Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-02-18
Able Argument Opposing Resolu-
ton Reported Against Senior
Utah Senator.
KEARNS CROWD DON'T LIKE IT.
Inferentinlly and Actually Gives Them
Jolts That Make Them Dizzy
When They Think


former United states attorney general
and now United States senator from
Pennsylvania delivered IN the dis
tingulshed body 10 which he belongs.
on Feb. H. 1t has made the Kearns
crowd hereabouts. and throughout the
country, squiim, and has given them
Chat dizzy feeling" when they try to
think. Readers OF the News Will app
ureclate it In It's entirety, and thus 1t
is reproduced MIR, Knox said
Mr.. President: The Territory Of Utah
was admitted as ii state by proclama-
ton Of the president on Jan. 4. 1886 t25
Stat L.. 500, that territory having, ~
the adoption OK its constitution or NOV.
., 1925, fully complied with the terms or
the enabling act of July 10, 1874 'zS
Stat, L.. 1919. This enabling act stated
the terms upon which utah Wouiu pe
admitted into the Union
Congress by this act authorized the
admission OF Utah ON condition mat lts
convention should PASS 40 ordinance
irrevocable without the consent OF
the United states ana the people OF
said state providing FIRST that per
feet federation OF religious sentiment
shall be secured and THAI no inhabitant
OF said state shall ever be molested IN
person or property on account OF ms or
her mode Of religious worship: Pro
ylded. That plygamous OF plural mar
riages are forever prohibited
This was the agreement between the
people of the Territory of Utah and the
United States, the condition upon
which. for their mutual benefit, the
state was admitted.
II constitutes a compact concerning
the Mormon question in Utah. The Nor
mons We're to forever prohibit the max
ing OF plural marriages otherwise they
Iver. not to be disturbed about their
religion. Fettcra ON their minds were
not sought TO be imposed. The de-
stTuction of their existing families was
not required.
Utah was admitted on equal terms
with the other states. since by reason
of the Constitution IL had 10 be. she is
entitled inter ALA to representation IN
the senate. If any valid condition was
imposed upon hon it was the irrevocable
ordinance providing for perfect tolera-
tion OF religious sentiment ana pro-
hibitmg polygamous marriages.
Senator Smoot was regularly elected
TO represent the equal State of Utah
in the senate. The senate Is now asked
10 expel him and deprive the state OF
one of its Votes arbitrarily. Can IL do
SOP Certainly IL has the power. but
only as Congress has power to refuse
all appropriations on the senate to rati-
~ all treaties or confirm all
appointees,
Utah has not The power to maintain
its right TO representation, but TINS
fact adds 10 the necessity OF the SELL
ATE proceeding dispassionately and 1u-
diciaily when the right of statesto II
sena torial choice is challenged. III IL
We're otherwise The states would be
nothing more than nominating powers.
and the senate would merely confirm or
Ia ahYNTI Ian
This is not the proper Office of the sem
ate.
But should the senate eXpell Senator
Smoot, and why? He should not be eX-
PEELED foI believing in the Mormon re-
ligion. The irreVocable ordinance ex-
pressly, and With Mormonlsm In view,
guaranteed religious liberation In the
State OF Utah. He should not be eN-
PEELED for being member or officer OF
the Mormon Church for the same rea-
son. He should not be expelled for
the vindicatlon OF Utah's law, violated
by certain Mornons continuing polyg
amous relations with Senator Shoots
consent or .approval3 supposing he did
consent To- approve. for Utah. without
being ignorant of the facts, elected him
and tho senate would not be justified In
going out of Its way 10 enforce respect
for the formerly expressed will of Utah
embodied In its law against polygamous
relations by defeating It's later eX-
pressed viii shown IN it's clectmg
Smuut
For what, then should he be expelled
and Utah be deprived Of Al senatorial
VOteY
Is it for his violating or consonttne to
or approving the violation of federal
law?
There is no federal law against polyg-
amy or polygamous relations applicable
10 Utah now that Utah is a state, and
when she was admitted 10 the Union
of states It was known that there would
and could be none.
Why. then | repeat, should the sem
ate eXpe senator Smoot?
Because, first. It * claimed he Is
wicked In this, that some Of his friends
having cohabitcd with several women
before Utah became a state are con-
tlnuing TO do so until death, and that
he approves or them as officers OF n
church which does not chastise them
Tor 50 doing. and, second, because he Is
u Mormon and thv Mormon Church Is
u hierarchy dsoyal 10 our institutions
whose will he IL bound to obey.
Mr.. President the Constitution pro-
Nides that the senate shall be the judge
OF the qualifications Of It's members a
majority OF the senat" can determine
whether or not n senator Possesses
them. The Constitution also provides
that the senate may with the concur
renee Of tWo-thrds. expeil q member.
have Intentionally refpvcd 10 the
proposed action against Senator smoot
Hs expulsion ! do not think the sens
ate win seriously consider that any
question ~ involved except one Of eX-
pulsion, requiring a two-thlrds vote.
There Is no question as TO senator
Smoot possessing the qualifications pre-
scribed by the Constitution ara thcre-
fore we cannot deprive him Of his seat
by a majority vote. He WAS at the
lme of his election over 80 years OF
sge, and had been nine years citizen
~ the United states, and when clscted
Mas an inhabitant Of Utah, These are
Nc only qualifications named In the
Al institution, and II rs not In our power
~, say 10 the states these are not
all augh. we require other qualifications.
~ fto say that We cannot trust tho
MI gmont OF states I'm the selection OF
sey ltors, and we therefore insist upon
thAn right TO disapproye them for any
NM claim OF right to dsapprove Is
mo- ,eYen subject 10 any rule OF
thA senate specifying additional
an WMicatlons Of which the states have
mod Fi at the time ~ selecting their
sen RpDrs, but Il Is said To be absolute
IN an case az II arises, uncontrolled
BY ~ canon or theory whatever.
An one who takes the trouble 10
oKnrv dne the history OF the clause OF
the bnstiiulion as 10 the qualification
Of sxbatora must admit that a was
the lyeeult OF a compromiRc. The con.