Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1904-01-25
SOME SALIENT POINTS.

me TthOlutlOn IthtHtu ny Alle PNARNN
committee on privileges and elections
to recommend full investigation OF
the charges preferred by the professors
against Senator Reed smoot, will no
doubt elicit many comments and argu-
ments by the press OF this country
There are two or three points In the
controversy which ought TO be made
clear to our contemporaries, but which
appear TO be surrounded by mist II
not clouded in mystery
First Is the question OF the need OF
the Senator's specific replies 10 the
charges preferred, There Is no doubt
In legal minds, that Is, those capable Of
grasping legal proposition that
much OF the matter presented was not
germane TO the real questionable quail
iflcatlons or inellgiblity OF the accused
for seat In the United States Senate
II may therefore appear reasonable at
first sight TO argue that his reply
should be limited TO those charges that
were made against him personally. And
we are surprised that writer's on the
subject here and elsewhere. leap to this
conclusion without even a glance at a
very important feature Of the con,en-
ton.
1t Is a great mistake to suppose that
Senator Smoot voluntarily went into
the details Of his reply, and 10 Opened
the door, as claimed. 10 the remarka-
Bile investigation now recommended. lie
was furnished by the committee with a
statement Of charges which he was ex-
pected to meet before that body our
contemporaries published them, They
ought to know what they were, What
was the accused TO do2 Answer those
on the list that he and his attorneys
recognized az pertinent, and Ignore tho
others AS Irrelevant? On their own
style OF controversy In reference to any
thing Mormon" would not his declina-
ton TO answer those lnappllcable
charges be construed as n tacit adrnls-
sion OF his inability TO meet them?
Would It not be claimed that they
must be true because they had not been
denied"
II is very unfair to the Senator and
TO his attorneys, TO attempt to cast
upon them the onus Of opening SO wide
O field Of inquiry in reference TO the
Mormon Church, who originated the
accusations? Who backed them UP and
urged them? who sent emlssaries
throughout the land, to work up popu-
lar sentiment on these eXtraneous ana
irrelevant matters? And when they
were introduced In the committee, who
presented them as points to which re-
plies were expected? Not the Senator
nor the lawyers who framed the an
swer.
Who. then, are responsible for the
turmoil and trouble that some people
pretend to be sorry for? Reed smoot
was elected fairly and with the full
understanding OF his candidacy, by the
political party to which he belongs The
persons and papers OF that party here
that are aiding IN the hue ana cry
against him, by their own logic on
other matters are "bolters' from that
party They Kick up dust fight their
own party comrades, try to defeat the
acts Of the majority In their own or
ganizatlon, deplore the tumult they
have helped TO raise. and try to throw
the blame on the person who Is at
tackled because he fully defends him
self,
Another point to be considered Is the
confusion purposely made by the Sec
tartan and press opponents OF tho sena-
tor on the polygamy question. The en-
ablIng act for Utah required that the
Constitution Of the State should provide
that, "Polygamous or plural marriages
are forever prohibited" The Constitu-
ton did 80 provide by ordinance In Ar
tlcle Three. Laws We're passed by the
state Legislature in pursuance thereof
But the deceptive enemies OF the sena-
toe, and Of the State OF the Church
To witch he belongs, continuously mis-.
represent this provision, and speak Of
the relations still existing between per.
sons in plural family relations, as ylo'
latlons OF that compact. Let anybody
who can read examine the requirement
and LIS fuhlmont, and he or she will
see IN a moment, IL sane, that the pro-
vision relates simply and entirely to
the contracting Of polygamous mar.
riages
The term polygamy. as understood In