Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-02-13

| Senator Smoot / understand so.
Mr.. Tayler. When God commands,
as you interpret II. II Is equally q conf
mand whether It is TO do one thing or
another, IS it?
Senator smool I think so. but he
did not command man to go into
polygamy or 70 practise It,
mt. Taylcr. ] understand.
senator Smoot II was pernissive
and not mandatory
Such was the testimony on that point
by Senator Smoot. AS is seen. IT Is di-
rectly contrary to that ascribod 20 him
by the Senator from Arkansas. The
same Is true Of another statement by
the senator He alleges that:
"AIr smoo. also had said that mem-
hors Of the Mormon Church did receive
revelations from God and that II such
revelation should come TO him
tSmooO which was In conflict with the
oath he had taken as senator he would
Leave the country before he would obey
the senatorial oath and the Constitu-
ton Of his country"
Here is the testimony OF Senator
smot on that point:
Senator Overman Then III you
yourself got d revelation from heaven
/ understand you would regard that as
superior to the law Of the land. and
would have 10 submit to it or leave the
country?
Senator Smoot. That would be
revelation from God to me direct, and
Il believed that Il was from God 1
would consider 1t compulsory on me to
obey II, and as I stated, Senator, II I
lived IN this country and that command
of God was against the laws of my
country | would move to some other
country where l could obey that law"
Furthermore Senator Smoot testified
that he considered 1t improbable that
The Lord would give revelation con-
trary to the laws OF the land. since
obedience TO the laws is one of the fun
damental principles of His Church.
Here is the testimony:
Senator Knox. II there should be
revelation now that commanded you 10
dlsobey the law of the land. that reve-
lation would be in conflict with one of
the fundamental principles of your re-
llyion?
Senator Smoot. 1t would
Senator Foraker. l understood you
to say that rather than to undertake
to obey such a revelation YOU would
leave the country and go where the law
of the land would permit obedience TO
the revelation?
Senator Smoot. Yes IL God had
given 1t to me himself, then I would.
because I would feel then that l was
under direct obligation 10 my Maker "a
carry out what He revealed directly to
me. and II could not do 1t in this
country / would go to some other
country where ] could"
Senator smoot, it will be seen. did
not say that he would rather leave the
country than to obey the senatorial
oath and the Constitution of his coun-
try What he did say was that. IF his
choice were between a divine revelation
and the laws of the land. he would
rather leave the country than to break
the laws That Is Just what the Pill
srims did who came to this country TO
worship according to the dictates of
their consciences. We hope the Pilgrim
fathers were not by so doing dis
qualified for a seat in the United States
Senate.
What induced Senator Berry TO mis-
quote Senator Smoot, although the
record is available, is not for us to
say. He assured the Senate that he was
not preiudiced. Then he put words into
the mouth of his colleague which he
never uttered. He referred TO the Sem
ate proceedings In the past against
criminals" as II Senator Smoot was
one of them. He alluded to a deplor-
able incident OF the history of Utah,
that took place before Senator Smoot
was born. as if he could be held respon-
slble for that Taken all in all, the eff
fort is a pitiable appeal to the preju-
dices of a certain class of snti-"Mor-
mons"