The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-12

form plural marriages.. he says: 81
could give you hundreds of names OF
parties in this territory who have the
authority; there are no records kept #
these appointments, dC1l't know who
all these parties are"
Now, taking these statements of
President Taylor as authority, it is evil
dent that hundreds of plural marriages
could be performed in different parts
of the state, or out of the state, with
out either the official knowledge or the
official sanction of President Woodruff
or President Snow. Is that the way
by which Apostle Abram Cannon got
his extra plural wife some three years
ago?
Is that the way Apostle Teasdale of
Nephf and others have been getting plu-
without the sanction of the church
through the president?
While the church officials are settling
this conflict of authority between two
of the church presidents, we will take
up the third statement of the public
document now under consideration,
which is in these words, THE implied
understanding with the nation when
Utah entered the Union as a state has
been sacredly Observed What was
this implied understanding" Presi-
dent Snow would have all his readers
believe that it was simply and only the
pledge that further polygamouS or plu-
raj marriages should be forever pro-
hibited by the new state, u accordance
with the enabling act of congress, and
he goes on to argue that since this pro-
vision was put into the state constitu-
ton and laws We're framed for it's sup
port, the pledge of the people to the
nation, or the implied understanding
has been sacredly observed. Now, the
simple fact is, to put it in mild Ian
guage, this is a most inaccurate and
misleading statement, for it simply
leaves out the other important half of
the understanding with the nation:
and the impression left is just as err
roneous and harmful as if the omission
had been deliberate. What is the other
half of the pledge, or understanding
with the nation? Why this: That there
should not only be no further polyg-
amous or plural marriages, but that all
existing polygamous RELATIONSHIP I'M
lawful Capitalization should cease. In
President Harrison's proclamation of
Jan. 4, 1898, granting amnesty to those
who had been DISTINGUISHED for Violat-
ing the laws, he states explicitly that
''the officials of said church, pledging
the membership thereof to the faithful
obeyance Of the laws against plural
marriages and unlawful Capitalization.
Now, what are we to think of the re-
liability of an official document sent out
by the president of the Mormon church.
which leaves the impression that the
members and officers of the church are
violating no pledge to the nation if they
continue in their former polygamCus
relations?
The second general subject discussed
in this official document is the election
of the pOlygamist Elder Roberts TO con-
gress. It is stated that his election was
IAN entirely secular affair. The church
had nothing to do with it. Church and
state are entirely separate in Utah."
Here are three statements in succession
and not one of them seems to be true
Take the first statement, that this cleo
ton was an entirely secular affair"
It may be true that the first presi-
dency and the older officials took no
active part in the nomination and cleo
ton of Elder Roberts. But it is GER
tainly true that other prominent church
officials and not all belonging to the
same party did take a very active part
in securing his nomination. Did not
the clear headed editor CT the Tribune
put it safely within the limits of the
truth when he said, in the issue of Dec.
80: "B. H. Roberts went into obscurity
three years ago, and no party call drew
him from that obscurity. His nominal
ton was worked up by certain high Of
ficials of the church, who pleaded for
it as individuals, but added their
priestly authority to their pleadings.''
Now, look at the second sweeping
assertion, that the church had nothing
to do" with the election of Mr. Roberts.
According to the rule laid down in the
church manifesto of April, 1886, it was