Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-08-10


! spokesman for the protestants contra
dieting himself the following from the
voluninous testimony may be quoted;
MIR Van Colt wish you would
give your opinion AS TO what extent
/ the Mormon Church has interferled,
II at all, In your opinion. In politics,
and as to the Independence in politics
OF the Mormon people In voting, and
their constanoy In ndncrihB to their
party lines.
mir. Mcconnell. have an opinion
| which was written by an eminent au-
| thority on this sub1ect which ! viii
4 be willing to give as my opinion also,
! In regard TO that because | fully con-
/ CURED at the time with this opinion.
ana | stlll do. / think II WAS express
cd very clearly and correctly.
senator McComas. You have been
asked 10 give your own
Mr Me- OnneL Wlr give this as
my own. II 1t is permissible.
The change from the Old condition
OF church soldity was not instnntane-
Gus. nor could 1t be eXerted by any
other process than that of evolution
slow at times. and at times almost
seeming a steady movement toward
the end Of the perfect political liberty
for all the men and women who give
their allegiance TO the church. Looking
back over the campaigns of rstuait
years, the mark Of the individual ac-
ton Is plainly manifested upon every
important event In the states where
Mormons existed IN sufficient numbers
to make their political action notice.
able. l VIII not question that strong
men In the Mormon church of more or
less prominence, assert their views In
such way as TO make an overshadow-
ing influence upon the minds of their
followers. In some cases this nav
even be matter OF preconcertion and
calculation among the leading men,
and IN many other cases 1t may be
but the result of enthusiasm in
political controversy which as it
grows warmer and warmer toward the
close make greater and greater eN-
ertions upon the intense spirits on
both sides.
But in the main. the leading men
of the Mormon church, so far as my
observation goes, have abstained from
invoking ecclesiastical authority in the
guidance of political events, and have
been content to- either remain quies.
cent, or even silent. in politics, or at
most to assert themselves merely as in
dividuals. And even in these cases
where n charge of church Interference
would justly lie, If at all, 1t IL matter
of oongratulation that the people have
expressed their own Individual infu-
ence In their party councils and at the
ballot boxes and have neither sought
nor needed the attempted control of po-
litical matters by ecclesiastical power.
MY own observation is that minor
CHI CHI officials are more likely to at
tempt the use of this influence than
the presidency or apostles. / call to
mind two or three instances where men
holding local authority in the church
attempted to sway their local elections
by invoking the names of the leaders
of the church, and when confronted by
demand for positive proof were COM
PEELED to acknowledge that they had no
instructions from the church head
quarters at Salt Lake.
My own impression is that the
church. having renowned the purpose
OF debating to its members in political
aHairs, does not. as a church now seek
further dictation, and that the fight for
church control and the fight against
church control. as it was formerly
waged, are alike forever ended in Utah
and Idaho. a ground for such faith
is found In the known wisdom OF the
Mormon leaders and In the superb
strength of majority of Its follow
ers."
Senator Pettus. Who wrote that?
Mr.. Mcconnell. This is copied from an
interview with Senator Dubois publish
ed in the salt Lake Tribune of May
rs, 1885, Proceedings before the Com
mittee on Privileges and Elections, Vol.
II, PIP. 5O6-50S.)
And this anti-"Mormon" agitator on
record as here quoted, did not hesitate
to say the very opposite in the Sem
ate: ''In Utah." he said. there is a
Republican, Mormon party and a DEM
ocratic-Mormon party. both controlled
by the Mormon hierarchy" That this
was contradiction of what he had
said formerly must have been apparent
to all who heard him. Such contra
diction characterized the anti-"Mor-
mon testimony from the beginning to
the end. Is it any wonder that the
Senate refused to accept it as true?