(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "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 w r ere 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 w r ay 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 



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*wd 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 
A r e 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. 
52.) . 

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 law 7 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 ow r n 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 w r ould 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 } r our 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 4C The 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 } r ou 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} T thing 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 th ii t 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 polygam3 T , 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. W T ORTHINGTON. 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 w r ho 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 } 7 our 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 } T OU 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 } T ear 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} r ing 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} 7 s, 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- 
am His 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: 4 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 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} 7 s. 

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 } 7 ou 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} T ranny 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. W T hen 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 fiv r e 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 3 r ears 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, } 7 ou 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} T s 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 } T ears 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, u Mind 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 3 r oung 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. W 7 ould 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. W T e 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 ma3 T 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. W r ill 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 } 7 ou 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 w T ill 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 W r oodruff, 
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 } 7 ou 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} r ed 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 mobocrac3 T 

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; 

a 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 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 } 7 ou 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: 

U 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." 

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: 

tc To 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} r s 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 } T ears, 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: fc Among 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 decrees v of 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} r s 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 U A 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. 

" W r e 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 } r ou 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: 4 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, 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." W T hen 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 long 1 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. 

k4 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 Presidentcy and the Twelve Apostles were never 
more united as a body than they are today. Our spirits are united. 
W T e 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 w T ill 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 } r ou 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} T s 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. 

u My 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 leading 1 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. 

" 4 I 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 u they 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. W T ORTHINGTON. 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: 

" fc l 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 authority 7 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} T s 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 w T as 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, 4 thou 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:* 

U SEC. 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: 

u 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." 

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 obej r 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 bei