The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-03-04
SMITH ADMITS THAT HE HAS
 VIOLATED THE LAWS OF UTAH

, -------~-------------~- ~-~-~----~~~---~-~---~ nous marriage of Abraham H. Cannon, and whether MT. Smith had permitted the service uniting Mir Cannon and Lillian Hamlin. This he denied.
 Then MT. Tayler asked questions which brought a statement from MT. Smith re- gardng his own position under the laws covering polygamy. He acknowledged that he had violated them continuously since the manifesto of 1890, and is ready now and always had been ready to face the laws of the land
 MT. Tayler asked 'Is cohabitation with a plural wife contrary to the rules of the church?'
 Smith Makes Statement.
 MT. Smith asked and received permis- sion to make statement and then an- swered the question in his own way. He spoke with great feeling and directness, saying: Tn regard to the status of poly gamy at the time of the manifesto l want to say that after the hearing be- fore the master in chancery, I understood that we should abstain from relations without plural families and that rule was observed up to the time the enabling act went into effect, admitting Utah as a state. Under that act the only prohibition was that plural marriages should cease. Nothing was said about capitalization with our wives"
 with the wives you had married previous 10 the manifesto. you mean?" in- terrupted Mir. Hoar.
 sThat is what I meant" said MT. Smith.
 No Plural Marriages.
 'I understood that plural marriages were to cease and every since the moni- festo until the present time there never has been a plural marriage in the church performed in accordance with it's teach ings or with the connivance of the church." and he added with great em- phasizes; q know whereof l speak,"
 Then in answer to the question whether polygamous cohabitation was regarded by the church as contrary to the law he an- swered: Tt was.' Continuing. he sald
 This was the case and is the case now. But l was placed in this position" said MT. Smith, T had a family--a plural fam fly, if you please. l married my first wife more than thirty eight years ago, and my last wife more than twenty years ago. By these wives l have had children and I pre- ferred to take my own chances with the law and suffer any consequences the law might visit upon me rather than abandon the children and their mothers.
 'I have continued to cohabit with them since the manifesto of 1890 and they have borne me children since that date. l was fully aware of what l was doing knew I was amenable to the law. but say I preferred to face that situation rath- CT than to desert them l have not cohab- ited with these wives openly or Haunted the fact but have acknowledged these wives and children as my family. The people of Utah have regarded the situa- ton as an existing fact These people, as a rule, are broad minded and liberal in their views and have condoned the offense, If offense 1t is, rather than interfere with my situation as they found it. It has been known what I have been doing. l have not been interfered with nor disturbed In any way. If had been I was there to an- swer the charges; I was willing to face them and submit to the penalty, whatever it might be-"
 Proceeds With Statement.
 MT. Smith paused for a moment, but as MT. Tayler prepared to ask another ques- ton he again proceeded with his state ment. v
 You must draw a distinction between unlawful cohahitation and plural mar riages," he said "The state law in regard to the latter has been compiled with. NC marriages have been performed with the sanction, approval, consent, knowledge or connivance of the church or it's officials But the other law Is the one l have pre- sumed to disregard and which, as l have said. I am ready to face rather than dis grace myself or degrade my ianily py turning them off"
 Mir Tayler resumed his questioning.
 You say there Is a state law forbidding polygamous cohabitation ana you nave been continuing to violate 1t in utter dis- regard of the consequences?" he asked.
 q think I have" was the answer
 You have caused your plural wives to bear you new children in violation of the law you knew to exist?'
 That is correct" said MT. Smith.
 'Why have you done so2'' persisted MT. Tayler.
 For the same reason I have told you. I preferred to face the law l could not disgrace myself could not degrade my family"
 Do you consider 1t an abandonment of vour family not to maintain marriage re- lations?' MT. Tayler asked.
 Don't Mean to Be Impertnent.
 MT Smith faced MT. Tayler and in a low but penetrating voice said: T don't like to be impertinent, but l should like you to ask any woman who is wife"
 At that point Mir. Foraker and MT. Bev- craze objected and in discussing the ques- tions both expressed the opinion that the witness had stated fully that he had vio- lated the laws and that he had been frank in regard to his relations and finally that the committee was advised on that sub ject Mt Foraker said that after such q statement as had been made by MT. Smith 1t was unnecessary to ask the witness -~~>~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~-~~~ ~~~~~~-~~~-~~~~-~-~>~-
 (coIntinued on Eighth Page.)