The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-12-02
that INVESTIGATION.

Our morning contemporary, after let
ting off little bileson account of it:
rage at Rawlins and its annoyance
over the proposed official inquiry int
the true status OF the case" finall,
puts on q bold front and exciaims viii
braggadocio, Let the committee come
we are ready for it,"
But our perturbed neighbor wants Il
conduct the investigation. 1t men
tions the names of a few witnesses Il
would like to examine. and even sug
gests a few Of the questions ii would
like to ask for the impeachment OF
President Snow. There are witnesses
unnamed by the Tribune. however
whose testimony. if obtainable. would
throw some light on the question and
aid materially in the Interpretation OF
that "tacit understanding TO which
members of the dominant church some
times refer.
For instance. the owner. manager
and widely known editor Of the Salt
Lake Tribune. Colonel Pat Lannan,
as he is known in Washington society
might be called and. since leading ques-
tons seem to be in order. asked:
l. Did you not. in explaining the
scope and purpose of the anti-poly gamy
manifesto three years ago. say in the
editorial columns of your personal or
gan that lit only went to the point OF
plural marriages, which had been
taught as a holy sacrament, must not
HEREAFTER be solemnized'
, Did you not say further. in eX-
y in
lin considering this matter, thought
full people viii not lose sight of the
fact that human passions cannot al
ways be killed by a proclamation, or
the habits of years made TO lose their
influences?
8. Did you not. on the 3rd Oh January.
1894. in the editorial columns of your
personal organ, denounce polysamists
who. through a mistaken idea OF
duty" had neglected their plural wives
whose lives you assured them, ARE
a part of their ewn'?
4. Did you not. in the same public
manner on the 4th of January. 1894,
offer to publish and excoriate any po-
lygamist who abandoned his plural
wives or neglected his children by
them? -------.-
;. Did YOU not say further, in refer
ence TO this matter: We think our
friends of the Mormon press ought TO
lOlN US III IHIS. w e tliC NIL AAhJAA
church ought 10 assist us because IL
is a mighty reproach upon the feelings
of Utah. It is. further, a mighty re-
proach against the church itself. Utah
is in the transition state, but that
transition state furnishes no justifica-
ton fer men tn go back on obligations
of humanity which they incurred in all
apparent seriousness in the past?
s. Did you not, in the same public
manner referring 10 this question
some months later. make the follow
ing statement: I'VE do not think such
people can be reached by the law. but
they can be reached by public opin-
ion. and all decent people should COM
bine to see how justice can be done TO
such forsaken women and children 1t
IS a clear case that men who VIII so
conduct themselves give away the fact
that they, in entering into polygamy,
had no motives but base ones, and they
are not fit TO belong to any religious
denomina ton whatever?
= When eastern newspapers, in 1886,
asserted that poiygamous relations
were still sustained in the state of
Utah, did You not, in the editorial col
umns of your personal organ, declare
that. while this was true. no one eX-
pected the relations and obligations of
a lifetime to be abandoned, that the
manifesto applied only 70 future plural
marriages and that '-the rule then laid
down has been as sacredy kept by this
people as IL would have been by any
other people; that Mormons and Cen
tiles have a right to say that the
change amounts to a transformation
S. Did you not. when asked to do so
by petitioners against the appointment
of Orson Smith to a federal position on
the ground that he was living in po-
lygany, refuse to aid the protestants?
g. Did you not give your personal en-
couragement to George Q. Cannon in
his recent race for the United States
senate?
Other questions might be asked, bat
there are other witnesses to examine.
Mr.. Lannans editorial writer might
be induced to go upon the stand and
be given the refusal of answering the
following interrogations:
/. Did you not, in the course of
public address delivered in this city IN
1895. say that the polygamy question
would take care of Itself if outsiders
Will only keep their hands off and leave
it 10 the free schools and the rail
roads?
. Did you not, as a member Of the
constitutional convention of Utah, adj
wise the people To resort 10 duplicity in
order to obtain statehood? II not, what
did you mean by saying: 1T won't
make bit Of difference TO Utah what
is in this constitution in regard TO that
particular matter 1polygamy), the idea
Is to have something 10 present to the
president which ne and his friends can
find no flaw in?
s. Did you not advise the Mormon del
egates in that. convention to support
the Varian amendment, which provid-
ed a penalty in cases of polygamy on
the assurance that they could do as
they pleased about enforcing IL after
the admission of Utah into the Union2
You said: This has never confronted
any other territory when applying for
statehood, and the point in it is this:
When Mr.. Thurman. the other day.
thought that the article in the ordi-
nance was not sufficient, that it ought
to be strengthened. ] was in hopes his
idea would be carried out by the con-
ventson solely as an evidence of good
faith. II won't make any difference IN
the future
4. What did you mean when, as the
printed record shows, you made the fol-