Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-02-11


show, Mr., Tayler.
Mr. Tayler-The witness has said that
there Is nothing I'm the ceremony about
ayengng the blood Of the prophets. /
am going TO refresh his memory about
lt-that there was something Of that
sort In the ceremony
Mr.. Worthingtou--I do not object I'm
the slightest degree 10 the witness be-
ing pressed on that question.
Mr.. Tayler-lt may be perfectly in
nocent ana proper and / think II ]
suggest TO him what was testified TO by
Mormon, at the Instance OF the Nor
mons, when they We're undertaking to
attack this claim that "a good Mormon
could not be good citizen and
an eleCtur that what the Wit
ness said was the foundation OF
the claim that there was vow
Of vengeance-will refresh his recol-
lection and may furnish his cXplana-
don
Mr. Worthngton- have no objec-
ton to your asking the witness whether
such ana such thing VIII not explain
what took place but ! DO object, under
the gulse OF a question, TO having iu-
corpOrated into the record I'm this case
what counsel is Informed I'm some way
was testified to on the subject By some
other witness IN a case that occurred
u or 10 years ago.
The Chahman-I do not understand
that you seek 90 show what the cerc-
mony Is by proving what somebody
else said In some other case
Mr.. Tayler-l suggest that you let
me finish the question
Mr.. Worthlngton-Whnt we object
10 is putting into this record what It is
alleged IN the pamphlet which counsel
apparently holds somebody else said
ON some other occasion.
Mr.. Tayler--Lct me get II IN, and
then II can 30 out II IT Is not proper.
lie said:
In the forepart OF the ceremony, in
the Amounting they Amounted my
right arm that II might be strong 70
avonge the blood OF the prophets; but
that was all that was said"
Mr., Worthington-l have stated my
objection | should like to have a rul-
Ing upon Il.
The ChaIman-What Is the objec-
ton?
Mr. Warrington That counsel I'm
the guise Of n question, ~ attempting
10 incorporate into this record what
he alleges was testified to by somebody
else I'm another proceeding, TO which Mir,
Smoot was not a party and had no
chance 10 cross examine the witness,
The Chalrman-This Is done, the
chair understands, merely for the pur-
pose OF refreshing the recollection of
the senator.
Mr.Worthington--Le me ask the sem
ator a question. Were you present
Senator at the trial?
Senator Smoot-No' ! was not
Mr., Worthington-Did you not hear
it?
Senator smoot-No I did not
Mr.. WorthIngton-Then we object TO
refreshing the witness recollection by
something that he never heard Of UNI
I'll It was put to him here OF course,
II a man has testified on a former Oc-
CASTOR, or written anything, or made
a memorandum OF the matter, the
statement may be laid before him for
the purpose Of refreshing his recollcc-
ton by showing that at that time he
knew something which he has forgot
ten since But | submit that that cam
not be done by bringing before his
mind something that II is alleged some
body else said on some other occasion
when he was not present
Mr.. Tayler--You can refresh mans
recollection ON croas-examlnation IN
any way you can. You can refresh
your own witness recollection In GER
tain very narrowly-dehned ways. But
| think that this win refresh the sena-
tors recollection fairly,
Mr. Northumberland l think he
should be asked whether his recollec-
ton can be refreshed by being in
formed that somebody else testified 10
years ago. In another judicial proceed
o. pnVaafllnn ~ tho Mind ham
pened--a proceeding OF which he never
heard until now.
The Chalrman-Why not ask the sem
ator the direct question II any cere-
money Of that kind was performed2
Mr.. Worthngton-Yesi / have no OBJ
lection 10 that
Mr.. Tayler-If the chairman thinks
that that is the proper course
The Chairman-It will serve TO re-
fresh his memory, possibly.
Mr. Tayler--Does the question ! have
asked, Senator refresh your memory
Senator Smoot-No, MI Tayler, II
does not
Mr. Tayler--Then you have no recol-
lection TO anything Of the sort, said 10
have been testified to as having oc-
Cured in connection with amounting
the arm during the early part Of the
ceremony?
Senator Smoot-No, sir; do not
MIR. Tayler-Dld any such thing oc-
cur at that point2
Senator Smoot--Not as ! remember,
Mr.. Tayler--ls II a mere case OF
Darkness OF memory Is that all you
can say about this business?
Senator Smoot-l do not know Mr.
Tayler; | cannot eau It TO mind IN any
way
The Chairman-Is that all, Mr., Tay-
ler2
Mr.. Tayler--Yes,
The Chalrman--Let me ask a ques-
ton, because ] am sure, Senator, you
want to be understood, How long did
Il take TO perform this ceremony
Senator Smoothly judgment would
be from the beginning TO- the end about
three or four hours
The Chalrman-Were others present?
Senator Smoot-Whcn went
through?
The Chairmau-Hes,
Senator Smoot-Yes.
The Chairman How many2
Senator Smoot or forty /
should think; may DE not so many
The Chalrman-Wil you state that
ceremony?
senator Smoot--G could not do It,
The Chalrman--State what you are
able 10 roCall2
Senator Smoot-I would very much
prefer not to, Mr.. Chairman.
The Chairman-Why not?
Senator smoot-l'or conscientious
reasons. want TO say this, Mr.. Chair
man
The Chalrman-Lct me inquire.
Senator Fora6er-Lct the witness
answer.
The Chairman--Co Certainly; the senator
shall have ample opportunity
Senator Toraker-He ia answering
now. aud l should like 20 have the
benefit OF his answer at this point,
Senator Smoot--I have conscientious
reasons for Il. ! made vow, not am
oath. with my God, not with any man,
not with the President of the Church or
with n living soul but ] did make n
vow that ] would keep those endow-
4 a NOD al