The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-06-12

ton OF the number OF polygamous fami-
lies and the rapid approach of the time
has come natural Strengthening OF the
sentiment. The testimony In this respect
Is set forth at length in the annexed
statement, but we make the following
quotations In order that II may appear In
this summary that there Is this common
disposition. among non-Mormons as we'll
as Mormons.
Judge William Mccarthy OF the su-
preme court Of Utah, non Mormon and
an uncompromising opponent Of polyga-
my, who has held many Important offices
OF trust among others that OF Assistant
United States Attorney for Utah. and
who, as such. was charged with the duty
of prosecuting these offenses, testified as
follows
cohabitation) before the United States Com
missioncrs up until 1888. when the United
States Attorney refused to allow my accounts
for services for that kind OF work; and then
l quit md confined my Investigations before
the grand jury in those casos.
In explanation of his action he testified
we quote from the annexed statement:
That no found the press against the
prosecutions: that the public prosecutor. whose
attention he invited TO the matter. refused to
proceed. From this and other facts which
came 10 his knowledge. Judge Mccarthy
reached the conclusion that the public senti
mcnt was against interfering with men in
their polygnmous relations who had married
before tho manifesto,
r. B. Critchlow, a Mormon attor-
ney at law of Salt Lake City, one OF the
principal managers of this proceeding
against Mr.. Smoot, who gave the case
his personal attention, attending most of
the meetings OF committee. testified be-
fore the committee, again quoting from
annexed statement;
That after the manifesto of 1890 thcre was no
inclination on the part of the prosecuting Of
hcer TO push theee matters az TO present
habitation.' thinking 1t was matter that
would Immediately die OUT that IL was we'll
known that Apostle John Henry Smith was
living in unlawful cohabltation, that nom
Mormons generally made no objection to IT,
that they were disposed Ito let things co.
and that that was the general feeling from
tho time OF the manifesto in 1890. down to
very recent times-pretty nearly up to date,
or practically up 10 date "
Mr. Critchlow further testified that the
nom n-Mormons were disposed to overlook
the continuous Dolygamous cohabItation
of those who had taken plural wives be-
fore the manifesto, because they. the nom
Mormons. felt satisfied that there would
be no more plural marriages. that the
thing would work Itself out In the future,
and that where the polygamists had their
wives in separate houses and simply kept
up the old relations without the offensive
Haunting of them before the public. 1t
had been practically passed over
Orlando w Powers, esq. leading law
yer of Utah. who was associate justice OF
the supreme court OF the Territory, and
who showed by his testimony much hos
tility to the Mormon Church. testified
that there was this general feeling after
the manifesto not to interfere with those
whose marriages were prior thereto He
then added, There Is question for
statesmen to solve. We have not known
what was best to do. IL has been dis
and such n man ought to be prosecuted.
Then they would consider whether
anything would be gained: whether we
would not delay instead Of Fastening the