all parts of the Territory and
declared against any interference of church with state. The great
gathering was a joyful surprise to the most hopeful Democrat. It
was a complete answer to the most quibbling of the Republicans who
would belittle the issue.

The great Democratic party has spoken. In solemn tones it calls
upon the people of Utah to vindicate themselves. It has testified its
belief in this people. It has placed the issue squarely before them.
They have now in their own hands the vindication of their honor.
They may say whether Democracy has misplaced its trust.

It was a good convention from beginning to end. The best evidence
is the renewed courage and determination which the Democrats take
home with them. Men came long distances for the convention. They
spent their money for it. But not one can be found who believes he
was not justified. They all feel that a great crisis has been met and
that the future peace was worth the present trouble.

This is still a Democratic year.

[The morning session.]
JUDGE POWERS MAKES A GREAT SPEECH IN THE OPENING.

At precisely 11 a. m. Judge Powers came upon the stage from the
west wing and walked to the chairman's seat. As soon as he came in
view he was recognized, and applause started in the Cache delegation.
It was caught up and increased by the other delegations and spread to
the galleries. Applause, whistles, stamping, and cheers came from
all directions, and were renewed twice. Judge Powers had in his
hand an improvised gavel in the shape of a stout short stick. Judge
Powers struck the table twice and said:

"The convention will again come to order."

EEED SMOOT. 835

C. W. Penrose was called upon for an invocation. He prayed for
the preservation in this country of civil and religious liberty, in
accordance with the Constitution.

The B. H. Roberts Glee Club sang for the first time the new
national air, "The Land of Washington," a very beautiful thing, full
of the highest patriotic sentiment. This brought forth hearty
applause, and the glee club sang as an encore the beautiful u Democ-
racy's Big Four." Whenever the names " Rawlins, Thatcher, Roberts,
and John T. Caine" came in they were met with cheers and applause.

POWERS'S GREAT ADDRESS.

Judge Powers then arose and in solemn tones made his opening-
address, as follows:

"The call of the Democratic State committee that has been read to
you this morning indicates to you the scope and purpose and the rea-
son for your assembling again in convention. Seldom has it become
necessary for any political party, after it has placed its candidates in
the field, to ask that those men who named the candidates, who framed
the platform for them to stand upon, should again assemble for the
purpose of considering questions affecting the success of the party, as
well as the weal or woe of the people. [Applause.] I doubt whether
in any land, upon any occasion, that there assembled a deliberative
body having a higher responsibility cast upon it than rests upon the
delegates of theOgden convention that are again in session. [Applause.]

"You have met to discuss, to consider, and to act upon a question
for statesmen; you are called upon to solve a problem and to advocate
a principle for which men in all times since God said ' Let there be
light,' and there was light, have been willing to lay down their lives. It
is a principle of personal liberty — the principle of political freedom — the
principle before which all questions are dwarfed. In all ages, when the
people have sought to establish their rights, those who were in power and
believed they were safely intrenched have endeavored to laugh their
efforts to scorn; they have ridiculed their motives; they have distorted
their purposes; they have sought to belittle that which is dear — as dear
to the intelligent and liberty -loving man as his life.

"In the present crisis that is now to be met by the Democratic party
history has repeated itself, and upon all hands men who believe they
are about to secure the fruits of unlawful interference with the rights
of the people have cried down the idea of your reassembling and
laughed at the thought that you had a grievance — have tried to
belittle the question. History will again repeat itself when this con-
vention shall have acted and the people shall finally have passed upon
this issue that is now thrust upon them, for they who laughed will be
buried beneath the avalanche of votes. [Applause.]

THE HIGHEST STATESMANSHIP.

" We are here, then, assembled upon a grave occasion, to consider a
question that requires the highest statesmanship. If it were needed
for me to say anything upon the subject, my words would be for you
to approach that work as you would approach the act of making your
will before going upon the field of battle. That which you do here
to-day not only will be a part of the history of Utah and America, but

836 REED SMOOT.

it will even inure to the weal or the woe of this people, which, God
knows, have had enough of sorrow, distress, and suffering. [Applause. ]
]f you act with moderation, yet with firmness; if you meet this issue
in no spirit of passion; if you take from your minds all malice, if any
there be therein, then }^our action will be that your children and yoiiv
children's children will rise up and call you blessed for what you do
this day. [Applause.] So the thought that I would suggest to you is,
that you approach this question in the spirit that I have indicated, with
no thought of wrong toward any man, but with the firm resolution
that in the matters which are of the people and belong to the people,
the people shall and will be free. [Great cheering and applause.]

"Those whose heads here are silvered with the frosts and snows of
many winters have but to turn their thoughts back to the long, the
dark, the terrible night that Utah has passed through; you have but
to consider the distress that you have witnessed — and it has not been
confined to Mormons; it has not been confined to Gentiles — all the
people here have tasted of the cup of bitterness that was thrust to
their lips. It had been hoped that all that which had caused the peo-
ple so much sorrow and suffering had been buried never to be revived.
It had been hoped by us that henceforth there would be no division
here politically upon religious lines — that no man would seek to play
upon the religious feelings of the people. Year after year, campaign
after campaign, there have been interjected into our political affairs
that which has been said would be and that which should be and that
which hereafter shall be kept out. [Applause.]

THE CULMINATION MERELY.

It culminated in a recent occurrence that is a part of the history
of this Territory, and true indeed were the words of those who, in a
spirit of sarcasm, stated that the chairman of the State committee,
recognizing that his party was defeated, therefore asked for the reas-
sembling of this convention. I was confident of victoiy the day before
the fateful Monday, and it was an army fleeing from the battlefield
on the Tuesday following. And why? Because in every nook and
corner in the territory there were men and women who were saying
that our candidates and our party were under a ban. Our own people
disheartened, knowing the power and influence of those in authority,
knew not what to do or where to turn; felt that without any fault on
their part, a victory that was theirs by right was being in an unjust
and wicked manner taken from them. So, upon carefully considering
the situation, there came news in the papers, before we had taken any
action, that our candidate for Congress was to be forced to resign,
and there were remarks flying here and there as thick as snowflakes
on a winter's day.

There were questions coming and demands being made that action
should bo, taken. Finally, the State committee was assembled, and it
considered this matter seriously and carefully for hours, and it deter-
mined that this question having been thrust upon this people at this
time, it was the duty of Democracy, which is always unterrified, to
meet it like men. [Applause.] And it recognized that the people
being the source of all political power, it could only be properly met
by the representatives of the Democratic party coming from all the
different quarters of the Territory, in convention assembled, so that

REED SMOOT. 837

when the word was spoken as to what should be done, it would be with
the majesty of that great party founded by the man who wrote the
Declaration of Independence. [Applause]. So we have asked you
to assemble here to-day in a spirit of kindness toward all, but with the
firm determination that we propose to.rnarch forward to victory. For
my own part, when this news came to me, when I observed that our
people were discouraged, I felt and I said that if we are to have the
victory that was within our grasp taken from us by ulterior means,
then we would know that this Territory was false to the pledges that
it made to the nation; we would know that this people were not the
honest people that they had said to the world they are. We would
know that we had better far remain here under the tutelage of
the National Government, and we should not enter the Union under
false pretenses, but that we should take down our ticket and vote
down the constitution. [Tremendous applause.]

PEOPLE ALL RIGHT.

4 'But no sooner did the word go forth that your committee pro-
posed to stand firm and to plant itself upon the eternal principle of
human liberty and political freedom, that it proposed to give to every
church the rights that it seeks for itself, as a political party, there
^'ame words of cheer. There came words of assurance from men who
I had feared would distrust my motives, I having fought them as hard
as I could in days gone by, but they said to me that they were with
me in this fight, and I sent back the word to them that I was with
them in this fight. [Applause.] So the course of the State committee
became clear; it was to march forward, though but 20 men should fol-
low; it was to sustain the constitution of the State; it was to appeal
to the people, and to call to their minds the fact that when they vote
for the constitution they vote against any union of church and state,
and upon such an issue as that, as God is my judge, I would prefer to
march with you to an overwhelming defeat than to enjoy victory
gained by such means as the Republican party are using to-day in
order to defeat Democracy. [Tremendous applause.] For if we do
not succeed in this campaign upon this issue, which will not down; if
we do not succeed now, during our lifetime we can fight for that prin-
ciple, and some day our children or our grandchildren will win, and
then you will be remembered when the men who seek to enjoy the
fruits of Republican efforts and machinations are cast into oblivion.
[Applause.]

UI have faith in the people; you have responded to this call in such
a manner that I am satisfied that there is no weakening; I am satis-
fied that we are to march forward to a victory that will cover Utah
with glory, because she will enter the Union as a free State, the peo-
ple having declared, as they will by their votes, that there is nothing
theoretical, but there is here a practical division between politics and
religion. [Applause.]

i;Go forward into the fight; take the word of cheer to every hamlet
in this Territory. Carry back to every man, woman, and child the
thought that 1 now give you, that 4this is a Democratic year,' and that
Democracy is going to win [applause]; that it will not only be a
victory for the Democratic party, but it will inure to the benefit of
every man, woman, and child and close the door forever to religious

838 RKED SMOOT.

hatred and persecution. It will bring all classes nearer and nearer
together; it will give us peace, and bury the animosities of the past.
All this is a matter for which men can and for which men should tight.
It is a principle ever living; it will write victory upon our banner in
November. [Renewed and continued applause.]

FROM MRS. BATHSHEBA SMITH.

Throughout Judge Powers's remarks he had beeti deeply earnest.
He spoke slowly, but impressively, and was visibly holding himself
well in hand. He was frequently interrupted with spontaneous and
hearty applause, cheers breaking forth several times. At the conclu-
sion he announced he would read two communications:

DEAR SIR: I am greatly obliged to you for sending me complimen-
tary tickets to attend the great Democratic State convention to-day,
but owing to circumstances I am unable to attend. I should be
delighted to be present at such a gathering of Democrats in champion-
ing the cause of " equal and exact justice to all and special privileges to
none." All hail, Democracy!

MRS. BATHSHEBA SMITH.

This was greeted with great applause.

MOSES THATCHER'S LETTER — HE TAKES HIS POSITION RIGHT IN LINE

WITH HIS PARTY.

Judge Powers then read the following letter, which provoked great
applause from the mere announcement:

LOGAN, UTAH, October 21, 1895.
Hon. O. W. POWERS,

Chairman Democratic Territorial Committee,

and Members of the Reconvened Convention.

GENTLEMEN: Owing to the unsatisfactory condition of mv health,
which renders it impossible for me to be with you, I adopt this means
of conve}Ting to your honorable body a statement of my position on
questions arising from the very serious crisis which, without volition
of the Democratic party, now confronts us; and in the proper and per-
manent solution of which, as I view it, is involved the honor, peace,
prosperity, and liberty of Utah's inhabitants. [Applause.]

As heretofore, when treating on political issues, I have sought to
be candid and straightforward in word and act and the conditions now
confronting us, as well as my honor and that of the party of which I
am a member, dernamj that 1 should continue along those lines, leav-
ing nothing of a doubtful nature upon which to found an argument as
to my position, either by friends or by political opponents. [Hearty
applause.]

HOW HE HAS STOOD.

My connection with matters relating to the present grave crisis
would appear to warrant a brief statement of my political acts since
the division of the citizens of Utah on national and local political ques-
tions. At the outset I was strongly impressed with the idea that it
would be better for the ecclesiastical officers of the dominant religious
society in Utah, as well as in the interest and welfare of the people, for

REED SMOOT. 839

prominent church officials, including the members of the first presi-
dency, the twelve apostles, and the presidency of the quorum of sev-
enties, not to involve themselves in active partisan politics, believing
that their influence should be brought to bear against the acrimonious
jealousies likely to arise in a contest over questions in which the masses
of the people were not then well informed. In other words, that these
high ecclesiastical authorities might be called upon to pour oil on the
politically disturbed waters of our fair Territory ; a task which I then
and now believe can be successfully performed by those only who had
not become partisan in their political preferences, and I believe that
action in harmony with those ideas was about that time taken, but was
shortly thereafter, as I remember, ignored and that as the record J
think will show, not by members of the Democratic party, but by
their Republican political opponents.

The following is an extract from the Salt Lake Herald of July 30,
1891, and is a synoposis of remarks made by myself at a Democratic
meeting held in the Salt Lake theater on that date.

uThe Democrats held a rousing meeting at the Salt Lake theater
last evening.

"Hon. Moses Thatcher was there as a listener. While the meeting
was being adjourned the vast audience demanded that he speak, and
after hesitating till the demand grew beyond resistance, he appeared

and spoke briefly."
This is what the

Herald says of it:

HOW HE STOOD IN 1891.

" Mr. Dyer stepped forward to say that the meeting was at an end,
but cries for Moses Thatcher resounded from all parts of the house,
and Mr. Thatcher finally stepped to the front and said: " For reasons
which 1 think sufficient I have taken no active part in this campaign-
not because I was not in sympathy with the grand old Democratic
party, but because there are many people in Utah throughout the
length and breadth of the land, who believe that the church dominates
the State in Utah. Because of the ecclesiastical position which I
occupy, I desire to say no word in this campaign, but look to these
gentlemen for the educating of the people. A great hero of many
battles who had shot and shell tear up the ground at his feet, who has
seen the blood of those who wore the blue and the gray flow in streams,
said to Lee when the latter surrendered and handed him his sword:
4 No, General, not a horse or a mule. You will need them all for
your spring plowing.' It is a glorious thing to be magnanimous.
You may look on that picture and then turn and look on this. The
Morman people are sincere. [Tremendous applause.]

"We trust the gentile Democrats and Mormon Democrats alike,
because they can not go back on their promises without stultification.
Stultification is dishonor, and to us dishonor is worse than death.
[Prolonged applause.] lam opposed to a union of church and state,
and always have been. [Applause.] It can not exist under the Ameri-
can system of government. [Applause.]' We have never been under-
stood, but, thank God, we will be."

The above needs no explanation and is here inserted for the purpose
only of showing my political attitude at that time, and it is wholly
unnecessary to review the history of politics in this Territory since

840 EEED SMOOT.

that date, every citizen of this Territory being fully posted on the
matter. I therefore need waste none of the time of this reconvened
convention in an argument respecting the political struggles in this
Territory during the past three years; nor need I add anything on the
question of church influence being directly or indirectly to the injury
of one party and correspondingly to the benefit of another, because
that question has been fully discussed during the period to which I
allude.

FEOM THE OTHER SIDE.

From the beginning, in nearly all, if not all, of my political addresses
and private conversations I have uniformly sought to impress upon
the minds of the people the absolute separation of church and state,
holding that the civil obligations of the citizen should in no degree
trammel the exercise of a man's religious obligations, nor, on the other
hand, should the exercise of his religious duties interfere with his
obligations to the State and nation whose citizen he was; maintaining
always that there were no presidents, apostles, nor other church officials,
as such, in politics, and that the freedom of the citizen in these matters
was not the gift of any man or combination of men, but a bequest from
the fathers who, for the benefit of themselves, their posterity, and
future generations, placed their honor, their fortunes, and their lives
upon the altar of human liberty.

In support of those views I submit the following extracts from a
sermon delivered by myself at Logan in April, 1892, which embodies
my present convictions and ideas upon the matters therein treated.

THEORY OF CHURCH AND STATE.

The writer then quoted a lengthy sermon delivered by himself, begin-
ning u Israel sought, at a period in the world's history, a kingly gov-
ernment, a union of civil and religious rule. God, having forewarned
them of its evil results, finally }nelded, as an indulgent parent often
yields to the importunities of misguided children." Then he traced
the theocratic government of Zedekiah, the command that the people
must submit themselves to Nebuchadnezzar and the evils which fol-
lowed their refusal to separate the church and state. He spoke also
of the attempt of Nebuchadnezzar to force a worship of the golden
calf and the evils that came from it. He traced history down to the
time of Christ, when he commanded that the people ""render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are
God's." He took up the union of church and state effected in Euro-
pean countries and the action of the people who fled to America for
freedom.

"Then came the struggle for nationality," he continued, "that
finally found voice in the Declaration of Independence, demanding
advanced human rights as outlined in the Constitution, an instrument
inspired of God. Its writers, profiting by the experience of the past,
made religious liberty its chief corner stone, but avoided a union of
church and state. Without violation of that sacred charter of human
rights, Congress can pass no law respecting the establishment of religion
or preventing the free exercise thereof. To that guaranty of the
Constitution we owe our existence as a church."

He declared the People's Party was the outgrowth of opposition

REED SMOOT. 841

which united the spiritual and temporal interests of the Mormon peo-
ple, leading to the charge that the Mormons believed in church and
state, with a preference for the church. That was not true. Their
theory of free government is that sovereignty is in the people. This
is a doctrine of republican democracy and is built upon a confidence in
the honesty and integrity of the masses, who voice their sentiments
in the words "Vox populi, vox Dei." Theocracy would express itself
in the words u Vox Dei, vox populi."

"We have no presidents or apostles candidates for political office,
though such, as citizens only, might be pleased with the votes of the
people. The idea that church officials, as such, desire to influence the
political bias or vote of any man is certainly erroneous; and if there
are those who claim otherwise after what has been authoritatively said
on this matter their conduct is certainly most reprehensible." He
recalled the words of President Woodruff and said he would not doubt
that man for an instant. He continued to show that at the time of
the delivery of the sermon he would not enter politics, believing it
incompatible with his high office in the church.

The letter continued:

"I have inserted these extracts for the purpose of showing what my
views were three years ago on the issues now confronting us, and I
need not dwell upon what has transpired during that period, because
the people are already well informed upon those issues."

UNDER A BAN.

Many Democrats, if not the majority, in Utah have been made to
feel that they were, more or less, under a religious ban, and have had
to endure the slurs, if not the direct insults, tauntingly and sneeringly
put upon them by men who had espoused other political doctrines,
and many have endured insinuations as to their religious integrity,
and that which recently occurred in the priesthood meeting was a
natural sequence of causes leading up to that culmination.

Personally, 1 have 110 complaint to make because of what then and
there happened, in the allusions made to myself, because, as I view it,
the individual peace, happiness, integrity, and reputation of one man,
or a score of men, cuts but little figure in matters of great conse-
quence to the people of Utah, like that which now confronts us, but I
may be permitted to say in passing that nothing in the acts and words
of myself would warrant any person in the church in the belief that
I would not upon proper occasion show, as I have always done, the
respect due my ecclesiastical superiors, and that without in the least
degree doing a wrong or in any way affecting the honor of the polit-
ical party to which I belong.

1 have always believed, and now believe, that there is abundance of
room in Utah as elsewhere for a citizen to do his whole duty to the
State without in the least degree interfering with his obligation to the
church of which he may be a member. The thought had never occurred
to me that I had at any time been a priestly hireling. Upon the least
intimation from those who furnish means from which myself and others
have received compensation that such is their views of the matter, I
I would thereafter neither take nor expect compensation for ecclesi-
astical work, but would gladly do all in my power, trusting the future
for the rewards to which 1 would be entitled.

842 REED SMOOT.

t
INTENSIFY THE DEMAND.

Recent occurrences intensify the demand, as expressed in our State
constitution, that State and religious matters must not be united, and
that while it is the duty of the State to protect the church in the
enjoyment of the fullest religious freedom, tne church must not attempt
to dominate in civil affairs, and on this point I am with my party and
do not hesitate to believe that our citizens when given the opportunity
will vindicate and maintain their political honor.

Believing, as I do, that the citizens of Utah will once more, at the
polls in November, vindicate their integrity and preserve their honor,
as I expect to do, I shall vote for the constitution, being ready and
willing, in and out of season, to do my part in maintaining the politi-
cal rights, privileges, and blessings of free institutions.

And now, in conclusion, in view of what has recently occurred,
should the members of the convention feel that it would be in the
interest of the Democratic party in Utah to have my name withdrawn
as a possible candidate for the United States Senatorship, you may
regard my resignation as herein tendered, but should you still think
that I should remain where }^our action at Ogden placed me, I shall be
with you, head, heart, and hand to the end. Very respectfully, your
obedient servant,

MOSES THATCHER.

A TREMENDOUS DEMONSTRATION.

There was applause all through the reading. It reached its climax,
however, when Judge Powers, raising his voice, read the sentence con-
taining the words: "The church must not attempt to dominate the
state, and on this point I am with my party." At this word Judge
Powers stopped a moment, and before he could proceed the Cache
County delegation began to applaud and cheer. The house took it up
and cheer after cheer rang through the house. At its height, Lyrnan
R. Martineau, of Cache, who was in the pit, arose and waved his hat.
The Cache delegation arose and cheered.- Then J. L. Rawlins came
forward on the front of the stage, waving his hat and cheering. The
house responded, men and women waving hats and handkerchiefs,
cheering, stamping, applauding, and raising the roof. At the end of
the address there was a repetition of this scene, at the end of which a
delegate from Morgan called for three cheers for Moses Thatcher, and
they were given with hearty good will. Never was such a scene wit-
nessed in a convention in Utah as that which grew out of the reading
of this manly, straightforward letter.

Judge Dusenberry, of Provo, moved that the committee on creden-
tials of the convention make the list of delegates present. Adopted.

COMMITTEE ON DECLARATION.

Charles H. Hart, of Cache, moved the appointment of a committee
on declaration and order of business of one from each county. Judge
Powers waited a moment and then put the motion. There was a chorus
of "ayes" and the contrary was about to be put when Charles Baldwin
arose in the body of the house and said he wanted to oppose the motion.
He was ruled out of order on the ground that he was interrupting a
vote and the motion was carried.

EEED SMOOT. 843

"This looks like gag rule," said Baldwin.

P. el. Daly moved that the motion be reconsidered, but as he had
not voted, August B. Elder was compelled to come to his aid. On
motion of R. W. Sloan the motion was laid on the table.
. The roll was then called and the following were named as the com-
mittee:

Beaver, G. H. Fennemore; Boxelder, Nels Jenson; Cache, J. H.
Paul; Carbon, John Hood; Davis, B. H. Roberts; Emery, William
Howard; Garfield, not represented; Grand, not represented; Iron,
Edward J. Palmer; Juab, H. J. McCune; Kane, C. W. Penrose; Mil-
lard, James A. Melville; Morgan, Joshua Williams; Rich, Aquilla
Nebeker; San Juan, Jerrold R. Letcher; Salt Lake, A. T. Schroeder;
Sanpete, Guy P. Wilson; Sevier, Bernard H. Greenwood; Summit,
John Boyden; Tooele, E. A. Wall; Uinta, L. Johnson; Utah, S. R.
Thurman; Wasatch, William Buys; Washington, Moroni Snow:
Wayne, Richard W. Young; Weber, David Evans.

David Evans moved that the rules be suspended and that Mr. Bald-
win be given an opportunity to express his views. This was carried.

Mr. Baldwin said his reason was that the motion was premature.
An emergency had arisen and the convention was recalled for the pur-
pose of finding what the party wanted. How could a committee draft
an address until it was known what was wanted. If some fireworks
only were to be let off, men used to pyrotechnics should be appointed.
He wanted a full discussion.

EVANS'S 'RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY.

David Evans, of Weber, moved the following resolution:

" Whereas it has been asserted that the language used at the recent
priesthood meeting by Joseph F. Smith relative to the candidacy of
Moses Thatcher and B. H. Roberts has been distorted, misquoted, and
misunderstood: Now, therefore, be it

^Resolved, That the chair appoint a committee of five to wait upon
the presidency of the church and respectfully ask for a verbatim report
of what was said relative to the candidacy of said Thatcher and Roberts
at said priestrhood meeting, to the end that the public may know exactly
what was said on that subject on said occasion."

Mr. Meloy: I move an amendment to the resolution that the name
of P. H. Lannan be substituted for the first presidency. [Laughter.]

This was ruled out.

Mr. Evans said he had always been opposed to union of church
and state, but he believed there "should be a full understanding of the
matter. Both President Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith have said
there was no political significance in the remarks. They say their
language has been distorted. Should we not know precisely what was
said ? vV^e will not be catering to the church.

Mr. Rawlins arose on the platform and was greeted with applause.
He said it would be a part of the duty of the committee on declaration,
and moved that the resolution be referred to it with power to act.

Judge Judd moved a recess until 3 p. m., and it was taken.

844 REED SMOOT.

[Afternoon session.]
SOME RINGING SPEECHES BY LEADING DEMOCRATS.

Owing to the fact that the committee on declaration required more
time than was at first presumed necessary, the afternoon session was
delayed until 3.30, when Chairman Powers called the convention to
order.

Joseph M. Cohen read the report of the committee on credentials,
showing that 650 delegates were entitled to seats. The report recom-
mended each delegation be permitted to cast the full vote of the county.
The report was adopted.

» FISHER HARRIS.

The chair stated that the committee on declaration would require
about twenty minutes more, whereat loud cries went up for Harris.
There was no resisting the appeal, so Fisher Harris came forward and
made one of his characteristic ringing Democratic speeches.

Mr. Harris said in part there was very little for him to say, but as
he sat in his chair at the morning session he heard the sound of the
coming years which tramped down the aisles of time, marching on
to battle for Americanism, headed by Democracy. There is no time
to face an issue like the present. It has been said that he was in favor
of withdrawing the ticket. He was not. He believed in fighting the
battle out on the lines drawn, and was confident that Democracy would
come back bearing the golden fruits of victory. Democracy was
always the first in all questions of political reform, and with the
confidence he had in the people of Utah he was assured of success.
Republicans have prided themselves on being the patriots of the coun-
try. They have plucked the tail feathers of the eagle to make him
scream from Appomattox to the present time. But where are they
in this strife for American principles? Skulking as usual, while
Democrats are in the van carrying the colors of freedom. Back of
the song breathes the spirit of the singer, behind the canvas is the
soul of the painter, behind the stars is the omnipotence of God him-
self, and behind Democracy is the und}^ing principle of truth. We
shall win the fight so sure as the sun rolls his accustomed course.

REID, OF SANPETE.

When Mr. Harris finished William K. Reid arose and said: "The
eyes of all Utah are on Sanpete, and Sanpete is, ±6 strong, all with
you. So help us God, Sanpete is American and they can not sway us,
for we are with the Democracy of Utah."

JUDGE JUDD SPEAKS.

Responding to a popular clamor Judge Judd came forward and said
that when the conference met and was dissolved another meeting took
place and in hours almost the feeling went out that the candidates of
the Democratic party were anathematized and were to be defeated.
That is the occasion of your assembling. The Republicans say this is
a grand-stand play of O. W. Powers, but I tell you it is a grand-stand
play of the people. [Cheers.] Heretofore in dealings with the Mor-

EEED SMOOT. 845

mon Church in matters political we have dealt with the question with
gloved hands. But we are called here to-day in convention to deal
with this matter and speak plainly. Let us be men.

Judge Judd referred to the Trumbo circular bearing the telegram
from the first presidency, and said he was inclined to leaye the polit-
ical field; but when James Moyle had appealed to him to not desert
Democracy, he vowed by the eternal he was in the fight to stay, and
to fight for the principle of eternal divorce of church and state. He
believed the people of Utah were greater than any priesthood. The
people of America are watching this contest. The press of the country
is watching Utah. It is going to announce to-morrow that Utah is
American, because this people is going to prove true to itself. It is
not safe to tamper with the liberties of the Anglo-Saxon blood, as his-
tory demonstrates. It is not safe to attempt to tamper with the people
of Utah.

Remember that when }^ou leave this convention the fight has just
begun. It will be whispered that this man and that has offended.
Stand firm and say that no man can tamper with the rights of Ameri-
can citizenship. I believe the people appreciate the emergency, but
are capable of meeting it.

The speaker criticised the course of the Tribune. In days gone by
it criticised him for attempting to "deliver Utah to the Mormon hier-
archy." But to-day he stood fighting the battle of American freedom,
while the Tribune is owned and controlled by the Mormon Church.
Judge Judd quoted some of the recent editorials in which the Tribune
discussed the topic of apostasy.

A voice: "Judge, when was the Tribune baptized?"

"I will answer your question. It was baptized when the com-
pact was made to send Frank J. Cannon and C. C. Goodwin to the
United States Senate. Don't interrogate me too closely, old man, or
I will tell you a whole lot."

Judge Judd then retired.

Judge Powers announced that Judge King, of Provo, would address
the convention. The eloquent judge was greeted with great applause.

Judge King said he believed that the great body of Democracy was in
favor of taking such steps as would emphasize the fact that they believe
in absolute religious and political freedom. He spoke not only as a
Democrat, but as a Mormon. He had worked in that church for
years. The hope of his heart is with the success of that church.
Religion is a divine attribute to which all should pay devotion. But
until the day shall come when the King of Kings shall rule, the
line between church and state must be strictly drawn and men must
hew to the line.

He has been a Mormon for years. If he understands the teachings
and spirit of the church all men are to be free and equal, and what is
Caesar's must be rendered to Caesar and what is God's must be ren-
dered to God. It should not be difficult to determine where the alle-
giance to the church should begin and end and where the allegiance to
the state should begin and end. There is a province for each. There
is a line beyond which neither should go. He believes the Democratic
party to-day, as in the past, .will stand as the exponent of religious
liberty and political freedom.

846 REED SMOOT.

/

It is a peculiar thing that when the Democratic party in this Ter-
ritory lifted its voice for American principles, the Republican party,
which has always made its boast of being progressive and patriotic,
stands like a wall against it. The Republicans should strike hands
with the Democrats and say they wanted to see a fair contest and vic-
tory without any religious interposition. He would rather see the
Democratic party go down in defeat again, again, and yet again, rising
phoenix-like after every defeat until the victory came at last, than to
have the dishonor of submitting to such interference.

The Democratic party will make the issue. It will make no war on
any church. That would be contrary to the principles of the founders
of the party, who wrote the Declaration of Independence. '" 1 want to
tell you tha^ upon the morrow each Democrat must consecrate himself
anew, his life and his services to the principles upon which our glori-
ous party is united. I do not believe that the Mormon people will
show any ingratitude when the time comes for favors that have been
given to them. If we go forward advisedly, courageously, and cheer-
fully, victory will be ours, the action of the party will be vindicated,
and Utah will have an amelioration of their past."

L. R. MARTINEAUX.

Judge Powers then called upon Hon. L. R. Martineaux, of. Cache/
who made a brief address.

The speaker said that while he was no orator, the conditions which
confront us are such that every man owes a duty to his fellow-man to
speak. The people of Utah, if they shall adopt the constitution at the
coming election, will vote against the union of church and state. Let
every man stand by the principles of Democracy and work for its
interests.

There is a question at issue which involves the honor of young Utah.
There are 30,000 young Mormons here who love the church as they
love their lives, but they love their honor more. The speaker believed
they would vindicate that honor. The church, as a church, is not
fighting Democracy, but designing men within its confines are using
their positions against its principles. But "this is a Democratic year"
and Democracy will win. Freedom will roll in a tidal wave over Utah
and carry everything ahead of it.

JUDGE M'MILLAN.

Judge McMillan, of Ogden, was asked to speak, and responded. At
first he had doubted the wisdom of calling this convention. He thought
the Democratic party should pay no attention to the question, but after
looking over the magnificent assemblage he felt sure that the action
taken would go forth to the people and that they would indorse it.

Although clouds lowered around the ship of Democracy, the light
was breaking in the East. Stand by with strong hearts and willing
hands, and if the vessel goes down, whether it be in political sea or
ecclesiastical gulf, have the colors nailed to the mast.

JUDGE H. H. ROLAPP.

Judge Powers in a neat speech introduced Judge Rolapp, of Ogden.
The speaker spoke forcibly and to the point.

REED SMOOT. 847

He came to America to enjoy the rights of citizenship and was as
firm in the faith as when he first sought liberty. He was proud of his
membership in the dominant church; had vindicated its doctrines, and
would be glad to do so once more. But under no circumstances would
he allow an}^ church to dictate his political opinions. He did not
believe the church was attempting to dominate, but designing men
were trying to manipulate matters. Come to Weber with a strong-
declaration of right and preach Democracy and we will respond with
a majority.

DR. ELLEN D. FERGUSON.

Judge Powers then introduced his "first counselor," Dr. Ellen B.
Ferguson.

The speaker believed all women were Democrats by nature, because
there is a sense of justice in their being, which appeals for justice, for
equal rights to all, special privileges to none. Although women are
not permitted to do more than work for Democracy at present, the
time is not far distant when two-thirds of them will vote the Demo-
cratic ticket.

If you will stand to your principles like men (and, mind you, the
women will be behind you and hold you up) you will win a victory. Is
this country to rise superior to ecclesiastical authority in politics, or
is it not? I think it is. The Republican eye is blinded to the situa-
tion. The bees are in their bonnets, else they would strike hands with
Democracy and fight for principle.

The speaker believed the convention met, not to elect candidates so
much as to stand for religious liberty. She did not believe the church
desired to fasten the shackles on anyone. The principles of the church
are one thing, the men another. And while we are fighting for these
principles let our tongues be not used in denouncing principles which
in themselves teach nothing pernicious.

Just as Mrs. Ferguson finished several members of the committee
on address were seen in the house, and a minute later Chairman J. H.
Paul appeared upon the stage and announced that the committee was
not yet ready to report. Therefore a recess was taken until 7 o'clock.

i [Evening session.]

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS OF THE PARTY.

The First Regiment band rendered the ''Hunting song," which
provoked hearty applause. When this was over the Roberts quartet
sang u Just before the battle," which, of course, was rewarded by an
encore. They sang "the land of Washington," a selection which
demonstrated the patriotism of the audience, for never was such cheer-
ing heard in the Salt Lake theater. Talk about making the welkin
ring. Why, ring isn't an adequate term — they made it fairly howl.

When the quartet finished, the committee on address presented
the resolutions quoted above, adopted by unanimous vote, which were
read by Judge Powers.

De Lamar, of Tooele, wanted to amend the declaration by inserting
the names of those who had used church influence at Panguitch and
other places in order that the people might know who the men are.
The motion was seconded by Alf ales Young, of Salt Lake, who wanted
to know who the man was.

848 REED 8MOOT.

"F. M. Lyman," was the reply.

Several objections were made, among them by David Evans and
Delegate Seaman, of Weber.

Professor Paul said the name was in the hands of the committee,
which had omitted to insert it because it was not deemed wise to use
too many names and make unnecessary enemies; but if any one
wanted the proof they could get it by calling on the committee. "

J. B. Timmony and Robert Sloan favored the amendment.

A. D. Gash, of Utah, wanted to go on record as wanting any Inan
who violated the most sacred principle of government to be his eternal
enemy. The people of Utah and the United States demand that Mr.
Lyman's name be inserted.

Judge McMillan reminded the convention it was making history.
It is possible that in hewing to this line some man's toes may be cut,
but the toes ought not to be there. He believed the names should be
inserted as a warning. The convention was not assembled to white-
wash or malign, but to do justice. He demanded the insertion be
made.

The amendment prevailed b}^ an overwhelming vote, it being prac-
tically unanimous.

Professor Paul then moved to strike out the paragraph adopted.

Judge Judd moved to table Paul's motion, which lost.

By request, Judge Powers read the paragraph.

Robert Sloan urged the adoption of the paragraph if true, but to
strike out if untrue. .

Delegate Thurman, of Utah, opposed striking out. He didn't believe
in censuring one man and omitting another when both were guilty.
Hew to the line.

Professor Paul said the committee had not the same amount of evi-
dence in the Lyman case as in the others and he did not want any
evidence that could not be fully substantiated.

Mr. Schroeder stated that the evidence came to the committee on
the written statement of two reputable citizens of Panguitch, and he
was willing to rest his case.

Judge Judd said the convention had apparently arrived at a point
where childs' play began and manhood ceased. He thought the para-
graph should be retained.

It was retained by an overwhelming vote.

P. J. Daly ofl'ered the following, which was seconded by H. J.
Dinniny:

"That the Democratic party retire its ticket from the field.

aThat it disband and work against the admission of Utah as a State.

"That all parts of the address in conflict with this resolution be
stricken out."

Mr. Creer moved to table the resolution, which prevailed.

Mr. Daly said: "I want to know whether gag rule is to prevail here
or not?"

"The Chair is not here to answer conundrums," was the reply.

David Evans, of Ogden, said that he voted in favor of tabling the
resolution, but he believed that Daly's resolution was entitled to
consideration and would move its reconsideration. The convention
reconsidered it, and H. J. Dinniny took the floor in advocating the
passage of the Daly measure.

EEED SMOOT. 849

DINNINY'S VIEWS.

Mr. Dinniny said it was utterly inconsistent to scold a little bit and
do nothing else. We have said that the leaders have not kept their
words. We all know that owing to the falsehood of the leaders of
the Mormon Church we were defeated last year in the last ten days
before election. We were defeated because of broken declarations.
Are we to declare the perfidy since 1891, and then only declare we are
free. The dearest thing to the leaders to-day is statehood. Now, in
light of history what in God's name can we expect when we get state-
hood? Under that we will have* no state, but all church, and unless
we defeat statehood we will be defeated this fall. There are men who
so much want statehood that they will do anything for it.

John N. Pike raised a point of order, but was ruled out.

The speaker asked, Are offices so dear that you would purchase it
with your liberty? Forbid it, Almighty God! If you vote for state-
hood, you fasten upon your neck the }roke of the Mormon Church.

James H. Movie advanced along an aisle, and in a voice drowning
all else, said: .

"I demand that the speaker be called to order."

This was received with cheers and applause. Judge Powers stilled
the tumult and asked for the point of order.

Mr. Moyle said that when the Mormon Church was attacked the
people of Utah were attacked. He was attacked. American citizens
were attacked.

Mr. Roberts was at the front of the stage immediately, saying that
Dinniny was in order and had a right to speak as he wanted.

THE CHAIR SUSTAINED.

The chair so ruled, Mr. Moyle took an appeal, and the chair was
sustained by an overwhelming vote.

Mr. Dinniny said he did not mean the members. He meant the
masters. [Voices, " We have no masters."]

The speaker said he meant the leaders of the church. The people
will bear the yoke and will deserve what will follow. [Groans from
the gallery.]

Judge Powers asked the police to keep order in the galleries. .

The speaker finally finished by saying that if a fight was made
against statehood the party would deserve the thanks of the nation.

ROBERTS REPLIES.

When Dinniny had finished, Roberts arose to reply, amid cheers and
applause. Calmly awaiting the cessation of the tumult, Utah's favor-
ite son looked in every way capable of answering every argument.

Mr. Roberts, replying, said he was opposed to the resolution. In
the address of the committee is a detailed statement of grievances
endured by the Democratic party in the past. He granted they had
been wonderfully patient, and admitted that victory was in sight this
fall until the party came to a standstill in wondering if again church
influence was to rob them of the fruits of the battle.

But, despite all the influence that was used to defeat the Democracy
in 1894, let it be known there were 19,000 Democrats, good and true,

s 54

850 EEED SMOOT.

who resisted. [Wild cheering and applause.] "I ask if this is
not good evidence that there is a determination to divorce the state
from the church. [Prolonged applause.] I want to ask if, after such
a magnificent declaration as this convention is, we are to be relegated
back to Territorial conditions. Have we not shown you that we are
in earnest? How are we to solve this difficulty? Take the ticket
from the field? It can not be settled that way. The lines of battle
are drawn. Shall1 it be written that the Democratic party retreated?
I have always heard that the party fought the hardest in the face of
difficulty. If our friends who have presented this resolution will
stand by that 19,000 who voted for Democracy- last fall, we will have
church and s^ate divorced. [Cheers.] The constitution which we have
formed declares there shall be no union of church and state. I signed
it in good faith, and I will maintain it. I hope that in justice to a
wronged people you will all vote aye. If it is adopted, it becomes the
supreme law of the land.

WILL APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE.

•

"The Democratic party asks no odds of any church, but it will
appeal to the source of all power, the people. Those 19,000 men
standing firm and true at the last election is an answer to the remarks
of Mr. Dinniny. This question must be settled, and it should be set-
tled now, not fifteen years hence. Now is the time to act, and let us
act for the people, for Democracy." [Great cheering.]

Mr. Roberts was never more earnest in his life. He was almost
white. He was affected with a cold, but he was forcing home his great
sentences with every tone, with every muscle, with every word. His
sentences brought forth the most enthusiastic applause, on one occasion
the whole house rising and cheering him to the echo.

RAWLINS FOR COURAGE.

Mr. Rawlins advanced to the front and was greeted with a great
cheer. He was opposed to despotism in any form. Ecclesiastical
despotism he most disliked. More than ten years ago less than fifty
young men met and put forward a ticket on the same lines. They
polled but few votes. In 1891 the Democrats looked forward with
hope. He had never been deceived as to what would come, but he
had relied upon the people and he had gone to them with the others
to make the appeal to them. The party had learned there were men
willing to violate pledges, but they still went before them. He
sketched the course of the party, the passage of the enabling act, his
own pledge of the people's honor and honesty. He said to have
stopped when Congress was about to act would have be to declare
the people could not be trusted. He believed that if there was a peo-
ple on the face of God's earth who would not vindicate their honor
under such conditions it was time it should be known.

Under such conditions, knowing full well that men, inside and out-
side the church, would combine party and church if they could to
ride into power, he made the declaration. He made it because he had
always lived among the people and had conceived them to be an honest
people. He knew they were God-fearing and had given their confi-
dence to the leaders. But he knew they would not uphold any man

REED SMOOT. 851

in any act of perfidy and dishonor. When that case was presented they
would arise and decide it aright. [Applause.] He had not thought it
right to be swa}Ted by men who are trying to do by underhand means
what they dare not do openly.

He did not think there was one Democratic candidate who was not
willing to lay aside his office to help the people. The actions taken
this year are but in line with what has been done in the past. Shall
we now stop short ? Shall we turn our voters into a disorganized mass ?
Shall we, representing at least half the people, thus acknowledge that,
though it represents the honesty and solidity of the people, declare
that we can not trust ourselves and meet the issue? We have the
patriotism of the people on our side and a course which involves the
whole peace of Utah. We appeal on a cause we know to be just. We
did not pledge the Mormon leaders. We did pledge the people to act
independent of control. We have not asked for any influence for our
victory. When the question came up before the Republican leaders
of the East they demanded assurance that this influence should be used
to make Utah Republican.

TRUST THE PEOPLE.

He said the Democrats may not win. People may be misled. He
foresaw that would come. Men who have bitterly denounced the Mor-
mon Church in the past are willing to take advantage of the things
they have denounced. We may have to meet the Republican party,
which lays as a shark in the wake of an ecclesiastical ship, taking what-
ever crumbs may fall. Republicans will encourage interference, so
we may have division of the spoils. It is not the Mormon leaders we
must fight, but the Republican party taking advantage of all church
influence possible.

NO RETREAT.

It is not the part of courage or wisdom to retreat. If we should
remain a Territory we would be confronted with it. Outside inter-
ference might solidify the people under a Territory; under a State
there will be no excuse for this. We must make our appeal to the
honest judgment of every voter in Utah. While the Republican party
may put forward upon the church, yet there is some honesty and love
of liberty in the Republican party. Those who believe with us must
come to our party as a place of refuge. Every Republican chairman
has used these influences, and every man who would fight for freedom
must join our ranks.

Let us put our reliance in the people. Let us appeal to them. If
we fail our principles must fail. No man must sell his vote in a free
country. Men must not be allowed to lose their liberty. No citizen
can be absolved from the duty he owes to the state because of his asso-
ciation with the church. With this issue we may go to the people.
The members of our party will not wait upon the pleasure of any
ecclesiastical organization before acting upon any question of state in
times of war or peace.

ROBERT SLOAN.

Robert Sloan said that while he did not understand that he was as
good a Mormon as Frank J. Cannon, still he was a believer in its doc-

852 HEED SMOOT.

trines. But he allowed no man to dictate his politics. In this matter
it would appear that this people were making1 progress. The^y are
breaking away from undue influence. He favored submitting this
proposition to the people. The people of Utah could be trusted in
this emergency. The resolution of disbanding should be voted down
in the interest of the present and of generations unborn. The boon
of statehood is more than houses and lands or silver and gold.

SAMUEL KING.

Sam King, of Provo,. declared that after listening to Senator Raw-
lins and Congressman Roberts he was loth to say anything. But last
fall, when it is claimed the church was used, all gains in the Demo-
cratic ranks came from the hamlets where lived the honest Mormons
who resisted that influence. He argued in favor of trusting to the
honesty, patriotism, and devotion of the Mormon people. He never
had any yoke on his neck and never would. Submit the constitution
to the people.

MRS. ELLEN JAKEMAN.

Mrs. Jakeman said the convention was overlooking the women, who
were interested in this matter. Fight the battle out now. If Democ-
racy is beaten this fall, the women will rally to the support of the
party next fall.

"1 appeal to you in the name of the women of Utah, the mothers
of men, to act like men in this convention."

Mrs. Jakeman's closing sentiment was applauded to the echo.

CHARLES BALDWIN.

Charles Baldwin said the logic was with the amendment. He said
he had no bitterness. He had not been wronged. Statehood should
be voted down. The address says that the last election was turned
from victory to defeat. That means that enough votes can be changed.
Make State lines and both committees will go around and see what is
wanted. [Cries of No! No!] He knew enough of politicians to know
they would do just such a thing.

JUDGE POWERS.

Judge Powers, addressing the convention, said that all present knew
his past political record. He had fought in the Liberal party until it
dissolved, when he joined the Democrats. He had faith in the Mormon
people. [Applause.] They are good, hard, honest fighters, for he
had met them in the open field. He was prepared to continue on and
march shoulder to shoulder to victory. There are no ifs or ands
about it. And the victory will not be transitory either. It will be
permanent. Give the people a taste of freedom and they will never
surrender it. He was with the party and the party was with him to a
finish. He knew that a people who would go to the very doors of the
penitentiary in support of their religious convictions could be trusted.

Hardy, of Sanpete, said he had not only gone to the doors of the
penitentiary for his belief, but he had been inside. Sanpete is with

REED SMOOT. 853

the party. Shall the party retreat before a few members of the church ?
He was. for a fight.

DAVID EVANS.

David Evans, of Weber, made a few remarks explaining his posi-
tion in moving for a reconsideration of the motion to table the Daly
resolution.

Following this he called the attention of the convention to the prog-
ress made in Utah. Ten years ago it would not have been possible to
have secured such a convention as this. And the way to secure further
progress was to submit the question to the people.

The resolution of Daly was overwhelmingly defeated and the address
adopted.

The convention, after passing a vote of confidence in Closes Thatcher,
adjourned.

Mr. POWERS. Thereupon, at the request of the State committee,
that declaration was read in every hamlet in the State on the night of
the 30th of October, and appropriate remarks were made in connection
therewith.

Prior to that time it had become well known that upon the occasion
of the division upon party lines, the secretary to the first presidency
of the Mormon Church had written to Bishop Wright, a bishop of
Hyrum, in Cache County, which letter purported to come from the
office of the first presidency, and which in substance said that it was
the wish of the church authorities, in the division upon party lines,
that the people should be divided between Republicans and Democrats
as nearly equally as possible, and that then there should be a large
class unattached to either political partv. This matter was substanti-
ated by some thirty-three affidavits which were obtained, and the com-
mittee went into protest to the first presidency. The authority was
disclaimed by the first presidency. Joseph F. Smith and George Q.
Cannon said they were innocent of the thing.

In the reconvened convention, upon the floor of the convention and
in the declaration, it was declared that F. M. Lyman, now president
of the twelve apostles and then apostle of the church, had been to
various places and had made substantially the same statement. Among
other places it was said he went to Panguitch, in the southern part of
the State—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This is all to be taken as part of the history—
uit was said?"

Mr. POWERS. I say that was said in the reconvened convention, and
it comes pretty near being a part of the history of Utah. I know it
was well known to myself at the time.

This Mr. Lyman disavowed, upon which 1 procured the affidavit of
Mr. Tolton, a merchant of Beaver city, in Beaver County, and the
statement of Mr. Alma Greenwood, of Millar d County. I also had
the statement of Mr. John C. Delmar, of Tooele County, and of Mr.
A. J. McCuiston, of the same county. The affidavit of Mr. Tolton
was as follows. This affidavit I furnished to the Salt Lake Herald
myself. I have searched for it since and can not find the original.

Mr. TAYLER. They were all printed, were they?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; this was printed.

Mr. TAYLER. It was a matter of public notoriety at the time?

854 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I recognize this copy, and know it is correct,
because I read it the next morning:

"TERRITORY OF UTAH. Comity of Beaver, ss:

kij. F. Tolton, of Beaver city, Beaver County, Utah, being first
duly sworn, on oath says:

at

at

also representatives of the stake presidencies of the following stakes,
^to wit: Beaver, Panguitch, Kanab, Parowan, and Millard.

''That said meeting was called and presided over by said Lyman
ostensibly for the purpose of dictating in matters political. " Said
L^man then and there stated that he had converted said meeting for
the purpose of falking politics. He then inquired, addressing himself
more particularly to M. L. Shepherd, 'How is it that so many of you
leading brethren in Beaver are Democrats ? ' He then resumed" by
saying, 'This is not as it should be. The authorities desire that the
people should divide themselves about equally between the two great
national parties,' and said it would be proper for some to remain
independent or neutral; 'that the object in such a division is that we
will then have more power in the nation and get a more honest admin-
istration from the party in power. Each party will then cater to us
more or less in order to secure control of the Territory."'

' ' He further stated that it was desired that brethren who had not
taken an active part in discussing politics, or who had not openly
declared themselves Democrats, should ally themselves with the
Republican party.

" Deponent further avers that while said Lyman was thus speaking
Apostle Cannon endeavored to check and restrain the speaker by say-
ing, 'Brother Lyman, don't go too far/ and then placed his hands
upon said Lyman by way of restraint.

" J. F. TOLTON.

' ' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of October, A. D.
1895.

"[SEAL.] R. MAESER,

"Notary Public.
" My commission expires July 21, 1896."

The statement of Alma Greenwood, a prominent citizen of Millard
County, is as follows :

OCTOBER 28, 1895.

On the day that William King, father of Judge King, was buried
at Fillmore, Utah, Apostle Francis M. Lyman called at my residence,
Fillmore, Millard County, Utah. After some conversation he invited
me to walk with him, which I did. We walked along Main street
northward for some considerable distance. During the same Apostle
Lyman conversed freely upon the political outlook and the prospects
of obtaining statehood for Utah. Among other things he remarked:
''Your brother, Joshua Greenwood, is a stanch Democrat, and it is
only right that you should be a Republican, as it would hardly be fair
for both of you to be on one side of the fence;" continuing: " We Avill
never get statehood unless we have more Republicans in Utah and in
fact Zion needs' it."

ALMA GREENWOOD.

REED SMOOT. 855

At Brigham city, after the reconvened convention (and which, as I
recall, was the only time at which further remarks were made in
religious meetings upon political affairs after we held our reconvened
convention), George Q. Cannon, John Henry Smith, Seymour B.
Young, were present at a conference. George Q. Cannon made a
speech in which he discussed politics and proceeded to attack the
Democratic party and the Democratic chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. What date was that?

Mr. POWERS. October 29 and 30 the conference was held.

Mr. VAN COTT. 1895?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. The speech was made on Sunday, I believe. I
think it was the 29th the speech was made. The substance of his
remarks was telegraphed to Salt Lake City and published, and they
added fuel to the flame. He was interviewed and he denied making
any such remarks. Thereafter I procured a number of affidavits
from men who heard the remarks, and upon Mr. Cannon consulting
with people he found that he had made the remarks, and he issued a card
of apology and said the reason he had denied it was that he had suf-
fered from a lapse of memory; that it really had all passed from his
mind, and that even while writing the apology he had no recollection
whatever upon the subject.

The election was held. Roberts was defeated by 897 votes. John
T. Caine, the candidate for governor, was defeated by 2,300 votes.
Had we succeeded in that election I am confident this investigation
would never have been in progress, for it would have been revolution;
but as it was, it was rebellion, and those who took part were rebels.

John C. Delmar, of Tooele County, who had named Francis M. Lyman
as being one of the people who had gone abroad with the statement that
the voters should be divided as nearly equally as possible between the
two great parties was, as 1 recall it, a councilor to the president of the
stake of Tooele. At any rate he was councilor to a bishop, but I
think he was councilor to the president of the stake. Shortly after,
or during the winter of 1896, there was prepared this manifesto.
Delmar declined to sign the manifesto. He was stripped of his
ecclesiastical authority. He has since moved away into Idaho.

The CHAIRMAN. What manifesto do you mean ?

Mr. POWERS. The political manifesto.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is the rule, we call it, Judge.

M. POWERS. I always call it the manifesto.

Mr. VAN COTT. I simply mention that so as to keep the record
straight.

Mr TAYLER. I understand that. They call it a political manifesto,
though.

Mr. POWERS. The political manifesto. I think Mr. Van Cott stated
a day or so ago it was to be found on page 168 of your record. I
think he so stated. I refer to that manifesto.

The CHAIRMAN. The one that Senator Bailey referred to the other
day ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. McCuiston was placed in disfavor. Mr. Rob-
erts was labored with. It has been publicly stated that for weeks he
was appealed to and he was prayed with by leaders of the church.
He had taken a very decided stand against the very principle that was
laid down in that manifesto. I think it was stated that for nine weeks
they labored with him and prayed with him and wept with him until
finally

856 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. All this goes in, I suppose, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. That is a part of the history.

Mr. POWERS. I have the report here, if you want it, Mr. Worthing-
ton, of Mr. Grant's speech on that subject.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 am speaking of the rule of evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing wrong about it if you would only
concede the nature of this declaration. It is a public declaration by
the heads of the church.

Senator McCoMAS. He said he thought they prayed and wept.

Mr. POWERS. I said Apostle Grant said they prayed and wept. I
did not say I think so, because I do not know anything about it.

Senator McCoMAS. That Apostle Grant said so?

Mr. POWEBC. That Apostle Grant said so publicly on the 3d day of
May, 1896.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not understand that what Mr. Grant said
is any more evidence against Mr. Smoot than what anybody else said.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on with the statement.

Mr. POWERS. Finally Mr. Roberts signed that declaration. At any
rate it was read at the conference of April, 1896, and when it was read
it was a surprise generally to the people of the State. Roberts's name
appeared, signed to the manifesto. The name of Moses Thatcher did
not appear. Moses Thatcher, in his public utterances, had opposed
the principle laid down in that manifesto. He had been sustained at
the polls by 18,000 people of the State, yet not one hand went up in
that vast tabernacle against the rule laid down in that manifesto.
It was adopted unanimously.

Thereafter it was taken to various sections of the State for adoption
at the stake conferences. It was presented at Provo by Joseph F.
Smith. At Logan it was presented on the 3d day of May, 1896, and
the stormy character of the proceedings there attracted the attention
of all the people of the State. Grant was there. Joseph F. Smith
was there. Apostle John Henry Smith was there. Moses Thatcher
was attacked for the course he had taken. Apostle Smith was said to
have been inspired by the action that he took politically. It was
declared that Moses Thatcher was not inspired.

Mr. TAYLER. Inspired by or to ?

Mr. POWERS. Inspired in their actions. The manifesto was adopted
with three dissenting votes originalty. On the h'nal vote I think there
was only one against it, and that, I believe, was Mr. Seth Langton, of
Logan. I think George W. Thatcher voted against it at one time, if
I recollect aright, in that conference. However, the Democratic peo-
ple still had great admiration for and confidence in Moses Thatcher.
In June, 1896, the Democratic State convention was called for the pur-
pose of electing delegates to the Democratic national convention at
Chicago. Moses Thatcher was a sick man. His health had been very
poor. He was unanimously elected a delegate to that convention and
given power by the convention to name his own alternate, and he named
a gentile, Mr. Fred K. Kiesel, a business man of Ogden, Utah. In the
same convention B. H. Roberts, who had signed the manifesto, was a
candidate and was defeated. In that convention the principles of the
reconvened convention, the nine points of faith, were reaffirmed. I
think that was the last time they were reaffirmed.

The legislature of 1896 was Republican, and it was during that legis-
lature that we had what was termed then and now the steering com-

KEED SMOOT. 857

mittee, which represented the church in looking over the proposed
legislation of the new State. The legislature elected to the United
States Senate Senator Frank J. Cannon and Senator Arthur Brown.

In 1896 the State went overwhelmingly Democratic.

Mr. VANCOTT. 1896?

Mr. POWERS. 1896, owing to the silver question, in which our peo-
ple were very much interested. The legislature was almost unani-
mously Democratic. There were 60 Democrats and 3 Republicans in
the legislature.

Moses Thatcher had not then recanted. He stood upon the platform
of the reconvened convention. He declared himself a candidate for
the United States Senate on the 15th day, I believe, of December,
1896, in a statement in which he declared that he had been led to
believe that his candidacy would be of benefit to young Utah, and his
candidacy was largely placed upon opposition of this claim of the
church leaders to control our political affairs. I had previously
declared myself a candidate for the Senate, and I withdrew in favor of
Mr. Thatcher, for the principles which he represented were such, and
they could only be represented at that time in his person, that I con-
cluded that they were of vastly more interest to the State than the
ambition of any individual.

Four days after Moses Thatcher declared himself to be a candidate
for the United States Senate and claimed the right to act politically
as he saw fit and as his conscience dictated, he was deposed as an
apostle of the Mormon Church.

However, he went on with his canvass and his fight, and he made a
remarkable fight for a man in the health that he had at that time. He
was the leading candidate for forty odd ballots — ±6 or 47. The candi-
dates before the legislature voted for were Mr. Thatcher, Hon. Joseph
L. Rawlins, and Hon. Henry P. Henderson; and Thatcher was the
leading candidate. In no sense of the word was Mr. Rawlins a church
candidate. I do not think that it can be said that Judge Henderson
was a church candidate. It can hardly be said that in that campaign
the church had any real candidate. Its whole fight was made in oppo-
sition to Moses Thatcher. It was anybody but Thatcher.

The Deseret News, the official organ of the Mormon Church, fought
him bitterly. Da}7 after day it published editorials denouncing him.
Those who were supporting him, and who were members of the Mor-
mon Church, had great pressure brought to bear upon them by their
ecclesiastical superiors, and it ran on until it became apparent that
Moses Thatcher, in the end, would be elected; and then some influence
was brought to bear upon the supporters of Judge Henderson, and
the}7 left him in a night. Senator Rawlins was elected by 1 majority,
he receiving on the last ballot 32, Moses Thatcher 29, Henry P. Hen-
derson 1, and C. W. Bennett, Republican, 1, if I remember rightly.

Immediately after the election of Mr. Rawlins the supporters of
Moses Thatcher determined to appeal to the Senate of the United
States. They signed a document addressed to the Senate of the United
States, reciting their grievances. That original paper I had here this
morning, but I have not the paper by me now. If I should find it, I
beg leave to refer to it. It was signed by Joseph Monson, of Cache
County, a Mormon; by Ingwald Thoresen, of Cache County, a Mormon*
by W. G. Nebeker, of Salt Lake County, a gentile; by George Whit-
aker, a gentile; by N. C. Sorenson, a Mormon; by D. O. Rideout, jr., a

858 REED SMOOT.

Mormon — in all seven names were attached before it was determined
to take another form of action. This paper should be right here some-
where, but I can not tind it. It recites the fact that men had been
intimidated and prevented from voting their choice. It recites the fact
that men had been worked upon by their ecclesiastical superiors —

Mr. TAYLER. Can you not find the substance of it in that resolution
that was offered ?

Mr. POWERS. No; and it prayed for an investigation by the Senate
of ihe United States. It was, however, determined by Mr. Thatcher's
supporters that probably it would be better to take action first in
their own legislature; and on the 10th day of Februaiy, 1897 (p. 162
of the senate^ journal of Utah for the year 1897), Senator D. O. Ride-
out presented the following resolution (senate concurrent resolution
No. 10):

"Whereas it has frequently been charged in the newspapers and on
the floor of this legislature that there has been interference by some
church dignitaries in Utah in the recent election of a United States*
Senator, and that such- interference affected the result of such election,
and proved so effectual that in casting their votes many members of
the legislature did not give expression to their own will or the will of
their constituents, but rather to the will of their ecclesiastical superi-
ors, and that such influence was in violation of sections 1, 4, and 17 of
the declaration of rights in the constitution of this State; and

"Whereas said charge injuriously affected the reputation not only
of the Senator-elect but of every member of this legislature ? as well
as the honesty and good faith of such church dignitaries, and the
standing of this State among the States of the Union; and

Whereas said charges are being denied and their authors are being
denounced through the State as disreputable and unworthy : Therefore,

"Be it resolved ~by the Senate (the House concurring), That a commit-
tee consisting of seven members, four members of the house and three
members of the senate, be appointed to inquire and report to this
legislature —

"First. Whether in the late election of the United States Senator
any member of this legislature was controlled by the ecclesiastical
influence to vote for or against any person for the office of United
States Senator.

•' Second. Whether any member of this legislature has been intimi-
dated by ecclesiastical superiors because of the fear of the infliction
of any spiritual or temporal advantage or disadvantage, punishment or
reward, of any kind, for the giving or withholding of his vote for any
candidate before the legislature of the State of Utah for United States
Senator.

"Third. Whether anyone holding any ecclesiastical office or author-
ity in any church has requested any member of the legislature to vote
or refrain from voting for any person for such office for Senator on
the ground of allegiance to any church or as a condition of future fel-
lowship or disfellowship in any such church.

"Fourth. Whether any member of this legislature voted for or
against any candidate for the office of United States Senator because
.of the relationship or attitude of such candidate to any church or
ecclesiastical body.

" J3e it further resolved, That said committee is hereby authorized
and empowered, generally and specifically, to inquire into any and all

BEED SMOOT. 859

subjects, as in its judgment may appear pertinent to the inquiry
directed; and to this end it is empowered to summon and examine wit-
nesses under oath, to send for persons and papers, and in all ways com-
pel a full discharge of all matters connected with the purposes for
which this committee is created.

"Said committee is also authorized to employ necessary assistance
in order to expedite the inquiry herein directed "-

The CHAIRMAN. That immaterial part you might omit.

Mr. POWERS. Very well. This resolution was made a special order
for February 15 (p. 175 of the same volume), and on February 15
at 8 p. m. it failed to pass — ayes 5, noes 1.1, not voting 3.

Thereafter trial was had of Moses Thatcher, and he was deposed
from —

The CHAIRMAN. What trial?

Mr. POWERS. His church trial. He was deposed from his ecclesias-
tical position, prevented from preaching the gospel of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, denied admission to his temple, and
was compelled, in order to retain his membership in the church, to
sign the recantation which has been offered here in evidence.

In 1898—

Senator DUBOIS. Judge, let me interrupt you. You said, I believe,
that after a number of ballots Mr. Rawlins was elected by one vote.

Mr. POWERS. One majority, I said. That is, it required 32 votes
to — well, he was elected by the exact vote, by 32.

Senator DUBOIS. Did a Republican member of the legislature fur-
nish that required vote?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and I think a Republican member of the legisla-
ture also voted for Mr. Thatcher. I could tell by referring to the
journal, if you want me to.

Senator BAILEY. You must be mistaken about that, Judge, if your
statement about the political complexion is correct. You said there
were three Republicans.

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. And then you said that some gentleman, naming
him, had two Republican votes.

Mr. POWERS. Yes. I had better refer to that and make sure.

Senator DUBOIS. There was no difference between Mr. Van Cott and
myself in regard to it before, I think.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think not, Senator. I believe, though, the judge
is mistaken in saying a Republican voted for Mr. Rawlings. I know
that O. G. Kimball voted for Mr. Thatcher.

Mr. POWERS. Was not Representative Hanson a Republican ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think not.

Mr. POWERS. If he was not, then I am mistaken. I had classed him
as a Republican. So that no Republican did vote for Mr. Rawlings?

Mr. VAN COTT. That is right. One voted for Thatcher.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; one voted for Thatcher.

In 1898 we elected a justice of the supreme court, Robert N. Baskin,
Democrat. Mr. Roberts was a candidate for Congress, and he was
elected by some 5,000 majority — a little over 5,000, was it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. Five thousand six hundred.

Mr. POWERS. By 5,600 majority. The legislature was largely Demo-
cratic. My recollection now is, without referring to the record, that
there were 14 Republicans —

$60 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thirteen?

Mr. POWERS. Thirteen Republicans in the legislature.

Mr. ROBERTS. And 50 Democrats ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; 13 Republicans and 50 Democrats in the legis-
lature. In that legislature 1 was a candidate for Senator. Judge
William H. King was a candidate. Alfred W. McCune was a candi-
date. Undoubtedly McCune was the church candidate. Heber J.
Grant took a very active part in the campaign for Mr. McCune.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that statement?

Mr. POWERS. Heber J. Grant, the apostle, took a very active part
in the campaign before the legislature for Mr. McCune.

Senator MoCoMAS. Therefore you infer he was the church candi-
date. Is that it ?

Mr. POWERS. No; I go a little further than that, and draw conclu-
sions from his letters which were published and which he did not deny.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. McCune was a gentile, was he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I so understand it. Mr. Grant is a very pleas-
ing letter writer, and in one of his letters, which is dated December 9,
1898, to J. Golden Kimball, one of the first presidents of the seven-
ties, speaking of the Senatorial campaign, he recites the amounts of
money that Mr. McCune had contributed to the Mormon Church for
temples and meeting houses and missionary funds, and things of that
kind, and the moneys that his wife had given to the church, and then
his letter has this significant paragraph:

"I wish to say to you that before entering the race to assist Mr.
McCune to become a United States Senator I obtained the full, free,
and frank consent of President Snow to'work for Mr. McCune. Two
3'ears ago, at the time of the Moses Thatcher fight, President Wood-
ruff told me that of all the men mentioned as prospective Senators he
would prefer Mr. McCune."

Among other reasons that he states why Mr. McCune should be
elected is the fact that he is not a Mormon, but in sympathy with
them, and could therefore do more here in the Senate for them than a
Mormon could.

The letter referred to is as follows:

"SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, December 9, 1898,

"MY DEAR GOLDEN: I suggest that you have a talk with Ed Snow
before you talk with McQuarrie, as I am half inclined to think that he
will assist you in converting McQuarrie. I have understood that Ed
is more or less tinctured with the idea that Mr. McCune is trying to
purchase a seat in the U nited States Senate, and that he resents this
kind of thing. I do not blame him, and would join him heart and
hand in opposing anyone for the Senate whose only qualification was
the possession of money. If King had money I do not doubt that he
would use his money as well as his time for his own advantage, and 1
would say it was all right. To allow one man to use his time to try
to get into the United States Senate, and to accuse his opponent of
dishonesty because he used his money for the benefit of his party, to
my mind is simply ridiculous.

4 ' Mr. McCune is one of the biggest-hearted men with whom I have
ever been acquainted, and long before he ever aspired to become a
United States Senator did some very generous things, among them
being a donation of $5,000 to assist in completing the temple in 1892.

REED SMOOT. 861

"He gave $1,700 to remodel the Nephi meetinghouse, and $750 to
the Seventeenth Ward meetinghouse. And this was done before he
had an income of $20,000 a mor»th from the Payne mine.

4 'Recently he gave $5,000 to Elder Matthias F. Cowley and myself
to assist us in accomplishing a financial mission placed upon us by the
presidency of the church. He gave the Era missionary fund $500 last
year and said we could have as much more if we needed it, and has
promised $500 this year. His wife gave the Young Ladies' Journal
$500.

"President Woodruff called at the Gardo house at the time that Mr.
McCune had an accident, and in speaking of the return of Apostle
Lund from Jerusalem, incidentally remarked that he wished he had
$1,000 for that mission. Mr. McCune pulled out his check book and
wrote out a check for the amount.

4 'The night his wife gave a reception for the benefit of the Improve-
ment league, which netted something over $125, he gave them an addi-
tional $500 to assist them in canceling their obligations. At the
solicitation of Benjamin Cluff, jr., he sent the Brigham Young Acad-
emy $1,000.

"These are a few of the things that I know he has done, to say noth-
ing about helping many a person in distress.

"I wish to say to you that before entering the race to assist Mr.
McCune to become a United States Senator I obtained the full, free,
and frank consent of President Snow to work for Mr. McCune.

4 'Two years ago, at the time of the Moses Thatcher fight, President
Woodruff told me that of all the men mentioned as prospective Sena-
tors he would prefer Mr. McCune.

" I started to say a few words only in this letter, but 1 find that it is
growing on me again, so 1 will say good-bye. With best wishes, your
brother. "

Mr. POWEKS. From my knowledge of that campaign I state as my
opinion that if it had not been for the pernicious influence of Heber J.
Grant, William H. King would have been elected to the United States
Senate. As it was, there was no election, but toward the conclusion of
the Senatorial fight, which was long drawn out, one hundred and fifty
odd ballots being cast, on the fifty-ninth day of the session I met a mem-
ber of the legislature, Mr. Heber Bennion, a friend of mine, a good
Mormon, an official in the church, in the hallway of the city and county
building^ where the legislature was in session, and he said to me there was
talk of making George Q. Cannon a candidate for Senator, and asked me
what 1 thought of it. The idea struck me as preposterous, and I said to
him that I thought it would be a good thing, that at any rate he was a
man of ability; but to my surprise, at the joint session that afternoon,
Cannon's name was brought forward as a candidate, and he received
on the first ballot 13 votes, I think. George Q. Cannon was a Repub-
lican. I had never understood that he belonged to the Democratic
party. The legislature was Democratic, with 13 Republicans. I could
not conceive that men who were elected as Democrats would go there
and vote for a Republican under the circumstances.

On the fifty-ninth day of the session George Q. Cannon received
13 votes. The legislature would die under the law at 12 o'clock mid-
night of the sixtieth day of the session. After taking the one ballot,
that being the one hundred and forty fifth ballot, George Q. Cannon

862 KEED SMOOT.

coming forward as a Senator, the joint session adjourned until the fol-
lowing1 day.

It was reported and believed at our various State headquarters that
Judge King had been summoned to the first presidency, and it has
been generally conceded by all connected with political affairs there, I
think, that he was informed that George Q. Cannon would be a candi-
date, and that it was his (King's) business to get out of the way and
suffer him to be elected. King returned to his headquarters, it is said,
and declared that he could not do it, but subsequent results show that
he was eliminated as a candidate. Judge King was a Mormon in good
standing.

Senator DWBOIS. I do not quite understand. You say there were
13 members of the legislature, and George Q. Cannon received 13
votes.

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Did he receive the Republican vote in the legis-
lature ?

Mr. POWERS. He received some of them, but he did not receive all
of them. For instance, Representative Howells, who sits at my left,
was there, a Republican. He was a senator. On that first ballot he
voted for George Sutherland, lately a member of Congress. Senator
Alder, Republican, voted for George Sutherland. Representative
Honegran, who was a Republican, voted for George Sutherland. So
that but 10 of those Republicans voted for Cannon on that first ballot,
and 3 Democrats, among the Democrats being Bennion.

On the next day, the sixtieth day of the session, the balloting pro-
ceeded and it proceeded until George Q. Cannon received 23 votes.
It took 32 votes to elect. Of course those votes were largely Demo-
cratic. Senator Howells afterwards, and on the sixtieth day, voted
for George Q. Cannon.

There were men there who voted for Cannon who stood up and made
speeches protesting against the action, apparently , that they were tak-
ing, and then would sit down, and when their names were called would
answer "George Q. Cannon." Along at the night session it became
evident that he would be elected. Some of the Democratic leaders
procured an adjournment to be taken. The Democrats went down-
stairs and held a caucus. They agreed upon James H. Moyle, who
had been the State chairman that year, as the caucus nominee for the
Senate. Before they got together again, however, which was not
more than fifteen or twenty minutes later, something occurred that
caused them to abandon Moyle, for he only got 5 votes on that bal-
lot and George Q. Cannon received 19. Thereupon the joint assem-
bly adjourned sine die, without any election.

Mr. TAYLER. What had become of Mr. McCune?

Mr. POWERS. Mr. McCune received on that last ballot — I will turn
to it and give you the last ballot, so that 3^011 may know how the final
ballot stood. 'For Frank J. Cannon, 7; for William H. King, 4; for
Mr. McCune, 20; for Senator Nebeker, 1; for Powers, 4; for Suther-
land, 2; for George Q. Cannon, 19; for Moyle, 5.

Mr. VAN COTT. How many for George Q. Cannon?

Mr. POWERS. For George Q. Cannon, 19; for Frank J. Cannon, 7.

Mr. TAYLER. Was McCune a candidate for the Senate at any later
time than that?

REED SMOOT. 863

Mr. WORTIIINGTON. May 1 ask there — can you tell me how many
members of that legislature were Mormons?

Mr. POWEES. I would have to go over the list. I can not tell it
right now. I can do that this evening and give it to you, I think.

Mr. TAYLER. Will you now answer the question 1 asked?

Mr. POWERS. What is it?

Mr. TAYLER. Whether this was the only time Mr. McCune was a
candidate for the Senate?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; his name had been mentioned at the previous
session, but he was not voted for; that is, there was some talk in the
lobbies of Mr. McCune.

Mr. TAYLER. And was there any particular reason why he, being,
as you have said you thought he was, the church candidate, should be
defeated ?

Mr. POWERS. I think he would have been elected on one day there.
At any rate, he had D. O. Ridout, who had stood out against him, and
S. W. Stewart, now one of our judges. Judge Stewart, to my certain
knowledge, had been labored with very hard, but he had remained
loyal to Judge King. It had been impressed upon him that it was his
duty to vote for Mr. McCune. Mr. Heber J. Grant worked on him
one da}7 for three or four hours. Finally he had determined to vote
for McCune. They had a meeting up at Moses Thatcher's house, and
both Ridout and Stewart had determined to vote for McCune, and that
would have elected him, but on that very day Mr. Law, a Republican
from Cache County, stood up in the joint session and declared that Mr.
McCune had paid him $80 and had promised him $1,500 for his vote.
Of course, that necessitated an investigation, and by the time the
investigation was through with neither Ridout nor Stewart wanted to
vote for Mr. McCune, and I think his chance of an election was
destroyed by the statement that Mr. Law made and by the subsequent
investigation.

Mr. VAN COTT. What was the result of the investigation ?

Mr. POWERS. The result of the investigation was a divided report,
two reports. The minority reported that the charges had been proved
and the majority reported they had not been proved.

Mr. TAYLER. Anyhow it was sufficient to prevent his election at that
juncture.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; otherwise he would have been elected that very
morning. There is no doubt about that at all, I guess.

Mr. TAYLER. You may proceed.

Mr. VAN COTT. I suggest that Judge Powers must be very weary
talking so long as he has, and maybe it would be a good idea to let him
stop.

Mr. TAYLER. Let him quit when he cries quit.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you conclude within a short time?

Mr. POWERS. I think I can conclude what I would state here with
regard to political situation, in ten minutes, with the exception of
some questions. I will try to.

The CHAIRMAN. You might conclude your statement then, if you
feel like it, in ten minutes. We will adjourn about 4 o'clock.

Mr. POWERS. I think I can do it. There are one or two incidents I
will call attention to, that show church interference there.

There is the case of James Charles Bowen. We held school election
on the 1st da}7 of December, 1897. Prior to the election, down in the

864 REED SMOOT.

lirst municipal ward, there had been a caucus held to nominate candi-
dates for the school board. Mr. E. B. Critchlow was nominated, and
Mr. E. W. Wilson — Mr. Critchlow being a Gentile and a Republican
and Mr. Wilson a Gentile and a Democrat. At the caucus there had
been two Mormon candidates, one Mr. Charles W. Symons; the name
of the other I do not now recall. They were defeated in the caucus,
and Critchlow and Wilson were nominated. Mr. Bowen was a teacher
of the Mormon Church, and had taken a part in that caucus and
felt bound by it. The night before the election he was starting out to
perform his duties as a teacher, with an associate teacher, and the clerk
of the stake came to him and gave him some ballots containing the
name of SyYoons*, leaving the name Critchlow off, and asked him to
distribute those tickets when he called upon the people in performing
his church work. He declined to do so, but the teacher who was along
with him took the tickets, and Bowen, as the tickets were distributed,
said to the people that they had a right to vote as they saw fit.

The next day was election day^ and Bowen went to the polls and dis-
tributed Wilson and Critchlow tickets, and he was denounced as being
an enemy of the people. He was ordered to leave the place and to
stop peddling tickets, and he was threatened with arrest by members
of the Mormon Church. The next night there was a bishops' meeting
and Bishop War burton, the bishop of that ward, brought up the
subject-matter of this man's conduct and said he had been deceiving
the people; that he had not anything to say about his peddling the
Wilson and Critchlow tickets, but he had deceived the people and
caused them to think that was the only ticket in the field. He asked
the people present what they thought of it. One man got up and said
he considered him worse than a pickpocket. Another man said he
ought to be thrown out. Another man said he ought to have been
arrested. At the conclusion of the meeting the bishop declared that
he was unfit to be a teacher of the church and he stripped him right
there of his ecclesiastical authority. This was given out by Mr. Bowen
to the newspapers, and he made an affidavit, which was published in
the newspapers.

Senator McCoMAS. Then your information is derived by reading
the newspapers?

Mr. POWERS. And from conversation with Mr. Bowen, and from
the reading of his Plea for Liberty, which I hold in my hand.

Senator McCoMAS. That is all the source of your information?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, no; from conversation with people, because this
case became quite a case. Although he was a man without any par-
ticular standing in the community, those of us who believed the
church should not interfere in those affairs at all became quite inter-
ested in it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You do not know anything about it except what
you were told by* other people, and what they claimed to be true?

Mr. POWERS. I know very little about the public affairs of this
nation except what other people tell me. I know you are counsel in
this case. I knew it before I came here, but I knew it as a matter of
public history.

The CHAIRMAN. Was he deposed as a teacher?

Mr. POWERS. He was deposed as a teacher in that ward.

Senator McCoMAS. How soon after the election ?

Mr. POWERS. The next night at that bishops' meeting.

REED SMOOT. 865

The CHAIRMAN. Jtlas he been restored since that time?

Mr. POWERS. He has not been restored. He appealed to Angus M.
Cannon, bishop of the stake, for permission to go through the temple,
which was refused.

Senator McCoMAS. Where is he now?

Mr. POWERS. In Salt Lake City. He is willing to appear before
this committee.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did he tell you so?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir; he told me so. [Laughter.]

Mr. TAYLER. We do the best we can, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. He has not been restored?

Mr. POWERS. He has not been restored.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think he should be brought here.

Senator McCoMAS. Yes; I think Mr. Bo wen ought to be brought
here.

Senator BAILEY. Have you his affidavit here ?

Mr. POWERS. I have his affidavit in my hand. [Laughter.]

Senator BAILEY. Read the affidavit.

Mr. POWERS. From page 18 of this book, which I will hand you, I
want to read just one paragraph.

Senator BAILEY. You will not forget to put that affidavit in the
record.

Mr. TAYLER. What is that book?

Mr. POWERS. This is UA Plea for Liberty, being an open letter to
President Lorenzo Snow and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints. By the deposed Mormon teacher, James
Charles Bo wen. Price, 10 cents; 20 for $1.00. [Laughter.]

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is about as much as it is worth, Judge?

Mr. POWERS. I do not know. It seems to me to contain much of
value. For instance, on page 18, he had appealed to President Angus
M. Cannon, who was on the witness stand yesterday, and stated he
met him on the porch in front of his office therein Salt Lake City , and
told him how he was being treated, and that President Cannon said to
him that " he thought it too bad that Critchlow, who*was a bitter enemy
to our church should be elected to the school board when the brethren
had arranged otherwise, and you, I am told by several people, helped
to elect him, you then being a teacher, and peddled tickets there, and
our people got tickets from you, you saying they were the right tick-
ets, thereby deceiving them. 1 have not spoken to many about it, but
those who I have spoken to are reputable, and they say you was
rewarded for electing Critchlow by being made janitor of the high
school."

"Now, if this is true, 1 will not give you a recommend to the tem-
ple, but advise you to go on as you have been doing, receiving your
reward until such time as you can repent and renew your covenants.

" He quoted the scriptural passage which says 'We should leave
father and mother,' etc., for the gospel's sake."

Mr. VAN COTT. What page was it?

Mr. POWERS. 1 read from page 18 and the top of page 19.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the affidavit to which you allude.

Mr. POWERS. That is in that book.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you read that?

Mr. POWERS. .1 can read that. It is very brief.

Senator BAILEY. I simply wanted it put in the record.

866 REED 8MOOT.

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

There is another recent instance, that of a man named Nicol Hood,
who informs me he is willing to testify before this committee. In
January, 1903, he wrote a letter to the Salt Lake Herald, criticising
the election of Reed Smoot to the United States Senate, and in that
letter to some extent criticising the leaders of the church, intimating
that -they had had something to do with it. It was not signed by Mr.
Hood, but the letter was talked about considerably, and thereafter
the bishop of his ward — his ward is called Sugarhouse Ward — called
with his two councilors and demanded to know whether he wrote that
letter. He said that he did. The bishop said, "I am sorry." He
said, "Wh^?" "Because it is a very serious matter." He said,
"How can it be a serious matter £" "Why," the bishop said, "you
have criticised the authorities of the church." He said, "I have only
done so as they enter upon politics. 1 have a right to criticise Mr.
Smoot if he goes into politics." The bishop saidto him that as long
as he felt he was in that frame of mind he could not longer teach the
theological class in the Sunday school and deposed him as a teacher
of the theological class, and he has not been restored. His case was
brought to the attention of the president of that stake, Mr. Frank Y.
Taylor, and Mr. Taylor indorsed the action of the bishop and his two
councilors. He did so in a public interview.

In 1896, in the fall of the year, just prior to the election, there were
telegrams sent to some sections of the State instructing the people how
to vote.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In what year, Judge ?

Mr. POWERS. In 1896. It was a year, however, when it was pretty
hard to instruct people out in that section. I was shown one of those
telegrams in 1896, in the hands of Mr. P. H. Lanham, then the pro-
prietor of the Salt Lake Tribune. I think you can procure it yet. It
was in cipher and was translated, and I saw the translation.

The CHAIRMAN. A telegram from whom?

Mr. POWERS. I do not know. It was signed in cipher, and I have
endeavored to recall to-day the cipher by which it was signed, because
if I could recall that I am confident that Brother Richards could tell
me who it meant.

Mr. VAN COTT. I think that ought to go out of the record. I pro-
test against that statement.

Mr. POWERS. I withdraw it. I did not intend it as anything, except
that I thought I could identify it in that way. I did not intend any
reflection upon Mr. Richards.

The last municipal election of Salt Lake City went some 3,500 Dem-
ocratic. A mayor was elected by about 3,500. That city I believe to
be normally Republican by about 2,000 or 2,500.

Mr. VAN COTT. Give us the majority again in the last election.

Mr. POWERS. I can only give it in round numbers; about 3,500 for
mayor.

Senator DUBOIS. Who was the Republican candidate?

Mr. POWERS. The candidate was Mr. Frank Knox, the president of
the National Bank of the Republic of Salt Lake City.

Senator DUBOIS. A Mormon or a Gentile ?

Mr. POWERS. He was a Gentile.

Senator DUBOIS. Who was the Democratic candidate?

REED 8MOOT. 867

Mr. POWERS. The Democratic candidate was Richard P. Morris, a
very liberal Mormon; a very popular man, it is true.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There are liberal Mormons, then?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir; there are liberal Mormons.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you anything to say about that except the mere
fact that a city that you say is Republican went Democratic ?

Mr. POWERS. Why, we Democrats think we had the benefit of some
church influence. It was reported, at any rate, quite generally during
the campaign that the ladies of the Woman's Relief Society were aid-
ing us in the canvass. [Laughter.]

Mr. TAYLER. This is another woman's association. Is that a Mor-
mon association?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; that is a Mormon association.

Mr. TAYLER. That is not the Woman's Christian Temperance Union,
or anything of that sort?

Mr. POWERS. No; they are antagonistic, to some extent. They of
course work along the same lines in some regards.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, do you recall any other incidents of alleged
church interference ?

Mr. POWERS. 1 do not believe I can just now.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you any other evidence that led you to the con-
clusion that the Mormon Church was interested in the selection and
participated directly or indirectly?

Mr. POWERS. Not what }rou might call evidence. There are some
indications.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, supposing the committee would
adjourn at 4 o'clock — I made an appointment here with a gentleman
who has come quite a distance to see me. It is apparent Mr. Powers
can not conclude his testimony this afternoon, and if he is through on
that point I suggest the committee adjourn.

The CHAIRMAN. We usually adjourn about 4 o'clock.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Before you adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Senator
Bailey asked to have an affidavit of some kind put in the record. Do
I understand that affidavits are to be received as evidence?

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, I will say that this is a committee
of lawyers, and there is no very great danger of our being misled
about those matters.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I ask it seriously, because if affidavits are to be
received as evidence, when our turn comes, of course —

Senator BAILEY. I said I wanted that affidavit put in, in response to
the suggestion of Senator McComas, if Judge Powers knew anything
of his own personal knowledge about that, and Judge Powers said he
knew from the book from which he read. The affidavit is the oath of
the man in question, and I want to see what he says. I prefer to have
it printed in the record rather than to take the book and read it. I
want it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in that book, I believe.

Mr. POWERS. It is in that book; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Let that go in the record, then.

Senator McCoMAS. It is a printed statement, and is probably an
affidavit made by somebody.

Mr. POWERS. This book was presented to me, I see, by the author.
It contains his presentation.

868 EEED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. And the affidavit is in that book?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it lengthy ?

Mr. POWERS. No; it is short.

The CHAIRMAN. Read it, Judge, if it is short.

Senator McCoMAS. I want to say, though, personally, that I want
to reserve my right to object, generally, to a long series of affidavits
here, and especially printed affidavits. The other side may be encour-
aged by this to do the same thing. We may agree that this is a paper
in print which purports to be a copy of an affidavit, which probably
was made t>y the person named; but, generally, I rather think it would
be bad practice on the part of the committee to permit affidavits to be
introduced, and as one member of the committee, while I do not want
to make any comment upon this special instance, I have serious hesi-
tation about the introduction of affidavits.

Mr. TAYLER. If the Senator will excuse me a moment, we have no
thought of introducing affidavits in the ordinary sense in which that
expression might be considered. This is a matter of the greatest pub-
lic notoriety everywhere, and was for a long time the subject of dis-
cussion in the newspapers, editorially referred to in them.

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And a matter that the whole community was, to a cer-
tain extent, aroused about, and it was just the kind of thing which the
lines of this investigation ought to follow and which a witness who had
knowledge of that sort of thing might testify about. For that reason
we put it in.

Senator McCoMAS. To my mind a still better reason is that this is a
pamphlet which is identified by Judge Powers as a pamphlet given to
him by the author, the author having, at the day of election, handed
around tickets containing the name of the man who was successful, a
gentile, and having lost his office in the church the next day, as it now
appears, without dispute.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly.

Senator McCoMAS. This is a pamphlet which gives an account of
the transaction and of the motives and conduct of officials of the
church, which he himself has uttered as his statement, and which he
will hereafter verify, because he is to be called as a witness.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, read that affidavit.

Mr. POWERS. It is as follows:

STATE OF UTAH, City and county of Salt Lcike, ss:

James Charles Bowen, being first duly sworn, on his oath says:
That he is a member of the Mormon Church; that he is a resident of
the First Bishop's Ward of Salt Lake City, and up to Thursday even-
ing, December 2, 1897, a member of a teachers' quorum of said First
Bishop's Ward, in good standing; that on said evening the regular
monthly meeting of said teachers' quorum was held in the First Ward
meetinghouse in said Salt Lake City, and that the following-named
persons qmong others were present, they being also members of said
quorum: Bishop Joseph Warburton; John T. Thorup, first councilor;
Neils Rasmussen, second councilor; M. F. Eakle, Joseph Thorup, H.
F. F. Thorup, Arnold Schulthess, Arnold H. Schulthess, James D.
Stirling, John Siddoway, Peter Mortensen, Andrew Mortensen,

REED 8MOOT. 869

Fountain S. Johnson, Brother Kilpatrick, Barr Musser, Fred Musser,
Riego Hawkis, Creignton Hawkins, John Squires, Charles Schneitter,
and Henry Rebentisch.

That at said meeting, after the regular business had been disposed
of, Bishop Joseph Warburton stated to the meeting in substance as
follows: That he had been uptown during the day, and had visited
mercantile houses and other places where such things ought not to have
been talked about, and was asked concerning Brother Bowen's action
on election day at the polls; that such action was the talk of the town,
and that it had been asserted that Brother Bowen had been gulling and
deceiving the people; that he would like to hear further concerning
the matter from Brother John T. Thorup. That thereupon Brother
Thorup stated to the meeting in substance as follows: That he went to
the polls on election day and was told by Brother M. F. Eakle that
Brother Bowen was peddling tickets for Messrs. Wilson and Britchlow,
and deceiving the people thereby; that he went to Brother Bowen and
asked him what he was doing — what tickets he had; that Brother Bowen
answered in an indirect and evasive way that he had the correct ticket,
or words to that effect; that he immediately requested some brother to
drive him to the First Ward, where he notified the people residents
thereof that Brother Bowen had turned traitor; that during the day
he threatened to have Brother Bowen arrested for intimidating the
voters; that a lady had come along and Bowen took her into a room,
and that when she came out he brought her to the polls for the purpose
of voting; that Orson Hewlett heard the lady say that she had not been
given the right ticket by Brother Bowen.

That Brother M. F. Eakle then stated to the meeting in substance as
follows: That Brother Hansen had been deceived by a ticket given to
him by Brother Bowen.

That Brother Charles Schneitter stated in substance to the meeting:
That he had gone to the polls with his wife; that Brother Bowen
handed his wife a ticket when she had a ticket already, and that
Brother Bowen ought to be arrested.

Brother Rasmussen stated in substance that Brother Bowen was like

That Andrew Mortensen stated in substance that Brother Bowen
ought to be thrown out of the meeting.

That Brother Frederick Scholes stated in substance that Brother
Bowen* was a Judas.

That Fountain S. Johnson stated in substance that Brother Bowen
ought to be skinned. [Laughter.]

That Bishop Joseph Warburton thereupon stated, in substance, that
they could not have a man in the teachers' quorum who would deceive
the people, and he moved that Brother Bowen be dismissed as a teacher,
not for peddling Wilson and Critchlow tickets, but for deceiving the
people at the polls. That said motion was put and voted upon by
uplifted hand and declared carried by Bishop Warburton.

That when said motion was put, Brother Bowen asked the privilege
of making an explanation in reply to the charges which had been made
against him by the brethren present; that such privilege was refused
by Bishop Warburton, who stated, in substance, as follows: "No; it
will cause a discussion, and you can not talk." That after said motion
had been put and declared carried, Brother Bowen again requested the
privilege of making an explanation to the meeting, which was again

870 REED SMOOT.

denied by Bishop Wai-burton, \\lio said, hi substance: "You can not
talk here on that subject." That thereupon Brother Bowen said: "All
that you have heard to-night is not true. Brethren, I wish you good
night." And thereupon left the meeting.

That said Bowen on his oath says that the charges made against him
of deceiving and intimidating voters on election day are absolutely
false; that I went to the polls on election day and worked for the
regular nominees (Messrs. Wilson and Critchlow) of the mass conven-
tion which had been held in the First Municipal Ward, openly and
above board, without intent of deceiving any person, and that I did
not in arty instance deceive any person by anything which I did on
that day.

That I was approached on several different occasions during the day
by members of my teachers' quorum, who threatened me with arrest
and to throw me through a window, and stated to rne that if I persisted
in peddling Wilson and Critchlow tickets that I was never to enter his
(one of the members of my quorum aforesaid) door again; that vile
epithets were hurled at me and I was abused most shamefully.

That at said meeting the charges above mentioned were made against
me without any warning whatever that such charges would be made;
that no opportunity of any kind was given me to answer the same;
that no proof was made to substantiate such charges, nor was I granted
the privilege of defending myself in an}^ way whatever, but was sum-
marily, in the manner aforesaid, dismissed as a teacher in the teachers'
quorum of the First Bishop's ward.

JAMES CHARLES BOWEN.

Witness: JOHN H. BEERS.

STATE OF UTAH, County of Salt Lake, ss:

Personally appeared before me, W. G. Young, a notary public in
and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, James Charles Bowen, who,
being duly sworn, deposes and says that the subject-matter contained
in the above affidavit is true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

[SEAL.] W. G. YOUNG,

Notary Public.

The pamphlet referred to is in full as follows :

A PLEA FOR LIBERTY; BEING AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT
LORENZO SNOW AND MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, BY THE DEPOSED MORMON TEACHER,
JAMES CHARLES BOWEN.

637 SOUTH SIXTH EAST,
Salt Lake City, July 4, 1899.

President Lorenzo Snow and members of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints, I, your brother, James Charles Bowen, send you
this open letter.

Beloved, President Lorenzo Snow, brothers and sisters: Being denied
the privilege of a recommend to the temple by the president of this
stake, Brother Angus M. Cannon, or to have an investigation by the
high council concerning it, having had no church trial, only had judg-
ment passed upon me in person by him and Bishop Joseph Warburton,
of the First ward, I now appeal to you in the matter, with the welfare
of the church in view, and to ask you if you are aware of the treat-

REED SMOOT. 871

merit that is being accorded to one of your brethren, as when one mem-
ber of the church suffers innocently it causes the whole church to suffer,
and to ask if there has been granted unto me that religious and polit-
ical freedom which an American citizen, and we, as a church, believe
should be granted to all.

I am a member of the church in the First Ward of this city, having
lived there near fourteen years. On December 1, 1897, there was an
election held in this city to elect members to the board of education.
A convention was held some time previous to the election to nominate
two candidates from the First Municipal Ward — one for a term of three
years, the other for one year. Among the candidates were the Hon.
E. W. Wilson, E. B. Critchlow, and Brother Charles W. Symons. In
convention I voted for Wilson and Symons; Symons got defeated and
Wilson and Critchlow got the nominations. The night before the
election I and my partner were on our way to do block teaching to
about six families in Cottage row (what is generally called the Rock
row).

Brother James D. Stirling, our stake clerk, overtook us when we
were at the north end of the row and had a bunch of tickets and cir-
culars; the tickets were for the election which was going to occur in
the morning, and had the name of Charles W. Symons on. The cir-
culars were his also, stating the reason why he should be elected.

Brother Stirling asked me to hand them to the saints we were teach-
ing. I told him no, I will not take them. My partner (who is also
my father-in-law, Brother Robert J. Johnson), said he would take
them, and he done so. He handed them to the saints after we got
through teaching them, and I told them they were American citizens;
they could vote for who they pleased. That same evening Brother
Stirling, who was my teacher, left tickets and circulars with my wife
for us.

Next day it was election day. On my way to work I called at the
polls to vote. I had a Wilson-Critchlow ticket handed me, and as I
proceeded along Brother M. F. Eakle offered me a Wilson-Symons
ticket. I told him I did not want it, as I was going to vote for
Wilson and Critchlow. Another brother was about to hand me one,
when Brother M. F. Eakle remarked, "He don't want it; he is going
to vote for Critchlow." Brother Symons was there and heard what
was said. He called me aside and asked me to consider it well before
I cast my ballot, as it was a very serious affair. I answered, ' ' I know
it is; I have done all I could in the convention for you, but we wanted
the earth and got nothing, and that I should now vote for Wilson and
Critchlow." By saying we wanted the earth I meant that if the other
Mormon candidate had withdrawn Symons could have got the nomi-
nation, in my opinion. In that convention I peddled tickets and
shouted for Brother Symons and W. E. Wilson. After voting 1 went
to work, it being stormy, and working on top of the Atlas Block on
a chimney, packing bricks and mortar to the bricklayer, Mr. John
Shorten (he would not work in the wet, being subject to rheumatism).

1 afterwards saw the Tribune of that morning and read a piece in
which Apostle John Henry Smith had been interviewed on the ques-
tion of the school election which was to occur that day. Apostle Smith
said in his opinion the nominees of the convention should be elected.
I then went to the polls and peddled tickets for Wilson and Critchlow,
done so in an open manner, and worked only in an honorable way for

872 REED SMOOT.

the success of the ticket. I met with much abuse that day. Wilson
and Critchlow were, I am pleased to state, elected. Next evening was
our ward teachers' meeting. I attended, as usual. After we gave in
our reports I was accused of deceiving the people at the polls the day
before, and was criticised severely by a number of the brethren and
finally expelled from the meeting before it was through, not for ped-
dling Wilson-Critchlow tickets, but for deceiving the people. On my
way out of meeting I said, "Brethren, all that you have heard to-night
is not true." The bishop refused me a hearing because it would cause
discussion. I gave a report of it to the Herald and Tribune, for which
I am no w* told to repent.

ATTACKED A WORKER.

[Tribune, December 2, 1897.]

Only one Mormon was openly engaged in the Critchlow campaign.
He was James Charles Bowen, who lives at 637 Sixth East street.
Bowen is a teacher in the first ecclesiastical ward. He was engaged
all day peddling Critchlow Wilson tickets. Several times during the
day he was subjected to abuse by Mormons for so doing. M. F. Eakle,
a son-in-law of Watermaster Wilcken, called Bowen a skunk. James
D. Sterling, clerk of the Salt Lake stake, charged Bowen with being
a traitor, and told him Critchlow couldn't give him a "recommend"
to the temple. Joseph Thorup, a clerk in Z. C. M. I., used severe
language, concluding with a statement of his inclination to throw
Bowen through a window. Riego Hawkins told Bowen he must stop
distributing tickets or never set foot within his door again. W. R.
Foster called Bowen a hypocrite. Neils Rasmussen, one of Bishop
Warburton's councilors, intimated that probably Bowen had received
his 30 pieces of silver.

These are only a few instances of the abuse that Bowen received for
his support of Critchlow. All day he was abused, and when not verbal
it took often the form of scowls. During it all he maintained an undis-
turbed demeanor, and never relaxed for a moment his self-imposed
duty of circulating Critchlow-Wilson tickets. Bowen remained until
the count was completed before leaving for his home.

THE AFFIDAVIT.

[Tribune and Herald, December 4, 1897.]

STATE OF UTAH,

City and County of Salt Lake, ss:

James Charles Bowen, being first duly sworn, on his oath says: That
he is a member of the Mormon Church; that he is a resident of the
First Bishop's ward of Salt Lake City, and up to Thursday evening,
December 2, 1897, a member of a teachers' quorum of said First
Bishop's ward in good standing; that on said evening the regular
monthly meeting of said teachers' quorum was held in the First ward
meeting house in said Salt Lake City, and that the following named
persons, among others, were present, they being also members of said
quorum: Bishop Joseph Warburton, John T. Thorup, first councilor;
Neils Rasmussen, second councilor; M. F. Eakle, Joseph Thorup,
H. F. F. Thorup, Arnold Schulthess, Arnold H. Schulthess, James D.

EEED SMOOT. 873

Stirling, John Siddoway, Peter Mortensen, Andrew Mortensen, Foun-
tain S. Johnson, Brother Kilpatrick, Barr Musser, Fred Musser, Riego
Hawkins, Creighton Hawkins, John Squires, Charles Schneitter, and
Henry Rebentisch.

That at said meeting, after the regular business had been disposed
of, Bishop Joseph War burton stated to the meeting, in substance, as fol-
lows: That he had been uptown during the day and had visited mer-
cantile houses and other places where such things ought not to have
been talked about, and was asked concerning Brother Bowen's action
on election day at the polls; that such action was the talk of the town,
and that it had been asserted that Brother Bowen had been gulling and
deceiving the people; that he would like to hear further concerning
the matter from Brother John T. Thorup. That thereupon Brother
Thorup stated to the meeting, in substance, as follows: That he went to
the polls on election da}^ and was told by Brother M. F. Eakle that
Brother Bowen was peddling tickets for Messrs. Wilson and Critch-
low and deceiving the people thereby; that he went to Brother Bowen
and asked him what he was doing — what tickets he had; that Brother
Bowen answered in an indirect and evasive way that he had the correct
ticket, or words to that effect; that he immediately requested some
brother to drive him to the First ward, where he notified the people,
residents thereof, that Brother Bowen had turned traitor; that during
the day he threatened to have Brother Bowen arrested for intimidating
the voters; that a lady had come along and Bowen took her into a room,
and that when she came out he brought her to the polls for the pur-
pose of voting; that Orson Hewlett heard the lady say that she had not
been given the right ticket by Brother Bowen.

That Brother F. M. Eakle then stated to the meeting, in substance, as
follows: That Brother Hansen had been deceived by a ticket given to
him by Brother Bowen.

That Brother Charles Schneitter stated in substance to the meeting:
That he had gone to the polls with his wife; that Brother Bowen handed
his wife a ticket when she had a ticket already, and that Brother Bowen
ought to be arrested.

Brother Rasmussen stated in substance that Brother Bowen was like
a pickpocket.

That Andrew Mortensen stated in substance that Brother Bowen
ought to be thrown out of the meeting.

That Brother Frederick Scholes stated in substance that Brother
Bowen was a Judas.

That Fountain S. Johnson stated in substance that Brother Bowen
ought to be skinned.

That Bishop Joseph Warburton thereupon stated in substance that
they could not have a man in the teachers' quorum who would deceive
the people, and he moved that Brother Bowen be dismissed as a teacher,
not for peddling Wilson and Critchlow tickets, but for deceiving the
people at the polls. That said motion was put and voted upon by
uplifted hand and declared carried by Bishop Warburton.

That when said motion was put Brother Bowen asked the privilege
of making an explanation in reply to the charges which had been made
against him by the brethren present; that such privilege was refused
by Bishop Warburton, who stated in substance, as follows: "No; it
will cause a discussion, and you can not talk." That after said motion
had been put and declared carried, Brother Bowen again requested the

874 REED SMOOT.

privilege of making an explanation to the meeting, which was again
denied mm by Bishop Warburton, who said in substance: ''You can
not talk here on that subject." That thereupon Brother Bowen said:
"All that you have heard to-night is not true. Brethren, I wish you
good night," and thereupon left the meeting.

That said Bowen on his oath says that the charges made against him
of deceiving and intimidating voters on election day are absolutely
false; that I went to the polls on election day arid worked for the reg-
ular nominees (Messrs. Wilson and Critchlow) of the mass convention
which had been held in the first municipal ward, openly and above
board, \pthout intent of deceiving &i\y person, and that I did not in
any instance deceive any person by anything which I did on that day.

That I was approached on several different occasions during the day
by members of my teachers' quorum, who threatened me with arrest,
and to throw me through a window, and stated to me that if I per-
sisted in peddling Wilson and Critchlow tickets that I was never to
enter his (one of the members of my quorum aforesaid) door again;
that vile epithets were hurled at me and I was abused most shamefully.

That at said meeting the charges above mentioned ware made against
me without any warning whatever that such charges would be made;
that no opportunity of any kind was given me to answer the same;
that no proof was made to substantiate such charges, nor was I granted
the privilege of defending myself in any way whatever, but was sum-
marily, in the manner aforesaid, dismissed as a teacher in the teachers'
quorum of the first bishop's ward.

JAMES CHARLES BOWEN.

Witness: JOHN H. BEERS.

STATE OF UTAH, County of Salt Lake, ss:

Personally appeared before me, W. G. Young, a notary public in
and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, James Charles Bowen, who,
being duly sworn, deposes and says that the subject-matter contained
in the above affidavit is true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

[SEAL.] W. G. YOUNG, Notary Public.

WARBURTON'S CONFESSION — EXPELLED BOWEN BECAUSE HE DID NOT
FURNISH THE "RIGHT TICKET."

[Tribune, December 4, 1897.]

Bishop Joseph Warburton, who presided over the meeting at which
Bowen was deposed, discussed the matter without hesitancy when ques-
tioned with respect to it last evening. His version of the affair does
not differ materiall}T from that given by Bowen in his affidavit, except
that the bishop did not remember that Bowen was harshly criticised
at the meeting, as claimed by him.

"Last night," said the bishop, " was our regular meeting night, and
we disposed of our routine business as usual, Bowen being present and
taking part along with the others. After the regular business had
been transacted, I remarked that there was considerable dissatisfaction
among the people with respect to the attempts of Brother Bowen to
deceive them on election day, and I had been asked uptown who Bowen
was. I then asked if anybody present was dissatisfied with Bowen's
actions, and Brother Thorup stated what occurred between him and

REED 8MOOT. 875

Bowen on election da}T. Brother Eakle followed Brother Thorup and
said that Bowen was telling the people that he had the right tickets
and that the other tickets were the wrong ones. Brother Charles
Schneitter then said that he and his wife went up to vote, and each
had a Wilson and Symons ticket which they intended depositing.
Bowen, so Brother Schneitter said, first asked his wife if she had the
right ticket, and she replied in the affirmative. Bowen then looked
at the ticket and said it was the wrong one, at the same time giving
her another one, saying that it was the right one. He also gave
Schneitter a different ticket from the one he intended voting, and
assured him that it was the right ticket. After leaving Bowen, how-
ever, some one asked them if they had the right tickets, and they said,
'Yes; Brother Bowen gave them to us.' They were advised to look
at the tickets, though, and upon doing so discovered that they bore
the names of Wilson and Critchlow instead of Wilson and Symons.

"I saw when this had been stated at the meeting that considerable
feeling was being aroused, and I then said that a man who would
deceive the people as Bowen had done was not fit to be associated with
this band of people. I also said to Bowen: 'You and I have the right
to distribute tickets for whom we please, but no one has the right to
deceive the people.' In conclusion I said to him: 'Not for your giv-
ing out tickets, but for deceiving the people you are dismissed from
the teachers' quorum and from this meeting.'

"Bowen wanted to talk then, but I told him we did not want any
discussion. I also told him that he had deceived Brother and Sister
Schneitter, as well as others, and it would be best for him to say no
more about it."

Bishop Warburton further said that Bowen was charged with giving
Edward Braby and wife Wilson and Critchlow tickets, which they sup-
posed were Wilson and Symons tickets until they looked at them, upon
the suggestion of John T. Thorup, and learned to the contrary.

Warburton also stated that when Bowen addressed the voters as
brother and sister and told them that he had the right ticket, they con-
strued the words ' ' right ticket " to mean a ticket bearing the names of
Wilson and Symons.

THE BISHOP'S JUSTIFICATION.

[Tribune, December 4, 1897.]

To a reporter last evening Bishop Warburton admitted the correct-
ness of practically all the allegations contained in Mr. Bowen's affidavit.
But the bishop places an entirely different construction upon Mr.
Bowen's charges. The ecclesiastical head of the First ward takes the
high ground that Mr. Bowen was disfellowshipped from his quorum
simply because he. deceived his brethren and sisters in the church, as
the bishop states, by having handed out Wilson and Critchlow tickets
and saying they were Wilson and Symons ballots.

NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK.

When the bishop was asked if it were true that Mr. Bowen was not
given a chance to be heard in his own behalf at the teachers' meeting,
Bishop Warburton replied:

"Yes. We were satisfied from the statements made at the meeting
that Brother Bowen had deceived the people by peddling tickets that

876 REED SMOOT.

were forCritchlow when he would have them believe they were Symons
tickets. Of course, Brother Bowen had a right, as any citizen has, to
hand out any kind of tickets at an election, but he had no right by
virtue of his position in the church to practice any deception upon his
brethren and sisters. He being a teacher, many of our people who
wanted to vote for Symons naturally looked to him for the tickets
bearing the name of Symons, and he had no right to make them believe
the tickets he gave them were of the kind they wanted to vote. We
were satisfied Brother Bowen did this, and not wanting to hear any
extended argument, did not deem it necessary to let him speak in his
own defense to prolong the discussion."

UMUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING."

[Deseret Evening News, Saturday, December 4, 1897.]

This morning's Salt Lake papers, true to a policy which has been
more or less characteristic of them for a long time, endeavor to make
one James Charles Bowen a martyr to his convictions.

Notice is given to "Young Utah" that the peace, prosperity, and
the position of the State in the Union are at stake, because the gentle-
man named has been released by the proper authority from certain
ecclesiastical duties.

There is not the slightest cause for alarm, and "Young Utah" is not
likely to let anyone scare it into nervousness about the affair.

The story as presented by Mr. Bowen's apologists is that he was sub-
mitted to much abuse and finally expelled from his quorum for no other
reason than this: That at a recent election he worked for a certain
ticket, but this version of it is denied by others well acquainted with
the proceedings. They state that the gentleman at the polls approached
several voters, addressing them as "brothers" and "sisters," appar-
ently endeavoring to use his position as a teacher to influence them in
favor of his candidates.

They all charge that in some cases he snatched tickets out of the
hands of voters, and when demanded to return them endeavored to
substitute his own, as if complying with the demand.

Whether these charges were substantiated or not is immaterial for
the present, but it is exceedingly clear that if Mr. Bowen's friends and
neighbors by his own actions received the impression that he was try-
ing to use his ecclesiastical position for political purposes, and in addi-
tion resorted to rather low tactics, the only thing for the bishop to do
was to release him from his duties as acting teacher until such time as
the matter could be cleared up, and that was all the bishop did.

An acting teacher is simply an assistant to the bishop, called or dis-
missed by him as circumstances seem to require. If he releases a
teacher from performing the duties of that calling,. that is not in any
sense punishment, still less an effort to curtail the liberty of the person
released. In the case of Mr. Bowen there was no expulsion from a
quorum, as stated in the papers. He belongs to a quorum of seventy
and retains his standing there as well as in the church.

An acting teacher's duty is to visit the members of the church and
endeavor to help the members of it in maintaining harmonious, broth-
erly relations with one another; but in order to do that the teacher
must enjoy the full confidence of those among whom he is laboring.
If for some reason, real or fancied, that confidence is shaken, his use-

REED SMOOT. 877

fulness as a teacher is gone, and this seems, unfortunately, to have been
the case in Mr. Bowen's district, not because he worked for a certain
ticket — that was his right, which nobody disputes — but because he by
many was believed to have done his work in a manner not consistent
with the character of a Christian gentleman.

There is, therefore, not the slightest reason for the renewed attacks
on the priesthood of the church or the tearful appeal to "Young Utah."
The flag of the country floats in its unsullied purity in the air, and the
institutions of our great Republic remain intact.

Still more the Mormons themselves, in this instance as so many
others, have shown that they disapprove of the use of ecclesiastical
positions for political purposes.

If this is disappointing to those who rather would find something to
bring up against the people, they will have to bear the disappointment
as best they can. The Mormons are not going to break faith or pledges.

[Tribune, December 5, 1897.]

Bowen made a mistake in his affidavit, he says, but it was trifling
and without effect upon the substance of the deposition. He said that
the dismissal was by vote. The fact is, he recollects now, Bishop
Warburton dismissed him without any vote being taken.

[Herald, December 5, 1897.]

Mr. Bowen stands by his affidavit, as published, with one modifica-
tion on one not very material point. The modification in the affidavit
which Mr. Bowen desires to be as publicly announced as the original
recital, refers to the statement that a motion was made by Bishop
Warburton to dismiss him from his position as teacher and that the
motion prevailed by an uplifted hand vote. The deponent, after
recovering from the excitement attending his dismissal, remembered
that the motion had not been made nor voted upon. The bishop merely
announced his decision of dismissal.

JAMES CHARLES BOWEN.
JULY 4, 1899.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until to-morrow
morning at half past 10.

The committee (at 4 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m.) adjourned until
Saturday, April 23, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 23, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), McComas, Hopkins, Pettus,
Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senator Smoot; also K. W. Tay-
ler, counsel for protestants; A. S. Worthington and Waldemar Van
Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S. .Richards, counsel
for certain witnesses.

878 REED 8MOOT.

TESTIMONY OF ORLANDO W. POWERS— Continued.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you any further questions to ask
of Judge Powers ?

Mr. TAYLER. There was a paper referred to yesterday by Judge
Powers — a memorial — that some members of the legislature intended
to present to the Senate of the United States, but which was not pre-
sented, and I desire to have Judge Powers take that up now.

Mr. POWERS. If 1 may be permitted, I should like to read it into the
record, a^ I desire to keep the original.

"To the Honorable the President and members of the Senate of the

United States"

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Please state here what the paper is. I have
forgotten just what it is.

Mr. POWERS. This paper was prepared by supporters of Moses
Thatcher immediately after his defeat as a candidate for the United
States Senate, in the session of the Utah legislature of 1897. It was
signed by seven of his supporters, and thereafter it was determined
that, instead of forwarding this paper to the Senate of the United
States, a better plan would be, first, to introduce resolutions into the
State senate, which was done, which resolutions I read yesterday.

"To the honorable the President and members of the Senate of the

United States:

"Your petitioners respectfully represent that they are members of
the State senate and house of representatives of the legislature of the
State of Utah; that on the 3d day of February, A. D. 1897, the two
houses of the legislature aforesaid convened in joint session, according
to the laws of the United States, for the purpose of electing a Senator
in the Congress of the United States ; that at said election Moses
Thatcher, a citizen of the said State of Utah, qualified according to
law to sit as a Senator in the Congress of the United States, received
the votes of 29 of the said senators and representatives of the said
legislature; that Joseph L. Rawlins, a citizen of said State, duly qual-
ified as aforesaid, received 32 votes; that Henry P. Henderson, a citi-
zen of said State, received 1 vote; that Arthur Brown, a citizen of
said State, received 1 vote; that upon the announcement of the ballot
the presiding officer of the joint session declared the said Joseph L.
Rawlins duly elected as a Senator in the Congress of the United States.

' ' Your petitioners charge and allege that there is in the State of Utah
an organization, religious in character, to wit, the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints; that said church, through its officers
and directors, have exercised an undue influence upon certain of the
members of the legislature aforesaid, and that by threats of religious
persecution and threats of temporal and spiritual disadvantage the
officers and directors of the said Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints did prevent certain members of the senate and house of
representatives of the legislature aforesaid from voting for Moses
Thatcher and by undue influence caused the election of the said Joseph
L. Rawlins.

"Petitioners allege that all this was done in violation of the Consti-
tution of the United States and of this State, and respectfully but

REED 8MOOT. 879

earnestly urge upon your honorable body to cause an investigation to
be made of the action of the officers of the said church; that the said
Moses Thatcher be declared elected as Senator in the Congress of the
United States, and for such other relief as may be deemed equitable,
and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

" WM. G. NEBEKER.
"JOSEPH MONSON.
"BENJAMIN A. HARBOUR.
"INGWALD C. THORESEN.
"GEO. A. WHITAKER.
"D. O. RIDEOUT, JR.

"N. C. SORENSON."

It does not appear on the paper, but I will say that Mr. Nebeker is
a gentile, Mr. Monson is a Mormon. Mr. Harbour is a gentile, Mr.
Thoresen is a Mormon, Mr. Whi taker is a gentile, Mr. Rideout is a
Mormon, Mr. Sorenson is a Mormon.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How many Mormons out of the seven?

Mr. TAYLER. Four.

Mr. POWERS. Four.

There is one matter which escaped my atttention yesterday in testi-
fying to which I desire to refer, and that is that in 1890, at Provo
City, Mr. George Sutherland, a gentile, was nominated for the office
of mayor of that city and was opposed by a Mormon, representing the
People's Party, and in that election Reed Smoot supported George
Sunderland's candidacy for mayor, which caused him to be held in dis-
favor by some of his previous friends who declared that he had gone
over to the liberal party, particularly in view of certain transparen-
cies that he prepared.

Mr. TAYLER. When was that?

Mr. POWERS. In 1890.

Senator OVERMAN. You stated yesterday that women voted in Utah.

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. Have any of them ever been elected to the legis-
lature ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I think there have been women representatives
elected in each election since we became a State.

Senator OVERMAN. Were there any women in the legislature that
elected Senator Smoot?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, certainly.

Senator OVERMAN. How many ?

Mr. POWERS. There was one lady from Ogden, who was chairman
of the judiciary committee of the house.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mrs. Coulter.

Senator OVERMAN. Chairman of the judiciary committee?

Mr. POWERS. She was chairman of the judiciary committee.

Senator BAILEY. What was the political complexion of that legisla-
ture; Democratic or Republican?

Mr. POWERS. That was a Republican legislature.

Senator McCoMAS. Necessarily.

Mr. POWERS. I forget whether there were any other ladies in that
legislature or not.

Senator OVERMAN. Do you know whether she voted for Reed
Smoot or not?

880 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWERS. I think she did.

The CHAIRMAN. Ma}7 I ask you if recently you have any evidence
of church interference in the affairs of the State?

Mr. POWERS. It seemed to me that there were indications of it dur-
ing the past four or five weeks.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state what?

Mr. POWERS. The official organ of the Mormon Church, the Deseret
News, which is supposed to be a nonpartisan paper, in the contest for
the election of delegates to the Republican national convention

The CHAIRMAN. Of what date?

Mr. ^POWERS. For the coming national convention of the Republican
party, supported the faction of the Republican party that is known as
the Smoot-Sutherland faction, and opposed the faction which is called
there the Kearns faction.

Senator DUBOIS. Judge Powers, I believe you stated that for a num-
ber of years there was only one political party in Utah, at any rate so
far as the election of the Delegate in Congress was concerned.

Mr. POWERS. I did.

Senator DUBOIS. How long did that continue? What was the last
date when there was only one candidate for Congress?

Mr. POWERS. My recollection is that it was in 1870 — from 1851 until
1870.

Senator DUBOIS. That was because there were not enough gentiles
in Utah to form a part}7 ?

Mr. POWERS. There was probably a sufficient number to form a
party — I am unfamiliar with the reasons that induced them not to —
because very few people frequently form a party and make consider-
able noise.

Senator DUBOIS. Were practically all the members of the dominant
party members of the Mormon Church?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I think they were all members of the Mormon
Church, practically. There might have been some who were not.

Senator DUBOIS. Did they ever divide into factions and present two
candidates ?

Mr. POWERS. I have no knowledge of any such condition.

Senator DUBOIS. Was there much contention over the nomination of
the Delegate in Congress ?

Mr. POWERS. No, sir; there was not.

Senator DUBOIS. I should like to ask you, Judge, if you recall any
instance in the politics of Utah, up to the issuance of the political mani-
festo, when any candidate of the church party for political office was
defeated.

Mr. POWERS. Do you mean-
Senator DUBOIS. For Congress.

Mr. POWERS. Oh, for Congress.

Senator DUBOIS. Yes; and for higher offices.

Mr. POWERS. You do not mean local officers ?

Senator DUBOIS. No, sir; higher officers.

Mr. POWERS. I do not recall any instance; in fact, there was no
instance of that kind in our history.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you recall any instance since the manifesto
when any candidate who had secured the consent of the church authori-
ties to become a candidate has been defeated — a candidate for a high
office, such an office as would send him to Washington ?

REED SMOOT. 881

Mr. POWERS. I can not, of course, know, except by general report,
who does and who does not receive consent. Much of the work of the
Mormon Church is not given out to the public, but I know that in our
conventions, since this rule, so-called, was established, both sides
inquire whether a candidate has received consent to run or not. I
know of no such instance as you refer to, or 1 can not recall any
just now.

The CHAIRMAN. You say "inquire." What do you mean by that?
Do they inquire at the convention?

Mr. POWERS. If I was a delegate to a convention and a man who
was a Mormon was talked of for Congress, I would go to my Mormon
friends and say, "Has Mr. So-and-so &ecured consent to run," because
we do not want any more trouble than we have to have with the
church. We do not want to run a man any more who has not got
consent, if we can help it.

Senator DUBOIS. You spoke of a church committee on legislation
being appointed from among the members of the legislature. I think
you said they were appointed at the first legislature and had been
continued.

Mr. POWERS. No; I did not say they had been continued.

Senator DUBOIS. You stated that there was a church committee on
legislation, composed of members of the legislature. Will you explain
what that means?

Mr. POWERS. I understand that there was a committee of five
appointed by some one in authority in the Mormon Church, selected —
those five members not being members of the legislature — whose duty
it was to keep track of legislation and to supervise it. Their names,
I think, were given here correctly by Mr. Critchlow, as I remember it.

Senator DUBOIS. You have instanced a number of cases where the
church has interfered in political matters —

The CHAIRMAN. Before you go on, just one word.

Senatoy DUBOIS. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that committee composed of adherents of the
Mormon Church?

Mr. POWERS. It was.

The CHAIRMAN. Entirely?

Mr. POWERS. Entirely.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Senator. Pardon me for interrupting you.

Senator DUBOIS. Js there any one instance which stands out more
conspicuously, in your judgment, than any other; or, to put it in other
words, what would you regard as the chief exhibition of political
domination by the church authorities among all of those within your
knowledge ?

Mr. POWERS. To my mind it was the occasion in 1896, in the month
of April, at the April conference, when without any previous discus-
sion publicly, to any great extent at any rate, the political manifesto,
or rule as you have designated it here, was presented to that confer-
ence and was adopted without a dissenting vote, there being present
men and women who had been delegates to the reconvened convention
of the preceding fall, and in the same conference the name of Moses
Thatcher being dropped from the list of the apostles without any
explanation being made and without any question being raised, Moses
Thatcher being a man who had been a leader of the religious and the
political thought of the State.

882 REED SMOOT.

Senator DUBOIS. The political manifesto was submitted to the people
in conference for their approval ?

Mr. POWERS. On the 6th day of April, if I remember the date cor-
rectly, 1896.

Senator DUBOIS. Every member of the Mormon Church in that con-
ference held up his hand ?

Mr. POWERS. I can not say that.

Senator BUBOIS. No member refused to hold up his hand ?

Mr. POWERS. I know of no adverse vote to it.

Senator McCoMAS. You are a very close observer of that community
and of Mie State life generally. So far as you can give an opinion, I
wish you would tell us how the younger Mormon men, married and
unmarried, say under 40, regard the practice of polygamy.

Mr. POWERS. I think I can safely say that the younger men and the
younger women of the Mormon Church-
Senator McCoMAS. I was going to ask you about the women directly.

Mr. POWERS. And I have talked with a great many of them upon
the subject, are opposed to the practice, and strongly opposed to the
practice. Although I have often been surprised at the power that the
church has over its members, nevertheless, my opinion — my conscien-
tious opinion — is that if the church was to attempt to reestablish
polygamy, by revelation or otherwise, it would have trouble from those
younger men and women.

Senator McCoMAS. Do you think they are strong enough to resist
and overcome an attempt to reestablish the practice of polygamy ?

Mr. POWERS. I believe so.

Senator McCoMAS. Is it true that their attitude now is one of toler-
ance in respect of the existing conditions as to polygamy — the mar-
riages of elder women to elder men — expecting that the practice will
die out with that generation ?

Mr. POWERS. There exists this condition in that regard, as I have
found from talking with my own friends and neighbors of the Mor-
mon Church, of the younger generation. There is a feeling of toler-
ation, with an idea that it will pass away. There is also — at least
many of them had expressed to me — a feeling hostile to the continu-
ance of polygamous cohabitation and to potygamy, and I know that
there is that sentiment among many of the younger members of the
church.

Senator McCoMAS. is it or not an increasing sentiment, in your
opinion ?

Mr. POWERS. 1 hope so.

Senator McCoMAS. You have no definite belief?

Mr. POWERS. I think so —

Senator McCoMAS. You think so ?

Mr. POWERS. And I hope so. At the same%time, conditions are so
peculiar out there t and we are so often mistaken with regard to men
and things, that it is hard for one to give a definite conclusion as to the
future.

Senator McCoMAS. In 1870, on a Sunday, I was in the tabernacle,
and I heard Brigham Young appeal to the young men to marry and to
marry often. He said the railroad had just come in, and that the
competition with the Gentiles and the men who each had only one
family would make it more difficult for the younger Mormons to
support many families. But he said now the trial was upon them,

REED SMOOT. 883

and, as he expressed it, the Lord would be on their side. He seemed
to be right to the extent that they continued polygamy for some years
after the railroad came in, and with the Gentile competition. Is not
that difficulty ever present to the younger race of people — the men
and women — that when a man has a number of families it is a harder
proposition to make a living than it is for a man who has no family
or only one family?

Mr. POWERS. I think it is, and I also think another matter, which
is of a purely social nature, enters into it somewhat. We are growing
there more like the rest of the world, and our women are growing like
the women of the rest of the world, and they are becoming attracted
to social matters, and they are beginning to desire to clothe themselves
as beautifully as the women of the rest of the country. I think that
will have some effect, too, because it increases the responsibilities if a
man has a family who are going to dress —

Senator HOPKINS. Do i understand that even now a plural wife does
not have the social standing that a first wife has?

Mr. POWERS. I did not intend to say that as among the Mormon
people. Yes; they have, I think, the same standing among the Mor-
mon people.

Senator OVERMAN. Is there any growing hostility among the younger
generation against church interference in politics?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Senator McCoMAS. I was just coming to that. I beg your pardon,
Senator.

Senator OVERMAN. I am through.

Senator McCoMAS. I was about to ask you how the incidents of
which you have spoken, the Thatcher contest for the Senate, and the
like, affect the public opinion among the younger Mormons who do
not care for polygamy. I want to know how, in your opinion, they—
men and women — receive what you have stated to have been inter-
ferences and efforts by the church to control political action at elec-
tions and in the legislature and in conventions. Are they restive or
not restive under this church control ?

Mr. POWERS. They are restive under the church control of our polit-
ical affairs.

Senator McCoMAS. Are they growing more so or are they simply
quiescent ?

Mr. POWERS. At the time of the reconvened convention, as I endeav-
ored to explain yesterday, they were in open rebellion. For some
time after that convention, political defeat having come and their prin-
cipal leader, Mr. Thatcher, having been compelled to sign the paper
that has been offered here in evidence and the church drawing the lines
a little more closely, they were more careful about what they said
publicly, and neither before nor since the reconvened convention do
we have that free expression that we had during that campaign. --

Senator McCoMAS. How do the Mormon people, so far as you ob-
serve, submit to dictation as to how they shall vote at the general
election, the municipal election, and how they shall cast their votes for
senators in the legislature; do they submit more or less readily to the
church dictation, of which you have spoken, as the years go on?

Mr. POWERS. Some submit regularly; some submit protesting
against it, and some will not submit.

884 REED SMOOT.

Senator McCoMAS. What is the outlook for a liberal movement
among them, which is being agitated somewhat, I see?

Mr. POWERS. I do not think there is any outlook for it. I do not
think there is any agitation among them on the subject. I saw it in
the press dispatches in the East —

Senator McCoMAS. But you did not find it there.

Mr. POWERS. But I do not know of the younger Mormons making
any effort for any change in that regard.

The CHAIRMAN. I saw recently in the press of Salt Lake that there
was an organization of some 500 young Mormons, and a prospect of
increasing the number of the organization, to resist the encroachments
of the church in civil affairs. Do you know anything about it 2

Mr. POWERS. I do not know a thing about it. I do not believe any
such organization exists. If it does exist, it has been kept so secret
that I do not know of a member who belongs to it.

The CHAIRMAN. One other thing. You spoke of the gradual decline,
as you think, of the purpose of maintaining polygamy or polygamous
cohabitation, and expressed the hope that that sentiment will ulti-
mately prevail. Suppose the leaders of the church should exert their
influence in the other direction, to reestablish polygamy and the con-
tinuance of polygamous cohabitation, what, in your judgment, would
be the result?

Mr. POWERS. Of course I have no doubt that they could reestablish
it, but I can not believe that it would be accepted by a great number
of the younger men and women of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state why it is that those who live in polyg-
amous cohabitation to-day are not prosecuted?

Mr. POWERS. I will do so as well as I can, and I simply state here
the views, as I know them, of what are termed the uold guard" of the
Liberal party, Republicans and Democrats, who fought the church
party in the days when it was a power. Those men have felt, and
still feel, that if the church will only stop new plural marriages and
will allow this matter to die out and pass away, they will not interfere
with them. First of all, of course, we want peace in Utah. We
would like to be like the rest of the country. We want to make of it
a State like the States of the rest of the Union. We want the Mormon
people to be like the rest of the American people; but we realize that
there is a condition there which the people of the East do not — and.
I presume, can not — understand. You can not make people who have
been brought up under our system of Government and our system of
marriage believe that folks can sincerely and honestly believe that it
is right to have more than one wife, and yet those people believe it.
They are a God-fearing people, and it has been a part of their faith
and their life.

Now, to the eastern people their manner of living is looked upon as
immoral. Of course it is, viewed from their standpoint. Viewed from
the standpoint of a Mormon it is not. The Mormon wives are as sin-
cere in their belief in polygamy as the Mormon men, and they have no
more hesitation in declaring that they are one of several wives of a
man than a good woman in the East has in declaring that she is the
single wife of a man. There is that condition. There are those peo-
ple-
Senator HOPKINS. Do you mean to say that a Mormon woman will
as readily become a plural wife as she would a first wife?

REED SMOOT. 885

Mr. POWERS. Those who are sincere in the Mormon faith — who are
good Mormons, so called — I think would just as readily become plural
wives (that has been my experience) as they would become the first
wife. That condition exists. There is a question for statesmen to
solve. We have not known what was best to do. It has been dis-
cussed, and people would say that such and such a man ought to be
prosecuted. Then they would consider whether anything would be
gained; whether we would not delay instead of hastening the time
that we hope to live to see; whether the institution would not flourish
by reason of what they would term persecution. And so, notwith-
standing a protest has been sent down here to you, 1 will say to you
the people have acquiesced in the condition that exists.

Mr. Van COTT. You mean the gentiles.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; the gentiles.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any knowledge of the extent to which
polygamous cohabitation exists in the State to-day ?

Mr. POWERS I have tried not to know about it. When it has come
under my immediate observation I have known about it. 1 do not
know to what extent it exists. 1 want to see it pass away.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it exist outside of the city of Salt Lake?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, without doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any idea as to the extent?

Mr. POWERS. No; I could not give an idea as to the extent, because,
as 1 tell you, I have honestly tried not to know about it.

Senator McCoMAS. Have there been many polygamous marriages
lately? Of course polygamous marriages are forbidden, and it is
difficult to ascertain whether there have been.

Mr. POWERS. If there are any polygamous marriages at the present
time, my opinion is they are sporadic cases.

I have not since the time that I have lived there believed it was
the worst feature of Mormonism. Polygamy, I think, is bound
in the course of our advance as a nation to pass away. I do not
believe it can exist any more than slavery could exist. I want to
say

Senator HOPKINS. Very well. On that basis, with the passing of
this generation, polygamous marriages and polygamous cohabitation
will disappear. Now, you say, in your judgment that is not the
worst feature of that religion.

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Senator HOPKINS. What is there in that religion aside from that
which does not commend itself to good citizenship ?

Mr. POWERS. It is the un-American domination by the hierarchy of
the people of that faith, the constant teaching that they must obey
counsel, the belief that the head of the church is inspired and speaks
the word of God when he is inspired, and the interference in our polit-
ical affairs, and the power that the church has to control our commerce
and our business, through the interests that are held by the trustees
in trust in all of our large corporations — I will not say all of them,
but —

Senator HOPKINS. That claim is made, in a limited way, at least,
against other churches.

Mr. POWERS. I know of no other church as to which the claim is
made as I make it here now. I know of no other church which has
annexed to it what is in one sense of the word a secret organization;

886 REED 8MOOT.

that has its temple rites; that acts concerning public matters as this
church acts.

You have asked me for instances of church interference. They are
hard to give, because the church is a secret institution. We see the
result; we can not tell always just how that result was attained.

Senator PETTUS. Judge Powers, can you give us any reasonable esti-
mate of the value of corporate property held by the Mormon Church ?

Mr. POWERS. I can not at this moment. I could secure that data,
but, of course, I can not give it at this particular moment.

I can state one or two institutions. For instance, there is our street
railway, which has recently been combined with our electric lighting
system.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In Salt Lake, you mean?

Mr. POWERS. In Salt Lake City; our electric power system, which is
capitalized and bonded for many millions of dollars and employs hun-
dreds of men.

Senator HOPKINS. You do not regard the fact that the church holds
property as anything detrimental to the church ?

Mr. POWERS. No; and at the same time I do not think any church
ought to be a business institution and engage in running street rail-
ways, and banks, and bathing resorts, and ordinary railroads, and things
that are purely temporal.

Senator HOPKINS. The Methodist Church in Chicago owns large and
valuable property there. I have always been a great believer in
Methodism.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The same is true of Trinity Church in New
York.

Senator McCoMAS. Do you think the Mormon Church is a trust in
respect of business corporations ?

Mr. POWERS. It is indeed; the trustee in trust representing the
church in these various corporations.

Senator McCoMAS. Does it have a controlling interest by trustees
in all the larger corporations controlling public utilities or public
monopolies?

Mr. POWERS. It would be hard for me to say whether it has a con-
trolling interest in them. I would not want to state whether it had
or not.

Senator BAILEY. Do I understand Senator Hopkins and Mr. Worth-
ington to mean that the Methodist Church in Chicago and the Trinity
Church in New York engage in mercantile or industrial enterprises ?

Senator HOPKINS. Oh, no; rental property only.

Senator DUBOIS. I was about to suggest to the Senator from Illinois
that it would be well to summon a bishop of the Methodist Church
and have a comparison instituted between the Methodist Church and
the Mormon Church if he thinks the}r present parallel cases.

Senator HOPKINS. It is not necessary from this side. If the Sen-
ator from Idaho were as familiar with Methodism as I am, he would
not require any evidence about the church. He, however, may know
much more about the Mormon Church than I do.

Senator McCoMAS. Speaking of these corporations controlling
public monopolies, and of the Mormon Church controlling voters on
election day, is it, or is it not, true that the church, where the
Mormons control the corporation, try to control the vote of their
employees in favor of their people or the candidate they favor ?

REED SMOOT. 887

Mr. POWERS. I do not know of any such instance.

Senator McCoMAS. That has not happened ?

Mr. POWERS. No; I know of no such instance.

Senator BAILEY. They do not attempt to exert influence as the owner
of the property ?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Senator BAILEY. And whatever influence they exert over the mem-
bers of their church is an ecclesiastical influence?

Mr. POWERS. Entirely.

Mr. TAYLER. Has it been supposed that it was difficult for the public-
oervice corporations owned by the Mormon Church to obtain such
general legislation as might advantage its property ?

Mr. POWERS. It has not been difficult for them to obtain franchises
from our city councils.

I want to state, as an instance of the conditions there, that the city
council of Salt Lake City, prior to the present council, was supposed
to be Republican, 9 to 6. After they got well along in the session it
it was divided 8 to 7, Mbrmon and gentile.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, Judge, you characterized as the most remark-
able instance in your opinion of Mormon Church domination the con-
ference of April, 1896, respecting the so-called political manifesto, and
at this point 1 wish to read from the Church Chronology an account 5
or 6 lines long as to what was done at that time, and I will ask you if
it accords with your memorv of it:

"Saturday, April-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. From what page do you read?

Mr. TAYLER. From Church Chronology, 1896, page 211.

"SATURDAY, April 4, 1896.

"The sixty-sixth annual conference of the church convened in Salt
Lake City. It was continued for three days. In voting for the gen-
eral church authorities on the sixth, Charles W. Penrose was sus-
tained as an assistant church historian ; Moses Thatcher was not upheld
as one of the twelve, because of his refusal to sign a manifesto issued
by the general authorities of the church to the saints in which the
leading men of the church were requested to seek counsel before tak-
ing political offices which would interfere with their ecclesiastical
duties."

Mr. POWERS. That is about as I recollect it.

Mr. TAYLER. You have spoken about the uprising of 1895 against
political control by the church of its people. Has there ever been in
your knowledge any other serious or promising uprising of the peo-
ple against any unpopular practice of the church?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. Was this a time when what you would have called
rebellion seemed to give large promise of ripening into successful
revolution ?

Mr. POWERS. It was such a time.

Mr. TAYLER. You spoke about the hope — or thought that if the
church authorities would undertake to reestablish polygamy it could
not be done. Have you a larger hope in respect to that, if it should
occur, than you did have in 1895 of the success of this uprising against
political domination ?

Mr. POWERS. No; and if I stated that it would not be possible for

888 EEED WMOOT.

the church to reestablish polygamy, I do not want so to be understood.
I think I stated that I believed, of course, they could reestablish it
but that a large number of young men and women would rebel against
it — stand out against it.

The CHAIRMAN. You speak of the council being, as you suppose,
Republican, 9 to 6—

Mr. POWERS. Nine to 6, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. And that, ultimately, it turned out that the council
stood 8 to 7.

Mr. TAYLER. Eight Mormons and 7 gentiles.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand him to state that.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; 8 Mormons and 7 gentiles, if I remember it
correctly.

Thereupon (at 11 o'clock and 55 minutes a. m.) the committee took
a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

The committee reassembled at the expiration of the recess.
The CHAIRMAN. Judge Powers, you may take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF ORLANDO W. POWERS— Continued.

ORLANDO W. POWERS, having been previously sworn, was examined,
and testified as follows:

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have 3^011 any further questions, or has
any member of the committee any further questions, to ask Judge
Powers ? If not, the gentlemen will proceed with the cross-examination.

Mr. POWERS. Just a moment, gentlemen. In view of a question
that was asked by Senator Foraker, I think it was —

Mr. TAYLER. Senator McComas.

Mr. POWERS. Senator McComas — as to whether any of the younger
Mormons have recently been outspoken against the interference of the
church in political affairs, I wish to say that during the noon recess I
have recalled more particularly one very brilliant }Toung Mormon,
formerly a member of Congress, Judge William H. King, who has
been very outspoken. Upon an occasion on the 19th of June, 1902, I
was present at a political meeting when he made a speech, and as it
sustains what I have said with regard to church interference, I desire,
as a part of my testimony, to read three short paragraphs of it. Judge
King said:

" I want to say, frankly, that there is very much to say relative to the
combinations that look to the triumph of a particular wing of the
Republican party in the future. It would be a disgrace to the people
of Utah if they were to ratify any trade or bargain by which some
particular individual was to be the beneficiary and was to be sent to
the Senate of the United States. I want to repudiate one of the falla-
cious ideas which has been insidiously inculcated among many of my
coreligionists in this State, namely, that we should stand in with the
party in power. I believe that it is a damnable heresy, and that it is a
doctrine which commends itself to cowards, and not to honest men.
[Applause.]"

Again:

"I again refer to that pernicious and infamous doctrine that we

REED SMOOT. 889

must stand in with the party in power. Let me appeal to the Mormon
people as a Mormon, where would you have been, my coreligionists,
if you had accepted that view and stood in with the religious party
that was in power? Where would the Mormon Church have been and
where would the Mormon people have been if they had carried out
that policy which is being taught now in political circles, to stand in
with the majority ?

"Concede, then, that some of the members of the dominant church
have dealt unfairly with us in the past; concede that we were cheated
and robbed and defrauded out of the victory which we ought to have
had a year ago; concede that the scheme is to defraud again by sub-
terfuge and by underhanded methods; concede it all, and there ought
to arise in the heart of every Democrat a stern resolve that so long as
those influences can obtain every Democrat will fight harder and harder
to resist them and to prevent the consummation of those infamies."

The article from the Salt Lake Tribune of June 20, 1902, is as
follows:

RAWLINS'S BOOM STARTS— ALL OTHER DEMOCRATS RETIRE FROM
SENATORIAL RACE— KING'S SENSATIONAL SPEECH— THE RECEP-
TION FOR SENATOR RAWLINS AT LAGOON DEVELOPED INTO A
DEFINITE MOVEMENT FOR HIS RETURN TO WASHINGTON IF THE
DEMOCRATS CONTROL THE LEGISLATURE— OTHER ELIGIBLES LAY
DOWN THEIR ARMS— SPEECHES BY ROYLANCE, POWERS, KING,
RAWLINS, HENDERSON, AND STEPHENS.

In the pretty little dancing pavilion at Lagoon, in the presence of
an enthusiastic gathering of Democrats, the boom of Senator Joseph
L. Rawlins for a second term was inaugurated. The interesting fea-
ture of the little gathering was that each of the other Utah Democrats
who might naturally be charged with having Senatorial aspirations
stepped to the front during the meeting and laid their aspirations at
the feet of the present Senator. James H. Moyle, who acted as chair-
man of the meeting, was the first to make his little sacrifice, and if he
had any bitter regrets he concealed them from the audience. William
H. King followed, and although it was like laying his firstborn upon
the altar, he performed the sad duty manfully.

Orlando W. Powers was next placed upon the rack, and artistically
smothered his feelings in a brilliant tribute to Senator Rawlins. Frank
J. Cannon evidently could not nerve himself to the ordeal of being
present, but he sent his slaughtered aspirations in the form of a letter
to be read at the meeting. Judge H. P. Henderson did not flinch, and
at the close of the meeting his aspirations were in the junk pile with
the others.

Wise ones take these sacrifices to mean that the Democrats have
given up at this early stage of the game all hope of carrying Utah this
fall. Some of the faithful delude themselves with the idea that it is an
indication of the return of the dove of peace to the ark of Democracy,
and that all that remains to be done now is to clear the deck for the
assault that is to lead to victory.

The sensational feature of the meeting was that part of Judge King's
speech in which he denounced what he was pleased to call the deal
between the Mormon Church and certain politicians in the State. In

890 REED SMOQT.

this the judge was most emphatic in asserting that the Democrats had
been deluded, defrauded, and robbed by the church. He appealed to
the Mormon people to repudiate such work and to block all such
schemes for the future. These statements were greeted with hearty
applause.

There was little that was notable in the other speeches. It was the
general understanding that Senator Rawlins in his address would out-
line in some measure his policy upon which the Democrats would go
into the fight this fall. This he failed to do, and outside of a general
denunciation of plutocracy he failed to touch upon political issues at
all. For the most part his brief address was of a social nature and
an acknowledgment of the many compliments that had been showered
upon him.

In opening the meeting about 8 o'clock Chairman Moyle said the
object was to enable Democrats to pay their respects to one of Utah's
most distinguished sons, a man who did not always vote as the Admin-
istration wanted him to vote; a man who enjoyed the respect of all
from the President down to the least man in the Senate; a man who
had led the fight in the Senate for liberty and equality in the Philippines.

ROYLANCE REQUESTS HARMONY.

W. M. Roy lance was first introduced as chairman of the Democratic
State committee. He read his address. The burden of it was that he
desired to see a thorough organization of the Democrats in every
county, and that if this were done Utah would be put back in the fold
of Democracy. "The Republicans," he said, "will move heaven and
earth to carry out the scheme to send Reed Smoot to the Senate to
succeed Senator Rawlins. We must block this scheme — this trade.
Honest Republicans of the State will not stand for it. Even now men
are being sent into every county in the State to fix the fences, to see
that the right men are nominated for the legislature, so that no mis-
take will be made."

Mr. Roylance made a plea for the nomination of the very best men
and women in the party. He said he was getting encouraging reports,
and that many people were rebelling against being bought and sold
like cattle and sheep.

Judge King was loudly applauded when he was introduced, and after
referring to the splendid services of the "able Senator, Joseph L.
Rawlins, the champion of the rights of the people in the State and the
nation," he spoke substantially as follows:

KING OPENS UP.

"I want to say, frankly, that there is very much to say relative to
the combinations that look to the triumph of a particular wing of the
Republican party in the future. It would be a disgrace to the people
of Utah if they were to ratify any trade or bargain by which some
particular individual was to be the beneficiary and was to be sent to
the Senate of the United States. I want to repudiate one of the fal-
lacious ideas which have been insidiously inculcated among many of my
co-religionists in this State, namely, that we should stand in with the
party in power. I believe that it is a damnable heresy and that it is a
doctrine which commends itself to cowards, and not to honest men.
[Applause.]

REED SMOOT. 891

WOULD PREFER A DEMOCRAT.

"Stand in with the party in power. Why? To get some offices.
And that reminds me that a Senator, who will be nameless here to-night,
seems to think that the acme of perfection and that the highest duty
of a Senator is to stand at the pie counter and obtain a few crumbs, a
few offices for a few hungry pap suckers in the State of Utah. I had
rather have a man in Congress or in the Senate of the United States
that never got an office for his constituents or for the people of his
State, who stood up valiantly for the right, and who defended Demo-
cratic principles rather than a man that was constantly petitioning the
President of the United States for offices and to distribute pie to a lot
of hungry people in the State of Utah.

"What is it that makes governments and builds up communities and
spreads civil liberty in the world? Is it the office seeker, the man
whose highest conception of statesmanship is to hunt for offices?
What would have become of this Republic if that class of men had
guided the destinies of this Republic? I say for shame upon this
mercenary characteristic that is manifesting itself among so many peo-
ple of this State ? We do not send men to Congress to get offices. We
send them there to defend the policies and principles that have made
this Republic great and will perpetuate it if it shall endure.

APPEAL TO MORMONS.
tt

I again refer to that pernicious and infamous doctrine that we
must stand in with the party in power. Let me appeal to the Mor-
mon people as a Mormon. Where would you have been, my coreli-
gionists, if you had accepted that view and stood in with the religious
party that was in power? Where would the Mormon Church have
been and where would the Mormon people have been if they had car-
ried out that policy which is being taught now in political circles — to
stand in with the majority?

"Has it not always been one of the proud boasts of the dominant
church of this State and the members of that church that they stood
up for that which they believed to be right, notwithstanding the fact
that millions were against them? We want to inquire, first, Are we
in the right? not are we in the majority. It is fraught with danger to
the members of my church, as it is fraught with infamy to those who
follow that policy anywhere. I would rather be right and have with
me as a companion the dog that bays at the moon than to have a world
with me and stand upon a wrong foundation.

HEARS WHISPERINGS.

"I hear now whisperings in this State that if we stand in with the
Administration we can get favors. Favors in a Republican govern-
ment. My friends, we become cowards and, sycophants when we ask
for favors. This is not a government that has favors to grant. This
is a government where all men are presumed to be equal and where
we do not ask favors.

"It is said that we can placate the Republicans if we will vote the
Republican ticket. Do they mean that the Republican party is so
damnably dishonorable and unjust that it can not deal justly and right-

892 REED 8MOOT.

eously with the people of this State unless they vote the Republican
ticket? But that is the history of the Republican party. It is the
party of trades, of bartering, of expediency; it is the party that will
sell its birthright if it can get in power.

WHAT OUGHT TO ARISE.

•'CJpncede, then, that some of the members of the dominant church
have dealt unfairly with us in the past; concede that we were cheated
and robbed and defrauded out of the victory which we ought to have
had a year ago; concede that the scheme is to defraud again by sub-
terfuge and by underhanded methods; concede it all, and there ought to
arise in the heart of every Democrat a stern resolve that so long as
those influences can obtain every Democrat will light harder and
harder to resist them and to prevent the consummation of those
infamies.

DEMOCRATS ARISE.

"There might be an excuse if the Democrats were triumphantly in
power for some of us to lag and to take it easy in our tents, but there
is not only no excuse now, but it would be a crime for any Democrat
in the State in this coming election to sit down supinely and to let the
Republican party ride over us triumphantly to victory. Let the Demo-
crats of this State rise up and shake their invincible locks and announce
to the Republicans that the battle is on and we will fight for Demo-
cratic principles and fight on and on until we win, until the right
triumphs and until free government is assured."

POWERS SEES A MACHINE.

Judge Powers was also received with applause. He opened also
with a high tribute to the services and the character of Senator
Rawlins, whose utterances, he said, had been distorted over the State.
The judge then spoke in part as follows:

"Here in this State there is being builded as corrupt and tyrannical
a political machine as ever was builded anywhere in the United States,
and the man who has a boy growing up in this State, the man who
has a daughter growing up in this State, whom he expects to see live
here in Utah, has an interest in fighting this battle of the people,
which is a battle against the combined power of wealth and of influence
here in the State of Utah.

" It has been said that already there has been named the Senator
who is to succeed Rawlins, a man holding a high, ecclesiastical office.
The people of Utah can not afford to send to the Senate of the United
States a man holding a high ecclesiastical office. There is no reason
why a Mormon should not sit there, but there is a reason why those
whose lives should be dedicated to the preaching of Christ and Him
crucified should not mingle in political affairs or seek high political
offices. You will regret it. It is a thing you can not afford to do, and
yet I believe that when the last Senatorial campaign was on that this
arrangement and agreement was made, and that is the combination
you have got to meet to-day.

REED SMOOT. 893

THEORY AS TO TEST.

" What is the test of Utah to-day of Republicans? Is it that a man
believes in the platform of the party ? Is it that he has given honest,
faithful service to the party as a whole? No. It is whether he will
bow down in abject servitude to one man who holds a high place from
this State at the present time, and unless he does, whether he be a
reverend of the Congregational Church, or whether he be a high priest
in the Mormon Church, he can not expect to receive the favor of the
administration or be put into any political office."

REGRETS PRESENTED.

At this stage of the proceedings Chairman Moyle read telegrams of
regret from Legrand Young, S. R. Thurman, and A. J. Weber. All
spoke in high terms of Senator Rawlins and seemed in hearty sympathy
with the object of the meeting. A letter was read from Frank J.
Cannon. In this he expressed the earnest hope that " if the party may
be victorious at the next legislative election it give itself the honor
and to the State the benefit of the reelection of Joseph L. Rawlins to
the United States Senate." In another paragraph the letter said of
Senator Rawlins that he is "entitled to the respect and admiration of
every citizen of Utah who has regard for sturdy manhood in political
life."

RAWLINS MUCH OBLIGED.

Senator Rawlins was greeted with hearty and continued applause
when he was presented to speak. He was in good voice and gave the
meeting an agreeable surprise by cutting his remarks short. He
spoke substantially as follows:

"According to an advance notice of a Republican paper it was due
from me upon my return from Washington to my native State to come
bowing my head with shame. However that may be, I am proud
to-night to greet you and to be greeted by you. I am glad to make
my bow, and I shall leave you to put your own interpretation upon
the performance. Under the circumstances it is needless to say that
I feel highly complimented in your presence, and thank you for all the
honor which it implies.

"To those whose friendship has brought about this interesting
occasion, the members of the Democratic club, members of the State
committee, and all who have participated, I extend my heartfelt thanks.

DEVOTION TO CAUSE.

"The words uttered here to-night by eminent and distinguished
Democrats, men who have adorned and who are capable of adorning
as representatives of the great cause of Democracy the highest station
of this Republic of ours, words so kind, so complimentar}^, so magnani-
mous, I shall ever cherish as a precious treasure. Yet, Mr. Chairman,
I am not so vain as to presume that all this was designed purely as a
personal compliment. It is rather an exhibition of continued devotion
to the cause which we in common cherish and which we in common, if
we could, would see predominate, securing to our country the perpe-

894 REED SMOOT.

tuity of its free institutions and the welfare and happiness of all its
people.

"In this social -political reunion it seems to me inappropriate that I
should indulge in political discussion. In a metaphorical sense, if I
could I would forget those cruel wars and bloody scenes from which
I have recently made my escape, and in coming hither among the
people with whom I have always lived I ought not to enter the arena
with a challenge. I would rather indulge in the felicitations of friend-
ship. *•

POLITICAL BIOGRAPHY.

"Mr. Chairman, for ten years it has been my fortune in oneway or
another to meet the buffettings of the stormy seas of politics. Some-
times the currents have been adverse, sometimes the winds unfriendly,
and yet I have no cause of complaint, no aspiration of my heart that
has not been gratified. I feel grateful for the high honors which have
been conferred upon me by the people of my native State, at whose
birth I was a humble attendant in the halls of Congress. Guided by
my honest judgment, with an earnest desire to do my duty as I saw it,
seeking never to be a suppliant at the throne of power, I have sought
at the same time as 1 saw it to uphold the rights and interests of the
people of my State and of the nation. I have lent what aid I could
to keep the ship of state bearing in the right direction, with what
measure of wisdom or success it is not for me to say. For whatever
difficulties have been encountered, whatever disappointments may
have been met, or whatever measure of success may have been achieved,
I want to say to-night that I seek no other reward than the manifesta-
tion of the regard and approval which I see about me this evening as
I cast my eyes upon this friendly audience.

"Mr. Chairman, the sober, conscientious judgment of the people
some time or the other will^pass upon the principles which I and you
have espoused; will sit in judgment upon the cause which I for you
and as your representative have sought to represent, not with reference
to any personal advancement to me, because that is a subordinate con-
sideration and is not a matter which is to be considered, and will
approve those principles for which the Democracy in this State and in
the nation stands.

HARD TIMES AHEAD.

"Mr. Chairman, what are those great questions? We have not the
time to discuss them. In eloquent terms they have been pointed out
in a measure by the distinguished speakers who have precedence. If
there was ever a time when there should be a Democracy — sturdy,
determined, brave, and independent — in Utah and elsewhere throughout
this Republic, the time exists now. Never were the tendencies so
menacing to the welfare of our country, so threatening to the free
institutions of the Republic. How long will the institutions and struc-
ture of the Republic of our forefathers endure if we, the Democracy
of the nation, are unable to rescue it and put it back in the pathway
of those who started it in the beginning?

WHACK AT THE TRUSTS.

"I but make this suggestion: Strong influences are abroad. Once
it was proclaimed by the founder of the Republican party, Abraham

EEED SMOOT. 895

Lincoln, that this should be a Government for the people, of the people,
and by the people, and under the administration of the Republican party
to-day it is a Government by the trusts.

"Are we to be controlled in our political, in our personal actions,
in all that is dear to us by the trinity of plutocracy, imperialism, and
militarism? Shall the Democracy appeal in vain to the American
people on vital questions upon which depend the very existence of this
free Government?

"I appeal to you to stand faithful in all the majest}^ and power of
your manhood, and as American citizens see that the force of your
individual^ is commingled with that of your fellow citizens, that the
result may be the highest good to the State and to the people."

At the close of Senator Rawlins's speech it was discovered that Judge
Henderson was in the audience, and a loud call was sent up for him.
The Judge spoke very briefly and did not touch upon the issues. He
said it was too early for talk, but when the proper time came he
expected to do what he had done ever since he was 16 years old — do
all in his, power for the success of the Democratic party. He said the
Democrats can carry Utah if they will. If good men are put up on a
good platform Utah, he said, would again take her place as a Demo-
cratic State, and be no longer a trophy of the trusts. He said the
Declaration of Independence was not read in the Philippines because it
preached treason; it was too large a dose of liberty for the Filipinos.

RAWLINS'S BURDEN.

Frank B. Stephens was called out of the audience and spoke in high
terms of Senator Rawlins who, he said, had taken up the mantle of
Wendell Phillips, Abraham Lincoln, and Charles Sumner. He com-
pared Senator Rawlins's speech in the Senate on the Philippine bill to
the speech delivered in Fanueil Hall, in Boston, in 1837, by Wendell
Phillips, denouncing the murder of Owen Lovejo}\ "If Senator Raw-
lins is not sent back to the Senate," Mr. Stephens said, " Utah will be
recreant to her duty. We have one Senator to distribute the patron-
age; we need one to uphold true American sentiment."

Senator DUBOIS. Was that delivered by Judge King since the politi-
cal manifesto ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; that was delivered in 1902, on June 19.

Senator OVERMAN. Is he out of harmony with the church, or in
harmony ?

Mr. POWERS. He spoke in the tabernacle this last winter.

Senator DUBOIS. Is he one of the bishops or one of the authorities
higher than a bishop?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Senator DUBOIS. Then the political rule would not apply to him?

Mr. POWERS. Now, gentlemen, I think it does. I have heard it
construed here as applying only to the higher officials, but I think
that rule, as it reads, can be applied to any official of the church, if
they so desire. That is my construction of it simply.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all?

Mr. POWERS. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, you may proceed with the cross-exami-
nation.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, has not Frank J. Cannon also taken a posi-
tion substantially as strong as that of Judge King?

896 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWERS. He has, and he is taking- that position to-day in his
lewspaper published at Ogden.

Mr. VAN COTT. And that is being circulated in the State?

Mr. POWERS. It is.

Senator DUBOIS. Is Cannon an official of the church?

Mr. POWERS. He is not.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is a member of the Mormon Church?

Mr. POWERS. He is a member of the Mormon Church.

Mr.*VAN COTT. And as high an official as Judge King?

Mr. POWERS. I think he is. I think they must be upon an equality.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, when you went to the Territory of Utah
In 1885 the people were practically without any experience in politics,
were they not?

Mr. POWERS. That is my understanding. That was my observation.

Mr. VAN COTT. For instance, such experience as framing platforms
and of having defined issues and standing by them was entirely unknown
to the people ?

Mr. POWERS. That was entirely unknown to the people. In fact,
Mr. Van Cott, I do not think they were at all familiar with holding
caucuses or conventions, or the selection of candidates as the}^ are
selected through the States.

Mr. VAN COTT. And as to what would be the issues between great
political parties, they had no idea and no conception of such things as
that?

Mr. POWERS. I do not think they had any idea or conception of the
issues dividing the great national parties, and in fact, I think they took
very little interest in them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it not a fact that while Brigham Young was pres-
ident of the church and a leader of the church, he was appointed twice
by the Government as governor of the Territory of Utah?

Mr. POWERS. That is the fact.

Mr. VAN COTT. And served eight years as governor?

Mr. POWERS. And served eight years as governor.

Mr. VAN COTT. So the people had before them practically the union
of church and state.

Mr. POWERS. They did, indeed. It was perfect.

Mr. VAN COTT. When you went there in 1885, did you notice any
Improvement in the political conditions up to the time of the com-
mencement of the -division on party lines, in 1892?

Mr. POWERS. There was a gradual improvement up to that time.

Mr. VAN COTT. Commencing in 1892, when the parties commenced
to divide, was there then a campaign to enlighten the people in regard
to political topics?

Mr. POWERS. There was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And to frame platforms?

Mr. POWERS. There was. There were platforms framed and decla-
rations of principles issued by both the Republican and Democratic
parties, and printed and circulated.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was that kept up with considerable activity or -not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; it was kept up with activity.

Mr. VAN COTT. Starting from that time, 1892, up to the present 1
wish, Judge, you would state in your own way the progress that has
been made by the people in the knowledge of political principles and
of parties, and of forming their opinions and things of that kind, and

REED SMOOT. 897

their tendency to become fixed, if there is anything in addition to what
you have already stated.

Mr. POWERS. Well, there has been progress made that to me is, in
view of the conditions that existed prior to that time, somewhat sur-
prising as well as satisfactory. For instance, along about 1892 and
prior to that time, and after that, but not to so great an extent, it was
not an unusual thing; in fact, it was expected by those living in Utah
that at the religious meetings held on Sunday nights preceding the
election there would be political talks, and an indication given by the
tenor of those talks as to how the people should vote. Now, we do
not have those Sunday night talks just prior to the election. Of course
we still have an editorial in the Deseret Evening News on the Satur-
day preceding the elections, generally, that we look for, but we do
not have those talks. The people have progressed politically. They
have progressed socially. The bitterness that was so intense between
Mormons and gentiles that it is hard to describe it, has in a great
measure passed away, although it exists, unfortunately, to some extent
yet. Take it socially. Prior to 1892 I do not know that any Mor-
mons were members of the Alta Club, the leading social club of that
city. At the present time there are Mormon members of that club,
and as 1 say there has been an advance.

Mr. VAN COTT. How about the women's clubs, Judge ?

Mr. POWERS. The same may be said with regard to the women's
clubs, although I do not know that there were more than one or two
women's clubs previous to 1890. I do not recall them, but now we
have many, and the Mormon women are members of those clubs, and
gentile women.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, will you also express your opinion on the
particular point of the tendency of the Mormon people to become
fixed in political convictions \

Mr. POWERS. Some of them have as fixed convictions as any people,
and I think the number is increasing.

Mr. VAN COTT. You found that so in the reconvened convention
time ?

Mr. POWERS. I did; although I have since found that some who were
with me in that reconvened convention no longer stand where I stand,
either politically or with regard to the church. In 1902 a good many
of them, without any apparent cause, it seems to me, changed.

Mr. VAN COTT. And also during the time of the Moses Thatcher
campaign for the United States Senate, did you find them stand firm
for him at that time ?

Mr. POWERS. They stood very firm for him up to the time that he was
defeated in the senate, and I believe that if he could have been elected
he would have been a rallying point for those who earnestly desire
this rule of the church to be broken. If he had had political office
and political power — and there is nothing succeeds like success — I
believe it would have been a godsend to Utah.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, in the problem out there, is it not an impor-
tant element as to the honesty and sincerity of the people ?

Mr. POWERS. It is

Mr. VAN COTT. What have you to say, in your judgment, as to the
honesty and sincerity of the Mormon men and women?

Mr. POWERS. I believe the Mormon men and women are as honest
and as sincere — I am speaking of the great mass of the people now—

S 57

898 REED 8MOOT.

as any people upon the face of the earth; and it has seemed to me that
from that very fact, their sincerity, their honesty, their firm belief in
their church tenets, and their fidelity to their leaders, their leaders
have the opportunity to do what has been done politically.

Mr. VAN COTT. With a leader who himself was honest and consci-
entious in that particular would there be anything to fear whatever,
in your opinion?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, no. The Mormon people are largely, of course,
controlled by their leaders, and with an nonest leader firmly believing
and preaching American principles, certainly there would be nothing
to fear.

Senator BAILEY. That, however, Judge, would be the rule of one
man rather than the rule of all the people, would it not?

Mr. POWERS. That is true. That is one of the things concerning
which we have trouble.

Mr. VAN COTT. But you have given your opinion as to what will be
the ultimate outcome, in your opinion, as to a class of people who are
honest and conscientious and earnest, as you have stated.

Mr. POWERS. Why, I have great faith in the people, not only of the
country at large, but of Utah. I can not believe otherwise than that
in this free Government, after a time — that is the trouble; I fear I will
not live to see it — .the Mormon Church will take its place, where it
ought to take it, like the rest of the churches, in the country.

Mr. VAN COTT. With a people who have had so little experience in
political matters, did you not regard it as rather natural that after the
first campaign, in 1892, a good many should shift their position in the
campaign ot 1894?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and particularly in view of the manner in which
they were divided up. Now, it has been well known to us all there
that we had a certain set that were called church Republicans and a cer-
tain set that were called church Democrats, who were not firmly attached
to either party, not supposed to be partisans in any sense of the word;
and of course those people have flopped one way and another.

Mr. VAN COTT. And that was to be expected, was it not, in your
judgment?

Mr. POWERS. No; Mr. Van Cott. I think that was a part of the
plan of division.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you think the people were party to it?

Mr. POWERS. They were party to it in this regard, that much of
their thought is left to be done by leaders of the church, and they are
taught to obey counsel, to obey the advice and suggestion of those who
are above them. They are a party to it in the believing in that system
of religion. They have obeyed counsel.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it natural, in your opinion, that in the first
division on party lines in Utah a great majority of the Mormon people
should go to the Democratic party ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; that was natural.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was one reason for it, and the principal reason for
it, the fact that the General Government had been Republican, and
most of the legislation that had been adverse to them had been passed
by the Republicans?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; 1 have heard that discussed many times in the
earlier days, that the troubles that had come upon them by way of
prosecutions came by reason of legislation that had been adopted by

REED SMOOT. 899

the Republican party, and, probably without knowing why they were,
they claimed to be Democrats, largely.

Mr. VAN COTT. That being so, as most of them for that reason
would go into the Democratic party in 1892, would you not expect
that for that reason, in particular, as they became well acquainted with
the issues o.f the political parties, there would be a readjustment of
those people, according to the opinions that they would form when
they became well informed in regard to politics and the issues ?

Mr. POWERS. Why, certainly, I would have expected that; but,
unfortunately, when they came to divide there was not that great pro-
portion on the side of the Democratic parity that I would expect in view
of the past professions of the people concerning Democracy, and of their
feeling toward the Republican party by reason of legislation and pros-
ecutions. On the contrary, the people were quite evenly divided, as
the votes show.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1892, when the first election was held, Mr. Raw-
lins, a Democrat, had 15,201 votes, did he not?

Mr. POWERS. I believe that is the vote.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Mr. Cannon 12,390?

Mr. POWERS. I think you have them correct. I have them here
somewhere.

Mr. VAN COTT. So far as the Republicans and Democrats were lined
up, there was a substantial majority for the Democrats, was there not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Something over 2,800 votes. Calling your atten-
tion to the Liberal vote, which you stated was 6,987, were most of
those Republicans, in your opinion?

Mr. POWERS. There was a large — I was going to say a large major-
ity of Republicans. There were, of course, a good many gentile Demo-
crats. We had an organization there of gentile Democrats, called the
Tuscaroras, and we had in Salt Lake City at one time on our list
between 1,000 and 1,200, nearly 1,200 I think, that were all Demo-
crats in national politics, but I think a good majority of the gentiles
were Republicans.

Mr. VAN COTT. Could you give us an idea of the percentage ?

Mr. POWERS. Well, I would think that out of 6,000. say, there would
be 2,000 majority Republican — pretty near that.

Mr. VAN COTT. About 66f per cent Republicans ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I should think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then in 1894 the Liberal party had passed out of
existence ?

Mr. POWERS. It had.

Mr. VAN COTT. Giving the Republicans 66f per cent of that Liberal
vote, would you not expect the Republicans to carry the State in 1894?

Mr. POWERS. I would have expected it under under ordinary cir-
cumstances, but Joseph L. Rawlins was running for Congress. He
was well known to all the people. Joseph L. Rawlins had accom-
plished more for the people of that State during his term as a Delegate
than anyone they had ever had here, and you would naturally think
that they would vote for him. At any rate the Mormon people
wanted statehood. I think Mr. Rawlins nelped to make that possible.

Mr. VAN COTT. That would be your opinion ?

Mr. POWERS. I thought you were calling for my opinion.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; but the latter part I do not know that 1 asked

900 REED SMOOT.

you about. Dividing up that Republican vote that way, that would
elect Mr. Cannon ?

Mr. POWERS Certainly; if that was the question.

Mr. VAN COTT. You designate Frank J. Cannon as a brilliant man?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he is ?

Mr, POWERS. He is.

Mr. VAN COTT. And a very fine campaign speaker?

Mr. "POWERS. There is none better.

Mr. VAN COTT. So that you would not expect him to be behind in
that political race in Utah ?

Mr. POWERS. Except for the reasons that I have stated.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1896, coming to the next campaign, I believe you
stated that you would expect that to be Democratic, whoever was on
the ticket, on account of the issue ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the same of 1898?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1900 the silver question was practically out of
the issue in Utah, was it not?

Mr. POWERS. It was.

Mr- VAN COTT. And the same in 1902?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1900 the Republicans carried the State?

Mr. POWERS. They carried the State.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in 1902?

Mr. POWERS. In 1902.

Mr. VAN COTT. So, with the exception of the exceptional years of
1896 and 1898, the Republicans have consistently carried the State of
Utah from the time of the division on party lines to date ?

Mr. POWERS. My opinion is that it was inconsistently. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. Anyway, those are the facts, as we have gone over
them?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Has there ever been more than one United States
Senator who was a Democrat since the time Utah became a State ?

Mr. POWERS. No. Unfortunately, no. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, the same way, in regard to Congressmen.
Judge King has been elected twice, has he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1896?

Mr. POWERS. And then at the special election.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, coming to State officers, I will ask you the
general question whether all the State officers have not been Repub-
licans with the single exception of Robert N. Baskin, who was elected
during the time of the silver question, in 1898.

Mr. POWERS. They have been.

Mr VAN COTT. Reed Smoot, when he was a candidate for the United
States Senate, would have to get this consent that has been mentioned?

Mr. POWERS. I so understand it.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he was opposed by very many prominent Mor-
mons in the Republican party, was he not?

Mr. POWERS. 1 think so.

EEED SMOOT. 901

Mr. VAN COTT. And he was also supported in his candidacy by very
many prominent Republican gentiles?

Mr. POWEKS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. What did you mean, Judge, when yesterday you
spoke of many of the people who landed in Utah with much bitterness
in their hearts?

Mr. POWERS. I meant this. I meant no reflection upon the people.
I meant that they had had serious trouble at the place from which
they migrated; that the man whom they believed a prophet of God
had been murdered, and they had gone off into a new country away
from all that. They would be less than human if they did not have
some bitterness in their hearts.

Mr. VAN COTT. Coming to the city election in November, 1903, Salt
Lake City usually is Republican, is it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; 1 think it usually is Republican.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it your opinion that it was the Mormon Church
that turned Salt Lake City Democratic in that election?

Mr. POWERS. The last election ?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes.

Mr. POWERS. They helped.

Mr. VAN COTT. They helped. All right.

Mr. POWERS. I was going to say it was not alone the Mormon Church.
There was quite a body of gentile Republicans who voted, or who are
supposed to have voted, the Democratic ticket.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it not principally, in your opinion, the gentile
Republicans who turned the city over to the Democrats ?

Mr. POWERS. I do not think so.

Senator BAILEY. Just there, is not that easier of demonstration by
taking the vote according to the wards?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; you could not tell by that.

Senator BAILEY. Js it or is it not true that there are certain wards
in which the Mormon vote predominates?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; there are certain wards in which the Mormon
votes predominate, and certain wards in which the gentile votes pre-
dominate; but it is pretty hard to —

Senator BAILEY. Could not a rather accurate conclusion be drawn
from the changes in those wards, so far as influence controls?

Mr. POWERS. It might possibly be done more readily by reference
to the voting precincts. We have from 50 to 60 voting precincts.
The wards would be too large, I think.

Senator BAILEY. I would imagine you could form a reasonable con-
clusion in that way, just as we would in the city of New York.

Mr. POWERS. Applying that test, take the Third municipal ward of
Salt Lake Citv. That is supposed to be largely Mormon. I think it
is. That ward was originally Democratic, and is to-day somewhat. I
think the vote in that ward would show. I haven't it with me now,
but I think that would show.

Mr. VAN COTT. W7e will furnish that later, Senator Bailey.

Judge, did not Charles S. Zane, a gentile Republican and a judge
appointed from Illinois, come out and in public interviews oppose the
Republican ticket?

Mr. POWERS. He did.

902 REED SMOOT

Mr VAN COTT. Did not Mr. Allison, president of the State senate,
a gentile Republican, do the same thing ?

Mr. POWERS. I think Mr. Allison did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did not George Sutherland, a gentile Republican,
and ex-Congressman from the State of Utah, do the same?

Mr. POWEKS. I understood that George Sutherland supported the
straight ticket.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am talking now of the published interview;
whether in the published interview-
Mr. POWERS. He may have done so; but I do not recall that. I was
quite certain that Mr. Sutherland yielded to the will of the convention.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did not W. F. James, a gentile Republican, do the
same?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did not M. H. Walker do the same?

Mr. POWERS. I do not recall Mr. Walker.

Mr. VAN COTT. E. B. Critchlow?

Mr. POWERS. I do not recall what Critchlow did.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Grant H. Smith?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I think he did.

Mr. VAN COTT. And did not Dean Eddy, the Episcopal minister, in
a public interview, do the same ?

Mr. POWERS. It was so stated, and then I saw afterwards he denied
that.

Mr. VAN COTT. They are all gentile Republicans that I have
mentioned ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And did not O. J. Saulsbury, national Republican
committeeman, do the same?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he did.

Mr. VAN COTT. In a public interview?

Mr. POWERS. I think so. I know he was opposed to the Republi-
can ticket.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you not understand, Judge, that the gentile
Republicans furnished money to the Democrats for the purpose of
organizing their city committee and carrrying that election for the
Democrats ?

Mr. POWERS. No; 1 do not understand that On the contrary, Mr.
Leary, who was chairman of that committee, I understand, denies any-
thing of that kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, you stated that Mr. Richard Morris's major-
ity was 3,500. Have you looked at that since?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I was in error as to the size of that majority.
That was m}^ recollection.

Mr. VAN COTT. What is it?

Mr. POWERS. 1 think it is about 2,700.

Mr. VAN COTT. Let me refresh your recollection a moment. Will
you look at this statement and see whether it was not 2,270 instead of
2,700.

Mr. POWERS. Is this the official count or the vote given the morning
after the election?

Mr. VAN COTT. It is the newspaper report the morning after the
election.

Mr. POWERS. This, of course, placed it at 2,270. It probably is

HEED SMOQT. 903

somewhere near accurate. I would not want to say that is the exact
majority.

Mr. VAN COTT. Keep that before you a moment. John S. Critch-
low was a gentile candidate for city recorder, was he not?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And his majority was 1,956, was it not?

Mr. POWERS. It is 1,910 here.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. EJaelp was a candidate for auditor-?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. '.

Mr. VAN COTT. Wharis tils majority ?

Mr. POWERS. Six hundred and fourteen. The majority of Fisher
Harris, who is a gentile, is 918. He is a very popular young man, too.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Salt Lake Tribune supported the Republican
ticket in that campaign, did it not ?

Mr. POWERS. It supported the Republican ticket.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, you are attorney for the Salt Lake Tribune,
are }TOU not?

Mr. POWERS. I am attorney for the Salt Lake Tribune.

Mr. VAN COTT. And you have been for many years ?

Mr. POWERS. I have been since 1887.

Mr. VAN COTT. Before statehood? Calling your attention to the
naturalization, have you any memory as to how many persons you
refused to naturalize on the ground you stated?

Mr. POWERS. No; but there were quite a number. I refused sev-
eral at Provo, and I refused quite a number at Ogden.

Mr. VAN COTT. Would you venture to state the number?

Mr. POWERS. I would not want to give figures. I could not do
that. I would probably be inaccurate if I did. I would rather get
the figures as near correct as I could.

Mr. VAN COTT. Will you answer this? Would it be a hundred, or
very much less?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, no; it was not a hundred. It would be less than
that.

Senator DUBOIS. Did any other judges beside yourself refuse to
naturalize applicants ?

Mr. POWERS. I think Judge Zane did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it not a fact that Judge Zane refused to follow
that rule; that some of the other judges did follow the rule not to
allow naturalization, but that Judge Zane refused to do it?

Mr. POWERS. Let me think a moment. My impression is that he
refused, possibly not on that ground. I know he questioned them very
closely in regard to their belief in polygamy. My questions were
along this line. I would interrogate them and ask them: Suppose
they were upon a jury and the proof showed beyond a reasonable
doubt that a man was guilty of polygamy or of unlawful cohabitation,
would they find a verdict of guilty or not guilty ; and I would interro-
gate them on the proposition as to wrhat they would do in the event
that the law of the land commanded one thing and the church com-
manded another; and of course when they told me they would follow
the rule of the church, I declined to naturalize them.

Mr. VAN COTT. What would you say as to whether Judge Zane
refused naturalization to such persons?

Mr. POWERS. My recollection is not clear upon it. My impression

904 REED SMOOT.

is that he did refuse on those same lines, but I am not clear upon that.
I would not say that he did or did not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to the Bo wen matter; that
occurred in one of the precincts in Salt Lake City upon the election of
school trustee, did it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; the first municipal ward.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you know who wrote Mr. Bowen's plea?

Mr. POWERS. No, I do not. I think he wrote it himself. I so
understood it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention to the canvass in 1895, you
stated that you thought in September the Democrats would carry^ the
State by a majority of 2,500 to 4,000.

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. You have sometimes been wrong, have you not, in
your estimates, Judge?

Mr. POWERS. Mr. Van Cott, I do not want to appear egotistical, but
in the campaigns in Utah, with regard to the estimate of the probable
vote, I have generally been right.

Mr. VAN COTT. And if you have not been right —

Mr. POWERS. For this reason.

Mr. VAN COTT. Excuse me.

Mr. POWERS. It has been my rule, in taking a canvass, to require
that the thing should be done without regard to any partisan feeling
and that every man concerning whom there was any doubt as to how
he was going to vote should be counted against you. By doing that,
if you men could figure up a majority you would come pretty near
being right.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in cases where you have not come out as you
anticipated you have laid that to some other influence ?

Mr. POWERS. No; I take the responsibility myself when things do
not come out as they ought to, and I have charge of it. I say I am
the one that is in fault. I do not lay it to any other influence. I am
not that kind.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, calling your attention to the case of Thomas
D. Jones —

Mr. POWERS. Joseph D. Jones.

Mr. VAN COTT. Joseph D. Jones. The bishop vou refer to is Judge
Booth?

Mr. POWERS. Judge Booth.

Mr. VAN COTT. Who is now serving on the bench ?

Mr. POWERS. He is.

Mr. VAN COTT. He is a Republican ?

Mr. POWERS. He is a Republican.

Mr. VAN COTT. And has been for many }rears, has he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he nominated himself in one convention for Con-
gress.

Mr. VAN COTT. Joseph Dan Jones, as you understand—

Senator BAILEY. He is now a judge?

Mr. POWERS. He is the judge of the fourth judicial district, com-
prising the counties of Utah, in which Provo is situated, Wasatch, and
Uinta.

Senator BAILEY. Do }^ou mean seriously to say he nominated him-
self for an office?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; at a Republican convention up at Ogden. The

REED SMOOT. 905

Judge was a candidate, and no one else put him in nomination, and he
rose and nominated himself in the convention. [Laughter.]

Mr. TAYLER. That is the place where they say they have been slow
to learn political methods. [Laughter.]

Senator BAILEY. I am inclined to believe that is proven. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. Did not Judge Booth do that as a joke?

Mr. POWEKS. I thought he was serious. I thought he really desired
to be a candidate for Congress.

Mr. VAN COTT. Bid he not do it in a way, Judge, that showed that
he was merely making a joke of the matter, and it was so taken by the
convention ?

Mr. POWERS. Why, the convention took it as a joke.

Mr. VAN COTT. They treated it as a joke?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; they treated it as a joke.

Senator BAILEY. However earnest a man might be, any convention
in any part of this country would be rather inclined to treat his speech
nominating himself as a joke, would they not?

Mr. POWERS. I think the}r would.

Mr. VAN COTT. But of all the people present, you were the only
one who took that seriously, were you not?

Mr. POWERS. I was not present.

Mr. VAN COTT. Oh, you were not there?

Mr. POWERS. Why, he is a Republican. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. Proceeding, Judge, with the Jones matter, Mr.
Jones belonged to the Loyal League, did he not?

Mr. POWERS. He did, as the papers showed.

Mr. VAN COTT. One of the purposes of that league was to disfran-
chise all the Mormons, was it not, on account of what was alleged to
be their improper practices?

Mr. POWERS. Well, there was discussion, I think, of that kind. I
did not belong to it, but 1 think that was considered by them, anyway.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling attention now to Mr. A. W. McCune, who
was a Senatorial candidate in 1898, you spoke of the large amounts of
money that had been donated to temples and things of that kind. Mr.
McCune's wife is a strong Mormon, is she not?

Mr. POWERS. She is.

Mr. VAN COTT. And do you not think that the donations of money
to the church were on account of Mrs. McCune and not on account of
Mr. McCune?

Mr. POWERS. I have no doubt of it. and I did not mean anything I
said as being any reflection upon Mr. McCune. On the contrary, Mr.
McCune is a very generous and very public-spirited man. I referred
to that as being a portion of a letter that Apostle Heber J. Grant
wrote, and merely as introductory to the remark that I desired to call
attention to, where he said he had secured permission to work for him.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was not Reed Smoot a prominent candidate for the
United States Senate even though he had not been chosen an apostle ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he had been active for the Republican party ?

Mr. POWERS. He had been.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you remember whether, even before the divi-
sion on party lines, Mr. Smoot had taken an interest in Republican
politics to the extent of having Republicans come to Provo to announce
the doctrines?

906 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWEKS. Yes; that is true.

Mr. VAN COTT. Dp you remember the gentlemen who came?

Mr. POWERS. I think Mr. Charles S. Varian went down there for
one.

Mr. VAN COTT. The men who are polygamists are mostly elderly
men?

Mr. POWERS. I think the great proportion of them are elderly men.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, have not the Democrats also endeavored to
seek and to obtain some of the church influence ?

Mr. POWERS. Some of them have. I never did.

Mr. VAN COTT. In 1895, you were chairman of the party that year?

Mr. POWERS. I was.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Chairman of what, the Democratic State com-
mittee ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in that year did not the Democrats nominate
Mr. Moses Thatcher, an apostle, and Mr. Roberts, one of the first
presidents of seventies, on account of what was thought to be their
popularity with the people in the State ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; on account of their ability and their popularity.

Mr. VAN COTT. Their ability had only- been shown in an ecclesias-
tical way, had it not?

Mr. POWERS. Mr. Roberts showed his ability in that constitutional
convention, and he showed his courage. In that constitutional con-
vention it was the desire of —

Mr. VAN COTT. I am going to ask you about that a little later.

Mr. POWERS. I want to finish this now.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is not an answer to my question.

Mr. POWERS. Very well.

Senator BAILEY. You asked him if they were not nominated for a
certain reason. I should like to hear the full explanation.

Mr. VAN COTT. I withdraw the objection. I thought the Judge
was going to speak of the woman's suffrage, and I had that for a spe-
cial question. It was not in answer to my question at present; but I
withdraw any objection.

Mr. POWERS. In that constitutional convention it was the wish of
the majority that suffrage should be given to women. Mr. Roberts
did not think it was going to benefit the women or benefit the State,
and notwithstanding the fact that he was upon the unpopular side and
was running counter to the wishes, I think, of the great majority of
his own people, he delivered a speech in that convention that would do
credit to any man, in opposition to it, and the people who disagreed
with him on that subject admired him for his ability and his courage.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were not the leaders of the church also opposed to
Mr. Roberts's position on woman's suffrage?

Mr. POWERS. They were.

Mr. VAN COTT. Strongly opposed?

Mr. POWERS. They were; and that is one thing that commended
Mr. Roberts to the gentile people of that community.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts held this high position ecclesiastically
that he now holds?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, Mr. Thatcher was popular on account of his
ecclesiastical position, was he not?

KEED SMOOT. 907

Mr. POWERS. He was popular on account of his ecclesiastical posi-
tion and he was popular because of his power as an orator. He was
a scholarly man and he was a man of great oratorical ability and
power. He could influence and sway those who were favored with an
opportunity of listening to him, and was a strong man outside of his
ecclesiastical position.

Mr. VAN COTT. But this power you speak of of both these gentle-
men was principally shown in their ecclesiastical duties, was it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; that, I think, perhaps is true, although Mr.
Thatcher delivered a great many public addresses on other subjects.

Mr. VAN COTT. And these were the men whom the Democrats nomi-
nated in 1895?

Mr. POWERS. They did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Even as to the Republican side, whatever influence
has been attempted, either justly or wrongly, to saddle onto the church
has been done in part by gentile chairmen of the Republican party, has
it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. I call your attention to what I think is already in
evidence, the letter of Charles Crane. He was a gentile chairman of
the Republican State committee, was he not?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in this letter that is already in evidence did he
not advise that these pamphlets and letters be distributed in the
Sunday schools and elders' meetings and church meetings, and I call
your attention to the bottom of page 21 of the Utah Commission's
report.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he advised it, and I understand it was done.
That is one of the things we complained about, and I understand he
claimed at the time he was very close to the first presidency, whether
truthfully or untruthfully I do not know. One of the things we com-
plained of was using Sunday schools for distributing political literature.

Mr. VAN COTT. And this was a gentile who advised this to be done ?

Mr. POWERS. He was said to be a gentile.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, he is, is he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he is a gentile, but he did not belong to the old
guard.

Mr. VAN COTT. No. In 1895, when that reconvened convention was
called, in the call you did not lay it to the church, did you, on account
of the influence that had been used?

Mr. POWERS. No; it was thought best by the committee that I
should frame that, as I stated, in diplomatic language, so as not to —
we did not know how far our people would go with us. That is the
truth of it.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not mean to say you sacrificed the truth for
diplomacy, do you ?

Mr. POWERS. I do not understand that you have to sacrifice the
truth in order to be diplomatic.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, you did not, did you?

Mr. POWERS. No; I think not.

Mr. VAN COTT. In that call that you read yesterday it is laid to the
efforts of unscrupulous Republicans to distort the ill-advised statements
of some of the high church officials.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and that was being done. That was done at

908 REED SMOOT.

Brigham City; it was done at Logan; it was done at Moroni; it was
done at Manti; it was done at Richfield; it was done at other places.

Mr. VAN COTT. You spoke recently—

Mr. POWERS. I was going to say I could refer you to a letter from
Brigham City which was written to Mr. Roberts, and by him turned
over to me, that showed that the language that had been "used was dis-
torted for political purposes.

* Mr. VAN COTT. You spoke at a Jefferson Day banquet recently in
Utah, did 3^011 not?

Mr. POWERS. I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. And at that banquet did you not lay the present
condition of affairs to the Republican party and not to the church ?

Mr. POWERS. I inquired of the people who was responsible for the
position in which Utah found herself at the present time with the finger
of all the other States in the Union being pointed toward her. I said
to them, in substance, that we of the Democratic party had run up
against Congress once, and that we had warned the people that if they
voted the Republican legislative ticket it meant the election of Mr.
Smoot to the Senate and meant trouble for the State. That is what I
said to them.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Deseret News is the church organ ?

Mr. POWERS. It is the church organ. It so announces itself at the
head of the column.

Mr. VAN COTT. And have not the Republicans always complained
about that paper helping the Democrats ?

Mr. POWERS. I think they have, more or less, made complaint.

Mr. VAN COTT. Has not the Salt Lake Tribune, the Republican
organ, also charged that the Deseret News has favored the Democrats?

Mr. POWERS. It has, at> times.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, in your investigation in regard to the affairs
that you mentioned of Brigham Young borrowing money from the
city, down to what year did you find that that condition existed ?

Mr. POWERS. Well, the last item that he seems to have borrowed
from the city was — I will find it in a moment. I believe it was in
1873, but if you will excuse me a moment until I go to my overcoat
I can give you the date.

Mr. VAN COTT. Never mind. There has been nothing since 1890,
has there?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Mr. TAYLER. When did he die?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He died in 1877.

Mr. POWERS. In 1877, 1 believe.

Mr. TAYLER. I think 1875 was the last.

Mr. POWERS. Just a moment; I will get it.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is not particular, Judge, as you said there was
nothing since 1890.

Mr. POWERS. In 1875 he gave his note to the city for $14,000.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you state yesterday that when George F. Gibbs,
the secretary to the presidency, wrote the letter that you mentioned to
Bishop Wright, of Hyrum, they refused to censure him or reprove him?

Mr. POWERS. I say that when the committee presented the matter
before the first presidency, and Joseph F. Smith was interrogated with
regard to it, they received no word of censure of the secretary. That
is as I understand it.

REED SMOOT. 909

Mr. VAN COTT. They did write and publish a statement, did they
not, censuring him and denouncing* as reprehensible his conduct?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and retained him as secretary at the same time.

Mr. VAN COTT. And this document to which I refer is in the address
of the Democrats at the time of the reconvened convention ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; in the declaration of truths.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was John C. Graham, of Provo, a Republican or a
Democrat ?

Mr. POWERS. Well, he claimed to me to be a Democrat, but I must
say that I doubt whether he was either.

Mr. VAN COTT. What year was that?

Mr. POWERS. I think he did not know the principles of the Demo-
cratic party or the Republican party either.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did he claim that he had been converted to Repub-
licanism by hearing a Republican speak ?

Mr. POWERS. I think after his paper became a Republican paper, he
made that claim.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, the paper was owned by a corporation, was it
not?

Mr. POWERS. I think it was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And were not the majority of the stockholders and
a majority of the directors of that corporation Republicans?

Mr. POWERS. They must have been, to make the paper Republican.

Mr. VAN COTT. And it was simply a question of Graham and not
the paper, in regard to being Republican ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. I was not speaking of the paper. I was speak-
ing of Graham more particularly.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the same at Logan. Was not the Utah Journal
a Democratic paper, and did it not continue as such ?

Mr. POWERS. I believe it did.

Mr. VAN COTT. And then did not the Republicans start the Logan
Nation as a Republican paper?

Mr. POWERS. My recollection of that matter — it may be wrong, of
course; it is a good while ago — is that they were both Democratic
originally.

Mr. VAN COTT. You would not say my suggestion is not correct?

Mr. POWERS. I would not.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Australian ballot system prevails in Utah?

Mr. POWERS. It does.

Mr. VAN COTT. It has for several years?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, did you get your information about the con-
troversy between Bishop Warburton and Mr. Bowen from Mr. Bowen's
pamphlet?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and from conversations with him.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, with Mr. Bowen ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and his pamphlet. Of course, the substance of it
had been previously printed in the newspapers.

Mr. VAN COTT. In a general way, where did you get your informa-
tion that the Republicans could go out on the stump and could talk
and proselyte, and that the Democrats must keep quiet?

Mr. POWERS. Well, from many different sources. That is a matter
that has been discussed ever since the division upon party lines.
There is a particular report of that in the Salt Lake Tribune of May

910 EEED SMOOT.

10, 1896, it being the report of a meeting where the manifesto was
presented for confirmation at Logan on the 3d day of May, 1896, and
speeches were made there by Heber J. Grant, b}T Joseph F. Smith,
and by John Henry Smith, and reference was made to the agreement
that had been made in the Gardo House, to the effect that those believ-
ing in Democratic principles should remain quiet, while those who are
Republicans should go abroad, in order that there might be more
Republicans in the State. That was a complaint made at that meeting
against Moses Thatcher, that he had not obeyed that agreement made
at the Gardo House.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the other data that you have furnished to the
committee has also been obtained from the Tribune, has it not?

Mr. POWERS. From the Tribune, from the Deseret News, from the
Salt Lake Herald, and from the knowledge that one gains by living
among a people and hearing the people talk.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Tribune has been, with the exception of a brief
period, since statehood, distinctly anti-Mormon, has it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; it was the Liberal organ up to the time of the
division on part}^ lines.

Mr. VAN COTT. Has it not been your experience that several things,
a good many of the things, that they have charged have been inaccu-
rate?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. I do not think any newspaper can be absolutely
accurate. I think they all try to be.

Mr. VAX COTT. Calling }^our attention to Mr. B. H. Roberts in par-
ticular, and to the year 1895, yesterday you spoke of him being in
everyone's mind for nomination. Will you explain that a little more
in detail?

Mr. POWERS. I did not mean all over the State. I meant at the
convention.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is what 1 understood you.

Mr. POWERS. Why, it seemed as if he was the choice of the party.
That is what I mean by that.

Mr. VAN COTT. And that included Mormons and gentiles?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Roberts was a polygamist then ?

Mr. POWERS. I understand he was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And living in unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. POWERS. I did not know that at the time.

Mr, VAN COTT. It was a matter of general reputation?

Mr. POWERS. Not so much so as it was in the next campaign.

Mr, VAN COTT. The next campaign ? Very well.

Mr, POWERS. Yes; in that campaign I do not think it was discussed
at ail by anybody. I do not recall now of having seen anything in
axiy of the papers nor having heard anything concerning it.

Mr. VAN COTT. At that time you knew, I suppose, that George Q.
Cannon had been expelled from Congress for being a polygamist?

Mr. POWERS. I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. Coming to the campaign of 1898, at that time it
was known that Mr. Roberts, in all human probability, had obtained
the consent of the church to run for that office?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were you chairman that year?

Mr. POWERS. What year was that?

EEED SMOOT. 911

" Mr. VAN COTT. 1898.

Mr. POWERS. No; I was not chairman.

Mr. VAN COTT. You took an active part in the campaign ?

Mr. POWERS. I took an active part in the campaign.

Mr. VAN COTT. And you and other gentiles spoke for Mr. Roberts
on the stump ?

Mr. POWERS. I spoke for Mr. Roberts on the stump; 1 went upon the
stump for him. I defended him as well as I knew how, and, unlike some
other Democrats who sustained the ticket and yet never mentioned his
name, I mentioned his name in the meetings and spoke for him.

Mr. VAN COTT. And made special arguments for him?

•Mr. POWERS. I made as good an argument for him as I could.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, that would be a good one.

Mr. POWERS. I do not think that I was any more culpable in naming
him and advocating him than you would have been if you had gone
upon the stump, which I understand }TOU did, and supported him with-
out mentioning his name by supporting the ticket.

Mr. VAN COTT. You mean supporting the ticket without mentioning
his name?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; supporting the ticket without mentioning his
name.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was known at that time that Mr. Roberts was
living in unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. POWERS. It was charged in the newspapers.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, it was general reputation, was it not?

Mr. POWERS. It was general reputation. I must say I did not
believe all that was charged against him.

Mr. VAN COTT. It was charged in the Tribune?

Mr. POWERS. It was charged in the Tribune, but the Tribune does
not own me, nor it is not my guide in political matters. I try to guide
it in the courts as well as I know how.

Mr. VAN COTT. You supported Moses Thatcher in his candidacy for
United States Senator?

Mr. POWERS. I did.

Mr. VAN COTT. In the legislature of 1896?

Mr. POWERS. I did. I withdrew in his favor.

Senator DUBOIS. Before you go on with that, who was running
against Mr. Roberts?

Mr. POWERS. Mr. Eldridge, of Coleville.

Senator DUBOIS. Was he gentile or Mormon ?

Mr. VAN COTT. He was a Mormon.

Senator DUBOIS. Well, compare the two Mormons, then — Mr. Rob-
erts and Mr. Eldridge. How would .you diagnose them ?

Mr. POWERS. 1 am very glad of the opportunity to make answer to
that. There were charges made against Mr. Roberts in the news-
papers, as I sa}T, many of which I did not believe. I thought seriously
over the matter as to what my duty was with regard to sustaining him
on the stump as well as I could, and I took counsel and advised with
the best councilor that I have upon earth. We discussed it all over.
There was Eldridge, without the ability of Roberts; there was Rob-
erts, who was competent and qualified for the position. There was
Roberts, who, if he was living in polygamy , as they charged, was simply
doing that which Eldridge connived at, aided, abetted, and believed in.
I could not see any distinction between the men in that regard.

912 REED SMOOT.

Besides, I was a strong bimetal list. Mr. Roberts represented my
views; Mr. Eldridge did not. In addition to that, 1 noticed upon the
stump, teaching the people, such men as Apostle John Henry Smith,
who was as culpable as Mr. Roberts could be, and my friends on the
other side were willing to accept the aid of men of that class. So I
determined that I would support the ticket, as I have always done, and
I went out upon the stump and I defended him as well as I knew how.
I did all I could to help elect him, and under the circumstances I would
do the same thing again. I have nothing to take back.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, your position on that was the position of
many gentiles of the Democratic party, was it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Eldridge was not a polygamist?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention —

Mr. POWERS. But it is a distinction without a difference.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, if a man belongs to the Mormon Church,
for all practical purposes, he is a polygamist, although he only has one
wife?

Mr. POWERS. No; I do not mean that.

Mr. VAN COTT. What do you mean, Judge?

Mr. POWERS. I mean this: Eldridge was not condemning Roberts.
Eldridge believed in what Roberts did. Eldridge was aiding and
abetting, if there was any wrong that Roberts was doing.

Mr. VAN COTT. Very many Mormons in the Democratic party were
opposed to Roberta's candidac}r, were they not?

Mr. POWERS. They were opposed to his nomination, and I may say
that I did not vote for Mr. Roberts in the convention.

Mr. VAN COTT. And they were opposed because he was a polygamist
and supposed to be living in unlawful cohabitation ?

Mr. POWERS. That was the opposition that was made to him.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, calling your attention to Moses Thatcher —
Moses Thatcher was also a polygamist at the time of that candidacy,
was he not?

Mr. POWERS. He was a polygamist, but, as I have always understood
it, he was living within the law. I have alwa}^s so been informed, and
I never knew anything to the contrary.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What do }TOU mean by that?

Mr. POWERS. I mean by that that he was not living in unlawful
cohabitation; that while he had been married to plural wives prior, he
was obeying the law of Congress. That is as I understood it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, do you understand that when a man like
Apostle Grant, for instance, wages a campaign against Moses Thatcher,
that it is really the church ?

Mr. POWERS. No, not unless he is set apart, as the saying is, for
that work. With us we have a church phrase that if a man is desig-
nated to do some particular thing, he is set apart to do it, and it has
seemed to us that Heber J. Grant has been set apart as the Democratic
apostle to make us trouble a good many times. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it in this particular campaign, Judge, that you
believe he was set apart?

Mr. POWERS. No; it was in the McCune campaign.

Mr. VAN COTT. But what would you say about the campaign in

REED SMOOT. 913

1896? That is when Mr. Moses Thatcher was a candidate for the
United States Senate.

Mr. POWEKS. I would not say that he was set apart at that time.
It seemed like they were all taking a hand in it that year.

Mr. VAN COTT. Is it your opinion that Mr. Thatcher was beaten on
account of the influence of the church ?

Mr. POWERS. That is my firm opinion. I think that beat him also
in the legislature in 1897.

Mr. VAN COTT. Beat Mr. Thatcher?

Mr. POWERS. I think so.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Thatcher was not a candidate in 1897, was he?
Are you. not mistaken about that?

Mr. POWERS. I may be mistaken about the year. I was thinking
that was the year.

Mr. VAN COTT. Was it not just one year? The legislature elected
in 1895.

Mr. POWERS. It was 1897, was it not, that he was candidate for the
United States Senate?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; that is right.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I am right.

Mr. TAYLER. The legislature elected in 1895—

Mr. POWERS. 1896.

Mr. TAYLER. Was Republican?

Mr. POWERS. The legislature in 1895 was Republican. They elected
two United States Senators.

Mr. TAYLER. That ended his candidacy for the Senate from that
election ?

Mr. POWERS. From that election; but in 1896 we elected another
legislature, which was Democratic, and Moses Thatcher then became a
candidate before the legislature for the United States Senate.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, adapting my questions to the year 1897 instead
of 1895 and 1896, would you answer the same?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. After Mr. Rawlins .was nominated, the different
candidates made a speech before the legislature, did they not ?

Mr. POWERS. They did.

Mr. VAN COTT. And you made one ?

Mr. POWERS. I made one.

Mr. VAN COTT. At that time did you not say that your candidate,
meaning Mr. Moses Thatcher, had gone down to an honorable defeat?
And I call your attention to your speech, and particularly to the bot-
tom of page 171.

Mr. POWERS. I said that. I used these words:

"The candidate whose cause I espoused has gone down to an honor-
able defeat. The standard that he raised aloft has been stricken.
Another gentleman, a son of Utah, has succeeded, and I now congrat-
ulate him, as I promised I would, that he has been named to represent
in the Senate of the United States the great and glorious State of
Utah."

When I am whipped, to use a common phrase, I do not kick.

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes; but, Judge, while you do not kick you do not
state anything that is not correct?

Mr. POWERS. Why, I try not to. I }rield.

Senator BAILEY. A defeat may be entirely honorable on the part of

914 EEED SMOOT.

the defeated man, and a defeat might still have been accomplished by
dishonorable means on the part of others. I do not suggest that that
was true in this case, but that is entirely possible.

Mr. POWERS. The reference was as stated by the Senator. That
was the idea conveyed by that paragraph.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, he had gone down to an honorable defeat,
but had been dishonorably defeated?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; by means that I have detailed here.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is what you called an honorable defeat?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he was beaten.

Mr. VAN COTT. Were not your remarks, taking your whole speech
together, to the effect that I have mentioned, that it was simpl}^ an
honorable defeat on the part of Mr. Thatcher?

Mr. POWERS. Well, you may construe it so. I do not think that
that can be said of it, though.

Senator BAILEY. What was the expression about the standard?
Was it "stricken?"

Mr. POWERS. That the standard tjiat he had raised aloft had been
stricken. I meant that the man himself had so carried himself that in
defeat he was honorable. He had gone down to an honorable defeat.
That he had not himself done anything that would cause the blush of
shame to come to his supporters.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, you spoke of the pernicious influence of
Apostle Grant having defeated Judge King also ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. In that same campaign?

Mr. POWERS. No; that was the next campaign. Judge King was
not a candidate when Moses Thatcher was defeated.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, Apostle Grant labored for Mr. A. W. Mc-
Cune, did he not?

Mr. POWERS. He did.

Mr. VAN COTT. His pernicious influence did not elect Mr. McCune,
did it?

Mr. POWERS. It would have elected Mr. McCune if Mr. Law had
not stood up there in the joint convention and made the statement that
I have detailed.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, with the exception of the "if," Mr. McCune
would have been elected ?

Mr. POWERS. If it had not been for Law he would have been elected.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, I want to call your attention to some of the
church candidates — 1 will say Mormon — candidates who have been
beaten. Angus M. Cannon, in 1896, was president of the Salt Lake stake
of Zion, was he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he is one of the officers who would have to get
consent to run ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was beaten in that campaign, was he not, together
with his ticket?

Mr. POWERS. The whole ticket went down that year, all over.

Mr. VAN COTT. All over?

Mr. POWERS. The State went about 50,000 Democratic.

Mr. VAN COTT. I am calling attention to the senatorial district.

Mr. POWERS. Oh, yes.

KEED SMOOT. 915

Senator BAILEY. What election was that?

Mr. VAN COTT. 1896. He was beaten by gentiles, was he not? I
suggest Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Harbour to you.

Mr. POWERS. No; he told me himself the other day — I was thinking
he was beaten by his wife, Mattie Hughes, but he told me he was beaten
by Thomas Caine.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, coming back to the serious part of the ques-
tion, Mr. Whitaker —

Mr. POWERS. I should say he was a candidate on the Democratic
ticket that year.

Senator OVERMAN. Mrs. Cannon beat her own husband?

Mr. POWERS. I charged him with it the other day, but he denied it
and said he was defeated by John T. Caine.

Senator OVERMAN. His wife was elected, was she?

Mr. POWERS. She was elected.

Senator OVERMAN. And he was beaten \

Mr. POWERS. He was beaten.

Mr. TAYLER. Did they run in different districts ?

Mr. POWERS. No; they ran in the same district. [Laughter.]

Senator BAILEY. I do not see how you keep the peace out there.
[Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. Were not the gentiles, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Har-
bour, elected on the Democratic ticket?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Mr. Cannon, the president of the stake, was
beaten ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Mr. Cannon's plural wife, Mattie Hughes Can-
non, was elected on the Democratic ticket over her husband, who was
the president of the stake ?

Mr. POWERS. Well, he denies that. He says it was John T. Caine
that beat him. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. Those are the returns ?

Mr. POWERS. 1 have forgotten what the returns were.

Mr. VAN COTT. But I mean that she was elected and he was defeated ?

Mr. POWERS. He was elected and she was defeated. Yes; that is
right.

Mr. VAN COTT. I call }rour attention to Abraham Hatch in the same
campaign, 1896, and to his senatorial district, the fifth, and ask you
whether he was not president of the Wasatch stake of Zion ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And one of the officials who would have to get
consent?

Mr. POWERS. They all have to get consent, as I understand. I
would say yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. He was beaten by a gentile, R. C. Chambers, was
he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. Now, Mr. Van Cott, I should explain that by
saying that the senatorial district was composed of Summit County
and Wasatch County. K. C. Chambers was the president of the Onta-
rio Mining Company, a very prominent citizen of Utah, and Summit
County, by reason of Park City being there located and being a min-
ing camp, was in majority gentile. Mr. Chambers Avas a popular man
nd Wasatch County is normally a Democratic county; and when you

918 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT. He defeated Richard W. Young, Democratic
Mormon ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Richard W. Young is a very popular and able
Mormon, is he not?

Mr. POWERS. He is.

Mr. VAN COTT. A graduate of West Point ?

Mr. POWERS. A graduate of West Point, formerly connected with
the United States Army. He took part in the Philippine war. After
the war, although he was a Democrat, he was appointed a judge by
President McKinley in the Philippine Islands, and I understand he
served with honor to himself and those who appointed him. He has
recentl}^ been made president of Ensign stake, in which 1 reside.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. McCarthy had also been designated judge in
Utah, had he not?

Mr. POWERS. He had.

Mr. VAN COTT. And he had sent Mormons to the penitentiary for
unlawful cohabitation since statehood in Sevier County?

Mr. POWERS. Will you call my attention to the case? Probably 1
would remember it.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will have to hunt through the documents to get
at the names of the men. I can not call them from memory. 1 will
ask you whether you do not remember the circumstance?

Mr. POWERS. I remember something about it, but I do not remem-
ber the case. I have a recollection of it.

Mr. TAYLER. Christensen and Olibord?

Mr. POWERS. I remember that name — Olibord.

Mr. VAN COTT. And Judge McCarthy was elected over Mr. Young?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling attention now to the first State election
under the constitution, which would be in the fall of 1895, the Repub-
lican candidates for the supreme court were Judge Charles S. Zane,
George W. Bartch, and James A. Minor, were they not?

Mr. POWERS. They were.

Mr. VAN COTT. And all gentiles?

Mr. POWERS. All gentiles.

Mr. VAN COTT. And on the Democratic ticket two of the candidates
were Samuel R. Thurman—

Mr. POWERS. Thomas Maloney was one.

Mr. VAN COTT. Two of the candidates were Samuel R. Thurman
and Richard W. Young, were they not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. They were two Mormons?

Mr. POWERS. Two Mormons.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did not the three gentile Republican candidates get
the largest majority- of anyone on the Republican ticket?

Mr. POWERS. That 1 do not recall now.

Mr. VAN COTT. I did not know but that you would remember it.

Mr. POWERS. No.

Mr. VAN COTT. You. remember they were elected?

Mr. POWERS. They were elected and had a large majority; and I
think, now I come to reflect upon it, that you are right about that —
that they had the largest majority of anyone upon the ticket.

REED SMOOT. 919

Mr. VAX COTT. Larger than Mr. Thurman ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAX COTT. And Mr. Thurman is the same gentleman you spoke
of yesterday?

Mr. POWERS. Of course they had a majority over Mr. Thurman.
You do not mean that?

Mr. VAX COTT. I mean the largest vote on the Republican ticket.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and of course it would be larger than Mr. Thur-
man, because he was running against them.

Mr. VAX COTT. Mr. Thurman is the same gentleman you spoke of
yesterday as an able lawyer and popular in the State?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAX COTT. In 1900 .William H. King was an opponent for can-
didate to Congress against George Sutherland, a gentile, was he not?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

Mr. VAX COTT. And Mr. Sutherland won over Judge King, did he
not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAX COTT. Is it your understanding that the church favored
Judge King in that campaign against Mr. Sutherland?

Mr. POWERS. That has been my opinion.

Mr. VAX COTT. But still Mr. Sutherland won?

Mr-. POWERS. Mr. Sutherland won by a small majority, 262.

Mr. VAX COTT. Judge King is also & son-in-law of Apostle Lyman,
is he not ?

Mr. POWERS. He is.

Mr. VAX COTT. In 1896 W. G. Nebeker, a gentile, beat Bishop
John C. Sharp in the first senatorial district, did he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; that was in 1896.

Mr. VAX COTT. This morning, Judge, you spoke of the church inter-
fering, in the last four or five weeks, in regard to national committee-
men. What are your sources of information on that?

Mr. POWERS. I stated, I think, that the Deseret News espoused the
cause of one of the factions in the Republican party in Utah.

Mr. VAX COTT. Your information, then, is based on what the Des-
eret News said regarding it?

Mr. POWERS. It is based on the action of the Deseret News.

Mr. VAX COTT. You have not those issues here, have you ?

Mr. POWERS. No; I have not.

Mr. VAX COTT. All right; we will pass on, then. Calling your
attention to the steering committee you mentioned, you said the}r
were appointed by the church, as I remember. Do you mean that?

Mr. POWERS. No.

Mr. VAX COTT. Maybe I misquote you.

Mr. POWERS. I do not think I put it in that way.

Mr. VAX COTT. Will you express it in }Tour own way now?

Mr. POWERS. How they were appointed I do not know, but it was
generally understood that they represented the church there. How
they got their appointment I do not know, of course.

Mr. VAX COTT. The particular thing is what are your sources of
information in regard to that particular matter?

Mr. POWERS.. Well, 1 have talked with members of the legislature.
For instance, I had a talk with Joseph Monson, of Cache County, a
week ago last Saturday. He is a member of the Democratic State

920 EEED SMOOT.

committee. I met him there and he was talking about that .steering"
committee, and I talked with other members of the legislature who
professed to have information about it. T have very little.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Mrs. Coulter that you refer to as chairman of
the judiciary committee in the last legislature is a graduate of a regu-
lar law school, is she not — a graduate of Ann Arbor Law School?

Mr. POWERS. I do not know that. She probably is. No doubt she
is. If you state it, I accept it.

Mr. VAN COTT. She was a classmate of mine, I will state, and grad-
uated from the law school.

Mr. POWERS. I did not know that. I knew she was a leading phy-
sician at Ogden. I was not aware she was a law graduate.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Electric Power Company in Salt Lake City,
before its consolidation with the Street Railway Compam^, was con-
trolled by a regular corporation, was it not?

Mr. POWERS. It was.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the Street Railroad Company by a separate
corporation ?

Mr. POWERS. It was.

Mr. VAN COTT. When they were consolidated it was under the name
of the Utah Light and Railway Company?

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you say that the church owns the majority of
that stock?

Mr. POWERS. No; I do not.

Mr. VAN COTT. Why do you say that the church controls that cor-
poration ?

Mr. POWERS. I said it had a control through the trustee in trust,
who owns and controls certain of the stock of that corporation — and
how much I do not know — and has a large voice in it. I do not pre-
tend to state the amount.

Senator BAILEY. Who is the president of the corporation ?

Mr. POWERS. Joseph F. Smith.

Senator BAILEY. Who is Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. POWERS. President of the Mormon Church; trustee in trust of
the Mormon Church.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, you do n6t say, do you, that the trustee in
trust and the church, or its leading officials, all put together, own a
majority of the stock of that corporation ?

Mr. POAVERS. No; because, as I have said to you, I do not know how
much stock they own in it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, if all of those people put together do not own
a control of the stock of that corporation, do you still say it is the
church that runs the corporation and controls it?

Mr. POWERS. Well, I observe this: That the president of the church
is the president of that corporation; that the attorney of the corpora-
tion is a leading member of the church; that when it consolidated, }rour
lirm, which had been theretofore attorney for the street- rail road com-
pany, was superseded by a member of the Mormon Church, a member
of the board, and I do not know of any reason why they should have
taken it away from you.

Mr. VAN COTT. Are those the inferences on which you state that
this corporation is controlled by the church?

Mr. POWERS. Those are some of the inferences; yes.

EEED SMOOT. 921

Mr. VAN OOTT. What was the last year, as near as you can tell,
when a person was refused naturalization in the courts of Utah for the
reason you havre stated?

Mr. POWERS. For the reason I have stated? I think in 1887.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, for any reason based on their membership in
the Mormon Church ? What was the last year ?

Mr. POWERS. It was either 1889 or 1890.

Mr. VAN COTT. Of course, there have been many Mormons natural-
ized since then ?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, yes; hundreds of them.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, when you spoke yesterday of the church
acting as a collecting agency for taxes, or some of the church officials
doing that, you do not mean that for late years?

Mr. POWERS. No; I stated that was in early times.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is what I understood.

Mr. POWERS. It was away back — I can give the date. It was away
back in the fifties.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. TAYLER. Just one question. Judge, you haye described or
denned the character of this church organization, and especially empha-
sized the idea of obedience to authority— following the file leader, the
taking of counsel — as being the thing that held the church together
and was its dominating characteristic. Is that correct?

Mr. POWERS. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you understand that that idea prevails to-day as
ever before?

Mr. POWERS. I do.

Mr. TAYLER. You have described, in answer to the cross-examina-
tion, to some extent the development of those people in knowledge
both of politics and of society. Do you intend that we shall infer from
that statement of yours as to their development that the Mormon peo-
ple can ever achieve individual independence as long as this doctrine
of obedience to authority, of taking counsel, of following the file leader,
is the doctrine and policy of the church?

Mr. POWERS. I do not see how they can, provided that counsel is
applied to them in their political conduct, though I want to say that I
think they have a perfect right, so far as their religion is concerned,
to do as they please.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you discovered any relaxation on the part of the
higher authorities of the church of that principle of authority and of
obedience to authority running down through the rank and file of that
body of people ?

Mr. POWERS. I think that during a comparatively recent period
there has been a renewed effort upon the part of the church to induce
the members to follow that part of the creed. I think that some of
the members have not been as ready, to accept counsel and to be
obedient as they had in the past.

Mr. TAYLER. You well remember, and you have been referring to,
this Thatcher episode, and you remember the pamphlets that were
printed and the speeches made by the apostles of the church and pub-
lished in the Deseret News. You remember the fact generally?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I remember that.

922 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. There is no doubt about the correctness of these quo-
tations. Some of them are in the protest and some elsewhere.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are the}7 all in the record now?

Mr. TAYLEK. Yes; I think they are all in the record now. If not,
they are indisputable.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is that the whole pamphlet that was put in ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I want to call your attention to this, as discover-
ing whether it expresses your* conception of their idea of their policy.
It is in the speech of Wilford Woodruff, made on the 5th of October,
in, I think, 1896:

"My brethren and sisters, there is something pressing upon my
mind that I want to say. We have arrived at a point here with regard
to circumstances that it is my duty to take up as the president of the
church. The first presidency and the twelve apostles were never more
united as a body than they are to-day. Our spirits are united. We
believe together. We work together. We pray together, and we
believe in each other because we are all trying to do the will of God.
This is the case with all of us, with one exception. That exception is
Brother Moses Thatcher."

Whether that expresses the policy of unity that the}7 demand from
all their people.

Mr. POWERS. It does.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, only one other quotation in that connection, from
the speech of Apostle Brigham Young at the same time, on the same
occasion :

"On a certain occasion quite a long time ago, I went to President
Woodruff and asked him the question: What is the reason of this
darkness that I see in the mind of a man whom I have loved like a
brother, whom I had placed in my affections equal to any man upon
the face of the earth? This is the answer that he gave me: He has
sought to rule over his brethren and has lost the spirit. Where,
brothers and sisters, will you get the channel of communication opened
up between you and the powers that reign here on earth over the
earth, the God that sits in the heavens, and the angels, and saints that
visit us ? Through what line of communication do the}' come ? God
has placed these authorities here to guide his people, and when a man
cuts that thread for himself, then the channel of revelation is destroyed
so far as that man is concerned. If you and I ever consider that we
can reach God and get his mind and will in relation to this great work
without receiving it through the channel of those men who stand at
the head, then all I have to say to you or myself is we have cut the
thread between us and the spirit of God, and we are left to wander in
by and forbidden paths. One channel, one organization, and no man
can rise against that and expect that he will be favored by or permitted
to guide his spirit."

Whether that is not the universal, the ever-prevalent teaching and
demand of the authorities of that church upon the faith of their people ?

Mr. POWERS. It is. That fe good Mormon doctrine.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all I desire to ask.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do not the Mormons vary in their opinions, some
liberal, some very liberal, and others not so much so?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and I want to say, as I apprehend you are con-
cluding my examination, that 1 have not intended any criticism of the
Mormon people as a whole. They are like other people, and there is

REED SMOOT. 923

much that can be said in their favor. They are kind people. There
are no people on earth that are more hospitable. There are no people
that are better to their poor. There are no people who are more
reverent toward the aged. It is the system that I condemn.

Mr. VAN COTT. But, Judge, do not very many of the Mormons, for
instance, object to the stand that is taken by some of their leaders on
extremes such as this and other points ?

Mr. POWERS. They have objected to me, personally and privately-
many of them, and yet one of their conferences would come along, and
just exactly as I have told you with regard to leaving the name of
Moses Thatcher off that list in that April conference, 1896, and pro-
mulgating that political manifesto, not one of them seemed to dare to
say that his soul was his own, or stand up in defense of that man or in
defense of the political liberties of the people.

Mr. VAN COTT. Even though Moses Thatcher was satisfied with it
and his judgment approved of it, still you condemn the people for
taking that stand?

Mr. POWERS. Do you think that Moses Thatcher-
Mr. VAN COTT. No; I ask you the question, Judge.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean that Moses Thatcher had then done it?

Mr. VAN COTT. I say if the judgment of Moses Thatcher thoroughly
approved the meaning of that rule and then the people voted for him
still, you would condemn the people?

Mr. POWERS. I would say yes, that I would condemn the people;
that it ought not to depend on Moses Thatcher alone, but it ought to
depend upon the views of the individuals, because it is such an
un-American doctrine, so contrary to the spirit of our institutions,
that the Mormon people ought not to permit it to prevail.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is, you construe the rule to be that it applies
to all the members of the church, and not to high officials?

Mr. POWERS. I so construe it; but even if it applies to those whom
you have named, I say it is putting a power in the hands of an eccle-
siastical organization that should not be permitted to be exercised, and
the Mormon people ought to protest against it.

t Mr. TAYLER. At the time that this great body of the people in con-
ference sustained the authorities in deposing Moses Thatcher and in
promulgating this rule Moses Thatcher was still recalcitrant, was he
not?

Mr. POWERS. He was.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, gentlemen ?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you gentlemen on either side desire Judge
Powers to remain longer?

Mr. VAN COTT. We do not care for him.

Mr. TAYLER. I think I would rather he would stay a day or two.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; remain over Sunday, Judge.

I want to say to the attorneys that the Senate next week will be very
busy and in session every afternoon, and the members of this com-
mittee will have matters to attend to; so we shall restrict the hearing
on Monday to the forenoon. I would ask the parties to be here at 10
o'clock instead of half past 10, and we will sit until the Senate opens.

The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday.

The committee (at 3 o'clock and 55 minutes p. m.J adjourned until
Monday, April 25, 1904, at 10 o'clock a. m.

924 EEED SMOOT.

WASHINGTON, D. C., At}ril25, 1904.

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), McComas, Dillingham,
Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senator Smoot; also R. W. Tayler,
counsel for protestants; A. S. Worthington and Waldemar Van Cott,
counsel for the respondent, and Franklin S. Richards, counsel for
certain witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, have you any further questions to ask
Judge Powers ?

Mr. TAYLER. I understand Mr. Van Cott desired to ask some
questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Powers, please resume the stand.

TESTIMONY OF ORLANDO W. POWERS— Continued.

ORLANDO W. POWERS, having been previously sworn, was examined,
and testified as follows:

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, there are a few questions that I desire to put
to you. What have you to say, in a general way. about the interest of
the Mormon people in education, both in their own schools and in the
schools of the State?

Mr. POWERS. I think the Mormon people have as much interest in
the advancement of education and in the training of their youth as
any people. I know that there is an impression abroad that such is not
the fact, but we have as good schools in Utah as they have in Boston.

The Mormon Church schools are splendid educational institutions.
They have many educators who would do credit to any people, and the
State need not be ashamed of its school facilities, nor need it be
ashamed of the record that man}7 of its children have made. I want
to say that in art, upon the stage, in the sciences, and in practical life
it has many representatives of note. I was reflecting over it this
morning and I recall the name of John Hafen, an artist whose pictures
have been hung in the salon at Paris. Then there is Mr. Dallin, the
sculptor, whose Paul Revere stands in Boston, and who modeled the
magnificent monument to the pioneers that stands in Salt Lake City.
Maud Adams, who is now an actress known of all people in this
country, was born and brought up in Utah; also another actress, Edna
Dwyer Russell; and only recently an Ogden girl, a Mormon girl,
Nannie Tout, was called to sing before the King of England. Another
girl who was born and brought up in Provo, Miss Emma Lucy Gates,
sang before the Emperor of Germany.

Among our educators there is Prof. J. E. Talmadge, noted all
through this country as a geologist. There is John A. TV idtsoe, whose
specialty is chemistry, and who has charge of the experimental station
at the Agricultural College at Logan, whose bulletins are recognized
by scientific men as being very excellent and accurate.

So I say that the suggestion that Utah takes no interest in educa-
tional aftairs and that her people are not progressive people along
educational lines is inaccurate.

Senator OVERMAN. Are all these persons whom }TOU have named
Mormons?

Mr. POWERS. Mr. Hafen is a Mormon, Edna Dwyer Russell is

REED SMOOT. 925.

a Mormon, Professor Talmadge is a Mormon, Miss Nannie Tout
is a Mormon, Emma Lucy Gates is a Mormon. Now, as to Dallin,
he was born and brought up at Springfield, in Utah, but whether he is
a Mormon I can not state. I do not think he is.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Are these Mormons and non-Mormons all edu-
cated in the same schools ?

Mr. POWERS. Not all in the same schools, of course. Some are
educated in the church schools, some have a public school education,
and some go to the State institutions, where Mormons and gentiles
mingle together. Our State university, although it is a young insti-
tution, ranks well. Our young men are trained in mining. We have
there a mining school that I believe is about the best they have now
in the country. It is as good as any. Of course they have facilities
there for teaching that the}r would not have in the East, because they
have access to the great smelters and to the mines.

Mr. VAN COTT. What have you to say about the Mormon people, as
a general rule, especially since 1890, being tolerant of other religious
faiths and of other persons in the State ?

Mr. POWERS. They have been quite tolerant. They have permitted
those of opposite religious faith to speak in their church buildings,
and they are always ready to debate with them — to discuss the merits
of the two systems.

Mr. VAN COTT. W^hat have you to say about the industry and enter-
prise, in a general way, of the Mormon people?

Mr. POWERS. The Mormon people are an industrious people,
remarkably so when you take into consideration that many of their
converts came from what might be termed the lower walks of life of
the old world. They have been taught industry by their leaders.
That is preached to them at their religious services, and they are also
enterprising. The Mormons are erecting buildings in Salt Lake City
that are very fine, indeed.

Mr. VAN COTT. And do the Mormons and gentiles unite in busi-
ness enterprises ? Is that common ?

Mr. POWERS. Ye«; they do. There is an institution there, the Com-
mercial Club, of Salt Lake City, which has several hundred members,
its membership extending over the State. It is a social club as well as
a business club, where men gather for lunch or for dinner, or for the
general purposes of a social club, and its membership is comprised of
both gentiles and Mormons. Its principal object is to advance the
business interests of the State.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, the most of the jurors come from the Mor-
mon Church, do they not?

Mr. POWERS. In the outlying counties; I mean outlying from Salt
Lake County and Weber County.

Mr. VAN COTT. You have had a good deal of experience with such
jurors, have you not?

Mr. POWERS. If you say so, I have.

Mr. VAN COTT. Now, Judge, in a general way, in regard to their —

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Van Cott has not said so yet.

Mr. VAN COTT. Well, I say so, and remove it beyond doubt. In a
general way, I wish you would state the attitude of Mormon jurors in
regard to criminal cases generally, in regard to their fairness, their
integrity, and things of that kind when serving as jurors?

Mr. POWERS. Their attitude, so far as I have observed it, has been

926 REED SMOOT.

as fair as you could expect of any people. I have in mind one case
where I defended a man where the Mormons naturally would be inter-
ested against him, and I had a jur}^ that was both gentile and Mormon.
My client received fair treatment.

Mr. TAYLER. He was acquitted, was he?

Mr. POWERS. He was acquitted. [Laughter.]

Mr. VAN COTT. There are Mormon judges also in the State, are
there not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; there are a number of Mormon judges.

Mr. VAN COTT. And what have you to say about their conduct in the
administration of the law?

Mr. POWERS. I never have observed any indication on the part of
the Mormon judges to do other than to follow the law as they under-
stand it. By that I do not mean that they would understand it in a
w&y that was unfair. I mean that they have not known Mormon or
gentile, so far as I have observed, in their decisions.

Mr. VAN COTT. And is there any difference in the way that the Mor-
mons generally, either the judges, the jurors, or the people, treat gen-
tiles from others in regard to their fairness and things of that kind?

Mr. POWERS. If there is any such difference, it is an exceptional
case. Men might, of course, among any people be what you would
call unfair as jurors, but I mean to say that would be exceptional.

Mr. VAN COTT. During the campaign following the reconvened con-
vention state the attitude and conduct of the gentile Republicans in
either approving or of ridiculing and deriding the platform that was
adopted at that reconvened convention throughout the State of Utah.

Mr. POWERS. They disapproved of our reconvened convention, and
they did ridicule our platform, and they declared we were making a
grand-stand play.

Senator BAILEY. They did not, however, ridicule the declaration ?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, no; they did not do that.

Senator BAILEY. There was nobody in Utah who questioned their
soundness ?

Mr. POWERS. Nobody ridiculed those that I recall.

Mr. VAN COTT. But in regard to the charges you made, and things
of that kind, they did ridicule that part of it?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; they did.

Mr. VAN COTT. The gentile Republican paper did it also, did it not?

Mr. POWERS. I understood that I was answering that.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, what is the attitude of gentiles in Utah in
regard to informing, or reporting to the officers in regard to Mormons,
for instance, living in unlawful cohabitation?

Mr. POWERS. Their attitude, 1 think, is precisely what would be the
attitude of any other people. They do not like to do that. Nobody
likes to be an informer, and they do not do it to any great extent.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling your attention now to the incident that you
mentioned the other day — of Judge Booth nominating himself for
Congress — are not these the facts in regard to that matter: That in
1898 the Republicans knew that on account of the silver question they
were hopelessly beaten in Utah; that when the Republican convention
met the Republicans had great difficulty in finding any man who would
accept the nomination, because of the sure defeat that was awaiting
him; that a number of gentlemen were nominated and each one
declined, and that finally, as a take-off on the repeated declinations,

REED SMOOT. 927

Judge Booth arose and in a humorous manner nominated himself for
that office?

Mr. POWERS. Well, 1 can not say that he did it as a take-off. I did
not so understand it, Mr. Van Cott, but the other facts you have
stated possibly are nearly as things occurred. 1 would not want to
say he did it as a take-off. He may have done so. I would not want
to say he did not.

Mr. VAN COTT. What is your opinion, from the way the circum-
stances existed at that time, the feeling of the Republicans of their
sure defeat, and everything of that kind, as to whether Judge Booth
did it as a joke or did it seriously?

Mr. POWERS. I have already stated that I have always thought the
judge did that seriously. As I say, I may be mistaken about it, but
that was my opinion at the time.

Senator OVERMAN. Judge, is it the general opinion among gentiles —
Republicans and Democrats — that the church interferes in politics ?

Mr. POWERS. I think so, without any doubt.

Mr. VAN COTT. One other question. Calling your attention to the
time when George Q. Cannon was voted for as United States Senator
by the Democratic legislature, did not Heber Bennion ask your advice
about that matter, and did you not tell him it was better to support
George Q. Cannon for the United States Senate than to support Alfred
W. McCune?

Mr. POWERS. No; I think I stated the other day the substance of
my remarks to Mr. Bennion, as 1 recall them. They were to this
effect: That I met him, as I recall it, in the city and county building,
where the legislature held its sessions, shortly after noon. He spoke
to me in the hall, and said to me that there was talk of voting for
George Q. Cannon for Senator, and asked me what I thought about it.
As I say, the thought in my mind at that time was that it was prepos-
terous, and I said to him "I believe it would be a good thing." My
recollection is quite clear as to what I said, for there was an inaccurate
report of it afterwards in the newspapers, which caused me to reflect
as to what I had said. 1 said to him "At any rate, you would be voting
for a man of ability."

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. B. H. Roberts, after the constitutional conven-
tion in 1895, was very popular among the gentiles, was he not?

Mr. POWTERS. He was very popular.

Mr. VAN COTT. And on account of his stand on the woman's suffrage
question ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And in gentile counties Mr. Roberts ran away
ahead of his ticket, did he not, on account of the sympathy and the
liking of the gentiles for him?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I think he ran ahead in Salt Lake County, if I
remember correctly. You mean, now, in the campaign of 1896?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. POWERS. I think he ran ahead in Salt Lake County. It was not
so much because they were all opposed to woman suffrage, because
many of them were in favor of it the same as the Mormons, but it was
because they admired, as I said the other day, the man's courage and
ability; and they thought then — I know it was generally thought among
the gentiles at that time — that B. H. Roberts was the Moses who was
going to lead us out of our political troubles. That was the thought

928 EEED SMOOT.

among the gentiles. They believed that with the stand he was taking,
and the independence of the man, and his ability to lead, it would result
in his leading the people away from church domination. I know I
thought so.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DUBOIS. Judge Powers, the church authorities were under-
stood to be for McCune in that Senatorial fight, as I understand ?

Mr. POWERS. I understood it so.

Senator DUBOIS. The church authorities, as we understand it here,
are the first presidency and the twelve apostles ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; when I speak of the authorities I mean to refer
to the first presidency and the twelve apostles.

Senator DUBOIS. 1 think that is our understanding here. Do you
recollect any of the apostles who were interfering in any way to pre-
vent the election of McCune ? In the beginning, I mean.

Mr. POWERS. No.

Senator DUBOIS. Did Mr. George Q. Cannon become a candidate
when it was pretty well established that McCune could not be elected,
or before ?

Mr. POWERS. After it was pretty well established that McCune could
not be elected; after the Law incident in the legislature.

' Senator DUBOIS. There was no interference, however, by the church
authorities to prevent Mr. McCune from being elected until it was
demonstrated that

Mr. POWERS. No; on the contrary, I think there was assistance.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you ajry questions ?

Mr. TAYLER. Just one or two. Then, in consequence of the stand
that Mr. Roberts took in the campaign of 1895 against church domina-
tion, he became popular with the gentiles, and even with the Repub-
lican gentiles?

Mr. POWERS. He did.

Mr. TAYLER. And if he ran ahead of the ticket it arose out of that
fact, did it?

Mr. POWERS. Out of that fact, on account of the stand he had taken
against ecclesiastical interference in our political affairs.

Mr. TAYLER. And when you say you Democrats looked upon him
as the Moses who would lead you out of the wilderness, you meant
that he, being a high official of the church and a Democrat who had
taken a stand against church domination, was the most influential man,
considering his ability also, to lead the party awa}f from that unhappy
relation ?

Mr. POWERS. I do not know that I would say he was the most influ-
ential man, because Moses Thatcher was with us also; but Mr. Thatcher's
health was poor. Mr. Roberts had splendid health. He is well
equipped as a debater. He is a very forcible speaker, and has the
magnetism of an orator. As a consequence the younger men of the
Mormon Church had, for a long time, looked upon him as a leader,
and when I say that we looked upon him as the Moses who was going
to lead us out of our political difficulties, I mean that his ability and
his courage and his popularity would inspire his following, and that it
would be sufficiently large so that the church could not stand out
against it.

Mr. TAYLER. You spoke about the public schools. Do you mean

REED SMOOT. 929

that the Mormon Church and the Mormon people are responsible for
the establishment of your admirable public school system in Utah ?

Mr. POWERS. As I understand the history of our public schools, the
bill was prepared and introduced in the legislature by Clarence E.
Allen, who has been a Republican Representative in Congress and is
now the general manager of a large mining corporation in Utah, and
who had been an educator both in the East and in Utah. He was a
member of the legislature.

Mr. TAYLER. Not a Mormon?

Mr. POWERS. Not a Mormon. He was a gentile. My understand-
ing is that he prepared the free-school bill and that it was passed by a
Mormon legislature after considerable discussion.

Senator DUBOIS. When was this, Judge ?

Mr. POWERS. Well, it was away back before statehood; in 1890 or
1891, I think.

Senator DUBOIS. I wanted to know whether it was before or after
statehood.

Mr. POWERS. Yes; before statehood.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. After the manifesto of 1890 against polygamy for a
time there was a general belief, was there not, that the church and its
leaders would abandon, and had abandoned polygamy and polygamous
cohabitation, and that yon were about entering upon an entirely new
career in that respect in Utah ?

Mr. POWERS. Y es ; there was that belief. That arose probably from
the declarations of the church officials, the leaders of the church, to
the effect that the manifesto meant not only a cessation of polygamous
marriages, but also a cessation of polygamous cohabitation.

Mr. TAYLER. Since statehood, we will say since 1896, that idea has
not been to the same extent prevalent, has it?

Mr. POWERS. I would not say since 1896. The idea was prevalent
up to a later date.

Mr. TAYLER. Well, until what date ?

Mr. POWERS. Along toward 1900, before there really began to be a
change in public sentiment about it.

Mr. TAYLER. Taking the period from 1890 down to the present,
when has the State shown the greatest signs of development?

Mr. POWERS. In 1889 and 1890 Salt Lake City and Ogden, the two
principal cities of the State, made a wonderful advance, materially
and socially and in an educational way. There was a large influx of
people from other sections of the country, and I will say that both
those cities are to-day gentile cities; that is, the gentiles have a
majority of the people in both cities. Salt Lake City doubled in pop-
ulation in a very short time. Many new enterprises were begun and
carried through. So that it was a very prosperous period. The influ-
ence was also felt in other sections of the State, notably at Provo.
Then during the past three years there has been a very notable advance.
The people have been very prosperous. The prosperity in 1889 and
1890 I attribute1 to the success of the Liberal party in Salt Lake and
Ogden, The prosperity of the last three or four years has been from
the same causes as the general prosperity that has existed through the
country.

Mr. TAYLER. You stated, as I recall it, that when Judge Henderson
was a candidate for the Senate, he seemed to be, if not the church's

930 KEED SMOOT.

candidate, at least to be approved as a candidate by leaders in the
church, and that later on that support seemed to be withdrawn and
only one man remained with him. Do you recall any observation that
was made by Judge Henderson as characterizing that situation and
condition?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Almost everything goes here, Mr. Chain nan.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Tayler asks that we let it go in.

Mr. POWERS. I understand the Judge, when he found himself loft
with that lone vote, looked about him in is headquarters and said:
"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." [Laughter.]

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

Senator BAILEY. Judge Powers, I have heard that it sometimes
happens in particular places that after the public school is dismissed
for its regular scholastic session the teachers are in the habit of saying
to the children that they must remain while religious exercises are
held. Do you know of any such practice as that in the public schools
of Utah?

Mr. POWERS. I know that that matter is being quite generally dis-
cussed, and I know that it is a cause of complaint by the gentiles,
because we feel that that thing must stop.

Senator BAILEY. Does it exist?

Mr. POWERS. I think it does exist in some sections of the State.

Senator BAILEY. That is all.

Mr. TAYLER. There is one question I neglected to ask. You say
Salt Lake is a gentile city?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Are the gentiles in control of the school board in that
city?

Mr. POWERS. They were up to a year ago last January. They had
been quite insistant, notwithstanding the division upon party lines,
that the schools should be under the control of the gentile people of
the city, their reasons being that they desired that there should be no
question but what thrre was no danger of the Mormon Church getting
control of them, and during each school campaign there has been
more or less contest between the Mormons and the gentiles over the
election of school trustees. A year ago last January, if I remember
the date correctly, the Mormons got control of the school board.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you any information, or are you able to approx-
imately judge of the amount that is paid in salaries to the school-
teachers 4

Mr. POWERS. Approximately $300,000, in Salt Lake City.

Mr. VAN COTT. Jrer annum?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. Is not that about right?

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not know, Judge.

Mr. POWERS. I think that is approximately the sum.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you understand that the system of tithing in oper-
ation in the Mormon Church would apply to the salary of the teacher?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; if she were a Mormon.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, will you mention one place where a meeting
of school children has ever been called together for religious instruc-
tion in the schoolhouse since the year 1890?

Mr. POWERS. No: because I can not do that, but I understand it has
been done in Davis County; the town I can not recall. And as I under-
stand it, and as it has been discussed by the Deseret News and by the

REED 8MOOT. 931

Salt Lake Tribune and other papers there, a school sometimes would
be dismissed a little earlier than usual and at other times dismissed at
the usual hour, and then the building would be used for religious
instruction.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Deseret News denied it, did it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the Tribune charged it?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Outside of that, Judge, you have no specific fact that
you can mention?

Mr. POWERS. No; I do not intend to state that I have any personal
knowledge of that as a fact.

Mr. VAN COTT. Calling attention to the boom in Salt Lake City, did
not that boom commence in about 1887 and reach its height in about
1889?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; and early in 1890.

Mr. VAN COTT. And then shortly after that was there not very seri-
ous depression and panic, lasting several years ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. I will tell you how that happened. The people
in the East seemed to have more faith in it than we nad. They bought
our property at a low price, and then after we had carried Salt Lake
City gentile they unloaded on us at a high price and left us to carry
the load alone.

Senator BAILEY. The boomers did not do there any different from
what they do everywhere.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, I want to ask you about a matter for infor-
mation. It has come to us that in some localities the magistrates
decline to receive a complaint against the citizen accused of polygamous
cohabitation. Do you Know anything about that?

Mr. POWERS. No; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. And sometimes if complaint is received and warrant
issued the officer declines to serve the warrant on such people.

Mr. POWERS. 1 never knew of an instance of an officer declining to
serve the warrant.

The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to know about it.

Mr. POWERS. I do not know anything about any case of that kind.

Senator OVERMAN. Is there any trouble in getting bills before the
grand jury?

Mr. POWERS. We do not have the grand- jury system.

Senator OVERMAN. You do not?

Mr. POWERS. Except in the United States court. We had the grand-
jury system, of course, under the Territorial law, but largely for the
purpose, I take it, of saving expense the legislature passed a law by
which complaint is made before a magistrate. Then the man is bouncl
over to the district court, and then an information is filed by the dis-
trict attorney against him based upon the examination before the
magistrate, that taking the place of an investigation by a grand jury.
The judges have power to call a grand jury whenever, in their judg-
ment, the exigencies of a particular case require it. Our grand jury is
composed of eight members.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You mean in Salt Lake City ?

Mr. POWERS. And through the State.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge, do you know Apostle Grant?

Mr. POWERS, Do I know him?

932 REED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. POWERS. I do, indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is he?

Mr. POWERS. He is reputed to be in England — not in England.
The last information concerning Grant was that he was over attending
some kindergarten school in Germany, a representative of the State
of Utah.

The CHAIRMAN. That is an international convention, is it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Has he been designated as a delegate, as you
understand, to represent Utah?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; the governor designated him as a delegate from
the State of Utah.

The CHAIRMAN. He is a great educator, I believe.

Mr. POWERS. In some lines.

The CHAIRMAN. What lines?

Mr. POWERS. Well, he made a speech up at the university this last
winter. He had been in Japan looking after the Japan missions, and
he came back —

The CHAIRMAN. The University of Utah?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he came back to Utah, and I think he was there
a couple or three weeks. During those two or three weeks he was
quite active. He made a speech at the University of Utah to the
young men and women there, a State institution supported by the
taxes of Mormons and gentiles, and he made a contribution of $150.
He told them it was $50 for himself and $50 for each wife, having
two, and he said that he regretted that the laws prevented him from
having more.

The CHAIRMAN. That was before the pupils of that State institution ?

Mr. POWERS. It was.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you there ?

Mr. POWERS. No. I wish I had been; because that is a matter that
I, as well as other gentiles, have resented and desire to resent, and
many of the Mormons, too, I guess. We do not like it?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how it was received by the students?

Mr. POWERS. There was no hostile demonstration to it.

The CHAIRMAN. And he is the gentleman who is designated by the
governor to represent the State at this great international convention?

Mr. POWERS. Yes. During the same period he was home he went
down to Provo, and in a public meeting he took a Mormon lawyer to task
because he had undertaken for a woman a case which Grant thought
clashed with the doctrines, perhaps, of the church; but they afterwards
settled their differences by a signed card in the paper. I think the
Mormon lawyer held his own.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any special reason why he is absent
from the country at this time?

Mr. POWERS. I understand that a warrant was issued for him and
placed in the hands of the sheriff, and he departed suddenly.

The CHAIRMAN. Upon his mission ?

Mr. POWERS. Upon his mission.

The CHAIRMAN. Has he returned to this country since?

Mr. POWERS. No; that is, we do not understand that he has. If he
has, I do not believe that anybody knows of it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where was the warrant issued, Judge?

REED SMOOT. 933

Mr. POWERS. In Salt Lake City.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, was it not well known and understood in the
community that Apostle Grant was going over on that mission before
ever this warrant was issued?

Mr. POWERS. I think so. I do not mean to be understood as saying
that he went on the mission on account of the warrant being issued,
but I think he got out of town the way he did on account of the war-
rant being issued. As I understand, he left in- the night.

Mr. VAN COTT. Grant apologized to that lawyer for what he had
said, did he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he did. I say the Mormon lawyer, Mr. N. V.
Jones, got the best of him. Grant apologized.

Mr. VAN COTT. The governor of the -State and Apostle Grant are
brothers-in-law, are they not?

Mr. POWERS. They are.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not mean to say that Mr. Grant is over in
Germany ? He was simply designated.

Mr. POWERS. I do not know that he is there.

Mr. VAN COTT. You do not know that he has been there on this
particular mission ?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, no; I have not been there with him, if that is
what you mean.

Mr. VAN COTT. I do not mean that. I mean, according to the reports
in the newspapers, Grant has not been to Germany at all on this mat-
ter so far, has he?

Mr. POWERS. On that school matter?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. POWERS. No; I do not think I have seen anything about that,
if that is what you mean.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Grant now one of the apostles?

Mr. POWERS. He is one of the twelve apostles.

Senator DUBOIS. You say Apostle Grant and the governor are
brothers-in-law. Did the governor marry Grant's sister, or is one of
Grant's plural wives the governor's sister?

Mr. POWERS. I understand one of Grant's plural wives is the gov-
ernor's sister.

Senator DUBOIS. They are both Mormons?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; they are both Mormons.

Senator DUBOIS. Judge, you go up into Idaho quite frequently. I
know you are quite popular up there. You go there socially and on
business, do you not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Are you familiar with conditions in Idaho and what
is going on there?

Mr. POWERS. Why, as fairly familiar as one can be with the affairs
of a sister State. I am somewhat acquainted in a business way and a
social way.

Senator DUBOIS. Has your attention been called to the controversy
going on in the newspapers up there and the charges being made that
religion is taught in the Mormon schools and Mormon counties during
* school hours?

Mr. POWERS. I have seen such charges in the papers; yes.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know anything about it ?

934 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWERS. Nothing further than that I am aware of such charges
being made.

Senator DUBOIS. I have not been there since they were made, and I
know you have.

The CHAIRMAN. You speak of this State school. What is it called?

Mr. POWERS. The State Universit}^ of Utah.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the control of whom?

Mr. POWERS. Of a board of regents of the State appointed by the
governor and confirmed by the senate of the legislature.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the board of regents ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I know them.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they Mormons or gentiles?

Mr. POWERS. Both.

The CHAIRMAN. Which are in a majority ?

Mr. POWERS. Now, Mr. Van Cott, I think, is one of the regents. I
would have to ask him that.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the president of the university now?

Mr. POWERS. Professor Kingsbury.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he Mormon or gentile ?

Mr. POWERS. Gentile.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was president before him ?

Mr. POWERS. Professor Talmage.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a Mormon?

Mr. POWERS. A Mormon; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. POWERS. No; not that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. And who before him?

Mr. POWERS. John R. Park.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the president selected by the board of regents?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I believe the president is selected by the board
of regents.

The CHAIRMAN. Recently a president of the institution retired for
some reason. Do you recall that?

Mr. POWERS. That is the agricultural college.

The CHAIRMAN. Then turn to the agricultural college.

Senator BAILEY. Before you go to that I want to ask, Judge, if
they accepted this $150 contributed in the name of the apostle and his
plural wives?

Mr. POWERS. I think they took the money.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the head of the agricultural college?

Mr. POWERS. Professor Kerr.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a Mormon?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he is a Mormon.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether he is a polygamist?

Mr. POWERS. I do not want to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was the president of the college before that
gentleman?

Mr. POWERS. J. M. Tanner.

The CHAIRMAN. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; he was a polygamist.

Mr. TAYLER. When did he get out of the presidency?

Mr. POWERS. Time passes so quickly—

Mr. TAYLER. Three or four or five years ago — something like that?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; something like that.

REED SMOOT. 935

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know anything about the Brigham Young
University ?

Mr. POWERS. In a general way, yes. You mean the Brigham Young
College?

Mr. TAYLER. The Brigham Young College. Where is that?

Mr. POWERS. Or the Brigham Young Academy. There is one at
Provo and one in Logan.

Mr. TAYLER. The one in Provo I am speaking of. Do you know
who is the president of that?

Mr. POWERS. No; I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know Greenwald? Have you heard of him?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; I have heard of him.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a polygamist?

Mr. POWERS. He is.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you understand that Cluff was a polygamist ?

Mr. POWERS. I understand he was. That is, 1 understand that was
the general repute.

Mr. VAN COTT. Judge, I will suggest to you the gentiles as being
four on the board of regents, and five Mormons.

Mr. POWERS. That is, 1 think, accurate.

Mr. VAN COTT. As to what took place at the university at the
time that Grant spoke there, there were different versions of it in the
newspapers, were there not?

Mr. POWERS. I thought they all concurred pretty well that the sub-
stance of it was as I have stated.

Mr. VAN COTT. But as to the manner?

Mr. POWERS. Yes; there were different versions as to the manner.
Some said he said it in a joking way and some said he said it seriously.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How many people were present at the time ?

Mr. POWERS. I do not know how many pupils they have now.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Well, several hundred people?

Mr. POWERS. As I understand, the pupils of the university.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If there were two or three hundred people there
who heard it, what is the use of taking testimony as to what the news-
papers said about it?

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Tanner was compelled to retire from the agri-
cultural college, was he not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And while he was president of the agricultural col-
lege, he was maintained there by W. S. McCornick and Colonel Adams,
both gentiles, was he not ?

Mr. POWERS. They helped to maintain him there.

Mr. VAN COTT. And McCornick is an influential gentile residing in
Salt Lake?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Colonel Adams the same ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. And when he resigned Professor Kerr was put in
his place ?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. Why was he compelled to resign ?

Mr. POWERS. I think one thing was there was a fear that the Gov-
ernment would withhold its appropriation to the agricultural college.

Mr. TAYLER. Why?

936 REED SMOOT.

Mr. POWERS. On account of the head of it being a polygamist.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you not understand, Judge, that notwithstanding
that threat, Mr. McCornick desired that Mr. Tanner should retain his
position on account of his ability as an educator?

Mr. POWERS. Oh, I do not know. I did not pay much attention to
that controversy.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, what next?

Mr. TAYLER. I will call Moses Thatcher.

Mr. POWERS. I just want to say one other thing, lest what I have
been obliged to say may be considered as reflecting on all our people.
I want to say that we have there in Utah just as good and just as exclu-
sive society as there is anywhere. I want to add that to my testimony.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Van Cott, before Judge Powers goes off the
stand I want to say that the constitution of Idaho prohibits the teach-
ing of any form of religion in the public schools, and even prohibits
the reading of religious books. I will have that portion of the con-
stitution put in the record.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Utah constitution prohibits any kind of inter-
ference in the public schools of any religious denomination, does
it not?

Mr. POWERS. Yes.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thatcher, take the stand.

TESTIMONY OF MOSES THATCHER.

MOSES THATCHER, having been duly sworn, was examined and tes-
tified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. Where do you live, Mr. Thatcher?

Mr. THATCHER. Logan, Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived in Utah ?

Mr. THATCHER. I reached Utah in September, 1847.

Mr. TAYLER. With the original party under Brigham Young?

Mr. THATCHER. Following the pioneers two months.

Mr. TAYLER. Your parents were Mormons, then, were they ?

Mr. THATCHER. My parents were Mormons.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you born in the Mormon Church?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position in the church did you hold?

Mr. THATCHER. Would you specify the time?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; without going into detail, what was the first?

Mr. THATCHER. I first became an elder.

Mr. TAYLER. And following that?

Mr. THATCHER. I became a seventy and an apostle.

Mr. TAYLER. When did }^ou become an apostle?

Mr. THATCHER. In 1879, J think; but I am not quite definite as to
that date, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Then, leaving the apostolate in 1896, you were an
apostle only six or seven years?

Mr. THATCHER. I should have said 1878. That would be nearer it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You did say 1879, but Mr. Tayler's arithmetic
is at fault.

Mr. THATCHER. I expect you will find my memory at fault in a good
many things. It was between seventeen and eighteen years.

EEED SMOOT. 937

Mr. TAYLER. How old are you now, Mr. Thatcher?

Mr. THATCHER. I am 62 years of age.

Mr. TAYLER. It was during 1895 and 1896 that a controversy arose
between you and the first presidency and apostles, in which it was
claimed you were out of harmony with them, was it not?

Mr. THATCHER. 1896, I think.

Mr. TAYLER. Did it not originate in 1895, about the time of your
nomination for Senator?

Mr. THATCHER. In respect of certain things that were said in a
priesthood meeting I might say that that would be so.

Mr. TAYLER. I am only getting at the beginning of it. That con-
troversy became more acute later on?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you been active as a Democrat prior to that time?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, I can not say that I had been active, although
I had made one or two efforts at political speeches.

Mr. TAYLER. Had }TOU been during the years of your maturity to
any extent a student of political questions nationally considered?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, sir; I had not the advantages of an early
education.

Mr. TAYLER. I am not speaking of education at all. Apart from
any local questions that interested you in Utah, how long had you con-
sidered yourself in harmony with that for which the Democratic party
in the nation stood?

Mr. THATCHER. As far as I can remember.

Mr. TAYLER. You now consider that you had a correct apprehen-
sion, running as far back as you can remember, of what the Demo-
cratic party's principles were ?

Mr. THATCHER. I think so, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. So that when the time came that the Liberal and
People's parties were dissolved }rou felt yourself quite capable of
making a party choice in national politics?

Mr. THATCHER. I do not think I waited until that time.

Mr. TAYLER. No; I doubt not that you were ready at once.

Mr. THATCHER. I had been before, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you been an active apostle so far as your health
would permit you to be?

Mr. THATCHER. 1 think I had.

Mr. TAYLER. To what extent, Mr. Thatcher, had you labored as an
apostle during the sixteen years or seventeen years of your incum-
bency?

Mr. THATCHER. 1 had been on a mission in Mexico during part of
1879 and 1880 and 1881. I had visited the Wind River Agency to
advise Washekee to be quiet after his son was killed, and I had done
any other work that pertained to missionary work.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you, in the performance of your duties as an
apostle, been diligent and constant?

Mr. THATCHER. So far as I know, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I notice in a statement that has been attributed to you,
I think, a letter that appears to have been written by you, a statement
that within four or five years you had been in Mexico 23 different
times.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And that for many years, while an apostle, your duties

938 REED SMOOT.

were away from Utah and not within the Territory, and you had
traveled on an average from fifteen to twenty thousand miles each
year.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir. Will you repeat that question, please?

(The reporter read the question.)

Mr. THATCHER. I thought the question was directed as to whether
that statement appeared in the letter?

Mr. TAYLER. No; I wanted to know whether that was the fact or
not.

Mr. THATCHER. As near as I remember, that is the fact.

Mr. TAYLER. Prior to 1895, Mr. Thatcher, what controversies had
you had with your quorum of apostles personal to yourself?

Mr. THATCHER. Now, do you refer to the quorum as such or to the
individual members?

Mr. TAYLER. I mean to the quorum of apostles as apostles.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. As a quorum?

Mr. TAYLER. As a quorum.

Mr. THATCHER. I do not remember, sir, that that question ever
came before the quorum of the apostles.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you conceived yourself, prior to 1895, as being
out of harmony with your quorum?

Mr. THATCHER. Only so far as disagreement on any question sub-
ject to discussion before such a body of men, which was reconciled.
No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Tayler, would it disturb you if I ask Mr.
Thatcher a question right there ?

Mr. TAYLER. No, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. The apostles have individual differences among
themselves the same as Senators have individual differences among
themselves, have they not?

Mr. THATCHER. I think, sir, that the quorom recognizes the right
of discussion freely on any question that comes before them.

Senator DUBOIS. And you can differ with individual members of
your quorum, and no doubt do?

Mr. THATCHER. Why, certainly.

Mr. TAYLER. But except as to natural differences of opinion that
might be thrashed out in discussion among you, you were not out of
harmoii3r with your quorum?

Mr. THATCHER. I have alwa}Ts held the position that the right of
discussion being freely accorded, after the majority decides a question,
then a man would be out of harmony if he undertook to advance his
own individual ideas.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely; and upon that philosophy your conduct as
an apostle was based ?

Mr. THATCHER. So far as I know, it was.

Mr. TAYLER. In other words, if prior to 1895 you differed with the
other members of the quorum of apostles respecting any subject which
was discussed and had to be acted upon by you, and the majority was
against you, you freely acquiesced in the determination of the major-
ity and submitted your will to their determination?

Mr. THATCHER. I have always sought to do so.

Mr. TAYLER. And, as a matter of fact, so far as you know you
did so?

Mr, THATCHER. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 939

Mr. TAYLER. When did you. first learn that your brother apostles,
or any of them, took offense at any conduct of yours or any position
that you had taken ?

Mr. THATCHER. Would that question relate to political matters ?

Mr. TAYLER. I am referring now to what occurred in the fall of
1895. If there was anything before that I would like to have you
refer to it — I mean anything that eventuated in important results.

Mr. THATCHER. The first that I can remember that there was any
friction at all that could be called such was immediately subsequent to
a speech which I made in the Ogden Opera House, early, I think, in
1892. Perhaps I had better refer to that date so as to get it right.
It was May, 1892. Shall I go on, sir?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I will be very glad to have you proceed with
any statement you desire to make in that connection.

Mr. THATCHER. I was called from the audience or by the audience
and addressed them upon general political principles, trying to show
from my standpoint the advancement in civilization and the growth of
liberty for a thousand years; and doubtless in that speech, of which I
have not a copy I am sorry to say, I may have made some caustic allu-
sions to my Republican friends. I can not say as to that, because my
memory does not serve me wholly; but at all events that speech called
out severe criticisms on the part of the Ogden Standard, the right of
which on the part of the Standard I readily conceded, but it also called
out an open letter which was published in the Ogden Standard at the
same time, I think, and in the same issue, as the Standard's criticisms
of the speech. That was signed by Joseph F. Smith and John Henry
Smith as Republicans, descendants of Whigs.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. Shall I go on any further?

Mr. TAYLER. Before you go on with that, let me ask you if you did
not make a speech on the 30th of July, 1891, in the Salt Lake Theater?

Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me to stand on my
feetjust a moment?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly ; make yourself as comfortable as you can.
I understand you are in feeble health.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes; but sometimes I can stand on my feet and
rest rather than in a chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this before you start. You speak
of a letter signed by Joseph F. Smith and another Smith.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. At that time the first Smith was president of the
church ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What official position did they hold ?

Mr. THATCHER. President Joseph F. Smith at that time was coun-
cilor to President Woodruff.

The CHAIRMAN. And the other Smith ?

Mr. THATCHER. He was an apostle.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Did they write you as apostles ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. They did not write him at all. It was an open letter
published in the paper.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was addressed to him.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; it was addressed to him.

940 EEED SMOOT.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Thatcher.

Mr. THATCHER. Inasmuch as the record contains what is called the
Thatcher episode, and the comments of parts of sermons, perhaps the
entire sermons of certain of the presidency and of the twelve apostles,
in 1896, also the charge made against Thatcher in 1897, the findings
and decision of the high council of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion in
reference to him and his unqualified acceptance, after incorporating
the letter accepting it as part of that decision, and inasmuch as the
letters have been referred to by the honorable gentlemen, it might be
well, either as you may suggest, for me to call upon some friend here
to read certain letters or parts thereof, as you may wish, and if they
are not to be read, and should be tedious and impose too much upon
this honorable body, they can simply be filed and become, with your
permission, a part of the record.

Mr. TAYLER. Where do they appear now, Mr. Thatcher?

Mr. THATCHER. I have here a little work called "The Late Mani-
festo in Politics. Practical Working of Counsel in Relation to Civil
and Religious Liberty in Utah."

Mr. TAYLER. I would like to have that all go in just as it is.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that pamphlet?

Mr. THATCHER. December 22, 1896. On the inner page-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who is the author or compiler?

Mr. THATCHER. I was just going to state. On the inner page there
is: " Church and State. The Issue of Civil and Religious Liberty in
Utah. By Calvin Reasoner."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who is he?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, he is Calvin Reasoner, and, as I understand
it, was quite a prominent Republican at that time in Utah. At least
I understood he was. Now, sir, you have referred to a certain letter.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. This is a pamphlet, Mr. Chairman, of about
140 pages, I see.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Thatcher, I understand, does not want to read
all of this.

Mr. THATCHER. Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand Mr. Thatcher does not care to read it
all, but asks that it be inserted in the record.

Senator McCoMAs. Excerpts of it can be inserted.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you kindly accommodate the committee by
looking it over and then submit those portions you desire to have
inserted in the record. We will pass it for a time being.

Senator DILLINGHAM. Would it not be well to let Mr. Thatcher go
on with his statement?

Mr. TAYLER. I think so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 submit that such portions of it as may be
desired should be incorporated.

The CHAIRMAN. You are at liberty to proceed, Mr. Thatcher, taking
that pamphlet and quoting from it as you desire and to such an extent
as you may wish.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And have somebody read from it for him if he
prefers.

Mr. VAN COTT. I will read for you, Mr. Thatcher, if you desire.

Mr. THATCHER. Previous to a further reference to a speech or a few

REED SMOOT. 941

•

remarks made in the Salt Lake Theater, I had personally apprehended
a good deal of trouble in Utah in respect of political matters pending
the division of the Liberal and the People's Party, and, having that in
view, I formulated a document something like this. Of course I shall
not use the exact words; I am quoting from memory—

The CHAIRMAN. You have not the original document?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. THATCHER. But it was substantially as follows:

"Whereas the members of the Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints in Utah compose the majority of the citizenship; and

"Whereas over the discussion of political matters there is liable to
arise acrimonious discussions leading to criminations and recrimina-
tions, alienations, heartburnings, and the breaking up of long-estab-
lished friendships: Therefore, be it

"Resolved, That no member of the first presidency, or of the twelve
apostles, or of the seven presidents of seventies shall engage in par-
tisan politics at all, but shall hold themselves aloof, always ready to
pour the oil of the Gospel upon the troubled political waters as they
may be in the future."

As you will see, in the correspondence to which I refer and in the
rule also, I think, there is a direct reference to this subject. It may
therefore be understood that that was held by those whom 1 have
mentioned as being a rule that would be well to follow; but subse-
quently pressure, no doubt, on the part of the two political parties was of
such a nature as to make it almost impossible to remain in that status;
and the rule, whether by permission or otherwise, of those who had—
I will not call it a rule, but the ideas advanced — was gradually passed
over, and influential members high in the church engaged more or
less in political work; my friend, Mr. Roberts, for one. Mr. John
Henry Smith was very active. Mr. Roberts, on the Democratic
side-
Mr. WORTHINGTON. They were both apostles then ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; Mr. Roberts was one of the seven presi-
dents of the seventies quorum.

Now, Mr. Chairman, having made this brief explanation, I will
refer to the letters and just read what I said there.

On the evening of July 30, 1891, as reported in the Salt Lake Herald
of that date or of the following morning, it is stated here on page 40
of this pamphlet which I hold in my hand that —

"The Democrats held a rousing meeting at the Salt Lake Theater
last evening.

"Hon. Moses Thatcher was there as a listener. While the meeting
was being adjourned the vast audience demanded that he speak.

"Mr. Dyer stepped forward to say that-the meeting was at an end,
but cries for Moses Thatcher resounded from all parts of the house,
and Mr. Thatcher finally stepped to the front and said:

"For reasons which I think sufficient I have taken no active part
in this campaign, not because I was not in sympathy with the grand
old Democratic party, ]?ut because there are many people in Utah,
throughout the length and breadth of the land, who believe the church
dominates the state in Utah. Because of the ecclesiastical position
which I occupy I desire to say no word in this campaign, but look to
these gentlemen for the educating of the people."

942 REED SMOOT.

•

That is, my Democratic friends.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it would now be well to have read, follow-
ing this, the Times interview of June 23, 1891.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Thatcher, if it would not tire you to read just the
last paragraph of that speech which you made on that occasion, I
should like to have you do so.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir; 1 can read that if you desire it.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; it is very short. Do not be modest, either, and
omit the words u Prolonged applause" when they come in.

Mr. THATCHER. I do not think that is necessary, unless you insist
upon it.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I do want it put in the proper place. Just read
that last paragraph. You need not read what precedes it unless you
want to.

Mr. THATCHER. " We trust." Is that what you want?

Mr. TAYLER. That is right.

Mr. THATCHER. " We trust the gentile Democrats and the Mormon
Democrats alike, because they can not go back on their promises with-
out stultification. Stultification is dishonor, and to us dishonor is
worse than death. [Prolonged applause.] 1 am opposed to a union
of church and state, and always have been. [Applause.] It can not
exist under the American system of government. [Applause.] We
have never been understood, but thank God we will be."

Mr. TAYLER. Does that refer to Democrats or to Mormons — "Dis-
honor is worse than death" ?

Mr. THATCHER. I suppose to Mormons.

The CHAIRMAN. Read that last sentence. I could not hear it.

Mr. THATCHER. "I am opposed to a union of church and state, and
always have been. [Applause.] It can not exist under the American
system of government. [Applause.] We have never been understood,
but thank God we will be."

Is that all, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the date of that speech ?

Mr. THATCHER. July 30, 1891.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that before or after you were deposed as an
apostle ?

Mr. THATCHER. Oh, long before.

Mr. TAYLER. Five years before, but the chronological relation, Mr.
Chairman, is that immediately following this speech comes the letter
published in the paper, signed by Joseph F. and John Henry Smith.
That is right, is it not, Mr. Thatcher?

Mr. THATCHER. How is that?

Mr. TAYLER. Immediately following this speech came the letter pub-
lished by John Henry and Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did that come?

Mr. THATCHER. This will show in chronological order, if you will
permit.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be obliged to suspend at this
time, and we will adjourn until half past 10 to-morrow morning.

The committee (at 11 o'clock and 50 minutes a. m.) adjourned until
to-morrow, Tuesday, April 26, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

REED SMOOT. 943

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 26, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Foraker, Depew, Dilling-
ham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senator
Smoot; also R. W. Tayler, counsel for protestants; A. S. Worthing-
ton and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin
S. Richards, counsel for certain witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, do you need Mr. Roberts any further?

Mr. VAN COTT. It all depends, Mr. Chairman, on what parts of that
pamphlet composed of tracts, and of that other book, are to be desig-
nated specifically as going into the record.

Mr. TAYLER. We may want to put all of the pamphlet in, Mr.
Chairman. We are not going to confine the committee to extracts
from it.

The CHAIRMAN. You.are not ready to discharge him?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think not.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, Congress will probably adjourn on
Thursday, and I think we have not yet obtained permission to sit in
vacation, have we?

Th'e CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

Senator BAILEY. I suggest that the gentlemen had better be pre-
paring to close up this matter. I am not going to come he.re to-morrow,
and I am not going to stay very long to-day. I have some other things
to do that immediately concern my constituents. I have given to this
matter all the attention I could very well devote to it. It is probably
a matter for an executive session of the committee, but as I under-
stand it the committee is going to ask permission to sit in vacation by
a subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought of calling a meeting of the committee pos-
sibly to-day or to-morrow morning to consider that question. We
have only authorization to sit during the session of the Senate.

Senator BAILEY. Yes, I so understood.

The CHAIRMAN. And when the Senate adjourns our authority to sit
ends. I shall bring that matter to the attention of the committee.

Senator BAILEY. The Chairman knows that in the closing hours of
the session it is almost necessary for every one of us to be there.
There is a matter in the sundry civil bill, when it comes before the
Senate, that is of very great interest to the city of Galveston, and I
must be on the floor.

The CHAIRMAN. You think you will not be able to stay during the
session to-day ?

Senator BAILEY. I will stay until 11 o'clock, and then I am going.
I will come back again unless the bill is reported to the Senate. If it
is, I shall not come back, as I shall myself probably occupy the time
of the Senate for a part of the day.

The CHAIRMAN. If we hold an executive session to-day, say at about
a quarter of 12, could you come in again for a moment?

Senator BAILEY. I could; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thatcher, please take the stand.

942 REED SMOOT.

That is, my Democratic friends.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it would now be well to have read, follow-
ing this, the Times interview of June 23, 1891.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Thatcher, if it would not tire you to read just the
last paragraph of that speech which you made on that occasion, I
should like to have }Tou do so.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir; 1 can read that if you desire it.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; it is very short. Do not be modest, either, and
omit the words "Prolonged applause" when they come in.

Mr. THATCHER. I do not think that is necessary, unless you insist
upon it.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I do want it put in the proper place. Just read
that last paragraph. You need not read what precedes it unless you
want to.

Mr. THATCHER. " We trust." Is that what you want?

Mr. TAYLER. That is right.

Mr. THATCHER. " We trust the gentile Democrats and the Mormon
Democrats alike, because they can not go back on their promises with-
out stultification. Stultification is dishonor, and to us dishonor is
worse than death. [Prolonged applause.] 1 am opposed to a union
of church and state, and always have been. [Applause.] It can not
exist under the American system of government. [Applause.] We
have never been understood, but thank God we will be."

Mr. TAYLER. Does that refer to Democrats or to Mormons — "Dis-
honor is worse than death" ?

Mr. THATCHER. I suppose to Mormons.

The CHAIRMAN. Read that last sentence. I could not hear it.

Mr. THATCHER. "I am opposed to a union of church and state, and
always have been. [Applause.] It can not exist under the American
system of government. [Applause.] We have never been understood,
but thank God we will be."

Is that all, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the date of that speech?

Mr. THATCHER. July 30, 1891.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that before or after you were deposed as an
apostle ?

Mr. THATCHER. Oh, long before.

Mr. TAYLER. Five years before, but the chronological relation, Mr.
Chairman, is that immediately following this speech comes the letter
published in the paper, signed by Joseph F. and John Henry Smith.
That is right, is it not, Mr. Thatcher?

Mr. THATCHER. How is that?

Mr. TAYLER. Immediately following this speech came the letter pub-
lished by John Henry and Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did that come?

Mr. THATCHER. This will show in chronological order, if you will
permit.

Mr. TAYLER. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be obliged to suspend at this
time, and we will adjourn until half past 10 to-morrow morning.

The committee (at 11 o'clock and 50 minutes a. m.) adjourned until
to-morrow, Tuesday, April 26, 1904, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

REED SMOOT. 943

WASHINGTON, D. C., April £6, 1904.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Foraker, Depew, Dilling-
ham, Hopkins, Pettus, Dubois, Bailey, and Overman; also Senator
Smoot; also R. W. Tayler, counsel for protestants; A. S. Worthing-
ton and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the respondent, and Franklin
S. Richards, counsel for certain witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, do you need Mr. Roberts any further?

Mr. VAN COTT. It all depends, Mr. Chairman, on what parts of that
pamphlet composed of tracts, and of that other book, are to be desig-
nated specifically as going into the record.

Mr. TAYLER. We may want to put all of the pamphlet in, Mr.
Chairman. We are not going to confine the committee to extracts
from it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yotuare not ready to discharge him ?

Mr. VAN COTT. I think not.

Senator BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, Congress will probably adjourn on
Thursday, and I think we have not yet obtained permission to sit in
vacation, have we?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir.

Senator BAILEY. I suggest that the gentlemen had better be pre-
paring to close up this matter. I am not going to come he.re to-morrow,
and I am not going to stay very long to-day. I have some other things
to do that immediately concern my constituents. I have given to this
matter all the attention I could very well devote to it. It is probably
a matter for an executive session of the committee, but as I under-
stand it the committee is going to ask permission to sit in vacation by
a subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought of calling a meeting of the committee pos-
sibly to-day or to-morrow morning to consider that question. We
have only authorization to sit during the session of the Senate.

Senator BAILEY. Yes, I so understood.

The CHAIRMAN. And when the Senate adjourns our authority to sit
ends. I shall bring that matter to the attention of the committee.

Senator BAILEY. The Chairman knows that in the closing hours of
the session it is almost necessary for every one of us to be there.
There is a matter in the sundry civil bill, when it comes before the
Senate, that is of very great interest to the city of Galveston, and I
must be on the floor.

The CHAIRMAN. You think you will not be able to stay during the
session to-day ?

Senator BAILEY. I will stay until 11 o'clock, and then I am going.
I will corue back again unless the bill is reported to the Senate. If it
is, I shall not come back, as I shall myself probably occupy the time
of the Senate for a part of the day.

The CHAIRMAN. If we hold an executive session to-da}^ say at about
a quarter of 12, could you come in again for a moment?

Senator BAILEY. I could; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thatcher, please take the stand.

944 KEED SMOOT.

TESTIMONY OF MOSES THATCHER— Continued.

Moses Thatcher, having been previously sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:

The CHAIKMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. I think Mr. Thatcher was interruped in the midst of a
statement he was making, and we would probably save time if he
proceeds.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, then, Mr. Thatcher, with your statement.

Mr. THATCHER. As I remember, we stopped at a point where I am
not able to see that a statement, in addition to what was already made,
would add any light, unless it is brought out by questions.

Mr. TAYLER. You had, as I recall, reached a point in your examina-
tion where quotations had been made from some remarks made by you
respecting the union of church and state. You read them, and your
examination, for the time being, ceased.

Mr. THATCHER. I may state, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the
statements of the honorable Senator, Mr. Bailey, I rather think it
might be as well for me to simply file those letters to which it would
be proper to make reference, for enlightenment, or that the committee
may have a full understanding of the discussions arising from the dif-
ferences referred to in respect of political matters. In order to save
time and not impose upon this honorable committee, I might suggest
that I could mark such letters for filing in the record, if it would be
agreeable, and save time.

The CHAIRMAN. What letters do you refer to ?

Mr. THATCHER. I refer to letters that pertain to this question.
. The CHAIRMAN. Published in this pamphlet?

Mr. THATCHER. To the questions that were brought out yesterday
in reference to my difficulty with the church authorities.

The CHAIRMAN. Are those letters contained in that pamphlet?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, perhaps you had better call the
attention of the witness to that pamphlet at this time.

Mr. TAYLER. Will you open the pamphlet, Mr. Thatcher ?

Mr. THATCHER. At what page?

Mr. TAYLER. At the title page. Mr. Thatcher, when did you see
this pamphlet entitled "Church and State. The issue of civil and
religious liberty in Utah. By Calvin Reasoner?"

Mr. THATCHER. When did I first see it?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. I should say shortly after its publication.

Mr. TAYLER. Who is Calvin Reasoner? Is he a friend of yours, I
mean?

Mr. THATCHER. He became a friend of mine; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long after its publication did you first see it?

Mr. THATCHER. It could not have been more than a few weeks, if
that long.

The CHAIRMAN. Wfts he an adherent of the Mormon Church I

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; he was not.

The CHAIRMAN. He was a Gentile?

Mr. THATCHER. He was a Gentile.

Senator DUBOIS. He was a political friend, Mr. Thatcher.

REED SMOOT. 945

Mr. THATCHER. Well, I had a ways the impression that he was a
Republican, but I never asked him.

Senator DUBOIS. Was he a political friend ?

Mr. THATCHER. He was a friend in a political way, you might say.
We were friendly.

Senator DUBOIS. As 1 understand, Republicanism and Democracy
did not make a great deal of difference in this contention. He agreed
with your views politically in the controversy?

Mr. THATCHER. Largely so.

Senator DUBOIS. He was your friend politically, speaking in that
sense ?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. What assistance did you render in the preparation of
this pamphlet?

Mr. THATCHER. As I remember, I rendered no assistance in the
preparation of the pamphlet.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you not furnish him some information for it?

Mr. THATCHER. Nothing, I think, except what was of general
knowledge.

Mr. TAYLER. There would hardly be any necessity of your furnish-
ing to him what was of general knowledge.

Mr. THATCHER. I do not remember that I furnished him any infor-
mation except it might have been in conversations between us. That
I gave him any specific information I do not remember.

Mr. TAYLER. You talked with hini about the pamphlet, then, did
you, before it was issued ?

Mr. THATCHER. I may have talked with him about certain portions
of the pamphlet.

Mr. TAYLER. You knew the pamphlet was coming out ?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, I had reasons to think it was coming out.

Mr. TAYLER. And he undertook to get information from you respect-
ing the facts of the controversy ?

Mr. THATCHER. I do not think that he asked me any questions on
that. I can not remember that he did.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you contribute to the expense of its publication?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; I did not.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you circulate the phamphlet after its publication ?

Mr. THATCHER. In a general way, do you mean, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; did you circulate the pamphlet?

Mr. THATCHER. I think perhaps only to a few friends. I did not
make any effort to circulate it in a general way.

Mr. TAYLER. How did you get possession of the pamphlets which
you circulated?

Mr. THATCHER. I am inclined to think that my friends purchased
some of those pamphlets from Mr. Reasoner.

Mr. TAYLER. It was recognized to be a fairly accurate account of
the controversy, was it not?

Mr. THATCHER. I think in was.

Mr. TAYLER. And you now so recognize it, do you not?

Mr. THATCHER. I think I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You say u fairly accurate." Is it an accurate
account of the transaction?

s 60

946 REED SMOOT.

Mr. THATCHEK. In a historical way I am inclined to think, Mr.
Chairman, that it is an accurate account, from his standpoint.

Mr. TAYLER. We want to offer, then, the whole pamphlet. We may
not want to have it all printed in tho record, but the pamphlet ought
all to be in evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Do }^ou desire to call attention to any particular
part, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. I was about to go through the pamphlet and refer to
some things that Mr. Thatcher especially desired to have our attention
called to.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think the record should show what part is in
evidence.
1 Mr. TAYLER. I have offered it all in evidence.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. My friend says it will all be in evidence, but
that it will not all be in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Counsel says he offers the entire pamphlet.

Mr. TAYLER. It is like contested election cases. There is a great
deal of testimony offered in evidence that is not printed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you to say now you offer that
pamphlet?

Mr. TAYLER. We offer the entire pamphlet.

Mr. VAN COTT. We object to it, and in view of the objection we
should like to ask Mr. Thatcher a question relating to the pamphlet.

Mr. Thatcher, the argument of Mr. Reasoner in this pamphlet — is
that either your own production or do you approve of all the argument
of Mr. Reasoner that is contained in it?

Mr. THATCHER. From the position I took, Mr. Chairman, at that
particular time, in reference to the scope and meaning of the political
manifesto, the arguments appeared to me entirely consistent; but
subsequently my views were modified by a decision of the Salt Lake
stake high council, as will appear, probably, later on. But from the
appearance of that question at that time, Mr. Calvin Reasoner's argu-
ments seemed to me consistent. They were, however, entirety from
his own standpoint.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what we understand ; and the Calvin Reasoner
pamphlet antedates the circumstance to which you have just referred,
that brought about a change or modification of your views ?

Mr. THATCHER. Oh yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Because this is dated December 22, 1896, and when
did the finding of the high council come?

Mr. THATCHER. I think on the 14th of August, 1897.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; it was after this, at any rate.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The statements of facts, in so far as they appear to be
made in this pamphlet, were correct, so far as you know, were they
not?

Mr. THATCHER. The statement of fact?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. So far as I know; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And it was, so far as you are able to judge, intended
to be a candid statement of facts, and not a misleading statement?

Mr. THATCHER. I did not understand that there was any intention
to mislead.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Van Cott, have you any further questions ?

EEED SMOOT. 947

Mr. VAN COTT. We have no further questions on this point.
Mr. WOETHINGTON. We do object to this pamphlet going in evi-
dence.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted, and printed in the record.
The pamphlet referred to is as follows:

THE LATE MANIFESTO IN POLITICS— PRACTICAL WORKING OF
"COUNSEL" IN RELATION TO CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
IN UTAH.

That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that Gov-
ernment of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the
earth. — Abraham Lincoln.

CHURCH AND STATE — THE ISSUE OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN UTAH — A
TESTIMONIAL IN BEHALF OF CIVIL LIBERTY AND THE AMERICAN STATE AS SEPARATE
FROM THE CHURCH, AND DEDICATED TO THE FRIENDS OF FREEDOM AND TRUE
PROGRESS IN UTAH AND ELSEWHERE.

PREFACE.

The little book herewith presented to the public, and especially to
the Mormon people, discusses those underlying principles of liberty
that permeate the parties and shape the policies of a free governing
people. While the book is political in its texture, its arguments and
illustrations are designed to have no partisan or sectarian application.
Its appeal is addressed to intelligent minds and honest hearts of all
creeds and persuasions.

The case of Moses Thatcher is presented at considerable length, but
only as an illustration of the practical working and results of the
policy and discipline of the Mormon priesthood organization under the
political manifesto recently promulgated. And in order to give a
comprehensive view of the issue, his late deposition from all priestly
offices by his ecclesiastical quorum and his political record for a num-
ber of years past have been selected for presentation, for the reason
that they are matters of present interest, they are most extensively
before the people in printed form, and throughout their origin, prog-
ress, and culmination they are more pertinent than any other as illus-
trations of the meaning and application of vital principles herein
discussed.

There is no intention to vindicate Moses Thatcher personally in
these pages. So far as his official and political record may have an
appearance of approval, it is the reflection of general political princi-
ples in their application to a concrete case. What is said herein is
said, not by him, and only in a subordinate way is anything said for
him. The real truth is that nothing is said by him or for him; but
his case is used as an object lesson to carry thoughts of the deepest
importance to the people of Utah and the whole country.

Concerning the fundamental question raised in this book — the rela-
tion of church and state — there is a widespread misapprehension of a
character similar to that presented in a well-written and candid letter
by Judge Edwin G. Woolley in the Tribune, December, f>, 1896. So
far as the writer defends the procedure of church discipline in the
case of Moses Thatcher we make no rejoinder; for this book is not
concerned with matters purely ecclesiastical.

948 REED SMOOT.

But in discussing the political side of the controversy raised against
Moses Thatcher by the Deseret News, Judge Woolley is wholly
unconscious that there is a state to be encroached upon by the church;
he could but make the same argument if the state were absolutely
within the church as an ecclesiastical function. He fails to apprehend
that the occasion of contention is that the church abandons its true
sphere and usurps political authority when it enjoins "counsel" as a
condition precedent to nominations and elections to civil offices.
When Judge Woolley finds that there is such a thing as a state we
shall be pleased to have him define it in a way that will show it incap-
able of being absorbed by the rule of " counsel."

And it may be further said in behalf of the writer of these pages,
that as in times past he has said and done and written many things in
kindly regard for the Mormon people, because it was deemed to be
their due; so in this book, waiving personal considerations, the truth
is sought to be presented and urged, not in any particular interest, but
in behalf of humanity at large and the progress of the race.

Mankind is struggling up into the light of God and a higher civili-
zation; and the race is deeply concerned with whatever promotes or
impedes its progress. No true man can refuse to receive the truth
from any quarter; neither can he be grieved when present customs
and beliefs are shown to be erroneous. It is only as the present is passed
away that the future glory is revealed.

CALVIN REASONER.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, December 15, 1896.

CHAPTER FIRST.
MOSES THATCHER'S OFFENSE.

The following pages present, by way of illustration, the case of
Moses Thatcher in relation to the recently adopted rule of the Mormon
Church, and the disciplinary action of the quorum of apostles deposing
him from the apostolic office and other priestly functions, in conformity
with the spirit and requirements of said rule as embodied in the mani-
festo concerning "counsel" which was promulgated during the con-
ference of last April.

It must be remembered that the action taken by Mr. Thatcher is
not without its tragic element; for with his fidelity to a sense of duty
he is compelled to relinquish positions of honor and usefulness which
he cherished as the honest fruitage and well-earned recognition of
long years of earnest labor and generous sacrifice in the service of his
church. Furthermore, in his ecclesiastical humiliation, he contem-
plates nothing less than genuine faithfulness in the fellowship and
brotherhood of Christ, realizing that service is ministry, and that to
be greatest of all is to be servant of all.

In order that people who have not kept themselves fully informed
on current events, and especially those living outside the State, may
understand the nature and origin of matters discussed in this state-
ment, it is well to state that for several years there has been more or
less friction in the Mormon Church arising out of the political con-
duct of some of its leading men. About 1890, when the people of the

REED SMOOT. 949

Territory of Utah were considering the question of dividing on
national party lines to the exclusion of church issues, it was decided
by the governing officials of the Mormon Church that men holding
the higher orders of the Mormon priesthood should refrain from
entering politics personally, lest jealousies and ill feeling might arise
because of the influential positions which they held in the church.
Accordingly, a rule was promulgated requiring the several higher
grades of Mormon officials to decline leadership in the political
parties.

It appears that this rule was soon disregarded by the action and
counsel of the same governing officials in the church; and this because
of political conditions and complications wherein it was deemed best,
in order to promote statehood for Utah, to intervene in a partisan
way, so that the Territory might show up in certain political colors,
thereby to secure powerful influence in behalf of statehood legislation.
In keeping with this policy, it soon transpired that high officials on
one side were " counseled " to go forth and gather in the political
harvest, while officials on the other side in politics were "counseled"
to stay at home and hold their peace.

Moses Thatcher took the view that when the rule was abrogated for
one or more, it was set aside for all; and accordingly he spoke in
public several times, and in all his addresses never failed to urge the
importance of a complete separation of church and state. His course
gave offense to some of his brethren on the opposite side in politics,
and there were numerous passages at arms politically; and there was
also a good deal of muttering in church councils where his conduct
came up with reference to ecclesiastical disapprobation and censure.
But the whole matter was covered up and carried over as a thorn in
the flesh until after statehood was secured; and then the church
authorities issued an address of great length and prolixity, embody-
ing a specific rule to the effect that all officers in the church — and
almost all male members are officers — should seek " counsel" before
accepting any political nomination or any secular position. The rule
is as follows:

First. We unanimously agree to and promulgate, as a rule, that should always be
observed in the church and by every leading official thereof, that before accepting
any position, political or otherwise, which would interfere with the proper and
complete discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, and before accepting a nomination or
entering into engagements to perform new duties, said official should apply to the
proper authorities and learn from them whether he can consistently with the obli-
gations already entered into with the church upon assuming his office, take upon
himself the added duties and labors and responsibilities of the new position.

The manifesto containing the foregoing rule was presented to Moses
Thatcher for his signature, but for reasons indicated in the following
he withheld his name.

SALT LAKE CITY, April 6, 1896.

At about 12 o'clock this morning two of the quorum of the twelve called on me
and presented a document of several pages for my consideration, wishing me to sign
it immediately so that they could take it away with them. On my request for more
time to consider the matter, they agreed to leave it with me until 1.30 p. m., at which
time I returned the document with the following reply :

"SALT LAKE CITY, April 6, 1896.
"President LORENZO SNOW and Apostle BRIGHAM YOUNG.

"DEAR BRETHREN: Having carefully read the document left with me for consid-
eration, I herewith return it as.per promise. There is much of its contents that I
could heartily indorse by signing, but there are other portions which I can not

950 REED SMOOT.

indorse without stultification. If I were well I might view this most serious matter
in another light; or I might do so had I more time to consider it. But as it is, it
seems that I must determine now, though I fully realize how sadly long illness has
weakened me in every way. In the future the Lord may enable me to define my
views and acts as running along those of honor, integrity, and truth. Now I can
only humbly ask that you act according to the Holy Spirit's dictation as prompted
by justice and brotherly love toward your fellow laborer in the cause of our Savior.

" MOSES THATCHER."

The daily papers made the whole circumstance a matter of news,
their reports exhibiting the first flush of public sentiment. The
Tribune has the following:

The session of the Mormon Church conference yesterday afternoon produced a
stupendous political and religious sensation. The question that stirred Utah last fall
relative to the candidacy of church officials for political office was revived by a proc-
lamation in which the rule was reaffirmed that men engaged in the service of the
church must take counsel — that is, ask permission — of the church authorities before
becoming candidates for political positions. The address in itself was sufficient to
excite the most profound interest; but the fact that it was subscribed to by B. H.
Roberts was sensational. It did not bear the signature of Moses Thatcher, who,
with Roberts, was under the ban last fall for violating the rule, and the lack of his
name on the document was the cause of another development that was astounding.

When the names of apostles were called in the conference, that the people might
vote to sustain these officials, that of Moses Thatcher was not announced. The fail-
ure to name him was not generally noted at the time, but when the knowledge of
the omission was spread through the great congregation it excited most intense
interest. Many were at first disposed to believe that the omission to submit Apostle
Thatcher's name to a vote was due to a mistake. But it was not so. T*he omission
was deliberately intentional. The address had been taken to the apostle about 12
o'clock by President Lorenzo Snow and Apostle Brigham Young, and he had been
requested to sign it. After examining it he had declined to do so. This refusal
occurred but a short time before the meeting of the conference in the afternoon, but
the intervening time was long enough for the church authorities to decide to with-
hold his name from the conference.

In Mr. Thatcher's card, given above, is contained the statement of his reasons for
not signing which he gave to the bearers of the address. It was upon this statement
that the action of the church authorities was based. Though the letter to his fellow
apostles is couched in touching terms, it is clear from it that years of physical suffer-
ing have not deprived him of the courage of his convictions. He holds that to sign
the address would be to stultify himself, and he can not do that even to secure peace.

The refusal to sign the manifesto was thought to be the last straw of
Moses Thatcher's offending. For several years it had been secretly
whispered that he had been insubordinate to his priestly associates and
superiors. In subsequent pages his alleged demerits will be more fully
exhibited. It all amounts to this: He sought to think and act like an}^
ordinary American citizen guided by the principles of Thomas Jetfer-
son. But the ' ' counsel " that interdicted his freedom of action was not
in sympathy with the principles of Jefferson. It sought to make him
a mere cog in the wheels of a priesthood programme for the manipu-
lation of the political machinery of Utah in accordance with the dic-
tates of a single central intelligence.

For twenty }T ears- Moses Thatcher had shown symptoms of political
independence. Finally a rule was conceived and promulgated which
would either clip his wings or disrobe him of his priestly functions.
That rule forced him to decide whether he would abdicate his political
manhood and hold his apostleship, or otherwise preserve his freedom
of citizenship and cease to administer priestly offices that were not
germane to the Declaration of Independence. He chose to pursue a
course " running along the lines of honor, integrity, and truth."

It will be seen in the following chapter that a great effort was made
to disseminate Moses Thatcher's demerits over an almost unlimited area,

REED SMOOT. 951

but the discerning reader will see at a glance that the refusal to endorse
the manifesto was the last grievance that a priesthood sovereignty
would tolerate. Thenceforth it was either "recant or burn."

CHAPTER SECOND.
THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST MOSES THATCHER.

At the time of the April conference Mr. Thatcher was a very sick
man, scarcely able to walk across the room, and neither he nor his
friends had much hope of his recovery. Soon, however, he began to
mend, and concluded to spend several weeks at a mountain resort up
the Logan Canyon. Before leaving the city he was assured by the
presidency of the church and members of his quorum that nothing
would be done in reference to his matter till his return and recovery.
This assurance was repeated to him while he was in the mountains, but
for some unknown reason the first presidency and members of his
quorum did take up his case and made public charges against him in
the last general conference held in October.

The purport of the remarks made in the conference was to show up
a continued insubordination on the part of Mr. Thatcher, extending
over a period of several years. His name had been dropped from the
list of authorities presented for confirmation at the April conference
immediately after his refusal to sign the manifesto, all the other names
on the document haying been signed before it was presented to Mr.
Thatcher. It is evident that the authorities did not keep faith with
Mr. Thatcher in bringing up his case in his absence, and it is apparent
that there was a desire to locate the difficulty with Mr. Thatcher on
other grounds than that of his refusal to sign the manifesto, though if
he had signed it when it was presented to him in April there would
have been no question as to his standing with his quorum.

In order to show the sentiments of the first presidency and apostles
at the October conference in regard to Mr. Thatcher, and the grounds
on which his insubordination was condemned, a few utterances from
several speakers are herewith presented, the quotations being from
the Deseret News:

(Geo. Q. Cannon, October 4.)

When I respect and honor Wilford Woodruff I bow to God who has chosen him.
My neck does not and never did bow to man. Those who know me know that I am
unbending in that respect. I may get along quietly; I do not like to quarrel, but I
never yet bowed to man. I only bow to proper authority.

If I listen to Wilford Woodruff, if I look to him to see how the Spirit of God
moves upon him; if I ask his counsel and take it, it is because God has commanded
me. God has given him the keys of authority. Let anybody else try it, and see
what effect their action would haVe. When Joseph F. Smith obeys Wilford Wood-
ruff, he does it upon the same principle. We reverence him as the prophet of God,
and as our leader. We listen to him, and are guided by his slightest wish. It is
because we know that he is the servant of God, chosen by the Almighty to fill that
place, and that he holds the keys of the priesthood to this generation on the earth at
the present time. I can say truthfully that we strive to consult his slightest wish, and
honor him in his position, because we know that God has chosen him. And who
are we that we should withstand God? Who are we that we should withstand that
which God reveals? Does this sacrifice our independence? Not in the least. And
these twelve apostles are in precisely the same position. When they accept the
counsel of the first presidency, they do it because they believe the first presidency

952 REED SMOOT.

to be chosen of God. They may have different views on many things; but when
the first presidency gives counsel, every man that has the Spirit of God accepts
that counsel. This does not prevent him from entertaining his views and express-
ing them, and it does not detract from his influence. Now, we do not ask this
people to be more obedient than we are. We do not ask you to do something that
we are not willing to do. We have set you the example. We ask you, as the Lord
asks you, to obey the authority of God and to respect it.

(Wilford Woodruff, October 5.)

My brethren and sisters, there is something pressing upon my mind that I want
to say. We have arrived at a point here with regard to circumstances that it is my
duty to take up as the president of the church. The first presidency and the twelve
apostles were never more united as a body than they are to-day. Our spirits are
united. We believe together, we work together, we pray together; and we believe
in each other, because we are all trying to do the will of God. This is the case with
.all of us, with one exception. That exception is Brother Moses Thatcher.

There has been a great deal said with regard to Brother Moses Thatcher, and many
have wondered why something was not done about him. Well, I will say^that this
is a matter that belongs to the twelve apostles. He is a member of that'quorum,
and of course it is their duty to take hold of that work and attend to it until it is
settled.

The apostles know that he has neglected to meet with them at times when he
could and should have done so. He has been at difference with them in many things
that have transpired. He has been by himself in his labor, and for himself, and not
for the church. Now, I want to say that neither Moses Thatcher nor any other mar
on the face of the earth can stand in the way of this church. We have had almost
whole quorums of apostles that have been in the load, and they have had to be
moved out of it, because the kingdom of God can not stop for anybody— for Wilford
Woodruff, for Moses Thatcher, or for anybody else. Unless we work with the saints
of God, with the priesthood of God and with the organization of His church, we
can not have any power or influence.

I pray that His blessing and spirit may rest, not only on the first presidency and
apostels and the whole preisthood and the saints, but upon Moses Thatcher, that his
eyes may be opened to see, his ears to hear, and his heart to comprehend his position
and duty before God and man.

(President Lorenzo Snow, October 5.)

As the president of the quorum of the twelve apostles, of which Brother Thatcher
is a member, I want to say a few words in connection with this subject that has been
introduced by President Woodruff.

About the last conversation I had with Brother Thatcher was in the temple, either
at the last spring or fall conference. We had prayed for him, and we had sent some
of our most experienced brethren to talk with him privately and beg of him to make
things satisfactory. I called on Brother Brigham Young, because I knew he felt an
interest in Brother Thatcher, and was a wise man, to go and see him and plead with
him to make things satisfactory; but he failed. He came and reported to me that a
spirit of darkness seemed to reign in Brother Thatcher's heart, and he could not
reach it. I still thought, however, that he would come and make things right before
he returned to his home in Logan; and about the second or third day after this I
was visited by him in the temple. I never felt to rejoice more in my heart than
when I saw him enter my room.

I thought he had made up his mind to do that which we requested him to do and
to place himself in perfect fellowship with the brethren of the quorum. I talked
with him. I did most of the talking myself. I felt the spirit of it, as I always did
when I spoke to him, because my heart was warm toward him, and the Lord
seemed to help me, so that I felt perfectly at home in telling him just what the Lord
dictated to me. I thought he had come to my room with his mind made up to take
a course to come into fellowship with his quorum. I was disappointed, however; I
felt like shedding tears when he left the room. There was not that disposition exist-
ing in him that I hoped there would be when he came.

Now, there is a certain document that you have heard talked about a good deal.
Brother Young and myself took that document to Brother Thatcher. His physical
condition was not very promising, and I asked him if I should read it to him. He
said he preferred to read it himself, and he read it — read it very deliberately. He
said he Jid not feel then to approve of it altogether; he wished it to remain for

REED SMOOT. 953

a while. We accorded him his wish. As President Woodruff had said, not half the
trouble is in relation to that document — not one-hundreth part that is talked about.
Of course, it was rather singular. There were appended to that document the names
of the first presidency, of the apostles (with the exception of Brother Lund, who
was then in England) of the first seven presidents of the seventies, of the patriarchs,
and of the presiding bishopric — 24 names in all — representing the authorities of the
church; but he did not feel inclined, he said, to put his name to the document.

I am reminded of a little anecdote I heard of Brother Erastus Snow, which illus-
trates a principle. Brother George A. Smith was speaking to an "outside" audience
one night, and Brother Erastus fell asleep. When he got through preaching he sat
down and elbowed Brother Erastus, and requested him to bear his testimony. It
was thought that Brother Erastus had scarcely heard a word; but he arose and said:
"My friends, every word that my brother here has said is God's truth." Now, why
did he say so? There was a reason for this. Why, he knew Brother George A. Smith.
He had heard him preach a hundred times, and he knew that he was a man of inspi-
ration, and he would never say anything but that was true. Well, I think when a
man is so well acquainted with the first presidency, with the apostles, with the patri-
arch, with the presidents of seventies, and with the presiding bishops, he ought to
have some confidence in the position of these brethren ; and if that brother is rather
low in his mind and does not really feel competent to judge of the matter, he ought
to have confidence in his brethren.

Brethren and sisters, these are solemn truths that I have told you and what Presi-
dent Woodruff has stated. I want you 'all to pray for Brother Thatcher. As soon
as his physical abilities will allow, we shall have him before our quorum and he will
be treated by his friends. But there are certain rules and regulations that we, as
the servants of God, must conform to, and we are not responsible for them.

(John Henry Smith, October 5.)

I have recognized the fact that there must be an explantion made to the Latter-
Day Saints in connection with the subject upon which the president of the church
and the president of the council of the apostles have treated. I fully understand
that within three days after Brother Moses Thatcher declined to sustain his associates
he would have been dealt with for his fellowship and standing in the council of the
apostles but for his physical condition.

The presidency of the church and the council of the apostles in their deliberations
upon all questions that affect the well-being and interest of the cause, are as candid
and frank in their consultations and expression of views as any body of men could
possibly be. But when a conclusion has been reached as to the course that should
be pursued it is expected that every man will give in his adherence to the course
marked out, and with unfaltering voice and fixed determination, so that those coun-
sels may prevail, so far as may be possible, among the whole people.

It is not my thought, in the time that I am here, to dwell upon the position in
which our brother finds himself. I have held the hope, I hold the hope now, that
he will see his way clear to put himself in unison with his associates, that he may
stand with them and receive in the end the commendation of our Father, through
his humility, and that his name may not be effaced from the roll of honor which God
in this dispensation and in this day has established. It is not for me to speak further
upon this subject. I stand by my president and by the presidency of this church in
the position they have taken, because I know they are right.

My judgment was convinced that their position was absolutely correct, or I never
wrould have subscribed my name to that document, nor wrould I, in connection with
my brethren, have sought in various ways to awaken a class of reflections in the mind
of our brother that would have brought him in unison with the council of which he
is a member.

(Brigham Young, October 5.)

There was a time when I was absent from Utah for two years and a half. I left
here in August, 1890. But I knew more than I cared to know before I left then in
relation to this matter. I can not see a man rise up and stand in open rebellion to
his brethren in defiance of the pleadings of his quorum, and feel that he has the
spirit of God in him, which I witnessed previous to my departure in 1890; for I saw
Brother Moses stand in open rebellion to his quorum.

On a certain occasion, quite a long time ago, I went to President Woodruff and
asked him the question: "What is the reason of this darkness that I see in the mind
of a man whom I have loved like a brother, whom I had placed in my affection
equal to any man upon the face of the earth." This is the answer that he gave me:
"He has sought to rule over his brethren and has lost the spirit."

954 EEED SMOOT.

Where, brethren and sisters, will you get the channel of communication opened up
between you and the powers that reign over the earth? The God that sits in the
heavens, and the angels and saints that visit us — through what line of communica-
tion do they come? God has placed these authorities here to guide His people, and
when a man cuts that thread for himself, then the channel of revelation is destroyed,
so far as that man is concerned. If you and I ever consider that we can reach God
and get His mind and will in relation to this great work without receiving it through
the channel of those men who stand at the head, then all I have to say to you or
myself is, we have cut the thread between us and the Spirit of God, and we are left
to wander in bye and forbidden paths. One channel, one organization! And no
man may rise against that and expect that he will be favored of the Lord or per-
mitted to enjoy His Spirit.

(Joseph F. Smith, Octobers.)

I wish merely to say a wrord to guard the people from unwise sympathies. While
we may have a great deal of love for our fellow-beings, and especially for those who
have been favored of the Lord in times past we should exercise that love wisely.
Now, I love men and women who are devoted to the cause of truth, and my sympa-
thies are always with them. But it is impossible for me to sympathize with those
who do wrong. It is written somewhere in the laws of God that "the Lord required
the heart, and a willing mind and the willing and the obedient shall eat the good of
the land of Zion in these last days." Now, if a man has given his heart unto the
Lord, and is willing and obedient unto God and his requirements, that man I love
and that man has my sympathy. But when he turns away from the love of God
and steels his heart against the laws of God and the counsels of his priesthood, then
amen to the authority and power of that man and to my love and sympathy for him
in his wrongdoing. I may pity him for his wrongdoing, and I may love him, too,
as well as anybody else; but when he ceases to do right, that is the end of it with me.
He may go his own road and I will go mine. I love my own brother; I love my
sister; I love my wife and children; but when my brother, or sister, or wife, or
child turns away from God and raises the heel against the Almighty and turns his
or her heart to their own selfish desires and whims they are no more to me than the
heathen; for they are unbelievers, and they are not my brother nor my sister in the
covenant of the gospel, and that covenant is stronger than all other covenants and
all other ties that bind the saints together.

The man that will abide in the covenant is my brother and my friend, and has
my sympathy and love, and I will sustain him. But the man who raises his heel
and his voice against the servants of God and the authority of the priesthood on the
earth is not my friend, and he has not my sympathy nor my love. Mercy has done
its work; patience has endured long enough; and all Israel must know that a man,
whether he is an apostle, a high priest, or a seventy, that will not hearken to the
voice of God, that will not give his heart unto the Lord, that is not obedient, must
cease to be fejlowshipped by the people of God. We can not uphold men who will
pursue a course like this or who will betray their brethren. We can not afford it,
and we can not do it and be justified before the Lord.

We have received a communication saying that we stood self-condemned before
the people because we had transgressed the law of God. We have transgressed no
law of God so far as we know. It is a clear case of the twelve jurymen, eleven of
whom were united and saw eye to eye, while the one stood out alone, claiming that
all the rest were wrong. We have borne and borne. Six months have passed —
aye, years have passed, because that which occurred six months ago marked only
the forks of the road, only the dividing line. For years before we had tolerated
and patiently waited, we had prayed and petitioned, and we had suffered long and
yet to no avail. Our councils have seldom been graced by his presence. He has
not felt it necessary to be one with his brethren. He has estranged himself from us,
not we from him. It is a matter concerning the government of the church and the
authority which God has instituted to direct and to guide. It is the question as to
whether the people will unite with the majority of the priesthood, who are united
and see eye to eye, or whether they will be misled by one man.

It is to be regretted that Mr. Smith, standing as he does at the head
of a great ecclesiastical organization, should utter sentiments savoring
so strongly of the dark ages. In the light of the gospel of the blessed
Christ who died for all, both saint and sinner; in the presence of nine-
teenth century civilization, it sounds harsh and even cruel for a man
to say that certain doctrines and ordinances are the supreme standard

REED SMOOT. 955

whereby he will either love brother, sister, wife, or child, or other-
wise spurn them from him and hold them as "heathen," if they do not
believe and worship as he does. Surely Mr. Joseph F. Smith should
realize that it is not a matter of doctrine or practice that is the true
standard whereby to enter into sympathetic relations with men and
women, but the soul endowment, the image of God in each and all.
We may hate sin, but surely we must love the sinner. Such are the
lessons of the Great Teacher.

In order that a little more light may be shed on the question of
Moses Thatcher's disagreement with his quorum and the first presi-
dency, it is well to add a portion of Mr. Smith's speech at the priest-
hood meeting at Logan a few months previous. There need be no
question as to the accuracy of the report, for it is thorough^ substan-
tiated, and may be read in full in the Salt Lake papers of May 10
and li, 1896:

Joseph F. Smith was the next speaker. He said that Moses Thatcher's attitude
all through the political fight in Utah could not be justified; that he had been the
one apostle who had refused to take council as to how the people should be divided
up; that the first presidency and all the twelve but Thatcher had decided upon a
certain policy to get the relief they needed from the Government; but Thatcher had
stood out against them; that he had been opposing his brethren ever since the divi-
sion on party lines, and had not been in harmony with his quorum.

Joseph F. said further that the meeting called in the Gardo House to consider the
advisability of disbanding the People's Party was attended by many of the authori-
ties, stake presidednts and leaders of the People's Party.

It was plainly stated at this meeting that men in high authority who believed in
Republican principles should go out among the people, but that those in high
authority who could not indorse the principles of Republicanism should remain
silent, their counsel was obeyed by all the apostles and high authorities except
Moses Thatcher, who talked to the people contrary to the wishes of his brethren.
If it had not been for his condition, Moses Thatcher would have been called to
account for his declaration in the opera house (here giving Thatcher's declaration of
political independence), but if he ever became able he would have to answer for
that as well as other things they proposed to charge against him.

In this connection it is important to put on record a circumstance
showing on the part of Joseph F. Smith a spirit of extraordinary
resentment and clerical intolerance. At the Stake conference held
in Logan during the month of November, Bishop Lewis was repri-
manded by Mr. Smith for making Moses Thatcher the subject of
prayer, although Presidents Woodruff and Snow at the October con-
ference enjoined upon the saints the duty of praying for him. The
circumstance is narrated in the following letter from a prominent
churchman, appearing in the Tribune November 21:

LOGAN, UTAH, November 20, 1896.

It is fully realized here that in the Senatorial candidacy of Moses Thatcher and
the fight being made against him by the organ which purports to voice the senti-
ments of the church, a grave issue has arisen, greater, in fact, than the one caused
by the issuance of the original manifesto abandoning the practice of polygamy, and
there are thousands whose faith scarcely survived that ordeal.

A great moral question is involved, and it will not be without serious thought that
conservative members of the church will align themselves on either side. A few
years ago there could have been no doubt of the outcome. Then the utterances of
the first presidency and the apostles would have been considered as the voice of
God, and no one would have thought of upholding Moses Thatcher or any other
man in opposition to their expressed will; but division on party lines brought about
a change, and they are no longer considered infallible, especially in political affairs.

They claim that church and state have been divorced, but a candid examination
of the rule they seek to enforce— that of asking consent before accepting office — will
be sufficient to convince one that Moses Thatcher is right when he says that it might
be the means of making the church a great political machine, the steering apparatus

956 REED SMOOT.

of which would be in the hands of the twelve or fifteen men at the head. The majority
of those who opposed the rule did it for the same reason expressed by Moses Thatcher
in his recent interview for the Tribune; it was too sweeping, and could be made to
include almost every male member of the church, as there are but few lay members.
The leaders have disclaimed any such intent in sermons on the subject, but it would
have been just as easy and much more satisfactory to have changed the wording of
the document so as to state specifically what officers were to be subject to the rule.

In Cache Valley, at least, Moses Thatcher will receive full credit for sincerity.
Here he is known, and that this was a matter of conscience with him no one will
doubt. It seems that special efforts have been made to cast discredit on him here,
probably because here he was best known and loved. It was to the presidency of
this stake that the first letter was issued forbidding them to allow him to preach or
officiate in any of the ordinances; and it was here that Joseph F. Smith, contrary to
the teachings of the Savior, publicly rebuked Bishop B. M. Lewis for praying for
Moses Thatcher during our recent quarterly conference. The prayer was, oiie would
think, a perfectly proper one from a church standpoint, as the appeal was that his
mind might be enlightened and that he might once more be brought into harmony
with his quorum. Mr. Smith assumed that no prayer must be uttered publicly in
favor of the erring (?) member.

This savored so strongly of a spirit contrary to that of the divine love and compas-
sion that has heretofore been enjoined, that many who had supported the manifesto
and considered Mr. Thatcher's opposition wrong, wondered whether, after all, some
strong personal feeling did not underlie the pressure brought to bear on him, and
began to investigate his reasons for opposing it. If the senatorship could be left to
the popular vote, Moses Thatcher would have an overwhelming majority in Cache
County, and the constituents of the members-elect to the State legislature from this
county will expect then to give this sentiment fitting expression. Young Utah has read
history and has there seen the awful results of placing unlimited political power in
ecclesiastical hands, when the merits of candidates were discussed and their fate set-
tled, not in political conventions, but in priesthood meetings. Those days are gone;
but would it not be the same in effect if rival candidates each had to ask the consent
of the same church authority?

The following partial report of the proceedings of the conference
on Tuesday, October 6, is quoted from the Tribune of the 7th:

As on the day before, Moses Thatcher received the major portion of attention from
speakers at yesterday's sessions of the Mormon Church conference. Apostles John
W. Taylor and M. W. Merrill in turn stated their agreement with the majority in
the case. In the afternoon President George Q. Cannon discussed the matter at con-
siderable length, though carefully avoiding mention of Apostle Thatcher's name.
His tone indicated that he regarded the termination of the matter as settled. He
spoke of the unjust condemnation of the priesthood for its course, and told those
who had uttered condemnatory words what their duty now is.

President George Q. Cannon then arose. "Our conference thus far," he began,
"has been of exceeding interest to all who haved shared in its proceedings. Never
have J heard the brethren speak with greater power. I have never felt more edified
by the addresses. It is indeed deeply gratifying that such a measure of the spirit
and power of God should have thus rested upon President Woodruff and upon Presi-
dent Snow. There is no doubt that the saints will depart instructed upon many
points perhaps hitherto hidden from them. Equally there is no doubt that many
surmises have been indulged in and possibly unjust remarks made regarding the
authorities in some of their actions.

"I am glad that the spirit of God has moved President Woodruff and others to
speak on the subject as they have done."

President Cannon explained that while it was the duty of the leaders to take up
the matter as they had, still a feeling of delicacy caused them to shrink from making
the trouble public. He said that the delay owing to this disinclination to act upon
the part of the authorities had resulted in a peculiar condition of affairs arising,
which had been further complicated by the introduction of politics. This made the
brethren in full knowledge of the trouble less inclined than ever to speak. Their
reticence had been misunderstood, their motives misconceived, and themselves held
up for condemnation in many instances. All this had resulted from the kindliness
manifested by the failure to make public a brother's error.

"This should be a warning, a solemn warning, to all of you to not be hasty in
reaching a conclusion or in the censure or condemnation of any one whom God has
placed to preside over you. It is a warning to be careful, for I believe that a great
amount of sin has been committed and the spirit of God grieved, causing darkness

EEED 8MOOT. 957

to many minds because the liberty has been taken, if I may use the word, to con-
demn without understanding all the circumstances of the case mentioned yesterday."

President Cannon referred to a letter from a president of the seventies who at one
time was prominent in Sunday school work, in which the writer said the authorities
had violated the law of the church, and as men standing self-convicted they were
called upon to repent and make amends. This letter, he said, affords an index of
the sentiment that may actuate possibly hundreds.

"Now, God has warned us," he continued, "not to speak evil of the Lord's
anointed. Anyone who finds fault with them is liable to lose the spirit and go into
darkness. The prophet said that fault-finding was one of the first symptoms of
apostacy. God has chosen His servants and claims it as His pierogative to condemn
them and censure them. It is not given to us individually to dp this. No man, no
matter how high in the church, can speak evil of the Lord's anointed without incur-
ring the displeasure of the Lord and losing the spirit. Then how important it is not
to question or censure the heads of the church, no matter how difficult it may be to
comprehend the reasons for their actions.

" Never since the days of Kirtland has there been such a spirit in the church to
do this error as has been shown during the past few years. We have almost feared
to go to some places, owing to the arraignment of our motives and condemnation of
our actions. Yesterday's explanations ought to have the effect of making these peo-
ple who have been finding fault and condemning unjustly, ashamed of themselves,
so that they will ask God's forgiveness for having condemned innocent men. People
are going to apostatize because of this, if they don't repent."

To the careful reader it will be apparent that the proceedings of the
conference in relation to Moses Thatcher, beginning on Sunday and
ending on Tuesday, are guided and inspired by one comprehensive
and efficient mind. Mr. Cannon's avowed loyalty to his aged superior,
his exaltation of the ostensible head of the church to the vice-gerency
under God, his reference to him as the source of plenary authority,
his professions of absolute submission for himself and his brother
officials — all this was, in the nature of things, deeply suggestive to the
venerable president, and next day it bore fruit in the form of harsh
accusation in the speech of one whose guilelessness and gentleness are
light and peace to the church. There were other speeches and exhor-
tations, but they all chimed in harmoniously as parts of the orchestral
performance inaugurated on Sunday. The master mind had touched
the button and a responsive corps of helpers did the rest.

We can only imagine the depth of satisfaction with which the chief
designer could take hold of the clearing-up process on the third day
and thank God that there had been such outpouring of divine grace!
And what a magnificent inning to the first presidency! They had
been censured for too great leniency ! But see now what mountains
there were in the way! See how gallantly we have plucked them up
by the roots and cast them into the sea!

But mark you! it was a ''political document" that caused all this
outpouring of zeal and sentiment; it was the refusal of a beloved
apostle to sign that political document that caused the heavens to
open and the vials of wrath to be poured out; in short, it was a spec-
tacular performance, a shrewdly devised programme with sheet light-
ning and stage thunder in abundance, and all for the purpose of stamped-
ing the faithful saints into an attitude of recognized encroachment on
the political sphere! There were business reasons, too, and these are
heaving in ferment like an angry volcano. Over all let us pay honest
tribute to the sincerity and worth of the body of the saints; their
industry and patience are worthy of all praise.

From the remarks of the leading officials quoted above several
important conclusions may be drawn, as follows:

1. The priesthood organization, as viewed by the first presidency,

958 REED SMOOT.

is the divinely authorized and exclusive channel or communication
between God and mankind, the only instrumentality whereby God
intends to promote his cause and kingdom in the world.

2. The obligations imposed upon those who hold the higher orders
of priesthood require absolute obedience to the first presidency, not
only as to religious and spiritual things, but also those that are civil
and political.

3. Moses Thatcher's disobedience and insubordination lay in his
refusal to submit his civil and political agency to the dictation of his
quorum and his superiors in the priesthood.

4. As shown elsewhere in these pages, the first presidency, the
apostles, and the whole church in conference assembled made solemn
pledges to the people of the United States and the people of Utah
that the church should claim no control or authority over civil and
political functions, and on these pledges statehood was secured. Hence,
in refusing to submit his political agency to the dictation of the church,
Moses Thatcher was keeping the plighted faith of the Mormon church
and people.

5. The decisive act of disobedience of Moses Thatcher was his re-
fusal to sign the manifesto; and for this refusal, as John Henry Smith
remarks, he would have been called to account "within three days"
had it not been for the condition of his health.

6. The specific form of submission that was required of him in order
to his reinstatement in full fellowship with his quorum was to submit
absolutely and unreservedly his religious and political agency to the
counsel and dictation of his quorum and his superiors in the priest-
hood. His want of fellowship was not a lack of love, kindness, and
charity, for he would have given of his means unstintedly to the help
of his brethren, and at the "last call" for money to finish the Temple
he gave $3,500; but this was not what was required; rather was it that
he should surrender his political manhood and independence, and to
this he could not consent, and thank God he could not and did not!

7. It is not intended in these pages to call in question any of the
doctrines of the Mormon faith as a purely religious system; but as to
politics and the civil sphere, the church and the authorities have sur-
rendered control under formal pledge; they have said: "Render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are
God's," and they must not seek to dishonor their pledges. Moreover,
submission to church dictation in political affairs is in opposition to
the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and to the genius of
American institutions.

8. While there is no issue raised in this book against religious doc-
trines, there is a very clear issue made against that operation of
religious doctrines which infringes on the political free agency of the
individual. This opposition is on two grounds: First, it is wrong in
itself as an infraction of the inherent civil rights of the citizen; second,
it is in conflict with the pledges of the church, which has solemnly
renounced all claim or assumption to control in the civil and political
sphere. If Moses Thatcher, in entering the apostleship, made any
pledges or took any vows which compromised his political or civil
freedom, he is in duty bound to renounce them, especially since state-
hood was secured by relinquishing the right to enforce such vows.

REED SMOOT. 959

But it seems that his offense consisted in his refusal to do what would
be a ratification and recognition of such a vow. Such a 'vow, either
in form or effect, would be a crime against the Declaration of Inde-
pendence.

9. The several speakers of the conference, in referring to the mani-
festo, call it a " political document." It is most eminently a "political
document," for it defines and qualifies the political and civil agency of
every man that is subjected to its rule. Yet it is claimed in the name
of religion that such a document should be submitted to! Is not this
claim a usurpation of the functions of the State? President Snow
censures Moses Thatcher because he did not sign the "political docu-
ment" on the strength of the twenty-four names already on it, just as
he says Erastus Snow indorsed the words of George A. Smith — words
spoken while ICrastus Snow was asleep — pronouncing them "God's
truth," when he never heard a word, and gave his "testimony" on the
single ground that he knew George A. Smith was ua man of inspira-
tion and would never say anything untrue." How this process of
believing and knowing things to be true because people say they are
true, may work in religion, is not a matter of inquiry in this connec-
tion; but when it comes to roping in a man's political and civil agency
on such grounds, it is a different matter. It is encroachment on the
State.

10. John Henry Smith gives away his mental processes in a very
open manner. He says that within three days "Moses Thatcher would
have been dealt with had it not been for the state of his health." And
this for not signing the "political document." And what does Mr.
Smith rest his faith on? He says, "I stand by my president and the
presidency of this church in the position they have taken, because I
know they are right." And George Q. Cannon says, " When they (the
twelve apostles) accept the counsel of the first presidency, they do it
because they believe the first presidency to be chosen of God. They
may have different views on many things, but when the first presidency
gives counsel every man that has the Spirit of God accepts that
counsel." Now all this yielding of individual independence of thought
may suffice for religious uses and purposes; but when such machinery
is used to enforce conviction and action within the sphere of a man's
political agency, such as the signing of a "political document," it is in
direct conflict with the spirit and genius of our institutions; it is a mat
ter that demands notice from the world, and every loyal citizen should
enter a protest against such methods when carried into politics. More-
over, the first presidency is recreant to its own pledges when it under
takes to enforce political action through its own alleged inspiration.

CHAPTER THIRD. — Moses Thatcher deposed.

Subsequent to the October conference there was a considerable cor-
respondence between Moses Thatcher and Lorenzo Snow, president of
the quorum of apostles, and as important items appear in the letters
the greater portion of them are herewith presented in the order of
their dates. The first letter recites Mr. Thatcher's exclusion from the
Temple after having been invited by F. D. Richards to meet with the

960 REED SMOOT.

apostles therein. The "notice" to which allusion is made is as follows,
having appeared in the News October 15:

NOTICE.

To the Officers and Members of the Church o$ Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

It having been reported to us that Brother Moses Thatcher has on three different
occasions recently addressed congregations of the saints at Logan, Cache Valley, this,
therefore, is to notify you that by action of the council of first presidency and apos-
tles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the name of Moses Thatcher
was not presented at the general conferences of April and October, 1896, to be sus-
tained in his office as an apostle; and that this action of the authorities, suspending
him from exercising any of the functions of the priesthood, that is, from preaching
the gospel or administering in any of the ordinances thereof, until he, by making
satisfactory amends to his fellow-servants, should be restored to their fellowship and
that of the church.

WILFORD WOODRUFF,
GEORGE Q. CANNON,
JOSEPH F. SMITH,

First Presidency.

Thatcher to Snow.

No. 101 N. WEST TEMPLE STREET,

Salt Lake City, October 16, 1896.
Elder LORENZO SNOW,

President of the Twelve Apostles of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

DEAR BRETHREN: Having in mind the utterances of my file leaders and others at
the late semiannual conference, respecting myself and the attitude in which I was
placed toward the Church of Christ, and those in authority over me in the holy
priesthood, and desiring, if possible, to be in harmony with the quorum over which
you preside, and with that of the first presidency of the church, I endeavored to
meet with you and the brethren at their weekly gathering on Thursday, the 15th
instant, but upon appearing at the door of the Temple was denied admittance.

Later in the day I was furnished by the secretary, George F. Gibbs, a copy of the
general "notice" to the Latter-Day Saints, as published in the Deseret Evening
News of October 15. That was the first notification received of the intended sus-
pension of the functions of the priesthood held by me. I was aware that my name
had not been presented and sustained by the vote of the saints assembled in confer-
ence on April and October last, but no intimation had been given that such action
deprived me of the priesthood or in any way suspended its functions. Had I received
an authoritative intimation that such was the intention, or was in any sense thought
to be desirable, I would have, if possible, avoided occasion for complaint on that
point.

Now, since I am denied the privilege of meeting your quorum for the purpose
explained herein, I humbly and respectfully ask you to furnish me in writing, con-
veying in specific detail the items of all charges of wrongdoing which my brethren
may think proper, or feel constrained to bring against me as objections to my further
continuance as an apostle and fellow-laborer with them in the cause and church of
the Master, our Saviour, to whom I also have dedicated all I have or may hereafter be.

Until the remarks of the brethren delivered at the last general conference, as they
appeared published in the daily press of this city, apprised me of it, I did not know
that they held aught against me, or premeditated the planting of charges against me
on any matter whatever, other than that of my failure to indorse the "declaration"
issued last April relating to political affairs past and present and future, and possibly
complaints, also, respecting my political attitude as relating to political methods,
words and works since the division of the people in Utah on national party lines.

I had understood that my failure to see eye to eye with my brethren or those
civil matters, and for not on short notice indorsing the "declaration" caused the
withholding of my name from the list of apostles as presented to the saints at the
April conference.

The sacred, and as I believe, holy bond of fellowship openly confessed and can-
didly proclaimed many times, eacn to the other, during all the years of your presi-
dency over the twelve apostles, and the sacred places and loving manner in which

REED SMOOT. 961

that bond of "fellowship" was, as I thought, cemented together at least for all past
and present time, if not for eternity, banished from my heart distrust of any kind,
and naturally precluded apprehension, fear, and thought of such darkness and ambi-
tion as that publicly proclaimed as having been the condition in which I had con-
tinued for a number of years.

Under the newly revealed conditions, as stated at conference, it may be seen how
naturally and how easily harmony might fail of its fullest fruition of confidence,
hope, and trustful love, for how could those in the light harmonize with one in the
dark, or how could one in the dark go to the light when not informed respecting
his darkness?

It appears useless at this time, and as a waste of valuable time, for me to ever
allude to the love and labor of the past, for those whose esteem and confidence I
have tried hard to merit may well be trusted to remember of that all that is necessary.

For the light and for truth and for justice as defended in the laws of God I have
sacrificed some things, and am willing when necessary to sacrifice all things. While
greatly improved in health, I am not yet in a physical condition to endure a pro-
longed or severe strain of body or mind, and therefore trust that I shalj be given
sufficient time in which to answer all charges that may be brought against me. As
to anything I have said or done contrary to the commandments of God, I hold
myself bound under His law to answer or plead guilty whenever the charges are
made specific, and have sufficient time so that the exertion shall not again force me
toward the grave, on the verge of which, as you know, I have so long lingered.

My desire is to do right, and to be united with the brethren and those who pre-
side over me, in all that will promote the glory of God and the salvation of man.
For, as I comprehend the lessons of history, he who can not be governed is utterly
unfit to attempt government even in the family relation.

Praying the Lord God of Israel to bless you, and expressing heartfelt gratitude to
you for the considerate, humble, and loving manner in which you have presided
over your brethren of the apostles, and trusting that you are not unwilling that I
should still subscribe myself as your brother in the gospel, I remain, as heretofore,
devoted to the cause of righteousness — the cause of Christ.

MOSES THATCHER.

Snow to Thatcher.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, October %3, 1896.
Elder MOSES THATCHER, City.

DEAR BROTHER: Your communication of the 16th instant was received by me on
the 19th and its contents carefully noted.

Since the writing of your letter the full stenographic report of the remarks of the
brethren made at our late general conference has been published in the Deseret
News, in which their feelings concerning you are quite fully expressed, and you not
having read these published remarks prior to the writing of your communication, I
take it for granted that it will not be necessary for me to explain or answer further.
With kindest regards, your brother,

LORENZO SNOW*

Thatcher to Snow*

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, November 4, 1896.
Elder LOZENZO SNOW,

President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

DEAR BROTHER: While at Logan last week I learned through a letter that Elder
Franklin D. Kichards had called at my home for the purpose of informing me that
yourself and the quorum of apostles desired to meet me, and thought arrangements
could be made to meet in the annex of the temple if I could name a date when I
could be present. Appreciating this kindness and desiring very much to meet again
with my brethren that they might know the inmost feelings of my heart by personal
contact with the spirit that possesses me, I at once sent word desiring that you would
name the time and place of meeting, so as to conform to your own and the conveni-
ence of the brethren, rather than to that of my own. It was my intention to go north
from Logan to see my brother, who resides in Idaho, but on receiving no word as to
when I could meet with you, I returned to this city Thursday — a week ago to-mor-
row— and have daily expected to hear respecting a time when I could see the brethren

s 61

962 REED SMOOT.

once more together. No word having reached me respecting that matter, I adopt
this means of respectfully asking you when such meeting can be arranged. As early
a reply as convenient will greatly oblige.
Your brother in the gospel,

MOSES THATCHEB.

That delays may be avoided, I send this by Elder C. W. Penrose, who has kindly
consented to deliver it promptly to you. M. T.

Snow to Thatcher.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, November 6, 1896.
Elder MOSES THATCHER.

DEAR BROTHER: Your letter of the 4th instant received. In it you state that you
learned last week at Logan, through letter, that Brother Franklin D. Eichards had
called at your home for the purpose of informing you that myself and the quorum of
apostles desired to meet you in the annex of the temple, also intimating that it ia
our desire that you name a date when you could be present. I wish to correct this
impression, the quorum, as such, not having expressed themselves in regard to this
matter. Doubtless the misunderstanding arose from the fact that some time ago an
appointment was made to meet with you in the temple annex, which appointment
was not kept owing to your physical inability to do so, as we learned verbally through
Brother John Henry Smith. But since then the council of first presidency and apos-
tles felt it to be due to the late general conference that something should be said by
way of explanation for withholding the presentation of your name to be sustained by
the conference as one of the general authorities of the church, which resulted in the
remarks of the brethren on this subject, as published in full in the News. Since then,,
also, a card has been published over the signatures of the first presidency, informing
the officers and members of the church that the withholding of your name from going
before the last two conferences suspended you from exercising the functions of your
priesthood, the publication of this card having been made necessary, contrary to our
expectations, by your addressing public congregations of the saints in your suspended
condition. Since then, too, I sent you the following, under date of the 23d ultimo.
(See above.)

I may say that the foregoing was in response to your communication in which you
desired that whatever charges your brethren might think proper to make against you,
that the same be specifically made in writing, etc. In penning the foregoing I hoped
that further correspondence would not be indulged in by you, but that just as soon
as you fully realized your true position you would not rest until you had conferred
with me personally in regard to arranging for an interview with your quorum for the
purpose of regaining your fellowship. I repeat, I hoped your feelings would have
prompted you to do this, and I felt warranted in believing that your wisdom would
have led you to do it; but in this I was disappointed, and so were your brethren, one
and all.

This being the condition of affairs, you were not admitted to the temple on the
forenoon of Thursday, 15th ultimo; for the further reason, also, that the meeting of
that day was not a meeting of our quorum, but the regular council meeting of the
first presidency and apostles, at which business of pressing importance was to be
attended to, which could not be deferred for consideration of your suspension.

In accordance with your wisKes for a meeting, I take pleasure in appointing
2 o'clock on Thursday next at the historian's office, upon which occasion the quorum
will be pleased to meet with you. With kindest regards, your brother and fellow
servant.

LORENZO SNOW.

The following letter presents a general review of all the facts and
circumstances leading up to and terminating in Mr. Thatcher's deposi-
tion from the priesthood:

Thatcher to Snow.

LOGAN, CACHE COUNTY, UTAH, November 11, 1896.
Elder LORENZO SNOW,

President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and members of the Quorum.
DEAR BRETHREN: By way of preface to a request I am about to make of you, my
brethren, I humbly ask your attention while I review briefly the reasons which lead
me to make it.

REED SMOOT. 963

My name was regularly presented to the people, and I was regularly sustained in
my position in the church until the 6th day of April, 1896. On that day at noon,
and never before, a document was presented to me for my signature. I was then
confined to my room with what I considered at that time a fatal illness; I was given
about an hour and thirty minutes within which to consider a matter of vital impor-
tance, not only to myself, but, in my opinion, to the people. I could not see my way
clear to sign it without stultification, and I so informed you by letter. In about two
hours from that time my name was unceremoniously dropped from the list of apos-
tles presented to the conference for confirmation. No reason for your action was
given, and my letter of explanation was, for reasons best known to yourselves,
suppressed.

Matters went on this way, until a day or so before the funeral of our lamented
brother, Abraham H. Cannon, I called upon President Woodruff and told him I
desired to be relieved of all responsibility for a while in order to regain my health
and strength. He acquiesced. Subsequently, I was informed by Brother C. W.
Pen rose that the brethren were willing for me to lay aside all care and go away if I
desired, and that nothing further would be done concerning my standing until I
should be fully restored to health, if it took six months, a year, or even two years.
And these representations of Brother Penrose have since been confirmed by several
members of our quorum.

I then went to Logan Canyon, where I remained about six weeks. While there
rumors began to circulate that my case would be taken up, notwithstanding the
promises which had been given me. These rumors did not reach me at the time,
but they reached my son, Moses Thatcher, jr., who at once went to the city, where
he called at President Woodruff's office in company with his brother Preston and
Bishop W. B. Preston. While waiting for an opportunity to see President Wood-
ruff, Brother Brigham Young entered, and to him my son told the object of his visit.
Then Brother Young went into the president's office.' After a while President Snow,
Apostles Eichards, Young, and Smith, Bishop Preston, and others came out from
President Woodruff's office and assured my son that they had delivered his message
to President Woodruff, and that he and all the brethren present had unanimously
decided that nothing whatever would be done in my matter until I felt mentally and
physically able to meet with the brethren. President Snow bade my son to convey
o me that message, which he did by returning home and driving to my camp, 30
miles up Logan Canyon. When President Woodruff at that meeting was reminded
of his former promise to me, he said that he had not seen me, and that I had not
called on him for many months. Bishop Preston reminded him of my visit a day or
so before Brother Abraham H. Cannon's funeral, and of our conversation at the time,
whereupon he recalled the circumstance, and then said that he remembered dis-
tinctly what had transpired on that occasion.

Had it not been for the assurances and reassurances given me I would have
attended the conference before which, in my absence, I wTas publicly accused.

Upon my return to Logan from the canyon I was dum founded on reading and
hearing reports of the treatment I had received at conference. Feeling, however,
that there might be some reason unknown to me for your apparent change of mind,
I went to Salt Lake on purpose to ascertain the truth, if possible. On my way to
the office of President Woodruff, Wednesday, October 14, I met Bro. Franklin D.
Richards. I told him that I expected to meet with my quorum at their regular
meeting on the following day. He replied that they would be delighted to have me.
I asked if there could be any objection to it. He assured me that there would not
be and that he could vote for it with both hands.

Accordingly, I went to the temple next day at the regular hour, and was informed
that the presidency of the church had given orders not to admit me into the temple.
I was surprised and grieved, but one thought consoled me, and that was that during
the last six months of the construction of the temple, now closed against me, I had
given $3,500 toward its completion, and if I had it to do over again I would give
even more. No reason was given for refusing me admittance; no explanation was
offered, not even by the one who had assured me of a welcome with both hands.

I went home distressed and with such a flood of sorrow in my heart compared with
which the pain and sufferings of five years were like a drop to the ocean. I asked
God for light and wisdom; I searched the innermost depths of my soul; I reviewed
my whole life and my record in the church to find some excuse for the action taken,
but in vain. As it seemed I was cut off from communication with you in every other
way, I wrote to the president of my quorum asking what my brethren had against
me, pleading humbly and respectfully for the charges, specifically stated, that I
might have a chance to prove my innocence or plead guilty.

Before I heard from you I had gone to Logan with the intention of visiting my
brother, who resides in Idaho. While in Logan word reached me that Bro. Franklin
D. Richards had called at my home in Salt Lake City to see me. He left word that

964 EEED SMOOT.

my quorum desired me to meet with them, and thought such meeting might be
arranged in the temple annex, if I would name the day when I could be present. I
immediately, sent word to him that I did not desire to set the time, but would leave
the time and place of meeting with the quorum, desiring to conform to their con-
venience.

Not hearing anything further about the matter, I returned to Salt Lake, where I
waited several days and wrote you again, meantime receiving the following answer
to my request for specific charges. (See above October 23.)

This communication changed the face of the whole matter, because in it I am cited
to the public press to read the accusations made against me in public meetings before
the saints in general conference assembled and before the world. I am told to go to
a newspaper and there read what my brethren have said about me and against me,
and to these public utterances published to all mankind I am to make my answer.

But, owing to the word sent me by Bro. F. D. Richards, I still thought you might
possibly have other communications to make, outside of the published declarations
to which you referred me in your letter of October 23, and, being in the city in
response to that request, I therefore wrote you on the 4th of November asking for
information as to when that meeting would be called.

In reply I received a letter from you, President Snow, dated November 6, 1896, in
which you repeat in full your letter, of October 23, thus indicating that the public
declarations made in conference covered all the charges against me. You say further
that you had hoped that I would write no more after receiving your letter of October
23, and that I should have lost no time in seeking you personally after receiving that
letter, and that you, one and all, were disappointed at my lack of wisdom after
receiving that letter, and that therefore the temple wTas closed against me on the
15th day of October. Believe me, it is hard to understand how any supposed disre-
gard of a letter written October 23 should cause the temple to be closed against me
on the 15th of the same month, or eight days before. Be that as it may, I desire to
make a simple request of you, to which, I am sure, your sense of justice and honor
will acquiesce. It is this: As I was accused in public I desire to meet the charges
in public. Although the judges before whom I am to be arraigned have nearly all
expressed an opinion as to the merits of my case; although my accusers are to sit in
judgment over me; although a verdict has already been delivered against me and
without a hearing, and in the most public manner; still will I be willing to submit
my case to them, to place in their keeping, not only my life, but that which is dearer
to me than life — only asking for the defense the same publicity which has been
given the prosecution.

It has been written, "If any shall offend in secret he shall be rebuked ir, secret,"
but I have been reibuked in public, and therefore ask a hearing in pubLc. I am
moved to make this request, not only because my brethren have, one after another,
accused me before congregations of saints, nor because the door of the temple has
been closed in my face, nor because Brother Joseph F. Smith in the last Logan confer-
ence classed me as one of the enemies of the church and publicly reprimanded my
former bishop for mentioning me in his prayers; but also because, in a conversation
with President Lorenzo Snow, on the train between Salt Lake and Brigham City last
Saturday, November 7, I was given the impression that I have absolutely nothing to
hope for in any other than a public hearing such as I nowT request. I shall not trouble
my brethren, therefore, to convene in a special meeting named for Thursday at 2
o'clock p. m. in the historian's office.

In conclusion, brethren, I desire to say that nothing could shake my faith in the

everlasting gospel. All the trials and afflictions through which I have passed leave
me firm in my belief. I am devoted to my church, my people, and my God. I have
willingly made every sacrifice required of me. I have given freely of my time and
means to the upbuilding of the kingdom of God. I have never shirked a responsi-
bility placed upon me. If I have done wrong it is because I am mortal, but I bear
no consciousness of wrongful intent. If I have not been in harmony with my
brethren of the quorum of the twelve on religious matters I was not aware of it till
their public declarations to that effect. Have not frequent authoritative declarations
been made in public during the last few years as to the perfect harmony existing
between all the members of the quorum and the first presidency? With those made
so often in sacred places you are familiar. It is very hard to understand why, in
the face of these, the public should now be informed that we have not been in har-
mony for years.

Brethren, this matter may seem trivial to you, for in your hands is placed the
judgment, while I stand in the position of a victim. Misapprehension as to the mo-
tives prompting my action during all the years of my official life may be the result
of misinformation; and prejudice, once aroused, increases, as you know, like an
avalanche. If there is aught in word or act of mine since I have been a member
of the church that I would not have published upon the housetops, I do not know

EEED SMOOT. 965

it; and yet I am aware that any man is liable to become darkened in his mind, who,
nevertheless, may still desire to do right and be just in all things. Therefore, I
beseech you, that mercy have its claims, then award to justice, under the laws of
God, all its demands; remembering always that it is a serious matter to judge even
in small concerns, but it becomes of great magnitude when involving that which is
more precious than life.

Your brother and fellow-laborer, MOSES THATCHER.

Snow to Thatcher.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, November 12, 1896.
Elder MOSES THATCHER, Logan.

DEAR BROTHER: This is to notify you that at a meeting of the quorum of twelve
apostles held to-day, it was resolved that as you are not in fellowship with the
council, your case will be called up for consideration and action at a meeting to be
held for that purpose at 10 a. m. on Thursday, the 19th instant, at the historian's
office, this city.

With kind regards, your brother,

LORENZO SNOW.

Thatcher to Snow.

101 NORTHWEST TEMPLE STREET,
Salt Lake City, Utah, November 17, 1896.
Elder LORENZO SNOW, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

DEAR BROTHER: On the llth instant I wrote you a somewhat lengthy letter in
which, after reviewing my case, I asked that the same publicity be given my de-
fence as that given to the complaints and accusations made against me.

My son, George F. Thatcher, delivered to you that communication about 10 o'clock
a. rn. , the following day. At noon on the 13th instant, Brother Isaac Smith, of the
Cache stake presidency, handed me a letter from you, of which the following is a
copy. (See above, November 12) .

As no reference is made to my communication of the llth instant in yours of the
12th, I am in doubt as to wrhether the latter was intended to be a reply to the
former or not; but as no other wprd has reached me I suppose I should so regard it,
especially in view of the fact that the action of the apostles respecting my case was
evidently taken after the delivery to you of my letter of the llth instant.

You say: "Your case will be called up for consideration and action at a meeting
to be held for that purpose at 10 a. m., on Thursday, the 19th inst." Am I war-
ranted in concluding that you intended that declaration to be a denial of my request
for a public hearing? And, if so, am I 10 understand that " consideration " and
"action" mean that my trial will commence on the date and at the time and place
mentioned? If that is the intention, am I, as heretofore directed by you, to defend
myself against or plead to the charges as published in the Deseret Evening News of
October 17? And, if so, will the charges be presented one at a time, or considered
as a whole? In either event, will those making the charges be present to hear my
witnesses? Will I be permitted to bring with me and introduce the testimony of
those willing to testify in my behalf? Is the "manifesto" regarding church dis-
cipline in political affairs and for the failure to sign which, it was understood at the
time, I was suspended from exercising the functions of the apostleship, to be intro-
duced as any part of the charges against me?

As I will have to call witnesses from various points, I shall greatly appreciate as
early a reply as possible.

Very respectfully, your brother in the gospel,

MOSES THATCHER.

Snow to Thatcher.

NOVEMBER 18, 1896.
Elder MOSES THATCHER, City.

DEAR BROTHER: I am in receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, in which you
advise me of the receipt by you of a communication signed by myself in behalf of
the quorum of twelve, and dated November 12. You ask whether my letter was in-
tended to be a reply to a former communication which you sent to me, in which you

966 EEEJ> SMOOT.

had requested a public hearing. You also ask, if this be so, are you to understand
that " consideration" and " action" mean that your trial will commence on the day
and at the time and place mentioned; and further, if that is the intention, are you
to defend yourself or plead to the charges as published in the Deseret Evening News
of October 17, and, if so, will the charges be presented one at a time or considered as
a whole; also, in either event, will those making the charges be present to hear your
witnesses, and will you be permitted to bring with you and introduce the testi-
monies of those willing to testify in your behalf. You further ask whether the
document regarding church discipline which you failed to sign will be introduced as
any part of the charges against you.

In reply to these queries, I have to say that the quorum of the apostles do not con-
sider your request for public hearing a proper one — for this reason : It is not your stand-
ing in the church that is at issue, but your fellowship with the brethren of your own
quorum. This is the business to be settled between yourself and us, and when this
is settled satisfactorily there will be no difficulty remaining concerning the document
on church discipline. You have been informed on several occasions that the mem-
bers of your quorum could not fellowship your spirit and conduct. Several of them
have waited upon you and informed you that the twelve felt that you should make
amends and take proper steps to restore yourself to their fellowship. This, therefore,
is not a matter for the general public, nor for the presence of witnesses. You your-
self are the principal party interested, and if you can take the necessary steps, which
are altogether within your own power, there need not be the least difficulty about
you having the fellowship of your fellow apostles. This has always been the course
taken in our church from the beginning to the present time. If the question of your
fellowship with the church should be brought forward at any time, it will then be
for the church to give you such a hearing as will enable its members to express them-
selves as to whether they will hold you in fellowship or not.
With kind regards., your brother,

LORENZO SNOW.

Thatcher to Snow.

No. 101 NORTHWEST TEMPLE STREET,

Salt Lake City, Utah, November 18, 1896.
Elder LORENZO SNOW, President of the Quorum of Twelve.

DEAR BROTHER: Your esteemed favor of even date, replying to my letter of yes-
terday, was handed me this evening and its contents have been carefully considered.
As there is to be no trial of my case, and as I am not requested to be present, I take
it to be the purpose, as heretofore notified, that the quorum meet on the morrow
for the purpose of considering my case and determining what I must do before I can
again enjoy the fellowship of my brethren of the twelve apostles.

Beyond the public action taken at the annual conference on the 6th of April last,
which suspended me within a few hours after my failure to sign the document regard-
ing church discipline on political matters, and your citations to the remarks of the
brethren as published in the Deseret News of October 17 about me, I know of noth-
ing upon which to found requirements in my case; and since judgment in those mat-
ters has been already passed, the necessity for presenting, through witnesses or
otherwise, any defense in my behalf seems obviated. I can, therefore, only wait
with great concern and deep anxiety your findings and specifying the conditions
upon which I may regain the fellowship of my brethren and restoration to the offi-
cial position heretofore held in the church, and the duties and obligations of which
I have sought earnestly, honestly, and prayerfully to discharge. The thought of the
permanent loss of that exalted position and of your fellowship, and of the consequent
humiliation and bitterness that may follow, are very dreadful — I shrink from the
contemplation. It seems a sad ending — a fruitless reward for thirty years or more
of earnest and devoted work in a cause that has inspired and does still inspire the
best efforts of a life, subject, of course, to human weaknesses and human errors, but
nevertheless devoted and true.

I can not — brethren I utterly fail to feel that I deserve the fate that now seems
hanging over me. Pardon, I did not intend to plead my cause. Only let me remind
you, brethren, of how the Lord has required us to use'the priesthood — persuasion,
gentleness, brotherly kindness, patience, love. This in the interest of mercy. Try
each of you to place or imagine yourself placed in my position. Remember if you
can, that there is none of you, no, not one, for whose peace and happiness I would
not give all I have, and for the preservation of whose liberties and rights I would

REED SMOOT. 967

not, if necessary, sacrifice even niy life. As proof, if you require proof, I refer you
to records of the past. So, as you would be judged, judge me. Then submit that
judgment, give me reasonable time to consider it, and if I can harmonize my con-
science and convictions respecting justice, truth, and honor with your findings and
requirements I shall do so gladly and with a heart full of grateful acknowledgments
to Him whose servants we have all been glad to be.

Praying the Lord to direct your minds in all things and uphold and sustain you
now and hereafter, I remain, your fellow laborer in the gospel.

MOSES THATCHER.

In answer to that appeal the following curt notice was sent:

Snow to Thatcher.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, November 19, 1896.
Hon. MOSES THATCHER, City.

DEAR BROTHER: It becomes my painful duty as the president of the twelve apostles
to inform you that, at a meeting of that body held to-day, November 19, 1896, at
which all the living members of the council, excepting yourself, were present, it was
decided, after a full consideration and individual expression of everyone present, to
sever you from the council of the twelve apostles and deprive you of your apostleship
and other offices in the priesthood.

I remain, your brother, LORENZO SNOW.

The following notice appeared in the evening of the same day in the
Deseret News:
To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

This is to inform you that at a meeting of the council of apostles held this day (Thurs-
day, November 19, 1896), there being present Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards
Brigham Young, Francis M. Lyman, John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J.
Grant, John W. Taylor, Marriner W. Merrill, and Anthon H. Lund, \vhich meeting
was called for the purpose of considering and taking action on the case of Elder
Moses Thatcher — and of which meeting and its object he had been duly notified —
after a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and after each apostle
present had expressed himself upon the subject, it was unanimously decided that
Moses Thatcher be severed from the council of the twelve apostles, and that he be
deprived of his apostleship and other offices in the priesthood.

LORENZO SNOW,
President Council of Twelve Apostles.

REMARKS.

We see that Mr. Thatcher was denied a public trial, although he
sought diligently to have the charges specifically set out and passed on
at a public hearing; and this was clearly his right as an American cit-
izen, and particularly because he had been by a concerted action among
certain leaders accused in open conference. Public sentiment, to
which the speakers of the conference appealed, should unite with the
broader sentiment of honest men throughout the world in condemna-
tion of a star chamber procedure that persistently refuses to make a
defense as public as the accusations. It shows unmistakable indications
of narrowness, prejudice, and injustice.

President Snow says, in his letter of November 18, of the offense for
which it was sought to try Moses Thatcher, "it is not a matter for the
general public, nor for the presence of witnesses. You yourself are
the principal party interested, and if you can take the necessary
steps — which are altogether within your own power — there need not
be the least difficulty about having the fellowship of }rour fellow-
apostles." He says in the same connection, "the members of your
quorum could not fellowship your spirit and conduct." "It is not
your standing in the church that is at issue, but your fellowship with

968 REED SMOOT.

the brethren of your quorum." Hence, there was no offense charged
that concerned the public; there was no misdemeanor, no infraction of
the moral or civil law, no personal wrong against any brother or
sister; it was not anything that required witnesses to make accusation
or vindication.

What was it, then, that was required of Moses Thatcher ? It was
simply submission and self-abnegation, a renunciation of selfhood to
the control of his quorum and those in higher authority. He had
declined to indorse the manifesto. He had formerly indorsed a rule
that prohibited the leading officials from participating in political
affairs as partisan leaders. He believed that restriction was proper
and right under the circumstances. But when the first presidency
concluded to rescind that rule and " counseled" that some should go
out and speak and organize for a certain party while others should,
because they favored an opposite party, hold their peace, under these
circumstances Moses Thatcher refused to be controlled by a "counsel"
which he knew to be morally wrong in itself, as also in conflict with
pledges which the chief authorities were at that time making to the
people of Utah and the United States in order to secure statehood. It
was in such matters and under such conditions that Moses Thatcher
refused to be made a subservient tool in the hands of certain of his
quorum and ecclesiastical superiors to carry out a nefarious policy of
religious tyranny and political infamy.

In all this, according to President Snow, he showed a "rebellious
spirit." For such conduct he is called "rebellious and worldly
minded." Hence, what he was now required to do was that he should

fo to his quorum and make a full renunciation of his rights and nian-
ood as an American citizen. He must renounce the inspiration of
the Declaration of Independence; he must eschew the freedom and
equality that constitute our birthright of civil liberty. And all this
he must do, notwithstanding the solemn pledges of the Mormon Church
and authorities that no man's civil and political agency should be com-
promised or infringed by priestly authority. Not only this, he must
also fly in the face of the Constitution of the United States, and the
very expressive clause which he himself caused to be inserted in the
constitution of the State of Utah — a clause pronouncing most emphat-
ically and unambiguously in behalf of a complete separation of church
and state, as follows:

SEC. 4. The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or
for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or
juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union
of church and state, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its
functions. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any
religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical
establishment. No property qualifications shall be required of any person to vote or
hold office, except as provided in this constitution.

Such personal renunciation and self -subjection as was required of
Moses Thatcher by the president of his quorum is nothing new in the
history of religious societies. Every Jesuit is under such vows;
almost all monastic organizations require such a surrender; but they
are all wrong; they are all inimical to liberty, and the genius of Amer-
ican citizenship is utterly hostile to such abnormal religious serfdom.
No difference what church ordains such ordinances, they are all

EEED SMOOT. 969

opposed to the true spirit of progress, and the Mormon Church has
already solemnly pledged itself against them.

We see in the procedure in the case of Moses Thatcher the course
to be pursued in all similar cases of discipline for infraction of the
rule of "counsel" promulgated in the manifesto. If an officer in the
Mormon Church refuses to " counsel" in regard to a nomination to a
political office, his refusal will be a "breach of fellowship" with his
quorum. He will be called upon to "humble himself;" to renounce
his "ambitions;" to abdicate his political independence. If he "sub-
mits" to a satisfactory degree, that submission restores his fellowship
on the basis of an emasculated manhood and civil agency. The offense
is now wiped out; he is henceforth redeemed from the infection of
Jeffersonian Democracy; he is absorbed into the general control of
"counsel" which says to one man "come," and hecometh; to another
it says "go," and he goeth.

Note that Moses Thatcher was not to be tried for his refusal to sign
the "political document," although, as one apostle says, "he should
have been called to account within three days for that refusal, except
for his poor health at the time." No; there would be no public trial
for such an offense. The idea is preposterous! The political sagacity
that rules in high councils is not going to give away its cause in that
unsophisticated manner, for it would raise an insurmountable protest
in the minds of the public.

But while there would be no trial for the specific offense of refusing
to sign the "political document," the "submission" that was required
would be such that no other refusal would ever occur, for the man's
spirit would be subdued and molded into complete ecclesiastical serfdom.

But why not have a public trial, if the rule is right in the sight of
God and man ? Why not that which is spoken in the ear proclaim
from the housetops? Alas, the ways of "counsel" are not so! If the
rule is maintained and rigidly enforced, so far as the Mormon people
are concerned, there is an end of Jeffersonian Democracy in Utah. As
well could light subsist with darkness, freedom with bondage, as that
"counsel" should dictate the nominations to political and civil offices,
and not destroy the independence and individuality that are the life
and inspiration of Jeffersonian Democracy and true Republicanism.

CHAPTER FOURTH. — The questions involved.

If Moses Thatcher is right in his dissent, as it is confidently believed
these pages will demonstrate, the future history of Utah will rank him
as one of her greatest benefactors, For, if he is right, his truth will
prevail over error in the minds of the people and be the means of
escape from untold tribulations. Throughout nearly half a century
Utah has been a storm center within the American Republic. Beneath
all the ostensible causes of disturbance, such as polygamy was made
to be in the estimation of the masses, in the minds of the real states-
men of the country, those who have always shaped its policy, there
was one menace — and only one in fact — the tendency of some of the
Mormon leaders to lay hands on the functions of the government and
subvert the State by a theocratic regime that strikes at the very life
of our free institutions.

If such fears are confirmed in the development of Utah politics;
if the offices of the State shall become subordinated to the dictation of

970 REED SMOOT.

the church; if the will of the people and the government of the people
shall become tributary to the will and the counsels of a priestly junta;
if the Declaration of Independence shall be made null and void by a
religious priesthood, slowly but surely a cloud will gather in the sky
of American patriotism, Utah's representatives in Congress will be
discredited, her population will be divided into hostile bands, the
power of a hundred millions of people will frown in defiance of an
attempt to subvert the Republic, and in the end there will be violence
and loss of life; the whole State will be storm swept; every vestige of
offense will be swept away.

It will be shown in this discussion that the rule of discipline in ques-
tion is in substantial conflict with pledges and guarantees made by the
Mormon Church and the leading officials thereof to the people of the
United States — pledges made in behalf of full and complete civil lib-
erty, individual freedom, and the entire separation of church and state.
Indeed, the following pages will render it difficult to apprehend how
any faithful adherent to the rule can at once with a clear conscience,
and ordinary intelligence, claim, in either letter or spirit, to fulfill the
pledges thus made.

The gist of the rule sought to be enforced is that every member of
the church, and particularly every " leading official," shall first take
" counsel " and be authorized by the ' ' proper authorities " in the church
in order to render service in the state. No officer or member can even
"accept a nomination" to office in the state without first seeking
"counsel" in the way of authorization. In short, the rule means, in
effect, that the state shall subsist in and through the " counsel" of the
church.

It is not unreasonable for the people to demand of Moses Thatcher
that he show good and sufficient reasons for nonconformity to the
regulations of his church; for a church has a recognized right to pre-
scribe a system of rules and regulations for the guidance of its mem-
bers, and no communicant has it within his own discretion to dissent
from such rules, unless he can show ample grounds for noncompliance.
In response to this demand Moses Thatcher is presented in the follow-
ing pages as resting upon the most important and substantial reasons
for his conduct, as indicated in the following propositions.

1. The rule in both letter and spirit conflicts with the political faith
of Moses Thatcher, as shown from his conduct, sermons, speeches, and
writings during previous years. Extracts will be presented sufficient
to show that he could not, without self -stultification, indorse a rule
whose meaning and effect he would, from his long experience in the
church, know to be inimical to liberty and destructive of the state.

2. The rule will be shown to be in conflict with the sacred pledges
of the church assembled in general conference and of high church
officials, these pledges having been made in order to encourage a pro-
posed division on national party lines and to promote statehood for
Utah. Some of these pledges will be presented in these pages to show
that the church and leading authorities entered into solemn covenant
with the people of Utah and of the United States. And inasmuch as
the people of the whole country accepted such pledges and ratified
them in good faith, it is implied that the covenants thus made are
expressed in terms conveying the common and accepted meaning that
the people naturally and necessarily attach to words thus used to
beget confidence and cooperation. There can be no toleration of a

EEED SMOOT. 971

double sense of language, no allowance shown to mental reservation,
All must be clean and open in the full sense of frankness and manly
integrity.

3. It will be shown that the rule is in conflict with the independence
and freedom of the state, and that it tends to absorb the state into the
church and make it the mere function and agent of a priestly junta.
The rule is in conflict with the constitution of Utah, the Declaration
of Independence, and the genius and spirit of American institutions.

4. The questions herein discussed are eminently adapted to awaken
and educate the minds of the people in the principles of liberty and
the spirit of American institutions. These are problems of sovereignty
and statehood. They could not arise among other than a people seek-
ing to be free and self-governing, and we venture to say tha"t this dis-
cussion will deepen and quicken our sense of their sacredness and
significance.

CHAPTEK FIFTH. — Moses Thatcher on church and state.

In discussing the political pledges made b}r the Mormon Church
and authorities, it is important to begin with Moses Thatcher; for
during many years past his convictions in relation to church and state
have been in accord with those of the most democratic of American
statesmen. Throughout active manhood he has understood and cher-
ished the inspirations of liberty and equality out of which originate
government by and for the people.

A further reason for giving prominence to his opinions on church
and state is that at the beginning of the u division movement" his
attitude was a subject of discussion, and his unambiguous utterances
in behalf of American principles had a tendency to quiet and reassure
those who had fears as to the wisdom of promoting statehood for
Utah. It was not known until long afterwards that Moses Thatcher
was by some of his brethren considered too direct in his utterances.
It now appears that he was severely reprimanded for the democracy
of his politics; and at the Logan high council meeting he was the
subject of bitter censure by Joseph F. Smith for his Ogden Opera
House speech, delivered May 14, 1892. Joseph F. Smith and John
Henry Smith made a caustic reply soon afterwards, but it seems that
Joseph F. Smith was not satisfied; he desired to reenforce his argu-
ments with ecclesiastical torture; and it is due to Mr. Thatcher to say
that the unrelenting vindictiveness with which he has been pursued is
due to the ire of certain priestly leaders who feel chagrined because
of his refusal to be a party with them in carrying out political machi-
nations that betray and violate the plighted faith of the Mormon
Church and authorities.

And Mr. Joseph F. Smith must remember that the utterances of
Moses Thatcher, which he now condemns, were at the time greatly
instrumental in procuring statehood and in building up the party of
Jefferson in Utah. Had it been known at the time that Moses Thatcher
was an offending member of the Mormon Church, and that he was
imperiling his official standing for his outspoken Americanism, there
would have been no statehood for Utah so long as it was manifest that
in the hearts of certain Mormon leaders there existed such rancorous
hostility to the principles of civil liberty. But as Mr. Thatcher's
opinions were scattered broadcast among the people, inducing many

972 REED SMOOT.

to favor statehood who would not otherwise have done so; and, as his
utterances were not repudiated by any public action of the chief
church authorities, but left rather to contribute to the formation of
statehood sentiment, under such a state of facts we are compelled to
classify his declarations among those that bind the Mormon Church to
a complete separation of church and state.

A very telling little address was delivered by Moses Thatcher at. the
Salt Lake Theater, July 30, 1891, and was briefly reported by the
Herald as follows:

The Democrats held a rousing meeting at the Salt Lake Theater last evening.

Hon. Moses Thatcher was there as a listener. While the meeting was being
adjourned the vast audience demanded that he speak.

Mr. Dyer .stepped forward to say that the meeting was at an end, but cries for-
Moses Thatcher resounded from all parts of the house, and Mr. Thatcher finally
stepped to the front and said:

" For reasons which I think sufficient I have taken no active part in this cam-
paign— not because I was not in sympathy with the grand old Democratic party, but
because there are many people in Utah throughout the length and breadth of the
land who believe the church dominates the state in Utah. Because of the ecclesi-
astical position which I occupy I desire to say no word in this campaign, but look to
these gentlemen for the educating of the people. A great hero of many battles, who
had shot and shell tear up the ground at his feet, and who had seen the blood of
those who wore the blue and the gray flow in streams, said to Lee when the latter
surrendered afnd handed him his sword, 'No, General, not a horse or a mule. You
will need them all for your spring plowing.' It is a glorious thing to be magnani-
mous. You may look on that picture and then turn and look on this. The Mormon
people are sincere. [Tremendous applause.]

We trust the Gentile Democrats and Mormon Democrats alike, because they can
not go back on their promises without stultification. Stultification is dishonor, and
to us dishonor is worse than death. [Prolonged applause.] I am opposed to a
union of church and state and always have been. [Applause. ] It can not exist under
the American system of government. [Applause. ] We have never been understood,
but thank God we will be.

This speech means that as General Grant was magnanimous in that
he was generous, having all power in his hands, so also the Mormon
people are greatly in the majority, but they also are magnanimous, for
they do not desire to rely upon numbers, but upon principles. They
do not believe in the union of church and state, and the people can.
confide in their faithfulness to the American system of government.

In a sermon preached at Logan in April, 1892, on the "Evils resulting
from the union of church and state," Mr. Thatcher gave an exhaustive
review of the whole subject as shown up in sacred and secular history.
He traced the sacred records down to the time of Christ, when he com-
manded that the people " render unto Caesar the things that are Csesar's
and unto God the things that are God's." He took up the union of
church and state effected in European countries and the action of the
people who fled to America for freedom.

uThen came the struggle for nationality," he continued, "that finally
found voice in the Declaration of Independence demanding advanced
human rights as outlined in the Constitution, an instrument inspired
of God. Its writers, profiting by the experience of the past, made
religious liberty its chief corner stone, but avoided a union of church
and state. Without violation of that sacred charter of human rights
Congress can pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or
preventing the free exercise thereof. To that guarantee of the Con-
stitution we owe our existence as a church."

Probably as clear and concise a statement as will be found of Mr.
Thatcher's position is given in his letter to the reconvened convention,

REED SMOOT. 973

which met at Salt Lake, October 22, 1895, the following report being
from the Salt Lake Herald:

LOGAN, UTAH, October 21, 1895.
Hon. 0. W. POWERS,

• Chairman Democratic Territorial Committee, and members of the reconvened convention.
GENTLEMEN: Owing to the unsatisfactory condition of my health, which renders it

impossible for me to be with you, I adopt this means of conveying to your honorable
body a statement of my position on questions arising from the very serious crisis
which, without volition of the Democratic party, now confronts us, and in the proper
and permanent solution of which, as I view it, is involved the honor, peace, pros-
perity, and liberty of Utah's inhabitants. [Applause.]

As heretofore, when treating on political issues, I have sought to be candid and
straightforward in word and act, and the conditions now confronting us, as well as
my honor and that of the party of which I am a member, demand that I should
continue along those lines, leaving 'nothing of a doubtful nature upon which to
found an argument as to my position, either by friends or by political opponents.
[Hearty applause.]

My connection with the matters relating to the present grave crisis would appear
to warrant a brief statement of my political acts since the division of the citizens of
Utah on national and local political questions.

At the outset, I was strongly impressed with the idea that it would be better for the
ecclesiastical officers of the dominant religious society in Utah, as well as in the
interest and welfare of the people, for prominent church officials, including the
members of the first presidency, the twelve apostles and the presidents of the quorum
of seventies, not to involve themselves in active partisan politics, believing that their
influence should be brought to bear against the acrimonious jealousies likely to arise
in a contest over questions in which the masses of the people were not then well
informed. In other words, that these high ecclesiastical authorities might be called
upon to pour oil on the politically disturbed waters of our fair Territory, a task
which I then and now believe can be successfully performed by those only who had
not become partisan in their political preferences, and I believe that action in har-
mony with those ideas was, about that time, taken, but was shortly thereafter, as I
remember, ignored, and that, as the record, I think, will show, not by members of
the Democratic party, but by their Kepublican political opponents.

* * * I need waste none of the time of this reconvened convention in an argu-
ment respecting the political struggles in this Territory during the past three years;
nor need I add anything on the question of church influence being directly or
indirectly to the injury of one party and correspondingly to the benefit of another,
because that question has been fully discussed during the period to which I allude.

From the beginning, in nearly all, if not all, of my political addresses and private
conversations I have uniformly sought to impress upon the minds of the people the
absolute separation of church and state, holding that the civil obligations of the
citizen should in no degree trammel the exercise of a man's religious obligations,
nor, on the other hand, should the exercise of his religious duties interfere with his
obligations to the state and nation whose citizen he was; maintaining always that
there were no presidents, apostles, nor other church officials, as such, in politics, and
that the freedom of the citizen in these matters was not the gift of any man or com-
binations of men, but a bequest from the fathers who, for the benefit of themselves,
their posterity, and future generations, placed their honor, their fortunes, and their
lives upon the alter of human liberty. * * *

Many Democrats, if not the majority in Utah, have been made to feel that they
were, more or less, under a religious ban, and have had to endure the slurs, if not
the direct insults, tauntingly and sneeringly put upon them by men who had espoused
other political doctrines, and many have endured insinuations as to their religious
integrity, and that which recently occurred in the priesthood meeting was a natural
sequence of causes leading up to that culmination.

Personally, I have no complaint to make because of what then and there happened,
in the allusions made to myself, because, as I view it, the individual peace, happi-
ness, integrity, and reputation of one man, or a score of men, cuts but little figure in
matters of great consequence to the people of Utah, like that which now confronts us,
but I may be permitted to say in passing that nothing in the acts or words of myself
would warrant any person in the church in the belief that I would not, upon proper
occasion, show, as I have always done, the respect due my ecclesiastical superiors, T
and that without in the least degree doing a wrong or in any way affecting the honor
of the political party to which I belong.

I have always believed, and now believe, that there is abundance of room in Utah,
as elsewhere, for a citizen to do his whole duty to the State without in the least degree

974 REED SMOOT.

interfering y-'ith his obligations to the church of which he may be a member. The
thought had never occurred to me that I had, at any time, been a priestly hireling.
Upon the least intimation from those who furnish means from which myself and
others have received compensation that such is their view of the matter, I would
thereafter neither take nor expect compensation for ecclesiastical work, but would
gladly do ail in my power, trusting in the future for the rewards to which I would
be entitled.

Recent occurrences itensify the demand, as expressed in our State constitution,
that state and religious matters must not be united, and that while it is the duty of
the state to protect the church in the enjoyment of the fullest religious freedom, the
church must not attempt to dominate in civil affairs, and on this point I am with
my party and do not hesitate to believe that our citizens, when given the opportunity,,
will vindicate and maintain their political honor.

Believing, as I do, that the citizens of Utah will, once more at the polls in Novem-
ber vindicate their integrity and preserve their honor, as I expect to do, I shall vote
for the Constitution, ready and willing, in and out of season, to do my part in main-
taining the political rights, privileges, and blessings of free institutions.

And now, in conclusion, in view of what has recently occurred, should the mem-
bers of the convention feel that it would be in the interest of the Democratic party
in Utah to have my name withdrawn as a possible candidate for the United States
Senatorship, you may regard my resignation as herein tendered, but should you still
think that I should remain where your action at Ogden placed me, I shall be with
you, head, heart, and hand to the end.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, MOSES THATCHER.

The foregoing distinctions and declarations concerning the sphere
and functions of church and state as being separate and independent
are clear-cut and thoroughgoing. Moreover, he made these declara-
tions at a time of intense interest and agitation of the questions dis-
cussed. At any other time his words would have had far less
significance. At this particular time a great many members of the
Mormon Church were assembled in convention, and the policy and
procedure of their own church was the topic under consideration.

On May 25, 1892, Moses Thatcher published in the Salt Lake Herald
a letter containing fundamental and discriminating thoughts on the
question of church and state. The article was called out as a reply to
a letter published in the Ogden Standard by Joseph F. Smith and John
Henry Smith, who signed their names as "Republicans and descend-
ants of Whigs." Their published letter was a quiver full of arrows,
each one pointed -and sharpened to make the keenest rejoinder possible
to allegations made by Mr. Thatcher in a political speech at a Demo-
cratic convention held at Ogden a short time previous. The person-
alities of the two letters are not of importance in this connection, and
we present those features of Mr. Thatcher's letter that develop the
respective spheres and functions of church and state.

I siirfply maintained that Jesus contended for the exercise of man's individuality
and free agency; while his imperious brother, Lucifer, sought by a plan of force
exactly the opposite. * * * I recognize wisdom in the idea that "political
addresses ought to deal in political matters solely and ought to leave theological mat-
ters alone, ' ' even though the letter itself appears in plain contradiction of that sug-
gestion. In parity the rule can, I think, be reversed with profit to many, i. e.,
"That theological discourses ought to deal in theological matters solely and ought to
leave political matters alone." Thus, with double purpose would be accomplished
that which should be the great design of all religious and political 'parties, namely,
the erection of an impassable barrier over which state influence, harmful to the con-
stitutional guaranties of the church, could not pass, and over which church influence
hurtful to the State could never go. And this, it seems to me, if not the greatest
question involved in Utah to-day, is at least one of vast proportions, and one that
none of us can afford to tamper with.

The conditions as now developed would seem to indicate the present as a suitable
time in which to publicly define my position upon this most grave subject. To my
mind it is a subject of vast moment* to the people of Utah, and one fraught with the

EEED SMOOT. 975

peace, prosperity, progress, and hapiness of ourselves and our children on the one
hand, or of degradation, misery, and bondage to us and to them on the other. I
am, therefore, constrained to approach it with a sense of its profound gravity and
far-reaching consequence, rather than with feelings of personal resentment, which,
if gratified, could only be so gratified in the interest of personal pride.

In the conditions surrounding us there are political issues arising that demand
solution; and as they can not be put aside, it would seem to be the part of wisdom
to meet them manfully and courageously, affording such solution as the public weal,
and not personal animosities, should inspire; for, after all, personality in questions of
this nature, should find rest in the sea of public good as drops of rain find repose on
the bosom of the ocean. For the wealth of empires I would not intentionally
become a stumbling block or rock of offense to my friends, and if I have offended,
it certainly was not premeditated. If errors by me have been committed they were
of the head; the heart has certainly not held any malice aforethought.

As to the necessity of an absolute separation of church and state in this country,
my position has long since been clearly defined, for I have urged earnestly and per-
sistently, in public and private, that they should be entirely separate until He comes
whose right it is to unite and rule over the one as King of Kings and govern the other
as Lord of Lords. These views are the outgrowth of years of thought, and, I may be
excused if I say, of most earnest prayer over a subject fraught with matters of deepest
import to the majority of the people of this vast intermountain region. * * * As
fellow-citizens, we meet upon a common political level, each being the peer of the
other, while every other citizen, irrespective of class, color, or previous condition of
servitude, whether poor or rich, famous or obscure, is the peer of either of us.

Resting upon this broad, humane, and just platform, all the people in whom we
have confided, for whom we have fraternal affection, and upon whom we have
builded high hopes of liberty and love will come to know, as many now know, how
to distinguish between the words and works of a citizen and those of the church
official, though the citizen and church official may be but one personality.

During the transition a few individuals may drink often from the cup of sorrow
down to the bitter dregs, being lashed by the whipcords of party prejudice until the
fruits of honest toil and the flowers of honest repute may fade away like snow before
the July sun; but the boon once gained and discriminative judgment once founded
on the rock of political and divine truth, the church will surely be safe, and may
demand without fear that toleration and protection from the Government which is
guaranteed by the Constitution of our country. Such a consummation gained in
behalf of a persecuted and oppressed, but honest, upright people would be cause
worthy of any sacrifice.

To my mind it affords a theme worthy the best thought and effort of statesman,
poet, and prophet. As religionists, let us still hold fast to the supreme declaration,
' ' that Congress shall enact no law respecting the establishment of religion nor pro-
hibiting the free exercise thereof." As citizens let us see to it that no word nor act
of ours shall, even by implication, taint the church with the unjust and dangerous
charge of its interference in the affairs of civil government.

As to myself, the constant recognition of the civil rights of others, irrespective of
party, seems important. And I desire in the discussion of political matters, and in
every other way, to keep in mind the great Democratic fact that whatever distinc-
tions, birth, ancestry, posterity, name, wealth, or education may have wrought in
other directions, yet in political affairs and in the exercise of the sacred rights of
franchise my poorest and most humble brother having the rights of citizenship is
not only my equal, but under present conditions, many of them are my superiors.
I shall never ask to become more than their equal. * * * If I believed politi-
cally and felt politically as do my Republican friends, Joseph F. and John Henry, I
should no doubt write as they have written; but as I do not politically so believe and
feel I refrain from imitating their style.

I fully recognize, however, their right to criticise anything that I may politically
say or do; but I do not accord them a higher right in that respect than that accorded
to the humblest Republican in the rank and file of the party. * * * Religiously,
I have a yearning, earnest, prayerful desire to be one with my brethern, and in an
humble way, always asking God for help, I shall try to do my part. But when it
comes to matters political, especially in reference to the fundamental principles
dividing Democracy and Republicanism, I must still remain on the side that trusts
the people, opposes protection, bounty legislation, and force bills, so long as I believe
them oppressive and harmful to the masses. But I am willing that others should
entertain and maintain opposite views.

Respectfully, MOSES THATCHER.

LOGAN, May 25, 1892.

976 REED SMOOT.

CHAPTER SIXTH. — Pledges of the Mormon Church.

One of the strongest and most notable features of Moses Thatcher's
position is that he holds the very ground concerning church and state
that has already been covered by repeated pledges of the first presi-
dency, the leading officials, and the whole body of the Mormon Church.
In order to clear the way for statehood, they pledged honor and man-
hood to the people of Utah and the United States that church and
state should be kept separate, and that by no exercise of priestly
authority should the sphere of the civil government be infringed upon.

Hence Moses Thatcher's position is confessedly impregnable, and
the authors of the manifesto are put upon their defense to show that
their rules and regulations do not violate the pledges heretofore given.
As the terms in which such pledges were made are of great importance
in this connection, we present several of them, beginning with the
memorable interview of Presidents Wilford Woodruff and George Q.
Cannon, published in the Salt Lake Times, June 23, 1891, which is as
follows, in part:

TIMES INTERVIEW.

"It is asserted that the People's Party was dissolved by direction of the church.
Is there any foundation for that charge?"

"The People's Party was dissolved, as we understand, by the action of its leading
members. They have stated to us their convictions that the time had come for a
division on national party lines. There has been a growing feeling in this direction
for a long time, and the dissolution of the People's Party is a result of that sentiment,
and not the fiat or instruction of the church. The first intimation that we had of
dividing on party lines came to us from Ogden. There is therefore no foundation
for the charge that the church brought about the dissolution of the People's Party.
The church does not claim any such right."

"The Times has held that the appearance of church management of the People's
Party during recent times resulted purely from the fact that the party was composed
almost entirely of members of the church, with prominent churchmen taking part
in the affairs, and that there has not been church rule, as charged. Is this view
correct? ' '

"The Times has correctly stated the facts connected with the appearance of church
management of the People's Party. That party having been composed principally of
members of the church, and self-defense having compelled them to consult together
and to decide concerning the best steps to be taken to preserve their rights, some
color has been given to the charge that it was a church party. But this has not been
done in a church capacity. Men have had influence in that party and been listened
to according to their experience, and not because of their official position in the
church."

"That being true, are we to understand that the church will not assert any right
to control the political action of its members in the future?"

"This is what we wish to convey and have you understand. As officers of the
church we disclaim the right to control the political action of the members of our
body."

"Will there be any reason why members of the church should come together
and vote solidly, if political conditions here are similar to those which prevail else-
where? ' '

' ' We can not perceive any reason why they should do this in the future, if, as you
say, political conditions should exist here as they prevail elsewhere."

"Do you understand that it is the wish of the Mormon Church to maintain a
separation of church and state with respect to all political questions?"

"However much appearances may have indicated that we have favored the union
of church and state, and notwithstanding the many assertions which have been
made of this nature, there is no real disposition among the people of our church to
unite church and state; in fact, we believe there should be a separation between the
twro. But in past times the situation in this Territory was such that officers of the
church were frequently elected to civil office. If the people availed themselves of
the best talent of the community they were under the necessity very frequently of
selecting officers of the church to fill these positions. You must understand that

KEED SMOOT. 977

nearly every reputable male member of the Mormon Church holds office in the
church. Of course, where the people, as was the case in many localities, were all
Mormons, if they elected any of their own members they had to choose men who
held positions in the church. Men were selected for bishops because of their supe-
rior ability to care for and manage the affairs of their wards. They were the practi-
cal and experienced men of the several communities, and in the estimation of the
people were suitable for legislators, etc. Their election to civil office led to the idea
that there was a union of church and state."

"Do you believe that it is the wish of the Mormon people to unite with the great
national parties, and to conduct politics in this Territory as they are conducted in all
other States?"

"That is the impression we have received from conversation with the men among
us who take the greatest interest in political matters."

"Is there any reason why the members of the church should not act freely with
the national parties at all times?"

"We know of no reason why they should not."

"Is there anything to be gained for the church by securing political control in
Utah with or without statehood?' '

' ' We see nothing to be gained for the church in this way. ' '

"Is it not true that the members and leaders of the church desire to place it in a
position in the community like that occupied by other church societies?"

' ' The only protection the chureh desires is that which it should obtain under gen-
eral laws which secure the rights of all denominations. It would be most unwise
for the Mormon people to endeavor to secure any advantage not shared in by all
other religious- people. All that we ask is to have equal rights before the law."

" Is it your understanding that the Mormon people differ as to the Republican and
Democratic parties, and that they will act in accordance with their convictions in
uniting with those parties?"

"That is our understanding."

" Is it your wish that the Republican and Democratic parties should organize and
present their principles to the Mormon people, and that they should unite with them
according to their honest convictions?"

"Personally we have felt that the time would come when the two great parties
would be organized in this Territory, and we have felt that if an attempt of this
kind should be made, each should have the fullest opportunity to lay its principles
before the people so that they might have a clear understanding of the issues and be
able to decide in the light of facts presented to them, to which of the parties they
would belong."

"That being true, could anything be gained by bad faith, even if it should be
contemplated by any of the former members of the People's Party?"

"Certainly not." '

"The opponents of party division on national lines declare that they want evidence
of the sincerity of the Mormon people. The Times would ask you to state whether
the declarations of sincerity on the part of those leaders who have been before the
public reflect your views and meet with your approval?"

| ' Those declarations express our views and have our entire approval. What greater
evidences can be asked than those which have already been furnished? The state-
ment has been repeatedly made that the great objection to us was our belief in and
practice of patriarchal marriage. In entire good faith the manifesto was written,
signed by the leading men, and adopted by one of the largest conferences of the
church ever held — a conference composed of about 15,000 people. It has been
asserted, in addition, that the people were governed by the priesthood in political
matters. This is now disproved by the dissolution of the People's Party and the
union of its members with the two national parties. What could possibly be gained
by the action of the people if they were not sincere? If the elements of sincerity
are wanting, such a movement would result in entire demoralization."

REMARKS ON FOREGOING INTERVIEW.

In this interview it is seen that the chief authorities disclaim all
right to " dictate" to members concerning their political faith and action.
They declare in behalf of an entire ' fc separation of church and state;"
and many other expressions are used with reference to popular and
current opinions on the subject; and by a great variety of language
the first presidency endeavor to show that their views and purposes
are in harmony with the wishes and demands of the world at large.

s 62

978 KEED SMOOT.

The third question is of special significance: "Are we to understand
that the church will not assert any right to control the political action
of its members in the future?"

The answer is : "This is what we wish to convey and have you under-
stand. As officers of the church we disclaim the right to control the
political action of the members of our body." Surely if the single
pledge herein set out were kept in good faith and in the full meaning
of words there would be no cause of complaint.

These pledges were made at the time of the division on party lines
and in order to promote that movement. The thing of most impor-
tance to say about them is that they must be made to the people in the
current sense and meaning of the words. There must be no double
sense or "mental reservation." The so-called "Gardo House meet-
ing," as reported in the papers in connection with the proceedings of
the Logan high council, was held about the time of the interview-
probably later — we have not inquired into the matter of date as yet;
but whenever held, its purpose and effect were in direct violation, not
only of the pledges above given, but of all the others that were at
various times and in divers forms promulgated. The matter will be
presented elsewhere in these pages; but here it is necessary to make
the point that all such political schemes are instances of bad faith in
keeping pledges that were solemnly received and ratified by the people.

In the interview above given the Mormon Church speaks in its
highest official capacity. They say in effect that they will not deter-
mine by counsel or any other priestly influence the status or policy of
parties. They must not, in any ecclesiastical capacity, entertain and
promote any policy or project of a political character. They disclaim
all right to exercise political influence by means of ecclesiastical author-
ity or inducement. The separation of church and state must be in
the American sense. They must be really independent of each other.
One must not live as a parasite upon the other; each has its own origin
and sphere, each has its work to do, its cause for existence, and its end
to achieve.

The Deseret News, June 24, 1891, in commenting on the "Times
interview" given above', says:

We believe their unreserved and straightforward statements will have the effect
of satisfying persons who are undecided as to the political attitude of the leaders of
the Mormon Church. Although there has not been the slightest evidence that they
either controlled or claimed the right to control the people of Utah in the exercise of
the voting power, yet the charge that they did so has been reiterated so much that
it has been taken by many as an undisputed fact.

At all events, whether the people had been subject to priestly
"counsel" in political matters, or whether they had not, the "Times
interview " shows that the first presidency intended to convey to the
people the impression that they should be politically free; and the
Deseret News endeavors to fortify that impression and to substantiate
the validity of the promises and pledges thus made.

THE HOME-RULE MEMORIAL.

In January, 1892, the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah,
composed of Mormons and Gentiles, addressed a memorial to the Con-
gress of the United States containing these words:

In the midst of wonderful material progress her (Utah's) people have recently
turned their attention to the study of the questions of government and legitimate
politics, and are espousing the cause of one or the other of the national parties.

KEED SMOOT. 979

These new conditions have come naturally, honestly, and for the future are abso-
lutely secure. A patriotic people are pledged to their preservation. Retrogression,
involving as it would dishonor and dire misfortune, is impossible.

Utah, in the feelings of her people, has been lifted from her humiliation and dis-
grace. To-day she is imbued with the hope and determination to be free — free in the
full sense of > American constitutional freedom; which means something more than
liberty permitted; which consists in civil and political rights absolutely guaranteed,
assured, and guarded in one's liberties as a man and a citizen — his right to vote, his
right to hold office, his equality with all others who are his fellow-citizens, all these
guarded and protected, and not held at the mercy and discretion of one man, or
popular majority, or distant body unadvised as to local needs or interests.

DEMOCRATIC MEMORIAL.

At the national convention of the Democratic party, held at Chicago
in 1892, a memorial was presented by the Democrats of Utah, signed
by Hon. C. C. Richards, chairman of the Democratic Territorial com-
mittee, and Elias Smith, secretary, in which, among other things, it
was stated:

That the sole objections, to wit, polygamy and church dictation in politics, again&t
the Mormon people on political grounds have been entirely removed, and it is most
unwise and impolitic to deny them the common rights and privileges of citizenship,
or to place a barrier in their way when they are evidently determined to turn their
backs on the past and for the future labor in harmony with the nation for the gen-
eral welfare, in strict submission to the laws, and each taking an independent course
in reference to party.

THE CONFERENCE RESOLUTION.

At the general conference of the Mormon Church, held at Salt
Lake City in October, 1891, the following resolution was adopted
after extended discussion of the questions involved:

Whereas the Utah Commission, with one exception, in their report to the Secre-
tary of the Interior for 1891, have made many untruthful statements concerning the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the attitude of its" members in rela-
tion to political affairs; and

Whersas said report is an official document and is likely to prejudice the people
of the nation against our church and its members, and it is' therefore unwise to allow
its erroneous statements to pass unnoticed: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in general conference
assembled, That we deny most emphatically the assertion of the commission that the
church dominates its members in political matters, and that the church and state are
united. Whatever appearance there may have been in times past of a union of church
and state, because men holding ecclesiastical authority were elected to civil office by
popular vote, there is now no foundation or excuse for the statement that church and
state are united in political matters; that no coercion or influence whatever of an
ecclesiastical nature has been exercised over us by our church leaders in reference to
which political party we shall join, and that we have been and are perfectly free to
unite with any or no political party, as we may individually elect; that the People's
Party has been entirely dissolved and that our fealty henceforth will be to such
political party as seems best suited to the purposes of republican government.

WHO IS IN THE WRONG?

The foregoing exhibits are public pledges made by the church as a
whole and the chief authorities as representatives of the church. If
the several specifications and distinctions are carefully weighed they
will be, found to cover all the points that are necessary to be empha-
sized in a discussion of the spheres of church and state. These pledges
of the church put it on the same ground «as that occupied by Moses
Thatcher in his declarations concerning church and state. Are the
church authorities true to their covenants ? If they are, why is Moses

980 EEED 8MOOT.

Thatcher ostracized? If their pledges affirm the rectitude of the
position held by him, why is he now standing in the attitude of an
offender ?

What makes him an offender? It is his refusal to conform to the
rule of the manifesto. Surely then the manifesto must conflict with
Moses Thatcher's declarations as to church and state. If it does, it
must also contradict the pledges made b}^ the church and the authors of
the manifesto. This is why Mr. Thatcher could not sign the manifesto
without stultification. Not only himself but the church also would be
stultified by the manifesto.

CHAPTER SEVENTH — Priesthood "counsel" in politics.

Under primitive conditions the secular ruler is also the religious
authority, not only king but prophet and priest. As progress is made
toward civilization the state is divorced from the church with a result-
ing increase of human welfare.

This process of differentiation is recognized by Christ himself when
He said: " Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God
the things that are God's." In the infinite mind all government is
united; and if there ever comes a time when human souls will con-
cciously enter the infinite life, then there may be but one organization
for religious and governmental purposes. But at present man is a frail
mortal, ever liable to temptation, ever subject to misapprehension,
always open to motives of ambition and self -aggrandisement, never
free from prejudice, never fully emancipated from the bonds of
selfishness, never wholly illumined with the light and love of God,
always human, always finite and dependent.

Hence it has become an axiom under democratic systems of govern-
ment that there must be no "union of church and state." The first
presidency are as emphatic in making this declaration as Thomas
Jefferson was. But when it comes to the meaning of words and prop*
ositions, when it comes to practices and fulfillments, their policies lead
to a subversion of the State.

DESERET NEWS QUESTIONS.

In order to show how the rule of "counsel" laid down in the mani-
festo is interpreted by the chief authorities that speak through the
Deseret News, a list of seven questions printed in the issue of Novem-
ber 21, with short answers to each, is herewith presented:

1. Has the church through its rightly constituted authorities declared
that church and state affairs shall be separate, or has it not?

Answer. Yes, it has; not only through its "authorities," but
through the body of the church in convention assembled.

2. If it has, how can this declaration take effect without a solemn
agreement between the ecclesiastical officers that none of them shall
enter a political race without first seeking the counsel of his brethren?

Why should ecclesiastics be banding and bonding themselves
together concerning political offices? Who made them the ministers
and masters of political positions ? This would seem appropriate for
a country governed by the papacy, but here in Utah we have not yet
subjected ourselves to the rule of a pope. It is supposed that we have
a free republican government.

REED SMOOT. 981

Who controls the State under popular government? What are the
people for? What did Abraham Lincoln mean when he spoke of
4 'government by the people, of the people, for the people?" Is it
the " brethren" that determine the matter of civil offices, or the peo-
ple? Is it so that political offices, like ripened apples, are dropping
into the laps of the " brethren," whether they will it or not? Who
taught these ecclesiastics that the offices were going begging for them
to fill them?

So it seems in the mind of the priesthood organ that the only danger
to the state is that church officers will each be greedy to fill them?
In former times when the controversy between church and state arose,
the state sought to run the church; later the church controlled the
state and made it a simple function of the church. Now the Deseret
News thinks that the only thing necessary to keep the church off the
state is that ' ' all the brethren " should agree to get into the state at
one time. They must "all agree" in one act of trespass on the state.
It is an offense if one officer does it independently; but it is all right
if all together go pell mell into the transgression.

But the News asks a sober question: "How can this declaration
(that church and state shall be separate) take effect without a solemn
agreement between the ecclesiastical officers ? " etc. How strange it is
that such a question should seem to be necessary ! Does the church
infringe on the state because some preacher or other clerical officer
seeks employment in the civil service ? No. If all civil officers were
ecclesiastics there might still be no union of church and state. They
might still be clearly independent.

What then constitutes infringement ? It is the use of the religious
authority of the church to impel or induce men to act in civil affairs.
Does the News know of anybody going up to Idaho recently to carry
" counsel" to the "brethren" up there in regard to their political
action ? Does the Sews know of any prominent brother Mormon up
in Idaho who now complains that he was defeated by the " counsel"
carried up there by that same visiting brother? Does the News know
of any "counsel" that was carried into Wyoming during the late can-
vass ? Does the News know of any so-called visiting statesman who
came to Salt Lake recently prepared with some of Mark Hanna's logic
to procure "counsel "for the "brethren" in Idaho and Wyoming?
Does the News know of any legislative "steering committee" whose
mission it was to instruct "brethren" how to vote at the recent
session ?

It is such influences as the foregoing that constitute an infringement
on the state. It is the use of church authority to induce actions and
effect results in political and civil affairs. It can be said in truth that
it is not the desire of the rank and file of the Mormon Church, the
great and honest body of the membership, to have such infamous uses
made of their sacred beliefs and confidences, but unfortunately there
are men in power who control others, they hypnotize them and domi-
neer over them, and in the end mold them to the nefarious purposes.

If the News wishes to know in good faith "how this declaration
(against union of church and state) can take effect without the rule
requiring ' counsel ' in order to run for office in the state, let it reflect
that no other church has found it necessary to have such a rule. Even
those churches that have throughout the progress of Christianity
warred against the union of church and state, none of such churches

982 EEED SMOOT.

has ever thought of a rule like that which is now proposed. Why?
Because the rule is simply an expedient to control the presentation of
officers to the state. It enables a few men, or perhaps one man, to
say who shall be elected. It proposes to authorize certain men to run
the state.

Hence the true answer to the question is that it is wholly and
emphatically a usurpation for any church council to say one word or
record a line concerning which one of their number shall take or seek
political office. If they want to say that none of their number shall
enter politics or any other secular occupation, it is their privilege to
do so; but to say who shall go and who shall come is to present men
to the Statfe; it is usurpation, a violation of the rights of the people,
an infringement on popular liberty.

3. Is it possible to obtain the desired result without strict adherence
to some uniform rule of conduct; and if so, how?

Why surety it is possible to obtain the proper and true result with-
out such a rule; but whether that would be the "desired" result is
not certain. How? Why, let the church authorities get out of poli-
tics; have them let politics severely alone; let the people run that
department for themselves; that is what the chief authorities promised
to do, and let them be faithful to their pledges. If the authorities let
the political offices alone, the people will soon learn to know whether
they need any clerical functionaries to serve in a civil capacity. How
do churches manage such matters in other settled States? Surely,
because we have the Mormon Church in Utah, the people are not dif-
ferently constituted here from what they are in other parts of the
country. Let the people and their politics alone.

4. Is not the recent address to the Saints the adoption of just such
a rule with the plain and evident intention of preserving inviolate the
border line between church and state?

The recent address to the saints ! Preserving the border line between
church and state ! The address uses many words and phrases that seem
to sanction the separation of church and state. In that address the
lion and the lamb lie down together in seeming peace and harmony,
and in the practical working of the rule the lion is a perfect lion, and
the lamb is a perfect lamb; and very, very lovingly they lie down
together — the lamb inside the lion! The address is simply a contriv-
ance of a very shrewd mind to get the lamb inside the lion with the
utmost neatness and dispatch. If the lamb persists in not getting
inside, the alternative is that it shall be defamed, maltreated, de-
stroyed, as in the case of Moses Thatcher.

5. How can an ecclesiastical officer refusing to submit to such a rule
escape the suspicion that he is the one who intends using his religious
influence for political purposes?

What transparently shallow logic! How will such an ecclesiastic
better the matter by being commissioned by his quorum and superior
officers? Will he not be doubly charged with the church authority?
And will he not be doubly empowered to impose himself on his
brethren as a divinely appointed candidate for the office? Will it not
give him a double dose of church influence? Will he not then go
forth as the only simon pure, regularly authorized, doubly blessed,
especially chosen emissary- of the priesthood 1

If there is evil in church influence in politics, as every lover of the
Declaration of Independence must hold that there is, this endorsement

REED SMOOT. 983

by "the brethren" under the rule of "counsel" enhances in every
way the possibilities of evil. And why does the News suggest that
the man who refuses to submit to such a rule is the one that intends
using his religious influence for political purposes ? Are all those men
that have refused to submit to the rule seeking office? If they were,
is it likely that they would deem it an advantage to resist a rule that
they could, if they were designing and unscrupulous men, use to pro-
mote their own interests? If they resist the rule, do the}rnot thereby
incur the enmity of crafty leaders who have great influence in the
church? If they were sordid office seekers, would they not work
the church for all that it was worth, and go to the people clad in all
the religious influence of priesthood authority?

No; the man who has independence enough to go to the people with-
out any such brand of church approval stands in the presence of all
honest men with infinitely less of the taint of "suspicion" than the
man who plots with his ecclesiastical associates to capture an office
which is the heritage of the people in their secular capachyy.

6. What is it — bigotry, mania, hypocris}7 or villainy, or all com-
bined— that prompts an attack on the church, because its authorities
endeavor to carry out solemn pledges?

What is it that prompts such malice in a question? What is it that
prompts such men as Moses Thatcher to refuse compliance to the rule
of "counsel" promulgated by the church? Are such epithets as
" bigotry, mania, hypocrisy or villainy " applicable to Moses Thatcher?
Are such qualities of mind and heart exhibited in his correspondence
with President Snow? Are his friends, relatives, and associates
entitled to such designations? Does the News as the "church organ"
claim to be the voice of "the Son of God" in resorting to such vitu-
peration ?

Why does the News beg the question by assuming an "attack on the
church ? " Does not that look like the most arrant cowardice ? Don't
you unjustly assume that your rule is right? By setting up an "attack
on the church," don't you seek to dodge an examination into the right-
eousness and justice of the rule? Don't you thus seek to hide the
inquiry as to its being subversive of the State ? Don't you seek thus
to raise such a dust that in the midst of it you may obscure the point
at issue? Why not try to honestly show that the rule of " counsel"
is not in conflict with the doctrine of the separation of church and
state?

7. Are those the colors of the banner of "liberty," round which
"Young Utah " are invited to rally ? If so, keep on unfurling it to the
breeze, as has been done in the papers the past week. 'Young Utah"
will then see where the standard of true liberty does not wave.

There was amight}^ "banner of liberty" unfurled when the Declara-
tion of Independence was promulgated. Its folds now wave in every
land where the heart of man is bold enough and true enough to inaugu-
rate self-government. That God-given ensign has been unfurled in
Utah; its lines are written in our Constitution; its lessons are nourished
in the hearts of our school children; we want to be true to the Heaven-
born emblem of human liberty!

There is not a thought, not an emotion of soul that rises up in pro-
test against the "rule of counsel" that does not have its inspiration
from the "banner of liberty" that God unfurled in the Declaration of
Independence. God knows that in the hearts of the men that are moved

984 REED SMOOT.

to resist this "rule" there is no thought of malice or unkindness-
toward the church. But the thought is forced upon them that certain
individuals in the church are seeking to use the church and its influence
to promote their own selfish schemes. It is for the sake of these schemes
that the church is about to be ushered into a career in utter conflict
with the sacred pledges of the past. The protest is not an antichurch
protest. It is the voice of liberty. It is the voice that spoke in the
Declaration. It contains all politics, because it contains all the motives
of self-government. It lies at the foundation of the democracy of
Thomas Jefferson and the republicanism of Abraham Lincoln. It is
the sunlight and air of every true patriot. It is as deep as the human
soul, as broad as human life.

TRIBUNE QUESTIONS.

Having reproduced the queries of the Deseret News, it is fair to
give place to a similar series of questions from the Tribune which have
the merit of answering themselves in the intelligence of any man who
can honestly lay claim to intelligence.

The News says it opposes Moses -Thatcher's candidacy for the sole reason that he
stands upon a platform "which, fairly interpreted, means nothing more nor less
than war against a religious society."

The public of Utah is not especially interested either in Moses Thatcher or the
News, but is deeply interested in knowing what the Mormon Church now holds as a
"war against it." So we beg to propound to the organ of the church a few ques-
tions, as follows:

1. Does Moses Thatcher pretend to assail, trench upon, or render invalid any
article of the Mormon faith?

2. Is or is not his present insistence solely that as an American citizen he has a
right to exercise his political privileges, without regard to his religious superiors?

3. Has not that right been conceded to him and every other member of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by the present first presidency of the
church?

4. Was it not the assumption of the right of the first presidency to dictate the
action of the members of the church in political matters that kept Utah in a tur-
moil and filled with apprehension and unrest the hearts of men here for twenty-five
years?

5. Was it not the voluntary surrender of that claim by the first presidency that
secured statehood for Utah?

6. Has the course of the News during the past six days been the same that it would
have been had the question of admitting Utah to statehood been one which Con-
gress was about to consider?

7. If not, has good faith been displayed toward the United States and this people
since the People's Party disbanded?

8. If the News as the organ of the church can dictate who shall not be elected to
office, can not the same power dictate who shall be?

9. If it can, what political freedom has Utah any more than when the nomina-
tions were announced from the tabernacle altars and the people were instructed to-
vote for candidates so named?

The people of Utah are exceedingly anxious to read the answers to the foregoing
interrogatories.

THE DESERET NEWS5 FIGHT FOR THE SENATORSHIP.

In a letter of Judge E. G. Woolley, of St. George, published in the
Tribune, December 6, the following paragraph occurs:

While there may be a difference of opinion as to the wisdom of the course being
pursued by the Deseret News in threatening the supporters of Thatcher for the Sen-
ate with church power, still I would rather have an open fight at any time than to be
stating one policy for the outside to hear and pursuing another in secret, so that I am
willing to stand by the church in an open fight for any principle of right and at no-
matter what cost.

REED SMOOT. 985

Judge Woolley is right in one thing: he would rather have an "open
fight" than "to be stating one policy for the outside to hear and pur-
suing another in secret;" and this "open fight" he is willing to pursue
" at no matter what cost." He is "willing to stand by the church for
any principle of right;" but he does not take time to discriminate
whether the ' ' principle of right " belongs to the church as coordinate
with the state, leaving church and state independent of each other, or
whether it belongs to the church as a means of absorbing and swallow-
ing up the state. He seems willing to let the church say what it wants
and then "fight it out," whether or not the state is overwhelmed as
the result.

While open warfare is preferable to secret machinations, there is
little doubt that both methods will be worked for all that they are'
worth. Yet it is nobler and fairer for the " church organ" to sound
the keynote and head the charge with such of the saints as are loyal
to its behests, than to inaugurate a secret warfare against Mr. Thatcher,
such as the Tribune authorizes in its comment on Judge Woolley's
letter, one of those strangely inconsistent, uncertain, and ambiguous
counsels for which the Tribune has become famous of late:

We publish his (Judge Woolley's) letter merely as a matter of news, because that
is the business of a newspaper, and have no comment to make upon it except this :
To impress upon the readers of the Tribune the fact that the matter of the discipline
of the Mormon Church, or in the quorum of apostles, is no concernment whatever
to us, and the only reason we have entered any protest is that the organ of the
Mormon Church in this city proclaimed a church warfare on Mr. Thatcher in politi-
cal matters. That is something no church in America has any right to do, and is in
violation of the understanding which was fairly had before statehood was given to
Utah. To make it clear, if Apostle John Henry Smith or President George Q. Can-
non, or President Woodruff pleases to go to the members of the legislature and say:
"If I were in the legislature I would not vote for Mr. Thatcher, because he has
needlessly antagonized the religion in which we believe," that would be a man's
right, the same as it is Mr. Thatcher's right to be a candidate, notwithstanding his
church troubles. But when the organ of that church in effect pulls down the anathe-
mas of heaven on Mr. Thatcher or any other man to beat him for a political office,
that is a direct trenching upon the State, and that kind of work must not go on in
Utah.

One may well wonder that the Tribune should publish such an edi-
torial comment. It evinces a marvelous blindness and flagrancy of
misapprehension. The idea of monkeying with the question of church
and state by sajdng that the open editorials of the News are objectionable
while it is not objectionable for "President" Woodruff, "President"
Cannon, and "Apostle" Smith to go privately to individual members of
the legislature — members of the church — and make their fight in the
name of the church and in defense of the church! And all this without
making any reservation or qualification as to the character in which
these men go, or the influences they shall bring to bear on brethren
who are members of the legislature! How blandly those who are
intense supporters of the News's policy will smile at the wisdom dis-
played by a paper that has set out to champion the statehood rights and
exemptions of the people of Utah under specific pledges of the Mormon
priesthood!

The point at issue is the separation, independence, and coordination
of church and state in their respective spheres of action. Neither the
church nor any member or representative of the church is justifiable
in using means to influence legislators in either of the following forms:

1. By controlling the vote of a member of the legislature by priestly
counsel. We don't need special inspiration of God to tell us concern-

986 BEED SMOOT.

ing the contents of the multiplication table, or any other problem of
pure or applied mathematics, for the mind is naturally furnished with
the power to acquire such knowledge; but we can have assistance such
as the subject-matter warrants. It is the same with all secular ques-
tions appertaining to legislation and statesmanship. The mind itself
is competent for all such things, with the assistance of the lights and
helps of nature.

So far as Messrs. Woodruff, Cannon, and Smith can help men along
in the exercise of their mental faculties and the acquisition of
knowledge, they do not need to use priestly offices, for they are work-
ing along a natural and secular plane. But it is for no such purpose
4that " Presidents," "Apostles" and other priestly officers go to a legis-
lator to give " counsel;" they go appealing to the religious suscepti-
bilities of the human heart; they go claiming to represent Him who
is essentially inscrutable and incomprehensible — that to which the awe
and mystery of our souls respond. Into the sacred abiding place of
faith and trust they make bold to intrude themselves for a secular
purpose; and from this center of religious motive power they speak in
the name of God, saying that certain things should be done. The
natural grounds and reasons for the course recommended are ignored;
the man is induced to obey from priestly dictation and authority.
This is one phase of the nature and operation of counsel; but there is
another equally as objectionable, as follows:

2. By setting up the church as imperial, absolute and unrestricted,
the major premise for all secular reasoning, the true center and source
of all right and authority, the real and present Kingdom of God.

It is this form of belief that pervades Judge Woolley's candid and
valuable article. He sees nothing, knows nothing but the church;
and what the church wants he is willing to fight for, utterly ignoring
the contention that the "rule of counsel" is simply apiece of machin-
ery chiefly valuable as a means of controlling and absorbing the state.

Under this second form of "priestly counsel" the legislator is
warned that the church is endangered, that such a man is an enemy of
the church, that his election will be an injury to the church, and he is
cautioned against voting for him; and all the time there is a great and
mysterious thought in the background — through the hazy exhorta-
tions of "counsel," the recipient, according to his faith in the church,
thinks he sees the hand and hears the voice of God.

Frequently, however, the potency of priestly "counsel" resolves
itself into a simple business proposition. There are considerable
tithing funds, there are immense debts, and there is wild and daring
speculation on the part of certain individuals in authority. A great
many have got a foot in it; some are in with both feet; others are
anxious to get in; still others are equally anxious to get out; some
have their living and employment at stake; a vision of destitute and
hungry wives and babies stares them in the face; this vast network of
human needs and business complication is a magazine of reserve power,
and all may be used by some one and in some way in connection with
"counsel."

In answer to all unjust and forbidden methods of procedure it,is
important to recognize the fact that American institutions have orig-
inated in connection with a clean-cut distinction between church and
state, that each is independent, each has its own grounds for existence

REED SMOOT. 987

and its own sources of knowledge, each has its own conditions for prog-
ress and perfection; neither must trespass on the sphere of the other.
Religion must not come into the control of the state; neither must -the
state trench on the province of religion. If the News will make an
"open fight" and an honorable fight, neither ignoring the state nor
shrouding its own counsels in a glamour of false godliness — an honest
battle for the right — millions of men and women will gladly accord it
a right to openly contend in the political arena.

THE DESERET NEWS ON CHURCH AND STATE.

In numerous issues and in a variety of forms the News has laid
down its doctrine of church and state ; we quote a sample paragraph
in the editorial of November 18, as follows:

The candidacy of the person to whom all this has reference is antagonized by the
News because it is an assault upon the doctrines and organic existence of the church
of which _this paper is the official organ. His appearance in the political arena at
this time is nothing more nor less than this, and every candid voter in the common-
wealth will admit it. He himself announces that he stands upon a platform equiva-
lent to this very proposition. It is not a political question, for the candidate's politics
cuts no figure in it. It is religious, pure and simple, in that it involves nothing more
nor less than questions relative to the integrity of a religious organization, the
maintenance of its discipline, and the perpetuity of its doctrines.

Note the following propositions contained in the foregoing editorial:

1. "The candidacy of the person to whom all this has reference
(Moses Thatcher) is antagonized by the News because it is an assault
upon the doctrines and organic existence of the church of which this
paper is the official organ."

2. "It is not a political question."

3. "It is religious, pure and simple, in that it involves nothing more
nor less than questions relative to the integrity of a religious organi-
zation, the maintenance of its discipline, and the perpetuity of its
doctrines. "

4. "The candidate's politics cut no figure in it."

Here are four propositions expressed in the identical language of
the News' editorial, and every one of the four is wrong for the reason
that the News puts the Mormon Church in the wrong attitude; it puts
the church where it ought not to be; it puts the church on the railroad
track of civil libert}^, and then finds fault with the locomotive of
American freedom because the obstruction gets bumped off the track.

This is the story in a nutshell: The reconvened convention, October
22, 1895, laid down the principles of civil liberty as a platform. Moses
Thatcher and all others that participated in that convention, not except-
ing Mr. Roberts, adopted those principles and pledged themselves to
stand by them. The crafty leaders among the Mormon authorities,
seeing that they could not safely attack the principles directly, con-
cluded to do it by a flank movement; so they promulgated "the rule
of counsel." By this means they believed they could control politics
in the interest of the church; and they further believed they could
control the church in their own personal interest, and utilize its
revenues to promote their wild speculations. In this way they set
their "rule of discipline" on the track of civil liberty, and unless,
freedom fails in her godlike mission, that "rule of counsel" is going
to be thrown out of the way.

988 EEED SMOOT.

Some of the more important principles affirmed by the reconvened
convention are as follows:

" 'Equal and exact justice to all men, and special privileges to none," is the founda-
tion principle of the Democratic party. It is now, and ever has been, the party of
civil and religious freedom. It is the party of toleration. It has ever been the
defender of the rights of individuals and the advocate of personal liberty. It
believes in the people, and declares that they are the source of all political power.
It steadfastly maintains that there shall be no invasion of personal rights. It is a
stanch upholder of the doctrine that man must be allowed to worship God where he
chooses and as he chooses, without molestation and without interference, and that,
on the other hand, he should not be directed in his course toward governmental
affairs by those whom he has chosen to minister to his spiritual welfare.

We declare the truth to be:

I. That man may worship his Maker as his conscience dictates.

IT. That no State nor political body has the right to interfere with this great
privilege.

III. That man's first allegiance, politically, is to his country.

IV. That no church, ecclesiastical body, nor spiritual adviser should encroach upon
the political rights of the individual.

Y. That in a free country no man nor body of men can, with safety to the state,
use the name or the power of any religious sect or society to influence or control the
elective franchise.

VI. That a trust is imposed upon each citizen in a free country to act politically
upon his own judgment and absolutely free from control or dictation, ecclesiastical
or otherwise.

VII. That no political party can be required to obtain the consent of any church,
or the leader thereof, before selecting its candidate for public office.

VIII. That no citizen, by reason of his association with any church, can be
absolved from his duty to the state, either in times of war or of peace, without the
consent of the state.

IX. That all men should be, and of right are, free to think, free to act, free to
speak, and free to vote, without fear, molestation, intimidation, or undue influence.

Thus believing, whenever designing men have seized upon the cloak of religion
to hide from view their nefarious designs, and while appealing to man's spiritual
faith have sought to direct his political action for selfish ends, the Democratic party
since its organization has denounced such a course. It has declared in the past and
it declares now for every man's political freedem, whatever may be the govern-
mental views of those who guide his spiritual welfare.

We, therefore, in the most solemn manner, say that we will not be so dictated to,
interfered with, or hindered in our political duties by those selected to minister to
us the consolations of the gospel.

The people being sovereign in this free land, to the people we make our appeal.
The church being the source of man's religion, to the church we appeal, when we
so desire, with regard to matters affecting the conscience.

Now, let the " church organ " and all other persons and organizations
take due notice that it is not so much Moses Thatcher or any other
individual that stands in the way of the "rule of counsel" as the prin-
ciples of liberty that were declared to be the political faith of the
reconvened convention, and if the Democratic party of Utah proves
true to its plighted faith these principles will prevail, and if that party
should prove recreant to its trust some other party will maintain its
principles. For civil liberty is not of mushroom growth, it is not the
child of a day, for centuries it has been growing and it is not going to
lose its meaning or change its color because a few members of the
Mormon priesthood plot against it.

If any person wishes evidence of the fact that the feelings of the
people were aroused in a way that culminated in the declaration of
principles by the reconvened convention, and that a great many of the
Mormon people were in spirit opposed to the meaning and intent of
the "rule of counsel" and this before the "rule of counsel" was pro-

REED SMOOT. 989

mulgated, let him consider the following telegram which was signed
and sent at the time of said convention.

LOGAN, UTAH, October 22, 1895.

The Democrats of Cache County unite in declaring for absolute separation of
church and state. We oppose the idea that men should be compelled to get permis-
sion from ecclesiastical authorities before exercising their political rights. We deny
that Democrats are religiously or otherwise bound to follow the advise of Republi-
cans in making up .Democratic tickets. We shall uphold every legitimate effort of
our party to resist and disavow such pretensions, if any such have been made. Stand
firm for the right.

J. H. Paul, G. W. Thatcher, Joseph Kimball, William Haslam, W.
R. Owen, Jesse S. Hancey, William Sparks, John Dale, Aaron F.
Farr, jr., Joseph H. Olsen, Frank K. Nebeker, 0. A. Reavil, Don C.
Musser, Fred Turner, Will G. Farrell, S. M. Molen, W. G. Reese, B.
G. Thatcher, William Ed wards,- E. G. Robinson, A. D. Smith, John
Bench, Noble Warrum, jr., Joseph Monson, Arthur Hart, H. J. Mat-
thews, H. A. Campbell, Martin Woolf, Newell W. Kimball, J. M.
Blair, J. L. Payne, Thomas L. Obray, James C. Orr, Alma Olsen,
James Lofthouse, Thomas Leishman, Joseph Quinny, M. A. Hen-
dricks, H. G. Hayball, Chas. W. Maughan, Joseph Wilson, Samuel
Clarke, John Robinson, G. M. Thompson, John M. Wilson, I. C.
Thoresen.

With two exceptions these men are Latter-Day Saints, and on last
June the Democracy of Cache County met again in convention and,
with the exception of live, themselves personal friends of Thatcher,
the convention of 150 representative men of the county agreed upon
and adopted the following resolutions:

We are opposed to any union, and to any attempt at union, real, apparent, possi-
ble, or potential, of the church and the state. In the language of the Utah constitu-
tion, the supreme law of this Commonwealth, "there shall be no union of church
and state, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."
We declare the State to be the supreme authority in all matters that concern the
political rights and duties of its citizens. We believe it prejudicial to the interests
of the State if any organization existing under its laws should visit penalties, disabil-
ities, or disadvantages upon any citizen of this State because of his free choice of his
political party and participation in the ordinary duties of citizenship.

We believe that citizens should conform to whatever the state expressly and of
right commands them to do; and in return for the benefits and protection which Ihe
state guarantees to them, that they should serve the state, whether in peace by cast-
ing a free and untrammeled ballot, or by holding public office at the call of a
majority of the citizens, or in war by bearing arms; in all necessary ways should
defend, honor, and obey the institutions and laws of the country. The State has the
right to demand that whatever rules of discipline may be adopted by any society for
the regulation of the political action of the society's own members, those rules must
be consistent with the laws of the land and with the genius of free institutions and
should be uniform in operation, applying with strictness and impartiality to each
member of the class for whom they are intended, and showing favors to none.

We reassert with all possible candor and plainness, that*any interference with the
free exercise of the rights of the elective franchise will not be tolerated or condoned
in our midst, so long as the Democratic party shall be able to maintain inviolate these
sacred rights of our citizens. And, conversely, the Democratic party hereby reaffirms
in behalf of every person and every society, religious, social, or political, in this
State, the time-honored doctrine of true Democracy, in the guarantee of the utmost
toleration and protection of each under the law, with special favors to none and equal
rights to all.

We reaffirm the correctness of the doctrii.es of personal liberty, which were an-
nounced by the reconvened convention, as principles which are dear to the heart of
every true citizen of this Republic, and we indorse the course of our esteemed
fellow-citizen, Hon. Moses Thatcher, in maintaining his stand upon these principles
of truth and justice amid the combined misfortunes of sickness, hostile criticism,
and the honest misconception of perhaps both friend and foe.

990 REED SMOOT.

Anybody can see that it is not Moses Thatcher, or the reconvened
convention, or anyone else that is attacking the church, or interfering
with its doctrine or discipline; but it is the framers of the " rule of
counsel" that have put themselves in the pathway of civil liberty; and
if there is to be a struggle for libert}^ and for a separation of church
and state in Utah, "may God protect the right."

CHAPTER EIGHTH. — The manifesto examined.

Following is the manifesto in full, as first published in the Salt
Lake Herald:

To the Officers and Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints, in Gen-
eral Conference Assembled:

DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTERS: Every latter-day saint will recognize the value of
union, not only in action, but in matters of faith and discipline. As to the rights
and authority of the priesthood of the Son of God, it is of the highest importance
that there should be no difference of opinion among the officers and members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Feeling the necessity of a correct
understanding of this principle, we deem it proper at this sixty-sixth anniversary of
the organization of the church in these last days, to prepare and present a statement
on the subject, embodying the doctrine which has always prevailed in the church
and our views upon it. We are prompted to adopt this course at the present time,
because of events which have happened during the late political contest. A great
diversity of opinion on the subject has been expressed, and even by leading elders in
the church, which latter fact has naturally led in some instances to considerable
division of sentiment.

It is of great importance that we understand each other, and that there be har-
mony in our teachings. It is especially important that those teachings shall be in
accordance with the rules and regulations and doctrines which have been taught,
and which have prevailed from the beginning until the present time, having not
only the sanction of undisputed usage, but the approval of all faithful leaders in the
cnurch and of Him in whose name and by whose authority they act.

THE RECENT ELECTION.

In the late exciting contest, to which reference has been made, the presiding
authorities in some instances have been misunderstood. In other instances they
have been misrepresented, which has led to a wrongful conception of their real views.
It has been asserted too freely, and without foundation, that there has been a dispo-
sition on their part to interfere with individual liberty and to rebuke in some men a
course which was applauded in others. In a word, that they have appeared to desire
to assert and maintain an unjust and oppressive control over the actions of the mem-
bers of the church, and in thus doing^ have endeavored to effect a union of church
and state. In the heat of political discussion, assertions have been made and argu-
ments used conveying to the public mind a false idea concerning the position of the
officers of the church, and leaving the impression that there has been and was now
being made an attempt to accomplish the unioli above referred to. Now that the
excitement has passed, and calmer reason has resumed its sway, we think it prudent
to set forth, so that all may understand, the exact position occupied by the leading
authorities of the church

NO UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

In the first place we wish to state in the most positive and emphatic language that
at no time has there ever been any attempt or even desire on the part of leading
authorities referred to to have the church in any manner encroach upon the rights
of the state, or to unite in any degree the functions of one with those of the other. .

Peculiar circumstances have surrounded the people of Utah. For many years a
majority of them in every portion of the Territory belonged to one church, every
reputable member of which was entitled to hold and did hold some ecclesiatical
office. It is easy to see how, to the casual observer, it might appear singular that so
many officers of the church were also officers of the state; but while this was in fact
the case, the distinction between church and state throughout those years was care-
fully maintained. The president of the church held for eight years the highest civil

REED SMOOT. 991

office in the community, having been appointed by the national Administration
governor of the Territory. The first secretary of the Territory was a prominent
church official. An apostle represented the Territory in Congress as a Delegate
during ten years. i

The members of the legislature also held offices in the church. This was unavoida-
ble; for the most suitable men were elected by the votes of the people, and, as we
have stated, every reputable man in the entire community held some church position,
the most energetic and capable holding leading positions. This is all natural and

ig to unite church and state. A fair investigation
abundantly disprove the charges and show its utter falsity.

On behalf of the church, of which we are leading officials, we desire again to state
to the members, and also to the public generally, that there has not been, nor is there,
the remotest desire on our part or on the t>art of our coreligionists to do anything
looking to a union of church and state.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

We declare that there has never been any attempt to curtail individual liberty —
the personal liberty of any of the officers or members of the church. The first
presidency and other leading officers did make certain suggestions to the people
when the division on party lines took place. That movement was an entirely new
departure, and it was necessary, in order that the full benefit should not be lost
which was hoped to result from this new political division, that people who were
inexperienced should be warned against hasty and ill-considered action. In some
cases they were counseled to be wise and prudent in the political steps they were
about to take, and this with no idea of winning them against their will to either
side. To this extent, and no further, was anything said or done upon this question,
and at no time and under no circumstances was any attempt made to say to voters
how they should cast their ballots. Any charge that has been made to the contrary
is utterly false.

CANNON IN POLITICS.

Concerning officers of the church themselves, the feeling was generally expressed
in the beginning of the political division spoken of that it would be prudent for
leading men not to accept of office at the hands of the political party to which they
might belong. This counsel was given to men of both parties alike — not because
it wras thought that there was any impropriety in religious men holding civil office,
nor to deprive them of any of the rights of citizenship, but because of the feel-
ing that it would be better, under all the circumstances which had now arisen, to
avoid any action that would be likely to create jealousy and ill feeling. An era of
peace and good will seemed to be dawning upon the people, and it was deemed good
to shun everything that could have the least tendency to prevent the consummation
of this happy prospect. In many instances, however, the pressure brought to bear
upon efficient and popular men by the members of the party to which they belonged
was of such a character that they had to yield to the solicitation to accept nomination
to office or subject themselves to the suspicion of bad faith in their party affiliations.

In some cases they did this without consulting the authorities of the church; but
where important positions were held, and where the duties were of a responsible
character, some did seek the counsel and advice of the leading church authorities
before accepting the political honors tendered them. Because some others did not
seek this counsel and advice, ill-feeling was engendered and undue and painful sensi-
tiveness was stimulated; misunderstanding readily followed, and as a result the
authorities of the church were accused of bad faith, and made the subjects of bitter
reproach. We have maintained that in the case of men who hold high positions in
the church, whose duties are well defined, and whose ecclesiastical labors are under-
stood to be continuous and necessary, it would be an improper thing to accept polit-
ical office or enter into any vocation that would distract or remove them, from the
religious duties resting upon them without first consulting and obtaining the approval
of their associates and those who preside over them.

It has been understood from the very beginning of the church that no officer whose
duties are of the character referred to, has the right to engage in any pursuit, politi-
cal or otherwise, that will divide his time and remove his attention from the calling
already accepted. It has been the constant practice with officers of the church to
consult — or, to use our language, to "counsel" — with their brethren concerning
all questions of this kind. They have not felt that they were sacrificing their man-
hood m doing so, nor that they were submitting to improper dictation, nor that in

992 EEED SMOOT.

soliciting and acting upon the advice of those over them they were in any manner
doing away with their individual rights and agency, nor that to any improper degree
were their rights and duties as American citizens being abridged or interfered with.

They realize that in accepting ecclesiatical office they assumed certain obligations;
that among these was the obligation to magnify the office which they held, to attend to
its duties in preference to every other labor, and to devote themselves exclusively to it
with all the zeal, industry, and strength they possessed, unless released in part or for
a time by those who preside over them. Our view, and it has been the view of all
our predecessors, is that no officer of our church, especially those in high standing,
should take a course to violate this long-established practice. Rather than disobey
it, and declare himself defiantly independent of his associates and his file leaders, it
has always been held that it would be better for a man to resign the duties of his
priesthood; and we entertain the same view to-day.

In view of all the occurrences to which reference has been made, and to the diver-
sity of views that have arisen among the people in consequence, we feel it to be our
duty to clearly define our position, so there may be no cause hereafter for dispute or
controversy upon the subject:

First. We unanimously agree to and promulgate as a rule that should always be
observed in the church and by every leading official thereof, that before accepting
any position, political or otherwise, which would interfere with the proper and com-
plete discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, and before accepting a nomination or
entering into engagements to perform new duties, said official should apply to the
proper authorities and learn from them whether he can consistently, with the obliga-
tions already entered into with the church, upon assuming his office, take upon him-
self the added duties and labors and responsibilities of the new position. To main-
tain proper discipline and order in the church we deem it absolutely necessary; and
in asserting this rule we do not consider that we are infringing in the least degree
upon the individual rights of the citizen. Our position is that a man having accepted
the honors and obligations of ecclesiastical office in the church, can not properly, of
his own volition, make those honors subordinate to or even coordinate with new ones
of an entirely different character; we hold that unless he is willing to counsel with
and obtain the consent of his fellowMaborers and presiding officers in the priesthood
he should be released from all obligations associated with the latter before accepting
any new position.

Second. We declare that in making those requirements of ourselves and our breth-
ren in the ministry, we do not in the least desire to dictate to them concerning their
duties as American citizens, or to interfere with the affairs of the state; neither do we
consider that in the remotest degree we are seeking the union of church and state.
We once more here repudiate the insinuation that there is or ever has been an attempt
by our leading men to trespass upon the ground occupied by the state, or that there
has been or is the wish to curtail in any manner any of its functions.
Your brethren,

WILFORD WOODRUFF,
GEO. Q. CANNON,
Jos. F. SMITH,

First Presidency.

The following is a discussion of the manifesto by sections and para-
graphs in consecutive order. In each section it is intended to present,
not only the surface meaning, but also the more latent significance of
the language. In some cases the real meaning lies between the lines.

1. To the officers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in general

conference assembled:

DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTERS: Every latter-day saint will recognize the value of
union, not only in action, but in matters of faith and discipline.

It is noticeable in this enumeration of items in which union is de-
sired, that the most important requisite, the only one realty and truly
attainable, is omitted: That is love — Christian love and sympathy.
Love unites opposites; it blends the numberless diversities of human
life into harmony; it is the bond of perfection; without it all other
union is "sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."

The glory of love, as the bond of union, is that it is broader than
church; it thrills the heart of motherhood throughout all animate

REED SMOOT. 993

creation; it dances with the motes in the sunbeam; it murmurs with
the brooks; it moves with the tides of the ocean; it joins its melody
with the music of the spheres. There may be diversities of beliefs
and practice; but with unity of love the heights are scaled and the
ideals of the Lord Christ are achieved.

THE SPECIAL THEME.

2. As to the rights and authority of the priesthood of the Son of God, it is of the
highest importance that there should be no difference of opinion among the officers
and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The special topic proposed in the manifesto is "the rights and
authority of the priesthood." There must be "no difference of
opinion." This looks like centralization wherein one mind does the
thinking and prohibits all other thought. With brotherly love there
might be unity and harmony in the midst of great diversity of opinion;
but without it, everything must run on the dead plane of machinery.

A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.

3. Feeling the necessity of a correct understanding of this principle, we deem it
proper at this sixty-sixth anniversary of the organization of the church in these last
days to prepare and present a statement on the subject, embodying the doctrine
which has always prevailed in the church, and our views upon it.

To explain a principle is to state its nature and origin. This the
manifesto does not attempt to do. It does not define the "rights" of
priesthood, but it elaborates and enforces the "authority" of the
priesthood which manifests itself through "counsel." This counsel
applies to all things, but in this manifesto it is applied chiefly to polit-
ical affairs. It is in reference to political matters that the authorities
speak of "feeling the necessity of a correct understanding of this prin-
ciple." But they do not explain a principle; they simply enforce a
rule of practice.

A SOVEREIGN REMEDY APPLIED.

4. We are prompted to adopt this course at the present time because of events
which have happened during the late political contest.

Certain political events have occurred; an emergency arises; they
"feel the necessity of preparing and presenting a statement" of the
doctrine of priesthood; their "statement" culminates in the duty of
"counsel;" the old usages and teachings of the church all point to
counsel as the first and foremost of obligations; and in this emergency
counsel is what is necessary to redeem and preserve the church from
dissensions and calamities that seem imminent. What is necessary is
to restore the customary and time-honored authority of the priesthood.
In order to restore "union in action, faith, and discipline," there
must be under the new politics the same recognition of counsel as
under the old regime.

DIVERSITIES DEPLORED.

5. A great diversity of opinion on the subject has been expressed, and even by
leading elders in the church, which latter fact has naturally led in some instances to
considerable division of sentiment.

S 63

994 REED SMOOT.

Some are ducks that take to the water, others are chickens that
scratch the ground. They entertain differences of opinion about the
many things that enter into governmental policy. They develop dif-
ferences of moral and economic instinct. Some are jealous of every
encroachment on individual and personal rights. Others are zealous
for combined effort and the exhibition of strong governing power as
a means of safety and welfare.

This diversity of opinion is a new phase of things, and it can only
be met by "counsel." Instead of diversity of opinion there must be
unity, and instead of many minds running off here and there only one
mind must do the thinking, and when this central thinking is spread
put to the periphery by means of "counsel" the purpose of "union
in faith, discipline, and action " will have been achieved.

WHAT MIGHT BE.

There is only one line of thinking that seems to threaten a disturb-
ance of the counseled unity that tolerates " no difference of opinion;'*
that is the thinking suggested by the Declaration of Independence.
But why should we fear to welcome the highest and truest attitude of
the human soul — that of freedom, independence, and self-reliance?
God himself is independent and absolute; and no soul can be truly
begotten in his image without sharing his absoluteness.

What would happen to the Mormon Church were a majority- of its
members to imbibe in its full meaning and effect the lesson of the
Declaration of Independence? Would it weaken the church or dim its
glory ? No. It would put the church in the way of true progress
and efficiency. It would release it from the care of trivial burdens of
a material, civil, and temporal character, and it would encourage the
mind and spirit of the church to develop those higher truths that are
needed to lift the world out of the slough of materialism and monetary
greed into which it has fallen.

We are now importing from Asia doctrines concerning the soul and
eternal life; and with much illusion and error these doctrines are
spreading over the country in a way to counteract the sordid tendencies
of the age. They find a welcome because they are a needed antidote
for ills that are afflicting the souls of the race. And Mormonisin has
a groundwork of doctrine of the soul and eternal life that goes far
toward satisfying the want for the sake of which many people are
hunting up the records of thought dating back to the dawn of human
history.

Would it be diminishing the sphere and splendor of the Mormon
Church to take off its hands from the miserable squabbles of politics and
the sordid weight of business interests in order that it might more truly
and effectively explore and reveal the domain of eternal life ? No.
This would be to exalt the church and put it in the way of fulfilling its
true mission.

AN OPEN FAITH.

6. It is of great importance that we understand each other, and that there be har-
mony in our teachings.

It is not so important that ministers of the gospel should "under-
stand each other" as to understand Christ and his teachings. Having
the same sources of knowledge and the same great leader, if they are
faithful to those, they can not fail to comprehend each other.

REED SMOOT. 995

There were numerous secret religious orders in ancient times, but
Christ did not approve of them. When asked concerning- his doctrine
He replied: "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the syna-

fogue, and in the temple whither the Jews resort; and in secret have
said nothing. Why askest thou me? Ask them which heard me
what I have said unto them. Behold they know what I said." John,
18:20.

The great truths of life and being, of mathematics and philosophy,
of morals and religion are all an open book, as free as the air and sun-,
light, as unobstructed as the open vault of heaven.

It is a menace to public welfare, when any order of men, whether
secular or religious, have a secret understanding with each other.
Especially in Christian work should there be an open book known and
read of all men. The more sunlight and publicity the better for pub-
lic morality.

IS DIVERSITY UNDESIRABLE?

7. It is especially important that these teachings shall be in accordance with the
rules and regulations and doctrines which have been taught and which have pre-
vailed from the beginning until the present time, having not only the sanction of
undisputed usage, but the approval of all faithful leaders in the church and of Him
in whose name and by whose authority they act.

Uniformity of belief and teaching is desirable if it be not at the
expense of independence and individuality. It is far more important
to preserve the personal coloring that distinguishes men and women,
than to create unanimity by arbitrary processes. Men are made so as
to think and act differently; }^et all may be equally divine; even as the
leaves of the trees and the sands of the sea differ each from the other.
There is unity in diversity; and it requires all to reveal the fulness of
the infinite. The numerous historic religions present diverse phases
of truth. Doubtless each one will be found to reveal some special
color that enters into combination with all the others to make the pure,
white light of the eternal sun of righteousness.

"The rules and regulations which have been taught and which have
prevailed from the beginning" are proposed above as a means of set-
tling political differences of opinion and policy. As said in section 5,
' c A great diversity of opinion (in politics) has led to division of senti-
ment." Then comes the exhortation to be of one mind, to understand
each other, to unite in the usages and teachings (counsel) of the past
years of church activity, and all as a means of preventing diversity and
division of sentiment in politics.

How do divisions of sentiment arise? We have an illustration in
the reconvened convention, October 22, 1895. When this body affirmed
for individuals the rights and principles of the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, such action would naturally create a division of sentiment
as to submitting to "counsel" any matter other than such as belonged
to the church in its proper spiritual sphere. Whoever believed in the
Declaration intelligently would be slow to ask "counsel" in any mat-
ter of party politics.

The Mormon people regard the Declaration as inspired. The ques-
tion arises, Which is the greater inspiration, the Declaration or priestly
"counsel" on political issues? Surely the magna charta of American
independence is the outcome of all the ages; it is an epoch in the
development of humanity — the monument set up as a memorial of all
progress hitherto made in human government, and it is fair to believe

996 REED SMOOT.

that whatever else perishes, the Declaration will survive the wreck of
time.

SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE.

8. In the late exciting contest, to which reference has been made, the presiding
authorities in some instances have been misunderstood. In other instances they
have been misrepresented, which has led to a wrongful conception of their real
views. It has been asserted too freely, and without foundation, that there has been
a disposition on their part to interfere with individual liberty and to rebuke in some
men a course which was applauded in others. In a word, that they have appeared
to desire to assert and maintain an unjust and oppressive control over the actions of
the members of the church, and in thus doing have endeavored to effect a union of
church and state.

Why should there be so much smoke and no fire? It is singular
that in this manifesto there is a large space taken up in repeated dis-
claimers like the foregoing, wherein it is asserted that there has not
been any desire or attempt to unite church and state; }Tet, as will be
seen, in no place is there any definition of the sphere and function of
either church or state. We can not tell what the chief authorities mean
when they refer to one or the other. Doubtless the}" ma}r have been
misunderstood and misrepresented, but in a document put to the
church and the u public generally" there should be full explanation
made. We can, however, set out the rights and authorit}r of the State;
and* we can ascertain with some certainty from this manifesto the
rights and authority- claimed for the priesthood; and it will be easy to
measure the conflict, if any there be.

REITERATION.

9. In the heat of political discussion, assertions have been made and arguments
used conveying to the public mind a false idea concerning the position of the officers
of the church, and leaving the impression that there has been, and was now being
made, an attempt to accomplish the union above referred to.

This last paragraph seems to be a repetition of the previous one in
substance. If the published report of the high council meeting at
Logan were true history, would the people, with all their "misunder-
standing and misrepresentation," be very far wrong in charging the
authorities with serious and unwarrantable intermeddling with politics
and the State? It does not seem that they would; and what is more —
there are so many testimonials of the correctness of the report of the
meeting that denials seem quite useless.

EXPLANATION PROPOSED.

10. Now that the excitement has passed and calmer reason has resumed its sway,
we think it prudent to set forth, so that all may understand, the exact position
occupied by the leading authorities of the church.

Here is an appeal to reason and intelligence. A judicial frame of
mind, calm and dispassionate, is invoked. The authorities have acted
in the late "political contest" in accordance with the teachings, rules,
and precedents of the church; and it is all an object lesson setting
forth the authority and sphere of priesthood. They propose to find a
panacea for all political differences, ills, and controversies in the faith
and usage of the church; and all this is to be applied by "counsel."

REED SMOOT. x 997

.GENERAL DENIAL AS TO UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

11. In the first place we wish to state in the most positive and emphatic language
that at no time has there ever been any attempt or even desire on the part of leading
authorities referred to to have the church in any manner encroach upon the rights
of the state, or to unite in any degree the functions of the one with those of the' :
other.

There is really no occasion for "positive and emphatic language."
It is not a question of vehemence or asseveration, but one of the facts
and the philosophical significance of those facts — whether they are in
their nature and operation an infringement on the sphere of the state.
It is not a question for which denial or affirmation are at all competent.
It is a case which turns on the significance of facts, just as the legal
import of a document is determined as judicially interpreted, and not
by any amount of affirmation as to what the document signifies.
Whether the " rights of the priesthood," as set forth in this manifesto,
are in conflict with the rights of the state, is to be decided, not by
"positive and emphatic language," but by an examination of the
rights and principles on each side, and by critical comparison to deter-
mine whether they conflict either in essence or in operation.

AN OBJECT LESSON.

12. Peculiar circumstances have surrounded the people of Utah. For many years;
a majority of them in every portion of the Territory belonged to one church, every
reputable member of which wras entitled to hold and did hold some ecclesiastical
office. It is easy to see how, to the casual observer, it might appear singular that so*
many officers of the church were also officers of the state; but while this was in fact'
the case, the distinction between church and state throughout those years was care-
fully maintained. The president of the church held for eight years the highest civil
office in the community, having been appointed by the National Administration gov-
ernor of the Territory. The first secretary of the Territory was a prominent church
official. An apostle represented the Territory in Congress as a delegate during ten
years. The members of the legislature also held offices in the church. This was
unavoidable, for the most suitable men were elected by the votes of the people, and,
as we have stated, every reputable man in the entire community held some church
position, the most energetic and capable holding leading positions. This is all natu-
ral and plain enough to those who consider the circumstances, but it furnished oppor-
tunity for those who were disposed to assail the people of the Territory to charge
them with attempting to unite church and state. A fair investigation of the condi-
tions will abundantly disprove the charge and show its utter falsity. .

During the period described the more important offices were appoint-
ive rather than elective, so that only to a limited degree would office
holding come under the supervision of council. When the People's
Party was in vogue, everybody knows, and nobody so well as the lead-
ers, that the policy and energy and all necessary manipulation were
under the control of the church authorities. The lamb would be all
there, but it would be inside the lion. It might be said, as it is fre-
quently said in this manifesto, that the "distinction " between the lamb
and the lion was carefully preserved. It might be, and yet the lamb
might be inside. So that there is something to be said of relation as
well as distinction. If the state is inside the genius and power of the
church, as in papal Rome; or if the church is inside the state as in
Russia; in either case the relation is one of inclusion. The true rela-
tion is that of equality and independence.

When u every reputable member was entitled to hold and did hold
some ecclesiastical office," and all offices and members were under

998 REED HMOOT.

priestly counsel as to all the affairs of life, both temporal and spirit-
ual, how could there be a state within the meaning of the Declaration
of Independence? How could there be a democratic state when life
is drawn from the church through the unbiblical cord of counsel?

It used to be a question for debate whether or not the relation of
master and slave is sinful. Some attempted to settle the question by
proofs as to usages and customs of antiquity, whether Jew or Gentile;
but it remained to the quickening of the sensibilities, the awakening
of conscience, and the diffusion of the love of Christ to enable mankind
to perceive that the slave relation is in itself essentially wrong, abnor-
mal, and sinful. In like manner, if we lift aloft the charter of Ameri-
can liberty, and men see in its light that they are created in the divine
image and equally endowed with the rights of humanity, superstition,
and serfdom fall away, independence and self-reliance are enthroned,
and the state absolves itself from ecclesiastical thralldom.

No need to say above that because there were so many church peo-
ple in civil offices there would need to be a suspicion of union between
church and state. The only question is: Were they in office in con-
formity with and in subordination to counsel? If they were, the state
was made tributary to the church.

If every civil officer in the United States were also an officer in the
church, that fact would prove nothing in regard to a union of church
and state. During all the above described period was counsel given
as to who should and who should not hold office? It ought to be
clear that so far as civil affairs are shaped and governed by the coun-
sel of the church there is an absorption of the state by the ruling
authorities.

RENEWED ASSURANCES AS TO NONINTERVENTION IN THE STATE.

13. On behalf of the church of which we are leading officials we desire again to
state to the members, and also to the public generally, that there has not been, nor
is there, the remotest desire on our part or on the part of our coreligionists to do
anything looking to a union of church and state.

In this paragraph u the public generalty" is taken into consideration
and assured by the church that there is no desire, even the remotest,
" to do anything looking to a union of church and state. " As remarked
under the eleventh paragraph, "this is not a* question wherein any
amount of affirmation, however positive and emphatic, is a means of
solution." It depends upon the meaning of facts and conditions.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

14. We declare that there has never been any attempt to curtail individual liberty —
the personal liberty of any of the officers or members of the church.

There might be no desire or attempt to "curtail" or diminish or
repress individual libert}^, yet there might at the same time be a desire
and a purpose to mold and redirect that individual liberty by methods
and influences that might be either proper or improper. If a man is
convinced of the truth of a mathematical, economic, or industrial prob-
lem by a demonstration or explanation that lies within the sphere of
that problem, no difference who furnishes the proof, whether his

Eriest or his school teacher, it is all right. But if a priest, because of
is priestly authority a were to dictate to a man in mathematics, econ-
omy, or politics without furnishing appropriate reasons to appeal to

REED SMOOT. 999

the man's understanding- there would be a wrong done the man's
intelligence and individual liberty. His liberty would not be ''cur-
tailed," but it would be directed and controlled by wrong methods.

A man might have a firm determination to pursue a certain course;
and he might, by means of proper advice and enlightenment resolve
upon the opposite course and pursue that as earnestly as he would the
first determined upon. It is the purpose of the Christian gospel to
change every man's mind from determinations that are wrong to those
that are in harmony with his better nature and with the right and true
everywhere. A man thus changed is under law, but it is "the law of
liberty;" for obedience under this law springs from a soul inspired
with the universal harmony. His individual liberty is not ' ' curtailed,"
but renewed and redirected by right methods.

If the "chief authorities" were to publish books setting forth the
facts of history and the principles of government, and such books were
circulated among the Mormon people, thereby determining to a con-
siderable extent their political status and action, there would in such
case be no infringement upon individual liberty or the state, if the
literature sent out were true, if no dictation or preference were indi-
cated, and if the people received it purely on its merits and with no
coloring of priestly authority accompanjdng it. That is, if men's
minds were left free from an}T influence, other than that of scientific
truths and principles, it would be all right; the people would be left
free to judge and act under the operation of "the law of liberty" as
revealed to them by the light of history and governmental science.

But if the people should receive such books under a species of
priestly glamour; and if, because they came from the chief authori-
ties, the people believed they must be infallibly inspired and divinely
authoritative — in such cases the people would be brought into bondage.
There would be no apprehension of "the law of liberty." There
would be blind fealty to a fetish, the servitude of ignorance, bigotry,
and superstition.

Hence the "chief authorities" should realize what a delicate and
responsible position they occupy in relation to that large number of
people who regard their utterances as inspired, and who would think
it irreverent and sinful to doubt or question anything coming f ronathe
head of the church. They stand ready to surrender their judgment
and individual independence, and thus they would put themselves
beyond the pale of "the law of liberty."

There are few men living, possibly none, who are entitled to more
regard for earnestness and integrity than Wilford Woodruff. Yet, if
Wilf ord Woodruff were to go out upon the street on election day, in
the earlier part of the day, and in the presence of multitudes cast his
vote in a way that would seem open, spectacular, and demonstrative,
and if the fact of his voting in such a way and with such a party were
telegraphed all over the State, and if the incident, as telegraphed,
were used at many polling places during the remainder of the day and
voters were thereby induced to cast their votes in the same way — why,
a great wrong would be done; the State would be encroached upon;
religion and priesthood would be made the means of superstitious
enthrallment.

Surely a great and difficult work is laid at the door of the chief
authorities to divest themselves and disclaim a homage from zealous
followers which in its very essence is inimical to American institutions.

1000 REED SMOOT.

EXPLANATIONS CONCERNING COUNSEL.

15. The first presidency and other leading officers did make certain suggestions
to the people when the division on party lines took place.

"The first presidency and other leading officers" — Whatever they
said or did, it would be taken by " the people" as coming- to them with
all the insignia and credentials of authority and inspiration. They
would be largely bound and guided by it.

They "did make certain suggestions." As to whether right or
wrong, those "suggestions " would depend on what they were. About
the only kind of "suggestions" that could be rightly made would be
concerning the nature of government, the duty of the people to become
faithful, true, and competent citizens, the importance of understanding
all questions of government, the necessity of independence and self-
reliance; and above all, the first presidency should lay the foundation
stone of American citizenship in the minds of "the people" by
reminding them of the Declaration. of Independence — a flash of inspi-
ration and true manhood from the very throne of God himself — that
men are by God created free and equal; that they are divinely endowed
with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and happiness; that they must
stand up in their own manhood and refuse to bow their heads to kings
or priests; that they must be sovereigns in their own right; that they
must render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; that henceforth
the spheres of church and state should be kept separate. But did the
first presidency make such suggestions as these?

It was at the time "when the division on party lines took place"
that "certain suggestions" were made, presumably in order to shape
the division. If there were any biases or party preferences in the
minds of the first presidency they will, to some extent at least, appear
in the sequel.

NEW WINE IN OLD BOTTLES.

16. That movement was an entirely new departure.

Here is a very significant concession — that division into parties and
independent action as citizens " was an entirely new departure."
There had been voting and other party action at Nauvoo; but there
was no divison into independent parties there; it was run by "coun-
sel " as it was under the People's Party regime in Utah. There was a,
long period of office-holding in Utah as set out in the foregoing sec-
tion; but there was no division on national party lines. It was all
done under the dictates of church counsel.

Now comes a new state of things, a "new departure." There is a
new wine for the people. Will it be put into new bottles ? Will there
be new rules and regulations? Or will the old bottles — the old rules
and regulations of "counsel" — be patched up for the new State of
Utah ? A study of the manifesto reveals the fact that old bottles and
old customs and usages are to hold the new wine of Utah statehood.

A QUESTION OF MOTIVE.

17. And it was necessary in order that the full benefit should not be lost which
was hoped to result from this new political division, that people who were inex-
perienced should be warned -against hasty and ill-considered action.

REED SMOOT. 1001

That "full benefit" was statehood containing by implication many
other things that were regarded as beneficial. Hence we have a clue
to the procedure of certain officials who went about dividing the peo-
ple into parties, saying — "Zion wants your votes," "Zion wants state-
hood." We find that the people were about equally divided between
the Democratic and Republican parties, and it would look a little strange,
after the visit of one of the "dividing officials" to a town to see the
next day some "un terrified" sagebrush Democrat posing as a genuine
Republican. And as late as October, 1895, several minor officials gave
out to near friends that they belonged to the "reserve corps," sup-
posed to be a convenient means of holding the balance of power
between the parties.

Beneath the politics of the national parties there was a statehood
politics covering certain maneuvering in order to attain the "full
benefit." This statehood politics called for the equalizing of parties;
hence the counseling of some officials to go out and speak to the peo-
ple and the counseling of other officials to stay at home and keep
silent; hence the bargaining with partj^ managers abroad. In short,
there were a thousand things included in this statehood project that
could not have come down from that ' ' Son of God " whose name is so
often used to give sanction to the wily schemes of man.

If the motive had been to enlighten the people thoroughly, to pro-
mote the spread of true political knowledge, to qualify men and women
for self-government and useful citizenship — if such had been the motive
set out in the manifesto, we could but regard it as worthy of the
church or of Christ himself.

Whatever the " full benefit," it was necessar}^ in order to its attain-
ment "that people who were inexperienced should be warned against
hasty and ill-considered action." Here we see no reference to instill-
ing principles into their minds in order that they might be rightly
guided. All that is told us suggests that the people were to be marched
about and generated into the accomplishment of some plan or scheme
of priestly counsel. The first presidency seemed to be considering
actions and results to be gained and controlled directly, rather than
the political and civil enlightenment of the mind, whereby alone the
true results in action should be sought to be attained.

OPERATIONS OF COUNSEL.

18. In some cases they were counseled to be wise and prudent in the political steps
they were about to take, and this with no idea of winning them against their will to
either side.

"Counseled to be wise and prudent." Does this mean counseled
(that they ought) to be wise and prudent or counseled (so as) to be
wise and prudent? Probably the latter; for it would avail but little
to tell people to be wise and prudent without giving them a knowledge
of what would be wisdom and prudence under the circumstances. As
the "full benefit" was statehood and what appertained thereto, we
may well suppose that "to be wise and prudent" included a disclosure
of the "political steps" that would lead up to that consummation.

"With no idea (purpose) of winning them against their will to either
side." No; it is not the nature of counsel to win a person against the
will. Rather does it operate to convince the will, remove objections,

1002 REED SMOOT.

and thus with the consent of the will direct their political steps or their
movements in any other department of life.

In the foregoing sentence, No. IT, the "inexperienced" were coun-
seled against " hasty and ill-considered action." In the sentence under
consideration, "in some cases," they were counseled to "be wise and
prudent." Why not in both cases? Does not wisdom and prudence
answer the purpose precisely to counteract "hasty and ill-considered
action?" From what follows 'it will be more clearly seen that the
writer of the manifesto has unconsciously written a good deal between
the lines; and "to be wise and prudent" in this passage means to be
wise in planning methods to achieve statehood.

As it afterwards turned out, statehood would have been more easily
secured if there had been no plans or schemes forced upon the people.
They were counseled " to be wise and prudent," and they were required
to do certain things; but if no counsel whatever had been given, and
the people had been left to their own judgment and inclination, state-
hood would have been more promptly secured. For while the inci-
dents referred to in the manifesto were happening in 1890-91 there
was a great overturning of parties in 1892. The President and Con-

fress were changed from one side of politics to the other. And if Utah
ad not been thrown into a different political relation she would have
been in harmony with President and Congress in 1893, and statehood
would have come more promptly than it finally did.

One leading brother announced at Paris, Idaho, that he had received
a political prophecy. He had it by a revelation, he claimed, that
Cleveland would never be President of the United States again,
although nominated at that time. Of course he was mistaken; but the
matter that concerns us here is the tendency at that time to construe
the counsel of certain leaders as being inspired, and the inclination to
get supplementary inspirations to aid the leaders in controlling the
political action of the people. It is a matter of congratulation that
statehood was attained; but it did not need that the means and plans
"suggested " by counsel should have been adopted, or even thought of.

TO THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY.

19. To this extent, and no further, was anything said or done upon this question,
and at no time and under no circumstances was any attempt made to say to voters
how they should cast their ballots. Any charge that has been made to the contrary
is utterly false.

It would be foreign to the purpose of this memorial to discuss what
might be termed "statehood politics," were it not that the whole mat-
ter obtains a certain degree of importance in relation to the political
character and conduct of Moses Thatcher. It was widely known that
he was not in harmony with some of his brethren in relation to the
policy to be pursued and that was finally decided upon by superior
authority. Only those who were fully advised could have located the
trouble, but enough was generally known to mitigate the surprise
awakened in the public mind by the disclosures made in the Salt Lake
Tribune of May 10 concerning the priesthood meeting at Logan. It
may be remarked here that the report is substantially correct and in
very many cases the exact words are used.

Joseph F/Smith was the next speaker. He said that Moses Thatcher's attitude all
through the political fight in Utah could not be justified; that he had been the one
apostle who had refused to take counsel as to how the people should be divided up;

REED 8MOOT. 1003

that the first presidency and all the twelve but Thatcher had decided upon a certain
policy to get the relief they needed from the Government; but Thatcher had stood
out against them; that he had been opposing his brethren ever since the division on
party lines, and had not been in harmony with his quorum.

Joseph F. said further that the meeting called in the Gardo House to consider the
advisability of disbanding the People's Party was attended by many of the authori-
ties, stake presidents, and leaders of the People's Party.

It was plainly stated at this meeting that men in high authority who believed in
Republican principles should go out among the people, but that those in high author-
ity who could not indorse the principles of Republicanism should remain silent.
Their counsel was obeyed by all the apostles and high authorities except Moses
Thatcher, who talked to the people, contrary to the wishes of his brethren. If it had
not been for his condition, Moses Thatcher would have been called to account for his
declaration in the opera house (here giving Thatcher's declaration of political inde-
pendence), but if he ever became able he would have to answer for that as well as
other things they proposed to charge against him.

' 'And I want to tell you now, ' ' said Joseph F. , " that Moses Thatcher was only
admitted to the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple after long hesitation; he only got
in 'by the skin of his teeth.'" The speaker said that the only concession Moses
Thatcher ever had made was that he would always submit to the will of the major-
ity, but would not admit that he was wrong, although all his brethren voted against
him.

Right here George W. Thatcher interrupted Joseph F. to say:

"Brother Joseph, will you allow me to make a statement? "'

The permission was granted and George W. Thatcher said:

"My brother is very sick, and it does not seem right to make these charges against
him behind his back. I have no knowledge of these matters, and can not defend
him against you; but I love my brother and do not like to have him treated this
way."

Joseph F. continued by saying that he, too, loved Moses Thatcher, and wouldn't
have taken the matter up if Heber j. hadn't started it.

George W. Thatcher then asked Joseph F. if he meant to say that Moses Thatcher
was at the meeting in the Gardo House referred to, and the answer was:

"Yes, I am positive, and I have related exactly what took place at that meeting."

It is scarcely necessary to assure the readers of this memorial that
Moses Thatcher was not in attendance at that Gardo House meeting;
but he is, nevertheless, under the ban of some of his brethren for his
disregard of certain proposed ' 4 counsel " in relation to what they sup-
posed to be his political duty.

And now the question arises, Was not Moses Thatcher wholly jus-
tifiable in the course that he chose to pursue? Will not history justify
him? Will not men honor him for his independence? Will not God
approve his fidelity and integrity ? To ask such questions is to answer
them. And even with respect to statehood, his course . promised
speedier success; for soon after that time the President and Congress
became Democratic. But it is not as a mere makeshift that the ques-
tion must be judged, but as a matter of principle and right. 'Mr.
Thatcher took the right ground in the sight of God and his countrymen.

Suppose the published report of the high council meeting at Logan is
substantially correct as to the language ascribed to the several speakers;
suppose the "division" was accomplished about as described — that
certain men were counseled to go out and speak and organize, and that
certain other men were counseled to stay at home and hold their
peace; suppose the parties were put into array in conformity with
arrangements entered into between the " authorities" and certain
prominent politicians; suppose statehood were secured by carrying
out such a programme; what should our judgment be as to the leading
authorities encroaching upon the sphere of the state ?

1004 REED SMOOT.

Of course it might be said that by all such means certain leaders
were counseled so as "to be wise and prudent; ?? but is this the wisdom
that comes from above, from "the Father of Light with whom there
is neither variableness nor shadow of turning? " To send out men for
one side to speak and organize and keep the leaders of the opposite
side at home, is to play the game with loaded dice. How does such a
procedure differ in moral quality from the simple ordering up of a
majority for either party as the circumstances required? If these
things were done as narrated at Logan, or in any other way that pro-
duced the same result by means of "counsel," how can the authorities
escape the judgment of mankind that they have trespassed, in no very
exalted way, upon the sphere of the State?

BEGETTING A STATE.

20. Concerning officers of the church themselves, the feeling was generally expressed
in the beginning of the political division spoken of that it would be prudent for lead-
ing men not to accept of office at the hands of the political party to which they might
belong. This counsel was given to men of both parties alike — not because it was
thought that there was any impropriety in religious men holding civil office, nor to
deprive them of any of the rights of citizenship, but because of the feeling that it
would be better under all the circumstances which had now arisen to avoid any action
that would be likely to create jealousy and ill-feeling.

"Concerning officers themselves." In foregoing paragraphs the
manifesto has been speaking with reference to the people at large as
led about and divided into parties by .the chief officials. Here they
deal with "officers themselves."

And why must officers in the church abstain from holding office in
the State? Note that the time here indicated is about 1890. In a
former lengthy paragraph, No. 12, we are told concerning a period of
nearly forty years, during which the people of Utah enjoyed a tranquil
reign of church officials without having in the least degree obliterated
or trespassed upon "the distinction between church and state."

Why should there be a feeling in the beginning of the political
division spoken of that it would be prudent for leading men not to
accept office at the hands of the political party to which they might
belong? Why should it "create jealousy- and ill-feeling? " Why was
" this counsel given " at this particular time " to men of both parties
alike?"

There is a very good and sufficient reason between the lines for all
this: During all the long period of forty years before mentioned there
was the church, and within its council was the semblance of a State; but
so far as it was a State by Mormon votes it drew its life from the
guidance and authority of the priesthood. The people knew this.
They knew that in a general .way they voted for whomsoever the
church wished elected.

Now that the Mormon people were to be divided up with the gen-
tiles into parties, they could not very well decide between church
officials, many of whom had previously been in the habit of dictating
to them as members of the People's Party. They had formerly looked
upon the dictation of each one of the chief officials as inspired. Now
they would have to decide between the leading authorities, and they
would even have to consider the attitude of the first presidency. Here
was indeed a chance for confusion, jealousy, and ill feeling!

BEED SMOOT. 1005

The "counsel" is now given to the effect that the chief officers go
back on the precedents that have guided them for forty years, and
keep out of politics. This was probably good counsel under the cir-
cumstances. "Let all the chiefs who have been in the habit of dictat-
ing to the people now abstain from becoming political leaders, so
that the chosen people shall not become confused in the matter of
priestly authority."

A far better way — a truer, nobler, more American way, a way
more in accord with the Declaration of Independence — was that pur-
sued by Moses Thatcher, to let the people go free in political matters;
to absolve them from all dictation and counsel; to let the State alone,
as we allow the moon to freely move in her orbit; to let every Mor-
mon brother stand up in his own manhood and God-given right as an
American citizen.

A STATEHOOD GLAMOUR.

21. An era of peace and good will seemed to be dawning upon the people, and it
was deemed good to shun everything that could have the least tendency to prevent
the consummation of this happy prospect.

"The consummation!" Not that the world was about to end, but
the struggle of half a century would culminate in statehood, and Zion
would be enlarged. The meaning is that the leadership of high church
officials in politics would be likely to work confusion, and as a conse-
quence prevent the "consummation," the "full benefit." At first all
such officials were counseled to abstain from political leadership. This
counsel was to be good up to the attainment of statehood. The next
regulation is that all must be guided by counsel as to matters of state.
This rule puts church officers — and all are officers — back into the
People's Party regime. The index on the dial of liberty is put back
forty years!

WEAKNESS AND DIVIDED COUNSELS.

22. In many instances, however, the pressure brought to bear upon efficient and
popular men by the members of the party to which they belonged was of such a
character that they had to yield to the solicitation to accept nomination to office, or
subject themselves to the suspicion of bad faith in their party affiliations.

No; that was not the true reason. There had been a rule made that
"all the leading authorities should keep out of politics." Now, if the
chief authorities had themselves firmly adhered to the rule, and had
set an example of faithfulness and consistency, there would have been
no trouble whatever. No "solicitations" to receive nominations
would have been a temptation.

After the rule was made there was "counsel" given that was in
violation of the rule. One side in politics was counseled to go out to
the people and promote that side, and the other side in politics was
' ' counseled " to stay at home and keep silent.

When a rule is made by a certain authority, and by the same author-
ity the rule is changed so as to apply to only one-half of the people
subject to the rule, by all the dictates of right reason the rule is nulli-
fied. Otherwise there could be no government, no administration of
iustice. Whoever should be dealt with in this way would know that
his rights as an American citizen were trifled with.

It would have been better to have discarded all political control over

1006 EEED SMOOT.

the people and let them go absolutely free, but when it was resolved
to promote one side, this would in honor release the other side, and
any free man would resent restraint imposed by a partial and inequi-
table rule.

CONFLICTING COUNSELS.

23. In some cases they did this without consulting the authorities of the church;
but where important positions were held, and where the duties were of a responsible
character, some did seek the counsel and advice of the leading church authorities
before accepting the political honors tendered them.

Note that in the beginning of the division movement, as stated
above in section 20, the chief officials were prohibited from acceptin
civil offices because of the likelihood of arousing " jealousies and i
feeling," and also for fear of imperiling the " consummation." But
in this section some did seek counsel and some did not. Now, how
could it have a tendency to allay "ill feeling" and disarm "jealousies"
to know that any leading official had not only gone into politics, but
had been instructed by counsel to go into politics '( The fact is, it would
have the contrary effect, and it actually did have that effect; for time
and again individuals and committees appeared before the first presi-
dency and complained of their unfairness in allowing certain men to
go into politics to the exclusion of others.

Here it is that "counsel" seems to disregard its own policy. For,
it was stated a few lines above that for certain reasons — "jealousy
and ill feeling" — leading men were to abstain from civil office. In
this section all that seems to have been required was the seeking of
"counsel," and counsel being obtained they were ushered into politics
notwithstanding "jealousy and ill feeling."

The whole procedure is confused and conflicting. It is utterly
impossible to gather any consistency or uniformity out of it. " When
important positions were held, some did seek counsel before accepting,
etc." They sought counsel, and according to the rule laid down above,
they ought to have been forbidden the privilege; but they were elected,
and the meaning between the lines is that they were helped into their
position because they did seek counsel. All this is crooked and con-
fused; it indicates no system and no uniformity, and it can but be
looked upon as reprehensible.

WITHOUT COMPASS OR RUDDER.

24. Because some others did not seek this counsel and advice, ill feeling was
engendered and undue and painful sensitiveness was stimulated; misunderstanding
readily followed, and as a result the authorities of the church were accused of bad
faith and made the subjects of bitter reproach.

The writer is very much confused at this point. He is speaking of
things connected with the "division movement." The reason given
"for leading men not to accept office" was to "avoid any action that
would be likely to create jealousy and ill feeling." Here we find the
writer complaining that "ill feeling was engendered because some
others did not seek this counsel and advice."

This is not stating it consistently with what precedes. The counsel
was given generally that all the leaders should stay out of politics.
See above: "This counsel was given to men of both parties alike."
All must keep out. What is the trouble then ? It should be stated

REED SMOOT. 1007

thus: " Counsel was given and a rule made that all leaders should stay
out of politics. Subsequently a different plan was adopted. It was-
thought best to favor a certain party, and the leaders that were favor-
able to that party were allowed to go out, and those that were not
favorable to that party were counseled to stay at home. Some men
that felt independent claimed that the original rule was nullified and
that the whole plan was vitiated by partial, discriminating, and con-
flicting counsels." Of course there might be ill feeling; but it would
be because of divided counsels.

A REVISED EDITION.

25. We have maintained that in the case of men who hold high positions in the
church, whose duties are well defined, and whose ecclesiastical labors are understood
to be continuous and necessary, it would be an improper thing to accept political
office or enter into any vocation that would distract or remove them from the reli-
gious duties resting upon them, without first consulting and obtaining the approval
of their associates and those who preside over them.

"We have maintained." When? How long previously was the
doctrine of submission and obedience put into this form? At the time
of the " division" other reasons prevailed — the likelihood of "jeal-
ousies and ill-feeling." Later on things went haphazard and a great
partisan movement was inaugurated. There were divided counsels,
insubordination, and ill-feeling. Previous to "division," and through-
out the long reign of the People's party, all faithful Mormons were,
as a matter of faith and practice, subject to the chief leadership. They
sought authoritative guidance in all the affairs of life, temporal and
spiritual.

And when did the authors of the manifesto begin to put the doc-
trine of subordination and counsel in the precise form above stated?
Never before did they claim that the duty of seeking counsel depended
on the obligations and responsibilities involved in an office. The duty
had always rested upon the relation of subordination to the head of
the church, and the obligation to obedience as in the kingdom of God.
This change of reason for counsel and obedience is of importance as
showing conscious need of some rational ground on which to base the
universal obligation to submission and counsel.

AT WAR WITH AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS.

26. It has been understood from the very beginning of the church that no officer
whose duties are of the character referred to, has the right to engage in any pursuit,
political or otherwise, that will divide his time and remove his attention from the
calling already accepted. It has been the constant practice with officers of the
church to consult — or, to use our language, to "counsel" — with their brethren con-
cerning all questions of this kind.

Here is the statement of the doctrine of counsel and submission as
originally promulgated. They had no "right." They had relin-
quished all such secular rights. In order to be reinstated in those
"rights " they must consult with brethren and with those in authority
over them. In the former sentence this rule is modified, and it is
called an improper thing to accept office in the State. The earlier
doctrine was that they had "no right" to do so.

But it is made very evident in this exposition of the duty of "coun-
sel," how thoroughly and essentially it is at war with the individuality

1008 REED SMOOT.

and independent manhood required by the Declaration of Independ-
ence. Just consider. Here in Utah is a majority in one church, every
reputable male member of which holds some, ecclesiastical office, all
such members being bound to " counsel " with their brethren, and
especially with those that preside over them, and all this in relation to
secular and political duty. Everyone relinquishes his individuality.
He no longer acts from the dictates of his own will, but from the will
of the church.

The chief authorities do not dictate to individuals how they shall
vote, but they determine which of the officers shall accept nominations
and which shall not; and with a large number of voters acting as a
reserve corps, ready to be guided by the least intimation from the
chief authorities, it is easy to see that an}r desired result can be prede-
termined.

WHY NOT?

27. They have not felt that they were sacrificing their manhood in doing so, nor
that they were submitting to improper dictation, nor that in soliciting and acting
upon the advice of those over them they were in any manner doing away with their
individual rights and agency, nor that to any improper degree were their rights and
duties as American citizens being abridged or interfered with.

The writer breaks down in the last clause of the foregoing long sen-
tence— "nor that to any improper degree were their rights and duties
as American citizens being abridged or interfered with." There is a
" degree" in which they feel their rights abridged and interfered with;
but it is not an " improper degree." How much is "proper," and how
much more will make it "improper ? " Caesar's wife was to be " above
suspicion." How much latitude could there be until it would become
"improper?"

No; a good many that have been bound hand and foot for lo! these
many years with the twofold cord of church counsel begin to feel now
that in nature and essence it stands opposed to the spirit of American
freedom and independence, and that their manhood and individuality
are sacrificed by being required to submit for guidance to a junta of
the church.

PRIESTLY OFFICES AND AUTHORITY.

28. They realized that in accepting the ecclesiastical office they assumed certain
obligations; that among these was the obligation to magnify the office which they
held, to attend to its duties in preference to every other labor, and to devote them-
selves exclusively to it with all the zeal, industry, and strength they possessed, unless
released in part or for a time by those who preside over them.

In the Mormon Church "every reputable member" is en-titled to
hold office. So says the manifesto, and this is the general understand-
ing. The not holding some office is a suggestion of disrepute. In
fact, holding an office of some kind seems necessary in the Mormon
Church as an evidence of full and reputable membership; but most of
the officials — almost all, indeed — receive no compensation whatever.

When persons agree to perform certain work for a certain compen-
sation they are amenable to those who employ them for a faithful dis-
charge of their duties, and for neglect or nonperformance they are
justly liable to discharge or some other expression of demerit.

Thus if a man is employed by a mercantile company or a church
committee to do a certain work, he is bound to do it, and to make
reparation for neglect of duty or lost time. If an employee desired

REED 8MOOT. 1009

to devote time that was unemployed or uncontracted for by the com-
pany or committee to other work, it would be his right and privilege
to do so. All that his emploj^ers could require would be performance
of duty; all that they could censure him for would be neglect or non-
performance of the duties for which they had employed him. If his
employers demanded the right to control his unemployed time, so as
to say what he should or should not do during the hours for which he
was not under contract to them, they would then trespass on his
rights, and he would be under no obligation to yield to them.

Of course the great majority of the officers of the Mormon Church
have duties to perform that require but little of their time, and almost
none at all of their week-day time, and none are required to make
special preparations in order to address the people. Nearly all officers
make their living and support their families by some secular occupa-
tion or profession. A number of the apostles even are laborious and
thrifty business men, devoting a large share of their time to secular
work.

Under such circumstances it is wholly preposterous for the chief
authorities to claim the right to dictate to a member or an officer in
reference to the time that is naturally and ordinarily taken up with
secular occupation in order to earn a living for the individual himself
and his family. If a man is a farmer, he devotes some of his time to
church duties, but he seldom neglects his farm occupations. If he is
elected to a civil office, he devotes even less time to his office than he
formerly did to his farm.

What reason or justice is there in the claim that because a farmer,
a merchant, or an artisan devotes a small portion of his time to church
duties that therefore a priesthood must pass upon his right to devote
the secular part of his time to some kind of civil service? Is it not
evident at a glance that such claims are unreasonable and t}a*annical?

All that a priesthood having charge of church affairs can demand of
a subordinate officer is that he perform his duty properly. All that
they can justly and honorably do in the way of discipline is because of
neglect or nonperfofmance of duty. Because a man is commissioned
to devote a fraction of his time to the church, they can not have a right
to dictate how he shall employ the balance of his secular time. All
such claims savor of capricious and unprincipled monarclrv.

A SEKIOUS PENALTY.

29. Our view, and it has been the view of all dhr predecessors, is that no officer of
our church, especially those in high standing, should take a course to violate this
long-established practice. Rather than disobey it" and declare himself defiantly
independent of his associates and his file leaders it has always been held that it would
be better for a man to resign the duties of his priesthood; and we entertain the same
view to-day.

But in the Mormon Church more than any other, perhaps, the priest-
hood constitutes the life and significance of the church; and to be
deprived of priesthood as a matter of discipline reflects to the man's
discredit, and thus becomes a penal alternative.

In such a case the member deprived of official standing as a punish-
ment is in little better condition than an open apostate. He must
feel the confidence and respect of the church are withdrawn from
him, for his loyalty to liberty has led him to refuse to do what all
the other members of the priesthood have done, some willing^ and

1010 REED SMOOT.

others through fear and compulsion. Thus his patriotism ostracizes
him. It marks him out as unpleasantly peculiar and unbrotherly in
the church. It makes him a target for unkind and unwise criticism
on the part of those who have not studied and thought upon the ques-
tion, and who are consequently unable to understand and appreciate
his motives.

Why is it that no American Protestant Church has ever made such
demands upon minor officers? A deacon or an elder in a Presbyterian
Church, or a minor officer in-any other Protestant Church, is at liberty
to conduct his secular affairs as he sees proper, so that he abstains
from those forms of business that are denounced as vicious and
immoral by the churches. Would the members and minor officers of
any American Protestant Church tolerate any such rule as is here
sought to be enforced ? No. They would rebel against it instantly.
Neither would the Catholic Church either attempt or care to enforce
such a rule. Is it reasonable that the Mormon Church, which is now
greatly in the majority in a- State that has just attained statehood,
should enact a rule that is more exacting, more liable to abuse and
temptation, than that of any other church in the Western Hemisphere?

All these evil consequences and possibilities could have been avoided
by framing a rule in harmony with the circumstances as they actually
exist in the Mormon Church. There are a few officers that are sup-
posed to devote the most or all their time to church work. These
are the first presidency, the apostles, the presidents of the seventies,
and a very few others. These, by the custom and consent of the
church, receive certain amounts for their temporal needs, perhaps
only enough to partially support them, the balance to be procured
through some secular occupation. It is reasonable to require that these
men confine themselves to church work, and that they should not engage
in politics so long as they continue in ecclesiasticaroffice.

But as to the vast number of members who are minor officers in the
church, deacons and elders and bishops of wards, it is utterly unreason-
able and tyrannical to control their secular time or business occupa-
tions because of their membership in the lower 'priesthood to which
all male members in good standing are eligible. All that could be
required in justice and right would be sincere devotion to duty, and
discipline for neglect and nonperf ormance of duty.

It is now generally known that a large proportion of the higher offi-
cials in the church were in favor of a regulation in accordance with
the foregoing principles; but in this they were overruled, and the
present rule was promulgated. Certainly Mr. B. H. Roberts's bold
and manly words last fall- were decidedly against such a regulation;
and those thousands of independent and liberty -loving Mormons who
agreed with him then will be slow to accept the contrary doctrine with
full purpose of heart. It is apparent at a glance that the rule now
proclaimed achieves a purpose that could not have been subserved by
a rule that would prohibit high officials from entering politics. The
difference is that the rule now laid down puts all the officials of the
church under a control that is to all intents and purposes in the hands
of a centralized power, a power that can say to one, ucome," and he
cometh; to another, "go," and he goeth.

If this rule gets to working efficiently in all the regions where the
Mormon Church is now in the ascendency, and in those States where
it holds the balance of power, it may be made the means of accom-

REED -SHOOT. 1011

plishing important political results. Our Presidential elections are so
close at times that a few votes in the electoral college turns the scale.
Under this rule an ambitious leadership could easily determine the
political status of one or more States and thus decide a Presidential
contest. As a matter of money such a power would be worth millions;
of a corruption fund; but its exercise would imperil the peace and
safety of the Commonwealth; its existence would be a menace to free
institutions; and to destroy it the whole country, if necessary, would
desolate our fair valleys and nil every house with mourning.

CLEARING THE DECK FOR ACTION.

30. In view of all the occurrences to which reference has been made, and to the
diversity of views that have arisen among the people in consequence, we feel it to b4
our duty to clearly define our position, so there may be no cause hereafter for dis-
pute or controversy upon the subject.

By the constitution of the Mormon church a solemn declaration like
this manifesto commits the priesthood to a certain line of action whicH
would be continuous and unchanged except as subsequently modified
by some equally solemn declaration.

The authorities aim to have "no dispute or controversy " as to their
position. Yet their document is so redundant and ambiguous, both in1
the rule itself which follows and in the grounds laid for the rule, that
there could be no end of doubt and controversy, unless, indeed, which
seems possible, the whole subject should die away in importance and
effectiveness until it ceases to be an authoritative regulation. The
light of liberty and popular education is growing and spreading too
rapidly to permit a regulation so monarchical and undemocratic to
flourish upon American soil and among a free people.

THE RULE OF COUNCIL.

First. We unanimously agree to and promulgate as a rule that should always be
observed in the church and by every leading official thereof, that before accepting
any position, political or otherwise, which would interfere with the proper and com-
plete discharge of his ecclesiastical duties, and before accepting a nomination or
entering into engagements to perform new duties, said official should apply to the
proper authorities and learn from them whether he can, consistently with the obli-
gations already entered into with the church upon assuming his office, take upon
himself the added duties and labors and responsibility.

This rule is to be perpetuated; it is " always to be observed." It
applies to every member of "the church;" and it specially applies to
"every leading official thereof." It applies to "any position, politi-
cal or otherwise," that the member would wish to enter upon. It
applies to any "nomination" to civil office. All of these may be con-
strued to " interfere with the proper and complete discharge o|
ecclesiastical duties." Before accepting any such new occupation the
member must apply to the "proper authorities" for permission,

They propose to decide whether the new duties will be compatible
with the performance of church duties already assumed.

The grounds on which this rule. is laid is that certain duties are
already assumed, and that when new employments are undertaken the
authorities must decide upon their compatibility with existing obliga-
tions. In this way every officer and member, male and female, is
bound to seek counsel for every new step in political, civil, or industrial
affairs that it may be desired to take.

10 TJ KKKl> SMOOT.

CHAPTER NINTH. — Cases and principles in church and state*

ROBERTS AND THAlVHKK.

Ami now the question arises, Was Moses Thatcher rio-ht in withhold
ino- his assent to the rule promulgated in tho manifesto: He was willing
at the outlet, and possibly may still ho of the same mind, to eonetir in
the regulations whereby all the hio-h otlieers in the ehureh should
remain entirely out of polities. Hut ho was not willing to indorse a
rule that makes it umvrtain whether a man's politieal alle^ianee is
iirst ot' all to the state or to the leading authorities of tho ehureh. It
soonis that Kldor B. II. Roberts was of tho same opinion as to the
authority of the ehureh. At the time of his politieal eanvass last fall
he yvas reported in the papers ;i«, follows;

1 believe tho ohuroh has a right to say whether or not its high otHoiais shall Iv
allow od topartioipato in polities. If thoy dooidothat oortam otlieials shall not outer
politics, it is tor thoso oiHeors to submit to tho regulation or rosign. Hut it tho ohuroh
norm its its high otVieials to ontor politics at all, then thoso inon ought to bo absolutely
tree to follow thoir o\\ n diserotion as to \\ h:.t thoir polities shall ho aiul tho extent
to \vhioh thoy shall engage in tho affairs of govornmont, asanythiugshort of this would
render party 'loyalty impossible. I do not Ivliovo that Oonuu-rath' othrials ought to bo
o\iHviod to'go to Kopnblioau ohuroh otlioials toroouusol in politioal affairs, e-rvioo versa.
v^u-ha roqnirotnont in onr oonuuunity \\ouUl plaoo tho Control of tho rospootivo parties
under thoohnroh otli^iaN. and \\ onld giveup politioal affairs outiroly into thoir hands.
I soo no middle ground K -ointo and oompioto ivtiromont on tho part of high

Mormon ohuroh otlu uiN from politios, or olso porfoot freedom of oonduot in rospoot to
politics -trusting tho individual's own disorotiou and judgment in politioal oonoorns.

Note Mr. Roherts's \er\ sio'nitieant lano-uao'e: "If hio'h otlieiaU aiv
permitted to enter polities they mu>t he loft absolutely free to follow
their own discretion." Ao-ain, " IVmoeratie otlieials Slonnon | should
not be required to o-o to Republiean ehtireh c>tlieials for eounsel in
politieal a flairs, or viee \ersa.' Why.' Mr. Robert- says "it would
plaee the eontrol of the respective partios tinder the ehureh otlicials,
and would o-ive up politioai all airs entirely into their hands." lie -a\ -
further there must be**a eiunplote ivtiivm«Mit of Mormon Church otli-
eiaU from polities, or else per feet freedom of eonduet with re-pect to
polities."

Of eourse. with sueh convietions as are above expressed, Mr. Rob-
erts could in no wUo sio-ti tlu> manifesto; and that he did ttnallv sio-n
it ean only be t^xplaineil by a state of fai'ts similar to tlu>se reported
by the papers as having IHHMI set forth in the hi^h eouneil meetino at
as follows;

Hobor .1. wont on to say that tho brothron had worked with 1>. II. Kolvvts
for nine weeks boforo thoy brought him around. After tho tii-st protraetod offor:
availed them nothir.g they gave him a oouplo of weeks to think tho matter over and
counsel with the authorities at his leisure. When his poriod of rotloetion oxpirod
they mot with him again, but found his heart liko stone. Thoy prayed with him
and \\opt over him. but without avail. Another extension of time was given him.
during whioh they all took up a labor with him. but he was still unwilling to admit
that he had done wrong,

In tho meantime Apostlei'iram said ho and F. M. l.yman had been appointed a
oommittoe to porsuado Roberts that he was in error. Pay after day and night after
night thoy wont to him and wopt and pravod. and ho w opt and prayed, but insisted
that ho had done no \\romr. This eontinned for nine wooks. at the end of whioh
time he yielded. One morn;: aivd boforo the authorities and told them he

yas iv.t ;.x to aeknowledsro his wrong and would sign any paper they might ask him
;, or do anything thoy might tell him to do.

Whether or not the t'oro£oin$r statement is absolutely faithful to the
faet> iu tho ease is unimportant; though supposing the narrative to

Kl 1 l> SMOOT. 10i;i

he strictly correct, there is nothing in it that is seriously derogatory
to an honest man's character. It sliows that there must he orcat
pressure brought to hear upon :i strong man ere lie can surrender a
deep and consistent conviction. It. shows that :i man must he harassed
and distressed :md his nights tilled with t rouhled dreams ere he can
<lo sneh a tiling. Under such circumstances there remains an appeal
i'roin Mr. Roberts, after nine weeks' rout inuoiis agitation, to the same
man, when free and unobstructed, boldly and eloquent ly discussing t he
rjo-hts of church and state.

THE CASK OF Mosi-'.s Til Arm F.I;.

The charges against Moses Thatcher, so far as we have heen able to
ascertain them, were quite fully delineated at the stake hi^-li council
meeting at Lo^an, and they seem to f»e about as 1'ollovvH:

1. w* Moses Thatcher's attitude all through the political li^ht in 1 1 tah
could not he just ilie.d."

"2. " He had heen the one apostle who had refused to take counsel as
to how the. people should he divided up."

;i. "The lirst presidency and all I he twelve hut Thatcher had decided
Upon & certain |)olicy to o-et the relief they needed from the(Jo\en»
ment, but Thatcher liad stood out against them."

4. kwlle had heen opposing his brethren ever since the division on
party lines; and had not heen in harmony with his brethren."

f>. "The meeting Ca I hnl in the (Jardo House to consider theadvis
ability of disbanding the People's 1'a.rly was attended by many of the
authorities, stake .presidents and leaders of the People's i'arty. It. was
plainly staled a! this meeting that, men in hi^li authority who believed
in Republican principles should <^o out amonj^ tlu^ peoph1, but thai
those in hif»'h authority who could not indorse me principles of L'epub
licanisin shoidd remain silent. Their c.ounsel was obeyed |>y all tlu«
apostles and hi^li authorities r.xc.e.pt Moses Thatcher, who talked to
the people contrary to the wishes of his brethren.

0. "If it had not been for his condit ion, Moses Thatcher would have
been called to account for his declaration in the opera, house | here o-'iv
Ing Thatcher's declaration of political independence!, but if he ever
became able he would have to answer for thai as well as other thin^H
they proposed to charge against him."

7. ""Tin1 .speaker said that (he only concession Moses Thatcher ever
had made was that he would always submit to the will of the majority,
but would not admit that he was wronjj, although all his brethren
voted against him."

The last, charge, No. 7, shows a. wonderful concession on the part of

Mr. Thatcher. While, his judgment could not be convinced of the reo

titudc of such a plot as was hatched at the (Jardo I louse, or of the,
righteousness of other plans for dividing the people like so many eat
tie and sheep, yet he. was willing, according to democratic principles,
to submit to the "will of the majority/"

As to charge, No. <J, his declaration at the, opera, house, as ^iven in
pi-ecexlin^' pa^es, that declaration is in harmony with the solemn
pledo-es of the, church, pledges which Moses Thatcher himself ratified
DdOSt devoutly. What sort of justice or honor would that be. which
would require him to renounce, his own political faith, deny his own
personal pledges, and withal dishonor the covenants of his church?

1014 EEED SMOOT.

In reference to charge No. 5, the whole recital is something so
sepulchral and uncanny, so utterly out of harmony with the honor and
rectitude of open daylight and honest business, that everybody will
forget at once that it contains an accusation against a noble man, and
only hope that such a seeming conspiracy against American institutions
was never plotted.

• All the other charges mean simply that Moses Thatcher had refused
to concur in a plan adopted and promulgated at the Gardo House to
divide the people into political parties according to a certain policy.
He had been willing to keep entirely out of politics according to the
rule first adopted; but when this was set aside and the Gardo House
rule put in operation he refused to be bound by it; and for so doing
he will have the approbation of posterity, and doubtless that of the
God of all.

PLEASE EXPLAIN.
/

A great part of the manifesto is devoted to the subject of church and
state, not that any attempt is made to define what is meant by the one
or the other, but to make it clear by many and oft-repeated disavowals
that no thought or desire or attempt has ever been made or ever will
be made to unite church and state, or to permit the functions of the
one to interfere with those of the other.

1 One is compelled to wonder what kind of a state is meant by the
writer of the manifesto. Surely it can not be an American State! If
you have not interfered with the State, how is it that you have con-
trolled the politics of the parties by taking from one side and adding
to the other until the State of Utah now ranks in a different organiza-
tion and marches under a different banner from that of half a dozen
years ago, or even less? Who made this variation? Surely it was
made in great part by the church authorities.

If you did not wish to interfere with the state, wiry would you send
out men to speak and organize for one side, while the leaders for the
other side were commanded or counseled to keep silent? If }TOU wish
not to interfere with the state, why should you seek to punish Moses
Thatcher for not cooperating with you by keeping silent while other
leaders were converting his friends and neighbors to a new political
profession?

If you wish not to interfere with the state, why do you encourage
church members to be guided by your preferences in political matters?
Why do you not disabuse the minds of the people and command them
to be guided by their own thinking and their own preferences? Why
should it be a matter of importance to the brethren all over Utah to
know the position of the u chief authorities" on political matters?

If there lias been no attempt to infringe on the state, wiry should
there be any concern about political parties? Wh}r should not one be
as welcome as the other? And above all, why should the authorities
wish to consult with every member in order to determine for him
whether he shall accept an office or not? Suppose a certain farmer is
a deacon or bishop in the church in which he holds membership, and
that he is desirous of some civil office in his county. For twenty years
he has lived On his farm and attended church on Sunda}^, giving thus
a small portion %of his time to ecclesiastical duty. Now, why should
such a man be compelled to accept and hold a civil office under the
authorization and control of his superiors in church office, on the plea

REED SMOOT. 1015

that he held a little official position in the church, and for that reason
he must submit all other duties and undertakings to the arbitrament
of "counsel?"

LEAD US NOT. INTO TEMPTATION.

If the chief authorities are really desirous of keeping out of politics
and abjuring the functions of the state, why should they ordain a rule
that forever puts it within their power to control the state? Nearly
every reputable male member of the Mormon Church is an officer of
some kind. The chief authorities are the authors of the policies that
shape the "counsels" of all that are subordinate to them in the
priesthood. Every reputable member is guided by the counsels of the
chiefs, either directly or indirectly.

Now what is the magnitude and nature of this power ? It extends
to the whole population of the church. Within this radius it is prac-
tically absolute. Moreover, the power is priestly — that is, it is pater-
nal and patriarchal; just such power as should not be used in relation
to the state.

But the inquiry arises, if the authorities do not want to control the
state, why do they surround themselves with the means of doing it?
Why do they place themselves in the very vortex of temptation? If
the members are devoted and sincere, and if they submit to such a
rule of counsel, there can be no doubt that they are at the mere}7 of
their superiors in office. With such power in their hands, it is the
invariable verdict of history that those who hold it never fail to use it
to achieve their own selfish ends.

It is not right in the sight of God for any man to hold politica^
power over another man. It is not right in the sight of man; for long
ago have men declared that "all are created equal;" all are endowed
with the same "inalienable rights."

If the chief authorities had desired to frame a rule that would put
the state out of danger in case an ambitious priesthood should arise,
they might have done so by requiring that all the higher officials
abstain from all forms of political advocacy and from all civil office;
and they might further require faithful performance of duty in all
minor offices, with discipline for neglect and nonperformance of duty.
For violation of the rule on the part of high officials, it might be
required that they resign their places; and the same penalty could be
exacted from minor officials for neglect or nonperformance of duty.

In such a regulation the church would stand in a negative relation
to the state. It would have no positive authorization to make. As
the rule reads, the church authorizes the official to seek office. It com-
missions and qualifies him. It gives him a certificate of character to
church people. It tells the members of the church that he is the one
to vote for. If any member should defy this counsel he would be
classed as an apostate, and his political prospects would be blasted.
Thus the power of presenting officers to the state would be complete
in the priesthood. It would swallow up the state completely. Not
more absolute would be Rome of the middle ages, or England under
Henry VIII. The only prevention would be the inability of the priest-
hood "to enforce discipline.

But why should the chief authorities thus surround themselves with
unnecessary burdens, and most of all with needless and perilous temp-
tations? Surely, if they sought only "those things tnat are honest

1016 REED SMOOT.

in the sight of all men," they would put away from themselves and
their successors in office every possibility of wielding a political power
so enormous and far reaching, so tempting to carnal ambition, so cor-
roding and burdensome to such noble souls as are fitted by the divine
spirit to be guides and expounders of eternal life.

CHURCH AND STATE FUNCTIONS.

The sphere of civil government extends to acts — external conduct.
It commands the performance or nonperformance of acts. Civil
government does not extend to the thoughts and beliefs and whatever
constitutes the spirit world. The church is based upon the religious
sentiments, and its true sphere is within the spiritual domain, where
alone sin and righteousness and morality prevail. Acts of themselves
have no moral quality; and it is only as they exist in the thoughts,
desires, intentions, that they have importance in the estimation of
religion.

If a man is insane, all his acts count for nothing, however good or
evil they might be were the man of sound mind. In the church acts
are of importance only as evidences of good or bad states of soul.
The church can take no cognizance whatever of the physical act of
adultery; the state alone has jurisdiction over the outward act; but
the church acts with reference to the purpose of heart which dictates
the adultery. The outward act is the evidence of the internal state,
and the church performs its work as having jurisdiction of the spirit,
and not with respect to external conduct. The state has no query
whatever in regard to sin and righteousness. It looks to public order
and welfare and has no eyes to see either sin or holiness.

The church may close its doors against a member because of certain
acts, but it has jurisdiction only over the spirit, and the act is simply
testimony as to what has been done in the heart, out of which proceeds
all good and evil.

Church and state may each do much to modify each other; but in
doing this, each must remain and work in its own sphere. Thus the
state may for its own preservation and welfare establish a school sys-
tem that will mold civilization and transform all the beliefs and con-
ceptions of men. In this way religious opinions and ordinances are
greatly changed from age to age.

The state may enforce order and protect life and property every-
where, in the church assembly, at the altar — wherever human beings
and property exist. But the state can not enforce the discipline or
ritual of the church. It can not order baptisms, communion, and con-
firmation. It can not pay preachers and provide houses of worship.
And in speaking here of the state, we are enforcing the American
conception of the state, with which only we have to do.

The church may modify and mold the state; it may change the
characters of men and women; it may transform society and civiliza-
tion; it may unseat presidents, abolish laws, defeat parties, inaugurate
bloody and destructive wars. But how shall this be done? By
working in its own sphere. By enlightening and moving the souls of
men and women. By laying within the soul of the citizen the foun-
dations of character, will, and purpose, thus giving the motive and
incentive to action.

REED SMOOT. 1017

The church may teach principles that will surely build up or defeat
a great political party, and thus rehabilitate the state. But it would
depart from its sphere if it should use its priestly authority to control
political action or manipulate parties. In modifying the state the
church can only fulfill the office of a seer or revelator. It can within
its own sphere reveal truths that will rock the state to its foundations,
possibly overthrow it entirely. But the authority in this case is the
authority of the truths revealed, not a priestly authority which adheres
to the person of the priest.

There is an infinite difference between the priestly authority of the
priest and the authority of truth itself. In a mathematical demon-
stration there is a sense of authority or self -existence of truth that is
called conviction. This authority is infinite and eternal, and it
inheres in the nature and essence of the soul, and in the nature of uni-
versal spirit. But the authority of a priest is that of an official per-
sonage. The submission and obedience rendered him is that of a child
to a parent; it is not the result of rational motive. In consenting to
receive a man as a priest, we become children, and the priest stands as
the heavenly Father. We take the prescription of the physician, not
because we understand therapeutics, but because we consent to be
ministered to as a child.

In the civil state men act from rational considerations and with
reference to definite and practical ends. It is largely a question of
experience. It turns on the operation of the law of cause and effect.
Whatever the church does with reference to the state it should do by
revelation of truth in reference to civil duty and the standard of char-
acter. If it should attempt priestly control over men as children are
controlled by a parent, or as the physician requires submission from
a patient, it would then resort to priestly authority over civil action
and inflict a grievous wrong against the state.

THE AMERICAN STATE.

Under the American system there are two distinct spheres for church
and state, and they must be kept separate from inception to culmination.
In the one sphere, according to the words of Christ, we must "render
unto Csesar the things that are Caesar's;" and in the other we must
" render unto God the things that are God's." The foundation of the
state is the individual souls of men arid women created by God in His
image and after His likeness, endowed in the nature of things with
inalienable rights of life, libert}^ and happiness. These rights exist
independently of government; they exist in order to government and
a true government is an expansion and administration of these primal
rights; and in proportion as governments accomplish this work they
have a right to exist; and when they fail to do this they should be
abolished. These principles, as written by Jefferson, are the magna
charta of American liberty, and they can never be abrogated.

The inception and origin of the state is the endowment of right with
which God has constituted the soul. -Hence the state does not get its
right and power to exist from the church. The state is an original
and independent inspiration; and however much it jnay blend with the
church, there are two spheres, and neither one must subvert the other.
Neither must one be subordinate to the other or dependent upon it.

1018 REED SMOOT.

The state must not present officers to the church, as is done in all state
churches; nor must the church present officers to the state, as would
virtually be the case under the manifesto.

The manifesto lays the foundation for a church regime similar in its
significance and portent to that which prevailed under the People's
Party organization. It is more subtle in its workings, more deftly
devised, but if unimpeded it could not fail to achieve results even
more nicely and effectively that the former political machinery. It is
very true that much would depend upon "the character of the men to
whose management the institutions of the church should be intrusted.
With some only the good of the church would be sought, but with
men of comprehensive and ambitious minds, both church and state
would be be covered by their administrations. There would necessa-
rily be discrimination and choice; prejudices and preferences would
enter into the work unconsciously; there would be a hundred avenues
and inducements to fraud and oppression.

The State is largely made up of the laws, institutions, and customs
which we inherit from the past; it is also constituted in part by those
who hold positions to frame and execute its laws. The State exists
because of a vast number of functions the performance of which
requires an~election to office, and in most cases a prior nomination.

ANTAGONISM OF THE MANIFESTO.

The position of the manifesto is that so far as the state exists in its
official functions it must hold its tenure in harmony with the "counsel"
of the priesthood; that is, if the population were all Mormon, as a
majority of the Utah population is, those who hold civil offices, or
military either, would do so in conformity with and in subordination
to "counsel." No good Mormon would be found in office without the
prior authorization of "counsel;" for if the manifesto is infallible he
would be a violator of the ordinance of God, and the church people,
acting in a civil capacity, would be in duty bound to vote against him.

This "rule" as promulgated provides a circle within a circle — a
wheel within a wheel — and in the last analysis a very few minds, or
possibly one mind, presses the button and the body of the church does
the rest. Thus the network of guidance and authority tends to destroy
individuality and personal liberty. In this regard it conflicts with the
equality and liberty incorporated in the Declaration of Independence.

The "principle" that vitalizes the doctrine of priesthood is that
of theocracy dispensed through descending gradations of priestly
officials. The "principle "that animates the American s}7stem is that
every man and every woman is created in the image and likeness of
God, in virtue of which each is a sovereign unit of the state. These
two "principles," allowing that both are genuine, operate in different
spheres neither of which may be made subordinate to the other. In
the state each man must be a sovereign acting freely, independentl3r,
and of equal right. There must be no hierarchy in a state, for every
citizen is a king and a sovereign-. The state must in nowise go to the
church for its right to be or to do. In a true state no man could be
elected to office, having been " counseled " thereto by the church — that
is, if he held himself primarily at the disposal of the church he should
not be accounted worthy of the state.

REED SMOOT. 1019

Perhaps the most important thought written by Jefferson in the
Declaration of Independence is that of the innate freedom and inde-
pendence of each human being. It requires only a clear realization
of the spirit of liberty as embodied in the Declaration of Independence
to see and feel that a State receiving its officers and holding its tenure
in accordance with the "counsel" of a church is in utter conflict with
the genius of American government. There have been times in the
past when the church, notably the Catholic Church, has completely
swallowed up the state, even to the literal putting of the foot of the
ecclesiastical ruler upon the necks of kings. At other times and places,
as in case of Queen Elizabeth, of England, and the Czar of Russia at
the present moment, the state has absorbed the church, and ecclesias-
tical dignitaries are shuffled about as mere puppets of regal power.
In such cases church and state occupy but a single sphere. The lion
and the lamb lie down together, it is true, but the lamb is inside the
lion.

CHAPTER TENTH. — Supplementary charges l)y Lorenzo Stww.

The managers of the case against Moses Thatcher must have had
a ke^n sense of the fact that the concensus of public opinion was
against them in the Thatcher deposition; for we find them hunting
about for a subterfuge to give the semblance of a reason for opening
up a magazine of obsolete and exploded charges against Thatcher; and
the significant feature of it all is that their unwonted attack has been
a boomerang that has spread dismay among their ranks. Probably
they did not know the full import and history of the matters with
which they were dealing. At all events the reaction leaves them in a
far worse condition than before. But it is important here to notice
the subterfuge that was employed to give opportunity for the man-
agers, over the name of Lorenzo Snow, to amend their pleadings and
file supplementary charges in order to stiffen up public sentiment
against Thatcher. And in order to make the amended complaint more
effectual, it is ordered to be read in many if not all the ward churches.
A letter is written and a few young brethren are induced to adopt it
as their own, and thus request Lorenzo Snow to give the ''primary
cause of Brother Thatcher's lack of harmony with his quorum." It
seems that what was refused to the earnest pleadings of Moses Thatcher
was here given out by Lorenzo Snow to a few young men, apparently
to gratify a mere curiosity. Here is the letter of the young men:

SALT LAKE CITY, November 20, 1896.
Elder LORENZO SNOW,

President of the Twelve Apostles.

DEAR BROTHER: As there has been much discussion over the correspondence
between Moses Thatcher and yourself; and some of our own people are at sea in
regard to the primary cause of Brother Thatcher's lack of harmony with your quorum,
leading to his excommunication therefrom, in behalf of a number of such persons we
pen you this communication.

We are aware that the difficulty mainly rested with the twelve and one of its
members, also that when action was taken in the case there was 110 need of your
making further explanations. We can appreciate your abstinence from controversy
on a purely church matter through the public prints.

But seeing that there appears to be a misapprehension of the facts in tne case,
and that many good people are liable, in consequence of that, to form incorrect con-
clusions, we respectfully ask you if it be not inconsistent with any rule of the church

1020 RKKD SMOOT.

or of the council over which you preside, to make some public statement which
will serve to place this matter in its true light before the saints and clear awav the
mists . seem to surround the subject of Moses Thatcher's

deposition U :o the world the priva^ -.uience that passed

!x breen yon and him in a church capacity, is it fair, even to yourself and vour asso-
ciates, to leave the matter m its present condition aiul open to so much misconstruc-
tion? If yon won Id make an explanatory statement through the Peseret News we
believe it would be highly esteemed by many others, as well as vour brvthn
the gospel.

NKPHI L. MORRIS.

AKNOIP <.;. Hi \rvji-K.

AKI-HI K F. BARNES.

R. C. BADGER.

T. A, CLAWSON.

- r- LAKE CITY, November SO, 1896.

Messrs, NEPHI L. MORRIS, ARNOLD G. GIAUQITE, ARTHUR F. BARNES, R. C. BADGER,
and T. A. CLAWS* \

DEAR BRETHREN: In response to your esteemed communication of the 20th instant,
I have determined, after conference with several of the apostles, to offer some
explanations on the case of Moses Thatcher and comments on the correspondence
to which you refer, through the columns of the Deseret News.

The apostles did not view the publication of the letters that passed to and from
Brother Moses Thatcher and them as calling for any controversy on their part Nor
did they think it a proper thing to give those ecclesiastical communications general
publicity through secular newspapers. The letters bearing my signature were not
prepared with a design for publication, whatever the others might have been— and
were regarded as church matters for the consideration solely of the respective par-
ties. It is only because those letters have been given to the public, ana beca
s-eoms, from what you say, that an improper impression has been made upon the
minds of some people thereby, that I comply witn the request to meet some of the
statements they contain.

The evident purpose in publishing those communications was to excite public
sympathy, and the unnecessary and superfluous appeals they contain convey the
impression that they were concocted for that purpose. They were not relevant to
the issue involved. Moses Thatcher was not on trial for his fellowship. Specific
charges were not preferred either in public or in private. The question was solely
aa to his standing as one of the apostles, in consequence of his lack of harmonv with
the quorum of the twelve of which he was a member. That question he coulcl have
settled at any time if he had so desired, and that without a formal trial. By placing
himself in harmony with his quorum, in the spirit of humility and conformity with
its rules, of which' he was not in ignorance, he could have savexl himself all the
trouble and deprivation of which he complains.

In his review of what he calls his case he lays great stress on the matter of the
declaration of principles, which he refused to sign after it had received the indorse-
ment of the first presidency, the apostles (excepting himself K the seven presidents
of the seventies, the patriarch, and the presiding bishopric, comprising the general
authorities of the church. His excuse is that he had only about an hour ami thirty
minutes in which to consider it. Usually men' do not require much time to eo:>
a matter which they have always held to be right. There was nothing new in that
document as it relates to church discipline. It contains that which has always been
an established doctrine of the church. When the committee which prepared it sub-
mitted it to the other church authorities they signed it after reading without hesita-
tion and without requiring time to deliberate. It embodies so manifestly a conceded
and necessary rule that everyone in harmony with the church authorities accepted
it at once, and the church as a body has received and adopted it as an essential rule.
Why should Moms Thatcher alone, of all the church authorities, feel that he could
not sign it, as he alleges, "without stultification?" Was not that in itself evidence
iras and had been out of harmony with his brethren? And are they not

REED 8MOOT. 1021

men as little disposed as anyone living to stultify themselves, or to assent to any-
thing wrong that is of vital importance to them and to the church?

He charges that his letter refusing to sign the declaration was ' * suppressed. ' ' There
was no suppression in the matter at all. The letter was not addressed to the confer-
ence nor to the public. Out of mercy and compassion to him no reference was made,
to his contumacy at the April conference, but his name simply drop|>ed from tin- list.
of authorities presented. How could he have been sustained under the ei remittances?
There are six of the twelve now living who voted for his appointment to the apostle-
ship. Not one of them would have sustained him for that position if it had been
known that he then entertained views entirely out of harmony with those of that
body. The letter addressed at that time to his associates was a deliberately com-
posed communication, showing that he was able to understand the document which
he refused to sign, and his prompt publication of that letter, in a secular newspaper,
shows that he had a deliberate intention to oppose the declaration and defy his
brethren who promulgated it. But if he did not nave sufficient time to consider the
declaration at the April conference, what about the six months which elapsed before
the October conference? Was not that time enough? During that interval he was
visited by many of his brethren, some of them apostles, and no change was effected,
but he failed even to attend the October conference, or to manifest a disposition to
conform to the principle of the declaration.

It is true that he was in poor bodily health during that period. But he was not
too ill to upbraid brethren who tried to impress him with the danger of his position,
nor to accuse some of them of having "blanketed their conscience" in signing the
declaration.

He states in his letters that he would have attended the October conference if it
had not been for the "assurances and reassurances" he had received that nothing
would be done concerning his standing until his health should be restored. He
then complains bitterly of the explanations given to the conference as to hia position
and seeks to convey the impression that they were a breach of good faith.

ASSURANCES WERE FULFILLED.

The "assurances" to which he- refers were faithfully fulfilled. He was left in
statu quo. Every time it was shown that the condition of his health would not
admit of his meeting with his quorum the question of his standing was postponed.
But meanwhile he and his friends were not slow to talk about his associates and to
convey unwarranted impressions concerning their course in his case. So much mis-
understanding was thereby created that it became absolutely necessary to make some
explanations that the Latter-day Saints might not be deceived. President Woodruff
was so strongly impressed with 'this that he addressed the conference on the subject
and his statements were indorsed by several of the twelve who followed him.

This was no "trial" of Moses Thatcher. It was simply a necessary explanation
of his status. It involved the question of his lack of harmony with the church
authorities. His claim that he was publicly accused and therefore should have a
public trial is astonishingly absurd. He was not accused in the sense of a trial or
investigation. The fact of his lack of harmony with the authorities was explained
and shown to be of much earlier date than his refusal to sign the declaration and
his engaging in active politics. To place himself in harmony with the twelve, or
refuse to do so, required no "trial" either public or private. He did neither. Yet
the assurances given him which he misconstrues were observed and his "case" was
not called up until he was able to appear.

It was but a few days after the conference, even if it had entirely closed, before he
appeared and spoke at public meeting as though he still held the authority in which
he had not been sustained at conference. This necessitated the announcement from
the first presidency through the Deseret News that he had no right to officiate in the
priesthood while in his suspended condition.

THE TEMPLE INCIDENT.

Notwithstanding that announcement, when he chose to present himself to the
authorities he presumed to attempt entrance to the temple.for that purpose, and at a
time when the first presidency as well as the twelve met for the consideration of
other church matters and for holding their prayer circle. No one could attend but
those of their own body, nor even enter the house unless in good standing. No
member of the church without the proper recommend can obtain admittance to the
temple, no matter how much he may have contributed to its erection. That would

1022 REED SMOOT.

cut no figure at all in the right of entrance. It is amazing that Moses Thatcher
should attempt to intrude the boast of his contributions into the question of enter-
ing the temple of God when not in good standing and full fellowship.

His exclusion from the temple he construes into being "denied the privilege of
meeting with the quorum." No one knew better than he that there was no such
denial. The assurance given him by Elder F. D. Richards and others of the quorum
was proof of their willingness to meet him and their joy at his manifestation of even
a desire to meet them. That there were other places and occasions when he could
properly have an interview with his brethren he fully understood, and he should
have done so long before.

In passing I will notice his technical quibble about the closing of the temple
against him on October 15 for his disregard of my letter of October 23, which he
says is hard for him to understand. A careful reading ot my letter will show that
the difficulty is of his own manufacture. What I said conveys no such meaning as
he asserts. I said, ' ' This being the condition of affairs you were not admitted to the
temple on the forenoon of Thursday." ''The condition of affairs" which caused
that exclusion is set forth in the first paragraph of my letter, and relates to occur-
rences before the 15th. It is true that ray letter of the 23d in reply to his of the 16th
is incidentally mentioned, but only as something growing out of what happened on
the 15th, and of course was not intended to apply as a condition existing before that
date. This perversion of plain language shows what small evasions will be resorted
to When one gets into the dark.

THE CONFERENCE ADDRESSES.

Reference to the conference discourses published in the Deseret News was made
that Brother Thatcher might know exactly what the brethren said, that he might see
the necessity there was for the people to understand where he €stood, and that he
might see the need of putting himself in harmony with the church authorities.

It is necessary to notice his complaint that he had not been invited to attend the
meeting at which final action was taken in his case. In his letter dated November
4, he says:

' ' I returned to this city Thursday — a week ago to-morrow — and have daily expected
to hear respecting a time when I could see the brethren once more together. No
word having reached me respecting that matter, I adopt this means of respectfully
asking you when such meeting can be arranged. As early a meeting as convenient
will greatly oblige,

"Your brother in the gospel, MOSES THATCHER."

To this I replied, as he has published, under date of November 6:

"In accordance with your wishes for a meeting, I take pleasure in appointing 2
o'clock on Thursday next at the historian's office, upon which occasion the quorum
will be pleased to meet with you.

"With kindest regards, your brother and fellow-servant,

"LORENZO SNOW."

On the day thus appointed the apostles met at the time and place thus designated,
when they received his lengthy communication dated November 11, in which he
said:

" I shall not trouble my brethren, therefore, to convene in a special meeting named
for Thursday at 2 p. m. at the historian's office."

Thereupon the council of the apostles gave him one week more, and notified him
that his case would be called up for action at a meeting to be held in the historian's
office at 10 a. m. on Thursday, the 19th instant, as appears in my letter, published
by him with the other correspondence.

When that day arrived we received this last letter, in which he said:

"As there is to be no trial of iny case and as I am not requested to be present, I
take it to be the purpose of considering my case, etc."

Why should there have been any further tampering with the case? Moses That-
cher was entirely out of "harmony with his brethren the apostles. He was simply
required to put himself in accord with them, as is required by the Gospel and the
order of the councils of the priesthood. That he declined to do. After asking for a
time and place to be appointed when he could meet with them, and in response to
that request a time and place was set, and the apostles came from distant points for
the purpose of meeting with him, instead of appearing he coolly notified them by

REED 8MOOT.

letter that he would not "trouble them to convene." Then when they gave him,
another week in which to appear, and notified him that his case would be called up>
for consideration and action, he still treated the council with contempt, and asserted:
"I am not requested to be present."

That the council of the apostles took the only consistent action that was left open,
must be evident to every latter-day saint who has eyes to see and a heart to under-
stand. Why Moses Thatcher did not meet with his brethren, after they had assem-
bled at his own request, is best known to himself. Notwithstanding his past course,
they were ready to receive him with open arms if he had come in the proper spirit
and put himself in accord with them. As he would not, they expelled him from
the priesthood, as they were in duty bound to do.

GOES FURTHER BACK.

It should be known that the disaffection of Moses Thatcher dates back to a time
long before political difficulties could enter into the matter. President Woodruff
has stated publicly that Moses Thatcher had not been in full harmony with his
quorum since the death of President John Taylor. Trouble was had with him
before that time.

In 1886 he proclaimed in public discourses ideas and predictions not indorsed by
his brethren. At Lewiston, Cache County, notes were taken of these utterances and
published on a fly leaf. He was subsequently written to by President Taylor, and
his answer is on file. While he claimed that he had not been accurately reported,
he gave his own language, under his own hand, to the effect of predictions of events
to occur within five years, which have failed of fulfillment and which were founded
on erroneous interpretations of Scripture. He wrote for publication a sort of retrac-
tion, which really took nothing back, but merely charged partial errors in the report
of his extravagant remarks.

He was out of harmony with his brethren in relation to a standing appellate high
council, which he claimed should be appointed and which he has never acknowledged
was incorrect.

He disputed with President Taylor as to the appointment of president of the Logan
Temple and contended for a man of his own selection, even after the president
announced the appointment by revelation.

His bearing with his brethren of the twelve was such that he oould not brook dis-
sent and resented their nonacceptance of his personal views.

When Wilford Woodruff's accession to the presidency was under consideration as
the proper successor, he expressed opinions which showed that he regarded human
smartness and business ability as above that simplicity of character and susceptibility
to divine impressions which are notable in that faithful servant of God, and objected
that such a man could not grasp the situation of affairs or cope with the difficulties
arising. He was overruled, but persisted in his views.

BUSINESS DIFFICULTIES WITH PRESIDENT CANNON.

When President George Q. Cannon, after the decease of President Taylor, was in
prison for infraction of the antipolygamy laws, Moses claimed that Brother Cannon had
defrauded him, and he threatened in the presence of President Woodruff and others
of the twelve to sue him at law and thus bring many private affairs before the public
through the courts. Only on being emphatically warned by President WToodruff and
others that such a course, particularly in Brother Cannon's condition, would result
disastrously to him in his church position did he desist. On President Cannon's
release from confinement the matter was fully investigated and it was demonstrated
that instead of Brother Cannon owing him he was in Brother Cannon's debt to an
amount which he subsequently paid. For his insults and hard language toward
Brother Cannon he has never apologized nor made any amends. This incident is
referred to in President Cannon's absence from the State. He has always preserved
silence on this matter and did not wish it to be mentioned against Brother Thatcher.
But it is important as showing Moses Thatcher's spirit and bearing toward his
brethren.

Brother Thatcher makes great pretentious of devotion to the church and declares
he has " never shirked any responsibility." The people in many of the various
stakes of Zion who have been visited by the apostles may ask themselves when
they have ever seen Moses Thatcher at their quarterly conferences or other church
gatherings.

JL024 REED 8MOOT.

MEETINGS OF HIS QUORUM.

He has neglected the meetings of his quorum for years. This was not always on
account of ill health. He was able, at least, in the earlier part of the time, to attend
to business and pleasure affairs, apparently in good health and spirits. The roll
book of meetings of the presidency and the apostles shows that from May, 1889, to
April, 1896, a period of about seven years, he was in attendance at the regular weekly
meetings but 33 times. There were held 277 of those meetings, at which President
Woodruff, though weighted down by age and numerous cares, was present 256
times. His absence was always on account of sickness. Brother Thatcher's residence
was most of the time in Logan, but the hour was set so that he and others at a distance
could have reasonable opportunity to attend.

Brother Thatcher's spirit has been contumacious and he has been self-opinionated
and arbitrary. Previous to the dedication of the temple his brethren labored with
him for many hours to bring him into the proper frame of mind to unite with them
in that sacred ceremony. His condition was not entirely satisfactory at the close of
the protracted interview, but was accepted out of charity and mercy to him that he
might not be excluded from the dedication, with the hope that the spirit of the occa-
sion would influence him to thorough reconciliation. President Woodruff's announce-
ment of harmony among the brethren was made with this understanding, but has
been adroitly turned by Brother Thatcher to shut off all that occurred before that
time, and which would not now be alluded to but for his own utterances and refer-
ence to his pretended humility and harmony.

THE POLITICAL NOMINATION.

In accepting nomination for a political office, which if elected thereto would have
taken him away from his ecclesiastical duties for long periods, without consultation
with his quorum and the presidency he could not but have known that he was vio-
lating a requirement of high officials in the church. Yet he would not consult with
them, while he was able to attend political gatherings and business meetings although
in poor health. Here again he was out of harmony with his brethren.

There was no need for any loss of manhood or proper independence nor the for-
ieiture of any of the rights of citizenship. But if he did not value his apostleship
and priesthood as of the very first consideration he was not worthy to hold them,
and his subsequent course shows that he held them in great esteem in theory but in
very small esteem in practice. Fine words and sympathetic phrases do very well to
influence the public, but they count for nothing in the face of deeds that contradict
them, or the failure to do that which is so rhetorically professed.

The standing and fellowship of Moses Thatcher as a member of the church has
not been brought into question ; therefore, there has been no trial. He has been dealt
with by his quorum for lack of harmony with his associates, something that was
entirely within his own power to correct without great exertion or much time. If
his standing in the church was at stake specific charges would be made, and he
would have to answer to them in the usual way, which is not and has not been by
public demonstration.

What has been done was necessary and a duty. Action was not taken until it was
certain that no further delay would be of any use or benefit. Moses Thatcher has
been treated with greater consideration and mercy than any other man who has
taken the course which he has pursued. He has been prayed for, waited upon,
pleaded with, and wept over until his rebellion and contumacy were seen to be
invincible, and he is in open hostility to regulations which the whole church has
adopted and ratified. He could not and can not be any longer empowered to act in
the authority of the holy priesthood.

And now let the latter-day saints ponder upon the situation, and take the warning
given by the prophet Joseph Smith as a key to the church for all time. It is as
follows:

"I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal
principle that has existed with" G.od from* all eternity. That one who rises up to
condemn others, finding fault with the church, saying that they are out of the way,
while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is in the high
road to apostacy ; and if he does not repent will apostatize, as God lives." (History
of Joseph Smith, July 2, 1839.)

In conclusion I repeat the words of Him who spake as never man spake :

"He that exalteth himself shall be abased, but he that humbleth himself shall be
exalted."

Your brother in the gospel, LORENZO SNOW.

REED SMOOT. 1025

CHAPTER ELEVENTH. — A masterly vindication. .

The following reply of Moses Thatcher to the "supplementary
charges" of Lorenzo Snow is a document of unusual importance, one
destined to be a historic paper in the annals of Utah. It is the final
word in the church controversy, and the opening chapter of what, it
is to be hoped, will be an honorable public career for Moses Thatcher:

LOGAN, UTAH, December 12, 1896.
Elder LORENZO SNOW, President of the Twelve Apostles.

DEAR BROTHER : Your recent letter, written for publication in the Deseret News at
the request of five young men of Salt Lake- City, demands an answer from me in the
interest of fairness, friends, family, and the saints throughout the world. The duty
is a painful one — so painful, indeed, that personal considerations would be a motive
insufficient to induce me, even on a matter so vitally important to me and mine, to
take up my pen in self-defense.

I have read and reread your open letter, and have purposely delayed replying to
it, hoping and praying that a sense of right and justice might dictate what I write to
one holding the high and responsible position you occupy in the church, and for
whom I entertain sentiments of profound respect — no matter what you may think;
or say about me. I confess astonishment, not only at the letter, but at the spirit of
your communication; for, as I have always understood your disposition, your ideas
of justice and your love of mercy, that communication does not appear to your
advantage. Lorenzo Snow, as I have known him during all the years of his presi-
dency over the quorum of apostles, nowhere, to my mind, appears in that bitter and
acrimonious communication.

Political differences in Utah have unfortunately, and, as I believe, unnecessarily,
resulted in criminations and recriminations, and in the resurrection of misunder-
standings long since explained or settled. Before their introduction I never saw you
turn a deaf ear to pleadings for specifications on the part of an accused brother. Nor
is it like you to ignore my earnest, often-repeated requests for charges against me,
which you furnished by the column with evident alacrity for a public print, in order
to gratify the apparent curiosity of five young men of Salt Lake City. If, as you
say, I was not entitled to a public hearing, as my case was not a public matter, why
did you make public charges against me in a newspaper when you refused to give
me even an intimation of them in private? It is difficult for me to understand why
you have publicly accused me when privately you would not; why you presented
specified charges against me after my deposal instead of before; why you so readily
granted the request of the five young men when you so persistently refused mine;
why you gratified their curiosity and that of the public concerning an affair in which
you declared I was "the principal party interested." This treatment, this discrimi-
nation, is difficult for me to comprehend.

Nor can I conceive the object of those young brethren in asking a further expla-
nation of the conduct of your quorum toward me, the entire correspondence on the
subject being in their possession. The Deseret News had already declared officially
that the action of deposing me had been "inspired, dictated, authorized, and
approved of God." Holding the News' statement in view, it may seem strange to
many of the saints that the young men should ask further reasons for my deposal,
and stranger still that you should deem it necessary to furnish them. Besides, the
published correspondence was complete. It told its own story of the patience and
forbearance which had been shown me.

The appearance of those letters in secular newspapers (and I infer from your
remarks that the Deseret News is not secular) was probably brought about by the
direct personal attacks of the News, which has not appeared to be friendly to me
under its present management. And why should I have gone to the News when its
columns were daily filled with misrepresentations of my conduct and position;
when it was falsely declaring that I had been pledging political support for months;
when it was forcing me upon a platform I had never constructed and attributing to
me words I had never uttered? But have' you not seen even official declarations
from those occupying higher positions than I ever held appear first in a secular
newspaper and afterwards in the organ of the church?

Why should you feel called upon "to meet some of the statements" contained in
that public correspondence? Were you not satisfied with the judgment of the peo^
pie as to the merits of the controversy? Your side was placed before them just as*

1026 REED SMOOT.

fully as it had been placed before me. If you believed a further explanation was
due, why did you not give it to me when I requested it time and again?

Pardon me for quoting the following harsh expression from your open letter:

"The evident purpose in publishing those communications was to excite public
sympathy; and the unnecessary and superfluous appeals they contain convey the
impression that they were concocted for that purpose."

Judging from the way those appeals were treated, they were, indeed, " superfluous
and unnecessary." Had I known that they would have been so regarded, I never
would have made them. I will confess they were appeals, not to the public, but to
my brethern. They were cries of anguish from a heart racked with pain. They
were pleas for mercy— prayers for light— for information as to my offending. But
why should you imagine they were published to excite public sympathy? Do you
consider that to be the natural result of their publication? An appeal from one in
distress, in jeopardy, is not "concocted." Rather does it not require the delibera-
tion of a trained, skilled, and diplomatic mind to close the ears and hearts of men
against such appeals?

You say:

"During that interval (April to October) he was visited by many of his brethren,
some of them apostles, and no change was effected, but he failed even to attend the
October conference or to manifest a disposition to conform to the principles of the
declaration. It is true that he was in poor health during that period, but he was not
' too ill to upbraid his brethren who tried to impress him with the danger of his posi-
tion nor to accuse some of them of having 'blanketed' their conscience in signing the
declaration."

Did you, President Snow, ever hear me say anything of the kind? Which of the
brethren did I upbraid or accuse of ," blanketing " his conscience? You do not seem
aware of the fact that of all the apostles and members of the first presidency only
one, Apostle F. D. Richards, ever talked with me about the manifesto since the day
it was presented to me for my signature. True, Brothers Richards and Young
called one day just as I was leaving my residence in Salt Lake City for the depot
with guests, and we talked a few moments while the carriage was waiting at the
door.

At another time I said to Brother John Henry Smith: ' ' How could you, knowing
as you do of my work in the church for a quarter of a century, vote for my suspen-
sion simply because I could not see my way clear to sign the manifesto? How could
you adjudge me guilty, condemn me, ancl execute your judgment all within a few
hours and without a hearing?" He replied: "I will not talk with you about that,
for you are too ill, and conversation on that subject will make you nervous." I then
said: "Which, Brother John, do you think would make most nervous and ill, to
have the brethren humiliate and degrade me by dropping me out of my place, or
talking about it after the deed was done?" Said he: "I am with my brethren."

During all those weary months, while friends and physicians believed I was on the
verge of the grave, I was administered to only once by members of our quorum,
although, day after day, engagements made for that purpose were, for reasons un-
known to me, not kept, and after the manifesto was returned to you unsigned, none
of the apostles, excepting the three mentioned, ever came to my house or visited me
for any purpose whatever. I do not mention this by way of complaint, but because,
from the general tone and certain statements in your letter you do not seem to be
fully acquainted with these facts.

A few men holding less authority in the church called and argued with me, and
sometimes may have heard the peevish plaints of a sick man which, it seems, were
carefully delivered and preserved, and with which you are now willing to reproach
me. It appears that every groan I uttered in my pain and weakness was borne away
and used to poison the minds of those living in the light against a weak and helpless
brother.

In this connection I would like to state also that even before the presentation of
that manifesto for my signature not one of the brethren had taken up a labor with
me concerning any of the matters it was made to embody. You contend that I
should have signed it simply and solely because other officers of the church had
signed it, "without hesitation and without requiring time to deliberate." I can not
see how that statement adds to the credit of the document. Such matters demand
deliberation, and because I always so contended I am called ' ' contumacious and
obstinate."

It may be that Elder B. H. Roberts signed it without consideration, but I have
been authoritatively informed that strong and healthly as he was in mind and body
several members of the quorum to which I belonged labored with him day after
day for weeks before he consented to accept the principles of absolutism it contains.
How many of the brethren deemed it necessary to waste their time on me, though I

REED SMOOT. 1027

was sick and near the portals of death? Not one. Yet they expected me to sign it
when it was presented^ although you say I was considered "contumacious and obsti-
nate." If that was my disposition, why was I not labored with for weeks, or why
was I expected to sign it without such attention? Did you really believe me "con-
tumacious and obstinate?"

I do not desire to be understood as complaining of the short time given me for the
consideration of the manifesto — the hour and a half at noon on the day my name
was dropped from the list of church officials. I understood the manifesto then as I
understand it now. But when I afterwards learned that its claims had been dis-
cussed for weeks by the other members of the quorum of apostles — that a systematic
presentation of its grounds had been devoted to Brother Roberts — I was led to
wonder if the brief time allotted me was the result of design or accident.

You say that "out of mercy and compassion" the reasons for degrading me were
not given at the April conference. I fail to see wherein I was benefited by a com-
passion which gave rise to so many rumors, mysterious hints, dark insinuations,
slanders and attacks, unjust allusions and unfair comparisons, which have been
strenuously created and disseminated since that time. Nor can I appreciate the man-
ner in which my case was left ' ' in statu quo ' ' by the remarks of the brethren at the
October conference. I had received assurances and reassurances that nothing would
be done or said affecting my case until I should report myself ready for trial. You
say: " The assurances to which he refers were faithfully fulfilled. He was left in
statu quo." The average man might be hard to convince that his interests would
not be affected by creating adverse public opinion, by concerted and preconcerted
action on the part of the juror intrusted with his fate in prejudging and prejudicing
the people against him. Wh n a tribunal pronounces a man guilty and announces
to the world its judgment, has he been left in "statu quo?"

You complain because I did not for a time attend my quorum meetings as regu-
larly as others had .done. The time to which you call attention covers the period of
lingering illness from which I have now almost entirely recovered. But I do not
offer my sickness as an excuse for absence, as you had excused me from all official
duties during a greater portion of that time, advising me to travel, to seek enjoyment
and health.

The charge that I have "treated the council with contempt" needs no answer but
a reference to the letters which passed between us. I endeavored persistently,
patiently, and, as I thought, respectfully, to ascertain what my brethren held against
me, what differences there were between us, in order that we might arrive at an
understanding, and, finally, what their requirements were. When I went to the
meeting place of the quorum of apostles, after being assured by brethren that I
would be welcome and that no objections would be made, I found the door closed
in my face. From that time on till my deposal I pleaded for a statement of the
grievances against me, but dared not intrude upon my quorum again without invita-
tion, a's I had no desire to give offense.

I was never aware that I had no right to speak in public meetings until publicly
reprimanded for so doing; I did not think I was barred from the temple until its
door was closed in my face. And now you say that I ' ' presumed to attempt an
entrance to the temple." What could I have done? Every move I made was criti-
cised and condemned and seemed to invite new forms of censure and humiliation.

I have no desire to quibble; but here is a passage in your open letter to which I
desire to call your attention:

"It was but a few days after the October conference, even if it had entirely closed,
before he appeared and spoke at public meetings as though he still held the authority
in which he had not been sustained at conference. This necessitated the announce-
ment from the first presidency, through the Deseret News, that he had no right to
officiate in the priesthood while in his suspended condition. Notwithstanding that
announcement, when he chose to present himself to the authorities he presumed to
attempt entrance to the temple for that purpose, and at a time when the first pres-
idency, as well as the twelve, met for the consideration of other church matters and
for holding their prayer circle."

I presented myself at the door of the Salt Lake Temple at 11 o'clock a. m., Thurs-
day, October 15, 1896. The meeting which promulgated the announcement you
refer to was then in session. It was not published in the Deseret News until evening,
and was not received by me for at least five hours after my return home from the
temple. You will not deny that these are the facts, and yet you blame me for
"attempting entrance to the temple" in disregard of an announcement which had
not then been formulated. At no other time did I ' ' attempt entrance to the temple ' '
to be refused admittance.

This point is in direct line with your former statement in our original correspond-
ence to the effect that, because I had seemingly disobeyed your letter of the 23d of

1028 REED SMOOT.

October I was refused admittance to the temple on the 15th, or eight days before.
When I could not understand that, you explained it by saying I was in the dark.
No doubt the same explanation will answer in regard to the paragraph above quoted.

I did not mention my last contribution to the temple in the way of a boast, but the
fact remains that the temple was, nevertheless, constructed with funds contributed
by the saints. But when President Joseph F. Smith declared that I only gained
admission to its dedication "by the skin of my teeth," a statement your open letter
seemed to corroborate, I could not recall any hesitancy on the part of anyone about
asking or receiving my donation during the period of its construction.

Another paragraph in your letter is truly remarkable, and especially wherein the
public is informed that "silence" in my interest has been maintained by President
Cannon, now absent, as you say, from the State. How far that business transaction
between two members of the church has had a bearing on my affairs, as recently
made public from the pulpit and press, I can not say; but future developments may
show its relation to past and present conditions. Its frequent mention in garbled
form, as in this instance, and as it has been told in public and private, on highways
and byways, shows that it is no secret. And so far as I am concerned, there is
nothing in it that I would have anybody trouble himself to keep secret. I will
endeavor to convince you, President Snow, that you have not been well posted on
this matter. For that, however, I attach no blame to you, for the story of the
Bullion-Beck is a long one. I shall not hesitate to face willingly my part of the
affair. Here is an extract from your letter:

" When President George Q. Cannon, after the decease of President Taylor, was in
prison for infraction of the antipolygamy laws, Moses claimed that Brother Cannon
had defrauded him, and he threatened, in the presence of President Woodruff and
others of the twelve, to sue him at law and thus bring many private affairs before
the public through the courts. Only on being emphatically warned by President
Woodruff and others that such a course, particularly in Brother Cannon's condition,
would result disastrously to him in his church position did he desist. On President
Cannon's release from confinement the matter was fully investigated, and it was
demonstrated that instead of Brother Cannon's owing him he was in Brother Can-
non's debt to an amount .which he subsequently paid. For his insults and hard
language toward Brother Cannon he has never apologized nor made any amends.
This incident is referred to in President Cannon's absence from the State. He has
always preserved silence on this matter and did not wish it mentioned against
Brother Thatcher. But it is important in showing Moses Thatcher's spirit and bear-
ing toward his brethren.'

The closing sentence no doubt satisfies the public as to the reason for bringing the
matter up. I am not sorry you mentioned it, as it gives me an opportunity to correct
the rumor which has been well circulated among the people. In answer to a letter
written by President Woodruff on the 5th of December, 1888, on this very topic, I
wrote, December 7, two days later, making the following statement of my position:

"In conclusion, you will permit me to say that I have no disposition, and never
have had, to take advantage of any of my brethren in the position in which Brother
Cannon is placed; for I regret his imprisonment, I believe, quite as sincerely as any
of my brethren. Upon this point I hardly think that Brother Cannon himself enter-
tains any doubt." For the present, at least, there is no need to go into further
details regarding Bullion-Beck matters, except to correct your assertion that "instead
of Brother Cannon owing him, he was in Brother Cannon's debt." I can think of
no explanation so brief and authentic as a copy of the receipt I gave him in settle-
ment of our financial differences. It reads:

"Know all men by these presents, that I do hereby acknowledge the receipt from
President George Q' Cannon of an order signed by him, and dated August 5, 1889,
on Secretary George Reynolds for the transfer to myself of 2,368£f shares of the
'pooled stock' of the Bullion-Beck and Champion Mining Company, and that I have
received all the dividends declared and paid by said company on the said 2,368^-f
shares, as shown by the books of the company, less one-fourth, or 25 per cent, on all
dividends declared* and paid by said company since September 1, 1888, the said 25
per cent having been paid, as I am informed, to the Bullion-Beck and California
Mining Company.

"This receipt is intended and shall operate as in full of all demands and claims by
myself, heirs, and assigns against President George Q. Cannon on account of said
2,368£f shares of stock when the same shall have been transferred, on surrender .
to the secretary of the company of the proper stock certificates upon which said
transfer may be made, and is in full for the dividends thereon, as specified herein.

" MOSES THATCHER.

"SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, September 24, 1889."

EEED SMOOT. 1029

Those shares, for which I paid, represented a value to me at that time exceeding
$25,000 — an amount I did not feel able or willing to lose. My anxiety about it was
natural, if not pardonable.

And now let me call your attention to another astounding assertion in your open
letter of information to the young men. You say :

* ' In 1886 he proclaimed in public discourses ideas and predictions not indorsed
by his brethren. AtLewiston, Cache County, notes were taken of his utterances and
published 011 a fly leaf. He was subsequently written to by President Taylor, and
his answer is 011 file. While he claimed that he had not been accurately reported,
he gave his own language, under his own hand, to the effect of predictions of events
to occur within five years which have failed of fulfillment, and which were founded
on erroneous interpretations of scripture. He wrote for publication a sort of retrac-
tion which really took nothing back, but merely changed partial errors in the report
of his extravagant remarks."

Not one word uttered by me at Lewiston on the occasion referred to partook of
the nature of a prophecy as coming from me; nor did I predict anything whatever.
I stated my belief upon numerous topics, but predicted nothing. I quoted some-
what extensively from the books of revelation, held by us as orthodox, and also
from the history of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I was not and could not be held
responsible for long-hand reports of what I said, nor for typewritten or printed slips
said to have been multiplied and circulated among the people. Besides, it is well
understood by the saints that the sermons, even of apostles, are not regarded as
doctrine. Nevertheless, I have constantly endeavored to avoid teaching anything
erroneous or out of harmony with the revelations of the Lord.

While in Mexico, in 1886, I was written to by Presidents Taylor and Cannon
regarding this matter, and in reply I stated, in substance, what I had said in Lewis-
ton. Of course, I could not remember the exact words I had used, but I closed my
letter as follows:

"If, in your view, there is anything in these remarks erroneous, contrary to
recorded revelation and history; or contrary to the spirit of inspiration and revela-
tion in you; or, if their utterance by me was premature or imprudent, do me the
kindness at your earliest convenience to point the same out, and suggest the means
best calculated in your judgment to correct the same, should the inclosed notice —
(which, if you think best, can be sent to the News for publication) — be considered
insufficient to stop the multiplication and circulation among the saints of erroneous
reports of my remarks as heretofore mentioned."

The "notice" was apparently satisfactory, as it was published in the Deseret
Weekly News of December 1, 1886, as follows:

"Any printed or written document circulated, or that may be circulated among
the saints of God, as a report of any sermon, or part of sermon, sermons or parts of
sermons; or of any private or public remarks said to have been made by me, are
unauthorized unless personally revised by me, or written over my signature. And
the making and circulation of any such unauthorized report is without my sanction
and without my consent.

" MOSES THATCHER."

In the same issue the News commented editorially, as follows:

"AN UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION.

"In another column will be found a notice from Elder Moses Thatcher of the
council of the apostles. We direct general attention to it because there has been a
great deal of comment over some remarks attributed to him, which have been
copied and circulated, and lately have been printed and distributed among the
saints. It is very unfair to take this course unauthorized, and we consider such
proceedings worthy of severe censure. Those who have printed and distributed the
alleged extracts from a sermon delivered by Elder Thatcher in Cache County, some
time ago have, in our opinion, exceeded their right, and those who rely upon the
purported remarks as authentic and to be discussed as prophecy or doctrine may be
led into error, as the report thus disseminated is without authority of the speaker.
We are pleased to receive the notice from Elder Thatcher, and cheerfully give it a
prominent place in our columns."

Subsequent to the year 1886 no further complaint was made until the appearance
of your open letter ten years later, and as no additional requirements were made of
me, I had a right to believe the matter long since adjudicated. No one at any time

1030 REED SMOOT.

ever intimated to me in any way that this was cherished secretly against me by any
of my brethren. Candidly, President Snow, what is there in all this, that in any
way can be construed as a justification for the unkind comments you have made
upon the circumstance? Your statements are calculated to injure me in the estima-
tion of many people who may have read your letter and condemned me without
remembering or having read the Deseret News of December 1, 1886. Surely you
would not intentionally do me an injnry.

You say further:

"He disputed with President Taylor as to the appointment of president of the Logan
Temple, and contended for a man of his own selection even ^fter the President
announced the appointment by revelation."

The truth of this matter is made plain by the action of President Taylor in setting
me apart on the same day as one of the councilors of the president of the Logan
Temple. President Taylor would not have introduced discord in the temple, and
had I contended against him that would have been the effect. I would not have been
ir.ade third officer in that sacred place if I had been in such open rebellion as you
depict. President Taylor was my guest in Logan at the time the president of Logan
Temple was named.

On the morning of the day the appointment was made, President Taylor came
downstairs, and before breakfast stated, in the presence of witnesses, that he felt
impressed to appoint M. W. Merrill president of the Logan Temple, and asked me
what I thought of it. I replied that it was a good selection; that he might search
the stake over and not find a man better adapted to the position. And I gave
as my reasons that Brother Merrill was financially well to do and could afford to
give to the work his time and attention; that he was secretive and methodical in his
habits. President Taylor said he was pleased to hear me say so. I never at any
time or in any place opposed the appointment, but was continued third officer in
that temple till, by the action of my quorum, I was deprived of all priestly offices.

Although on this point you make a very positive charge against me, you may have
this matter confused with the selection of a president for Cache stake. In my
absence from conference in Salt Lake, from which I was excused by President Tay-
lor on account of illness in my family, Elder C. O. Card was chosen stake president
to succeed Bishop Preston, who had been called to the office he now holds. A few
days later I was informed by a member of my quorum as to the action taken in the
matter of the Cache stake presidency, and my opinion \vas asked about it. I stated
that since Elder Card had been unanimously chosen I acquiesced. Later on, an
effort was made to remove President Card, which movement I opposed. I took the
ground that, while Brother Merrill was the stronger character, I would oppose the
removal of President Card as his appointment was generally known among the peo-
ple, and his summary dismissal was sure to result in his irreparable injury. I only
mention this matter because there is no foundation for complaint in the other inci-
dent, and you may have confused the two. I cite this as a possible reason for your
charge because I have no desire to quibble.

Here is another of your specific charges:

"When Wilford Woodruff's accession to the presidency was under consideration,
as the proper successor, he expressed opinions which showed that he regarded human
smartness and business ability as above that simplicity of character and susceptibility
to divine impressions which are notable in that faithful servant of God, and objected
that such a man could not grasp the situation of affairs or cope with the difficulties
arising. He was overruled, but persisted in his views."

To my mind there never was any question about the " proper successor" to Presi-
dent Taylor. I did not regard it as a debatable matter, for I always held President
Woodruff as the logical successor to President Taylor. I maintained this at the
time, and have since testified to its propriety on many occasions. I have always
held that, with the death of a president, dies the authority of his councilors as
councilors; and the supreme authority of the church is then vested in the quorum
of apostles. Upon the death of President Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, as the head of
the leading quorum of the church, was therefore the leading officer in the church.

In my view, no one had a right to assume his authority or issue addresses to the
Latter-Day Saints ignoring him. Yet an address was issued which did not deign to
mention President Woodruff or any of the apostles. Had my name been signed to
it you might well accuse me of attempting to oppose the accession of President
Woodruff, but my name was not there. If there was a contest between human
smartness and simplicity of character for the presidency, I assure you my preferences
were for the latter. Simplicity of character is an ornament to any position, although
it is often subservient to "human smartness."

REED SMOOT. 1031

You make this general charge against my temper or disposition:

"His bearing with his brethren was such that he could not brook dissent, and
resented their nonacceptance of his personal vie\vs."

I have always tried to be honest, careful, considerate, and conscientious with my
brethren. I confess that I have had my personal views on almost every question
that came up. I had thought I was entitled to them. Had I entertained the slight-
est doubt of my right in the quorum to my opinions, I would never have given the
six brethren to whom you refer the opportunity to vote me an apostleship. As it
was, I protested part of three days before giving my consent to President Taylor;
but if I ever resented the nonacceptance of my views on any question where I had
been accorded the right to present them I do not recall it.

And now I come to what appears to be the chief reason for my suspension and
subsequent deposal, viz, the political manifesto read in the April conference. I
regard this as the main difference between us, because of the space you give it in
your open letter; and because President George Q. Cannon said plainly to Elder
B. H. Koberts that it was not right to circulate other charges about me as my name
would not have been dropped had I signed the manifesto; and because a leading
aposte declared that, within three days from my refusal to sign, I would have been
brought to trial had my health permitted; also because I was never publicly or pri-
vately accused of the other offenses you charge until after its presentation for my

has always been an established doctrine of the church," and that "usually men do
not require much time to consider a matter which they have always held to be right."

Had my views relating to this subject harmonized with your statements there
would have been no hesitancy on my part in signing that instrument or accepting
this rule of discipline. Had I understood that it was simply an old and established
doctrine of the church I would have given no attention to the previously published
declarations of the presiding quorum of the church respecting the absolute political
liberty and individual responsibility of the citizens of Utah. And I believe that per-
fect freedom of political action unrestrained by fear of ecclesiastical punishment is
essential under our republican form of government. This principle is so well estab-
lished in the Declaration of Independence, in the National Constitution, and in the
constitution of our own State, that it needs no argument to sustain it. Could I have
accepted as a fact your statements I would have saved myself the distress that has
followed my course regarding the manifesto of October, 1890, which was generally
considered and is still regarded as the first public and effective movement tow&rcl
securing statehood for Utah.

But my vote was sincere; and so it was a year later when the aurhorities and saints
of the church, in general conference assembled, pledged themselves as individuals
and as a people to this Government, that the members of their church should be
untrammeled in all civil concerns; when it was declared that there was no foundation
or excuse for the statement that church and state were united in Utah, or that the
leaders of the church dictated to the members in political matters; and that whatever
appearance of church domination there might have been in the past, nothing of the
kind would be attempted in the future. I sincerely believed in these declarations
and the subsequent official declarations of the authorities of the church on this sub-
ject. On the 18th day of March, 1892, the first presidency of the church declared,
over their official signatures:

"We have no desire to interfere in these (political) matters, but proclaim that, as
far as we are concerned, the members of this church are entirely and perfectly free
in all political matters."

In a leading editorial the Deseret Evening News reaffirmed the position of the
authorities as stated in their public declarations, and added:

"The public, however, must not expect that a leading churchman shall become a
political eunuch because of his ecclesiastical position. He is as much a citizen with
all the powers and liberties of a citizen as if he were a layman or an infidel."

And the views expressed by the first presidency in the celebrated Times interview
must bear a portion of the responsibility for the sentiments so thoroughly grounded
in me, I call your attention to the following extracts from the answers carefully
prepared by them:

" Does the church claim the right to dictate to its members in political matters?"

"The church does not claim any such right."

"That being true, are we to understand that the church will not assert any right
to control the political action of its members in the future?"

1032 REED SMOOT.

"This is what we wish to convey and have you understand. As officers of the
church, we disclaim the right to control the political action of the members of our
body."

"Do you believe that it is the wish of the Mormon people to unite with the great
national parties and to conduct politics in this Territorv as they are conducted in all
other States?"

" That is the impression we have received from conversation with the men among
us who take the greatest interest in political matters."

" Is there any reason why the members of the church should not act freely with
the national parties at all times? ' '

"We know of no reason why they should not."

" Is there any foundation for the charge that the Mormon leaders are now engaged
in a political conspiracy to secure political power for the church? ' '

"There is not the least ground for any such statement. We are not engaged in
any conspiracy of this character."

' ' The opponents of party division on national lines declare that they want evidence
of the sincerity of the Mormon people. The Times would ask you to state whether
the declarations of sincerity on the part of those leaders who have been before the
public reflect your views and meet with your approval? "

" Those declarations express our views and have our entire approval."

' ' What greater evidenc^e can be asked than that which has already been given?
It has been asserted, in addition, that the people were governed by the priesthood
in political matters. This is now disproved by the dissolution of the People's Party
and the union of its members with the two national parties. What could possibly
be gained by the action of the people if they were not sincere? If the elements of
sincerity were wanting, such a movement would result in entire demoralization."

If I could have looked upon these grave and solemn declarations differently I
might have been spared the pain and humiliation following my failure to sign what
you say has "always been a doctrine of the church." If this were w^ell established
and generally understood to be "a doctrine of the church," was not its reissuance
in documentary form wholly unnecessary? You ask:

"Why should Moses Thatcher alone, of all the church authorities, feel that, he
could not sign it, as he alleges, without stultification? Was not that in itself evi-
dence that he was and had been out of harmony with his brethren? And are they
not men as little disposed as anyone living to stultify themselves, or to assent to
anything wrong that is of vital importance to them and to the church?"

i could not sign that manifesto because I had indorsed the others heretofore
quoted, and because I could not reconcile this last one with those made by my file
leaders and ecclesiastical supporters between 1890 and the date of Utah's admission
into the Union. I must be permitted to suggest that my fellow-members of the
quorum to which I once belonged can define better than anyone else their views of
right and wrong and their ideas of what constitutes "stultification," but neverthe-
less, like myself, they are subject to human weaknesses and human errors. As stu-
dents of history each citizen must determine how long any people can prosper under
the practice of punic faith, secretly carried into effect or openly avowed. The decla-
rations of perfect political freedom to all the saints are just as binding to-day as they
were before we obtained statehood, and it is the duty of every citizen of Utah to so
regard them.

And now, having shown by quotations fron unquestioned authoritative sources
why I should not, without stultification, sign the political manifesto, I am bound to
stand where counsel and conscience have placed me; for, with other citizens of
Utah, I was bidden "to attach myself to the party of my choice and then be true to
that party."

While doing that I have constantly endeavored to show, upon every proper occa-
sion, that respect and honor due my ecclesiastical superiors. I had thought that
there was room in Utah, as elsewhere, for a citizen to do his whole duty to the
state without interfering, in the least degree, with his obligations to the church of
which he might be a member.

The views respecting nonunion of church and state are those I have held and
openly advocated for more than a quarter of a century. Recent occurrences have
intensified rather than modified them, and I now comprehend better than heretofore
the wisdom expressed in that part of our State constitution relating to the absolute
separation of civil and religious matters. And while the State is bound to protect
the church in the fullest possible religious freedom, the church must not attempt,
directly or indirectly, to dominate in civil or political affairs.

REED SMOOT. 1033

• As latter-day saints we are doubly bound to take cognizance of this. Loyalty to
the Government protecting us demands it, and the law of the Lord requires it. I
quote from section 58, paragraph 21, page 219, Book of Doctrine and Covenants:

''Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath
no need to break the laws of the land."

Again, from section 98, paragraphs 4 to 9, inclusive, page 342:

"And now, verily, I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is My will
that My people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them; and
that the law of the land is constitutional, supporting that, principle of freedom in
maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before
Me; therefore I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren of My church, in befriend-
ing that law which is the constitutional law of the land, and as pertaining to the law
of man. Whatsoever is more or less than these cometh of evil.

"I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore you are free indeed; and the law also
maketh you free; nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn."

There is no room here for comment. It holds me in the silken warp and woof of
liberty and love woven in the Almighty's loom of truth and justice. Planting my
feet upon that divinely inspired platform, and laying upon its altar honor, fortune,
and, if necessary, life itself, I look anxiously but hopefully forward to the day when
petty jealousies, envious hatred, and malicious accusations shall be deeply buried
beneath mountains of peace, prosperity, and happiness resting permanently in Utah,
upon the wide toleration and good will of her inhabitants toward all creeds and
classes throughout the world. Should I live to witness one such day — the beginning
of a series that shall not end — the memory of pains, afflictions, tears, and sighs shall
pass, even as a dream at the dawn of a new day.

Utah pioneers — the aged and venerable — Utah's brave sons and daughters deserve
such a happy consummation.

And what is there in human requirement or divine injunction to prevent me from
humbly trying to devote the remainder of my days to the cause in which I have
spent nearly forty years? It is true there are some of the stakes in Zion whose good
people, as you state, I have never visited at their homes. But it is equally true that
nearly half my time since I became a member of the church has been spent upon
missions of various kinds. During a period of six years I crossed the line into
Mexico some twenty-three times, and for quite a long period my annual travels
covered from 15,000 to 20,000 miles a year. There are, I believe, some members of
the quorum to which I once had the honor of belonging who have never, to my
knowledge, been on a mission at all. But I would not infer from that they have
neglected the duties of their calling.

As I have already stated, I understood the manifesto at the time it was handed me
for approval just as I understand it now. While it ostensibly appeared not to restrict
the liberties of the people, yet there was no limitation to its application, and in view
of the fact that nearly every male member of the church holds some office, and as
there has as yet been no public decision announced as to the officers to be con-
trolled by it, there have arisen disputes and differences of opinion as to its intent.
This being true, and the danger being that it could be applied to restrict the liberties
of the people, I can not sustain it. I thought then, as I think now, that such a
course would be a stultification. I had never dreamed that a condition would arise
in my life where I could not serve God fully and yet yield my complete allegiance
to my country and to my State. The spirit of the manifesto, as it appealed to me,
was in violent antagonism to all I had believed and publicly proclaimed for many
years, and I could not, and so far have not been able to, bring myself to a point
where I believed I should yield my political judgment to any set of men, however
praiseworthy their intentions.

The position taken by me in political affairs was one that I could not alter. Through
my veins and into them for generations has been sifted a blood that acknowledged
the supremacy of the people only in civil affairs. Because of this it was easy for me
to understand and accept the principles of Christ as explained by our church, which,
as I understand them, accord the right of freedom and grant the free agency of man
before God and among men. And it is because these rights are accorded men under
the Gospel of Christ, as accepted by Latter-Day Saints, that 1 have yielded obedience
to the gospel, have labored for it, and love it for the labor I have given it.

This assertion may not be accepted by you, but such activity as I have shown in
politics has been caused by an anxiety to preserve the reputation of my file leaders
when they gave assurances of political honesty among the saints, for there were
intimations — and they are well-known — that in pledging political freedom to the

1034 REED SMOOT.

people of Utah the authorities were insincere in their declarations. My unwilling-
ness to take part in Democratic campaigns, in face of the course of my Republican*
brethren, was one of the grounds 011 which it was asserted that the church authori-
ties had broken faith. While I have loved Democracy, because to me its name
embodies all of civil liberty, yet I did not want to take an active part in politics
because of my poor health, and because I did not deem it wise for one holding my
position in the church to become aggressive in the division movement, Yet, against
my own judgment, in defiance of the demands of my health, and that it might not
be said of the first presidency that their pledges were given to deceive, I made some
political speeches.

For the same reason — having in mind the honor of the people and the reputation
of the church leaders and against my solemn protest — I consented that my name
should be used as a Senatorial candidate. For this act I was taken to task at a
priesthood meeting. When the manifesto was presented to me it appeared to my
mind as a command on all to recognize the right of the church authorities to control
political concerns; it meant, so far as I was concerned, a recantation of the principles
I had for years advocated — a receding from the ground I had occupied during the
division movement, and, above all, it made me feel that I would be untrue to myself.

I do not claim that I can not be wrong. But with the light I have, the manifesto
(applied as its construction will allow, or, as it would be interpreted by men whose
personal ambitions might control and subvert their sense of right) could be operated
to the injury of the State.

If, as I hold, the people have enough intelligence to deserve citizenship, then they
have sufficient intelligence to become acquainted with the responsibilities of citizen-
ship, and they have no more right to yield their judgment in respect of the exercise
of the franchise than have any set of men to attempt to control that judgment.

Whatever the cost, with the knowledge now guiding me, I must still stand where

I have stood for years. My whole life and its work contradict the charge that I
could seek office on a platform antagonistic to any church. I should oppose any
man who stood upon such a platform. I did say that if the voters of the State of

I l young Utah ' ' believed I represented principles they deem deserving of recogni-
tion, and was, therefore, tendered the United States Senatorship, I would accept.
For the information of those interested, it must be understood that I am a Demo-
crat, with all the word signifies. As a Democrat, I hold it a duty for every citizen
to enjoy the privileges conferred upon him by our Government, and that it is given
to no man, to no corporation, and to no body of men to control the citizen in the
exercise of his franchise.

I believe in that Democracy which declares for equal and exact justice to all, with
special privileges to none.

I am for a Jeffersonian government, in which, so far at least as legislation makes
to that end, there shall be no extremely rich and no abjectly poor. I favor the
principle of an income tax.

I am for the money of the Constitution, as interpreted in the Democratic platform
adopted at Chicago this year.

I am for a tariff that will realize the amount necessary to conduct the Government
without running it into debt in times of peace; but that tariff must be so levied and
so adjusted that its burdens and advantages shall be borne and shared alike by all
industries and by all parts of our common country.

I am with the State constitution in the declaration that there, shall be an absolute
separation of church and state; that the state shall not control the church, nor the
church encroach on the prerogatives of the state, and to this end I have indorsed
and still indorse the declarations of the Democratic reconvened convention of a year
ago.

I invite neither the support nor the opposition of the church. It has no concern
in political issues. The members of my former quorum have deemed it expedient to
deprive me of my priesthood. If I discuss their action, it is as a church member.
As a citizen and a Democrat, I do not concede their right to discipline me for any
cause whatever. As a member of the Democratic party, as a citizen, I deny their right
or their intention to interfere with my politics, the threat of the Deseret News, as the
church organ, to the contrary notwithstanding.

In conclusion, I desire to say that I do not complain of the treatment accorded me,
nor do I murmur at the humiliation to wrhich I have been subjected, but I can not
think the threatened excommunication from the church, as intimated in some quar-
ters, can be seriously entertained. Am I to be driven out of the church because of
the manifesto? I shall try and live the religion of our Savior. I want to live and
die among my brethren and friends. I desire to do my duty to my church. I wish
my children to observe the principles of the Gospel, that they too may desire to

EEED SMOOT. 1035

live, die, and be buried by the side of their father, when they shall reach, on the
hillside, a final place of peace and rest.

With sentiments of esteem, I am, as heretofore, your brother in the Gospel,

MOSES THATCHER.

REMARKS ON FOREGOING ADDRESS.

The foregoing paper of Moses Thatcher is highly meritorious in
many respects. It was written hurriedly by him after having spent a
week in overhauling letters and papers in. search of the documents
which he has presented in his defense. 'Notwithstanding hasty com-
position his letter expresses his thought and argument in a scholarly
'and elegant style; his logic is thoroughly pertinent and unanswerably
conclusive; his tone in relation to the church is pathetic and respectful;
his attitude toward the state is statesmanly, intelligent, and truly patri-
otic; his political creed is full to the brim with the magnetism of
civil liberty; his manhood is cast in the mould of American independ-
ence; his heart is vitalized with the spirit that immortalized Jefferson
and Lincoln.

No confession of political faith could be more timely or effective
under the circumstances. By the remarkable aggressiveness of the
last letter of Lorenzo Snow; by its unwarrantable and unseemly dig-
ging up of dry bones and exploded charges; b}T its needlessly acri-
monious bitterness; by the weakness, invidiousness, and triviality of
its allegations; by its ruthless disregard of the plighted faith of the first
presidency and the whole church; by its authoritative and supercilious
tone of command over the political sphere of the citizen; by its
inquisitorial assumption of disciplinary power — by all these outcrop-
pings of pontifical domination rather than Christian brotherhood,
Moses Thatcher has been driven into an exhibition of moral and states-
manly qualities which might otherwise have remained hidden.

He has made no attack on either the Mormon Church or its dis-
cipline. He has simply stood as an unbroken phalanx upon the prin-
ciples of democracy enunciated in the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution of the United States and the State of Utah, and more
recently in the platform of the reconvened convention, October 22,
1895. If the church or any member of the church feels that an assault
has been made upon the doctrine or discipline of the Mormon faith, it
is a mistaken thought. If there is any trouble, it is wholly and solely
due to the fact that certain leading officials have put the church on
the track of civil liberty; and as the car of human progress moves
onward the church is liable to have its unpatriotic rules of discipline
crushed under the resistless wheels.

Moses Thatcher is not antagonizing the church or any rule of the
church when he declines to renounce his political agency. He is
merely performing his part as a free citizen. He is carrying out in
good faith the declarations of the reconvened convention. He is truly
fulfilling the pledges made by the authorities and membership of the
Mormon Church.

Whatever the outcome of Moses Thatcher's career — whether he be
overwhelmed in the warfare headed by the "church organ" or achieve
recognized leadership in the party which has now most nobly declared
for the principles of Jefferson: whatever the result, he is a factor in
Utah history, and doubtless an instrument in the hands of All Merci-
ful God for promoting the welfare of the people of Utah and the entire

1036 KEED SMOOT.

intermountain region. There can be no doubt that some of the lead-
ers of the Mormon Church have in their hearts, either consciously or
unconsciously, to dominate the State.

Mr. Thatcher has long been an avowed patriot. He has never held
his religion as a means of extinguishing the state. He has always
given both church and state an independent recognition. When the
pledges of the past half dozen years were made, he held them and rati-
fied them without u mental reservation." He was as earnest in behalf
of the state as he was in behalf of the church, and all his troubles
have come from this earnestness and fidelity.

With this sincerity and rectitude of character, with the attainment
of a leading position in the church, with a large share of love and
respect on the part of his people, with a large following of friends and
acquaintances who trust and honor him for his innate kindness and
rectitude of heart, with unusual talents and a native resoluteness and
buoyancy of character — with these several endowments, no one can-
be pointed out in Utah so well qualified to influence his Mormon breth-
ren and lead them into the pathway of civil liberty and guard them
against those tendencies which, if unimpeded, will encroach upon the
State and keep Utah embroiled with internal discord and create per-
petual friction with neighboring States and the General Government.

It seems hardly necessary to emphasize the completeness of his refu-
tation of the numerous charges made against him in Lorenzo Snow's
letter. Some of them are trivial; all of them would have been waived
as mere fictions of gossamer, had Moses Thatcher yielded to his quorum
and his superiors the right to dictate his political agency by u counsel,"

But see how completely the main charges are answered, and even
turned as a boomerang against his accusers! What is left of the
Cannon business matter except the clear indication that he would have
lost all his Bullion-Beck stock had he not resolutely claimed his prop-
erty at the hands of an ecclesiastical management that would have
construed a trust into a " dedication " and a "dedication" into
ownership ?

And as to church service, look at Moses Thatchers wonderful record
of travel — hundreds of thousands of miles — his long absences, the dis-
abilities of poor health, his large money contributions, his unremitting
labors for the cause of Christ as he understands the principles of the
gospel.

And as to other charges, such as the appellate high council court,
the appointment of the president of the Logan Temple, the chief presi-
dency of Wilford Wroodruff', contumacy, nonsubmission, arbitrariness,
and such like; in the light of the foregoing reply, they all fade away
as the baseless fabric of a dream! And there is not one of those
accusing "brethren" that does not know and feel that if he were in
want, either of temperal sustenance or spiritual consolation and sym-
pathy, he could go to Moses Thatcher and be met with open arms and
generous heart; the past would be forgotten, and naught but human
kindness and Christian charity would govern his conduct.

It seems a pity that those "brethren" who prepared the supple-
mentar}7 charges for Lorenzo Snow to adopt, should think it necessaiy
to ransack the English language to find words of vituperation with
which to chastise Moses Thatcher for things that they knew were
simply "trumped up;" and all this in order to divert attention from
the real point of dissatisfaction— the refusal to sign the manifesto!

REED SMOOT. 1037

Has not B. H. Roberts stated that George Q. Cannon said that Moses
Thatcher should be charged with this offense onhr and nothing else?
Will Mormon brethren be blind? — or will they open their eyes and
see? This is a matter serious enough to command individual and
unbiased attention. Do not relinquish your birthright of freedom, of
individuality, of personal identity. Know for yourself and judge for
yourself, just as you have to bear your own burdens and be judged
for your own deeds.

There is only one issue in all this case — the manifesto with its rule
of counsel providing a clever piece of machinery whereby the chief
authorities of the church can control politics within the State of Utah,
and to a considerable extent without, if they so desire. The forego-
ing address of Moses Thatcher is chiefly valuable in meeting this issue
in a manly, unambiguous, and statesmanly manner. His mind and
heart are sincerely and unselfishly wrought into the issue, and he
speaks in a way that must challenge the admiration of every- lover of
liberty.

Of all the prominent Mormon churchmen Moses Thatcher is now
the one that stands squarely for an honest fulfillment of the pledges
of the church.

Of all the leading officials he is the one that stands squarely on the
platform adopted by the reconvened convention.

Of all the Mormon high priesthood Moses Thatcher is the one that
stands for the principles of Jefferson and Lincoln as the American
people understand those principles.

May God add His merciful guidance and abundant goodness to the
end that Moses Thatcher — a humble instrument in His omnipotent
hand — may be the means of giving to Utah a thorough establishment
in the principles of civil liberty and individual independence!

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ta}Tler, will 3^ou go on?

Mr. TAYLER. I have no further questions to ask Mr. Thatcher at
this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you an}^ further questions on the other side?

Mr. VAN COTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. Thatcher, at the time you had this controversy with the church
authorities regarding that rule, there had been no interpretation given
at that time of its meaning, had there ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Will you state, in brief language, what was the
point of conflict in your mind between the political manifesto or rule,
as it is called, and your position ?

Mr. THATCHER. From the Times interview, authorized by the
president of the church and signed by him, as I understand it, and
his first councilor, George Q. Cannon, the noninterference of the
church with political matters and with the liberty of the individual in
reference to such matters was clearly set forth. The manifesto, as
presented to me, and the impressions which it made on my mind, on
the 6th day of October, 1896, seemed to be in conflict with those decla-
rations; and as there had been at that time no definition of its scope
and meaning as to the officers of the church to whom it might be
applied, for that reason I was unable to accept it.

Mr. VAN COTT. And you. refused to sign it for that reason ?

Mr. THATCHER. That was the idea I had in my mind — it was on that
ground.

1038 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. VAN COTT. Then followed }^our controversy- and difference with
the church authorities from then on until the high-council decision ?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. The Times interview is contained in this pamphlet
that has just been introduced in evidence, is it not?

Mr. THATCHER. I think it is.

Mr. VAN COTT. And so marked, " Times interview?"

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. When was the high-council decision rendered?

Mr. THATCHER. I think it was on the 14th of August, 1897.

Mr. VAN COTT. At the time that high-council decision was ren-
dered, did you write a letter that went in as a part of the decision?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And is that letter contained in this pamphlet?

Mr. THATCHER. I think it is not in that pamphlet, but it is in the
record.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. At page 572 of the record.

Mr. VAN COTT. It is on page 572 of the printed record, is it not,
Mr. Thatcher?
, Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the decision of the high council and your let-
ter and the acceptance of the presidency of the Salt Lake Stake of
Zion all go as one document, do they not?

Mr. THATCHER. I never could have accepted the decision of that
high council in reference to that matter had I not fully understood
that that letter became a part of the decision, which was to the effect
that there was absolutely no conflict between the political manifesto
as issued and published and the former declarations of the authorities
as embodied in the Times; and I specifically referred to that fact in
this letter. I make my letter a part of their decision, because it left
me just where I stood before, absolutely free as an American citizen
to exercise niy rights as such. It left all the officers of the church
absolutely free, and the members, as I understood it, and as 1 now
understand it. It simply applied to the higher authorities of the
church, to which I had no objection. Is that an answer?

Mr. VAN COTT. And the decision of the high council and your letter
and the acceptance all went together?

Mr. THATCHER. All went together.

Mr. VAN COTT. And the acceptance is contained on page 573 of the
record, is it not?

Mr. THATCHER. The acceptance is on page 573.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Thatcher, if that political manifesto at the
time it was presented to you had been interpreted as it was by the
high-council decision in connection with your letter and the accept-
ance, would you have signed the political rule?

Mr. THATCHER. Why, certainly.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you think, Mr. Thatcher, that there would have
been an}T deposition from the quorum of apostles if 37oii had under-
stood in the beginning the interpretation that was given to that polit-
ical rule by the high council \

Mr. THATCHER. I do not think so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I would like to ask a question. Mr. Thatcher,
what is the date of that acceptance of your letter on page 573?

Mr. THATCHER. The acceptance by the high council or by myself?

REED SMOOT. 1039

Mr. WORTHINGTON. By the high council.

Mr. THATCHER. August 14, 189T.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That, in substance, as I read it, is an agree-
ment— and 1 would like to know if you so understand it — that the
church did not claim the right, or that it disavowed the right to inter-
fere in political matters at all.

Mr. THATCHER. Well, not "at all," but in reference only to high
authorities.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And as to them that they would have to get
leave of absence from the church when they undertook to do anything
that was inconsistent with their duties ?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes", sir.

Senator DUBOIS. It definitely states " leave of absence" in their
statement, does it? Leave of absence is definitely stated, I presume?

Mr. THATCHER. Do you mean, sir, in the political manifesto?

Senator DUBOIS. When a high officer of the church desires to run
for an office, he requests leave of absence, does he?

Mr. THATCHER. It is not in this decision. It is in the rule itself.

Senator DUBOIS. What is in the rule? Are the words "leave of
absence " in the rule ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; I do not think they are.

Senator DUBOIS. That expression has been used constantly. What
is in the rule?

Mr. THATCHER. I think high authorities are required to get the
consent, the approval-
Senator DUBOIS. It is not "leave of absence;" it is "consent."

Mr. THATCHER. 1 do not remember that term, "leave of absence."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Thatcher, you, of course, have been living
in Utah since this date, August 14, 1897?

Mr. THATCHER, Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you, in view of this history which we
have gone over so often, had your mind drawn particularly to the
matter whether the church has undertaken to interfere in politics
since that time ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; not particularly. I have not.

Mr. W^ORTHINGTON. So far as you have observed it, I would like to
know whether there is anything that has come to your knowledge
which shows that the church has undertaken to dominate the political
affairs of Utah.

Mr. THATCHER. Nothing that has come to my knowledge since that
day.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In any instance?

Mr. THATCHER. Not that 1 can remember.

Senator DUBOIS. You say they are all free to act. Suppose an
apostle should ask consent to run for a high office and it should be
refused and he should insist on running, what would follow ?

Mr. THATCHER. What would follow'?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. Will you permit me to stand again, Mr. Chairman,
just to rest a moment?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. THATCHER. I think if he would refuse to obey, after seeking the
counsel, it might result as in my case.

Mr. TAYLER. How is that?

1040 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. THATCHER. It might result as in my case, but as a free Amer-
ican citizen he would have a perfect right to retire from his official
calling and remain free, and if an issue came I would hold that every
man who loved his country would resign.

Senator DUBOIS. If they asked the consent of the authorities to be
a candidate for high office, and the consent were refused, then their
high office would be taken away from them if they persisted in run-
ning, notwithstanding the refusal, the same as in }^our case?

Mr. THATCHER. I would not say that that would be the case in every
instance, but it would be liable to be the case.

Senator DUBOIS. They are free to run and resign, of course?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Thatcher, as that rule was interpreted by the
high council of the Salt Lake stake of Zion, and }rour acceptance of it,
did that meet with your free and voluntary judgment, or not?

Mr. THATCHER. Entirely so, for the reason that that was the con-
tention. You will notice in the correspondence which is now filed for .
record that my objection to the political manifesto was in reference
to the fact that it was not definite, that it might be applied to all
officers in the church, and seriously I objected to that. I would object
to it to-day just as seriously, because I apprehend that under such a
condition it would absolutely put the state in the power of the church.
That was my objection; but when an authoritative tribunal, holding
coordinate jurisdiction with that of the twelve apostles, decided that
that was not the meaning — that there was no conflict between the for-
mer announcements and the political manifesto itself — I accepted that
decision on those grounds, and held that that would be the finding,
and it would be the understanding throughout Utah. Whether it was
or not, it was my understanding, and I am left perfectl}T free to stand
where I have stood in all that discussion, barring any unkind refer-
ences while under that misapprehension to my friends in and out of
the church.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Thatcher, do you understand, in effect, that
the consent that you obtained under that political rule or manifesto
had any other or further effect than a leave of absence? And if you do
so understand it, state what further effect you think it has.

Mr. THATCHER. As to myself the political manifesto has no appli-
cation whatever, for I hold no office in the church.

Mr. VAN COTT. But I mean as to high officials. Does it have any
other effect than to give the officer a leave of absence ?

Mr. THATCHER. I would not so understand it.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you understand that it is an indorsement of his
candidacy, or anything like that?

Mr. THATCHER. No; I would not understand it to be an indorse-
ment.

Senator DUBOIS. Does it ever happen that the authorities give their
consent to one man of one party to run for the Senate, for instance,
and to another man of the other party to run for the Senate at the
same time?

Mr. THATCHER. . I have never known of such an instance.

Senator DUBOIS.' They give their consent to only one man of the
church, clo they not?

Mr. THATCHER. As to that I can not say.

EEED SMOOT. 1041

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know of any instance where they have
given their consent to more than one man ?

Mr. THATCHER. Indeed, sir, I do not know of anv instance where
they have given it at all, when it comes to that.

Mr. VAN COTT. Do you know of any instance where they have re-
fused an}T man ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; I do not.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know of an}^ instance where they have ob-
jected to a man running for the Senate, for instance, without their
consent?

Mr. THATCHER. As church authorities?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. I know of no such instance.

Senator DUBOIS. What do you mean by church authorities ?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, 1 would refer to the general church authori-
ties, consisting of the first presidency, the twelve, the seven presi-
dents of seventies, and the presiding bishopric, the quorum composed
of three men. I regard those, and perhaps the patriarch of the church,
as the general authorities of the church.

Senator DUBOIS. Then when you say you know of no instance
where their consent has been asked or given, do you mean the consent
of all of these whom you have mentioned ?

Mr. THATCHER. I did not catch the last part of the question.

Senator DUBOIS. When you say you know of no instance where the
consent has been given to anyone to run for high office, and you
know of no instance where consent has been asked for anyone in high
ecclesiastical position to run for high office, do you mean b}T consent
to anyone the consent of all these authorities?

Mr. THATCHER. No; all or any of them. I know of no such instance
where any person — that is, of my person'al knowledge. I never asked
for such consent. I know of no instance where they have been asked
and were refused, or where they have been asked and have been
approved. Personally 1 know of no such instance.

benator DUBOIS. And }TOU know of no instance where any of these
authorities have objected to anyone running for the Senate, for
instance, without getting their consent?

Mr. THATCHER. I do not.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Thatcher, you stated that when this high council,
whose report is. published in the record, made a declaration as to the
interpretation of the manifesto, that became authoritative to you?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. And having been so interpreted by that body, you
accepted it?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Is that what }^ou want us to understand as being all
that was necessary in order that you might understand precisely what
the technical effect of that manifesto was?

Mr. THATCHER. To me; j^es, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; to you.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Precisely. That bod}* that first interpreted the mani-
festo was a high council composed of Angus M. Cannon, Joseph E.
Taylor, and Charles W. Penrose, who constituted the presidency of
the Salt Lake stake of Zion ?

s 66

1042 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. THATCHER. And they were also the presidency of the high
council. There were twelve others associated with thenTin the hearing.

Mr. TAYLER. Who were they? Are their names given in this
report ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; I think not. Now, I can remember per-
haps some of them.

Mr. TAYLER. You could furnish us with those names, could you not?

Mr. THATCHER. Later on I could.

Mr. TAYLER. They ought to be in the record.

Mr. THATCHER, I have not the information here now.

Mr. TAYLER. What kind of a body was it? Where did it come
from ?

Mr. THATCHER. May 1 explain that, sir?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; I would like to know what that is.

Mr. THATCHER. In each stake — they are called "stakes." They are
departments.

Mr. TAYLER. We understand that.

Mr. THATCHER. There is a high council composed of the presidency
of the stake and twelve high priests. They constitute a stake high
council. As I remember, in the Book of Covenants, which I suppose1
you gentlemen have with you, there is a statement reading like this,
that the decisions of the high councils at the stakes of Zion are equal
to those of the twelve apostles, the quorum to which I belonged.

Therefore, I regarded the Salt Lake high council, before whom I
appeared under grave charges as to spiritual matters — because the
charge was apostasy and unchristianlike conduct — I regarded the find-
ings of such a council as authoritative. Up to that date there had been
no rendering as to the meaning, in reference to its scope, of that
political manifesto; and because there had been no rendering, because
it had not been confined and restricted, but might be applied to all of
the officers of the church, I objected to it, just as I would object to it
now; and unless that rendering had been given, I suppose I should
have lost my. fellowship in the church. Have I made that plain, Mr.
Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes; that is all right.

Senator OVERMAN. Who issued the political manifesto? What
body ?

Mr. THATCHER. The political manifesto was issued and adopted by
the conference of 1896, but it had not been adopted'as a rule of the
church by the vote of the people in conference until I refused to sign
it. It was delivered to me at 12 o'clock on April 6, as I remember,
1896. I had but little time to study it; but there appeared enough in
it of a doubtful nature to cause me to hesitate, having always taken
the stand on civil matters of the freedom of the individual, the sepa-
ration of church and State, the noninterference of the church in civil
matters, so that I could not sign that document unless it was defined.

Senator OVERMAN. You say it was declared by the conference.
That was a general conference?

Mr. THATCHER. Subsequently; after I refused to sign it.

Senator OVERMAN. I say, you say it was declared by the general
conference. Was it a general conference of all the stakes?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; that was a general conference assembled
of leading authorities and members of the church.

Senator OVERMAN. I mean was it all the people of the stakes?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, it was a representation.

HEED SMOOT. 1043

Senator OVERMAN. Then the construction put upon it is the con-
struction put upon it by the Salt Lake Stake of Zion ?

Mr. THATCHER. That was the construction of the political manifesto
as given to me.

Senator OVERMAN. But the manifesto is issued by all the people in
conference assembled — that is, representatives of all the people?

Mr. THATCHER. Let me make it clear if I can, Senator, that when I
refused to sign it it was for the reasons stated. Within a very short
time, possibly within two hours, certainly not more than four hours,
because the document was handed to me at 12 o'clock, I was dropped
from my position as an apostle.

Senator OVERMAN. Who presented" it to you ?

Mr. THATCHER. President Lorenzo Snow, who was at that time the
president of the twelve apostles, as I remember — yes, that is right —
and Elder Brigham Young, who was a member of the quorum of
apostles.

Senator OVERMAN. After refusing to sign it it was carried before
the general conference ?

Mr. THATCHER. That question was not, but the political manifesto
was.

Senator OVERMAN. That is what 1 understand.

Senator DUBOIS. Lorenzo Snow soon afterwards became president
of the church, did he not?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Brigham Young, jr., was the president of the quo-
rum of twelve and in direct line of succession, was he not?

Mr. THATCHER. At that time the line of succession, according to
seniority, after President Wilford Woodruff and down to Francis M.
Lyman, was as follows: Franklin D. Richards, George Q. Cannon,
Joseph F. Smith, Brigham Young, Moses Thatcher, and Francis M.
Lyman.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Thatcher, pursuing that point, following the
question I asked you, which was touched upon by Senator Overman,
the manifesto when presented to the general conference on the 6th of
April, 1896, had been signed by what are called the general authorities
of the church?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Excepting only yourself and any of the general author-
ities who may have been absent from Utah, and therefore where they
could not sign?

Mr. THATCHER. I think I was the only one except those who were
absent.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, those general authorities were the first presi-
dency, the twelve apostles, the seven presidents of seventies, and the
presiding bishopric?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WTORTHINGTON. And perhaps the patriarch of the church, he
added.

Mr. TAYLER. And perhaps the patriarch of the church. Now, that
was submitted by the president to the general conference and by the
general conference accepted?

Mr. THATCHER. That is as I understand it.

Mr. TAYLER. There was no debate upon it nor any dissent to it, was
there?

Mr. THATCHER. I was not present, but I have never heard of any.

1044 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. And then later your trial came on for something that
was in the nature of apostasy, the result of which was an interpreta-
tion of this instrument which you felt to be binding upon your judg-
ment and conscience — an interpretation made by a body not one of
whom had originally signed it, and presented it to the general con-
ference ?

Mr. THATCHER. I think there was not one of them.

Mr. TAYLER. A body which, so far as its general authority over the
church was concerned, was inferior to that of everybody who had
originally signed the manifesto?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, yes, in a general way.

Mr. TAYLER. I understand. I am not going to permit my questions
to mislead you or others. Of course, in the jurisprudence, if we might
use that term, of your church, this general council has certain well
defined powers and authorities.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And according to your description they did not exceed
those powers or that author ity in thus interpreting this document and
in defining what you must do in order to maintain fellowship with the
church. That is correct, is it?

Mr. THATCHER. My understanding was to this effect, that there had
never been an authoritative interpretation given as to the scope and
meaning. I recognized, I felt in my mind, that this council had that
authority, and when they passed upon it, defining its scope and mean-
ing, as I have stated before, that entirely satisfied me.

Senator FORAKER. The question is whether or not that definition or
construction of it was binding upon the whole church, or simply upon
one of the stakes of the church.

Mr. THATCHER. I hold that that would be binding on the church as
to that interpretation, until, at least, it was appealed.

Mr. WORTHINGTOX. I was just going to ask you that.

Senator FORAKER. In view of the fact that the body that so con-
strued it was so inferior in numbers and authority to the body that
had adopted it.

Mr. THATCHER. I think when the body adopted it, it was without
any question in their minds such as arose in my mind as to its scope
and meaning; but I think when the high council interpreted it, that
became binding. I think so.

Senator FORAKER. Has that construction ever been disputed in the
church by the church authorities or by anybody administering the
affairs of the church ?

Mr. THATCHER. Not that I am aware of.

Senator FORAKER. Has it been accepted generally and acted upon
generally as a proper construction?

Mr. THATCHER. So far as I know that has been the understanding.

Senator OVERMAN. Has it ever been submitted to the general con-
ference ?

Mr. THATCHER. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What official position did the three who made
the charges and who acted the principal part of the court hold — Angus
M. Cannon, Joseph E. Taylor, and Charles W. Penrose — at the tiue
of the decision ?

Mr. THATCHER. 1 did not understand the question.

REED SMOOT. 1045

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What official position in the church did they
hold at the time they rendered the decision ?

Mr. THATCHER. The}^ were first, second, and third presidents of the
Salt Lake Stake of Zion. Is that an answer to the question?

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Thatcher, previous to this hearing and this deter-
mination of your case by the high council of the Salt Lake Stake of
Zion, you had been deposed from your position as one of the twelve
apostles ?

Mr THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. I believe you stated a moment ago, incidentally, that
you were in the line of succession for the presidency ?

Mr. THATCHER. That, as I remember, would have been the case.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the date of that?

Mr. TAYLER. April 6, 1896.

The CHAIRMAN. At the time he was deposed ?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. Excuse me. I will say for information, so as not
to get it confused, that I was simply dropped out of my place at the
conference on April 6, 1896.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. My quorum acted upon my case, as I remember, on
November 19, 1896.

Mr. TAYLER. 1895?

Mr. THATCHER. Oh, no; 1896, I think. It would be 1896, the same
year, as I remember, April to November. In that act the quorum
removed me from the apostolate, stating in their decision that I was
relieved of all priestly offices whatever; so that I suppose I am possibly
the only man of my age in the church who holds no office in the
priesthood.

Mr. TAYLER. You are denied the right to enter the temple, are you ?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. To whom is that right accorded to enter the temple ?

Mr. THATCHER. The president of the church, as I understand it,
has that right to deny or receive; but ordinarily when people wish to
go through, they receive first a recommendation from the bishop of
the ward in which they live; second, the indorsement of the president
of the stake in which they live, and third, of course, the approval of
the president if he should in any case have objections.

Mr. TAYLER. I think a general definition was given here a day or
two ago, by somebody who knew, as to who were ordinarily permitted
to enter the temple.

Mr. THATCHER. I had been in the habit, with others, the quorum
of the twelve, my fellow-laborers, and the presidency, of meeting
there once a week, and until this date had never been denied admission.

Senator FORAKER. I thought you said awhile ago you were not
now allowed the privilege of entering the temple ?

Mr. THATCHER. That is what I said, sir.

Senator FORAKER. What is the statement you made just now. You
said, " until this date" you had not been denied.

Mr. THATCHER. The date at which I appeared at the temple and
was denied entrance.

Senator FORAKER. You mean up until that time ?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

1046 REED GMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. After he ceased to be an official.

Mr. TAYLER. Then the right to enter the temple is not a right that
attaches to any particular ecclesiastical position that a man may occupy
in the church ?

Mr. THATCHER. Not necessarily.

Mr. TAYLER. But it is a right that is accorded to every Mormon of
good standing- in the church and of correct Christian life who makes
application through the proper authorities to enter?

Mr. THATCHER. That is as I understand it.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all, Mr. Thatcher.

Senator OVERMAN. What do you mean by entering the temple ? I
do not exactly understand you.

Mr. THATCHER. To enter the temple for the purpose of work in the
ordinances of the church. As I stated before, Mr. Senator, it was
and is necessary that the party should get a recommendation from the
bishop of the ward-
Senator OVERMAN. You mean go in for religious ordinances?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes; religious ordinances. If you understand that
point, I will go on and say that the twelve apostles and the first presi-
dency were «in the habit, when I was a member of the quorum, of
meeting in that temple once a week; and up to the date, which I can not
remember now just exactly, but I think it was on the 15th of Septem-
ber, 1896, I presented myself at the door of the temple for the pur-
pose of meeting with my friends and brethren. On that date I was
refused the privilege.

The CHAIRMAN. By whom?

Mr. THATCHER. By the doorkeeper who had charge of the door.
I asked him on whose authority, and he said it was on the authority
of the presidency of the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Since that time have you been permitted to enter
the temple?

Mr. THATCHER. 1 have never made an application since, Mr. Chair-
man.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not entered the temple ?

Mr. THATCHER. I have not entered the temple since.

Senator FORAKER. Are you a member now of the Mormon Church?

Mr. THATCHER. 1 am simply a member; that is all. I hold no
official position whatever; and 1 am glad to say that I am also a free
American citizen.

The CHAIRMAN. Since you have been deposed ?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long were you an apostle ?

Mr. THATCHER. Nearly eighteen }^ears, I think, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You stood in line for the presidency?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir; but in the order 'above named, and I desire
to say that the record shows that 1 made little effort to save ni}7 official
position, but I made very strenuous efforts to save my standing in the
church.

Senator FORAKER. Have you good standing in the church now as a
member?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, really, Senator, I could not—

Senator FORAKER. I am only asking for information. It carries no
suggestion.

REED SMOOT. 1047

Mr. THATCHER. So far as I know, as a lay member I have fair
standing.

Senator FORAKER. That is, you have all the privileges in the church
that any member would have who has no official position ?

Mr. THATCHER. I could not enter the temple; no, sir.

Senator FORAKER. They would not allow that under any circum-
stances ?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir.

Senator FORAKER. Would they deny you any other privileges they
would accord to any other member?

Mr. THATCHER. Oh, I think not.

Senator OVERMAN. Would you have been elected to the United
States Senate but for the interference of the church ?

Mr. THATCHER. I could not say that definitely. I regard the fact,
which on reflection strongly appeals to my mind, that the Democratic
party in Utah have been exceedingly unfortunate in contentions among
themselves. Now, on that point, would it be proper for me to say-
perhaps I am taking too much time, Mr. Chairman, and, if so, you can
call me to order.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Go ahead.

Mr. TAYLER. Before you go ahead on that, I want to ask a question
in that connection.

Mr. THATCHER. Certainly.

Mr. TAYLER. Whether you did not feel, at the time, that you would
have been elected?

Mr. THATCHER. Well, I rather felt that way; yes, sir; but I want
to say in explanation of that —

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you were not reelected?

Mr. THATCHER. I was not elected, but I came very nearly being
elected.

The CHAIRMAN. To what did you attribute it at that time?

Mr. THATCHER. If you will permit me now to stand on my feet a
moment, Mr. Chairman, to rest —

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. What did you attribute it to at that time ?

Mr. THATCHER. To several causes.

The CHAIRMAN. Name them, please.

Mr. THATCHER. One was this, that the Hon. Joseph L. Rawlins,
who was my opponent, we both being Democrats, was a very able
attorney. He was a man who had represented the Territory in the
House of Representatives to the satisfaction of the people of Utah.
He is the man by the side of whom I stood in the Logan Opera House,
and when the charge was made that he should not be elected because
he was an apostate, I stood before a very large audience and said that
if Mr. Rawlins was to go down civilly on a claim of that kind I would
take him by the right hand and go down with him, though I was an
apostle at that time. Now, Mr. Joseph L. Rawlins had withdrawn
from the field. The Ogden convention of 1895 had named Joseph L.
Rawlins and Moses Thatcher as their choice — simply a recommendation
to a Democratic legislature, if elected, which it was not. It proved to
be a Republican legislature instead. So that when the campaign of
1896 was coming forward, also the legislature of 189T, I seemed to
remain as the only person to fill their recommendations.

Now, then, I conceive that Mr. Joseph L. Rawlins, before the peo-
ple and before that legislature, could easily be held to be a more able

1048 REED SMOOT.

man, and could, as he subsequently proved himself in the Senate of
the United States, and was better qualified than Moses Thatcher even
had he been in good health, but I believed at that time there were
other influences existing.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to get at. What were those
other influences? We know about Mr. Rawlins. He has served here.
His record is public.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What were the other influences that you believed
at that time contributed to your defeat ?

Mr. THATCHER. It was believed that a strong current of influence
exerted by influential official Latter-Day Saints affected the matter,
but personally 1 knew nothing about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that voirr belief and understanding at the
time?

Mr. THATCHER. I had that understanding at the time.

The CHAIRMAN. One other question. The endowment house, I
believe, has been taken down?

Mr. THATCHER. That is as I understand it. It has been taken down.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the ceremony of the endowment house been
wiped out also, or is that performed now?

Mr. THATCHER. I am just trying to think whether I have been
through the temple in the light in which I went through the endow-
ment house, to give you a correct answer on that, but my impressions
are that the ceremony has not been changed.

The CHAIRMAN. You have seen the ceremony in the temple? You
have witnessed it?

Mr. THATCHER. I think 1 have heard it?

The CHAIRMAN. And you think there is no change in it?

Mr, THATCHER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you go through the endowment house ?

Mr. THATCHER. My impressions are when I married the wife, of my
youth, in 1861.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state to the committee the ceremony in the
endowment house? I do not mean the ceremony of marriage; but did
you go through the endowment house when you became an apostle?

Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; it was not necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been through the endowment house, then,
but once?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir. „

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state to the committee the ceremony of
the endowment house?

Mr. THATCHER. I think, Mr. Chairman, that I might be excused on
that.

The CHAIRMAN. Why?

Mr. THATCHER. For the reason that those were held to be sacred
matters, and only pertaining to religious vows.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you obligated not to reveal them?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, I think I am.

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the effect if you should disclose
them? That is, is there any penalty attached?

Mr. THATCHER. There would be no effect except upon my own con-
science.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all?

EEED SMOOT. 1049

Mr. THATCHER. That is all.'

The CHAIRMAN. But you are under obligation as a part of the cere-
mony not to re\7eal it?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir; I feel myself under such obligation.

The CHAIRMAN. I have nothing further.

Mr. TAYLER. Such obligation as is taken is taken but once, in what-
ever particular ceremony it may have occurred? I understood you to
say you thought you went through the endowment house at the time
of your marriage.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And at that time, whatever obligation in formal words
was ever taken by one who passed through the endowment house,
you took at the time of your marriage ?

Mr. THATCHER. I have only passed through the endowments once;
that is all.

Mr. TAYLER. Others might pass through the endowment house —
that is to say, might go through a ceremony in which an obligation
occurs — and not be married ?

Mr. THATCHER. They might; yes.

Mr. TAYLER. Then I assume that this obligation to which I have
referred and which you feel you have no right to disclose, is imposed
on every person who passes through the endowment house and may be
done in connection with the marriage ceremony or in the absence of
the marriage ceremony ?

Mr. THATCHER. That is my understanding of it; yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. One question, Mr. Thatcher, that I neglected to ask
you. That is as to whether the general charge — not in connection with
the formal charge, perhaps, that wa?s made against you finally and
tried before this high council, but the general charge, as you under-
stood it, made against }^ou — included the proposition that you were
the one apostle who had refused to take counsel as to how the people
should be divided up after the dissolution of the People's and Liberal
party ?

Mr. THATCHER. What is the point of that question, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. That one of the charges against you, one of the points
of complaint against you, was that you were one and the only apostle
who refused to take counsel upon the question as to how the people
should divide up as between the Republican and the Democratic party ?

Mr. THATCHER. I do not remember that there is any such statement
in the charge against me.

Mr. TAYLER. No; I am not asking you that; I am asking whether,
as a matter of fact, that complaint was not made against you, not in
the formal charge that was tried, but generally in connection with
your troubles with the church?

Mr. THATCHER. I have heard of such a statement, and it was pub-
lished, 1 think, in the Tribune, but on just what date I do not remem-
ber, to the effect that 1 had been out of harmony on that question
since a certain meeting at which it was determined to do so and so.

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. THATCHER. Now, then, so far as my memory goes up-to-date,
and I have tried hard to think o'n that question, I do not remember
anything of that sort, and I do not remember that I was at that meet-
ing. I do not believe I was at any such meeting.

Mr. TAYLER. That is what is called the Gardo House meeting ?

1050 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Mr. Thatcher, you stated that when }rou ceased to
be a member of the quorum of apostles, you were simply a member of
the church, not an officer, and a free American citizen?

Mr. THATCHER. Yes, sir.

Mr. VAN COTT. Did you or not consider yourself a free American
citizen while you were a member of the quorum of apostles ?

Mr. THATCHER. I am glad you asked the question, as perhaps my
former answer would be misleading. I have never experienced a
moment in my life since I reached mature years when I did not feel
that if I was not free I would go where I would be free ; for, while
my allegiance to God is very high, I hold that a man must give his
allegiance as well to his country. That has been my position.

Mr. VAN COTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you gentlemen any further questions of Mr.
Thatcher?

Mr. VAN COTT. We are through.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. You can be excused, Mr. Thatcher.

Now, I would like to know about Mr. Roberts.

Mr. VAN COTT. I suggest f;hat as the time is limited, and we are
coming near to the adjournment, that during the recess — later on, I
mean, during the summer— Mr. Tayler indicate the particular portions
of those books to us, and then we can recall Mr. Roberts to examine
him on the particular parts about which we want to examine him, and
Mr. Roberts might be excused.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean to-day?

Mr. VAN COTT. No, not to-d^y; but next week or next month.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, if you desire to call attention especially
to portions of the pamphlet, can you not do that to-morrow ?

Mr. TAYLER. I think so.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can not the same thing be done as to this book
of 140 or 150 pages?

Mr. TAYLER. 1 do not at all like the idea of saying that when we
produce a document and establish its authority one way or the other
this committee is not going to use every or any part of it that may
enlighten.

The CHAIRMAN. We will understand, Mr. Tayler, that the docu-
ment is in evidence. The Chair understood you to say you desired to
call attention to some portions of it. That was the view in asking
whether Mr. Roberts should remain.

I will say to persons present that the committee desires an executive
session. The committee will meet to-morrow morning at half past 10.

The committee, at 11 o'clock and 25 minutes a. m., went into execu-
tive session.

KEED SMOOT.

1051

WASHINGTON, D. C., April 07 ,' 190$

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Present: Senators Burrows (chairman), Dillingham, Dubois, and
Overman; also Senator Smoot; also R. W. Tayler, counsel for protes-
tants; A. S. Worthington and Waldemar Van Cott, counsel for the
respondent, and Franklin S. Richards, counsel for certain witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, I call Mr. L. E. Abbott to the stand.

TESTIMONY OF L. E. ABBOTT.

L. E. ABBOTT, having been first duly sworn, was examined and tes-
tified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.
i Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.
; Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.
• Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.
Farmington are

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.
in Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.
ington ?

Mr. ABBOTT.

Where is your home, Mr. Abbott?

Farmington, Davis County, Utah.

How long have you Hved there?

Thirty-six years. 1 was born and raised there.

Are you a Mormon ?

Yes/ sir.

You were born in the church, were you?

Yes, sir.

Your parents were Mormon ?

Yes, sir.

Do you know Apostle John W. Taylor?

Yes, sir.

How long have you known him?

Probably twelve years.

Where is his home?

In Farmington.

Has he any other home than the Farmington home?

By repute, I suppose he has.

How many wives is he reputed to have?

He is reputed to have five wives.

How many has he living in Farmington?

Two.

Do you understand that the two wives who live at

plural wives?

Yes, sir.

Do you know the name of his first or lawful wife ?

Yes, sir.

What is her name, or what was her name?

Her name was Rich. I do not know the first name.

What are the names of the two plural wives who live

Nellie Todd and Nettie Woolley.
Have you known them always?
No, sir.

How long have you known them?
Probably six years.

Then, until six years ago they did not live at Farm-
No, sir.

1052

KEED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Had Apostle Taylor been living in Farmington prior
to that time ?

Mr. ABBOTT. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they neighbors of yours?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; my closest neighbors.

Mr. TAYLER. Do they both live in one house?

Mr. ABBOTT. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where are the two houses with reference to yours?

Mr. ABBOTT. I live on the corner, and the closest house to me on
the left is Nettie Woolley's, and catercornered across the street, one
block away, is Nellie Todd's.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they known there as Apostle Taylor's wives ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And are the children known as his children ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many children, if you know, has Nellie Todd?

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, I should $ay about six.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is the olclest of them?

Mr. ABBOTT. I should judge 16.

Mr. TAYLER. And the 3'oungest?

Mr. ABBOTT. Probabty 2 years old.

How many children are there in Nettie Woolley's

Mr. TAYLER.
family ?

Mr. ABBOTT.
Mr. TAYLER.
Mr. ABBOTT.

I think five.

How old is the oldest?

I should judge 11 or 12.

Mr. TAYLER. How old a man is Apostle Taylor, would you judge?

Mr. ABBOTT. 1 should judge him to be 45 or 46 years of age.

Mr. TAYLER. Who are the other reputed plural wives of Apostle
Taylor ? I mean, what are their names.

Mr. ABBOTT. Rhoda and Roxie Welling.

Senator OVERMAN. Are they sisters ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; half-sisters.

Mr. TAYLER. Where are they now ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Were they born and reared at Farmington?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. So that you have known them all their lives, have you?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did they live near 3- ou ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Within about a mile of me.

Mr. TAYLER. How old are they now ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I would judge them to be from 22 to 24 years of age,
although I am not absolutely sure, Mr. Tayler.

Mr. TAYLER. When did it become public talk that they were the
wives of Apostle Taylor ?

Mr. ABBOTT. About two years ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Were they at that time living in Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And where were they living — I mean where in
Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT. They were living one of them with each of his wives
as hired girls.

EEED SMOOT.

1053

Mr. TAYLER. Is that all you know about the Apostle Taylor
families ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, I do not know all of that.

Mr. TAYLER. You know whether he is reputed to have these wives,
do you not?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all I ask you. But I sayr is there anything
else, any information you can give, respecting Apostle Taylor and his
families ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I can not think very well, Mr. Tayler. You will have
to ask me any questions you desire. I am a little nervous.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know Walter Steed?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Where does he live?

Mr. ABBOTT. I disremember his post-office. He lives in the north
part of Davis County at present.

Mr. TAYLER. That is the county in which you live?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you known him?

Mr. ABBOTT. All my l8e.

Mr. TAYLER. Has he, during his life, lived at Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Until within the last few years.

Mr. TAYLER. How many wives has he?

Mr. ABBOTT. He is reputed to have two wives.

Mr. TAYLER. What are their names?

Mr. ABBOTT. His first wife was Julia Wilcox. His second wife was
Alice Clark.

Mr. TAYLER. Has he any children by Alice Clark?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How many?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know that he has more than one.

Mr. TAYLER. How old is that child ?

Mr. ABBOTT. About 3 years old, I should judge — 4, maybe 5.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have }rou known Alice Clark ?

Mr. ABBOTT. All my life — all her life.

Mr. TAYLER. She lived in that community, then, did she?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was she married to Walter Steed in 1890?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Do -you know where she was in 1890; or what is your
recollection as to where she was at that time? What was she doing?

Mr. ABBOTT. I believe she was attending the University of Utah.

Mr. TAYLER. When did the general reputation of Walter Steed as
husband of Alice Clark begin ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I should judge about 1898.

Mr. TAYLER. About 1898?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; or 1899.

Mr. TAYLER. Was that about the time of the birth of the child?

Mr. ABBOTT. About that time. .

Mr. TAYLER. Was he then living at Farmington?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was she living at Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

1054

REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Up to 1898 where did she live at Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT. She lived with her mother in Farmington.

Mr. TAYLER. With her mother?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And after the birth of the child where did she go to
live?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Did she leave her mother's ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Well, it was presumed that she was not there.

Mr. TAYLER. She was not there. Do you know whether Walter
Steed holds her out as his wife?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you seen them together when he has so held
her out?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, I believe I have; on one occasion, or two, probably.

Mr. TAYLER. What kind of occasions were they? Where was he
with her ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I have seen them at sociables.

Mr. TAYLER. Is she known in the community as Mrs. Steed?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAY^ER. And the child as Steed?

Mr. ABBOTT. That is my understanding of it.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know J. M. Tanner?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. He is the J. M. Tanner who was president of the
Agricultural College of Utah ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And resigned ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What official position does he now hold in the church?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he the man who is general superintendent of the
Mormon schools throughout the world ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Why, he is connected with them. 1 am not sure that
he is the superintendent.

Mr. TAYLER. How many wives has he ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. How many wives is he reputed to have?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know whether he is reputed to be a polyga-
mist?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know one of the women who is reputed to be
his wife?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER.

Mr. ABBOTT.

Mr. TAYLER.
Alice?

Mr. ABBOTT. She is an own sister.

Mr. TAYLER. How long has she been reputed to be the wife of J. M.
Tanner?

Mr. ABBOTT. A good many years.

What is her name ?

Annie Clark.

Is she related to the plural wife of Walter Steed,

I

REED SMOOT. 1055

Mr. TAYLER. Where does she live ?

Mr. ABBOTT. In Farmington,

Mr. TAYLER. Has she much of a family?

Mr. ABBOTT. Quite a large family.

Mr. TAYLER. You have a family and children?

Mr. ABBOTT. I have.

Mr. TAYLER. Do they go to the schools in Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What do you know about the efforts to teach the Mor-
mon doctrine, the Mormon religion, in the schools at Farmington?

Mr. ABBOTT. There is none that I ever heard of in the schools.
They hold sessions in the public schools — religious classes, they are
called — after the schools are out.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you had any experience with your children being
taught in these classes ?

Mr. ABBOTT. My children are taught, yes, generally.

Mr. TAYLER. Has anything occurred respecting that? Have you
objected to it?

Mr. ABBOTT. Why, the children complained that it was too tire-
some, some of the smaller ones, to stay, and I gave them permission
to come home. I told them they need not stay if they did not want
to. I have been a school-teacher myself, and I know thai? a child
being held in a schoolroom too long, it is hurtful.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any communication with the teacher on
that subject?

Mr. ABBOTT. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you know whether it is the habit to have these
religious classes in the public schoolhouse after school closes each day ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you mean at Farmington, or generally?

Mr. TAYLER. At Farmington. I do not know that he knows any-
thing about it generally.

Mr. ABBOTT. I think it is generally the habit in Davis County.
That is my information.

Mr. TAYLER. Are there any Mormon schools in Davis County, or
are they all public schools ?

Mr. ABBOTT. All public schools.

Mr. TAYLER. How far is Farmington from Salt Lake?

Mr. ABBOTT. Sixteen miles.

Mr. TAYLER. Which way?

Mr. ABBOTT. North.

Mr. TAYLER. You may inquire, gentlemen.

Senator OVERMAN. How often does Mr. Taylor visit his wives in
Farmington ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know, Senator.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He says they are not there now

Mr. TAYLER. Oh, no; he did not. Two of them are there.

Mr. ABBOTT. I have seen him there, but not recently. I have not
been there much myself, Senator, in the last year. I have been away
from home. I do not know that I have seen him in the last year,
excepting, probably, once.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you say Mr. Taylor is living at Farm-
ington, do you know whether he has changed his residence in the last
year?

1056 REED SMOOT.

Mr. ABBOTT. Why, I said that I had not seen him, because I had
not been there. I did not have reference to his residence when I made
that statement.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know whether or not he now claims to
be a resident and citizen of Canada ?

Mr. ABBOTT. 1 know that he has possessions there, from his own
lips.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When did you last see him ?

Mr. ABBOTT. 1 have not seen him to talk to him for over a year.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long since you last saw him at all?

Mr. ABBOTT. I am not able to say. As 1 said before, having been
away for a year myself, only home for a few hours at a time, I might
have seen him several times within the last year, but I can not recall
them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DUBOIS. Mr. Abbott, you said that Mr. Taylor was reputed
to be married to the W elling sisters ?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Are they about the same age?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir; near.

Senator DUBOIS. They are half-sisters, you said?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. And they are about 22 years of age?

Mr. ABBOTT. Twenty-two to 24 I should judge.

Senator DUBOIS. Where are they supposed to be now ?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Senator DUBOIS. You do not know whether they are with him in
Canada or not?

Mr. ABBOTT. I do not know.

Senator DUBOIS. I believe you said that Mr. Taylor is an apostle of
the Mormon Church ? .

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know when he became an apostle?

Mr. ABBOTT. No; I can not give you the date. It was quite a num-
ber of years ago.

Senator DUBOIS. Fifteen years ago, do you think?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, I do.

Senator OVERMAN. If they are only 22 to 24 years old he is bound
to have married them since the manifesto. Is not that so ?

Mr. ABBOTT. All that I know about it, Senator, I have said.

Senator OVERMAN. They could not have been more than 10 years
old when they were married, if they were married before the manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you ever hear before any intimation that Apostle
Taylor was a citizen of Canada?

Mr. ABBOTT. I never heard that he was a citizen, but I know that
he has possessions there and has been in Canada probably half his time
for ten or twelve years — quite a part of his time.

Mr. TAYLER. How many wives he may have in Canada you have no
way of telling?

Mr. ABBOTT. No, sir; I know nothing about it.

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know whether or not it is commonly under-
stood that with the plural wives that are now taken the marriage cere-
mony generally is contracted without the borders of the United States?

Mr. ABBOTT. I did not quite catch the question, Senator.

REED SMOOT. 1057

Senator DUBOIS. Do you know whether or not it is generally under-
stood that when these high officials or other Mormons take plural
wives now, the}7 general!}7 take them in Canada or Mexico or some
place other than the United States ?

Mr. ABBOTT. It is generally understood that they do not get them
in the temple or by sanction of the Mormon people.

Senator DUBOIS. Is it not generally understood that they go outside
of the United States to have these marriages performed?

Mr. ABBOTT. That I am not well enough informed about to answer,
Senator.

Senator DUBOIS. You do not know what the general understanding
is, then?

Mr. ABBOTT. No; I do not.
' Mr. DUBOIS. You have heard that stated, I presume?

Mr. ABBOTT. Why, not from any authority that would be worth
repeating.
•-, The CHAIRMAN. Have you anything further, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Nothing further.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, do you desire to cross-examine any
further?
" Mr. VAN COTT. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have placed in the rec-
ord the letter which President Joseph F. Smith wrote to the chairman
in response to an inquiry that I made of him and a promise that he
made to assist, in so far as he might, in procuring the attendance here
of Apostle Taylor and two or three other witnesses.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you gentlemen any objection to that?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Certainly there is no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say that the return to the process sent to the
United States marshal at Salt Lake, D. B. Hayward, shows, among
other things, that "George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, J. M. Tanner,
Heber J. Grant, Matthias F. Cowley, and William Hamlin Cannon I
have been unable to find in the district of Utah."

The president of the church writes me, explanatory of this, as
follows:

OFFICE OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY OF THE
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS,

Salt Lake City, Utah, April 15, 1904,.
Hon. JULIUS C. BURROWS,

Chairman Committee on Privileges and Elections,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

SIR: It is with regret that I inform you of my inability to procure
the attendance of Messrs. John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Mar-
riner W. Merrill, John W. Taylor, and Matthias F. Cowley before the
Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Hon. John Henry Smith is still quite ill, but has signified his willing-
ness to appear before the committee, if desired, as soon as his health
will permit.

lam informed that Mr. Marriner.W. Merrill is still in such poor
health that he is unable to leave his home.

My latest reports from Mr. Teasdale are to the effect that his healtb
is still poor, but improving.

s 67

1058 REED SMOOT.

In accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Robert W. Tayler, I com-
municated to Messrs. John W. Taylor and M. F. Cowley my earnest
desire that they should appear and testify before the committee, and
am in receipt of letters from them stating, in substance, that they are
unwilling, voluntarily, to testify in the Smoot investigation. As this
is a political matter, and not a religious duty devolving upon them or
me, I am powerless to exert more than moral suasion in the premises.

With reference to the others named the facts are as above stated.

Again expressing my sincere regret that I am unaUe to procure the
attendance of these gentlemen, 1 am,

Very respectfully, JOSEPH F. SMITH.

What further, Mr. Tayler?

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Chairman, that is all the evidence we are now
prepared to present to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Roberts has been retained at the request of
counsel on one side or the other, I do not remember which. Is there
any reason for his further detention ?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. We asked to have him retained until we knew
what parts of certain books were to be offered in evidence. Mr. Tay-
ler has stated that while all of the books will not go into the record
they are all in evidence. We do not have copies of the books, or,
at least, I have not; and it is very embarrassing to have things in evi-
dence which are not in the record and which we have to go to counsel
on the other side to get, without knowing what parts they are going
to reljr upon.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not think your client is under such disability as
to be unable to supply }TOU with these rare books.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I mean, we haven't them here.

Mr. TAYLER. One of them is Orson Pratt's works. I think he has
heard of it, and I think you will find a rare copy or two around, pub-
lished by the church — both of them published by the church.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any further questions of Mr. Roberts?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, Mr. Roberts, }rou are discharged; and if this
witness, Mr. Abbott, is not required further, he will be discharged.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There is one thing to which my attention is
called, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor said just now that Mr. Smith had
promised to bring these witnesses here.

Mr. TAYLER. I do not think that will be found in my statement.

Mr. VAN COTT. No; he did not s&y that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Very well; strike out my suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. Certain witnesses have been subpcjenaed whose
attendance is anticipated at an early day, and the committee will
adjourn, if agreeable, subject to the call of the chairman. I will notify
the attorneys in time.

The committee, at 11 o'clock and 20 minutes a. m., adjourned.

REED SMOOT. 1059

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 2, 1904.

The committee met at 12.30 o'clock p. m.

Present: Senator Burrows (chairman), McCornas, and Dubois; also
Senator Smoot; also R. W. Taj'ler, counsel for protestants; A. S.
Worthington, counsel for respondent, and Franklin S. Richards,
counsel for certain witnesses.

TESTIMONY OF ANGUS M. CANNON, JR.

ANGUS M. CANNON, jr., having been duly sworn, was examined, and
testified as follows:

Mr. TAYLER. What relation are you to Angus M. Cannon, who
testified here a few da}Ts ago ?

Mr. CANNON. I am his son.

Mr. TAYLER. How long have you lived in Salt Lake City ?

Mr. CANNON. Forty-two years.

Mr. TAYLER. All your life?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; practically all my life.

Mr. TAYLER. You are a Mormon ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. I am not what they term in good standing.
I am a member of the Mormon Church.

Mr. TAYLER. What relation was Apostle Abraham H. Cannon to
you?

Mr. CANNON. He was my cousin.
. Mr. TAYLER. Whose son was he?

Mr. CANNON. George Q. Cannon.

Mr. TAYLER. He died, 1 believe, in 1896.

Mr. CANNON. In 1896.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is, Abraham H. Cannon died then?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Abraham H. Cannon — what wa§ his age? How old
was he when he died?

Mr. CANNON. 1 think he was about 39.

Mr. TAYLER. He was not far from your age? He was but a little
older than you?

Mr. CANNON. Not far from my age; a little over 2 years.

Mr. TAYLER. You were raised together there ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you always been friends ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you been particularly intimate ?

Mr. CANNON. I had been very closely associated with him in busi-
ness affairs.

Mr. TAYLER. And personally you were intimate ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; we were very intimate. We were cousins.

Mr. TAYLER. You were always warm friends ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You say you had had business relations with him?

Mr. CANNON. I was in his employ when he was managing the
Deseret News.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did you remain in his employ while you
were working on the News?

1060 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CANNON. I was in his employ there about two years — two or
three years.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you have any interest with him in mining
properties ?

Mr. CANNON. No, 1 did not have any interest with him in mining
properties. I had been interested with him in some real-estate prop-
erties in Salt Lake.

Mr. TAYLER. When he died how many wives had he?

Mr. CANNON. He had three at the time he died that I knew of at
that time. I 'have since learned that he had one other at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. What were the names of the three wives whom you
knew that he had when he died ?

Mr. CANNON. Sarah Ann Jenkins Cannon, Wilhelmina M. Cannon,
Mary E. Croxall Cannon.

Mr. TAYLER. They were all living at that time?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Are they all living now?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did }TOU know them all ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Have }TOU been at his house or houses?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. At all of them?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; at all of them.

Mr. TAYLER. Had he children by all of those wives?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the date of his death ?

Mr. CANNON. It was somewhere about the 20th of July, 1896; some-
where near between the 20th and the 30th.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1896?

Mr. CANNON. 1896.

The CHAIRMAN. July, 1896?

Mr. CANNON. Yes* sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Had 3^011 known of his associating with Lillian Ham-
lin prior to his death ?

Mr. CANNON. I had known of him taking her out riding.

Mr. TAYLER. When and where?

Mr. CANNON. In the month of May, 1896. I met them out one night.
He was driving my horse and buggy. 1 met them out driving one
evening.

Mr. TAYLER. How often did you see them out driving?

Mr. CANNON. Two or three times.

Mr. TAYLER. Where were your horse and buggy?

Mr. CANNON. They were kept at the ^alt Lake Livery and Transfer
Company's stable.

Mr. TAYLER. Did. he talk with you before he went to get the buggy ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. He asked me if I was going to use the buggy,
and I told them at the stable whenever he wanted it to let him have it.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he tell you whom he was going to take out driving
with him?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What talk did you have with him in the summer of
1896 about Lillian Hamlin ?

REED SMOOT. 1061

Mr. CANNON. I never had any talk with him about her particularly.
I had spoken to him about her, he having told me that she was engaged
to his brother David, who had died on a mission to Germany.

Mr. TAYLER. When did David die on his mission to Germany ?

Mr. CANNON. I have forgotten what year it was, but 1 think it was
eleven or twelve years ago.

Mr. TAYLER. Some three or four years before Abraham died?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; more than that.

Mr. TAYLER. More than that?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

Mr. TAYLER. He told you that she had been engaged to his brother
David?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; to his brother David.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he say that he was going to marry her ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he not have a talk with you to that effect?
• Mr. CANNON. No, sir; he never did.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you present when he married Lillian Harnlin ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you not see Joseph F. Smith marry them ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you within the last two weeks tell Mr. E. W.
Wilson, of Salt Lake, that you were present and saw Joseph F. Smith
perform the marriage ceremony between Abraham H. Cannon and
Lillian Hamlin ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I did tell him that.

Mr. TAYLER. E. W. Wilson is a banker there, is he not?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You have known him a long time?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You and he have been personal friends ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The kindest relations have existed between you?

Mr. CANNON. Very warm friends.

Mr. TAYLER. Is he a gentleman of high standing in that com-
munity ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; in a business capacity he stands first clas?.

The CHAIRMAN. 1 can not hear you.

Mr. CANNON. He is a man of fine business ability.

The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to say he is president of a
bank?

Mr. CANNON. He is cashier of a bank.

Mr. TAYLER, Of what bank?

Mr. CANNON. Of the Commercial National, Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. He has lived there a long time?

Mr. CANNON. I think he came there in 1890.

Mr. TAYLER. He'is a man for whom you have high respect?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And a man who. has always dealt, as you say, in the
kindest way with you ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; always.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you tell him within the last two weeks that you
were aboard a vessel which had been chartered by somebody at Los

1062 HEED SMOOT.

Angeles and that aboard that vessel was a party of ten or twelve
people, who went to Catalina Island on it?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you say that among the part}r were Joseph F.
Smith and one of his wives, Abraham H. Cannon and his wife, Mary
Croxall, is it —

Mr. CANNON. I think I said that. I would not be positive.

Mr. TAYLER. And a man named Langford?

Mr. CANNON. I believe I did mention him.

Mr. TAYLER. And Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And that after you had gone out a ways, before reach-
ing Catalina Island, the party, with one or two exceptions, retired to
the cabin, and that there Joseph F. Smith married Abraham H. Cannon
and Lillian Hamlin?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you say to him that the third wife, Mary Croxall-
Cannon, when she discovered what was going on, became very angry,
and refused to stay to witness the ceremon}7 and left the cabin?

Mr. CANNON. He asked me how she took it and I said she got angry
and left. I believe I told him something to that effect.

Mr. TAYLER. Then did you say that it was understood that nothing
was to be said about it ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not know that I said that. I may have. I would
not be positive.

Mr. TAYLER. Then did you go on to say that you went on to
Catalina Island, and you all went in bathing?

Mr. CANNON. I do not remember whether I did sa}T that or not.

Mr. TAYLER. Anyhow, you told Mr. Wilson^ with considerable
detail and circumstance, this story, the central point of which was that
you had seen Joseph F. Smith marry Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian
Hamlin ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Now later in the same day, Mr. Wilson having sent
for Mr. E. B. Critchlow, did you tell Mr. Critchlow the same stoiy ?

Mr. CANNON. I told Mr. Critchlow practically the same story; that
is, the story that you have just spoken of was the one I related to both
of them together. When I mentioned it to Mr. Wilson, 1 just men-
tioned the fact that Joseph F. Smith did know of plural marriages that
had taken place since the manifesto.

Mr. TAYLER. And he asked you what marriages?

Mr. CANNON. And I told him that I saw him marry Abraham H.
Cannon to Lillian Hamlin.

Mr. TAYLER. And where?

Mr. CANNON. I did not tell him then where.

Mr. TAYLER. You are sure you did not tell him where ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not think I did, then. I might have.

Mr. TAYLER. You have a very distinct recollection of what you told
him?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I have, and he told me he wanted to see me
again; then I told him this story when he and Mr. Critchlow were
together.

Mr. TAYLER. You went over these details

REED SMOOT. 1063

The CHAIRMAN. The story you have just related you told both to
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Critchlow?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was anyone else present?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; no one else was present.

Mr. TAYLER. Then it was asked whether you would be willing to
come to Washington and testify ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; they "asked me that, I told them no; that I
did not want to come to Washington, but I would go before the com-
mittee when it came to Utah, and testify there.

Mr. TAYLER. And testify to that story ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Later than that, did you, of your own volition, seek
out Mr. Perry Heath and tell him the same story?

Mr. CANNON. No; I told Perry Heath, I believe it was the same
day. I would not be positive.

Mr. TAYLER; Where was he when you told him?

Mr. CANNON. In the Tribune office.

Mr. TAYLER. You went up there to see him?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I telephoned him first, and he asked me if
I could not come over to his office, and I went over there.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you go over the story in detail to him, as you had
to Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; I do not think I told him the whole story.

Mr. TAYLER. What did you tell him?

Mr. CANNON. Speaking about Joseph F. Smith's testimon}r in Wash-
ington, I think I told him that Joseph F. Smith did know of plural
marriages that had been performed since the manifesto. I told him
that I knew that he married Abraham H. Cannon to Lillian Hamlin
on the high sea near Los Angeles; something to that effect. I was to
see him again, but I did not see him.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not see him?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Then about that time you received a subpoena to appear
here before the committee ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. You could not come at once because you were ill or
something of that sort?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. I was ill and 1 was unable to leave my bed
for several days.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not see Mr. Critchlow or Mr. Wilson again

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. After this talk you had with them?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And you have not seen them since ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir. I saw Mr. Critchlow the day I received the
subpoena and I was to see him the next day, but I was too ill to go up
town.

Mr. TAYLER. Where was Mr. Critchlow when you saw him — the
day you received the subpoena?

Mr. CANNON. In his office.

Mr. TAYLER. What talk did you have then?

Mr. CANNON. I talked with him about the subpoena, I was drink-

1064 EEED SMOOT.

ing at the time, and I said if I had to come to Washington I wanted
him to arrange it so that my brother-in-law could come with me.

Mr. TAYLER. That is Mr. Lynch ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When did you lirst tell this story to Mr. Lynch that
you told to Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson?

Mr. CANNON. I do not think I told it to him it all.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean that he has never heard the story from
you?

Mr. CANNON. I think he heard it from Critchlow and Wilson; some
of those parties. I never told him the story.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you mean that you had never talked with him about
the marriage of Abraham H. Cannon to Lillian Hamlin?

Mr. CANNON. I had talked to him about the matter and the marriage,
but I do not think 1 ever told him I saw it.

Mr. TAYLER. You told him you knew who had married them ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. I told him I was satisfied • that Joseph F.
Smith had married them.

Senator DUBOIS. Are you still satisfied of that?

Mr. CANNON. Well, of course I do not know it, but I am satisfied
in my own mind that he did.

The CHAIRMAN. Where?

Mr. CANNON. In California.

The CHAIRMAN. On the occasion that you speak of ?

Mr. CANNON. I think it was at the time they were down in south-
ern California.

Mr. TAYLER. Who was the next person, Mr. Cannon, to whom you
told this story after .you had told it to Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson
and Mr. Heath?

Mr. CANNON. I do not think I told it to anybody else.

Mr. TAYLER. Who was the next person with whom you talked
about the story ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not think I talked with anybody about it.

Mr. TAYLER. Have you talked with anybody about it this morning?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; when I met Mr. Smoot over on the corner here
this morning I told him after I went up — 1 was looking then for the
building where the committee would meet. I inquired from an officer
down the street, and when I got over to the building I met Senator
Smoot coming out.

The CHAIRMAN. Got over to what building?

Mr. CANNON. Across over here — the Senate Annex, I believe they
call it.

Senator DUBOIS. The Maltby Building.

Mr. CANNON. It is right across the way.

The CHAIRMAN. You were inquiring for the room where the com-
mittee met?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You, inquired of an officer?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; 1 inquired down at the depot of an officer.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he direct you to the Maltby Building as the
Capitol ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; not as the Capitol, but he told me after the
Senate adjourned any Senatorial committees generally met in that
building.

TCEED SMOOT. 1065

Mr. TAYLER. Did you inquire for Senator Smoot?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. This was a little time after you came in on the train?

Mr. CANNON. No. I had been to the cafe down here on the corner
opposite the B. and O. depot and had had breakfast.

Mr. TAYLER. You had breakfast?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Then you inquired of this officer, who told you that in
vacation committees generally met in the Maltby Building?

'Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And when you got up to the Maltby Building you met
Senator Smoot?

Mr. CANNON. I met him coming out on this side.

Mr. TAYLER. You went up A\ith him to his committee room?

Mr. CANNON. 1 addressed him and went up to his room and ex-
plained to him how it was that I was subpoenaed down here.

The CHAIRMAN. You explained it to whom?

Mr. CANNON. I did not explain it fully.

The CHAIRMAN. But to whom did you explain it?

Mr. CANNON. To Senator Smoot.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you leave this branch ,of the subject, do you
know the name of the officer who told _tou that committees met in the
Annex building?

Mr. CANNON. No; but I would know him again if I saw him.

The CHAIRMAN. You would know him again if you saw him ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go on.

Mr. CANNON. I met Mr. Smoot, and we went up to his room in that
building, and he told me that the committee met at 11.30. I said, "I
will have plenty of time to go and get shaved." Carl Badger, who is
a former acquaintance of mine in Salt Lake, was there, and Senator
Smoot asked him to show me the way to the barber shop. He came
over with me. He left me in the barber shop, and I got shaved and
went back.

Mr. TAYLER. You went back over to Senator Smoot's room ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Was it during the first or the second visit that you told
him how it was that you came to be subposnaed ?

Mr. CANNON. 1 told him partially at first, and I then told him and
Mr. Richards together there that I had been drinking and how it was
that I happened to get talking with Wilson and what statement I had
made to him — to Wilson — : —

Mr. TAYLER. You told Mr. Smoot what story you had told Mr.
Wilson?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; Mr. Wilson and Mr. Critchlow. I did not
tell him in full, I think; not as fully as I have here.

Mr. TAYLER. Did anybody talk with you about it after you saw Mr.
Critchlow and Mr. Wilson and Mr. Heath in Salt Lake?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Who knew that you were coming away?

Mr. CANNON. My wife and children and my sister and brother-in-
law. My brother-in-law took me to the depot.

Mr. TAYLER. That was Mr. Lynch?

Mr. CANNON. No; it was my sister's husband, Mr. Ellis.

1066 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you talk over with them what it was that you
were going to testify about here ?

Mr. CANNON. No;" I did to my wife.

Mr. TAYLER. Not to the others?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What time was it that you told your wife?

Mr. CANNON. 1 told my wife while I was sick at home there, after
I had been subpoenaed —

Senator McCoMAS. Did you tell her what you had told Wilson and
Critchlow?

Mr. CANNON. I told her what I had told them, and I explained to
her how it was that this subpoena had come to me.

The CHAIRMAN. You told her the same story ?

Mr. CANNON. I told her what I had told them. She knew I was not
in California that year — the year the marriage is claimed to have taken
place.

Senator DUBOIS. Did you mention to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Critch-
low any other persons who were present at the ceremony ?

Mr. CANNON. No, I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you say that this Mr. Langford was present?

Mr. CANNON. I told them I believed he was present. I knew that
Langford was down in Calif ornia about that time on Sterling Mine
business.

Senator DUBOIS. Did you say Mr. Montgomery was present?

Mr. CANNON. I told them I thought he was there. He was one of
the men they bought the Sterling mine from. I know he was very
close to Langford and the others down there.

Mr. TAYLER. How, if you were not present, did you get the infor-
mation that Joseph F. Smith had married Abraham H. Cannon and
Lillian Hamlin?

Mr. CANNON. I got the impression from what I had heard my sister
say.

Mr. TAYLER. Your sister?

Mr. CANNON. I had heard her say

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is this competent, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. I think under the circumstances, Mr. Worthington,
we will hear this witness.

Mr. CANNON. I had heard her say that she was satisfied that Presi-
dent Smith had performed the ceremony.

Mr. TAYLER. Your sister was Abraham Cannon's second wife, I
belie ve ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sii\

Senator DUBOIS. Have you not heard Frank Cannon, who is a
brother of Abraham H. Cannon, say that he was satisfied that they
were married?.

Mr. CANNON. No; I never heard him say it.

Mr. TAYLER. Now, who else gave }^ou information to that effect?

Mr. CANNON. I do not think anybody but my sister.

Mr. TAYLER. What day in the week was it that you told Mr.
Critchlow and Mr. Wilson ?

Mr. CANNON. It was either a week ago last Tuesday or Wednesday;
I would not be positive.

Mr. TAYLER. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

KEED SMOOT. 1067

Senator DUBOIS. Were you with Abraham H. Cannon immediately
before his death?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; 1 was with him during his whole sickness.

Senator DUBOIS. Where did he die?

Mr. CANNON. He died at my sister's house in Salt Lake City.

Mr. TAYLER. Was he there all the time when he was sick? "

Mr. CANNON. When he first returned from California he was with
Mary E. Croxall Cannon. That is where he was taken. He was sick
when he returned from California, but after he got real bad he wanted
to be taken to my sister's house and was taken there. After he went
there I was with him at least part of every day until the time of his
death.

Senator DUBOIS. Was Lillian Hamlin there ?

Mr. CANNON. She was there part of the da}r. Several days she
would come in the afternoon and sit in the sitting room.

Senator DUBOIS. Has she a child?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. What is its name?

Mr. CANNON. Marba.

Senator DUBOIS. What is its last name?

Mr. CANNON. Marba Cannon.

Senator DUBOIS. Does this child share in the estate of George Q.
Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I could not say.

Senator DUBOIS. You do not share in the estate ^yourself ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. The child is known as the daughter of Abraham H.
Cannon, or the child of Abraham H. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; it is so understood by all the family.

Senator DUBOIS. Do not the brothers treat her as a sister?

Mr. CANNON. Lillian?

Senator DUBOIS. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. Do they not recognize her as one of the family ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. As the wife of Abraham H. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. As the wife of Abraham H. Cannon.

Senator McCoMAS. You were in California once with Abraham H.
Cannon ? ^

Mr. CANNON. I never was down there with him.

Senator McCoMAS. Were you ever in California ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. When?

Mr. CANNON. I was there last in 1897.

Senator McCoMAS. What was the year he was there when he is
supposed to have been married ?

Mr. CANNON. In 1896.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He died in 1896.

Senator McCoMAS. Did you tell Mr. Wilson that you had been in
California with Abraham H. Cannon ?

Mr. CANNON. I think so. I told him I was there at the marriage
of Abraham H. Cannon.

Senator McCoMAS. That you were on the vessel?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

1068 EEED SMOOT.

Senator McCoMAS. And that yon had seen these people when they
went down into the cabin and were married.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator MoCoMAS. And you gave the names of the people who
were present?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. And then when Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson
came you repeated with more detail the same statement about the
matter ?

Mr. CANNON. I repeated the same thing1.

Senator McCoMAS. Did you call up Mr. Heath, or did he call you up ?

Mr. CANNON. I called him up. I told him I was satisfied that Joseph
F. Smith knew of plural marriages that had taken place since the
manifesto.

Senator McCoMAS. You told him substantially the same story ?

Mr. CANNON. I told him part of it. I did not give him the details.

Senator McCoMAS. You told him about the marriage ceremony hav-
ing been performed by Joseph F. Smith ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. And the stateroom of the vessel where it was
performed?

Mr. CANNON. I did not tell him it was in a stateroom. I did not
tell him it was on a vessel, I think, but I simply said in California.

Senator McCoMAS. You said to Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson that
it was on a vessel, and gave the details ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. Then when you spoke to Mr. Lynch, }rour
brother-in-law, did you tell him what you had told Wilson and
Critchlow?

Mr. CANNON. 1 told him what I had told them. I was sick at home
and I told him to go to these fellows and see if they could not get the
subpoena withdrawn; it was all hot air.

Senator McCoMAS. You did not tell Critchlow and Wilson it was
hot air ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; but I sent him to them and I am positive be
went.

Senator McCoMAS. You never told Mr. Heath it was hot air?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. And now, in }^our judgment, it is not hot air.
You believe that Joseph F. Smith performed the marriage ceremony
between Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin?

Mr. CANNON. I believed I knew—

Senator McCoMAS. And now you do not believe it was hot air?

Mr. CANNON. I do not think there was any hot air about the mar-
riage, but it was hot air about my being present.

Senator McCoMAS. And about the ceremony having been performed
by Joseph F. Smith ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have said that you were satisfied that plural
marriages were being performed ?

Mr. CANNON. I think that marriage was performed.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you were satisfied that plural marriages
were being performed?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

REED SMOOT. 1069

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever hear of any other plural marriages
except this one ?

Mr. CANNON. I never heard of any other.

The CHAIRMAN. You had in mind only this one marriage?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. Is it hot air that Mr. Langford was present and
the other people whom you have detailed to Mr. Tayler as being
present at that marriage ?

Mr. CANNON. I Avas talking to Wilson and Critchlow. I done it
more to make them feel good than anything else, when I was telling
them that story.

Senator McCoMAS. How would it make them feel good?

Mr. CANNON. Anything they thought would hurt the Mormon
Church, or would go against it, would tickle them all over.

The CHAIRMAN. And being a Mormon, you were trying to please
them?

Mr. CANNON. 1 was drinking at the time. I was doing it more as a
joke than anything else. I had no idea that it would ever come to
this, that I would be subpoenaed to Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. After the subpoena was served on you, Mr. Heath
and Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson were all within reach. Why did
you not call them up at once ?

Mr. CANNON. I was still drinking at the time. When I came to
myself I was sick. 1 had an appointment with MY. Critchlow uptown,
but could not keep it, so I got my brother-in-law, James Lynch—

The CHAIRMAN. That we understand.

Mr. CANNON. I got him to go to them.

The CHAIRMAN. But before you left, why did you not seek these
gentlemen or call them up by 'phone and tell them that you had been
telling a falsehood?

Mr. CANNON. I have no 'phone in my home; and Mr. Hay ward came
after me in a hurry\ He wanted me to go in a hurry. I was not
expecting to go until Friday morning. He told me he Avanted me to
go at 3.15 —

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ask Mr. Hay ward, the marshal, to take
you to Banker Wilson or Mr. Critchlow, or an}r of these parties ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you tell the marshal anything about it?

Mr. CANNON. I did not talk to him about it at all.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you not say a moment ago that you saw Mr.
Critchlow the day you got the subpoena?

Mr. CANNON. I told you 1 saw Mr. Critchlow after I got the
subpoena.

Mr. TAYLER. Exactly.

Mr. CANNON. But 1 was drinking that day, and I had an appoint-
ment for the next morning.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not tell him then that it was ' i hot air " ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir. 1 was drinking at the time, and I had an
appointment Avith him the next morning, and when the next morning
came I was so sick I could not see him.

Mr. TAYLER. Where did you see Mr. CritchloAA^ the day you got
the subpoena?

Mr. CANNON. At his office.

1070 REED SMOOT.

Mr. TAYLER. When it was understood that you were to leave — that
day or the next?

Mr. CANNON. The next, I believe.

Mr. TAYLER. The next day?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you go to him right after }TOU got the subpoena?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. I was in a saloon drinking at the time 1 got
the subpoena.

Mr. TAYLER. And you went up to see Mr. Critchlow ?

Mr. CANNON. I saw Mr. Wilson, and he told me to go and see Mr.
Critchlow.

Mr. TAYLER. After having got the subpoena to come here did you
not tell Wilson that it was all "hot air"?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. When you saw Mr. Critchlow you did not tell him it
was all hot air ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; but when I came—

Mr. TAYLER. On the contrary, when you. saw Mr. Critchlow after
having received the subpoena, you again talked about what you had
seen at Los Angeles ?

Mr. CANNON. Not after I got the subpoena. I do not think so.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not refer in that conversation to the testi-
mony you were to give here ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; I think not.

Mr. TAYLER. Anyway, it was settled that you would start the next
day?

Mr. CANNON. That I would see him the next day. 1 did not say I
would start. But the next day I was sick, and I could not go down
town.

Senator McCoMAS. Did you know Lillian Hamlin ?

Mr. CANNON. Not until after Abraham's death.

Senator McCoMAS. You knew the head of the church, Joseph F.
Smith?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. Your relations with him were kindly ?

Mr. CANNON. They have always been friendly.

Senator McCoMAS. And you were a close friend of Abraham H.
Cannon ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. In business and personally, and were his cousin
besides ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator McCoMAS. You said a while ago that you told this thing as
a joke. Being kindly to Joseph F. Smith and having been a friend of
Abraham H. Cannon, what was the joke when Abraham was dead to
impute to him and to the head of the church a serious violation of the
law? What was the joke, in your mind?

Mr. CANNON. I was just talking to Wilson and Critchlow. I did
not think it would result in anything.

Senator McCoMAS. You liked Cannon, and yet you imputed to this
dead friend of yours a crime. Why did you do that and call it a joke?

Mr. CANNON. I was speaking more about Joseph F. Smith having
performed the ceremony, and I was not casting any reflection on
Abraham.

EEED SMOOT. 107l

Senator McCoMAS. But you did impute to Joseph F. Smith and
Abraham Cannon a violation of the laws of the country. You knew
}Tour friend Abraham H. Cannon was dead. Why did you do that?

Mr. CANNON. I was not thinking about that at the time. I was
thinking more about Joseph F. Smith than anything else.

Senator McCoMAS. You felt kindly toward him?

Mr. CANNON. Not particularly so.

Senator McCoMAS. Did you or did you not know that the statement
had been made here by Joseph F. Smith that this marriage had not
taken place?

Mr. CANNON. I had read his testimony where he had said that he
did not know of any plural marriages.

Senator McOoMAS. Yet you did impute to him this marriage after
you had heard of his testimony here?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; after I had heard of his testimony here.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom did you first tell that this story was untrue?

Mr. CANNON. My wife and Mr. Lynch, my brother-in-law.

The CHAIRMAN. Since }^ou left Utah, whom have you told that it
was untrue?

Mr. CANNON. I told Mr. Tayler.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you tell Mr. Smoot?

Mr. CANNON. I told Mr. Smoot what I had told them. I did not
tell him —

The CHAIRMAN. You say you told your wife before you left that
the story was untrue?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. She knew it was untrue because she knew
I was not in California that year.

The CHAIRMAN. If you told her it was untrue the day you left, could
you not have told Wilson and Critchlow?

Mr. CANNON. I did not see them.

The CHAIRMAN. Why could you not see them? The marshal could
have taken you to their offices.

Mr. CANNON. The marshal was down to the house and I had to get
read}7. I was not ready.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you not tell them?

Mr. CANNON. If I had made an effort 1 suppose I could have. 1
intended to try—

The CHAIRMAN. Wiry did you not make the effort?

Mr. CANNON. I told the marshal 1 would leave on Friday, and he
came down on Thursday—

The CHAIRMAN. Did you not know that you had been subpoenaed,
because of the statement you had made to Mr. Wilson and Mr.
Critchlow?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; and that is the reason I grot my brother-in-
law to go to them and try to have the subpoena withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN. Wh}T did you not go yourself and tell them you
had told an untruth?

Mr. CANNON. Because I had been sick all the time, up to the time I
came away.

The CHAIRMAN. But there was. the day }TOU came away; and you
saw Mr. Critchlow after you were subpoenaed. Why did you not tell
him?

Mr. CANNON. If the marshal had not insisted upon my starting that

1072 REED SMOOT.

afternoon, I intended to go up that afternoon and talk to Critchlow and
Wilson.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not answer my question. Why did you not
tell them before you took the train ?

Mr. CANNON. I was not in the vicinity where they were.

The CHAIRMAN. Where were they ? «

Mr. CANNON. I suppose at their offices.

The CHAIRMAN. How far was it to the depot?

Mr. CANNON. It is not far from the depot.

The CHAIRMAN. How far?

Mr. CANNON. It is about six blocks from the depot.

The CHAIRMAN. So that you could have seen them in ten minutes?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And told them ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you not?

Mr. CANNON. Because Mr. Hay ward did not want me to go up town.
He wanted me to go direct to the depot.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Mr. Hay ward is the marshal ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Senator DUBOIS. You have no doubt now that Abraham H. Cannon
married Lillian Hamlin?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; there is no doubt about it in my mind.

Senator DUBOIS. About 1896 ?

Mr. CANNON. I think it was in 1896. I would not be positive.

Senator McCoMAS. And you have no doubt that Joseph F. Smith
married them?

Mr. CANNON. I think he married them. I do not know that he did.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you in Los Angeles prior to 1896 ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. About 1895?

Mr. CANNON. No; I was not there in 1895. It must have been 1893,
or 1894, or somewhere along there.

At 1 o'clock p. m. the committee took a recess until 3 o'clock p. m.

AFTER RECESS.

At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session.
TESTIMONY OF ANGUS M. CANNON, JR.— Continued.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to ask one or two questions. You say you
arrived here about what time '4

Mr. CANNON. I arrived here shortly before 8 o'clock this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. You went to your breakfast?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I went to breakfast.

The CHAIRMAN. And from there over to the Maltby Building?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; after breakfast. I stood around some little
time before I had breakfast, probably a half hour.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not care about that. Then you went over to
the Maltby?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where did you see Mr. Smoot?

REED SMOOT. 1073

Mr. CANNON. Right outside, immediately on the outside of the.
building.

The CHAIRMAN. Had you ever met him before ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; in Salt Lake.

The CHAIRMAN. You knew him 1

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; i knew him by sight; I had been introduced
to him.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he call to you or did you speak to him?

Mr. CANNON. I addressed him.

The CHAIRMAN. And then you went up to his committee room?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long did you remain there?

Mr. CANNON. I was probably up there not over ten minutes before
I started over to the barber shop.

The CHAIRMAN. You came over to the barber shop?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. . And after that you returned to the committee room ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long did }^ou stay there then?

Mr. CANNON. I had been there probably twenty minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Before coming over here?
- Mr. CANNON. Before coming over here.

The CHAIRMAN. But you went nowhere else except to his office?

Mr. CANNON. Nowhere else except to the barber shop and to the
hotel where I had breakfast.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have a letter of introduction to Mr. Tay-
ler?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have spoken of Miss Hamlin. Was she pres-
ent at the death of Mr. Cannon? You spoke of being at the death.

Mr. CANNON. I could not say whether she was there at the time he
died or not. She was there in the afternoon previous to his death.

The CHAIRMAN. You attended the funeral, I suppose?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did she ?

Mr. CANNON. I think so. I would not be positive, but I think she
did.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long was Mr. Cannon sick after he re-
turned from this California trip?-

Mr. CANNON. I think about three weeks. I could not say positively.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What was the date of his death ?

Mr. CANNON. It was some time in July.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You said it was some time between the 20th and
30th of July?

Mr. CANNON. Somewhere along there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1896?

Mr. CANNON. 1896. It may have been later. I know he was sick—
I think he was sick — 'on the 24th of July. That was Pioneer day. I
would not say whether he was sick or lying dead at that time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He died about that time?

Mr. CANNON. Somewhere along about that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long was he away on the California trip
that summer?

Mr. CANNON. I do not know exactly how long.

s 68

1074 REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you in Salt Lake City when he went
away ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you see him off?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How do you know he did go at the time you
say he went?

Mr. CANNON. He told me he was going awa}r. 1 understood he was
going down to California on mining business — something connected
with the Sterling Mining Company.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Can you tell me about what time of the year it
w^as when he told you?

Mr. CANNON. I believe it was in June. I could not say positively.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then he was gone a few weeks?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; a few weeks.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. During the few weeks he was away on this trip,
where were you?

Mr. CANNON. I was in Salt Lake City.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. In what household were you living at that time?

Mr. =CANNON. In my own.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Who compose 3'our family ?

Mr. CANNON. I have a wife, and at that time I had nine children.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old is the oldest child?

Mr. CANNON. The oldest child at that time was—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How old is the oldest child living now?

Mr. CANNON. 1 buried my oldest since then. My oldest child living
now is 19. I have twin boys 19 years of age.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were all these children living with }^ou at the
time ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had neighbors all around?

Mr. CANNON. I had neighbors right behind me, north of me.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What were you doing that summer? Did }^ou
have any business?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; I was in the real estate business.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Were you going about Salt Lake City everv
day?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; I was around there most of the time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. So there would be no trouble in finding hun-
dreds of witnesses who would testify that you were there while he was
off on the trip ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes; I can show all the time that 1 was there.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you know whether Mr. Wilson or Mr.
Critchlow made any inquiry in order to find out whether you were
away or not?

Mr. CANNON. I do not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If they did you do not know it?

Mr. CANNON. If thecy did I do not know that they did.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You spoke of your brother-in-law Lynch. He
is a physician ?

Mr. CANNON. One is a physician and the other is a clerk in the
United States Mining Company.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Which one is it that you spoke to about seeing
Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson?

HEED SMOOT. 1075

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Lynch, of the United States Mining Company.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What day was it that you left Salt Lake City
to come here — when the marshal took you to the train ?

Mr. CANNON. The marshal did not take me to the train. He came
about noon, and I had to leave on the 3.15.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. He told you that he wanted you to go then ?

Mr. CANNON. On that train.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That was on Thursday?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When was it you told Mr. Lynch to see Mr.
Wilson and Mr. Critchlowand tell them that your story was a fake?

Mr. CANNON. It was on the Saturday previous. I did not see him
after that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I was going to ask you whether he had reported.
He did say that he would see them.

Mr. CANNON. He told me positively that he would see them.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That was on Saturday ?

Mr. CANNON. Saturday.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. And from Saturday to Thursday you heard no
more of him?

Mr. CANNON. That is right.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The next thing you heard you were sent on a
day ahead of the time when you expected to leave ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you been in Washington before?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir. '

Mr. W^ORTHINGTON. Had you any directions where to go on arriving
here ?

Mr. CANNON. No; 1 was not told where to go; only to report here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had your subpoena ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I had the subpoena.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 wish you would describe the man you saw at
the Baltimore and Ohio depot who told y ou that committees were not
in session in the Capitol building in the vacation.

Mr. CANNON. He is a large man; he is a heavy-set man. 1 have
inquired from the officers since I have been out. The party on now
told me that the officer who was on when I came in on the train was
not on duty now.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You have been down there since you have been
examined here ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I went down to see if I could see the officer.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you ask his name ? • ,

Mr. CANNON. I asked his name. They could not tell me. One of
them thought it was a man by the name of Saunders; but I saw Saun-
ders, and he told me he did not come on until 8, and it was prior to
that time that I saw this officer.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What did you ask that man?

Mr. CANNON. I told him that there was a committee of the Senate
that I had to appear before this morning, and I asked him where they
met. First I asked him which car to take. I did not know the Cap-
itol was so near. He told me that the Capitol was right here, and he
said that after Congress adjourned committees usually meet there, and
he pointed out that red building on the corner. He told me they

1076 REED SMOOT.

usually met there. So I told him, "Well, I am right here, and I
don't have to go on any car." He says, "You are right at home."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was it before you had }Tour breakfast?

Mr. CANNON. Before I had breakfast, I asked him where would be
a good place to go and get breakfast, and he told me right across the
street — Engel's, I believe they call it. He told me I could get a nice
breakfast in there. I went over there and had breakfast.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then you started up to that red building to find
the committee room?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What time was it when you got to the red
building?

Mr. CANNON. I did not pay any attention to the time. I suppose
it was half past nine, probably.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Had you entered the building when you en-
countered Senator Smoot?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; I had just got to the corner and he was com-
ing along and I addressed him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was there any prearrangement about your
meeting ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It was wholly accidental?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had no idea of meeting him ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You hailed him?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I hailed him.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What occurred between }rou? State the con-,
versation.

Mr. CANNON. He asked me who I was, and I told him my name was
Cannon, and that I had been subpoenaed before this committee, and
then I started to tell him — he told me to come up stairs, that u young
Badger, my clerk, is up there," and I started to tell him how I was
subposnaed.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Had he asked yon anything about it, or did
3rou volunteer the information ?

Mr. CANNON. I volunteered the information.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You found Mr. Badger there ?

Mr. CANNON. I found Mr. Badger there and Mr. Smoot. I told—

Mr. WORTHINGTON. One moment. You knew Mr. Badger in Salt
Lake City?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. He is younger than I, but I have seen him
around to my younger brother's.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What did you tell Mr. Smoot?

Mr. CANNON. I told about my having been off on a spree and what
I had said to Wilson.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Just what you have said here, substantially ?

Mr. CANNON. Substantially that. I asked the Senator what time
the committee would meet. He said at 11.30. I said, " I will have
time to go and get shaved."

He told Badger to come over and show me where the barber shop
was. We went down there. I had to wait for three or four people
to be barbered. He left me and went back to the office. After I got
through 1 walked over there again.

HEED SMOOT. '1077

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Was there any understanding1 when you sepa-
rated' from Mr. Badger that you were going back there ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir. I did tell Badger "I will be over. * There
is no need of }^our waiting. After 1 get through I will come over to
the office."

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When you went back the second time whom
did you find?

Mr. CANNON. Badger was there alone then.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did anybody else come in ?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Smoot came in, and Mr. Richards.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you mean the Mr. Richards here present?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What took place after that?

Mr. CANNON. He came in. I got up and shook hands with Mr.
Richards. I told him about how I happened to be down here.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did Mr. Richards and Senator Smoot come in
together or separately?

Mr. CANNON. Separately.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Which one first?

Mr. CANNON. Senator Smoot, I believe. Let me see —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I wish to ask you whether Senator Smoot, Mr.
Richards, or Mr. Badger said or intimated to you a word of any kind
as to what your testimony should be, or what they wanted it to be?

Mr. CANNON. Not a word.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You simph7 told the same hot-air story to them
that you have told here ?

Mr. CANNON. That is it.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Now, if I understand you, before you left Salt
Lake City you had told your wife and Mr. Lynch that the story was
all untrue.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; my wife knew it was untrue.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes; I understand that she knew it, but you
had told Mr. Lynch so?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Had you told anybody else?

Mr. CANNON. I think not.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You can not tell us of your own knowledge
whether Mr. Lynch told Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson that the story
was untrue?

Mr. CANNON. I can not say it, but 1 firmly believe he did, for he
told me he would go there directly.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is it an unusual thing for you to be on a spree?

Mr. CANNON. I have drunk a good bit. It is periodical with me.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You go on them pretty often. Has it not been
a sort of failing with you, when you are on one of your sprees-
Mr. CANNON. I talk a good bit.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Has it not been a failing with you to get off
some cock-and-bull story that there is nothing in ?

Mr. CANNON. I am in the habit .of talking a good bit when I am
drinking.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I want to see whether I understand you or not.
You said you were satisfied that President Smith married Mr. Cannon
to this Hamlin woman because your sister was satisfied of it?

1078 KEED SMOOT.

Mr. CANNON. Yes. That is the way I feel about it. Of course I
do not know that he did.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have .you any other reason for being- satisfied
in your own mind than that she is satisfied in her mind ?

Mr. CANNON. Nothing more than what my sister said to me.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What did she say 1

Mr. CANNON. All she said was that she was satisfied he did it. She
does not know.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You do not know whether she is satisfied
because somebod3r else is satisfied of it ?

Mr. CANNON. 1 know she is very much prejudiced against Miss
Hamlin.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Your sister, of course, did not claim to be
present or to know anything about it personally ?

Mr. CANNON. No; she did not claim anything like that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. After you had told this story to Mr. Wilson
and Mr. Critchlow, did anybody in Salt Lake City undertake to influ-
ence you to change your story ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you see after that, or before you came
here, President Smith ?

Mr. CANNON. How?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. After you had told the story to Mr. Wilson the
first time, did you see Mr. Smith, president of the church, or have
3rou seen him since ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Or anybody representing him?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. 1 think you have said that nobody has under-
taken to influence you in an3r way ?

Mr. CANNON. Nobod\- has tried to influence me at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. "Had }7ou any particular object which would
make you want to come to Washington?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Why did }^ou want Mr. Lynch to come with }7ou ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not know. 1 thought if I was coming I should
like to have him come along; that was all. I was drinking at the time.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You wanted a guardian?

Mr. CANNON. I needed one.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Is there or has there been any feeling between
you and President Smith ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; never at all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There has been no hostile feeling on your part
toward him at any time ?

Mr. CANNON. We never have had any feelings toward each other.
He has always been affable and pleasant when I have met him. I may
have had some personal feeling.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. That is what I meant.

Mr. CANNON. Of course it is none of my business who he makes
apostles, or who he does not, or anything of that kind, but I have felt
he was giving them too much Smith — that was all.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Have you expressed your feeling on "too much
Smith?"

EEED SMOOT. 1079

Mr. CANNON. I may have, done so. I do not know. But I think I
have several times.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. There is not any excessively kindly feeling in
your mind toward him?

Mr. CANNON. No; nothing too kind; no.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tayler, have you any further questions ?

Mr. TAYLER. Was Lillian Hamlin Abraham Cannon's wife in 1895?

Mr. CANNON. 1895?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. I do not think she was. I do not know.

Mr. TAYLER. Do you not think you would have known it if she
had been?

Mr. CANNON. No; I probably would not have known it. She might
have been, and I not know it.

Mr. TAYLER. You were well acquainted with all the other wives,
you said, I believe?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I was well acquainted with all the others.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you know she was engaged to his brother?

Mr. GANNON. 1 did not know it until after Dave's death.

Mr. TAYLER. Until after David's death?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How did you find it out then?

Mr. CANNON. Through some member of the family.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you not know until after David's death, at the
time you heard this, that Lillian Hamlin was not at that time Abraham
Cannon's wife?

Mr. CANNON. I do not know that I understand the question. Imme-
diately after David's death?

Mr. TAYLER. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. Of course 1 do not think she was at that time.

Mr. TAYLER. You did not suspect that she was both engaged to
David and married to Abraham ?

Mr. CANNON. At the time she was engaged to David, I am satisfied
she was not Abraham's wife. David died while in Germany.

Mr. TAYLER. About 1892, was it not?

Mr. CANNON. I think somewhere along there. At the time Abra-
ham was taking her out riding I thought it was simply because she,
having been engaged to David — because of a sort of a brotherly feel-
ing, he took her out for a drive.

Mr. TAYLER. Was Mr. Richards in Senator Smoot's office when you
got in this morning?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you say that Senator Smoot did not know you?

Mr. CANNON. He did not know me at first.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he say that he expected you?

Mr. CANNON. He said he had heard that 1 was coming.

Mr. TAYLER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he say from whom he had heard it?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you tell people out there that you had been
subpoenaed ?

Mr. CANNON. I told two or three.

BANCROFT
LIBRARY

1080 EEED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Two or three of your friends ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Whom did you tell ?

Mr. CANNON. I told Lon Irving. He is my brother's partner there.

The CHAIRMAN. Who else?

Mr. CANNON. I told Nate Gray, a bartender.

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else?

Mr. CANNON. I do not remember anybody else.

The CHAIRMAN. When you and the Senator met here, you say the
Senator spoke first?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; I spoke first. I addressed him.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you say ?

Mr. CANNON. I said, "Mr. Smoot, I believe?" He said " Yes." He
said "Who is this?" I told him it was Angus Cannon, jr. uOh," he
says, uyes, I understood you were on the way here."

The CHAIRMAN. What did he say ?

Mr. CANNON. "I understood vou were coming."

The CHAIRMAN. Then what?

Mr. CANNON. Then I told him. He says "Come up to the office."
He says "Badger is up there," calling him by his given name.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the next thing which occurred ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes. I asked him when the committee would meet. He
says, "You are acquainted with Carl Badger," arid I said, "I have seen
him in Salt Lake." We went up there, and on the road in I was telling
him how it happened.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you know Carl Badger any better than you knew
Senator Smoot?

Mr. CANNON. Carl Badger knows me better. He has grown a good
bit since I have seen him with my brothers. They live on the next
block to my mother.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you at that time ask Senator Smoot where the
committee would meet?

Mr. CANNON. I did not ask him where the committee would meet,
but I told him an officer had directed me to that building.

The CHAIRMAN. After the salutation, and the statement that you
were subpoenaed here, and the statement by him that he knew }rou
were coming, then the next thing was, he invited you up to his office?

Mr. CANNON. I asked him on the road up there what time the com-
mittee would meet.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand; but he invited you to come up to the
committee room ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Up to his committee room; and you w.ent up and
found this }^oung man and the Senator?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. The Senator left very shortly—

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. Now, when }~ou came back after
you had been over to the barber's, did you find Mr. Richards there ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; he was not there when I went in.

The CHAIRMAN. Who was there when 3^011 went back?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Badger.

The CHAIRMAN. Who came in after that?

Mr. CANNON. I would not be positive whether it was Senator Smoot
or Mr. Richards who came in first.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they come in together?

REED SMOOT. 1081

Mr. CANNON. They were not far apart — a few minutes. I believe
Senator Smoot was there first. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Then Mr. Richards came in afterwards. How long
afterwards ?

Mr. CANNON. ProbabVf ten or fifteen minutes; ten minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did Mr. Richards and Mr. Smoot remain with you
then until you came over here?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Badger was there. They were talking about
some books.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not asking you about what they were talking
about. Did they remain with you until you came over to this com-
mittee room?

Mr. CANNON. Not all the time.

The CHAIRMAN. They went out?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did both of them go?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Richards went out and afterwards Mr. Smoot.
Then they came back in again.

The CHAIRMAN. How long were they gone?

Mr. CANNON. I could not say; probably five minutes.

The- CHAIRMAN. After they had been out then they came back again?

Mr. CANNON. They came back again and talked to Mr. Badger about
some books and things. It did not have anything to do with this case.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not ask you about that.

Mr. CANNON. 1 beg pardon.

The CHAIRMAN. They came back, after having been out. How long
did they remain with you then ?

Mr. CANNON. I could not say exactly how long, probably fifteen
minutes, before the telephone message.

The CHAIRMAN. Did they remain there until you came over here ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you come over with them?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; I came over with Badger. I did not know
where }^our oifice was.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. You came here before they came ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long was it after you came over before they
came?

Mr. CANNON. I could not say. I was over here probably a half or
three-quarters of an hour.

The CHAIRMAN. Lillian Hamlin is known as Mrs. Cannon ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does she live in Salt Lake ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How far from you?

Mr. CANNON. I could not tell exactly where she does live. I have
not seen her for a long time.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you know she lives in Salt Lake ?

Mr. CANNON. Her home is there. She lived on Eighth West and
Seventh South, and I live on Third East, near the corner of Ninth
South.

The CHAIRMAN. Her home is there?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CiiAiR3iAN. She has one child?

1082 REED SMOOT.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what the age of the child is?

Mr. CANNON. Oh, she is 6 or 7 }^ears old, I guess.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that her only child?

Mr. CANNON. Her only child.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know where she is now?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen Miss Hamlin in Salt Lake City
recently ?

Mr. CANNON. I have not seen her for years. The reason I have
not seen her is that I have been out on the ranch up to a month ago
or so. I have been out there for two years.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you have not been living in Salt Lake City ?

Mr. CANNON. Not continuously. I came there a little over a month
ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you ever in Los Angeles but once?

Mr. CANNON. I have been there twice.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been in Los Angeles twice?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When ?

Mr. CANNON. It was in 1892 or 1893; somewhere along there; and
then again in 1897.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1897, and then again in 1892 or 1893?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; somewhere along there.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. TAYLER. Were you ever there when Joseph F. Smith was there ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have communication with a^one while
you were coming from Salt Lake — en route on the train ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no further questions.

Senator DUBOIS. What is Miss Harnlin's business?

Mr. CANNON. She is a school-teacher.

Senator DUBOIS. Was she a school-teacher in 1895?

Mr. CANNON. I could not say as to that, whether she was or not.
Since Abraham's death she has been a school-teacher.

Senator DUBOIS. Where was she teaching school ?

Mr. CANNON. She was teaching school in Provo prior to coming to
Salt Lake.

Mr. TAYLER. When did she come to Salt Lake?

Mr. CANNON. I could not say when she did come to Salt Lake. I
met her about a year ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Where did you meet her a year ago?

Mr. CANNON. At Uncle George Q.'s farm.

The CHAIRMAN. George Q. Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. George Q. Cannon's home.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that the first time you met her?

Mr. CANNON. It was the first time I had met her since the time of
Abraham's funeral.

The CHAIRMAN. When were you first introduced to her ?

Mr. CANNON. I was not introduced to her until I met her just about
a year ago.

The CHAIRMAN. Who introduced you then ?

Mr. CANNON. I do not remember whether it was Mamie or one of

REED SMOOT. 1083

the other girls. When I went in the house Lillian was there — Miss
Hamlin. They asked me if I was not acquainted with Lillian. I then
met her and shook hands.

The CHAIRMAN. How did they introduce her?

Mr. CANNON. They just asked me if I was acquainted with Lillian.
They only addressed her as Lillian. I knew who she was then.

Thev CHAIRMAN. Who was she then ?

Mr. CANNON. She was understood to be Abraham's wife.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you not been introduced to her when she was at
the bedside of Abraham Cannon ?

Mr. CANNON. I never was introduced to her at all. That is how 1
came to inquire who she was.

Mr. TAYLER. You found out who she was, then ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not any doubt that they were married at
the time of his death ?

Mr. CANNON. Of course I do not know it.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. CANNON. But I believe they were.

The CHAIRMAN. Did she seem indifferent to his dying.

Mr. CANNON. No; she was not indifferent. She seemed to feel bad.

The CHAIRMAN. She attended the funeral, I think }^ou said.

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And was one of the mourners?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I think she was at the funeral.

Mr. TAYLER. How did you come to meet Mr. Wilson on the occa-
sion when you told him that you had seen Joseph F. Smith marry
Lillian Hamlin to Abraham Cannon?

Mr. CANNON. I went to the bank for some purpose. I saw him
there at his desk.
• Mr. TAYLER. What did you do ?

Mr. CANNON. I went over and got talking to him at his desk.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you go into the bank on business ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. What kind of business ?

Mr. CANNON. I went in to get some money.

Mr. TAYLER. Had you a check on the bank?

Mr. CANNON. No; I did not have any check on the bank. I was
going in to see Mr. Sherman.

Mr. TAYLER. Mr. Sherman?

Mr. CANNON. Young Sherman. He is employed in the bank.

Mr. TAYLER. And you happened to see Mr. Wilson and went over
and talked to him?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. How long did you talk to him?

Mr. CANN.ON. Just a few minutes. I could not say exactly how long.

Mr. TAYLER. You introduced the subject of Joseph F. Smith?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir. I got talking about it.

Mr. TAYLER. Did he send for Mr. Critchlow before you left?

Mr. CANNON. Not then.

Mr. TAYLER. Not then?

Mr. CANNON. No. I left—-
Mr. TAYLER. When was it?

1084 HEED SMOOT.

Mr. CANNON. It was the next morning that Harris came to me and
told me Wilson wanted to see me, and I went over and he told me he
wanted me to go to Critchlow's office.

Mr. TAYLER, Who is Harris?

Mr. CANNON. He is a partner in the real estate business, or used to
be, with E. W. Wilson.

Mr. TAYLER. Did you go to Critchlow's office?

Mr. CANNON. Not then. He asked me if I would come back and go,
and I said "Yes," and he asked me, " About what time?" and I said
"About 12 o'clock." I got in some time after 12; I do not know
exactly how much. Mr. Critchlow was there then.

Mr. TAYLER. At the bank?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. So that the second conversation about it occurred at
the bank?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAYLER. And Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Wilson were both
present ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; both were present.

The CHAIRMAN. You said you went into the bank. It was then
during banking hours ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. About what time ?

Mr. CANNON. 1 could not tell exactly what time of the day it was.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not mean exactly.

Mr. CANNON. It must have been near noon.

The CHAIRMAN. You went in—

Mr. CANNON. I went in to see Mr. Sherman.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not go in to get a check cashed?

Mr. CANNON. I went in to see Mr. Sherman.

The CHAIRMAN. You went in to get some money, you say?

Mr. CANNON. I went in to see Mr. Sherman about getting some
money.

The CHAIRMAN. Not from the bank?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you borrow some?

Mr. CANNON. I got some from Mr. Wilson.

The CHAIRMAN. How much ?

Mr. CANNON. I think about $14 or $15.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you give your note?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; I was owing him $80 before. I told him I
would settle it up at the same time. I was owing him $80 for some
insurance.

The CHAIRMAN. You say he let vou have how much ?

Mr. CANNON. I think about $14*or $15.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not remember?

Mr. CANN.ON. No, sir; I do not remember exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. But he let you have it ?

Mr. CANNON. I told him I would settle it when I .settled the $80.

The CHAIRMAN. He is a good business man ?

Mr. CANNON. He has been a good friend of mine. He is a good
business man.

The CHAIRMAN. He is not in the habit

REED SMOOT. 1085

Mr. CANNON. He did not loan me the bank's money. He loaned
me his own mone}r.

The CHAIRMAN. He is not in the habit of loaning money to drunken
people ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

Mr. WOKTHINGTOX. How did you come to get the money from
Wilson, when you went there to see Sherman?

Mr. CANNON. I got to talking to Wilson. He talked about the

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you get the money before or after you
told him the yarn?

Mr. CANNON. Before.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Then, after you got the money you .told him
the yarn ?

Mr. CANNON. I could not say whether it was before or after; arid as
to a dollar or two, I could not say how much I got.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You were drunk, then 1

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I was drinking.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. How long had you been on this spree?

Mr. CANNON. I had been drinking two or three days.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Where did you spend the night of the day you
first saw Wilson ?

Mr. CANNON. Spend the night?

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes.

Mr. CANNON. I was out to different saloons — Hogle Brothers, I was
at Onyx Bank, I was at Reagan's, Riley's —

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Did you go home at all that night?

Mr. CANNON. Not that night, and I had not been nome the night
before that.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. You had been on this bum all the time?

Mr. CANNON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not mean to convey the idea that Mr. Wilson
paid you for this story ?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He is not that kind of a man?

Mr. CANNON. No, sir; he is not that kind of a man.

Senator DUBOIS. You have a very high regard for Mr. Wilson?
'. Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; I have.

Senator DUBOIS. And for Mr. Critchlow?

Mr. CANNON. I have.

Senator DUBOIS. And they have a high regard for you?

Mr. CANNON. They have always acted that way with me.

Senator DUBOIS. They believe you, do they not? •

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir; they do believe me.

Senator DUBOIS. And they would believe any statement you would
make to them?

Mr. CANNON. I think so.

Mr. TAYLER. You have no doubt about their believing you when
you told this story ?

Mr. CANNON. I think they firmly believed the story.

The CHAIRMAN. You regard Mr. Wilson and Mr. Critchlow as truth-
ful men ?

Mr. CANNON. Yes, sir.

108G REED SMOOT.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Why do you say they would be tickled all over
if they heard something against the Mormon Church?

Mr. CANNON. Because I do not think they like the Mormon Church.

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Do you think they would be tickled to hear
something against the church that was not true?

Mr. CANNON. They thought it was true. I do not think they would
want anybody to lie about the Mormon Church.

Thereupon (at 3 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m.) the committee
adjourned.

INDEX.

Page.

Abbott, L. E., testimony of 1051

Adultery, statute of Utah in respect to ..Ill" 287

Answer of Mr. Smoot 31

Additional answer of Mr. Smoot "I"III!! 74

''Articles of Faith," extracts from ] " 239

Articles of Faith of Mormon Church 292

Authority, article on submission to secular 1 294

Barthell, Edward E. , testimony of 746

Biographical Encyclopedia, references to 520

Cannon, Angus M. , testimony of 775

Cannon, Angus M., jr., testimony of 1059

Carlisle, John G. , appearance of * 79

Cobb, Calvin, testimony of 762

Cohabitation. (See Unlawful cohabitation.)

Constitutional convention of Utah, debate in, on plural marriages 642

Constitutional provision of Utah in respect to religious liberty 286

toleration 286

forbidding polygamy 286

Critchlow, E. B. , testimony of 542

Doctrine and Covenants, extracts from 212

Evans bill, veto of governor of Utah 582

Encyclopedia, Biographical, references to 520

Faith, Articles of, of Mormon Church 292

"Faith, Articles of," extracts from .' 239

Handley's estate, in re, decision 492

Harmer, Lorin, testimony of 501

High council of Mormon Church, decision of, on charges against Thatcher . . . 563

Hiles, Ogden, testimony of 687

Inheritance by issue of polygamous marriages, statute of Utah in respect to . . 491

Issue, polygamous, statute of Utah legitimating 492

Jenson, Andrew, testimony of 498

continued 521

Kennedy, Mrs. Clara M. B., testimony of 388

Leilich, John L. , protest of '. 26

Lyman, Francis M., testimony of , 426

Manifesto of Wilf ord Woodruff 339

Mathews, Mrs. Emma, testimony of 418

Merrill, Alma, testimony of 518

Merrill, Charles E., testimony of 408

Merrill, Thomas H., testimony of 515

' ' Mormonism," extracts from 226

Mormon Church, articles of faith of 292

Mormon Church, decision of high council of, on charges against Thatcher 563

Mormon Church, rule of, as to acceptance of secular positions 168

Paden, W. M., and others, protest of

Plural marriages, revelation in respect to 202

Plural marriages, debate in constitutional convention on 642

Polygamy, provision of Utah constitution forbidding 286

revelation in respect to 202

statute of Utah in respect to ..J 286

Polygamous issue, statute of Utah legitimating 492

marriages, statute of Utah in respect to inheritance by issue of. . . 491

Powers, Orland W. , testimony of 795

Prosecutions in criminal cases in Utah, bill to amend, veto of governor of 582

1087

1088 INDEX.

Page.

Protest of John L. Leilich 26

Protest of W. M. Paden and others 1

Religious liberty, provision of Utah constitution respecting 286

toleration, provision of Utah constitution respecting 286

Revelation as to polygamy 1 202

Roberts, Brigham H., testimony of 704

Recalled 749

Rule of Mormon Church as to acceptance of secular positions by its members. 168

Section 2849 of Utah Code, decision on 492

Secular authority, article on submission to 294

Sermon by Wilford Woodruff : 330

Smith, Hyrum M., testimony of 505

Smith, Joseph F., testimony" of 80

resumed '. 287, 474

Smoot, Mr., answer of 31

additional answer of 74

Statute of Utah in respect to polygamy 286

unlawful cohabitation 287

adultery 287

inheritance by issue of polygamous marriages 491

legitimating polygamous issue 492

Stevenson, Thomas P., appearance of . . ." 40

statement of 70

Submission to secular authority, article on 294

Tayler, Robert W., appearance of 40

statement of 41

additional statement of ,. 72

" Thatcher episode " 247

Thatcher, Moses, testimony of 936

continued 944

charges against 563

decision on charges against 563

case of 564

Unlawful cohabitation, statute of Utah in respect to 287

Utah, constitutional provision of, forbidding polygamy 286

in respect to religious liberty 286

toleration _ 286

debate in constitutional convention of, on plural marriages 642

decision of supreme court of, on section 2849 of Code 492

statute of, in respect to inheritance by issue of polygamous marriages.. 491

adultery 287

unlawful cohabitation 287

polygamy 286

legitimating polygamous issue 492

Van Cott, Waldemar, appearance of

statement of - 56

Wells, Governor, veto of Evans bill by , 582

Woodruff, Wilford, manifesto of 339

sermon by 330

Worthington, A. S., appearance of 40

statement of 46

additional statement of.. 68

o

I

f

r^^^

7 \<\ f