The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-01-17

down the general proposition that the
senate was without jurisdiction Of Of
lenses which may have been commit
ted before a member became a SEN
ator unless committed in connection
with his election.
DO you mean asked Senator Pet
tus q member of the committee. that
this body is not permitted to inquire
as 10 any moral qualification as TO one
OF its members with a view to his ex-
pulsiOn. that no matter what he did OF
said before his election the election pu-
rifed him p
Purified by Eieotien.
NJ Worthington replied that such
was his meaning. and ne quoted the ac-
tlon Of the senate in the Roach case
and the position Of the house in the
Roberts case N support Of this view
In reply to a question from Senator
Hopkins as TO what would be The ef-
feet If the offense should be Of a con-
tinufng character. Mr. Worthington
admitted that the senate would have
Jurisdiction. He also said. replying to
Senator Beverage, that ii was not in
tended to admit that his client had
been guilty Of offense prior to his cleo
ton.
Senator MeComas asked whether
peared for the person who charges Mr..
Smoot with being a pOlygamist-
40 one answered and Mr.. Worthing-
ton said that If any one did appear to
support that charge it must be borne
in mind that Mr. Smoot had positively
denied it. He referred 10 Nj. Shoots
answer setting forth the circumstances
Of his marriage. which Mr. Worthing
ton said is the only marriage he has
ever contracted
The Apostles Oath.
Mr. Worthington referred to the
charge that Mr. SmOot took an oath
20 support the church in connection
with his election in 1900 as an apostle
OF the Mormon church. The oath
taken by Mr.. SmOot as senator had
been declared, he said, Incompatible
with the former oath, and. +" continued
Mr.. Worthington. IF any one has proof
that this oath Of allegiance to the
United States was taken with mental
reservation. let il be producedg' IF
that charge could be supported, said
he, 1t would convict Mr.. Smoot Of act
ing q lie and would be a violation Of
the compact between Utah and the
United States before Utah WAS admit
ted into the Union DIS a STATE These
charges. he argued. demanded proof,
for # il can be shown that Mr.. Smoot
has furthered a movement to promote
pOlygamy. contrary to this compact.
then we Win say. of counse, that Mr..
Sm0ot ought TO he expelled"
Purged CT Polygamy.
Mr. Worthington read a large num-
Der Of court decisions leading up to the
abandonment Of polygamy. and then
read from official church pTOclamations
including the manifesto of 1890. declar-
ing that polyg amy should be abolished.
He a.so read the amnesty proclamation
Of President Harrison, and declared
that not only by that proclama ton. but
10y acts Of congress the people of Utah
had been abs0lved from the charge Of
poiygamy by complying with the en-
abling act admitting the state 10 the
Union
Mr.. Van Colt made statement in
senator Shoots behalf. He referred to
the act OF the Utah legislature multi
flying the anti-poiysamy act. and he
confirmed what Mr. Tayler had stated.
that the bin had been vetoed by
Mormon governor. J 4 said Senator
Sntoot bad nothing TO 10 with the pas
sage Of that bill, and should not be
charged with il.
He invited the fullest inquiry into
Senator Smoot'a life we throw down
VIC Bst..s ne S1sHr anu l4tktAE YOU 10
Investigate MS entire career
III he went on. you find that he has
ever been guilty Of any offense against
the Jaw his counsel VIII throw Up the
case and walk out. He also will throw
Gown the bars as 10 ar Su0ct's moral
character
Could Not Answer.
He denied that Senator smoot had ever
taken an oath which was inconsistent
with good citizenship.
Senator McConss asked whether IL was
true that the apostles take secret oath.
and AIR. Van Cott replied that not being
a Mormon, though a resident Of tab. ne
could net reply Of bis own huowiedge. a
was his understanding, however, that the
Mormon apostles took no oath.
Senator Dubois asked how It VAS with
{ he elders. and SIR. Van CGtt replied
that there might be some obligation taken
in ceuneetion with the endowment cere-
meny. That was rot. however. one Of
Mr- NaneCott then entered into an argu-
meD- - shew the impropriety OF investi-
continued on Page Two.l