The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-03-26
WHY THE DISCRIMINATION?


The Senate during its closing session
! appropriated sl5.00o TO reimburse Mr..
. Reed Smoot for expenses in defending his
prlete either Sl5.ooO or $500 OF any
I other sum 10 pay the expenses OF The
protestants against tho admission OF Mr.
/ Smoot. notwithstanding Senator McLaurin
I showed that the Senate had reimbursed
| the protestants in a. similar case. that
OF Senator Nathan r. Scott In 1899,
! to pay whom (tho protcstantS McGraw
and forty-threc members OF tho West
/ Virginia Legislature and other citizens
/ Of that StateI $3.50 was voted by tho
| Senate for expenses and counsel fees. IT
! Mir. Shoots expenses we're to bo paid
those Of the protestants also should have
/ been. Why was that discrimination
! made de?-Northwestern Christian Advo-
| cate.
! That is a hard question. Admitting
shat Apostle Smoot' S expenses should
have been paid By the Nation-cveu if
the collectors for the polygamous cult
did levy special tribute upon the mass
of the tithe payers to meet the extra
ordinary expenses incurred by "The
Brethren, - to protect Apostle Smoot in
his scat: il becomes matter Of increas-
ing wondcrmcnt that Senators should
have failed TO regard the precedent in
er a handsome counsel fee Divided
into proper proportions, there would
have been $4,000 for the firm of which
Senator George Sutherland was former
ly member, and $1,000 for the Wash
ington lawyer who seems to have a
speciality of peculiar cases. According
TO the statment made by the apostle
l. l.
pcnscs, and this amount did not half
reimburse him. lie should have been
compelled to file a detailed statement
of the moneys paid by him in this con
test, as others have been required to do
in the past. Such a detailed statement
would have made very interesting read.
ing for the American people The
money came from the National treas
ury, and the people had a right to know
what sums were paid by Apostle Smoot
and who received such moneys The
mere reduction of the bill to $4,000,
which was a small percentage of his
entire expense, did not change the fact
that an accounting should have been
filed showing every outlay Of cash made
by the apostle In this fight. Then, too,
there might have been an obligation at
tached TO the clause of the bill appro.
priating the money, that those individ-
ual tithe payers of the church who
have been subjected by the priests to
a special tax should receive return or
a percentage return of their money
And when all these things had been
done. in scanning the accounts of the |
apostle and perfecting a method for the |
proper distribution of the appropri-
ated cash, it would still have remained |
a palpable duty for the Senate to re- !
imbursc the protestants. The precedent |
was unquestiouably on their side; and |
while they asked for no sympathy, the |
motives which prompted them were
such as to demand consideration from |
the Senate
Apostle Smoot was supported by a
rich and powerful kingdom as its en-
bassador; it is not likely that he e1-
pended one dollar of his personal |
money in this conflict; if he did do so, |
then how shall the priests account to
their followers for the special demand |
made by the tithc collectors upon the |
poor producers of the Mormon church |
to give additional moneys to aid 'tThc |
Brethren in making their big fight |
at Washington.
On the other hand, the protestants |
were acting unselhshly and in spirit
Of patriotic devotion TO the Nation and
the State. They had no money, position
or other emolument to gain; their sole
desire was TO protect this common
wealth and this Nation from a definite
assault upon its sanctitics by the polyg-
amous rulers OF a law breaking and
alien kingdom, Inasmuch as the pre-
cedent was favorable to the appropria-
ton, the refusal of the Senate TO adopt !
the suggestion of Senator McLaurin
remains unaccountable.
IL is no wonder that the citizenship
Of this country is asking the question
propoupded by the Northwestern Chris