New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-04
1CRUSH At THE INQUIRY.
President Smith Tells of Many
Wires Of Mormon APOSTLES.

,r..,-t-s.o- March $50 great has become she
,,s-es, IN the investigation OF the protests nganst
p.,d scot retaining his seat in the Senate that Il
=, necessary 20 post a policeman az the door Of
=. -oo-n o. the Committee Privileges and Elec-
.,,,s where the hearings IN progress. to-day.
an except those directly interested were kept out
Fae -5ora though outside the door Il was almost
,-,ossihle 10 maintain g passageway through The
,o--sdor OF the Capitol Just before the hearing
49, sfr sr,oot received telegram from Provo.
- e.-ro,ncing the Death OF his sister. Mrs.
corr & TAYLOR. from the result OF operation.
y. bos no previous knowledge OF her illness and
,,s,r,v exhibited the effect OF the sudden shock.
-y-ror she committee was called 20 order Chair
man Burrows gave the ruling on the question asked
= President Joseph F Smith relating 20 the polyg-
..,,,,s cohabi,ation OF George f. Teasdale, Nor
non aposte Objections 10 such questioning had
tsen made by the defence. The committee ruled
,l,s- testimony bearing plural marriages OF any
~ she twelve apostles. OF whom Mr.. smoot IS one.
is competent sc far as Il relates 20 such polyGa-
,s coho bitation since September &C. 1880 the date
- p-eeiser, woodrufrs manifesto Withdrawing
,he order OF the Church commanding plural mar
rares
oyestfors we're then asked 20 ascertain Mr..
Smiths knouledee OF the polygRmous marriages OF
Abraham r. canton. and whether Mr.. Smith
i.ad performed the service uniting Mr.. Cannon
AID LWar Hamlin.
IL smith said he had seen newspaper reports
t..t he had done so. but he denied them.
caNFEssEs VIOLATION OF LAW.
Ta-'er asked n number ~ questions which
1-surll- ont a statement from Nj Smith regarding
ts own position under the laws against polygamy.
%. Acknowledged that he had violated them con-
unuously since the manifesto OF 1890 and said he
was ready now and always had been ready 20 face
The laus u the land.
Is cohabitation with a plural wife contrary 20
the rules OF the ChurchT'' asked Mr.. TRyler.
Mr. Smith was permitted answer the question
in his way. he spoke with great feeling and
directness. In regard 10 the status Of polyEamy
the time OF the manifesto. he said. Il want 70
say that after the hearing before the Master IN
Chanoery understood that we should abstain
from relations with our plural families and that
-ule was observed up TO the time the enabling act
went into effect admitting Utah q State. Under
that act the only prohibition that plural mar
rages should cease. Nothing said about CO.
habtation with our wives"
with the wives you had married previous 20 the
mar iiesto. you mean interrupted Mr.. Hoar.
That is what meant" said M. Smith. I IN
oerstood that plural marriages to cease and
ever since the manifesto Until the presen: time
there never has been a plural marriage in the
Church performed in accordance with its teachings
or with tho connivance of the Church and he
adde's, with emphasis I know whereof I speak"
TAKING CHANCES WITH THE LAW.
Then. IN answer 70 she question whether poIyg-
smous cohabtation was regarded by the Church
contrary 20 the law. ne answered: 1T was
THIS was the case. and is the case now. But
was placed in this position. had a famny-a
plural family. Il you please. married my first
wife more than thirty-eight years ago. and nv
last wife than twenty years ago. BY these
wives have had children. and have preferred to
take my own chances with the law and suffer any
consequences the law might visit upon me rather
than 70 abandon these children and their mothers
have continued 20 cohabit with them since the
msnfesto o. 1890 and they have borne me children
Ence that date was fully aware OF what was
doing ! knew I amenable 20 the law but as
say preferred face that situation rather than
70 ceset them. have not cohabited with these
wives openly or Haunted the fact. but have &C
knoSledged these wives and children ns my family.
me people OF Utah have regarded the situation as
~ existing fact These PEOPLE as a rule are
"oao minded ard liberal IN their views and have
eonooned the onence-if offence u is-rather than
.nsriere with my situation they found H. II
~ oeen known What have been doing. have
1o' been interfered with. nor disturbed IN any
~ II had been ! there 90 answer the
Ire ] was willing 10 face them and submit
ne penalty. whatever Il might be"
ar srith paused for a moment but as Afr. Tay-
- pepafed 10 ask another question he proceeded
-, - hk siatement: You must draw a distinction
Sessen unlawful cohabitation and plural
-tes he said The State law 80 regard 70 the
'uT has been complied with. No marriages have
seeh Performed with the sanction. approval. con-
- knowledge or connivance OF the Church
~ officials But the other law IL the one ] have
s'esuneo 20 disregard and which. have said
an ready 70 face rather thar disgrace myself
', Degrade my family by turning them OF"
lou say there r. State law forbidding pOlyg-
s1ious cohabitstion and you have been continuing
= violate il IN utter disregard OF the cOnse-
eoenoes?" asked Mr. Tayler.
4 think have" was the answer.
You have caused your plural wives 20 bear you
ne" children IN violation OF the law you knew 20
eHstg"
That = correct" said Mr.. Smith
why have you done So" persisted Mr. TRyier.
Tor the same reason have told you preferred