The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-04-18

says he was informed at the first
presidency that no such committee had
been appointed, and consequently he
could not have been appointed a mem
| Der of it.
THE HERALD INTERVIEWS.
| Mr.. Critchlow then takes up the in
| terviews with the several members of
i! the alleged junta as published in The
Herald of last Monday, and proceeds
in lawyer-like fashion to demolish, as
far as may be, the denials of those
gentlemen, alleging that some of the
gentlemen meant their language to be
! taken "as having a Pickwickian mean
ing" and that others evaded the real
point at issue, and as a matter of fact
were more in the nature of admissions
! than denials.
ELEVEN COUNTS.
Summing up the whole situation Mr..
Critchlow says:
appeal to the people OF this state to
know whether they are satisfied with
this state of affairs. l ask them to
make true answers to a few PROPOSE
tons which / set forth as corollaries
to the facts above recited.
First-Have the Mormon leaders
under the name of the priesthood as
serted their right to counsel in all
matters political as we'll as otherwise,
and that they should not be questioned
or condemned, for, if they give wrong
counsel God would deal with them?
Second-Has not the correlative duty
of unquestioning obedience to such
counsel been enjoined?
Third-Was not the late conference
given up to the teaching of these
views, and to the acknowledgment
and confession of such right and duty
by those who had previously seemingly
entertained a different view, and by
dropping from the list of apostles pre-
sented to the conference one individual
for non-conformity?
Fourth-Was it not to be expected
that those believing in this right and
duty. in accordance with it whether in
or out of the legislature, would seek
the guidance and counsel of the priest
hood as to what they should do?
Fifth-Is it not admitted by George
Q. Cannon and others that when the
legislature convened Mormons and
non-Mormons and at least one mem
Der of the legislature called on the
presidency to procure legislation?
Sixth--It it not admitted that the
priesthood while not essaying to adj
wise directly Ito avoid the accusation
of interfering with the affairs Of state)
referred their petitioners and suppl
cants, not to legislators charged by
the people under the constitution With
the power and responsibility of legis-
lation, but to SIX persons all members
of and in close relations with the
church?
Seventh-How could the wisdom and
experience of those Mormon referees
avail to enact or prevent the enact
ment of laws unless they were also
clothed with some potency to control
or manipulate legislators?
Eighth-If the purpose of this church
reference tribunal was honorable, Why
was its existence kept in the dark and
confided only to those Mormon mem
knowledge the right of the priesthood
or those set apart by it for that pur-
pose to guide and counsel in affairs
political?
Ninth-Why do the persons to whom
the reference was made seek to dis
claim that persons were referred to
them by the church leaders when the
latter admit the fact and the former
must have known it, and as the proof
shows, acted in that capacity?
Tenth-Did six persons, all members
OF one CnuTcn, luIee Ol OlS pdil ~ Gnu
three of the other, come together by
accident or design? Were they self
appointed or otherwise to make law
for the lawmakers?
The governor disclaims them, and it
is not claimed that the members of
the legislature appointed them. If
self-appointed, when ever before did
modest gentlemen become so pre-
The only remaining and
last alternative is that they were the
conduit through which the messages
Of the church could be covertly con-
veyed to such legislators as might la
expected, knowing the key, to give
heed.
Eleventh-Is this the meaning of that
part of section of article one of the
of Utah which declares.
There shall be no union of church
and state. not shall any church domin-
ate the state, or interfere with its func-
tions," and was that meaning ever
read into or out of these words prior
to the admission of Utah into the
Union? When this clause of the con-
stitution was adopted was there a
secret reservation in behalf of Rich
ards, Penrose, Tanner eft. al? There |
should be a new manifesto, new
declaration of political independence,
est free institutions perish in our
midst.