The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-01-23
SUTHERLAND's DEFENSE.

SUTHERLAND's DEFENSE.
Senator Sutherland's speech i'm sup
port Of his colleague. Senator Smoot.
is a lawyer-lilIe, almost lady-like. sum
mary II the arguments available to the
defense. and is of interest quite as
much for its omissions as for its affirm
ative statements of fact.
Curiously enough. the junior senator
makes no reference TO the motives in
spring the attack on his associate: still
more curiously he makes no allusion
To the sentiments he expressed before
he became senator and while he was
stu a congressman. when he wrote a
constituent deploring the possible cleo
ton of Mr.. Smoot and predicted the
very result which has followed. How
ever. that part OF Utah's political history
is not altogether pertinent to the case
before the senate, and is recalled only
as illustrating the change i'm viewpoint
which overlook Mr.. Sutherland when
he found himself senator by the grace
of Reed SmoOt and the Republican par
" under his control.
The main facts on which Senator
sutherland lays emphasis in his speech
are these: that Smoot is not and never
has been polygamist but. on the con-
trary. has opposed polygamy and has
shown his attitude by his own life;
that his personal character offers no
basis for attack on his right TO a seat
in the senate: that conditions i'm Utah
have improved as tho years have passed
and polygamy is rapidly dying out:
and. finally, that there is less inter-
ference by church officials in affairs
political than ever before.
Much Of what the senator SAYS as To
conditions here is true. There is good
ground for some skepticism as to the
vigor of Senator Shoots personal on
position TO polygamy as practice in
view of his position in the church and
MS support Of associates who are con-
tinuing the practice which he is alleged
10 oppose; but there never has been any
question as to Shoots own life and
character. and his opponents weakened
their case materially when they per-
mitted the charges to so in which they
knew could not be sustained by evil
dence.
When the senator says that polvgamv
in existing cases at the time statehood
was achieved were condoned by COM
mon consent provided they were not
iaunted Ia the face OF the communitv
he is within the truth: he does not add.
however. that some Of the leading no.
iygamists after brief season of retire
ment emerged from their secIusion and
came perilously near Haunting their
position in public If they did not openIv
defy public sentiment He is correct
in saying the practice is dying out. and
hc might have added that the existence
Of polygamy is regarded by the
thoughtful of the state as much less OF
menace to the public veal than is
the appearance of church leaders as
dictators in political affairs.
on this point Mr.. Sutherland SAYS.
In 1921. after the polygamy mani
festo. the Peoples party was aban-
doned and organizations effected along
national party lines. Since then tbere
may have been instances Of church in
reference by leading officials I'm poli-
tics, but Oh the whole there has been
marvellous advance" In his opinion
there is 10 more disposition on the part
OF Noes to vote against Gent;les
than tn, = 4 on the part OF Gentiles 10
vote aga Mormons.
To DensAerats who have been defeat
ed by church interference. this state
ment appears wholly disingenuous. not
to say wilfully untrue. Not since the
state T%s admitted has there been an
election where church interference.
was SO Migrant and so powerful as in
the state election of last November.
Both within and without the church
the fact was known. admitted and de-
pIored by, all except the Republican
benefciaries OF the interference. In
this city alone 5000 voters who had
supported the Democratic ticket a year
before We're transferred bodily to the
seaport of the Republican candidates.
The Democrats. who alone Of the Cen
tiles Of the state had remained loyal to