Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-03-18
Easily ANswEREp.

EASILY ANSWERED.
why does it rthe 'Nowsl not now
come out with the proposition that the
sonate's refusal 90 Gust Apostle smoot
was National legislative countonanco
Of the new polygamous practice?
Tribune.
For the simple reason that IL would
not be- true In the first place there
Is no new polygamous practice 10
countenance. and, second, N there
were the action Of the senate on that
case. as WAS expressly stated. WIS not
To- be- ctustruod as an endorsement Of
plural marriage. old or new. This was
made very plain during the debate.
Senator Sutherland. speaking Of in
fractions OF 'hc church rule said. y
think there are mo- words in tho Eng
ush language that are sufficiently
severe with which 10 condemn their
conduct" and Senator Hopkins was.
if possible. etill more emphatic on this
point. though his defense N Senator
smoot WAS imprcgnable. lie said he
sympathize fully with Senator Bur
rows in his arraignmcnt Of polygamy
and Dee added
"If il shall appear. MI President
from careful analysis of the testi-
m0uv which has been taken Dos the
Committee on Privileges and Elections
that Reed Smoot is guilty of crimes
charged against the Mormon church
by the eloquent and distinguished sem
ator from Michigan boz his speech, then
! say we should an unite Ia cxpclling
him from the Senate
Everyone familiar with the case
knows that neither tho senators who
defended Senator smoot. nor those who
voted for him. did so because they
countenanced lnfraction Of the law.
TO say that they did would Doc 90 state
a falsohood. That is the reason why
the News" does not now. nor no any
other time, come out with the pro-
position" that their position was an
endorsement Of anything wrong. II is
not the News that is FOO the habit
of making false statements.
But the action Of the senate on that
case proved that the accusers OF the
Church utterly failed to sustain their
ACCUSATIONS They alleged that tho
State Legislature az the time OF the
election of senator smoot. was domi-
mated by the church; that the "hier-
archy' inculcates and encourages plu-
raj marriages. and that the Nor
mons" take oaths that unht them for
citizenship. These We're the principal
charges. and the vote OF the Senate
meant that not one Of them was
proved. Notwithstanding years OF effort
by the morally corrupt high priests Of
anti "Mormonism' and their hired
witnesses. In that trial. the church
was placed in the pretorium. tried. and
acquitted
on the other hand. 81 is a fact that
President Young was appointed Cover
nor and served the Territory in that
capacity without any objection on the
part Of the government II is a fact
that II was generally understood that
the act of 1852 would remain a dead
letter. which II did. except for test
case. 10 IS a fact that Mr.. stcnhouse,
tn 1870 az a public meeting expressed
a general conviction when he said
that II there had been "A wrong IN the
past conduct OF the "Mormons." he
considered the government equally re-
sponsiblc. These are facts. and they
cannot be truthfully controversial.
We are not discussing this question
with our acrimonious contemporary.
No respectable Journal can engage in
controversy with a sheet that has
proved It's utter disregard Of both his
tory and logic But we offer the ex-
PLANTATION given above for the benefit
Of readers who may desire both sides
And there must be some Tribune read
ers who are capable Of Judging for
themselves, when the truth is present
ed to them