The Washington times., 1905-01-27
ARGUMENT FOR
SMOOT BEGUN
Church Interference Is Line
of Defense.
PARKER KNITTED I'M IDAHO
Charge, Not That Smoot Violated a
Law, But That He May
Do So.
PARKER KNITTED IN IDAHO

Does your argument 1OT the OiSquaii-
1cation of Senator Snoot apply with
equal force to all Mormons?
Does 1t apply TO all persons VINO be-
l,.ye that they receive insti uction from
God in any manner?
"Would Senator Smoot be disqualified
because he is a Mormon. il Mormonism
had never been tainted by polygamy?''
With these three questions addressed
to Attorney Tayier Senator Knox open
ed this mornings session Of the Smoot
inquiry.
Mr.. Tayler's Responses
To the first question M Tayler an
swered no. AS an apostle. Senator Smoot
was a member OF a body which dictat-
ed TO the entire church. even the presi
dency. AS such he encourages the vio-
lation OF law
To the second, he answered yes, hold
ing that any such person was constitu-
tionaly incapable OF being a member of
a Inan-rnade government.
The third, he said. was practically in
cluded in the others, admitting there
would have been no protest had it not
been for polygamy. That. however. was
only an incident of Mormonism, the
whole being based upon the doctrine OF
revelation
Arguments for Defense.
Attorney Van Cott then opened the ar
gument for the defense, stating that il
would De along the lines of the inter
ference of the church in temporal af-
fairs. particularly politics lie called
attention to the fact that until 1880,
the Mor.nons, for many years. had been
excluded from politics
Naturally they We're Democrats. but
when they realized that their immediate
interests Were benefited by protection.
there accordingly followed a revulsion.
Senator Sm0ot." he said, is not
| charged with violation OF law but with
believing in revelation, with holding a
| religious belief He has never received
! q revelation but he IS To be punished
F; for something he may commit
| All Mormons Alike,
Following along these lines, Mr.. Van
| Cott argued that there was fallacy In
/ Attorney TayIer's answer 10 Senator
! Knox. that the apostle should not sit in
the Senate while another membc,' of
| the church could do 50 without harm.
( The attorney thought If an apostle was
| to be kept cut OF Office because of his
| belief in a revelation. the same ruling
| should hold good in all cases. since all
Morrncns, whether apostles or not, be-
/ iieve IN the theory and practice of re-
ceiYinc revelations.
! Mr.. Van Cott next took up the mani
| fesio of 1880.
! '.If the belief in modern revelation was
| the purpose which Mr.. Tayler represents
! il to be- said Mr.. Van Cott. would II
J not have beer commented on in the en-
! abl;ng act of Titan, when the Gentiles
had II in their power TO prevent the
| as9rnisslon of tie State if they had 50
Gctermined?''
| Senator Beveridge interrupted at this
roint TO :-quire whether il was true
| that the Mormons. IN addition to seas
| ing the practice of polygamy, rs the
| attorney cIaimed they did in 1880. also
ceased teaching polygamy-
! Mr. Van Cott said he would answer
| ..Yrs.. IA the question. but that Mr
| Worfhington would reply in his argu-
| ryent later on.
RcsuminG his narrative, MI Van Cot
| (Continued on Third Page)