The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-01-23
DEFENDS FAITH
OF THE M0RM0NS

U6FENDS FAIiH
OF THE M0RM0NS
/ Continued from Page ].
the protest signed by nineteen citizens OF
Salt Lake. and the second. the special
protest signed by John l.. Leilich. He
said that the general protests. expressly
alleged that the offenses OF Senator
Smoot were not offensss pnishahls by
law. which means. il " means anything
fPat ne a y nG res snsssN ~ eneaga
in a conspiracy with anF either person 20
/ violate the laws Of the state Of ut2h with
sRa 5! e ealYE3a af ss e9sl ssae
! land said. charges SenataP Smoot in spe-
! eifie terms With being q nnlygamist inns
} charge when made Was -repudiated by the
other professionals. their Reputation being
sent by telegraph. 1t was repudi8ted 10y
counsel for the professionals in his OPEN
ing speech TO the committee on privileges
and elections. No proof was made re-
/ spectng IT, and there was much evidence
in the record 10 the contrary.
smoot Not Polyg.
! 1t is conceded by everybody that he is
not a polygamist and never has been;
| that his conduct in that respect is en-
/ tirely above reproach. Notwithstanding
| this. however. Senator Sutherland said,
/ this false charge has been given wide
circulation and general credence through
| out the country. The charge has been
reiterated by irresponsible persons and
newspapers time and time again. He
! quoted from newspapers articles contain
! ing these charges, wherein il was stated
that Smoot was polNSamlst. and some
or these pubiicatlOns We're probably pub
/ lished in good faith. One Clemenson. a
/ Presby tarian minister, who lived I'm Utah
nearly all his life has gone mp and down
the country as shown by the public press.
delivering speeches charging senator
Smoot iE specific terms with having mar
ried two plural wives going so far as
TO give their names and other details.
This charge is utterly false and without
foundation. Senator Sutherland de-
nounced CIemenson for his mendacity.
senator Sutherland then took up tho
question OF the conflicting oaths
Oath Taken by Apostles.
The charge is made by Leilich. he
said, that Senator Smoot has taken an
oath or obligation as apostle or as
member Of the Mormon church. incOn-
sistent with his obligation as a senator.
1T is significant that this charge is not
made by the general prOtestants. This
charge, like the charge of pOlygamy. is
also repudiated by the other protestants;
il is also reDudiated by counsel for the
prOtestants. aud was not an issue until
the case had proceeded for some time.
Then. some witnesses We're produced who
testified that in the endowment house
ceremonies an oath was taken which inn
ported hostility TO the government. Sew
eral of these witnesses were shown 10 be
persons of had repute, and their testi-
mony was emphatically denied by a large
number of persons who had been former
members of the church and had gone
through the endowment house ceremo-
MES"
Senator Sutherland made an elaborate
analysis Of the testimony of the witnesses
who appeared before the committee on
privileges and elections similar to the
manner in which ne would aualyze' the
Testimony If witnesses before a jury, and
made il clear that there was absolutely
nothing in the charge of having taken an
inconsistent oath. He then reverted again
TO the charges in the general protests
that SmOOts offenses were not cOgniZablo
IN law, these offenses being first that
polygamy and polygamOus cohabitatiOn
are still practiced by the members Of the
Mormon church and second that the
church claims q right and exercises au-
thority to interfere in the political az
fairs OF its members.
Doctrine of Polygamy.
Senator Sutherland said that when the
people went to Utah I'm 1917 they carried
the doctrine of pOlygamy with them;
that IL was openly practiced and pro-
claimed by Brigham Young as early as
1889, and that congress knew that poly
gaIny was VIGOROUSLY practiced and that
no steps were taken until the law Of 1862
was passed and that practically nothing
was done in the way OF enforcing IL. but
il remained a dead letter on the statute
books. No more than two or three cases
were prosecuted under the law, the first
being that Of George Reynolds, fourteen
years after the law was enacted. This
condition remained until 1882, when the
Edmonds law was passed. The EdmOuds
law in addition TO re-enacting Tire law
of 1852 on the subject of polygamy, defined
and punished the crime of pOlygamOus
cohabitatiOn. This law was vigorously
enforced. beginning in 1884. More than
2Oe0 people were convicted and sent 10
prison. So vigorous was the prosecution
and so strong became the pressure from
outside and inside the church that in a
comparatively short time six years, the
manifesto of the church forbidding the
members of the church TO practice poly
gamy was issued. In 1891 the pro-church
or peoples party was disbanded. and or
CARNATIONS effected along national party
lines. In 1896 the state was admitted to
the union. Previous 10 1891 there were no
political organizations except "A pro-
church and an ant-church party. BY
the enabling act passed by congress in
1894 il was provided that the constitution
of the new state should contain n pro-
vision guaranteeing perfect federation of
religious sentiment with the proviso that
pOlygamous marriages should be forever
prohibited. This provision IS significant
IN two respects.
Polysamy an Article of Faith.
First. the prohibition Of polygamous
marriages is in the form OF proviso
of religious federation. A provso is to
be construed with reference 10 the para