Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-03-04

whether polygamous cohabitation was
regarded by the church as contrary to
the law, MIR. Smith answered.: 1T
was.'
Continuing, he said: This was the
| case and is the case now. But I was
placed in this position" said Mr.. Smith.
had family-a plural family. If you
please. l married my first wife more
than 81 years ago and my last wife
~ years ago. By these wives I have
had children and I have preferred to
take my own chances with the law and
suffer any consequences the law might
visit upon me rather than to abandon
| these children and their mothers.
Il have continued to cOhabit with
them since the manifesto Of 1880, and
they have borne me children since that
date. 1 was fully aware Of what was
doing. 1 know I vas amenable to the
law, but as I saw, I preferred to face
that situation rather than desert them.
have not cohabt with these wives
openly or Haunted the fact, but have
acknow lodged these wives and children
as nv family. The people of Utah
have regarded the situation as an ex-
listing fact. These people as rule are
broad-minded and liberal in their
views, and have condoned the offence
if offence it is-rather than interfere
with my situation as they found it.
1t has been known what I have bee n
doing. I have rot been interfered with
nor disturbed in any way. II had
been I was there to answer the
charges. I was willing to face them
and submit to the penalty whatever it
might be-
Mr.. Smith paused for a moment but
as Mr.. Taylor prepared to ask another
Question he again proceeded with his
statement.
You must draw a distinction be-
tween unlawful cohabitation and plural
marriages." he said. The state law i'm
regard to the latter has been complied
with. No marriages have been pc
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 dis
regard and which, as I have said, I
am ready to face rather than disgrace
myself or degrade my family by turn
ing them off"
Mr.. Taylor resumed his questioning
"YCu say there is q state law for
bidding polygamous cohabitation AMI
you have been continuing to violate it
in utter disregard of the consc-
quences:" he asked.
II 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 Mr.. Smith,
| why have you done 500" persiste
Mr.. Taylor
| For the same reason I have toll
You. ] preferred to face the law.
could not disgrace myself, I could rot
degrade my family
do you consider it an abandonment
of your family not to maintain mar
riagc relations?"
Mr.. Smith faced Mr.. Taylor ard in Il
low but penetrating voice said: 81
don't like to be impairment, but I
should like you to ask any woman who
is wife"
That point Mr.. Foraker and Mr..
Beveridge objected to and in discuss
ing the question both expressed the
opinion that the witness had state |
fully that he had violated the laA :
fnnd that he had been frank in regarl
to his relations and finally that the
committee was advised on that subject
| Mr.. Foraker said that after such q
statement as had been made by Mr.
Smith it was unnecessary to ask the
witness concerning his opinions on the
subject of good morals.
Mr.. Hoar moved that such quest on
be not allowed at this time. but if at Il
future time it was found that Mr..
Smiths statement was not full AMI
complete the committee might ques-
ton him.
Mr.. Dubois then asked Mr.. Smith if
it was not understood by those in au-
thority that it was the duty of the pO-
lygamist to continue to provide for and
support his plural family after the
manifesto of 1890. Mr.. Smith answered
that it was generally so understood"
| Resuming the inquiry in regard to
Mr.. Smiths pOlygamous relations, Mr..
Taylor asked: How many children
have You since the manifesto of 1902"
| Mr.. WOrthingtOn objected on the part
of the defence and both Senators Bev-
eridge and Foraker again said that they
thought as the witness had said his
wives had borne children since the
| manifesto it mace no difference how
many such children had been born to
him.
II contend that 1t does make diff
ference" said Mr.. Taylor. 1T makes
n difference whether it was two or %
in the effect the example might have
upon others in the church,
Mr.. Burrows asked Mr.. Smith if he
had married any wives between the
first and last date he had mentioned
during his statement to the COMMITTEES.
Il have" said Mr.. Smith.
How many"
Three"
Then YOU have five wives now?" said
Mr.. Burrows.
That is correct" was the answer.
Mr.. burrows ruled that the question
, objected to was in order and directe |
the stenographer to read the question
|, t"How many children have you had
. since the manifesto of 1902" was real
, Eleven since $780, said Smith.
Il Continuing he said: Each of my
FIVE wives have borne me children