Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-20


answered 10 The effect that such WORKS
/ drpendcl upon their saiea for cOnpen.
sation, or private donations outside Of
Church funds, anu thgt the Church
/ hal not expended from these funds
any money for that purpose, nor to
avert congregational legislation. Presi.
dent Cannon stated that while IN Con-
gress he never expended q dollar for
any such purposes.
Questioned by Mr.. Richards ne TO
| what was known az the "jeiensc
fund" witness said II was n separate
and distinct fund entirely from that IN
/ the hands Of the Receiver, aud had no
connection with ". All the counsel
employed In the cases Of individuals
had been paid out Of that "deiensc
/ fund"
MIR. Richanls-Has " not been the
/ practice all the time when there was a
/ surplus Of funds In hand for the First
/ Presidency TO Invest Il In some man.
/ mr., 10 bring In an inc0me2
AYES, and that Income would be
appropriated to religious aud chatita-
BILE purposes.
The witness was next asked 10 cx.
plain how the appropriations had been
made TO poor Indians. .
Wiiness-Wc formed u setllment Of
Indians who desired 10 dissolve their
| TRIAL relations, ut place called
Washable, In BOX Elder County, and
employed teachers, also farmers,
hlacksmlths, carpenters aud other ms
vhauics 10 instruct them In the Ia.
/ dustfiil arts. We have aschOol there
/ where the Indian children arr taught
| the English language, u saw mill, etc.
/ We have also n settlement In Thistle
| Valley, sustained Ia u similar manner,
and another In Deep Greek; bat the
/ Indians have scattered further. We
have pursued this policy for many
/ ycas In the Territory, on the principal
that u was cheaper 10 feed these lndl.
aus AMI try TO ciyilizr them than 10
/ light them. This money alwnya came
Out Of the Church rind.
Mr.. Rawlins then INTERCEPTED the
| witness further about the Theatre aud
elected the explanation that the Thea.
tre WIS turned over 10 the Church by
the executors Of the Brigham Young
estate IN settlement. This was ncccH.
sary because when there wns n sur.
/ plus Of Church mnds, IL was customary
/ to Invest them that they might ac-
/ emulate, hud In some eases the title
was In the name Of Brigham Young.
/ The Church made claim at his de-
/ cease for certain propcrtic., and set
I Element was mate In which the Thea.
tire among other properties was turned
over 10 the Church.
Tho facts were further made clear
by some questions propOuudoi by Nc.
| Richards ami the pf0tfactcd exAmina-
/ ton VI the witness closed.
PRESIDENT wiLFOED Woodbury.
was the next witness. In reply 10
Attorney Richards hu said he WAS 81
/ years of age and was born in Farming.
/ ton, Connecticut. lie had resided In
/ this Territory since July 2iih, lsi5,
aud had hell his present position Ia tue
| Church of Jesus Christ " Lattcr.day
Saints since April, 1859. lie issued the
| manifesto now produced, on September
/ 25th, 1900 The manifesto was filcd ~
/ Exhibit A his object In doing 10 being
| 10 announce 10 the world that plural
marriage had boen forbidden by the
/ Church, aud could not he pracilccd
| thereafter. When that manifesto was
/ presented 10 the Council Of the Apps.
Ties and accepted 10y thUm and was
unanimously adopted nj the General
| Conference, about ten thousand
officers and members were prus-
ont. He had never heard any
objection expressed 10 IL by individual
members Of thu Church. 70 tho beet
OF his knowledge all OF them had viii.
lngly approved Of II. II would now bc
contrary 10 the laws Of the Church. for
any Of iis members 10 enter iut0 plural
marriage, aud any one doing W would
be liable 10 accommodation. To his
knowledge no such marriage had been
contracted by any member NJ tn,
Church since the Issuance Of tho man.
ifesto. He had not taught or advised
or assonted 10 It's practice since then,
and knew " no other officer Of the
Church who had done 10, and he had
no hope gr expectation that plura
marriages would be re.establislied IN
the Church.
Replying TO Mr.. Nnrian, Ia cross
examination, President Woodruff Aaig
ho had never Issued but this one mani
ftsto on the subject.
Mr.. Nafian-Did you understand by
this declaration that tenet Or primer
plu Of faith OF the Church over which
you preside was changed In any de
grec9
witncss-- No, slr, do not know tina
I did, with regard to the principle o
faith.
Q.-Does your Church derive III
principles OF faith ana rules Of couduc
from tho Bible, the Book " Mormon
Doctrine and Covenant. aud the ruve
lations from Almighty GodG
AYES, sir.
Q.-Was tho principle of plural oil
celestial marriage derived from revela
tom
AYES, sir, the principle that hai
been adopted by the Church wah.
Q.-Has there over been any pfincl
pie Of faith or tenet Of your Church In
corpoAted In Tia creed through tn,
vote Of IT. people.
A.-No, sir, | think not; but | viii
here say that tho principles Of faith o
the Church have been presented 10 The
members aud voted upon by themj IN,
reception Of those principles has been
by vote.
Q.-llas any principle or tenet hav.
ing it, foundation In revelation been
submitted "a tbs members Of the
Church with view OF their accepting
or rejecting II by vote!
AYES, 1 think nil revelations that
We have received have been accepted
by vote.
Q.-Has there ever been an instance
Of one being rejected?
A.-Not as ageneral principle.
(Uontmned on rage 81