The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-06-20
WHY WAS TAYLOR OUSTED?

We must have sized the matter up
right when we concluded that Apostle
Taylor was not resigned from his
quorum because of his polygamy, but
because he disputed President Joseph
T. Smith s right to dictate to him in
his personal affairs and civil rights.
We Judge so because of the fury of
the Descret News about it. The News
rails because we. did not quote the
whole Of Taylor s letter. But We
quoted precisely as the News quoted.
What we used was what appeared in
the editorial columns Of the News on
Monday evening, aud we used 1T all
precisely as the News had ii. At the
same time. we intimsted that that was
probably not all of the letter. But we
took it as we found it.
Now. however, that the News has
furnished what it claims TO be the
whole of this Taylor letter, we arc glad
TO print it entire, as follows:
] wish 10 state In the first place that [
have not violated the laws Of the United
States, nor OF the State OF Utah. in rela-
ton To polygamous or plural marriages,
also that the authorities Of the church
have not directed or authorized me 10 do
SO. or TO do anything contrary to the rules
Of the church adopted by that body.
But ] find that ] have been out OF har-
mouy with the said authorities as to the
scope and meaning Of the manifesto is
sued by President Woodruff and adopted
by the general conference on October 5.
1890, and also as TO the meaning OF the
last clause OF the petition for amnesty
To President Benjamin Harrison In Dc
cember 1891. ] have always believed that
The government Of the United States had
jurisdiction only within its own boun-
dlrias. and That the term laws OF the
land" in the manifesto meant merely the
laws OF tho United States. | find now
that this opinion is different 10 that eX
have declared that the prohibition against
plural marriages extended TO every place
and to every part Of the church II Is
ter has been given by President Wood
ruff and others. but | have never taken
that binding upon nc or the church.
because IL lsuch interpretation WAS never
presented for adoption by common con-
sent was the manifesto itself, and
have disputed It's authority as law or
a rule of tho church
[ acknowledge that ! received n re
quest from President Joseph r. smith
by letter, TO appear as witness in the
Reed Smoot case before the Senate COM
mittee on Privileges and Elections. But
] declined to do so because, while ! rec
oSnze his right 10 direct me in church
affairs ] do not think his authority eN
should expose my family concerns and
be questioned and he'd UP 10 public ig-
nominy as some of nv brethren were be-
fore that body; aud I still hold the same
views upon that matter.
Inasmuch | have not been in har-
n1ony with my brethren on these subjects,
and / have been called In question con-
cernins them, ] now submit to their dis
cipine, and To save further controversy.
tender this my resignation, and hope for
such clemency in my case as they may
deem right and just and nlercilul Your
brother JOHN w. TAYLOR,
Now, we do not know that this is
all of the Taylor letter, probably 1t is
not; but it is. what the News furnishes
as the Taylor letter. And we wish
to call attention to il especially, III
view Of the fact that the News is
so furious on account of our interpre-
tation Of it, We concluded from the
extract which we copied from the
News, that the real reason why Taylor
| and Cowley were resigned from their
, apostleships was that they disputed tho
right Of President Joseph r. Smith to
command them 20 90 TO Washington to
! testify for Smoot, with the distress
! humiliation, and exposure which that
appearance on the witness stand would
impose
And now, we ask in all candor if
that is not a fair Interpretation of
Taylor position. His refusal TO 20
to Smoot g support was certainly
one of theac subjects in which
Apostle Taylor WAS ont of harmony
with his brethren; he expressly puts
il SO. And that was enough for his
deposition, in strict accord with the
Thatcher precedent, where that apostl lie
WAS ousted for lack Of harmony with
\ his quorum in matters involving his
personal and political rights. Is it moi
reasonable to suppose that this
Thatcher precedent, which served Sc