Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-03-14

he, the Senator, understood IL. PTes!-
dent Smith said;
"Mr. Smith. That Is what mean. II
was understood that plural marriages
had ceased. II has been the contlnu-
GUS ana conscientious practice and rule
OF the Church ever since the manifesto
to observe that manifesto with regard
to plural marriages, and from that time
I'll today there has never been 10 my
knowledge. plural marriage per-
formed In accordance with the under
standing, instruction conniyance. coun-
sci, or permission OF the presiding au.
thorlties Of the Church, or Of the
| Church, In any shape or form, and
know whereof | speak, gentlemen, In re-
lation TO that matter.
Since the admission OF the State
there has been a sentiment existing and
prevalent In Utah that these old mar
rages would be In measure condoned.
They were not looked upon as offensive
as really yiolative OF law: they We're
IN other words, regarded as an existing
fact, and II they saw any wrong In Il
they simply wlnked at IT, In other
words, Mr., Chairman, the people OF
Utah, as rule, as we'll as the people
OF this nation, are broad-mInded and
| liberal-mlnded people. and they have
| rather c0ndoned than otherwise, ] pre-
sumo, my offense against the law.
have never been disturbed Nobody
has ever called me In question, that
know OF, and II / had, | was there 10
answer 10 the charges or any charge
that might have been made against me,
and ! would have been willing TO sub
NIT to the penalty OF the law, whatever
1t might have BEEN"
Senator Hoat thus epitomizes his I'M
derstandlng Of Prest Smiths testi-
mony:
| Senator Hoar. would like to know
at some convenient time from Mr.. Tay-
Ter what In Mr., Smiths statement he
expects to contradict and what OF II he
| ACCEPTS? understand that Mr. Smiths
| statement is In substance this.
THAT he and his Church accept GER
| tain divine revelations which have come
| TO them, including him as one Of it's
| presidents. In the past; that one OF
| those divine revelations was an inJunc-
! ton TO polygamy, to plurality OF wives,
that he interprets that injunction not
to mean that II Is binding on all men
under all circumstances, but that II Is
like similar injunctions to persons who
believe In monogamy and that that Is
shown by the fact that that was the
construction Of t., that only or 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 suspend
ing | will not use the word retracting,
but not for the future requlrlng--polyg-
amy, and that from that time forward
his church has ceased TO inculcate II,
and has regarded the practice OF polyg-
amy, with the exception | am about TO
state an offense and las obeyed the
civil law; that there have been since
then no plural marriages under the
sanction or with the knowledge OF the
church or q society, but that he him
self and, according TO his belief, other
persons In high places OF authority OF
the church, and with his full approba-
tIpn, ! 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. ard while the
church has never sanctioned or solem-
nized one since that later revelation
they will not desert the wives and the
children to whom they had been mar
red under the old dlspensatIon, and
that he himself has maintained those
wives aud their children in separate
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.
do not know that | have given the
whole statement, but In substance. |
think II would shorten and make clear
this inquiry II we were to know whether
YOU expect TO controvert that statement
IN whole or IN part. II have IN any par
ticular misstated IL, | wish Mr.. Smith
would point out the particular In which
/ have misstated It,
Mr.. Smith | understand Mr.. Sena-
tor, that you have stated the case as |
understand II,
Now we ask our readers II that IL any
just cause for the noise sought to be
aroused at home? There are some new
residents here who may be nationally
concerned about the "condonlng' OF in
fractions Of the law They never con-
scented to 1t personally perhaps, Neither
have they In 80 many words CONDOR
ed" some other offences that may have
to be brought to light, II this agitation
Is kept up, The few "Mormons' who
are living with wives whom they mar
ried many years ago are not the only
offenders against Utah statutes and or
dlnances, by any means.
But passing that, Is 1t not fact that
the general sentiment has been for
many years, that those old re-
latlons, fast diminishing, should
not be disturbed II new plural
marriages were not entered into? Ask
any unbiased old settler--we do not
mean anti. Mormon" zealots, II this
has not been the case. There can be but
one answer, and that In the Affirmative.
Now what good will come from further
protests and further tumult? win 1t
clear the atmosphere? WIN 1t help bust
ness2 VIM Il do any good at all?
Now, rational clear-headed folks, we
will give you hint. As there are
wheels within wheels In most schemes
invented by aspiring persons, YOU will
ind that there Is a secret political wheel
within that which ia now started to
rcvolve, And some Of YOU will want to
kick yourselves severely when YOU lind
how you have been roped In, for the
furtherance Of a plot that ought to be
patent to you when YOU see who are
It's cher movers. And finally we say,
don't 20 Wild over the present rumpus,
but keep cool and look before you leapl
A FAIR STATEMENT