The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-03-03
DEFlES THE LAW.


fContinued from First Page.l
doned the offense-ir offense it is rath-
er than interfere with my situation as
they found it. 1t has been known what
l have been doing. I have not been in
terfered with or disturbed in any way.
If had been I was there to answer
the charges. 1 was willing to face them
and submit to the penalty, whatever it
might be-
Mr.. Smith paused for a moment, but
as Mr. Tayler prepared to ask another
question he again proceeded with his
statement:
You must draw a distinction be-
tween unlawful Capitalization and plural
marriages. he said. The state law in
regard to the latter has been complied
with. No marriages have been per-
formed with the sanction, approval,
consent, knowledge or connivance of
the church or its officials. But the
other law is the one I have presumed
to disregard and which as 1 have said 1
am ready to face rather than disgrace
myself or degrade my family by turn
ing them off,
Mr.. Tayler resumed his questioning.
You say there is a state law forbid
ding polygamous Capitalization, and you
have been continuing to violate it in
utter disregard of the consequences? %
he asked.
u think 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 Mr. Smith.
Why have you done so?" persisted
Mr.. Tayler.
For the same reason I have told you.
l preferred to face the law. I could not
| disgrace myself. 3 could not degrade
my family
DO you consider it an abandonment
/ ~ 70,
rage relations?" Mr.. Tayler. asked.
Mr.. Smith faced Mr.. Tayler and in a
low but penetrating voice said:
Il don't like to be impairment but I
should like you to ask any woman who
is a WIFE At that point Mr. For
aker and Mr.. Beveridge objected and in
discussing the questions both express
ed the opinion that the witness had
stated fully that he had violated the
laws and that he had been frank in re-
gard to his reasons and finally that the
| committee was advised on that subject
| Mr.. Foraker said that after such a
statement as had been made by Mr..
Smith it was unnecessary to ask the
| witness concerning his opinions on the
subject of good morals.
Il Mr.. Hoar moved that such questions
be not allowed at this time, but if at
a future time it was found that Mr..
! Smiths statement was not full and
complete the committee might queS-
I ton him. Mr.. Dubois then asked Mr..
Smith if it was not understood by those
in authority that it was the duty of a
polygamist to continue to provide and
support his plural family after the
| manifesto of 1890.
Mr.. Smith answered that it was gen
orally so understood
Resuming the inquiry concerning Mr..
Smiths personal polygamous relations,
Mr.. Tayler asked:
How many children have you had
since the manifesto of 1902"
Mr.. Worthington objected on the part
of the defense and both, Senators
BeVeridge and Foraker again said that
they thought the witness had said
his wives had borne children since the
manifesto it made no difference how
many children had been born to him.
Il contend that it does make a diff
ference" said Mr.. Tayler. ''It makes
a difference how well the fact was ad-
vertised that he was violating the law.
1t makes a difference whether it was
2 or % in the effect his example might
have upon others in the church.
! Mr.. Burrows asked Mr.. Smith if he
had married any wives between the
first and last that he had mentioned
during his statement to the commit
tee.
Il have said Mr.. Smith.
"How many?"
| Three.
Then you have five wives now:"
said Mr.. Burrows.
| mat Is correct, WIS the ISSpOllSS.
! Mr.. Burrows ruled that the question
objected to was in order and directed
the stenographer to read the question.
How many children have you had
since the manifesto of 1892 was read.
Eleven since $780, said Mr.. Smith.
Continuing, he said:
Each of my five wives has borne me
children"
since that timer" asked Mr. Bur-
rows.
"Since that time" the witness repeat
ed in answer.
'I rather think he added, that one
of them has had three children. l could
tell you a little later
He said in reply to Mr.. Tayler that
he had attended the dedication exer-
cises at the St. Louis exposition and
had been accompanied by his plural
wife, Edna Smith by name. Senator
Smoot had been with them on that &C.
casion when they had been photo
graphed in a group. In reply to queS-
ton by Senator Srnoot he said:
Each of my families has home OF
its own in Salt Lake City. and COM
paTatively near to each other Since
the manifesto my custom has been to
: live with my first wife at her home,
but I have visited my other families
Il 1T- i 20, II Tow lar