The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-10-11
WAKING UP ON PoLYGAMY.

assem- OCu, nave c2pncll'S duil"'' 'hN'
faith and belief in The Tribune s pre-
sentation of new polygamy cases. IheS
have acted also upon this faith. They
believe that the list of new polygamists
rs printed in this paper is correct They
have heretofore indorscd this list. spe
cifically in three cases in which they
Ibayc taken action, and now they iu
dorse il as a whole, and announce that
they intend to stop this vile practice
The Tribune would be glad to place
more confidence in their announced
purpose than il is able to do. Priest
hood pledges in this respect are at dis
count The priesthood of the Mormon
church have dishonored their own
pledges and broken faith so generally
so scaudalously, and so insolcntly that
we 6ud ourselves una bic to give the ere
dencc that we would like TO do TO
their present announced purpose.
Our incrcdulity on This point arises
from two sources. First, experience.
Experience of tho past has shown that
there is no reliance TO be placed upon
the professions. pledges, promises, pro-
tcstations. word of honor or most sol
emn cngag gements of the Mormon priest
hood Every pledge. promise, profess
sion, protcstatlon, engagement, or word
OF honor which they have given out
heretofore has been sbamclessly disre'
garded and dc6antly violated. Presi'
dent Joseph r. Smith explicitly testi-
fed in the Smoot ease that he had not
kept his pledges, and did not iutcnd to
keep them, either as to the laws of God
or man; that he takes his chances both
against the State prison aud hell tire.
or words 10 that effect, What be did
say, exactly, was that he was living
aud intended to live in defiance Of the
laws of God and man; that he obeycd
or disobeyed God at his own pleasure,
and that he preferred to take his
chances against the law rather than
keep his plighted word of honor. That
is one reason for our lack Of confidence
IN the promise made now by the priest
hood with respect to polygamy.
of the situation. For. Joseph f.. Smith
himself is just as hagrant transgres-
sor, Just as impudent. lechcrous and de-
6ant a law breaker as any of the So
called new polygamists. He expressly
stated in his testimony before the mas
ter in chancery in the cscheat cases that
the manifesto forbade unlawful cohabi-
tation as well as new polygamy, and
yet he openly confessed, in fact appar-
emily boastcd. of his continued living
in unlawful cohabitation and the birth
TO him of eleven illegitimate children.
How, then, can man like this dis
cipline others for the very offense of
which he himself is. the most conspicu
Gus in guilt2 With what face will he
arraign any new polygamist when he
himself openly acknowledges his guilt
under the law. and announces defantly
that he prefers to take his chances
against the law rather than obey ita
Or, in case the punishment Of the new
polygamists is turned over to the stake
presidency and the high council Of the
different stakes, how will it be possible
for the stake presidency or that coun-
Gil to proceed against any offender if
he sets up the plea that Joseph +.
Smith, the president of the church, is
an equal offender with himself2 Will
not the stake presidency and the high
council Immediately see that if they
condemn any man for this offcnse they
at the same time condemn the president
of the church7 We do rot see how it is
possible under any sort of consistent
action TO discipline by the church any
one guilty of new polygamy as long
as polygamlsts. open avowed polyga.
mists. law-defying polygamists who pre-
fer to take their chances against the
law rather than obey it, are at the head
OF the church.
President Joseph +. Smith said that
he was the only one authorized to per-
nit the ceremony of plura! marriages
and that he is not making this author
izatlon. The Tribune has repeatedly
called attention to the fact that he is
the only man authorized to permit these
and that because this is SO,
his profession of ignorance of such mar
riages or of responsibility for them
on behalf of the church is a faIsehood.
Nothing can be moro certain than that
under the Mormon doctrine and laws he
is The sole one responsible for the new
polygamous marriages. He is respop
sible because Of his position in the
church and because he is the one au-
thorized from, by and in behalf of the
church to "hold the keys Of this or
dinaDce." This being so, his denial of
in the new polygamous mar
riages is futile. If he has auit author
izipg these new polygamous marriages,
how long since is it that he quit7 He
himself performed the marriage cere-
mony for Abraham II. Cannon and Lii
Ian HaWlin, one of the first of the
trarsgressions against the manifesto.
10 t,.,.y L.