Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-03-04
HoAR AND FORAKER.


Senator HOar asked him why he
avoided practising what he had held Ia
be divine command and the witness
answered II was because OF the more
recent manifesto stopping the practise
Senator Hoar persisted that according
to the witness own statements the
practise had not been stopped. and Sen,
, uo' r rVrahet lh'erposed abruptly that
so times and he could see no purposr
OF the continued questioning along that
| line. Senator Hoar resented the inter.
ruption and said Senator Forakers
| statment suggested that he had asked
one question 80 times aud had received
| 90 answers. He objected to the infer.
ence and when Senator Foraker arose
TO answer. he. too, stood up The two
| senators faced each other In what
| threatened TO be serious clash Sem
ator Foraker said the senator from
| Massachusetts could say what hn
| pleased, OF course. but | have not said
| ne asked 90 questions
! I accept the disclaimer from the sem
ator from Ohio" responded Mr.. Hgar.
put the aggressive manner in whlch II
was SAID failed to relieve the situation.
Aiter more heated words Senator Bev.
| efdge' who occupied position direct
| ~ between the two, requested perms-
sion to ask a question. He said he
| wanted TO address Mr. SmoOt," and
| Immediately substituted the name
| Snlth. In the laugh that was pro-
| Voked Doth senators sat down and the
| nearing continued.
QUESTION nv pEvrptDcr
| ''''''''''
Senator Beverdge desired To know
whether the Church considered that the
nous cobabjtatIor Vp had %nrn o 6oy ,
the manifesto OF 1890, and Chairman
buiIo"s nlaue the question more per-
sohaL he SAID you have said today
tnat you were obeying the laws I'm not
leachlnB polygamy since the manifesto
was promulgated 10 you think YOU
Ntte opeylhg me law IN having II
Vhlluren from dllierent mothers since
tnat l,ne
| opey the Jaw so FAR as teaching Is
op"Verheu' J. nave not said that | have
ppoeyeu lhe Jaw IN my practice, AS /
nave SAID before preferred to take my
| on'nVcs WIN the law rather than 10
| aoaUuoh my plural FAMILIES Polygamy
| has not peet taught IN the Church by
Wy VI we oinclals' Inc 'hurch has
| ooeSVu 'ne hWs even II | nave not
| s",u MI Snllth'
hcleIenVV hau Deeh MADE many
tlileS 10 tne revelation commanding
plu,"' hlarllages ana senator Foraker
have been covered before, he would
s s,me ~ nay II go on the record IN an
81 ~, W. '".s qu,s''ul, Wnen' Where
60, w." m"9 tue n,JuIct,oh IN taVor
VI p''S s'"'' renewed pE 'he 'hurch
REVELATION ON POLYGAMy
A.. e,,
| M', olllln eNplalhed that the reveal
uoil was inaue 10 Joseph smith Jrn at
NauNoo, ~ 1850 pul was nor publicly
| plou'al.hvu on avvvun, OF me disturb
anI GUY, ass"Is' .S!lltn me doctrine ne
sa'I hau pee,, ,auBht ny Joseph Smlth
| w pIIsnali ,Vuilx anu ms associates
any p'eseu'Su ug iVuls, II WAS taken
| W ehe odl, LAM Nalley III 1856 ana IN
ioo. was ploelaliled Dy iouns ana ac'
'epyeu DIS teVelallon' ...
p9es 'nat answer your question
"sn nt. ml, ollith,
but not how" said Senator Foraker
,o VIA. = Wu'' 70 k nS Is whether the
nni,nS 20 ~, tne NnuIGn were com
l pvneu w p,s..ee ,he poiygdnious mar
,ha, ,hroa 90 ' so,,n 70 " ue WnS ! Is only
nono have nron,isad Vu ,h ~ sne pior
an ,os ny p'ao, li' wllat mas peen
W ''''''e N0'"'i@iu'
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS.
AT Snilln caileu TOT copy or the
uoon VI Hlle anu covenants ana
,ea aI pa " lnu ieNelSuoh, whlch' ne
SS'u, nau Devn aoeepteu III lne nature
VI pvan',sS,Vn ~ .ahe plural wives
S Snu was nv i,a a upon lhe MEM
80 80 VI '"e .hulv W. VtieI passages
n r,Vt ,hu s" !he 'eNv,auo" MY reao'
pari,ou .s 'ne pos'iohs Wnich pre-
oon w, sne I,am.vr vi Snins more thah
Umv Wy, ~ was SET aoIul 'hal u one
could do SO by obtaining The cons s,n ne ne
the hrst, but that II the consent of the
lirst was Withheld he WAS az liberty to
proceed without H. IL IS set forth also
mat Where the hrst refuses consent 10
snare her husband with another woman
she would De destroyed
MEANING OF DEsTRoyED
senator Pettus asked the meaning OF
the word destroyed IN that sense,
MT smith answered that she would
be destroyed by the Lord, but that he
was not Informed lust how the Lord
would go about H."
Then It does not mean that the hus-
band could destroy her?' Senator Pet
tus asked
mo, never"
II take II then that the question OF
getting a wlfes consent to marry again
might Just as wen be eliminated entire
~" said Senator Beyerldee,
Just as wei" answered the witness
Senator Overman asked MIR. Smith II
he knew whether any one Of the six
pelygamist Apostles had disobeyed tho
law in regard to polygamous cohablta-
ton since the manifesto Of 1890
HE Is NOT A spoTTEp
-, 40 moi Know answered Mr., Smith,
i only Know that they We're In the
same Status OF polygamy at the time OF
tne manifesto as was myself, do not
pry INTO thelf FAMILY affairs. am hap.
by 70 say that ! am not a "spotter" or
an intorner' i am not a paid spy"
iet you might without being paid
Spy, persisted Senator Overman,
M Hahg IL