OCR Text |
Show If WASHINGTON, June ll.Tke minority of the Senate Commiftee on Privileges and Elections today: 1 tke following report m Smoot s favor: ; W; If! VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. j (Senalo Resolution 2Ctf, Fifty-seventh I ! Congress, second session). J i The undersigned members of the Com-'i Com-'i mlttce on Privileges and Elections, hnv- ng under consideration Senate Resolution $ No. 203, Fifty-seventh Congress, second J Gcsslon, adopted January 27, 1&03, being 3; unable to agree with the majority of tho V. committee, submit the following minor-J minor-J I lty report, jl They attach hereto and make a part , 1 hereof a full statement of the case, show- ' ing nil charges affecting or intending to it affect the right and title of Reed Smoot V to a seat In the Senate ns a Senator from the State of Utah, together with an nb-J nb-J , strnct of all the material, relovnnt, and , competent testimony offered with respect i . thereto, and their conclusions deduced i therefrom. They nsk that the same may be prlnt- ed for purposes of reference as a part of ' : this report, and respectfully refer to tho i same ns a more complete statement of i tho following" findings and propositions, t and thq testimony and arguments In hup 1 port of the same, upon which they baso J their dissent from the conclusions and '. report of tho majority of the committee. !; i-Rccd i-Rccd Smoot possosses all the qualifications qualifica-tions prescribed by the Constitution to make him eligible to a seat In tho Sen-Si Sen-Si ate, and the regularity of his election by i' the legislature of tho State of Utah la if not questioned In any manner. . II. : Aside from his connection with the JK Mormon Church, so far as his private K character Is concerned, it Is, according to '.fi all the witnesses, Irreproachable, for all 1! who testify on tho subject agree or con-if con-if cede that ho has led and Is leading an upright life, entirely freo from immoral ;B practices of every kind. He Is not a poll po-ll lygamlst; has never had but one wife. S and has been noted from early manhood for his opposition to plural marriages. '1 and probably did as much as any other ?; member of the Mormon Church to bring it about the prohibition of further plural I marriages. . III. ! So far as mere belief and membership 5, In the Mormon Church are concerned hj fl is fully within his rights and privileges j ; under the guaranty of religious freedom given by the Constitution of the United .' States, for there Is no statutory provision, and could not be, prohibiting cither such belief or such membership. Moreover, having special rcferenco to 4 tho Mormons residing In Utah and their ! peculiar belief, It was provided In the i act of Congress, passed July 16, 1SD4, that ; the pcoplo of Utah should provide In their ;i constitution "by ordinance Irrevocable r.! -without the consent of the United States -jj and tho peoplo of said States tfi "1. That perfect toleration of religious '! Bentlment shall bo secured, and that no Inhabitants of said Stato shall ever be molested In person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship: Provided, that polygamous or plural mar-i mar-i rlages are forever prohibited." . i In consequence there was embodied In i tho constitution of tho State of Utah a , compliance with this requirement, and I thereupon tho Territory was duly admlt-i.Ji admlt-i.Ji ted-as a State of tho Union, jr Accordingly, members of the Mormon I church, open and avowed bellevern In Its I . doctrines and teachings, have been ad- , j mltted without question to both Houses L of Congress us Representatives of the 5 State. 3 There remain but two grounds on which tho right or title of Reed Smoot to his a fieat In tho Senate Is contested. They are: ?! 1. That he Is shown to have taken what :. is spoken of In the record as tho "endow-2 "endow-2 ment oath," by which he obligated him-1 him-1 ' self to mako his allegiance to the church paramount to his allegiance to tho Jf "United States: and 2. That by reason .of his official rela- 1 1 tion to the church, as one of Its apostles, i , ho Is responsible for polygamous cohabl-tatlon cohabl-tatlon which yet continues among the .-, Mormons, notwithstanding It is prohlb- ?i ited by law. 2: At? to the "endowment oath," It Is suf- t, ficlent In this summary to say that the 21 testimony Is collated and analyzed In the y annexed statement, and thereby shown to , bo limited In amount, vague and lndefi- i nlte In character, and utterly unreliable, '1 because of the dlsreputablo and untrust- ' worthy character of the witnesses, i! There were but seven witnesses who V. made any pretense of testifying abou : any such obligation. One of these was 3i shown by tho testimony of two uncontra-?! uncontra-?! dieted witnesses to be mentally unsound, jl Another, to have committed perjury In 1 ; tho testimony given before the committee V on another point. The third was shown , by the uncontradicted testimony of a number of witnesses to havo a bad ropu- tation for truth and veracity, and to be J, thoroughly unreliable. A fourth admitted ; that he had been for years Intemperate. and was shown by Indisputable tes- tlmony to havo lost his position ! on that account, and thereupon and for ?t that reason to have withdrawn from the ft church and to have assumed such a hos-l hos-l tile and revongeful attitude as to en-ig en-ig tlrely discredit him as a reliable witness. ! The other three witnesses were so Inden-,fi Inden-,fi nlte as to their statements that their tcs-jt' tcs-jt' tlmony amounted at most to nothing k! more than an attempt to state an imper-f: imper-f: feet and confessedly uncertain recollcc-0 recollcc-0 ; tlon. i All that it is attempted to show as to Ui tho character of this oath is positively contradicted by Reed Smoot and a great hj! number of witnesses, whose standing- and iji character and whose reputation for truth ; I and veracity nrc tjnqucstloncd, except 1. 1 only in so far ns their credibility mtty 60 y. affected by the fact that they are or havo been members of the Mormon I I Church. W Upon this stato of evidence wo aro of II opinion that no ground has been estab-2 estab-2 llshed on which to predicate a finding or Iff belief that Mr. Smoot ever took any ob-r ob-r ligation involving hostility to tho United If States, or requiring him to regard his hf allegiance to the Mormon Church as m paramount to his nlleglancc and duty to m the United States. v. Inl Tho only remaining question Is wheth- Iju cr or not by virtue of his oftlclnl relation IB to tho church as one of its apostles he i has any responsibility for the contlnua- II tlon of polygamous cohabitation by mem-'i mem-'i bers of that church. If r TnP testimony on thiH point is also I J carefully collated and analyzed in tho If annexed statement. III It will bo found bv an examination nf I; ihat testimony that he has never a"t any time, and particularly ho has not since the manifesto of 1S90, countenanced or encouraged en-couraged plural marriages; but that on tho contrary ho has uniformly upheld tho policy of the church, as announced by that proclamation, by actively advocating advocat-ing and exerting his Influence to effect a complete discontinuance of such mar-rlagos, mar-rlagos, and that in the few instances established es-tablished by tho testimony whero plural marriases and polygamous cohabitation, as a result of them, have occurred since $90 they have been without any encouragement, encour-agement, countenance, or approval whatever what-ever on his part. As to polygamous cohabitation" in consequence con-sequence of plural marriages entered Into Ojeforo tho manifesto of lg&O, there is no (testimony to show that ho has ever dono Ljnoro than silently acqulcBoo in this of-fonse of-fonse against law. In viow of his Important Impor-tant and influential position in the church, this acquiescence might be regarded re-garded as inexcusable If It were not for tho peculiar circumstances attending tho commission of this offenBO. r To understand these circumstances It !s necessary to recall some historical jfacts, among which are sp:no. that indl-(cat' indl-(cat' that thf? Tnltcd States Government Is not tree from responsibility for these countenancing and prohibiting polygamy M&i I jflHfefc:' H if-pected .toi?r?ve tand when it was first proclaimed and prac ( d&S&$M 'tWWMm ' T ' W Xtt ft MKKMlf Mi8W w" tlrthclaWee ,na u". 'f1 as; Uccd te Congress r mn. in ed I fMWf. ' 'tt V vB BiT i y . taking of ffference! President0 Fnimoiand the fS. '9B 'Vi o V I SKKK M K W examined" Senate of the United Slates In September, WKm$ -"' 51 I , ! jHn3 ' M BSSNxB? 4 U b?haif l tho, pe3tf n,lP and on beha f 1850. gave both recognition and encourage- AJ tMtWmt f iyJSfel " Mi ' PHK J&L ' V' 1l AIr Smoot The taking of this cvi- inent by the appointment and conllrma- f- V, .'- J V. 'mflP" I Mence was continued from time to t me tlon of Rrlgham Young, the then head of jSPm&l ' 11 ' ff t J . J,nt the th day of January. when Ater1 ' ' he Is there-years, there-years, plural marriages and polySamous iV iff tmr ,wjr )v -H? "" jJJl.s bv disqualified from taking tho oath of cohabitation continued in tho Territory of vr-liiOc'O- lVK Jp3 ?V. '1- ofTlco required of a United States Sena-Utah Sena-Utah practically unrestrained and with- D -N"sr---- r-lZ tor." No one appeared, however, to sus- out any serious effort on tho part of the rtl ' r1 vc rvd r"TT -"""7. Jl tain either of these charges. No evidence United Stntes to restrict the same. "pK TVD ATVO III ML PtO&S i.t h 5KR TTfT TTQTX 3 has bccn offered In support of either of Finally, In response to an aroused pub- OIl A. 1 OrUrLjr t U f-lQJXlS "Qw&t&M VJJ"i -UUU.UXT.l. XJrL"i X J J them, but on tho contrary both charges lie sentiment. Congress passed the act I r-fW XcGXT " T.7t- R were refuted by a number of witnesses, of March 22, 1SS2, bv which it prohibited ,j Oi UHlO tsJPT O X- ot ermorL r Tne investigation made by the corn-both corn-both plural marriag'es and polygamous V M r: Nrt " 1-1 t-H mltteo has been based chiefly cohabitation, but legitimized the children . , . upon the charges made in the proof pro-of all such marriages born prior to tho . tout signed bv Mr. Paden and others. nmi firv nt .Tnnnnrv iftss TTmi r thi: net . At the nrcllmlnarv hearing already re prosecutions wero inaugurated to enforce Its provisions, but it was soon demon- j strated that public sentiment was such that only partial and very unsatisfactory success could be secured. Then followed what Is known as tho Edmunds-Tucker Act of March S, 16S7, by which, among other things, tho rules of evidence were so changed as to make it less difficult to secure evidence in prosecutions prose-cutions for polygamy and polygamous cohabitation. co-habitation. Again, by the terms of this act, all tho children born within twelve months after Its passage were legitimized. This statute was upheld by tho Supreme Court of the "United Slates, and efforts to prosecqto such offenses were redoubled redou-bled with such success that on tho 26th day of September. 180, tho then president of tho church, Wllford "Woodruff, issued what is known as the manifesto of 1690. forbidding further plural marriages. So far as the testimony discloses there have been but few plural marriages since, perhaps per-haps not more than tho bigamous mar- 1 rlages during the same period among the same number of non-Mormons. Tho evidence shows that there were at this tlmo about 2400 polygamous families In the Territory of Utah. This number was reduced to 500 and some odd families In 1905. A few of these families may have removed out of tho State of Utah, but so far as the testimony discloses tho great reduction In number has been on account of the deaths of tho heads of these families. It will be only a fw years at most until all will have passed away. This featuro of tho situation has had a controlling Influence upon public sentiment In tho State of Utah with respect re-spect to the prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation since the manifesto of 1SS0. "Whether right or wrong, when plural marriages wero stopped and the offense of polygamy was confined to the cohabitation cohabi-tation of those who had contracted marriages mar-riages before 1E00, and particularly those who had contracted marriages before tho statutes of 1SS7 and 1SS2, the disinclination disinclina-tion to prosecute for these offenses became be-came so strong, evon among tho non-Mormons, non-Mormons, that such prosecutions were finally practically abandoned. It was not alone the fact that If no further plural marriages wero to be contracted con-tracted polygamy would necessarily in the course of time die out and pass away, but also the fact that Congress, having by the Statutes of 1SS2 and 1BS7 specifically specific-ally legitimized tho children of theso polygamous po-lygamous marriages, it was inconsistent, inconsist-ent, If not unwiso and impossible. impossi-ble. In tho opinion of even the non-Mormons, to prohibit the father of such children chil-dren from living with, supporting, educating, edu-cating, and caring for them; but If the father was thus to live with, support, educate, and care for tho children, it seemed harsh and unreasonable to exclude ex-clude from this relationship the mothers of th children. Such are some of tho reasons assigned for tho lack of a public sentiment to uphold up-hold successful prosecutions for polygamous polyga-mous cohabitation after 1K). It Is unnea-sary unnea-sary to reclto others, for It Is enough to say that whatever the real reason or explanation ex-planation may be, the fact was that after 1690 it became practically impossible to enforco tho law against theso offenses, except in flagrant cases. Such was the situation when the Territory Terri-tory applied for admission to the Union and Congress nassed the enabling act of July 16. 1694, by which tho peoplo of Utah. In order to entitle them to admission Into tho Union, on terms prescribed by Congress, Con-gress, wero required to incorporate in their constitution a proviso that "polygamous "polyga-mous or plural marriages are forever prohibited;" pro-hibited;" not polygamous cohabitation, it will bo observed, but only polygamous marriages. Tho testimony shows that there was a common understanding both In Congress and Utah that there were not only to be no mora plural marriages, but that prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation cohab-itation had becomo so difficult that, there was a practical suspension of them, and that time was the only cortaln solution of the perplexing problem. This sentiment has not only ever since continued, but with the constant dimlnu- THE DUBOIS RESOLUTION I Resolved, That Reed Smoot is not entitled to his seat as a Senator of the United States from the State of Utah. 1 tlon of the number of polygamous families fami-lies and the rapid approach of tho time when all will have passed away, there has como a natural strengthening of the sentiment Tho testimony In this respect Is set forth at length In tho annexed statement, but we make the following quotations In order that It may appear In this summary that there Is this common disposition, among non-Mormons as well as Mormons. Judge William McCarthy of the supreme su-preme court of Utah, a non-Mormon and nn uncompromising opponent of polygamy, polyga-my, who has held many Important offices of trust, among others that of Assistant 1 United States Attorney for Utah, and who, ns such, was charged with tho duty of prosecuting these offenses, testified as follows. I prosecuted thm (offcne8 of polyeamotiu cohabitation) before the United States Commissioners Com-missioners up until 1653. when tho United Stntes Attorney refused to allow my accounts for eervlcos for that kind of work, and then I quit and confined my Investigations before the grand Jury In those casee. In explanation of his action he testified we quote from the annexed statement: That ho found the prcM was npratnst the prooccutlonu; that the public prosiicutor, whoso attention he Invited to the matter, refused to proceed. From thin and other facts which curio to his knowledge. Judgo McCarthy reached tho conclusion that the public sentiment senti-ment was against Interfering with men In their polygamous relations, who had married befora tho manifesto. E. B. Crltchlow, a non-Mormon attorney attor-ney at law of Salt Lake City, one of tho principal managers of this proceeding against Mr. Smoot, who gave tho caso his personal attention, attending most of the meetings of committee, testified bc-foro bc-foro the committee, again quoting from annexed statement: That after the manifesto of ISM there was no inclination on the part of the prosecuting Officer Of-ficer to "push theso matters fta to present cohabitation," co-habitation," "thinking It was a matter that would Immediately die out;" that It was well known that Apostle John Henry Smith was living In unlawful cohabitation, that non-Mormons non-Mormons generally mado no objection to It; that they wero disposed "to let things go." and that that was tho general feeling from tho tlmo of the manifesto In 1S30, down to Very recent times pretty nearly up to date, or practically up to date " Mr. Crltchlow further testified that the non-Mormons were disposed to overlook tho continuous polygamous cohabitation of those who had taken plural wives before be-fore tho manifesto, because thoy, the non-Mormons, non-Mormons, felt satisfied that there woiud be no more plural marriages; that the thing would work Itself out In tho future, and that where the polygamlsts had their wives In separate houses and simply kept up the old relations without tho offensive flaunting of them before tho public, It had been practically passed over Orlando W. Powers, esq., a leading lawyer law-yer of Utah, who was associate justice of the supreme court of tho Territory, and who showed by his testimony much hostility hos-tility to tho Mormon Church, testified that there was this general feeling after tho manifesto not to Interfere with those whose marriages were prior thereto. He then added, "There Is a question for statesmen to solve. AVo have not known what was best to do. It has been discussed dis-cussed and people would say that such and such a man ought to be prosecuted. "Then they would consider whether anything would be gained; whether wo would not delay instead of hastening the time that we hope to llvo to see; whether tho institution would not flourish by reason rea-son of what they would term persecution. And so. notwithstanding a protest has been sent down here to you, I will say to you. the people have acquiesced In the condition that exists." He explained that by "tho people" he meant the Gentiles Tho following quotation from a speech by Senator Dubois, reported In tho Congressional Con-gressional Record of February 6, 1903, page 1729 et seq,, Is to tho same general effect: . . Mr. Dubois. Various causes operated to causo tho Mormpns to abandon polygamy. Tlicro was a feeling among thu younger members mem-bers of tho Mormon church, and a very 6trong feeling, that polygamy should be done away with Eo here wos this pressure within the-church the-church against polygamy and tho pressure by tho Government from outside ttho church against polygamy. In 1631. I think It was, tho president of tho Mormon church Issued a man-ifcHto man-ifcHto declaring that thereafter there should bo no pob'KamouB marrlagoa anywhere In tho Mormon church. The Mormons wore tbn called together-. In ono of tholr gTcat conferences, confer-ences, whero they meet by the thousands. This manffosto was Issued to them by the first presldcnoy, which Is their authority; was submitted to them, and all the Mormon people peo-ple ratified and agreed to this manifesto, doing do-ing away with polygamy thereafter. Tho Senator from Maine (Mr. Hale) will recall re-call that I came here as a Senator from Idaho shortly after that, and tho Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Piatt) will recall how bitter bit-ter and almost Intemperate r was in my languago boforo his committee and on tho floor of the other House In tho denunciation of theso practices of the Mormon church, But after that manifesto was Issued, In common with all of the Gentiles of that section who had mado this fight, wa said: "They havo admitted ad-mitted tho right of our contention and ttiy now, like children who havo been unruly, we will obey our parents and tho?e who have a right to guldo ub; we will do those things no more." Therefore we could not maintain our position and continue punishing them unless un-less It wos afterward demonstrated that they would not comply with their promise. After a few years In Idaho, where tho fight was tho hottest and tho thickest, we wiped all of those laws from our statute books which aimed directly at the Mormon people, and today to-day the laws on tho statuto books of Idaho against polygamy and kindred crimes aro less stringent than In almost any other State in the Union. 1 live among those people; and. so far as I know, In Idaho there has not been a polygamous marriage- celebrated oinco that manifesto was Issued, and I havo yot to find a man In Idaho or anywhere elso who will say that a polygamous marriage has boon celebrated anywhere since tho Issuance of thut manifesto. Mr. Hale, Then, It must follow that, as tho years go by and as the older people disappear, polygamy as a practice will be practically removed. re-moved. Mr. Dubois. There In no question about It: and I will say to the Senator, owing to tho active part which we took In that fierce contest con-test In Idaho, I with others who had made that light thought we were Justified In making this promise to tho Mormon peoplo. Wc had no authority of law, hut we took It upon ourselves to assuro them that thoso older men who wero living in the polygamous relation, re-lation, who had growing families which they had reared and were roaring before tho manifesto mani-festo was Issued, and at a time when they thought they had a right under tho Constitution Constitu-tion to enter Into polygamous relations that thoso older men and women and tholr children chil-dren should not bo disturbed; that tho polyg-nmous polyg-nmous man ehould bo allowed to support his numorous wlvca and their children. Tho polygamous relntlons, of course, should not continue, but wc would not cornpol a man to turn his fumlllca adrift. We promised that tho older ones, who had contracted those relations re-lations before the manifesto was Issued, would not bo persecuted by the Gentiles, that tlmo would bo given for them to pass away, but that tho law would bo strenuously enforced against any polygamous marrlago which might 1 bo contracted In tho future Much more testimony might be quoted of the same general character. It Is sufficient, suf-ficient, however, for the purpose of this summary to say that there Is practically no testimony In conflict with that which has been quoted. In other words, the conditions existing In Utah slnco Reed Smoot became an official of-ficial of tho Mormon Church In 190) have been such that non-Mormons and Mormons Mor-mons alike havo acquiesced In polygamous polyga-mous cohabitation on the part of those who married before the manifesto of 1S90, as an evil that could best be gotten rid of by simply tolerating It until In the natural course of events It shall havo passed out of exlsten.ee. "With this disposition prevailing everywhere every-where in the Stato of Utah among all classes tho Gentile or non-Mormon population pop-ulation as woll as among the Mormons the undersigned are of the opinion that there is no just ground for expelling Senator Sen-ator Smoot or for finding him disqualified to hold the seat he occupies because of tho fact that he. In common with all the peoplo of his State, has not made war upon, but has acqulosced in. a condition for which he had no original responsibility. responsibil-ity. In doing so ho has only conformed to what non-Mormons, hostile to hl church, as well as Mormons, havo concluded con-cluded Is, under all the circumstances, not only the wisest courso to pursue, but probably the only course that promises effective and satisfactory results. J. B. FORAKBR. ALBERT J. BEVERIDGE. TVM. P. DILLINGHAM. A. J. HOPKINS. P. C. KNOX. STATEMENT. The minority respectfully submit the following statement as a part of their foregoing report. January 27, 1003, the Senate adopted tho following Senate Resolution No. 206: Resolved, That the Commlttco on Privileges and Elections of the Senato, or any subcommittee subcom-mittee thereof, bo authorised and directed to Investigate the right and tltln of Reed Smoot to s. seat In tho Senate as Senator from tho Stato of Utah! and said committee, or any subcommittee thereof, Is authorized to sit during dur-ing tho sessions of the Senate, to employ a stenographer, to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths; and that the cxpenso of the Inquiry shall be paid from tho contingent con-tingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the commlttco. commlt-tco. At the time of the adoption of this resolution res-olution there wero pending in tho Senate two formal protests against the admission admis-sion of Reed Smoot to the Senate, both having boon filed before ho took his seat. Ono of these protests is signed by "W. M. Paden and 17 others, and the other by John It. Lelllch alone Mr. Lelllch being also one of tho 17 who signed the principal princi-pal protest. Shortly before the adoption of the foregoing fore-going resolution at a preliminary hearing on tho 16th day of January. 1903. of which notice was duly given, counsel appoarcd before tho committee representing Mr. Paden and others who signed tho principal princi-pal protest, and Mr. Smoot also appeared In person and by counsol. At that tlmo statements wero mado by counsel for tho ferred to counsel for the protestants presented pre-sented In a more formal way than had been dono In tho protest Itself, tho charges supposed to be embodied In that protest. ThJ charges thus presented aro as follows: fol-lows: First. Tho Mormon priesthood, according accord-ing to tho doctrine of that church and tho belief and practice of Its membership. member-ship. Is vested with, and assumes to exercise, ex-ercise, supremo authority In all things temporal and spiritual, civil and political. politi-cal. Tho head of the church claims to receive divine revelations, and these Rood Smoot. by his covenants and obligations. Is bound to accept and obey, whether thoy affect things spiritual or thlngb temporal. Second. The first presidency and twelve apostles, of whom Reed Smoot Is one, aro supreme in tho exercise of this authority of the church and in the transmission of that authority to their successors. Each of them is called prophet, seer, and rev-elator. rev-elator. Third. As shown by their teaching and by their own lives, this body of men has not abandoned their belief In polygamy and polygamous cohabitation. On tho contrary (a) As the ruling authorities of the. church they promulgate In tno most solemn sol-emn manner tho doctrine of polygamy without reservation. (b) The president of tho Mormon Church and a majority ,of tho twelve apostles now practice polygamy und polygamous po-lygamous cohabitation, and somo of them have taken polygamous wives Mnce tho manifesto of 1SS0. These things nave been done -with the knowledge and coun-tenanco coun-tenanco of Reed Smoot. Plural-marrlago ceremonies have been performed by apostles slnco tho manifesto of 1SS0, and many bishops and other high officials of the church nave taken plural wives since that time. All of tho first presidency and twelve apostles encourage, countenance, counte-nance, conceal, and connive at polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and honor and reward by high office and distinguished distin-guished proferment thoso who most persistently per-sistently and defiantly violate the law of tho land. Fourth. Though pledged by the compact com-pact and bound by the law of tholr Commonwealth, Com-monwealth, this supreme body, whose voice is law to Its people and whose members mem-bers were Individually directly responsible respon-sible for good faith to the American people, peo-ple, permitted, without protest or objecr tlon, their legislators to pass a law nullifying nulli-fying the statute against polygamous cohabitation. co-habitation. In substance theso charges so far as they seem to be a proper subject of inquiry in-quiry here are: 1. That the Mormon Church exacts and receives from Its members, including Reed Smoot, absolute obedience in all political matters. 2. That the Mormon Church Is promulgating promul-gating tho doctrine of polygamy, and that tho first presidency and all the twelve apostles, including Reed Smoot, "encourage, "encour-age, countenance, conceal, and connive at polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, and reward thoso who practlco it." No evldenco baa been submitted to tho commlttco or has como to its knowledge In anywise affecting Injuriously the general gen-eral character of Reed Smoot. On the contrary, it has been admitted by tho protestants, through their counsel, and a number of witnesses on both sides have testified, that his moral character Is unimpeachable un-impeachable In every respect, In tho protest of Mr. Paden and others It is explicitly ex-plicitly stated that they do not charge him with any offense cognizable by law. ' Some Historical Facts. To a proper understanding of the voluminous volu-minous evidence In tho case. In so far as it tcndB to throw any light upon the question whether Reed Smoot is entitled to retain his seat In the Senate. It will bo useful to set forth, In a preliminary way, certain Indisputable historical facts. Tho Mormon people, under tho lead of Brlgham Yoqng, In tholr pilgrimage from Nauvoo, 111., settled at tho place now known as Salt Lav was, at that imc, Mexlwn'tJ & Mormons, however, holatS tS Btrlnca on an eminence . naJ? V cr smcfi called Ensign PeaSt On the ath day of Brlgham Young. he it, P 'i Mormon Church, was nom"n ernor of tho Terrltorv at if ldont FIHmorc, wiTOs inna confirmed by the Senate l V 1SS0. During his term ofng 5 appointment, and In the! t ham loung. nr. the presldentr mon Church, forma ly 1 claimed polygamy wYgcS There Is some dispute aa PolyGamy had not been mif & by Joseph Smith, Pjrl' Toung s predecessor as nrealJ church; but It Is not deemelf' In this statement to conMderlr of that controversy. Tho ajE is that from the timet loungs announcement In V$m was openly practiced in Utah! the Mormon people, includlri loung himself. " When his term of office agi S the Territory expired in l&A' pointed for another term of fi Lj President Pierce, his norala again confirmed by the Scnat l-t out his second full term of1 L During all of this time ho?, JL he president of the church ai live In polygamous relation! i eral wives. j Act of 1862. f There seems to have been1 '! by the Government of the u to Interfere with the practice1! & in Utnh until July 1, 1K2, 0h 1 an act of Congress entitled? ii punish and prevent the prncU amy In tho Territories of I States and other places, and ' and annulling certain actsit latlve assembly of the ,1 Utah, became a law (12 SU 0f Tho first section of that ju lows: ' 2 0 That vry person having a ha f living, who shall marry any-: whother married or single. In a 4-the 4-the United States, or other pl the United States have trchuln shall, except In the cases specif vl!o to thin section, be adjufli S bigamy, and, upon convlctlonfl bo punished by a fine not exce 7 dred dollars, nml by lmprlionm Ifri not excecdlnc five years- Provji !t less. That this st-cllon shall not? a person by renson of any fori L whose husband or wlfo by meh'i t havo been absent for flv w L without txilne known to each a that time to be living; nor to,'i Jj reason of any former marring ' havo been dissolved by the dtci ' petent court; nor to any person any former marriage which ibf m annulled or pronounced void by Z or decree of a competent court i of the nullity of the marriaiei 1, It will bo observed that nl Hon of the act of 1J82 made I fonse to take a plural wife 0 did not punish or In anyw with the continued cohabltal who had previously entered"- lygamous relation The Edmunds Lft : Such cohabitation was notl !i fenso until March J2. ISSVii 'j called "Edmunds Act" becaU ,j Stat, at Large, 20). ThulJ u amended tho act of July I, .11 the meantime had become i the Revised Statutes). Sect 4s amendatory net provided: " See. 3. That If any rr.ala peri rltory or other place ovar whV States have exclusive Jurlidlct cohabit with more thnii one w be deemed guilty of a mjK!W 2 conviction thereof shall bs pun of not moro than three hundreff Imprlsonmept for not more .thft or by both said punishments, tlon of tbe court. j In the seventh Bectlon of f it was provided as follotrs:jf Sec. 7 That tho Issue ot polygamous marriages, knows marriages. In cases In which havo been solemnized according monies of tho Monncn ot. Ib.i of the United States, and im have been born before the first ary, anno Domini eighteen hundr three, are hereby legitimated Soon after the Edmund A law, prosecutions were Innu Territorial courts against; wero Hying in polygamy, tl tlona being nearly alL under 1 tlon of the act, which truMty for a man to cohabit with n woman. From that time j 1S90, the number of polyj rlages in Utah decreased, tlce wa3 not entirely Btoppw The Edmunda-Tuckj By what is called the Edn Act, approved March 3, 137 635), the rules of evidence 1 so ns to make a lawful hu of a person accused of blip my, or unlawful cohabitation witness. .viSk By section 7 of that act tneM of the legislative assembly. m, tory of Utah Incorporating i the corporation known ob JestiB Christ of Latter-DaflKJ disapproved and nnnu,le.av.ST porntlon dissolved; anflJJfBl made the duty of the Att of tho United States to twfJBT ceedlrigs In the supreme coutm rltory to wind up the flffaiJi poratlon. Section 11 or further provided as follow!.. Sec. 11 That tbe laws jn&otK7 latlve assembly of the TcrrlJL which provldo for or riWB of Illegitimate children to im C entitled to any distributive E; tate of the father of ftWM?SB'S child nro hereby dlfapproeaM; and no Illegitimate child. laiMJJ entitled to Inherit from his W to receive any distributive Nm tate of hla or her father: W section shall not apply 10 child born within twlva,JtMS passage of this act. nor toj sr. legitimate by the seventh SJ entitled "An act to ""'" hundred and flfiy-two of tn T of the United StAte. In "rjp and for other purposes. twenty-second, olghteen hunar?2Hp Reynolds v. "the TJnitw Although tho act MSgJjE to. mado It a criminal offenwm plural wife In the Territory ted States, and aithoUj&jS openly and pub Ic y PfJWg to havo been little effort QW the Government to supprejL for many years after tnL however, ono George Rey dieted and charged wlm That act, and his Supreme Court of the unit KJHb " The principal whether, since PJ Kffl.Stl de" the religious doctrines m Church, an act f Congress taking of a plural .imm utlonal interference with case was decided at the 1S7S (Reynolds y. 145) The court held tW not competent for , ConsrtM the Mormons'ln the natm he act In question LK Reynolds, a member "ffl'Sfi tariy enabled proof of MS ow I he -constitution-tested. ,f 1890. r 1SS0. wllford of the Mormon ,? -The Mani-wlnir Mani-wlnir is a copy: iion. , sent for pollil-Clty. pollil-Clty. which have e effect that the :ent report to the liege tht Plural nnUed, nnd that , havo been con-fn.or con-fn.or during the lie discourses the tuchU encouraged t the practice of ,( the Church of alms, do hereby. r declare that arc not teaching c, nor permitting .practice, and I nf other number irine that period, nplca or In any In which the irrloge wan per-uec. per-uec. in Salt Lake but I have not lormed the core-thU core-thU matter was mfoqm-nco ot this nent house wns rn without delay, been enacted by marriages, which constitutional by oreby declare my laws nntl to us : of the church ,o ihoin do llkc-teachlngs llkc-teachlngs to tho associates during in be' reasonably encourage polye-r polye-r the church hns to convey nny romptly reproved, that my advlco to refrain from orblddcn by the WOODRUFF, Jesus Christ of eral conference lormon Church, ber 6. 1S90, tho s unanimously a and binding." aln approved by f tho church. I by the general 30. it has been of tho funda-jrmon funda-jrmon Church, r modified only conference, . tanlfeslo on the f the Mormon ate ofllclal. to go wo quote a James E. Tal-repnretl Tal-repnretl and ls-of ls-of tho church rd "Articles of Ivnly sets forth :h, having been and published ifol. HI., pp. 47 ou have used the e keys" In con-Involving con-Involving polyg-ofeph polyg-ofeph Smith. Jr., rho held the Iters me time, or pomo ild make a plural illd according to I right In that? at time on down Woodruff Issued lurch approved In tme principle ob-plural ob-plural marriage S to the law of ned by tho presl-irlzed presl-irlzed by him to ctly true, en this revelation sto came and It and accepted by i' away from the since the 6th of it the church had Jral marrlano ac-rnrch. ac-rnrch. even? power to author-i author-i one? If any person has ural marriage. If plural wife of a of October, 1SS0, the law of the w of tho land? ! not In tho power he old eystem so lural marriage or o It through the hurch? It Is now a rule wer shall not be 9. but tho exercise nd a rule of tho :tloncd 1 equally ded upon revelo-efore revelo-efore has In one smuch as ho was It before the con-)f con-)f the conference ndered that now-uncerned. now-uncerned. the action of ! 11 not? ily S 45, 49.) Act. which Utah in y admitted Into by Congress on 1071. By section quired that tho was authorized the State gov-wlthout gov-wlthout the con-wd con-wd the people of Blloft of religious and that no In-ever In-ever be molested OWl of his or her , "Provided. That Plages are forever to observe that condition to tho that polygamous ould not be al-any al-any kind was us cohabitation, he governed bv ws of the State Stato might de-that de-that the dlatlnc-eress dlatlnc-eress In the en-amouB en-amouB marriages aUon was Inten-dden Inten-dden by any act ten years after revalent In Utah, er 8till us be-1 be-1 Polygamous cony co-ny was first prowling, pro-wling, as presl-urch. presl-urch. until about was continued P.ent a Governor the Edmunds Act is-Tucker Act of ous marriages to eplt mat all the nrlaqcB prior to RVeXWo ri$ crc-9W, crc-9W, W0' Polygamous PBL 1 not m.anhood and pjJK.?' Cn v,nl there was a T4HS "Vgei ; iihiSi lf further ifB.'5' ixiv, hou,d cease the MCettUl: , relation! WKPihr op flo t0 Grated. if JiJ ' or flauntlngly Cnr- Tritflmatucd children SmS1 ' thlrtv lU.?h c,1dren. SB5a nd JiJeclf mo3t of T at iI(lal unanimity VHBSS of th c.ro.m 1,10 time lZm?1"l on iblate ,nt0 the ZlMlmy a ""January A, im, flrMTecute those Jh1"?1 ?lsln'-fim ?lsln'-fim wn had Plural families born of relations established bo-fore bo-fore tho manifesto of 1S00. As a samplo of tho evldenco on this subject wc refer to tho testimony of Judge William M. McCartv. ono of tho associate Justices of tho supreme cburt of Utah. Ho was assistant assist-ant United SL-ites attorney for tho Territory Terri-tory of Utah from 1SS9 until 19Q2, when he was elected county attorney of Sevier Countv .n that Territory. Ho was reelected re-elected In 1SJM. In 1S95 he was elected one of the district, Judges of tho Stato of Utah. He was reelected to that office In 1IXX, and In 1002 was elected to his present office. of-fice. He Is a non-Mormon, and hatJ always al-ways been an -uncompromising opponont of polygamy. He conducted somo of tho prosecutions, for polygamous cohabitation cohabita-tion between tho date of tho manifesto, In 1SF0, and tho admission of tho State Into tho Union In January, lbS6. Ho testified; tes-tified; I prosecuted them before the United States commli-Moncrn up until ISM, whon tho United Slates Attorney refused to allow my nccounts for fervlees for that kind of work, and then I quit and confined my Investigations before iho grand Jury In those case?. And Judge McCarty further testified that the superior to whom ho referred as stopping the prosecution for polygamous cohabitation was John Judd, a Gentile. Gen-tile. In 1S97 some prosecutions for polygamous polyga-mous .cohabitations against mon who were married before the manifesto camo bc-foro Judgo McCarty as district Judgj of the State. Tho accused In those cases admitted their guilt mid were punished by a fine only, upon agreeing to ceaso cohabitation with their plural wives. Judge McCarty testified that It was after these prosecutions he obtained the llrst emphatic expression he had observed as to the stato of public opinion In Utah at that time regarding such prosecutions. Ho said that ho found the press was against the prosecutions; that the public prosecutor, whose attention he lnvltod to the matter, refused tr proceed. Iom this and other facts which camo to his knowledge Judge McCarty reached tho conclusion that tho public sontiment 6Tf the State was against interfering with mon In Jhelr polygamous relations who had married before tho manifesto. (Vol. 2, S52 to S&; 8S9, 916.) E. B. Crltchlow. a Gentile lawyer, of Salt Lake City, who prepared the principal prin-cipal protests In thlR caso and who, during tho early sittings of the committee, assisted as-sisted Mr. Taylor, counsel for the protest-ants, protest-ants, in presenting their case, testified as a witness on behalf of the protestants that after tho manifesto of JSv thcro was no Inclination on tho part of the prosecuting prose-cuting officer to "push these matters as to present cohabitation," "thinking it was a matter that would Immediately die out;" that It was well known that Apostle Apos-tle John Henry Smith was living in unlawful un-lawful cohabitation; that non-Mormons generally made no objection to it; that the-y were disposed "to let things go," and that hat was the seneral feeling from tho ilme of the manifesto In 1KM "down to very recent times pretty nearly up to date or practically up to date." Mr. Crltchlow further testified Jhat the non-Mormons wore disposed to" overlook tho continuous polygamous cohabitation of thoso who had taken plural wives before be-fore the manifesto, becauso they the non-Mormons felt satisfied that there would bo no more plural marriages; that the thing would work Itself out In tho future, and that where tho polygamlsts had their wives in soparate houses and simply kept up the old relations without the offensive flaunting of them before tho public it had been practically passed over. (Vol. 1. 624. 625.) Another witness called on behalf of the protestants was Orlando "V. Powers, a leading lawyer of Utah, a non-Mormon, who was ossoclato JUBtlco of tho supremo court of the Territory of Utah in 1S& and 1SS6, and whose testimony In general shows his strong feeling against tho Mormon Church. Ho testified that, speaking for those who fought the church party In tho days when It was a power, they had felt and still feol that lf tho church would stop new plural marriages, those who had contracted such marriages before tho manifesto would not bo Interfered Inter-fered with. After Btatlng that tho people peo-ple who lived In the East had no understanding under-standing of tho situation In this regard In Utah, Judge Powers added: That condition exists. There Is a question for statesmen to solve. "Wo havo not known what was bst to do. It has been discussed, and people would say that such and such a man ought to bo prosecuted. Then they would consldor whether anything would bo gained; whether wo would not delay Instead of haaten-inc haaten-inc tho time that we hope to live to see; whether tho Institution would not flourish by reason of what they would term peroecuilons. And so, notwithstanding a protost has been sent down hero to you, I will say to you the people have acquiesced In tho condition that exists. Then the witness added that by "Tho people" he meant the Gentiles. (Vol. 1, &S4-SS5.) William J. McConnell, ex-governor of Idaho and ex-Senator of the United States from that State, when asked whether there was any public sentiment in Idaho In reference to prosecutions for simply unlawful cohabitation, as distinguished distin-guished from new polygamous marriages, mar-riages, replied: It was understood and agreed when we adopted our State constitution and were admitted ad-mitted to statehood, that these old Mormons who had plural families would be allowed to support their wives and children without molestation. mo-lestation. It was agreed by all parties. Democrats Demo-crats and Republicans alllce, that they should be allowed to drift along:. "Wo could, under the law, have prosecuted these people and perhaps havo sent them to Jail. We could doubtless havo broken up theso families, but we felt it better that these mn should be allowed al-lowed to support these old women and those children than to further persecute them (2; 512) . This witness was sharply cross-examined by Mr. Taylor and by the chairman on this subject, with tho result that he made his testimony moro emphatic (2, 524. 526). . , , w On his redirect examination he further stated that he agreed to the foregoing testimony of Mr Crltchlow and Mr. Powers Pow-ers (2, 531. 532). F. H Holzhelmor. a leading lawver of Idaho, who was practicing his profession in Utah until November. 1W2. testified that the Issuing of tho manlfosto pf lbv) brought about a very peculiar state or affairs, and that tho question of how to take care of the problem was ono which confronted the people of Utah, and which tho witness did not think they have really solved He added: The consensus of opinion at that time was that those who had contracted rnarrloces pJor to tho manifesto should bo left alone. It wsj not, however, believed that they should openly violate tho law and unlawfully cohabit with their numerous wives. I will say that, that where that has occurred It has been mostly In Isolated cases. Thcro havo bcon a number of coscb whoro children havo been born, but In no case thai I know of has It been dono openly. open-ly. It Ib true It Is nfialnst the law. but It has not been done In such an open, lewd manner man-ner au has been Intimated nor has It been general. And because of tho peculiar stato of affairs It was tho opinion that tho whole thing would dlo out; lhat It wan only a matter mat-ter of a short llmo when the question would be entirely settled, because there would bo no now marrloces (2; &7G-576). Frank Martin, a lawyer of Idaho, testified testi-fied that ho behoved thoso wlio were living liv-ing In polygamous cohabitation in his State ought to be punished. But he added: A majority of our people seem to think that the best way, rb far as concerns thoso old fellows who contracted thcoc relatione before tho manifesto, as lonR as they stop It and do not take any now wives, or as Ions as no new wives are taken, Is to lot It go, to lot It gradually die out. to let the old ones dlo (2; 6't2). James H. Brady, a Gentllo of Itiaiio, who operates several irrigation canals In that Stato and owns a power plant ut tho American Falls, when asked what Is the sentiment in Idaho regarding disturbing or leaving' undisturbed the men who went into polygamy prior to tho manifesto of ISM, answered- To bo absolutely frank In the matter, my Judcmcnt Is that a majority of the men In Idaho would favor leavlnjc thoso old men Jo live their lives-Just as ihey have started In (2; frl9). J W. N. "Whltccotton, a lawyer who re-fides re-fides at Provo City, whero Senator Smoot lives, and who Is intimately acquainted in most of tho Mormon countlos In Utah, was asked what has boon the Bcntiment among non-Mormons in Utah In regard to tho men who had entered into polygamy prior to tho manifesto of ISM, nnd answered; an-swered; Well, that Is it pretty hurd question to an-Hwor. an-Hwor. Tho Gentile in Utah have recognized that wo have a very hard problem to ileal with In that respect. It ortcrs many ombar-raoslnc ombar-raoslnc things. There has been u. good deal wild In this testimony I havo read It about an understanding., I know nothing of any understanding un-derstanding In regard to that. But I do know this, that the people generally feel like they do not, want to stir up this thin and set it to smelling nny mdri. It ha not a Rood odor. , And thoro In another thlnpr that they have taKGn Into account In tho neighborhood wheta .i.iani' at 1",Bt- When wo gft out to punish this man who Is living In 'polygamy, put him in prison, they tako Into account somewhat II? consequences that will cotno to his family, fam-ily, riow, tho women who went Into polygamy polyg-amy In Utah went Into It becauso, although I think under a delusion, they thought It was a religious, duty, and they are bound by tho obligation. They feel thm way. On his further examination on this subject, sub-ject, tho following occurred: The Chairman. "What In the sentiment In regard to those who contracted plural marriages mar-riages before 1S30 nnd aro now living with their wives and having now children by them ui to this time? .Mr. Whltccotton. Tho sentiment In that It Is an awful condition. Tho Chairman. That In a lawful condition 7 Mr. Whltccotton. That In an awful con-tlon con-tlon Tho Chairman. Oh! Mr. Whltecotton. Leave off thn "l." And ' we wish wo woro out of It. Wo do not know how to get out of tt. Tho Chalrmnn. What la tho nentlnient with respect to that class of people approval or disapproval? Mr. Whltccotton. They havo the disapproval disap-proval of the people generally, but that docs not go to the extent of causing a man to shoulder the responsibility of setting tho law In motion ngalnst that num. The fholrmnn. So lhat thit clats of men ore left without Interference? Mr. Whltecotton. They are left practlciilly without Interference. They have our regrctp, but wo do not know how to get at them. Senator Fornker. You havo bald that that In largely becauho of tho regard tho pcoplo have for the condition In which lh plural wives and children would bo left In case of successful success-ful prosecution. Mr. Whltccotton. Yes. sir. I think thnt (regard for plural wives and children) In tho chief cnuso of withholding the hand of prono-cutlon. prono-cutlon. Thoso wq,men aro human, and so uro their children, and they ore not much to blame, either, especially tho children (2; 679- Hiram E. Booth, a' practicing lawyer of bait Lake City and ono of tho leading managers In tho State of the Republican party, upon being asked to explain why It s that, if tho people of Utah, Including a large part of the 'Mormon people, nre so opposed to polygamy, thoso who are living liv-ing In polygamous rolatlons are not Interfered Inter-fered with, said- Welt my explanation of that Is that the principal tight of the Gentiles han been to do away with polygamous marring?. While during many years thcro wero numerous prosecutions prose-cutions for unlawful cohabitation. It was not for tho purpose Of punishment so much, those pcoplo who lived In unlawful cohabitation, aa It was to bring about cessation of polygamous marriages. That was tho principle for which we strove, to stop pcoplo from marrying In polygamy. Thin wne finally brought about In 1S$0 by tho manifesto of the president of the church, which was nnlrmed. or sustained, an they call It. by tho conference on October 6, 1SS0, and again In JS9I. Wo did not accept that In good faith nt that time. That Is, wo wore somewhat skeptical about It; but later wo did. Now. there has been since that lime a disinclination to prosecute men and women who live In unlawful cohabitation. co-habitation. One of my own reasons the way I look at It was this: My sympathy waa with the plural wife and her children. By these proef-cutlons sh suffered moro really than tho husband did. In nearly all of the caws I may PAy the plural wfo Is a pure-minded wonvan. a woman who belloved that It was right according to tho law of Cod for her to accept that relation, and that she cannot be released from her obligations when they are once entered upon. Mr. Booth. I should say. with Judgo Powers Pow-ers and Mr. Crltchlow. that the general sentiment senti-ment among the Gentile people In Utah In a disinclination to prosecute those cases. Mr. Worthlngton. If I understand you, when Senator Smoot was a cnndldatn for Senator, Sen-ator, and when he became an apostle, which was In April, Wi. things had Fettled down In Utah b ythe general ncqulscejic of the people peo-ple that If there would bo no new poylgamous marrloges the people who had enterpd Into that relation before the manifesto should not bo dlnturbkd? Mr. Booth. Should not bo disturbed; no, sir. Mr. Worthlngton, And that waa the stato of opinion thoro when he became an apostle? Mr. Booth. That won tho stato of opinion when he became an apostle. Mr. Worthlngton. And If he had gone against that state of opinion ho would have been going against the public sentiment of the Stnt wmiM h. nnl7 Mr. Booth. Yes. Mr. Worthlngton. Gentiles and Mormons? Mr. Booth. Gentiles and Mormons. I would fay In, that respect that whore polygamous relations were carried on In such a way ns to outrage public sentiment. In thoso cases, of course, a proFccutlon would have ben demanded f2; "14, "15, 723). Arthur Pratt, who was doputy United States Marshal In Utah from 1874 'until 16S2. and again from 1SS6 to 1S00. and who probably arrested more Mormons charged with polygamy or polygamous cohabitation cohabita-tion than nny other man, said that he had heard Mr. Whltocotton and Mr. Booth testify on this subject, and that he agreed with them, for tho reasons stated by them not out of any pity or sympathy for tho men. but out of sympathy and out of the suffering that would be entailed on the women and tho children (2; 744). E. D. R. Thompson, a non-Mormon, who has lived in Salt Lako City since 1SS3. never been a Mormon, and who has taken a leading part In Republican politics In that Stato. testified: Well, the general Idea has been that this condition of things would gradually die away by the lape'j of tlmo. It has been generally ropugnant to most people who take any position posi-tion as against tho Mormons In this matter which would Imply either prosecution or persecution. per-secution. In othor words, they did not care to bo Informers (2, S01). Charles De Molsy (a non-Mormon), who Is a commissioner of tho Stnto bureau of statistics of Utah, and has nevor been a Mormon, says, In regard to tho sentiment among Gentiles In Utah as to the punishment pun-ishment of those who llvo In polygamous cohabitation where the marrlnges were celebrated before tho manifesto, "I think thcro Is a matter of Indifference about it" that ho himself thinks "the less said about those things the better" (2; 1003). m An TVTIIlor A nnn-ATnrmnn whrt woo United States marshal In tho Territory of Utah for four nnd a half years, and hnd been a member of the Stato sonatc for two years after Utah hnd been ndmlttod Into the Union, when asked what Is tho sentiment of Gentiles In Utah In regard to prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation between persons who wero married beforo the manifesto, answered: Well, there has been a. sentiment against that, as there has been,, ngalnst any Informing Inform-ing against any of the Infractions ot law generally. They have felt that It was only a question of time that tho practice would die out through tho death of those who practiced prac-ticed It and tho removal of that generation. (3: 160) John "W. Hughes, who nns never been a Mormon, nnd Is the editor of a weokly paper In Salt Lako City, when asked the samo question, replied: Well, tho sentiment has been right along that these old fellows that nre In polygamy to let them nlono and they will soon dlo nut. Very soon none of them will bo left. Tho great point with tho Gentiles In that there will bo no new plural marriages (3; Mrs- Mary G. Coulter, a non-Mormon, whoso husband Is a physician In Ogdcn, testified: Those of us who have witnessed Ihe old-tlmo old-tlmo antagonisms and who aro living and working for the new growth and progrees do not bellevo In Inquisitorial method. Wo believe be-lieve that tho work of education, the establishment estab-lishment of Industries, the dcvoloplng of tho mining regions, the building of railroads especially, es-pecially, and the Influx of people, owing to tho colonization schemes which ore succeeding there, will In tlmo eradicate all of tho old and objectlonablo conditions (3; 170). Polygamy in Other Countries How Dealt With. A situation analogous to that existing In Utah after polygamy had been forbidden forbid-den by tho law of tho church, as well as by tho law of tho State, arises In countries coun-tries whero polygamy Is lawful, when missionaries have converted polygamlsts to tho Christian faith. Tho quostlon then frequently arises whetner polygamlsts shall be admitted to tho church, and If so whether thoy shall bo required to put awav all of their families except ono. In the argument of tho case, counsel for tho respondont has referred to certain publications publi-cations by various Christian churches, showing tho proceedings that havo taken place In somo such cases and tho results. Tho Presbyterian and Roformed Rovlow, vol. 7, for 196. contains an article on "The baptism of polygamlsts In non-Christian non-Christian lands" from which tho following follow-ing extracts aro taken: At the regular mcoilnx of tho synod In India, In-dia, hold In Ludhlana, November, 1S3 1, iimon; the most Important questions which camo before be-fore tho synod was this: Whether In the case of a Mohammedan or Hindoo with more than ono wife, applying for baptism, he should In all case, as a condition of baptism, bo ro-qulrcd ro-qulrcd to put away all hln wives but one. After a very thorough discussion, lasting between be-tween two or thrco sessions of the synod, It was resolved, by a vote of 36 to 10, to request re-quest the general assembly, "In view of tho exceedingly dllflcult complications which often occur In tho cases of polygamlsts who destrn to bo received Into the church, to leave the ultimata decision of all euch cases In India to the nynod of India." Tho memorialists add! "It Is the almost unanimous opinion of the membera of the synod that, under somo circumstances, cir-cumstances, converts who havo moro than one wife, together with their entire families, should be baptized." Not only Is It thus tho fact lhat more than four-fifths of the members of the synod of India, bellevo that It may sometimes bo our duty, under tho conditions of society In India, In-dia, to baptlzo a polygamlst without requiring requir-ing him flrot to put away all hln wives but one. but when the missionary ladles prcsont during tho sessions of synod, denlroun of ascertaining as-certaining tho state of opinion among themselves them-selves on this subject, took a volo thereupon, there-upon, of these 35 ladles, many of them Intimately Inti-mately familiar with the Interior of zenana life for years, all feeling no less hatred of polygamous marriage than their sisters In America, all but three signified their agreement agree-ment with the majority of synod, of which minority of three two had been only a few days In India and wero therefore without nny experience touching Ihu pnictlcnl questions Involved. In-volved. Nor Is this large majority of our mis slonarles singular In their belief on this subject. sub-ject. When some years ago the question wns do-haled do-haled In tho Panjaq missionary conference. In which n large number of the missionaries unci eminent Christian laymon of all denominations denomi-nations took part, ten out of twelve 6t the pprnkers expressed lh same opinion an that held by moro than four-fifths of the synod of India todny. So the Itev. Dr. James J. Lucas of Sahnranpur snys that the brethren who maintained the lawfulness of not requiring a poylgamlst to put away any of his wives as a prerequisite to baptism "aro not even In a minority In the missionary body In India." A few yearn ago the Madura mission voted In favor of baptizing such, provided they had contracted their marriages In Ignorance and there wan no equitable way of securing n separation. Their action was disapproved by the American board, but It none tho less Illustrates Illus-trates again what In tho Judgment of a large part of those who, living In India, aro In most lntlmoto relation to tho living tacts, and who are thun far better qualified lo form a right decision than can be tho wisest men at home. Again, as bearing on the polygamlst's duty. It should be noted that In the great majority of cases among tho Hindus tho second marriage mar-riage Is contracted because of tho first wife having no children. So that when tho general assembly requires tho polygamlst convert to put away all wives but tho llrst. It requires iilm not only to slgnatlzo hln conversion by violating a contract held valid nllko by his Christian rulers and a large part of his Christian Chris-tian brethren, but to do this In such a way as shall Inflict tho greatest amount posslblo of cruel Injuntlce and suffering, by turning out of his house thnt wife who Is the mother ot his children fwho will naturally In most cntn have to go with her) and denying to her conjugal con-jugal rights of protection .and conabltatlon Which he hod pledged hex. The wrong Involved Is aggravated under the conditions of life In India, In thnt It will commonly com-monly be practically Impossible for tho wlfo turned off. whichever she be, to escape the suspicion of being on unchaste woman, nnd she will Inevitably be placed In a position where, with good name beclouded nnd no lawful law-ful protector, she will be under the strongest temptation to live nn Immoral life. No doubt polygamy In wrong; but then. Is not breach of faith and such Injustice and cruelty to nn Innocent woman nnd her children also wrong? If there Is a law against polygamy. In there not a law also against these things even moro explicit nnd Induhltahle? In the case supposed sup-posed both can nol be kept. Which shall the man be Instructed to break? The general assembly of 1S75 appears to have Imagined that tho Injustice was done away by enjoining a man lo "make sultnble provision for her support that Is put away, and for her children. If she have any." But this utterly falls lo meet the case. For tho breach of faith required remains, since the marriage contract, both according to Scripture and the law of all Christian lands, aa well as of Jn-dla, Jn-dla, binds the husband not only to support, but equally to protection und cohabitation. But by the dellveranco of 1S75 all missionaries mission-aries In non-Chrlntlan lands nre directed by the general assembly to Instruct the convert that. In order to baptism, ho must keep the compact an regnrds tho rlrst particular, but break It as regards the others. Moreover, the moral end sought will, even so, not be gained. The wife put nway may llvo In a separate house nnd nt a distance but then polygnmlstn sometimes keep different wives In different homen and It will not be easy to persuade a Hindoo or Mohammedan community, especially If the man still continues con-tinues to give her money as required by the assembly's law, that cohabitation really ceases. In India and Christian Opportunity, Opportuni-ty, a book published In 1001. tho author of which Is Harlan P. Beach. M A.. P. R O. S.. in dfnllnc with the general subjoct of "Problems connected with new converts," the author at page 223. says: 1. Polygamy. Ono difficulty In the way of receiving a professed convert, though afffect-Ing afffect-Ing only a small percentage of candidates. Is a most perplexing one; It Is that of applicants who have moro than one wife. As Hindoo or Mohammedan they have entered In good faith Into marriage contracts with these wives, and If a man puts away all but one. what provision shall be mndo for the rejected, re-jected, and on whnt principle shall he decide de-cide as to the one to he retained? While It Is a question easily answered In missionary society councils at home. It Is a. moro serious problem at the front. Some good missionaries hold that where the husband hus-band Is living the Christian life In all sincerity sin-cerity It In better to receive Into tho church such a candidate though not cllglblo to any church office than to require him to give up all but one wlfo nnd thus broad with Illegitimacy Illegi-timacy his children by them, ns well on occasion oc-casion the wives so put away endless reproach re-proach and embarrassments. In India's Problom. Krishna or Christ, which was published In 1903. the author of which Is John P. Jones, D. D., of southern India. A. B. C. F. M.. tho author. au-thor. In dealing with this question, says, on pages 2S9 nnd 250: In th consideration of -the problem many things must be taken In mind. None more Important than the claims to a cordial wcl-como wcl-como from the church of nny mon who, In true faith nnd Christian earnestness, seek admittance. ad-mittance. If It bo demanded of tho man that he put away all but one of those wives taken In heathenism, then we ask whether It In Christian, or even Just, to cost away one to whom he was solemnly nnd religiously pledged nccordlng to tho laws of the land and with whom he has been linked In love and harmony for years and from whom he has gotten children? And If he Is to put away ono or more of his wives, which ono shall It be? Shall It bo tho flrnt wife? Certainly that would not be Christian. Or phall It be the second wife, who In tho mother moth-er or his children nnd whom ho probably married at tho request of the first who was childless. In ordor that ho might mine seed unto himself? It In not cn-ny on Christian grounds to decide Bivh a problem ns this, nor Is It very Christian to put a ban upon any woman who, In accordance with their religion and their country's laws, has formed this sacrod alliance with a man nnd has lived with him for yenre. Nor can It bo right to brand with Illegitimacy the children born of sneh n. wedlock. I would not allow such persons, received Into tho Christian church, to become officers of the church. But I can not see why there may nol be an humblo pluce In tho church of God for such and their families. Whatever may be our personal views as to tho propriety of tho conduct of tho people of Utah, In thus practically over-looking over-looking tho continuance of polygamous relations whoro thoso relations aroso out of marriages celebrated before the manifesto mani-festo of ISM, thcro can bo no doubt thnt when Reed Smoot, in April, 1M0, became an apostlo of the Mormon Church. tho great majority of tho peoplo of tho Stato. non-Mormons as well as Mormons, Mor-mons, had practically agrcod that it would bo unwlso to prosecute thoso who aro living In such relations, or to In anywise any-wise Intorfero with thorn, unless those relations re-lations wero flagrantly obtruded upon public notice. Heed Smoot Not Responsible for Polygamy. Tho charge of tho protestants In this case, in substance. Is that Reod Smoot connived at and encouraged, thereby becoming be-coming responsible for, tho polygamous rolatlons ot certain of tho officials of the church and of other polygamlsts. Thoro is no evidence to support this charge except tho fact that ho acquiesced without with-out protest In what tho people of Utah generally accepted as unavoidable In his answer and in his testimony, on his oath, ho has positively denied that he has ever advised any person to violate the law either against polygamy or against polygamous cohabitation. No witness hns boon produced who has testified that ho over heard tho respondent respond-ent glvo any such advice, or In any wlso defend such acts. The most anybody has attempted to chargo Is that ho has, like others, both Mormons and non-Mormons, Ignored tho offense of polygamous cohab ltatlon both In the church and under tho laws of the State when such polygamous cohabitation was in consequence of plural plu-ral marriages solemnized boforo ISM. In view o.f tho general situation nnd tho fact that non-Mormons, even the most active opponents of tho church, hnd by common consent adopted tho policy of acqulesconce as the wisest plan to pursue as to polygamous cohabitation, relying re-lying on time and tho course of nature to euro tho trouble, wo do not think such passive acquiescence on the part of Mr. .Smoot can be held lo amount to such an Indorsement and encourgncment of polygamous po-lygamous cohabitation as lo mako hltn responsible for It. Polygamous Marriages Since 1890. It Is further charged that notwithstanding notwithstand-ing tho acts of Congress forbidding them, and In defiance of the manlfosto of 18M, polygamous marriages havo been celebrated by tho authorities of tho church since 18M. "Wo havo already shown that slnco tho manifesto forbidding the celebration of plural marriages became the law of tho church by being ratified at semi-annual conference of tho church, neither the president of the church nor any other officer of-ficer thereof has the power to celebrate a plural marriage which would bo any more binding under the law of tho church than It would bo undor tho law of tho land. Evldenco relating to such plural marriages mar-riages slnco ISM could, of course, he competent com-petent In this caso only as It might, with other evidence, tend to show that the respondent re-spondent has advised such marriages, or In some way connived at or npproved thorn. On this point there Is somo evldenco tending to show, but not In fact showing, lhat In th period of over fifteen years which has elapsed slnco the manifesto of ISM wns promulgated titers may havo been soino llftoen or twenty enscs In which a member of tho Mormon Church, has cohabited co-habited with a woman as his plural wlfo with whom ho sustained no such relation prior to ISM. In only ono instance has the evidence shown the actual pcrfonnanco of the mnrrlago ccrcmOny and that occurred In Mexico. In that case It appears that a woman named Kennedy, In the year ISM, with her mother, on several occasions appealed ap-pealed to Apostle Teasdalo, in Mexico, to marry her to a man who was alrcndy married and had a wife tTvlng. and that the npoatlo, whenever appealed to. refused to perform tho marrlnge ceremony on the ground lhat It was forbidden by the cnurch. Tho parties then traveled In a wagon about 75 miles to nn out-of-the-way plnco where, according to tho testimony of the woman, Brlpham Young, Jr., another apostlo, did marry her to the man in question. At tho tlmo this testimony waa given Brlgham Young. Jr.. was dead. No person testified to tho ceremony except the woman who was married, and she stated that sho did not tell Brlgham Young that tho man whom she was mar rying had a wife living, and that so far as sho knew he was not Informed of that fact by any person. There was no evidence offered tending to prove that tho respondent had any knowledgo of tills alleged plural marriage until it came out In the testimony before the committee. Among the cases ot alleged plural marriage mar-riage since 1E90. referred to In tho evldenco, evl-denco, are those of two of the apostles, John W. Tayler and Mathlas F. Cowlev. As to Apostlo Tayler, I,. E. Abbott gavo testimony tending to show that It became publlo talk In or about 1S02 that Tayler had then recently taken two plural plu-ral wives. As to Apostle Cowley, the testimony Is exceedingly Indefinite as to whether he took a plural wife nt all since 1W. nnd lf so, when. Tho respondent was examined as a witness wit-ness In his own behalf, after tho testimony testi-mony with reference to the alleged recent plural marrlags of thoso two apostles had been Introduced, and on this subject testified testi-fied that ho know nothing about tho alleged al-leged marrlnges until tho testimony relating re-lating to them was Introduced hero before be-fore the committee. Ho further said that h would ask that an Investigation bo made by tho church authorities, and If it turned out that the charges wero true ho would not again vote to Bustaln them as apostles. Tho taking of testimony In this case was closed and the caso submitted to the committee after argument by counsel In February, 1P03. But at tho beginning of the present session, it being mado known to the committee that It was desired to further testimony was heard on behalf of th protcstnnto, the caeo was reopened and further testimony was heard on behalf of both the protestants and tho respondent. The testimony was closed tho second tlmo on March 27, 1003; but. consulting tho convenience con-venience of counsel for tho protestants, the hearing by tho committee of tho final arguments of counsel In this caso was postponed until April 12, 1906. Dn account of theso delays, for which neither tho respondent nor his counsel aro in nnywlso responsible, tho caso was not finally submitted to the committee for determination de-termination until after the final conference confer-ence of tho Mormon Church, which was held at Salt Lake City on April 6, 190t. At that conference It waa mado known that Tayler and Cowloy had resigned from their positions ob apostles In the preceding preced-ing October, and that the resignations hnd been accepted. The conference approved this action, nnd also filled the vacancies thus created by now appointments. Wc deem It unnecessary to go at length Into the evldenco relating to tho other alleged al-leged plural marriages since 1SS0, for the reason that thcro Is no evidence what-ver what-ver In the record which even tends to show, ns to any such plural mnrrlago, actual ac-tual or allegod, that tho respondent had any knowledge that It was Intonded such marriage should bo celebrated, or that ho ever countenanced It In any wny. or that, since It took place, ho has at any time or In nny way expressed approval of It. In 1SH). when tho manifesto was promulgated, pro-mulgated, thoro were In tho Mormon Church, according to church statistics. In tho United States somo 2151 polygamous families. In May, 1902. this number hnd been reduced to S97 How many arc left and how mnny of them are In Utah It is lmposslblo to say; but probably about DOT would bo a fair estimate Many of the heads of theso families aro of advanced ago. The population of Utah at the present pres-ent time Is about 600.000. Theso figures strongly tend to show that, as a matter of fact, new polygamous polyga-mous marriages In Utah, in any considerable consider-able numbers, cannot havo taken placo slnco 1690. In further ovldence of this fact, and as showing tho stato of publlo sentiment as to polygamous cohabitation, wo Insort hero an extract from the Con-gresslonnly Con-gresslonnly Record of February 5. 190.1. page 1723 et seq., showing a statement mado by Senator Dubois, who Ib well known to have familiar knowledge of this Hubjoct: Congressional Record. February 5, 1903. p. 17. et seq. Mr. Dubois. Various causes operated oper-ated to causa the Mormons to abandon polygamy. poly-gamy. Thcro was a feeling among tho younger young-er mombers of tho Mormon church, and a very strong feeling, that polygamy should bo dono away with. So hero was this pressure within the church against polygamy and the pretsuro by tho Government from outsldo tho church against polygamy. In 1S91. I think it was. tho presldont of tho Mormon Church Issued a manlfosto declaring that thereafter there should be no polygamous marriages anywhero In the Mormon Church. The Mormons wero thon called together In one of their great conferences, whero they meet by tho thousands. This manifesto was Issued to thorn by tho first prosldenoy, which Is their authority, was submitted to them, nnd all tho Mormon people rotlflod and ngreed to thlH manifesto, doing away with polygamy thereafter. The Senator from Malno (Mr. Halo) will recall that I came hero as a Senator from Idaho shortly after that, and tho Senator from Connecticut (Mr. I'latt) will recall bow bitter and almost Intemperate I was In my language before hla commlttoo and on the floor of the othor House In the denunciation of thoso practices of the Mormon Church. But after that manifesto was Issued, In common with nil of tho Gentiles of thnt seotlon who had mado this fight, we said: Thoy have admitted tho right of our contention con-tention nnd say now llko children who havo been unruly, wo will obey our parents and those who havo a right to guide us; we will do those things no more." Therefore, we could nol maintain our position and continue punishing them unles It was afterwards demonstrated dem-onstrated that they would not comply with their promise. After a few years In Idaho, whero tho flght was the hottest and tho thlokest, we wiped all of those laws from our statute books whloh nlmed directly at the Mormon peoplo: and today to-day the laws on tho statute books of Idaho ncaliut polygamy and kindred crlu urs less stringent than In almost any other State In the Union. I live among those people; and, so far as I know. In Idaho there has not been a polygamous marriage celebrated since that manifesto was Issued, and I have yet to find a man In Idaho or anywhere else who will say that a polygamous marrlnge has been celebrated nnywhero since the Issuance of that manifesto. Mr Hale. Then, It must follow from that, an the years go by and as tho older people disappear, polygamy n,8 a practice will bo practically removed. Mr. Dubois. There Is no question about Hi and I will say to the Senator, owing to the active purl which we took In thnt nerce contest con-test In Idaho, I with others who had made that flghl thought we wnrp Justified In making thin promise to the Mormon people We, had no authority of law, but wo took tt upon ourselves our-selves to ossure them that those solde r men who were living In polygamous relation, who hnd growing famlllen which they had reared and were rearing before tho manifesto wan Issued, and nt a lime when they thought thoy had a right undor the Constitution to enter Into polygamouo relation that those, older men and women and their children nhould not bo disturbed, that the polygamous mnn should be allowed to support his numerous wives and their children Tho polygamous relatione, of course, should not continue, but wo would not compel a man jo turn hln famlllen adrift. We promised that tho older ones who had contracted these relations re-lations before the manifesto was Issued would pot be prosecuted by the Gentile; that tlmo would bo given for them to pass nwny, but that tho law would be stronuously enforced against nny polygamous marriage which might be contracted In tho future. Ah further evidence of the snmo char-actor char-actor we call attention to tho testimony ot Judge Charles W. Morse, a member of the Methodist Church and ono of the Judges of the third Judicial district of Utah. In Mny 1903. by his direction, a special grand Jury was convened at Salt Luke City for tho purpose of Investigating Investigat-ing charges thnt new polygamous marriages mar-riages wero bolng celebrated. This grand Jury was composed of Mormons and non-Mormons. non-Mormons. TtB report will bo found on pages C7 to 570 of volume 3 of tho testimony. testi-mony. Tn their report they say; We. have Investigated thoroughly all such cases brought to our attention by tho District Attorney nnd by cltlrenn who have appeared before Us, which wero reported to hove occurred within the Jurisdiction of this court, nnd have not been ablo to secure evldenco that a single cose of polygamy has occurred In this district slnco Utah becamo a State. Tho rumors of tho commission of this crime seem to have grown out of Innocent In-nocent circumstances, wh)ch In ordinary communities' com-munities' would have created no suspicion or scandal, but which here, probably owing to a feature of our territorial hlstorj'i have been oelred upon and the crime assumed without evidence, much to tho qh.ngrln nnd Injury of Innocent citizens, nnd gTeatly to the detriment detri-ment of our Stato nnd Ita reputation throughout through-out the nation. Those who prlzo the fair name of our State and the rights of our neighbor should hereafter bo moro careful to t'-cum facts nnd evidence beforo charging tills crime. Judge McCartv, whoso testimony has already been referred to, testified as follows: fol-lows: Mr. Worthlngton. I am coming down to that question next. What Is your observation there as to whether, an a matter of fact, the number of peoplo living In polygamy has decreased de-creased sine 1&50 In Utah? Mr. McCarty. Oh, the chnge hnn been phenomenal. Mr. Worthlngton. Phenomenal? Mr. McCarty. Tea; phenomenal. There are only a very few. In the little town In which I redded there for over twenty years there wero a large number of polygamlsts. Oh, there must have been In the neighborhood of twenty of them, and I can not call to mind now but three of those old men who are living. liv-ing. They have all died or moved away. Two of them procured divorces, either a church divorce for a plural wife or a divorce In the courts for the legal wife. Mr. Worthlngton. Whnt town Is that to which you refer? Mr. McCarty. Thnt Is Monroe. Mr. Worthlngton. So that there polygamy la practically extinct? Mr. McCarty. Yes: and what can be said of Monroe can bo said of most other towns In tho State. Mr. Worthlngton. Most other towns In the Stato? Mr. McCarty. Tcs. (Vol. 3. S53, SS9.) The Mormon Church nnd Politics. As to the chargo that the Mormon church Interferes In and controls political affairs in Utah, wo find the facts established estab-lished by the evldenco to bo substantially as follows: "From the time the Mormons reached Utah, in the summer of 1847. until IrOl thcro wero no political parties In that Torrltory In tho sens In which that expression ex-pression would be used in other parts of tho United States. There grew up In tho Territory of Utah during thnt tlmo two parties, ono known ns the People's party, which was comprised exclusively of members of tho Mormon Church and was controlled by the leaders of that church, and tho Liberal Party, which was composed of non-Mormons. Owing to controversies concerning polygamy po-lygamy and other matters not In Issuo elsewhere In tho United States, these two parties were not only composed, on the ono hand, of members of a religious sect and on the other hand of thoso opposing that sect, but tho controversy betweon tho two parties was extremely blttor. It seems not to bo controvertod that until the year 1691 the People's Party was not only dominated by the church, but practically prac-tically was tho church But aftor tho manifesto of 1SS0. hereinbefore referred to, which forbade further polygamous marriages, mar-riages, mnny members both of tho Lib-oral Lib-oral Party and of the People's Party conceived con-ceived it to be to the Interests of tho Territory that tho people should divide on party Hne3 as thoy wero divided In other parts of tho country, and that the Liberal Party und tho People's Party should be disbanded. In he course of a fow months thlB pur-poso pur-poso was carried Into effect. Tho great majority of the voters of the Territory of Utah, Mormons and non-Mormons, bo-camo bo-camo either Republicans or Democrats, and political controversies in tho Territory Ter-ritory till 1S9G and after that time In tho Slate havo been waged, as a rule, on tho lines of the national political parties. Whllo It Is no doubt true that the habit which the church and tho members ot the church had followed for so many years prior to tho breaking. up of tho old parties of voters receiving counsel from officials of the church In regard to the selection of candidates for ofllco was not at onco completely broken oft, yet the evldenco ev-ldenco further establishes that fife lm-piovemcnt lm-piovemcnt In this regard has nccn very rapid and that, of late years, tho Mormon Mor-mon voters of the Stato adhcro more closely to party lines than the non-Mormons do. Wo think tho ovldence establishes estab-lishes the fact that since Reed Smoot bo-enmo bo-enmo an apostlo of tho Mormon Church on tho 6th day of April, 1900, tho Mormon Mor-mon Church has not controlled or attempted at-tempted to control elections In Utah. It Ib claimed, however, that tho church, by an Instrument called tho "Political Rule," has required of Its members holding hold-ing ofllco In tho church that before they shall become candidates for any political position they shall receive tho consent ot tho church authorities; and that by this devlco the church has controlled tho election elec-tion of Senators of tho United States. This political rulo will ho found on pages ICS to 171, Volume I, of tho printed report of tho testimony beforo tho committee. com-mittee. Tho moaning and effect of this instrument were very fully considered in tho ense of Moses Thataher, who in 1S95 was a candidate before the Legislature of the Stato of Utah for election as Senator Sen-ator of tho United States. Thatcher, at tho time, was ono of tho twclvo apostles of tho church, and he did not Eoek or obtain tho consent of tho church authorities to this candidacy. For this ofTonao ho wbb tried beforo a high church tribunal. The decision of this tribunal, the acceptance thereof by Moueu Thotchor, nnd tho acqulcscer.so oy tho church authorities In tho terms upon which he accepted tho conclusion of the tribunal, will bo found upon pages 5G3 to 673 of tho samo volume. Mr. Thatcher wns a witness boforo tnc committee, and his testimony cn this subject will bo found on pages 103S to 1010 of that volume. vol-ume. Tho upshot of It all Is that tho political rule, as construed by theso proceedings, left Thatcher, to uso his own words, absolutely ab-solutely frco as an American citizen, to exerclso his rights as such, and left all tho ofllcors of tho church absolutely free. In his acceptance of tho decision of tho council Thatcher oxpresaly stipulated that in accepting It he violated nono of tho engagements theretofore entered Into by him, "under tho requirements of party pledges rcspocting tho political Independence Independ-ence of tho citizen who remains untrain-olcd, untrain-olcd, as contemplated In the' guaranties of the State constitution." Indeed, in tho political rulo ltnolf, It Is cxprussly stated that if any olllcer or tho church wishes to becomo n candidate for a political ofllco, or to outer Into any othor engagement which will lntorforo with tho dutlos of his church office, ho way do so without soliciting or obtaining tho consent of the church or its au- thoritles by resigning his ecclesiastical position. The whole purport and effect of the rule seems to bo that high church of- ficlals, filling positions which require , them to glvo their, time to their cccle- vM slastlcal duties, shall not enter Into any engagements of any kind, political or oth- erwlsc, which require them to abandon or neglect such ecclesiastical duties, without llrst obtaining the consent of the.authorl- ties of tho church. i Thus construed the rule seems to be a reasonable one; but whether reasonable or unreasonable It does not seem to us , that It Is within tho provinces of the Gen-oral Gen-oral Government to Interfere with It or punish In any way tho members of tho church because of Its promulgation, Tho evidence In the case clearly estab- IH llshcs that Mr. Smoot, for some tlmo be- IH foro he became a candldato tor tho Sen-ato Sen-ato and oven beforo he becamo an apos- jM tie, was ono of tho leaders of tho Re- Kuolican party In tho Stato of Utah; that o hnd been frequently spoken of cither as a candldato for the Governorship of , tho State or tho Senate of the United States; that when ho becamo a candidate for the Senate he was, In the words of soino of tho witnesses, tho logical candl- , dnto for that ofllco, and that ho waa elected by the votes of tho Republicans In the Legislature, Mormons and non-Mor-mans, and was opposed by the Democrats In that body, Mormons and non-Mormons. vM He says, In his testimony, that before vM formally becoming a candidate, ho went IH to tho first presidency of the church and obtained the consent of tho Church to his becoming a candidate. As already Intimated. If that consent had beon refused. It meant no more than lf he becamo a Senator ho must give up his npostlcfihlp. There has been no evidence offered tending to show that any member of the Mormon Church has over asked consent to become a candldato for any office and been refused. Tho Endowment Oath. IH The only other charge made against the respondent which. In our opinion, merits attention was made In tho protest signed by John L. Lelllch. as follows: That tho oath of office required of and taken by the uild Rocd Smoot as an apostle ot the sold church a of ouch a nature and character that ho In thereby disqualified from taking the oath of office required of a United States Senator. (1; 23.) This same chargo waa In effect made In tho protest signed by W, M. Paden and 17 others In the following clause ns a do-ductlon do-ductlon from previous statements, rather than a specific charge in itself: Wc submit that however formal and regular may be Apostle Smoot" s credentials of his qualifications by wuy of citizenship, whatever his protestations of patriotism and loyalty. It Is clear that the obligations of any official oath which ho may subscribe are and of neces-slty neces-slty must be nn threads of tow compared with the covenants which bind his Intellect, his will, and bis affections, and which hold Jilm forever In accord with and subject to the will of a defiant and lawbrcaklng apostolate, In the sworn answer mado bv tho re-spondent re-spondent to these charges on this subject IH 1 1 'J E.lOi IBBBBH Aa to the chargo that the respondent Is bound by somo oath or obligation controlling his duty and hie oath aa a. Senator, the re- JHl i spondent cays that ht hia never taken any Bl such oath or In any way assumed any such HBl obligations. He holds himself bound to obey and uphold tho Constitution and laws of tho United States, Including the condition In ref-erence ref-erence to polygamy upon which tho State of jVjJ Utah wns admitted Into the Union; (1; 3L) During tho examination of the rlrst witness called by tho protestants, Joseph F. Smith, a discussion arose In which Senator Hoar stated that he understood fl lhat the commltteo had reached a conclu-slon conclu-slon that there were two Issues in tho case ono whether Reed Smoot had prac- fl tlccd polygamy, which tho Senator under- JBJJ stood had been abandoned, and that the only other one was whether or not as an IBb official of tho Mormon Church the re-spondent re-spondent took an oath or obligation that waa superior in his estimation and In its BVjl requirements upon him to tho oath or obligation which ho must take to qualify s him as a Senator. HjBjJ Thoreupon Senator Dubois stated that both these contentions wero set asldo en- ' IBa tlrely and that It was not contended that they would be attempted to bo proved by HBb tho attorneys representing tho protest-ants, protest-ants, fl; 114.) In tho courso of further discussion a member of tho committee having stated that ho never knew until IH Mr. Tayler had stated It that he had abandoned tho Idea of proving that the HBa respondent had taken an obligation thnt Interfered with tho obligations of his oath, Mr. Tayler replied: JBj I can not abandon that which I never occu-pled occu-pled or po&seised. BV Senator Dubois added, "Ho never al-leged al-leged It" (1; 115.) On a subsequent day. Senator Bevor- IH ldge, In order, as he stated, to correct IHjBjJ what he thought was a mistake In the IH popular mind as to what were the LVjBJJ charges against tho respondent which the committee waa considering, said that It had been charged that tho respondent IBs was a polygamlst, which charge had been withdrawn, and that ho had been charged IH with taking an oath Inconsistent with his jJjVJ duty us a Senator, which Senator Bovor- IHjBjJ ldge understood Mr. Taylor to say was not a charge that had been withdrawn, IHjBjJ but was such a chargo as had never been IfljBjJ mado, and thnt. thcrcforo, tho Issue upon IH which tho committee would proceed from IH that tlmo on, so far aa tho protestants HjBj wero concerned, waa whether tho re- tt spondent was a member of a conspiracy. BjBj Thereupon Senator Dubois again stated IIJ that no charge had been mado against Mr. Smoot of taking nn oath Inconsistent with his oath aa Senator except tho Lol- IBb llch charge, which had been abandoned and repudiated, and that tho attorneys fljBj for tho respondent "have boon trying to forco tho protostants to issues which thov themaelves have never raised." 1 (Vol. 1, p. 126.) This wns tho state of the record when the testimony of Joseph F. Smith and several other witnesses had been taken, and tho examination of Francis M. Ly-man, Ly-man, ono of the apostles, was progress- VJlVJ He was naked by the chairman to state what tho "ceremony Is In going through tho endowment house." This being ob-Jected ob-Jected to by tho counsel for rospondent. tho chairman said: Hjfl One of the charges In that Mr- Bmoot has taken an oath or obligation Incompatible with hln obligation as a Senator. The object of thin question Is to ascertain from this witness. BJHJJJ who wont through tho endowment house of jJJ course. I know nothing about It whether any such obllratlonn Is taken. JHJJ Counsel for the respondent having theroupon stated that they understood thnt that charge had been expressly dls-claimed dls-claimed by counsel for the protestants, the chairman replied: JBJJ Counset stated that thoy did not propose, as far as they wero concerned, to offer any proof HjHJJj upon that question, but the chair did not un- JjVjl derstand that thereforo the committee was precluded from showing It. (U 43S.) A little later In tho same session, Mr Taylor, counsel for tho protestants, again stated: it Is In respect of those two things around which all of this caso gathers polygamy and the direction ot the peoplo by the apostolate IH and lf thoso two wore eliminated this hear- IH lng would not be going on here. (1; t$3.) IH After the chairman of the commltteo had ruled as above stated that the wit-ncss wit-ncss Lyman was required to answer the question, his examination on this subject proceeded as follows: The Chairman. Will you please state what the ceremony In In going through the endow-mcnt endow-mcnt house? Mr. Lyman. I could not do so. Mr. Worthlngton. I object to that, Mr. Chairman, on tho ground that It lo Inquiring Into a mnttcr prior to 1530, and I understood, or wo were Informed, that tho commltteo had decided thnt would not be done. The Chairman. One of tho charges Is that Mr. Smoot has taken an oath or obligation Incompatible with his obligations as a Sona-tor. Sona-tor. The object of this question Is to ascer-tain ascer-tain from this wltnoes who wont through the endowment house of course I know nothing about It whether any such obligation Is taken Mr Lyman. Is that the question you asked me. Mr. Chairman? The Chairman. No; that waa not my quta-tlon. quta-tlon. It wns a statement to counsel. Mr. Worthlngton. I had understood. Mr Chairman, that that was expressly disclaimed by counsel hero the other day. Tho Chalrmnn. Counsel stated that thoy. did IH not propose, an far as they woro concerned, to offer any proof upon that question, but the Chairman did not understand that therefore the committee was precluded from showing It In there any objection to the question? Mr- Worthlngton. I do object to It for the reasons already stated: and, further, because It docs not follow nt all that because the wit-ncsn wit-ncsn went through certain ceremonies or took certnln obligations, If you please. Senator Smoot took them. The Chairman. That would not follow of Itself. If nothing further than this can be Wb, at caurxa it will hATs no bearing upqn 1 Mr. Smoot at nil. Read the nutation, Mr. Reporter. The reporter rend tin follows; ' The Chairman. Will you please- stato what . the ceremony Is In going through tho endow-I endow-I mcnt house? ts Mr. Lyman. I could not do so. "J Mr WorthlnKton I da Insist upon my ob-. ob-. Jectlon. I understood tho chulr to ask mo uj whether I had any further objection. Tho Chairman. Tho chair thinks It 18 per-mlsslble, per-mlsslble, and, as tho chair stated, If nothing i appears boj-ond thin to connect Mr Smoot with I It, of course It will havo no bearing upon the il case. Can you stnto what that ceremony was? ij Mr. Lyman. I could not, Mr. Chairman; I could not do so If It was to tavo my life. ! Tho Chairman You could not? 3 Mr Lyman. Is'o, olr. : The Chairman. Can you stnto any portion of It? i Mr. Lyman I might approximate somethlnfr o of It that I romombor. fj The Chairman. As nearly ns you can. jj Mr. Lyman. I remember that I agreed to i bo an upright and moral man, puro In my life. I agreed to refrain from sexual cornel corn-el merco with any woman except my wlfo or .1 wives, ns were Klvcn to me in tho priesthood. ,j Tho law of purity I subscribed to willingly, W of my own choice, nnd to bo trun and good U to all men. I took no oath nor obligation in against any person or any country or govern- j ment or kingdom or anything of that kind. 1 7 , remember that distinctly ' Tho Chalrmon. Of course the charge 13 made. ' I and I want to know the facts. You would ' j know about It. having gono through the. un-'j un-'j . dowmcnt houso7 fA Mr. Lyman. Yea. ji The Chairman. There was nothing of that fi kind? i' Mr Lyman. Nothing of that kind. Tho Chairman, No obligation or oath? j Mr Lyman. Not at all; no sir. (1; 436, 437). After this had occurred, Joseph F. 'j i Smith -was recalled, and on this subject J was further examined by counsel for the h respondent, as follows: 1 i Mr. Tayjer. I wish to ask two questions. ' ! Mr Smith, something has been said about an ' endowment oath. I do not want to go Into j that subject or to Inquire of you what It lo. J but whatever oath or obligation has been j taken by those who havo been admitted to the I church, at whatever stage It la taken. Is the I eamo now that It hon been for years? Mr. Smith. It Is tho same that It has always al-ways been. J i Mr. Toyler. It Is tho eamo that It has al- i ways been? 1 1 Mr. Smith. Yes, so far as I know. , Mr. Taylor. No other oath Is taken now I i than heretoforo? lj Mr. Smith. I should llko to say that there !3 Is no oath taken; that we abjure oaths. Wo . j do not take oaths unless wo arc forced to take, j thorn. Mr. Toyler. I understand. You understand j what I mean any obligation ' j Mr. Smith. Covenant or agreement wo do that. Mr Tayler. Any obligation of loyalty to tho i church such as would bo proper to he. taken? V Mr. Smith Certainly. Mr. Tayler. That Is the same now that It . I has always hcen? ft j Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; that It has always : been, so far ns I know. I can only say that 4 they aro thn same as they were revealed to "J me. 1 Mr Tayler. Exactly Mr. Smith, And as they were taught to mc. t Mr Taylor. You have known them for forty ( years or moro? Mr Smith. I havo been more or less nc-l nc-l qualntfd with them for a great many years. 'l It will be seen that neither the witness Lyman nor the witness Joseph F. Smith a declined to answer nny question that was M put to him with regard to this alleged ! mvnniint nr nhll n-n t Inn :xt witness on tho subject (who, two preceding witnesses, was ed and examined on behalf of estants), wns Brlgham H. Rob-tcr Rob-tcr counsel for the protcstanta nlncd this witness and announced y had no further questions to ask following occurred: airman. Mr Roberte, there Is nn-jeet nn-jeet upon which I wont to ask you n. It has bten stated hero that tho it house was" taken down In 1S00. xsrts. I think earlier than that, ilrman. Well, at some tlmo It was ivn? aerts. Yes. ilrman. Did you over go through tho it house? jorts. Yes, sir. airman. When? icrts. I think it was in 1ST7. airman. Havo you beon present at en othors have passed through the it house? icrta. Yes, sir. airman. Frequently? berts. No, sir. airman. la the ceremony that used formed In what wan called tho en-houeo en-houeo performed now? )crts. I think so. nlrmnn. Whoro? berts. When? airman. Where. I say7 berts. In tho temples, ns I under-Irman. under-Irman. How many temples arc there icrts. I bcllcvo thcro aro four, tlnnan. And the ceremony that used rformcd In tho endowment houso Is jrmcd In the tcmplo7 aerts. Yes, sir. rthlngton. IIo says he thinks It Is. not know, ilrman. Do you remember tho ccre-berts. ccre-berts. No. sir; I do not remember ionics distinctly, ilrman. Do you remember nny por-7 por-7 erta- Only In a general way, Scna-ilrman. Scna-ilrman. Do you know, Mr, Roberts, iange In tho ceremony performed In ivmcnt House and ns It Is performed tho temple? berts. No, sir. ilrman. The ceremony Is tho same. 1 you state to tho committee what mony was, or is, us nearly ns you erta. Well, the ceremonies consist of lid bo considered a series of ccre-! ccre-! toko It, of which I only havo a mpresslon. airman. You havo something moro cneral Impression in your own case? erta. No: I think not ilrman. How many days did it take j through tho Endowment Houso? tcrts Well, part of ono day, airman. Who were present at tho j you remombcr7 jerts. I do not remember, ilrman. Can you tell the committee on of that ceremony? berts. No, sir. airman. Why not? erts. Well, for one reason, I do not aerty to do so. ilrmnn. ,Why not? jerts. Because I consider myself in relation to those matters, and I do at liberty to mako any disclosures n to them, airman. It was then a secret? sorts. Yes. ilrman. Does this religious denoml-,vo. denoml-,vo. ns ono of Its ceremonies,' secret s or covenants? berts. I think they could not be called secrets. Of course they nre o all worthy members of the church, rally known by them, ilrman. Woll, secret from tho world? jerta. Secret from tho world, airman. Tho obligations and covc-latever covc-latever they are, then you arc not at disclose? jerts. No, sir; I would bo led to reft re-ft obligations as similar to those who lava passed through Masonic frater-aro frater-aro members of Masonic, frnternl-alrmaii. frnternl-alrmaii. Then your church organlra-hat organlra-hat particular Is a sort of Maionlc 7 berts. It Is analogous, perhaps, In ts features, ilrman. You say you can remember, , what occurred, but you do not fool to discloss It. and for that reason not dlsclos? it? crte. Not specifically. I do not wish. Senator, to be understood as being ense dctiant In that matter airman. That Is not so understood, rts, at all. borto. I do not wish to put myself tlon or rnlse any Issue hero nt all, lalrman. Tho reason you have as-accepted. as-accepted. Tho obligation, whatever en In the Endowment House. Is such do not feel at liberty to disclose berts. That Ib right lalrman. Should you do so, what u expect as tho result? berts. I would expect to loso casto people as betraying a trust. Overman. Do all members of tho ave to go through that? berts. Not all members. Overman. What proportion of them. Is it regulated? )borts. It Is governed chiefly by is moral worthiness. Bailey. And lo It somewhat a mat-grce. mat-grce. as It Is in Masonry? I believe o soveral degrees, lalrman. Do you recall whether any ni Imposed upon a person who should tho covenants? berts. No, sir. airman. You do not remember? ibcrts, Beyond tho disfavor and dls-hls dls-hls fellows, lalrman. Have- you ever been prcs-mnrrlage prcs-mnrrlage ceremony In tho temple? iberts. Yes, sir. airman. Could you toll what that Is? berts. I could not, only In a general ho ceromony Is of somo length.! I r performing tho ceremony in the caso of my own daughter when she was married, mar-ried, and, not being familiar with tho ceremony, cere-mony, a copy of It was placed in my bands and I read tho ceremony, but I could only remember tho general terms of It. Tho Chairman. If tho members who havo gono through the Endowment House, then, keep faith with thn church they will not disclose dis-close what occurred? Mr. Itoberts. No, sir Senator Bailey Do you feel at liberty, Mr. Roberts; to sny whether or not there Is anything any-thing In that ceremony that permits a man I will adopt a dlfTorent expression that abridges a man's freedom of political action or action in any respect, except In a religious nny ? Air. RobortH. No, sir. Senator Bailey. I do not qulto understand whether you moan by your unswer to say thnt you do not feel freo to answer that or that thero Is nothing. Mr Roberts. I mean to say that thero Is nothing. (1; 710, 712.) Tho Chairman. I want to ask Mr. Roberts one further question What Is thero In these obligation I will not use tho term "oaths" thnt makes It necessary to keep thorn from the world? Mr. Roberts. I do not know of anything especially, except It bo their general tacred-ness. tacred-ness. Thn Chairman. Their general sacrcdness? Ought sacred thlngo to bo kept from the world? . , Mr. Roberts. I think some sacred things ought to be. The Chnlrman. Could you namo one snored thing In connection with this ceremony that should bo kept from the world? Mr. Roberts. No. sir. The. Chairman. Why? Becnur you can not remember? T Mr. Roberts. Well. I could not ty that. I would not say that. Senator. Tho Chairman. You do remcmbor It, then tho sacred thing that you mean 7 Mr Roberts. Somo sacred things I do. Tho Chairman. But you cannot state to tho committee what they are? Mr. Roberts. I ask to bo excused from stat-Inc stat-Inc them . Tho Chairman. But I can not understand exactly how tho church organization nns things that the world must not know of. I did not know but you could give, somo reason Jklr. Roberts. I do not think I could throw any light upon that subject. Tho Chairman. All right; I will not press It. (1-713.) .... Mr. Worlhlngton. I would llko to ask. Mr. Roberts, whether this obligation or ceremony to which you refer In tho Endowment Houso relates entirely to things spiritual or whethor It relates to things temporal also? Tho Chairman. Would It not bo better, Mr. Worthlngton, to let him stato what tho obligation obli-gation Is? Mr. Worthlngton Yes, so far as I am concerned. con-cerned. I would very" much prefer It, but I understand tho suggestion by Senator Pet-tus Pet-tus was that ho was Interpreting that which ho would state. Of courso I do not know anything more about this than tho members of the committee commit-tee do, but I think It might be very well that a witness might be allowed to state, and might properly say, that ho would answer hero as to anything that related to any temporal tem-poral affairs; but no to things which rolnted to matters between him nnd his God, or which he conceived to be between htm and his God. ho would not answer hero or any-whero any-whero else, and thnt would not be an Interpretation, Inter-pretation, but would simply bo taking tho protection pro-tection which I understand tho law gives to every man that as to things which do relate re-late entirely to religious matters they are matters which ho has a right to keep within his own breast. Tho Chairman. Your question woo whether these obligations related to spiritual affairs or temporal affaire? Mr Worthlngton. Yes; thnt wns my question Tho Chairman Tho trouble Is he Interprets a thing which Is unknown and unseeable to no. and which he considers spiritual. Mr. Carlisle. What ho considers spiritual wo might consider temporal, if the matter Itself It-self was disclosed. Tho Chairman It seems to mo thnt the witness having refused to state what tho ceremony cer-emony la, or what the obligations demand, ought not to bo questioned and pormlttcd to stato what he thinks It did not convoy, or what obligation It Imposed, or what It did not impose. Tho committee can Judge of that. Mr. Worthlngton Of course, wo are here not representing the witness, but representing only Senator Smoot. Tho Chairman. Yes. Mr. Worlhlngton. And It is tho witness pleading a privilege and making the refusal, and not Senator Smoot or his counsel. We would llko to have this question nnswered. Tho Chairman. What question? Mr. Worthlngton. Tho question Is whether this obligation refers to things spiritual or things temporal. Scnntor Bailey. I do not think It makes any dlffcrenco to the committee In tho end, or will affect Its conclusions, whether that Is answered or not. I am partly responsible for that line of questions, and I asked tho first question m5ielf because I really Intended to Insist, If It related In nny way to the duties of a citizen, that the committee was entitled to know what that wns, and If It did not. then I had no further Interest In It. The Chairman. Let tho wltne33 answer that question Mr. Roberts. May I havo tho question rend? The Chairman Certainly. The reporter read as follows: Mr Worthlngton. I would llko to nsk. Mr, Roberts, whether thlu obligation or ceremony to which you rofor in the endowment houso relates entirely to things splrltunl or whether It relates to things temporal also? Mr. Roberts. I regard them as relating to things spiritual, abeolutoly. Mr Tayler. If we wcro In a courot of Justice, Jus-tice, and Insisted upon It. I think that opens tho door so wide that tho whole oath would como In. Tho Chairman. I think so, too. Mr. Tayler. But I do not caro to do It. (1; 745, 71C) The next witness called on behalf of the protestnnts was A. M. Cannon. After his examination by counsel for tho proteat-ants proteat-ants was concluded he was further examined exam-ined by tho chairman of the commlttco on this subject, and his testimony wns as follows: The Chairman. Do you remember the covenant cove-nant you took when you went through tho endowment houso? Mr. Cannon. Oh, yea The Chairman. Could you stato tho ceremony. cere-mony. Mr. Cannon. I would not like to. Tho Chairman. Why not? Mr. Cannon. Bccauso It is of a religious character and It is oliiiply an obligation that I rntcr Into to bo puro before my Maker and worthy of tho attainment of my Redeemer and the fellowship and love of my children and their mothers, my departed ancestry, and my coming descendants. Tho Chairman. What objection is there to making that public? Mr. Cannon. Because It is sacred. The Chairman. How sacred? Mr. Cannon. It Is simply a covenant that I enter Into with my Maker In private. The Chairman. All the tenets of your religion reli-gion arc sacred, aro they not? Mr Cannon. Sir? Tho Chairman. They are all sacred, aro they not tho teachings? Mr. Cannon. All of thoso ore sacred; yes, all of thoso 'things. The Chairman. I do not qulto understand why you should keep them secret. Mr. Cannon. It Is because It Is necessary to keep them secret. If you will permit me. Mr. Chalrmnn, we admit only tho purest of our people to enter there. Tho Chalrmnn. People llko you and tho president of tho church? I suppose the president presi-dent of tho church Is admitted? Mr. Cannon. The presidency of the church. If ho continues In good standing, and our people whoever are In good standing and deemed worthy of tho proper recommends aro permitted to enter there. The Chairman. Do you enter Into any obligation obli-gation not to reveal thess ceremonies? Mr. Cannon. I feel that It would bo very improper to reveal them. Tho Chairman. I -ay, do you enter Into any obligation not to? Mr. Cannon. There aro sacred obligations connected with all tho higher ordinances of tho church. The Chairman. In words, do you premise not to reveal? Mr. Cannon. I feel that that Is tho trust reposed In mc, that I will not go and Tho Chairman. I think you do not understand under-stand my question, Do you promise specifically specifi-cally not to reveal what occurs In tho endowment en-dowment houso? Mr Cannon, I would rather not tell what occurs there I say this Tho Chairman. I think, Mr. Cannon, you do not understand me. Do you promise not to reveal what oocuro in the endowment house when you go through7 Mr. Cannon. I feel that that Is an obligation obliga-tion I take upon mo when I do that. Tho Chairman. Whn you go through tho endowment houso do you take that obligation upon you In express tonus? Mr. Cannon, I think I do. Tho Chairman. You know, do you not, whether you do or not? Why do you toko that obligation not to reveal these things? Mr. Cannon. Because wo are I do not want to be disrespectful to this committee. Tho Chairman. I know you would not be Mr. Cannon. Tho Lord gave ua to understand under-stand that wo should not make common tho sacred things that Ho committed to His disciples. dis-ciples. Ho told them thoy must not do that lest they trample them under their feet and rend them. Tho Chairman. Do you remember whether there was any penalty attached If they should reveal? Mr. Cannon. I do not remember that there Is nny penalty. Tho Chairman. Nono whatever? Mr. Cannon. I do not remember. Tho Chairman. Has ther been any cbango In tho ceremony of the endowment houso since you wont through In 1859, up to tho present time, that you aro aware of? Mr. Cannon. No. Tho Chairman, No change In tho ceremony or obligations? Mr. Cannon. No. (1; 791, 793.) Tho next w1tnert.i called by tho prolest-ants prolest-ants was Moses Thatcher. After counsel for the protestnnts had finished their examination ex-amination of Mr. Thatcher, tho tollowlng occurred: Tho Chairman. Ono other question; Tho en-dowmnt en-dowmnt houoc, I bellove, has been taken down? Mr. Thatcher. That Is as I understand it. It has been taken down. Tho Chairman. Han the ceremony of tho endowment houso been wiped out nlso. or Is that performed now? Mr. Thatcher. I am Just trying to think whether I have been through tho temple. In tho light In which I went through tho endowment en-dowment house, to glvo you a correct answer on that, but my Imprerslonn aro that tho ceremony has not been chunged. The Chairman. You havo seen the ceremony In the temple? You havn witnessed It? Mr. Thatcher. I think I have heard It. Tho Chairman. And you think there is no chance In It? Mr. Thatcher. No. sir. Tho Chairman. When did you go through tho endowment houso? Mr. Thatcher. My Impressions arc when I married tho wlfo of my youth In 1S61. Tho Chalrmnn. Will you slate to tho committee com-mittee the ceremony In tho endowment house? I do not mean the ceremony of marrlnco; but did you go through the endowment hoiiBo when you beenmo an apostlo? Mr Thatcher. No, sir; It was not necca-sarv necca-sarv Tho Chairman. You have been through tho endowment house, then, but onco? Mr. Thatcher Yes, sir. Tho Chairman. Will you state to the committee com-mittee tho ceremony of tho endowment houso? Mr. Thatcher. I think, Mr. Chairman, that I might bo excused on that. Mr Chairman. Why? Mr. Thatcher For the re-ason that those wens hold to bs sacred matters and only pertaining per-taining to religious vows. The Chairman. Are you obligated not to ro- vcoi mum ' Mr. Thatcher. Yos; I think I am. The Chairman. What would bo tho effect if you should disclose thorn? That Is. Is thero any penalty attaohed? Mr. Thatcher. There would bo no effect except ex-cept upon my own conscience. The Chairman. That Is all? Mr. Thntcher. That Is all. Tho Chairman But you aro under obligation as a part of tho ceremony not to reveal It 7 Mr. Thntchor. Yes, sir; I feel myself under such obligation (1; 1048. 1049.) This was all the testimony on the subject sub-ject of tho alleged oath or obligation taken tak-en during tho sessions of the committee held In the 6prlng of The last ses sion when testimony was taken during that spring occurred on tho 2nd of May, 1MM When tho taking of testimony was resumed In December, 1904, counsel for the protestants produced and examined certain witnesses on this subject, the substance of whoso testimony will now be stated. J H. Wallls, Sr , who had been a Mormon, Mor-mon, but who had formally notlned tho bishop of his ward, seven or eight months before ho was examined, that he no longer long-er considered himself a member of tho church, testified that on several occasions occa-sions ho had taken his endowments in the temple at Salt Lake City. When first examined ho said that ho did not know whether ho had it exactly right: but that tho substanco of the so-called "oath of vengeance" is that those who took it promised and vowed that they "will never cease to Importune high Heaven to avenge the blood of tho prophets proph-ets on tho nations of the earth or the Inhabitants In-habitants of the earth." He added that if his memory served him, he thought that was about right, and that a passage of scripture Is quoted from the Revelations, Revela-tions, sixth chapter, ninth verse (2; 79.) Tho noxt day Mr. Wallls wns recalled and testified that in repeating the obligation obli-gation ho had made a mistako; and that ho should have Bald "upon this nation'1 Instead of. "upon the Inhabitants of the earth." (2. 148.) Two witnesses were called on bqhalf of tho respondent to Impeach Wallls. Ono of them, Moroni Gillcsplo, who had been a member of the police force In Salt Lake City for eleven or twelvo years, testified that he knew Wallls's general reputation for truth and veracity in the community In which he lived; that it was bad; and that he would not bc-llovo bc-llovo him under oath. Wallls had testified testi-fied that he had never been arrested. This witness testified that he was present pres-ent In the police court on ono occasion tthen "Wallls was under arrest and plead gulltv 16 the charge of drunkenness. Glllosplo further testified that he had known Wallls for several years and that. In his opinion, ho was not altogether of sound mind (3; 317, 318.) The other witness as to tho veracity of Wallls was William Ijington (2, 1022; 3, 143, 144). Nolthor his testimony nor that of Gillespie was contradicted or impaired im-paired in any way. His conclusion, from what ho had seen of Wallls. was that the man was crazy. Ho further testified that, in his opinion, Wallls's general reputation rep-utation for truth and veracity was such that ho would not bolieve him on oath. When Langton was asked by counsel for tho respondent to glvo his reasons for thinking that Wallls was of unsound mind, objection was made by the counsel for the protestants and the objection was sustained (3; 144). But subsequently he was recalled and allowed to glvo his reasons, which he did at length (3; 445). August W. Luntlstrom. another witness for tho protestants, testified that he lind taken the endowment six times, and that the obligation in question was: Wo and ench of ur solnmly promise and covenant that wo shall nsk God to avengo tho blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation, (2; 151-153.) He subsequently slightly varies this statement by saying that the pravcr was: "We ask God. the Eternal Father, to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation." (2; 161.) Three witnesses were called on behalf of the respondent to Impeach Lundstrom. Ono of them, F. S. Fernstrom, testified that ho had known Lundstrom for about fourteen years, and Lundstrom's general reputation for truth In tho community In which ho lived was bad, and Hiat he, witness, would not bellove him under oath. On croos-examlnatlon by counsel for the protestants the fact was brought out that Lundstrom had borrowed from his bishop part of a fund which tho bishop had collected for the support of tho poor, and that when asked by the bishop to return the money. Lundstrom refused to do It, saying that the church owed him a living. (2; 10120 One of theso witnesses, C. V, Anderson, Ander-son, testified that ho knew Lundstrom's general roputatlon for veracity in Salt Lake City, where he lived; that It was bad, and that the witness did not think ho would bellevo Lundstrom on oath. (2: 1013.) ' J. H. Hayward was the third witness on this subject. He tostlfled that ho had known Lundstrom for many years, the latter having been at one time in his employ; that he knew Lundstrom's general gen-eral reputation for truth and veracity In Salt Lake City, where he lived; that It was bad, and that from his reputation tho witness would not bellove him under oath. This evidence as to Lundstrom's reputation repu-tation for truth and veracity was not rebutted re-butted in any way. The third and Inst witness called by the protestante. during the sessions of the committee hold in December, 1904, on this subject of the alleged obligation was Mrs. Annlo Elliott, who testified that sho had taken the endowments several times, and that during the ceremony "they told me to pray and never cease to pray to get revenge for the blood of tho prophets on this nation, and also teach It to my children chil-dren and children's children." (2; 189.) On cross-examination this witness stated positively that sho had never told anybody about this obligation; and that If Mr Tayler was examining her from a memorandum Informing him what her testimony would be, sho did not know where It eamo from or how Mr. Tayler came to get It (2; 194). On her direct examination ex-amination Mrs. Elliott stated that she was married In Denmark, and that her huoband followed her to this country. Her examination by counsol for the protestants pro-testants then proceeded as follows: Mr. Taylor. Is he living now that Is, tho husband whom you married In Denmnrk? Mrs. Elliott. No, sir. Mr. Tayler. You lived with him until he dlod, did you? Mrs Elliott. Yes, sir. Mr. Tayler. Whero did he die" . Mrs. Elliott. Why, In Elslnorc. Mr. Taylor. In Utah? Mrs. Elliott. Yes, sir. Mr. Tayler. When? Mrs. Elliott. In 1897. Mr. Tayler. Did you, after his death, marry? Mrs. ElllotL Yes, sir; I married In 1S09. (2; 184.) J On her cross-examination, after sho had testified that she had loft tho church In 1S97, tho following occurred; Mr. Worthlngton. Was It before or after tho death of your first husband? Mrs. Elliott. Why, It was after. Mr. Worlhlngton. What tlmo In 1S37 did he die? Mrs. Elliott. He died In October. (2; 131.) Tho value of the testimony of this witness wit-ness may be judged by tho fact that tho husband, who followed her to this country, coun-try, not only did not dlo in October, 1S07, but was living at tho tlmo Mrs. Elliott gave the testimony in question; and was subsequently called as a witness on behalf of the respondent (2; 1015. He testified that sho had obtained a divorce from him about six years before ho gavo his testimony, which was In January, 190G. His testimony showed clearly that she knew ho was living when she said he was dead. On behalf of the respondent a number of witnesses were examined on this subject, sub-ject, ami tno substanco of their testimony Is as follows: Hugh M. Dougall, who is a farmer and cattle grower, and is postmaster at tho town of Sprlngvllle, in Utah, was expelled ex-pelled from the Mormon church about 1S74, and since then has not been in any way connected with It. He took his endowments en-dowments when ho was about 25 years old. Ho testified that according to his recollection recol-lection the obligation was. In substance, thnt those who took It Importuned heaven heav-en to avenge, tho blood of the prophots and tho martyrs on thlG generation, and that he did not remember tho name of Joseph Smith being mentioned at all. (2; 759.) Mr. Dougall was subsequently recalled, and asked by Senator Knox this question. ques-tion. "Aro you willing to say whether the vow obligated you to anything Incompatible Incom-patible with your giving full and supremo allegiance to the United States or the Statu of Utah, or which obligated you to anything Incompatible with your fully performing your duty as a citizen of the United States and that State?" He answered- "Not one thing." (2; 7S1.) Alonzo A. Noon left the Mormon church voluntarily about 1S70. when ho was 32 years of age, having taken his endowments endow-ments when ho was 28 or 30 years old. He stated that there was nothing In the ceremony cere-mony about promising or vowing to importune im-portune heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation, and that there was nothing in tho ceremony which In any way imported hostility to tho United States or to the Government thereof. That ho was perfectly clear about that. Ho also said ho did not remember that tho name of JoseDh Smith was used In tho ceremony. He did not recollect that there was In the ceremony a quotation from the Scriptures, and upon hearing read verses 9 and 10, chapter 6, of the Rovolatlons, he said that It was something some-thing like that; that that was about the intent. One of these verses, it will be remembered, remem-bered, was referred to bv tho witness Wallls. The two verses aro as follows: Nino. And whon ho hnd opened tho fifth senl. I saw under tho altar the eoulo of thorn that woro slain for tho word of God, nnd for tho testimony which they held. Ten. And thoy cried with a loud voice saying: say-ing: How long. Oh Lord, holy nnd true, dost Thou not Judge and avongo our blcod on them that dwell on tho earth. (774.) Being asked whether there was anything any-thing In the obligation which indicated hostility to the Government, Mr. Noon said: "Tho very reverse. I have never heard any people taught only loyalty to the Government of the United States." (2; 775.) Mr. Noon was recalled and asked the same question that had hcen propounded by Senator Knox to Mr. Dougall, and he answered the question In tho same way. (2; 7S1) William Hatfield, who was a Mormon until he was 23 years of ago, after which he drifted away from that church, when he wns not quite .21 years of age took h!s endowments as a preliminary to his marriage. mar-riage. (2; 75.) Ho said that neither .he nor any others In his hearing took the obligation which Wallls had testified to. and that ho did not at that time take any obligation or onter Into any covenant, vow, or agreement agree-ment of any kind Inconsistent with his duties as a citizen of the Territory of Utah or of tho United Suites. He was not cross-examined (2, 79G.) John P. Meakln, who was a Mormon until ho was 23 or 21 years of age, left "the church because he did not believe In polygamy. (2; 796.) He went through the Endowment Houso when he was IS years old. He stated that he had no recollection at all of any obligation obli-gation of vengeance or rotrlbutlon, and that nothing took place at the time with reference to promising or vowing to Importune Im-portune heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this Nation, or to avenge tho blood of Joseph Smith or anybody; that thero was nothing took place which Imported any obligation In opposition to his dutv as a citizen cither of the Territory Ter-ritory of Utah or of the United States; that he wns very clear about this, (799.) Ho also said that there was nothing In the endowment ceremony about praying tho Almighty to avonge the blood of the prophets on this generation (2; S01.) Ellas A. Smith, cashier of tho Deseret Savings bank. In Salt Lnko City, in answer an-swer to a question by the chairman, stated stat-ed that he had consclontlous scruples against divulging any part of the endowment endow-ment ceremony (2; 654); but In answer to a question bv Senator Foraker ho said thero was nothing In any obligation of the church which It Imposed upon Its members, in connection with marriage or any other occasion. Inconsistent with fl-dclltv fl-dclltv as citizens of the National Government Govern-ment or to the State government. Mr. Smith persisted that while ho had stated what was not in tho obligation he did not feel at liberty to state what was In It. (2 . 855.) Richard W- Young, wno was a graduate of West Point and of tho law school of Columbia college. New York City, and who had served in the volunteer army In the Spanish war. In the Philippines, and elsowherc Is a member of tho Mormon church, and Is not a polygamlst. (2; 950-952.) 950-952.) He was nsked bv tho chairman If ho had any objection to disclosing what took place during the endowment ceremony, cere-mony, and ho replied that he considered himself under an obligation not to do so. (2; 9G9.) Ho was nsked later by counsol for the respondent If he had any objection to stating whether the ceremony included, in any form or shape, any Invocation of vengeance or retribution against this nation. na-tion. Senator McComns suggested that the witness should state the whole cere--mony or nothing. Thereupon an extended argument was made, at the end of which the witness was asked by counsel for the respondent: In that ceremony la there anything which relates to your duties or obligations to your Government or to this nation, Tho chairman ruled that If the witness should answer this question he would bo required to stato the whole ceremony, and thereupon the witness declined to answer it (2, 9S1-9J3.) Reed Smoot testified positively that thero Is nothing in the endowment ceremony cere-mony about avenging the blood of the prophets or avenging anything else on this nation or on this Government. (3; 1S3, 1S4.) As already stated, tho case was reopened re-opened during the present session of Congress for tho purpose of allowing allow-ing the introduction of further tcstlmonv on behalf of the protestants, and four additional witnesses were produced pro-duced with reference to the matter of tho alleged obligation. No further testimony on the subject was taken on behalf of the respondent. The four witnesses referred to were W. J. Thomas. J. P. Holmgren, H. "W. Lawrence Law-rence and W. M. Wolfe. The witness Thomas testified that ho passed tho endowment house In 1S69. His examination on this subject was as follows: fol-lows: Mr. Carlisle I have asked you about whether wheth-er any ceremonies took place before the oath or obligation took place? If so. stato what It was. Mr. Thomas. Thero wore warnings and an-nolntlngs an-nolntlngs there. Mr. Carlisle. Describe to the commlttco what you mean by anointing. Was your wholo hody anointed or your arm anointed; and. if so, was nny thing said when that was dono? Mr. Thomas. My head wns anointed and my right arm. I do not remember anything else. Mr. Cnrllfle. Was anything said by the person per-son who conducted these ceremonies nt tho tlmo he anointed your right arm? Wcro you told what It was for? Mr. Thomas. Yen, sir; ho spoke very quick and I couldn't catch It all, but I remember when he nnolntcd my arm to mako It strong, and tho substanco of It wns that I would avenge tho blood of the prophets prophet or prophets. I believe It wns tho plural (4; 69.) t . Senator Knox, You took this vow In what year' Mr. Thomns. In 1S&6. Konntor Knox. How long did, you remain In tho church after thut7 Mr. Thomas. 1 remained In tho church up until l&O Senator Knox. That was eleven yearp; and you vowed to avenge tho blood of the martyrs upon this nation, did you 7 Mr. Thomas. Yes, sir. Senator Knox. And your right arm was anointed to glvo you strength that you might do k. Is that corroct? Mr. Thomas. That Is tho way I understood under-stood It. i Scnntor Knox. What did you ever do In tho line of keeping thnt vow? Did you over avengo tho blood of thn martyrs upon thin Nutlon7 Mr Thomns. No. olr. I havo enlisted twice to try to defend tho Nation. Senator Knox. Wcro you evor stirred up by tho nuthorlll03 of tho church to get busy In that direction of avenging the blood of tho martyrs upon thin Nation. Mr. Thomas. No. Mr. Worthlngton. Do you know of nny member of tho church who did do nnvthlng In the way of using his right arm to avengo the blood of tho prophets on this Nation? Mr. Thomns. No. sir. (4; 71, 72.) The witness. Holmgren, on this subject tostlfled that he pnssed through the endowment en-dowment house in 1SS9. His further examination ex-amination on this subject Is as follows: " Mr. Carlisle. Do you remember the ceremonies ceremo-nies that took place at that time? Mr. Holmgren. Part of It. Mr. Carlisle. Aro you willing to stato tho oath that was token, or not? If you aro not, I shall not press you. Mr. Holmgren. What I understood and heard of It euro. Mr. Carlisle. In tho first placo. what occurred. oc-curred. Mr. Holmgren. In th endowment house? Mr. Carlisle. Yes, Mr. Holmgren. Thero wero a number of oaths and performances that wero Insignificant. Insignifi-cant. I would say, until wo came to tho anointing anoint-ing room, and in that, anointing room thero wns some language used that I am sorry I over heard. Mr. Carlisle. Can you state what it was? Mr Holmgren In anointing my arms, tho gentleman used thla language: "That your arms might be strong to avengo tho blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith." (4; 76, 77.) The witness, LawTenco, who -was 70 years old at tho tlmo he. testified, stated that he was a member of the MOrmon church until 1SC9, and that he had taken or administered the alleged obligation in question a number of times. Tho following follow-ing aro tho substantial parts of his testimony testi-mony on this point; Mr. Carlisle. Mr. Lawrence, would vou object ob-ject to stating whethor thero is any oath, commonly called here tho oath of vengeance, taken In tho endowment house, and what it Is? Mr Lawrence. Yes; thero Is. Mr. Carlisle Can you stato It In terms or In substance? Mr. Lawrence "You covenant and agree before be-fore God and angels and these witnesses that you will avenge tho blood of the probers, tho prophst Joseph Smith. Hyrum Smith, Parley P Pratt, David Patton" thejr names aro mentioned. Mr Carlisle. Was that tho caso when you took tho endowment? Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. I do not know whether thoy were all mentioned when I was thero or not but they havo been mentioned when I havo been there. Mr. Carlisle You havo passed through tho endowment a number of times? Mr. Lawrence. Yes; I havo been thero a number of times. Mr. Carlisle. You mean the.e names havo been mentioned somo of the- times when you passed through? That is what you mean? Mr. Lawrence. Yes. sir. Mr. Carllale You do not know whether they were nil mentioned nt tho eamo tlmo or not? Mr. Lawrence. No, sir. Senator Dillingham. Do I understand tho witness has given tho wholo of tho obligation? obliga-tion? Mr. Carlisle. I will ask him. Do you remember re-member now whether thero was anything said about vengeance upon the people or vengeance ven-geance upon tho nation, or whnt was said of that sort, if vou remcmbor? Mr. Lawrence. I say It has been stated. I can not stato It only as I understand It. Tho word "nntlon" was not mentioned where I was In regard to that vengeance, but tho feeling feel-ing has always been agnlnst tho nntlon and tho Stato for allowing that deed to bo perpetrated perpe-trated Tho word "nation" wns not mentioned. men-tioned. It Is a Uttlo ambiguous In rogard to that. Mr. Worthlngton. You say you aro ambiguous ambigu-ous or It was ambiguous? Mr. Lawrence It was a llttlo ambiguous thero who It should bo executed on. The supposition sup-position Is It should bo executed on the perpetrators per-petrators of tho deed. Mr. Carlisle. Mr. Lawrence, I will got you to state, If you can, whether this covenant, or oath, or whatever It may be called. In ai-ways ai-ways administered by tho same person and In tho Bamo terms, or whother it is administered adminis-tered at different times by different porsons, and whether It Is In writing or merely oral. Mr. Lawrence. It Is ndmlnlHtore'd orally by dlfTcrcnt persons nt different times. Mr. Carlisle. It may bo, then, that thcro Is a dlltcront form of the cath? Mr. Lawrence. It may be administered a llttlo llt-tlo dlffcrunL Of course the substance Is about tho Kamo, but thore may be some men who administer It a llttlo different from others. I havo no doubt that It Is, from what I have hoard. Mr. Carlisle. You may take the witness. Senator Knox. Was this .vengeance to bo executed by tho pereon taking the oath, or vow, or wero you to Implore the Almighty to avenge tho blood of tho prophets 7 Mr. Lnwrenco. As 1 say. It was a llttlo ambiguous am-biguous In regard to thnt. Of course you take nn oath to avenge tho blood of tho prophets nnd tench the principle to your children chil-dren and children's children Senator Knox. I think you do not understand under-stand mc. You fltated a moment ago that thoro was somo ambiguity In tho oath ns to whom tho vongcanca is directed ngnlnst, Mr Lawrence Yes. , Senator Knox. Now, I nm asking you who waH to executo tho vongeance. Wns the person taking the vow or oath to execute it or wero they to Imploro by prayer that God should take this vengeance? Mr- Lawrence. Woll, that was not inserted in it for the Lord to do it. They simply took upon themselves tho oath to do It; but I say It Is almost Impossible for them to wreak vengeance, ven-geance, bccauso those men that committed the deed havo probably gone years ago, Senator Knox. My question was based on tho exact language used by Professor Wolfe yesterday Ho said that he heard tha oath taken very recently, nnd that they vowed or promised that they would pray to Almighty God to avengo tho blood of tho prophets. I think It Is qulto material, and I want to know what your recollection Is about It ... Mr. Lawrence. That was not Inserted In my day that Is. In regard to asking God to wreak this vengeance. (4; 10S. 103.) Mr. Worthlngton. Tell us about how many times you were present when this oath wns administered? Mr Lawrence. I could not say. It would go Into tho hundreds, probably. Mr. Worthlngton. Several hundred times? Mr, Lawrence. Yes; or dozens, I would say from one to three years, probably. Mr. Worthlngton. And on each occasion to a great many people, I suppose 7 Mr. Lawrence Yes, sir. Mr. Worthlngton On all occasions when you heard it administered to others, or whon It was administered to you. did you ever hear any reference to tho nation of the United States ns tho object of vengeance? Mr. Luwrence. During my administration thu word "nntlon" wao not used. Mr. Worthlngton. Do you mean you ndmln-lstcred ndmln-lstcred tho oulh? Mr. Lawrence No, sir; ye?, sir. I mean I officiated thero with tho rest of thorn. Mr. Worthlngton. Then you both administered adminis-tered tho covenunt. and you heard others administer ad-minister It? Mr. Lawrence. Yes. sir. Mr. Worthlngton- You administered It hundreds hun-dreds of tlmnn, and you heard It administered hundreds of limes: Is that right? Mr, Lawrence. I wns there off and on for one or two yoars. Mr. Worthlngton. Did you administer It hundreds of times? Mr. Lawrence. I will say yes. (4; 110, 111.) . Mr. Worthlngton. Now', I como back. During Dur-ing nil tho tlmo you administered tho onth, or heard It administered by others, did you ever hear the "nation" or tho "United States," or tho "Government of the United States" referred to In any way as tho object -of vengeance that was the subject of that covenant? cov-enant? Mr. Lawrence. I will say, at that time. It was not connected with the obligation. I will say this, that tho Government haB always been blamed for allowing that deed to bo perpetrated. Mr. Worthlngton. Don't let us depart from tho ceremony I want to And out what took plnco at tho ceremony when you ndmtnlstercd tho covenant Did you administer It always In the same language? Mr. Lawrence. I tried to, sir. Mr Worthlngton Where did you larn It? Mr. Lawrencu. I learned It from tho church ritual. I suppose. It was what was given to ma. Mr. Worthlngton. Was It something that was In writing or was It In print? Mr. Lawrence. No. sir; not In writing. Mr. Worthlngton. It was communicated to you orally and ypu committed It to memory, did you? Mr. Lawrence. Yes, Mr. Mr. Worthlngton. Do you remember who gavo It to you? Mr. Lawrence. I do not remember Just now. Mr. Worthlngton. It was given to you an the traditional oath of tho temple, was It not 7 Mr. Lawrence. It was given to mo to use. Mr. Worthlngton, You havo said to Mr. Carlisle thnt thoro Is no doubt that tho language lan-guage of thu covenant was varied from time to tlmo. Did you ever hear It glvr-n In any other form than that you havo told us about? Mr. Lawrcnco. Yes. I will explain that. I hnvo said that thero wero different parties that officiated nt different tlmcf, and from whnt I had henrd they had changed It a little. lit-tle. Inasmuch aa It was orally given, ono man would administer It a llttlo different from othors. Mr. Worthlngton. You know that by hearsay? hear-say? Mr. Lawrence. I know that by hearsay only. (4; 111. 11?.) . Mr. Worthlngton. Referring to this ceremony, cere-mony, nnd tho covenant of vengennco, ns It Is callrd, do you remember in that connection whether thcro was any pasnago In tho Book of Rovclatlons of the Bible? Mr. Lawrcnco. Yes. olr. Mr. Worthlngton. Whnt Is that? Mr. Lawrence. That Is used In connection with this as a Justification for it. Mr Worthlngton. Can you give us tho vcr and chnpter of Rnvelntlonn? Mr. Lnwrenco. I think It Is a chnpter from Revelations. It Is probably chapter six. It Is tnken from Revclntlon3. It Is simply referred re-ferred to. I will answer that that quomtlon Is referred to. Mr. Worthlngton. Was It not a part of tho teaching of tho church, when you were connected con-nected with It, thnt tho Constitution of tho United States Is an Inspired document? Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. Do you wnnt an answer to thnt? Mr. Worthlngton. I have all the answer I can havo, sir. If thero Is anything you wish to odd to take away from tho offset of your testimony, you havo that privilege, provided It Is not a speech. Let mo read the ninth and tenth verses of the sixth chapter of Rovclatlons, and see If thoe Mr. Lawrence "How long. Oh, Lord 7" It Is Just a quotation Mr. Worthlngton. T will read tho 'two. and seo If thoso two verses, or either of them, aro tho ones to which you refer: "And when ho had opened tho fifth eeal I 5aw under tho nltnr tho souls of them that wcro slain by the Word of God, and by the testimony which they held. "And they cried with a loud volco. saying. How long Oh Lord. Holy and truo, dost thou not Judge and avengo our blood on thm that dwell on the earth?" Mr. Lawrence. That Is part of It In connection con-nection with this. Mr. Worthlngton. We would llko to have the wholo of It. Just show us all that was referred to In your ceromony thoro. Mr Lawrence. "How long. Oh Lord, Holy nnd true." Mr. Worthlngton. "Dont thou not Judgo and avengo our blocd on them that dwell on the earth?" Mr. Lawrence I think that was tho part connected with It Just that part. Mr. Worthlngton. You ray that wan used aa a Justification of tho covenant. In con nectlon with It? Mr. Lawrence. Thnt was used ns a Just!-, ficatlon of the obligation. Tho Chnlrman. Ho did not say a Justification Justi-fication of the covenant. Mr Lawrence. I said that was used as a Justification of tho obligation. (4; 110, 117.) It will bo seen that all three of tnese witnesses flatly contradicted what seems to be tho theory of the protestants, thnt tho obligation In question Involved a promlso on tho part of the party going through tho ceremony hostilo to tho United Slates or an appeal to the Almighty Al-mighty to Inflict punishment on the Nation. Na-tion. Tho other witness on the point now under un-der consideration is W. M. Wolfe. Ho testified that he had passed through tho endowment house no less than twelvo times, the first time being In May, 1S94, and tho last time In October. 1902. His examination ex-amination on this subjoct then proceeded as follows: Mr. Carlisle Will you state to tho commlttco commlt-tco whether thero Is. as part of tho ceremonies cere-monies In tho tcmplo. any onth administered? MY. Wolfe. There aro several oaths administered. ad-ministered. Mr. Carlisle. Can you stato what they aro? Mr. Wolfe. Thero Is nn oath of chastity, or, I might Bay. a covenant or law a law of sacrifice nnd a law of vengance. Mr. Carlisle. When you say a law of vengeance, ven-geance, whnt do you mean? Do you mean that thero Is any promlso or pledge to avengo n. wrong, or do you mean simply that thoro Is some law read to you, or somo rulo read to you? Mr. Wolfe. There is no covenant or agreement agree-ment on tho part of any Individual to avengo anything. n Mr Carlisle. Just Btato to the committee whnt It p. Mr. Wolfo. Tho law of vengeance Is thH-ou thH-ou nnd ench of you do covenant nnd promlso prom-lso that you will pray, and never ceaso to pray, Almighty God to avenge tho blood of the prophots upon this nation, nnd that you will teach tho samo lo your children and your children s children unto tho third and fourth generations." At tho conclusion the shaker "fr81 ' .,' ,bow your hcads and Kay 'Yen.' Mr. Carlisle. Was that done? Mr. Wolfo. It wus dono. Senator Overman, Was that dono evcrv time, or Just one time? through' 7.V Wfl8 d" VCr Um0 1 nt Mr Wolfe, for several years, and up to iniryTJfSt wa no o the professors In tho Brlgham Young College, at Logan, Lo-gan, a Mormon institution. When asked on cross-examination whother charges of drunkenness had not been preferred against him in the institution. Pho said that no such charges had been made, to nl? . knowledge, but that such charges might hae been preferred against him. Upon being asked what he meant by saying that such charges might have been preferred against him. he answered that ho meant that he had made himself Ila-ble Ila-ble to such charges for n period of nos. slbly twenty years. (4; 24). Ho admitted that certain officers of tha institution had had conversations with W"i ,n regard to hla habit of drlnkintr (4-25) He admitted that he had K required re-quired to resign his position In January last; but claimed that this wns done because be-cause about that tlmo he had given notice no-tice that ho would no longer pay rtlthlmr He admitted that ofilcers of the Inst t tlon had made objection to his habits of drinking but said that they had never suggested his removal, or the deslrabllltv of his resignation until ho had refund to pay tithes. (4; 2G). n-iuseu As to Wolfe's testimony, the respondent offered considerable testimony in rebuttal. rebut-tal. Ono of the witnesses on this subject was James H. Lin ford, the president of Brlgham Young College. He testified fully as to Wolfe's habits of drinking for a considerable con-siderable period prior to tho time he was compelled to resign; and tostlfled. In substance, sub-stance, that Wolfe's resignation was not demanded on account of his refusing to pay tithes, but because his habits of drinking had grown on him so that It was no longer possible to allow him to retain his position. (4: 261, 271). There was also filed on behalf of the respondent tho affidavit of Joseph eT Cardon. the bishop of tho ward at l gnn, in which Wolfo lived. This affidavit was admitted as evidence by consent of counsel for the protestants. and by leave of the committee. In this affidavit tho witness contradicts what Wolfo stated in his testimony with roforenco to a conver-tUhing conver-tUhing witness on the subject of Wolfo was also contradicted, in a vcrv matcrlal part of his evidence, by four witnesses. Ho had preferred charges against ono Benjamin Kluff. in connection connec-tion with a certain expedition that had been made to Mexico, of which expedition Kluff was in charge, nnd Wolfe was a member. Wolfe testified that on that expedition ex-pedition he had Been Kluff living In marital mar-ital relations with one Florence Reynolds who Is alleged to have beon Kluff s' plural plu-ral wife, taken since the manifesto. woiro testified that, at tho hearing of these charges before n church council he had stated that he had seen Kluff nnd l'lorcncc Reynolds living in that relation. By consent of counsel for the protestants. protest-ants. and by leave of tho committee, there were filed tho affidavit of tho stenographer stenograph-er who took down Wolfe's statement, and the Joint affidavit of the three mem-hers mem-hers of the committee before whom he made his statement, all of them saving that he had not In any way referred to the fact that he had senn Kluff and Florence Flor-ence Roynolds living together, and that he did not in any wav refer to the rela- US"8,??10611 those two people (4; 302. 401. 409.) Taking all of the testimony on this subject sub-ject together, the overwhelming weight of It Is against tho contention that tho respondent re-spondent ever tok any obligation of hostllltv to the United SUitca. Seven witnesses hsve in an indefinite wy testified tes-tified that the obligation Included some kind of a promise or prayer Indicating hostility to the nation, while 13 witnesses, wit-nesses, about one-half of whom were called on behalf of the protestants, have. testified positively TWl the contrary, a q? ?t, UnSll have testified that th lhe WflBI used In ih obhpatln15 "W peached as to Si n hav0 evidence hnat0becn0l,rntlbniaji sustain the veracity00"? |