The Washington times., 1905-01-26
TAYLER DECLARES
SMOOT INELIGIBLE
Argues on Basis of Revelation Testimony
That Utah Senator Fails to Declare
Allegiance Openly and Fully.

The opening argument IN behalf of the
protestants in the Smoot inquiry was
begun today by Attorney R. w Tayler
before the Senate Committee on Privt-
leges and Elections Mr.. Tayler spoke
for one hour. IN whichztf.ne he laid the
foundation of his argument for the un-
seating of Senator Smoot-
Attorney Tayier emphasized especially
the failure of Senator Smoot to declare
openly and freely his full allegiance te
the Constitution of the United States,
but instead, his declaration that he
would move to some other land" in
case he had a revelation which he could
not ooey while remaining here
All Based On Revelation.
Mr.. Tayler declared tnat the subject OF
"a revelation was the handspring of the
whole Mormon Church II is not, he ar
gued. that the Mormon considers himself
plain. common lawbreaker such as I'LL
the jails, but that he persuades himself
that he is obeying higher law by dis
obeying the law of the land.
There was q good deal Of time con-
suned in debate between Attorney Tay-
Ter and Senators on questions as to the
fundamental law. but this ended when
Senator Pettus objected to it. The Sena-
tors present were Chairman Burrows,
Knox, McConaas, Dillingham;, Beveridge
Pettus, Dubois, Bailey. and Overman, all
OF the committee. There were also pres
emf Senators Spooner and Long.
Senator Smoot and his attorneys lis
tened attentively. but. of course, made
no comment
Carlisle to Close.
After Mr.. Tayle= has concluded his
opening argument and the counsel fo1
Senator STnoot haze taken their turn
Mr.. Tayler will speak again, and John
G. Carlisle viii then close the case by :
constitutional argument
Tsyler Begins Els Address.
n beginning his argument Bdr. Taylel
addressed himself 20 the committee as
follows:
Mr.. Chairman and Members OF IN,
Committee: 1 am reminded that it /!
| more than a year since this investiga
ton was instituted and tEae hearing.
commenced by the committee Sine,
that time probably six weeks time ha!
| beer taken Up in the hearing of testt
r2lony from witnesses summoned here
l have 10 thought of induiging in an!
oratorical flight or travelling outside tn
limits OF what seems pertinent to thi
| inquiry. 1t viii perhaps add 70 lucidft!
and also 10 brevity to have members III
| terrupt me at any time they desire nl
to explain more n detail any matte
upon which 1 am dwelling. A very larg
| amount of testimony has been taken
and only those who have sat through !
all know how much pertinence 1t has I
/ the case.
i have no need to emphasize the i'm
portance OF this inquiry. 1t interest
| the high powers and the dignity Of tn
Senate IL is purely a question OF Law
and government, whose foundation
| law 1t is not primarily question o
| morals, except rs that has been tn
| basis of the demand for this inquiry
| But in the large view we must take 0
! the matter this view is iInmaterial ex
cept as il relates TO law and govern
rlent.
The Main Question.
THE question which in brief con
Germs this committee is: Should an
man sit as a member Of the highes
| body who cannot. no matter how h
may gloss over the subject by words
declare plainly his ability to obey tn
law and see to It's enforcement: wh
can disobey the law because that LAY
does not speak to him? When we com
TO such n state Of affairs, then W
reach right down to the very roots c
| government.
Another observation of this pre-