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


Mr, Cannon. No
The Chairman No change In the ceremony
or obUEations7
Mr.. Cannon. No. q: 7sl. 7a9)
Tho next witness called by tho protest
ants was Moses Thatcher. After counsel
for the protestants had finished their eX-
animation OF Mr.. Thatcher. the following
occurred,
The Chairman. Ono other question; The en-
dowment houee, 1 believe. hns been token
DOWN.
Mr.. Thatcher That is MS I understand f.
1t has been tnken down.
Tho Chairman. Has the ceremony OF the
that performed now7
Mr. Thatcher. l am just trying to think
the light An which l went through the
dowment house. to give you correct answer
on that, but my Impressions that the
ceremony hos not been changed.
The Chairman, You have seen the ceremony
Mr.. Thatcher l think l have heard II.
The Chairman And you think there is no
change in 1T?
=, The Chairman; When did you go through
the endowment house?
Mr, Thatcher. My Impressions arc when 1
married the wito OF my youth-ln 1861.
The Chairman. VIII you state TO tho COM
| do not mean tho ceremony OF marriage. but
did you go through the endowment house
when you became an apostle?
Mr Thatcher No. sir. It was not necee-
Tho Chairman You have been through the
Mr., Thatcher. Yes sir
The Chairman. VIII you Utnte to the com.
Mr.. Thatcher. think, Ar Chairman. that
might be excused on that
Mr. Chairman. Why7
Mr.. Thatcher. For the reason that those
were held to be tacred matters and only per
taining TO religious vowe
The Chairman. Are you obligated not TO
Mr.. Thatcher. Yes: I think am.
Tho Chairman. What would be tho effect
ia
there any penalty attaohed7
Mr.. Thatcher, There would be no effect ex-
cept upon my own conscience.
Mr.. Thatcher. That is all
as a part OF the ceremony not to reveal ~
such obligation a: lo4s iO1s)
This was all the testimony on the sub
ject of the alleged oath or obligation TAX
en- during the sessions OF the committee
held in the spring of 1904, The last ses-
sion when testimony was taken during
1904 When the taking of testimony was
resumed In December, 1904. counsel for
the protestants produced and examined
substance of whose testimony will now be
stated.
] H. Wallis. sr,, who had been a Nor
mon but who had formally notified the
bishop of his ward. seven or eight months
before he was examined that he no long
er considered himself a member of the
church, testified that on several coca
sions he had taken HE endowmente In
the temple at Salt Lake City. When
first examined he said that he did not
know whether he had II exactly right;
oath of vengeance" Is that those who
took IT promised and vowed that they
will never cease to importunc high
Heaven to ayenge the blood OF the proph-
habitants of the earth He added that
II his memory served him, he thought
that was about right. and that passage
of scripture Is quoted from the Revcla-
tions. sixth chapter. ninth verse e; i9D
Tho next day Mr.. Wallis was recalled
and testified that In repeating the obli-
he should have said upon this nation
sStfaa eaTth q e. 1iSS pOn the inhabitants OF '"e
Two witnesses were called on behalf
One of them Moroni Gillespie. who had
been member of the police force In
Salt Lake City for eleven or twelve
yeas, testified that he knew Wallis's
general reputation for truth and veracity
In the community in which he lived; that
1t was bad, and that he would not be-
fled that he had never been arrested.
This witness testified that he was pres
ent In the police court on one occasion
when Wallis was under arrest and plead
further testified that he had
known Wallis for several years and that.
In his opinion. he was not altogether OF
sound mind g. 317. SlS)
The other witness as to the veracity
of Wallis was William Langton e. 1872.
3, 143. 14D. Neither his testimony nor
paired In any way. His conclusion, from
what he had seen of Wallis, was that
the man was crazy. He further testified
thnt. in his opinion. Wallis's general rep
that he would not believe him on oath.
When Langton was asked by counsel
for the respondent to give his reasons
for thinking that Wallis was of unsound
mind. objection was made by the counsel
for the protestants and the objection
was sustained g; HD, But subsequently
reasons, which he did at length e; 400
August w. Lundstrom another witness
for the protestants, testified that he had
taken the endowment six times, and that
the obligation In question was:
We and each OF us solemly promise and
blood OF Joseph Smith upon this nation e:
lS1-l52.)
He subsequently slightly varies this
statement by saying that the prayer was;
avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon
this nation" e.; 16l)
Three witnesses were called on behalf
Of the respondent to impeach Lundstrom;;
One of them, f, S. Fern9trom testified
that he had known Lundstrom for about
fourteen years, and Lundstroms general
reputation Tor truth In the community
In which he lived was bad. and that he,
would not believe him under
oath. On cross-eXamination by counsel
for the protestantS the fact was brought
out that Lundstrom had borrowed from
his bishop part of a fund which the
bishop had collected for the support OF
the poor. and that when asked by the
bishop to return the money. Lundstrom
refused to do 1t, saying that the church
owed him a living. e.; 1922
One of these witnesses. c. V. Ander-
son. testified that he knew Dundstroms
reputation for veracity In Salt
Lake City. where he lived. that 1t was
bad, and that the witness did not think
he would believe Lundstrom on oath.
e; l0l3)
]. H Hayward was the third witness
on this subject He testified that he had
known Lundstrom for many years. the
latter having been at one time In his
employ; that he knew Lundstrom's gen
eral reputation for truth and veracity In
Salt Lake City, where he lived; that It
was bad, and that from his reputation
the witness would not believe him under
oath.
This evidence as to Lundstroms repu-
tation for truth and veracity was not re-
butted in any way.
The third and last witness called by the
during the sessions of the
holl In hay