The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-04-02
81 DEFY YOU TO PROVE IT."

And go, President Joseph T. Smith
is ont with another tdefi - to his "ene-
mics, - He has triumphed in the full
fillment of prophecy not made until
that event had occurred, and now he
advances upon his foes with chal-
lenge to provo the charge of interfer"
ence in politics. This ignores his own
testimony in Washington, where he spe"
to get permission TO be candidate, and
his statement that permission was
given. 1t ignores. also. the necessary
implication that when this permission
was applied for and granted, that made
Smoot the church candidate. That he
was the church candidate, openly and
notoriously recognized as such, and
that this made his election certain, was
so plain at the time Of the campaign
in his interest, that no other candidate
appeared; no man thought it worth his
while to spend time or thought in n
candidacy against the church candi-
date, and indeed it was not worth
while, Not only was there no Repub-
lican candidate against Smoot, but
there was no Democratic candidate J;
every one conceded that, Smoot. being
the church candidate, would be elected,
no matter what was the political com
plexiou of the Legislature. But of
course it was less scandalous to have
him elected by Republican Legis-
latl.rc; and as it was Just as easy for
the church to have that kind Of a
Legislature as any other, that kind was
returned. But any other kind of a
Legislature could have been returned
by the church authorities Just as we'll
had their programme called for it,
SO, the proof of church interference
i'll politics is amply proved by the
sworn testimony OF President Joseph f.
Smith.
But when other testimony than his
Is required, we have to fall back ou
results, just as we do VIXEN challenged
tn produce proof of po,ygan,ops n.arr
riages. There was always practically
prohibitive difficulty in this, because
every one concerned would deny under
oath all participation in them. In a
notorious case not so very maDV years
ago, daughter Of household was
reputeG 10 be plural wife. She had
Il number Of children. Yet, IN oath
she denied her marriage Her father
denied all knowledge of her being mar
riei; he saw her children around the
house, but took SO little interest IN the
matter that he never made any inquiry
about it; if she was married, hc didn't
know who her husband was, and never
thought to inquire, 1t can well be con-
sidercd that under these circumstances,
the proving of polygamous marriage
is tough proposition. And yet, the
woman was a plural wife without the
least doubt In such cTScs, the cir
cumstanccs, and time, MAKE lie fact
clear There is the rcpute of such mar.
riage seldom at fault; and above all.
there are the children, the woman los.
ing no whit OF hec standing in the
community, as SHE certainly would 90
If in fact she were not a wife,
in like manner, as plural marriages
are proved by time and results. so po-
litical dominance is proved by the
church control Of conventions and of
elections, with their startling and shift
ing figures. AS we cannot trace po-
lygamous marriage by following the Of
fciants and participants To the ccre-
monY, so we cannot prove political
dominance by tracing the issue of the
church distation to its source ut church
headquarters, But we Judge, quite rs
certainly as in the polygamist marriage
case, by the issue, such marriage has
been entered into, that the political
- counsel - has been given; because we
see results follow that could no wise
else be attained, we sec that these re-
suits are satisfactory and advantageous
TO the church, and to nobody else, and
that, with the universal acknowledge
ment among politicians, and the com
mon repute, is the perfect proof that
tho church does the work. The polvga.
nous issue, and the political issue. set
tie thc matter in each case beyond the
of a doubt