Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-04-12
ARGUING SMOOT CASE
Mr.. Carlisle Opens for the Pro-
teStantS.
M0RM0NS IN POLITICS
Claims That the Church Dominates
Elections.
CRITICISES THE METHODS USED
Constitutional Argument on the
Eligibility of Senators Heard
With Interest.
cRITICISES THE METHODS USED

Arguments in the case of Senator Reed
Smoot were begun today before the Senate
committee on privileges and elections after
inquiry extending over three years into
his right to retain his seat. Former Secre-
tary of the Treasury John G. Carlisle
opened for the protestants. He will be fol-
lowed by A. S. Worthington of the counsel
for Mr.. Smoot. The members of the COM
mittee present were Chairman Burrows and
Messrs, Foraker. Knox, Dolliver, Diliing-
ham, Dubois, Bailey, Overman, Pettus and
Frazier.
The committee room was as crowded as
at any time since the investigation was be-
gun, most of the spectators being women.
Mr.. Smoot was present well as several
prominent Mormons, who have assisted
Mr.. Smoot in his defense. The Utah SEN
ator apparently was not concerned as to
the outcome of the proceedings.
Church Control in Politics.
Mr.. Carlisle reviewed first the testimony
OF President Joseph F. Smith and other
Mormon officials TO show that the first
presidency and the twelve apostles are a
seif-perpetuating body, responsible for
everything that is done either spiritual or
temporal Mr. Smoots membership in this
body, asserted Mr.. Carlisle, made him
equally responsible for any wrong doing
unde rthe laws of the nation.
He said the Mormon Church is more than
a church; it is a commercial and political
organization. He criticised at some length
church control over candidates. of its MEM
bers for public office and asserted that the
situation Is such that the politics of Utah
can be dominated by the Mormon Church
at will.
Senator Knox inquired of Mr.. Carlisle
whether he contended that the laws of the
..t,r ,Inr tHa
jurisdiction of the church laws when in
conflict with the laws Of the state and
nation.
Mr. Carlisle replied that was his conten-
tion and that the officers of the church
could do nothing without the consent of the
apostles, OF which Mr.. Smoot is one.
Speaking of the endowment house oaths,
Mr. Carlisle admitted that he did not know
he believed 1t could not be disputed that
some oath of the character described by
several witnesses is administered and that
each person taking the ceremony assumes
an obligation to avenge the blood of the
prophets upon this nation.
disqualification of Senators.
Discussing the constitutional provision re-
lating to the eligibility Of members of the
Senate. Mr.. Carlisle said that three dis
qualifications are enumerated insufficient
age, non-citizenship OF the United States
and nom citizenship Of the state for the
, requisite period, but that these are not all
of the disQualfications of which the Senate
may take cogniZance. He mentioned GER
tain classes oil lawbreakers, lunatics and
finally women.
Dissenting laughter from the women
greeted this classification and Mr.. Carlisle
paused moment to make his peace, during
which he said he hoped to see a constitu-
tional amendment that would admit them.
Mr.. Carlisle contended that the Senate or
House should determine the fitness of Its
members to serve, in the same manner as
If the constitutional provisions did not exist.
He declared that expulsion of senator
cannot be made because of something that
occurred prior to the beginning of his term /;
that expulsion must be for an act COM
mitted as a member of the legislative body,
and that this would require a two-thirds
vote of the Senate. He contended that the
case against Mr.. Smoot is to disqualify
him for service and that it can be done by
passing a resolution to the effect that the
Utah senator lacks the requisite qualifica-
tions, and the seat therefore can be vacated
by majority vote
Members of the committee took great in
terest in this argument Messrs Bailey,
Knox, Dillingham; and Dolliyer asking nu-
merous questions.
When Mr. Carlisle closed he announced
that he would not attempt to answer the
arguments of Mr. Worthington, which Will
be made tomorrow at 10 o'clock