Show K H t MINORITY REPORT IN CASE OF F SENATOR ENA T J I H iH i The Th undersigned members of ot the con com committee coni c ni i mitte on privilege ami election hav havIns I 1 in Ins had under indr consideration senate nate i U No o 1 Congre I 0 second ld session Milon Ion adopted Jan Ja 17 1 i l It Iti Ji 4 i b ng unable un hie to acre gre A with wit the thc Ih major of ot it lh Ih Us committee submit the following I minority They attach hereto herto ond nd muk mak a I a fun full tl statement of ilu Lh Ih cate l pi all n chug affect lug h Ir IrI or r In Intending I tending tel lo to t affect a ft the tb Hd il title tile cf t f ti fIL I In IL i Heed Hed Smoot moot to A teat b I In tn II tit senate 01 is isa 1 a n B on a tor from the thi Ib Stilt State St II of o Utah II h to together to together I gether with lh Al iti n abstract of ot t nil 11 II the ma ml 1 relevant and Ind competent testimony tul I mony II with respect thereto nd I ele deduced I Ii i t j j They eK k that thI the tho same may be b print printed ed tid for tor purposes of ot reference as u a ai H part if i I of ot o this report and nd respectfully refer i to the as I a more complete state tate statement ment of ot the th following findings and propositions and ald the te testimony and ir sr r rl l In of tf lt the same tuie IUle upon i they the base ba their thIr th lr from fro the tI conclusions and nd report of the majority of 01 the committee Senator br Smoots Q I nal a I I tita ku lum I mj Heed 11 Snoot Smoot pl all al qualifications prescribed by b the Ibe Constitution c to make him eligible to tJ t a seat t In tnt senate and end the II regularity of ot his hi elec Ile tion lon by b the legislature of ot the tt stats State of ot Utah L tah l Ii hi not questioned In any an manner Irreproachable Aside Ald from his hie hi connection with It I the Mormon ormon Church so eo 1 fir far as ae 1 his hie hi character Is Ii I concerned It is Ii l according lo 10 alt all 11 the lI witnesses Irreproachable Ir for forA or oral A all al who testify on In the subject ogre agree aJ or ur ir concede that he ha ha led If and md Is Ia I leading l I Ian n upright ht tire life IH entirely free fr from im In immoral moral pra of o every eve kind kin He lie II is I Int net nt a I has hu never had hall but bul butone bulOM one OM wife and has h been ben noted from early eal manhood Ina nho for tor his ht hl opposition to tt plural marriages and an probably did dk as at as URn I any other ether member of It the Mormon Church hureh to tf bring brn about abut the th prohibition of tf I further plural muri hut Has IU lit lIl II So Eu far fir as ts a mere mee belief bill ami nd member membership mem r ship In iii 11 the Mormon Church l hurd are ae eon con concerned f rno he be li l I fully fly within his tights and privilege uld unde f the guaranty guarni of ot te re freedom given by br b the Ion Uon of o the United Unie States Staw for ter there Is II no fl statutory provision and could not be prohibiting either such belief lef 01 in HI such fuch membership In Moreover having special reference to 10 the ti lh Mormons residing In Utah ind their peculiar l belief belf it I was WA provided in Ic 11 the act of ot Congress passed July Jul If e 1191 that Iba the th people of 0 Utah t I provide In their constitution by b ord orl Irrevocable without tie lie consent tot of the United States and people of paid uld states 1 J perfect t toleration of ot roll sentiment shall phal he tie I secured and that no 0 inhabitant of ot said Mid stAt stain III Her ever be In person or on account of hl his hll or o her Jur mode mOe of ot w it worship Provided that or plural marriages are ar fore forever r prohibited In consequence there was 1 In Inthe Inthe the constitution of o the State Stale of ot Utah In a n compliance with wih this requirement and thereupon the territory was wa WI duly admitted as IU a I state stale of the Union Accordingly members of ot the tho Mormon lorion 0 Church open n and avowed believers blIver in 1 it 11 doctrines ol and nn teachings have hae been t admitted without to both t houss of or Jr the state slate of ot Congress as a iv 1 of ot There Therl remain but two grounds on In the right or title tte of ot ni wt to his hl f tent eal et In II the senate Is I con t t l They are al I 1 That he hI Is li hown to have lako hat ht In tA spoken of 0 In the record rord as is II Ui the endowment endow mont oath uth by b which he lie obligated gated JUM himself to loke his hll to II the Church of oC hl his hll ante to 10 the lb States Slate nail and andt t 2 That by b reason of ot his rela relation tion U to 10 the tho Church an al a ono one n o if l lu Its apos apo apostle f the tle he hI li Is I for Co polygamous which yet 1 01 11 1 u among tinong the Mormons onnon It In IA i prohibited b I law lawAn An As to 10 the tim Qt t oath oth It I I t II In ti this to my pay that the testimony Is I collated and In the the annexed and an thou thor thorby by 1 JI hol to 10 be b In amount amoum ai and ald Indefinite II In character dascle ani Utterly unreliable l I ut nt th the ills ls I and an charM j the witnesses ter te te of oC I c There The were we but een who made tand de any of 01 about alt any ally ni fuch uch obligation ohl lol One Ole of o thee WM wac by b the tN lb testimony of ot two to uncoil to b 1 mentally un round fOn Another to 10 have committed perjury In the Ihl testimony I II mon given hn e ethe the ibe th commute committe on another point The third thIr WI was af shown by th tM the t of 01 a number of et t ti have ave a bid bad bd reputation for tn truth and anSI and In to 10 be b thoroughly able nWe nb A fourth f rth admitted that he be hud bed huden been en for year yer intemperate end and 0 WA 11 bown by b testimony 10 to Jm hato v bet leet lI hi his hll position on that Ul nUh Rad nd id thereupon and Ind for fo 01 that r reann a on tn In lw have e from tr the til Church and II to tl save have kill such nuch uCh a s 11 end t vc attitude M an to tf entirely tin credit Mi him a I s a reliable 1 The Th Theother other three were nero CN to J o Indefinite rs re rs to their M t ment that their thir rn amounted at mow mo to 10 inore nors than an n attempt to Mate elate 1111 an In n Im J and ml re ic f roll ret Ion n nn I I li b I Alt All Al that It II In is II attempted to in tf show how Aho M tn the character of 01 thin thu oath la is lively thI ti i contradicted l I by Re RI d t nat noil nil number f wh wP K S greet great numb If ln t f fet et n and II I and aM wh rep ipp reputation 1 for tor truth and siut an veracity n ll arc arf aT ur ur u o fiM except zeept Ir In 51 a far n a nth I ait it t th their lr may I be b y the feet fact that th they y are or have han be i in n members of or the th Mormon 4 Church Upon t J this thin stair alot of r Ae a e are arc rp of nf opinion that I h I no 01 ground has Iu been b r e on hl h to 10 predicate a s fini o I In or o belief that Ih Mr lr r Smoot mM ever eyer er took tOk nn obligation Involving hostility to the th rf d mate tl nr r inquiring him to In Int t regard his ale altan to tn the th Mormon Mol 1 Church buick burth a 1 as to In hU hit hUnn bI l nn In and duty dot dut to 10 the th Ih State tt t 1 UK I I U The 1 only remaining que tl n Is I LI whether or nm mt n I If nf f hi hil his ri relation tn to ih ib II Church I as sine one nf n n lt I its he h hu has an sn r t n for forthe i the nf f en ro habitation fa hi nf tf that Ihal Church I u rI Tile T Th on ibis hi point s also alwi If 11 1 nn In l ted In the th r annexed a It will be bt by h an n examination of nt that thaI that thet he tic h hap hs hl neter nf at It ItIn f In nj ny time tim and ad o he h ha not nl notI I pInic In the lbs th nth o of f 18 1 countenanced 4 or r d plural In 1 but lut that r i he contrary h b lie has h aM the polk of ot f the t tf if Church hureh hurk as I announced ann by b that 11 pro f d i by b active s Mid nd his hia h Influence i 0 i effect ele A it com complete r f r if if f such pint mar mr and ld that Ihal in 1 the Ihl toy Instances by t I the th le where hl plural and Ind polygamous co en ai SI a a result of nr them 01 ha h have I occurred since n 1 lUll they tM have kyl been without Iott city i I Ibee bee ince or M a PI 1 whatever on nn hi his hh part Irl IrlA 1 I As A to tl cohabitation In cv ns of plural arra sn ti n i I I treed Ifred In Into Int before the manifesto 1 f t 1 I there Is I no ny to ti sri that Ii h hI f fh h hi ever t r done m more re than th il i I In this inee again aln II Is in T Hew tic of nr his hi important and aid al n in the lh thi Knee might be hI h regarded as aa A I I Ii I J able ble if I It I ret w rot Int f ir the clr Ir I ato I 5 ii Ih nIM lion Jon of nf this r s Some Sl 1 I Id I To understand her f c dJ t It m Is II necessary to recall some ome historical feeLs I fa II among which are arc come ome that In Indicate Indle dle that the United States govern In is I not fr tr free c e from for lOr luw he e violations ns of ot the law 11 Instead 1 f t and nd prohibiting polygamy when W It i wu was proclaimed and practised the remained al 11 nail and did Ild nothing In that behalf While hUt ti j wi was WM ae thus titus at Bt lean Ila 1 man marl indifference President Ire Fill 11 morp inori ld nd the boRIc f natt of the United t In September 1850 gave afe b bitti th recognition and encouragement oy by D the Ihl appointment and confirmation of ot tain larn Young tho the then thel head hAd of n the Church find and ia nn an open oln and nd avowed ad adOt ote Ot and of It polygamy 1111 Id to be governor of o the territory of ot Utah Uh I When 1 his term torm of o office r expired under this appointment ho hI was WAR re reappointed l by Pierce and amI again agall oon oun on Armed by Ir the nate ill rt ft There was WA no legislation 1 or action of 01 any kind hind by on tItle this sub t until the act ad of ot July I 1562 ISU which w was In language a a as well ox na I legal ef cf effect r trl nothing more than a 1 prohibition or of o bigamy In iii 11 the territories and other over which the United Unie State had hd Jurisdiction After At thi act act for tor a period of ot SO O 0 years rl plural marriages marriage and oils oua ou cohabitation Ih continued c In the tile ter tr territory elton of practically unrestrained n antI and without any Iny serious effort efort on the ther ant part patI the r Mine Mme of ot the United States to relict law of ot 1882 I Finally In response to 10 an al aroused the public sentiment Congre pawed pass act of ot March II n 2 by b which I t pro prohibited pr both plural ural marriages and a 11 polygamous cohabitation but ul I IIII lied hl the tho lu children n of ut ft all Al such suh marriage born brn prior to 10 the first Ir t day da of ot January JAnuar Under Und this thin act net pro mi Inaugurated to 10 enforce It 11 pro provisions visions but bUI It I vas WA soon In demonstrated th that t public WM was WA such that Ihal only nl partial and nd very Oe n could b b be secured U Art lt CI Then follow e l what hl Is known a at ac the act of March h 3 by which among other things the therl rules rl s of ot evidence were w 1 en d ai aito II aito to make It I It lees difficult to tn seethe evi eI evidence dence In Iii n for tor or polygamy I Id and ami d polygamous cohabitation gain Again by the term of ot this thi act all 11 the chil children dren Iren born horn within i 1 12 months after fter its I lUIe wor oro l Manifesto tn This Thin Il wae a upheld urI by I the su u wal court of 01 the United State States ami t orts to such luch offenses of were redoubled with fuch urh that on Oi the tIlt Ih h da tal of cit t September isao lIO th the then president of ot the Ihl Church Chuich Wiford I l I what hat IH Is I known as al the to of If forbidding further plural plura So f far tar lS aa s tho the top le letmon e there have b bon hoti on hut but few tl plural marriage since Inc perhaps not mote mure murl linen limn the Ihl bigamous marriage during the Ihl same name me period among the tha loll orron Number of nt t The evIdence shows that there were at this thin time about aboul 1400 2400 polygamous families In II the territory of o Utah This number was nai reduced to and Olt some lame odd families In 1906 nos A few fw of ot these families may have hB W removed out olt of nt the tite of M Utah but hut so 0 far or an as ni the th testimony many mony mon i l the great reduction In number ha has on account of ot the ins deaths death of If the heads head of these them thle familIes It I Mill nih 1 be only a few tew years at nt most mott mol un until UI til iii li all Al will wil ihl have passed Ii td away aI This feature nf or the Ihl situation dilution haM hati had a con controlling controlling on trolling Influence upon public scott senti sentiment ment In the Plato of ot Utah with nith re rep respect pt p tt to 10 tho for polygamous mou motis cohabitation since Inca the manifesto t of 1890 Whether right or Ir wrong when when plural were stopped anti and Ind the of or tense feme fen of o lol lm wa tas 11 confined to the Ihl of ot those who had con contracted traded trader marriages 11 ReI before 1890 1 V O putt mid midI I those who hn had lied contracted before the th statutes of o UR I I ItT 7 and 1112 I U the th to 10 prose irose to e eute ute rule for fop theo tho e offenses 11 become so W strong even Ivl mun the that such prosecutions were practically abandoned I It I w was WA not alone the fact that thaI If I no n further plural marriages were werl to be contracted would necessarily In the th course cure of time din die out and amt InI paw I al awe RW but hut also nl the fuel feet that Congee having by b the statutes of ot 1 IS and an 1167 specifically p fl fc I legitimized the th children of ot these th l polygamous marriages marriage It U was WI ent If I not unwise minis and nd Im mi Impossible 11 possible In the th opinion of even the d ii prohibit the father tather of at such II h children from living with wih sup supporting aU supporting porting potU hi educating and suid ald caring earing ra 1111 for thesis them but If It the II father wal was thus thin to II liti Ih with lh support educate and anil AnI care re for fir the It children It I rm 1 harsh ha h and unreasonable l to tl exclude from this thi re f the th mothers of the th Such uch are arc ae sonic of the tho reasons rean as assigned al assigned signed fin 1 Ih the lack lck ef of o a n public senti mem In to tt upheld pe successful tul prosecution for after ll I UI t It I Is II IO to recite rell others oiher Ith for It I Is I enough to my N y that whatever the real reason or r explanation tInt tion may ml ina be he M the Ih fart was Wil that after US 16 I U It I became practically impossible to tr enforce the law against aln t these the of ot ofen oten en enie XIII In iii cases C Iri lii lilt lots nf iii fr I iii hitch 11 WAS I the situation when ahen wh n the territory applied a for tor admission to the Union and Goatees passed rs the en enabling n abling art of July Jul U 1 by b which the th people II of I Utah Ulah In order to 10 entItle them t to admission Into the Union on terms tr by b Congress were ere Ne required to tt In their eon con constitution cn a proviso that polygamy or plural marriages marriage p are forever toler prohibit prohibited ed r 4 not polygamous cohabitation It I I will III 11 be observed but bt only ol polygamous marriages muru Tae flit Te testimony tl shows shonn Iho that there was I a I common understanding both in C Congress anti and Utah llah that thero wet t not n I only to In b hI ho no more mor plural but that prosecution for polygamous Ds ue cohabitation had ha become me no WI pf 1 difficult that there was WAi R a 1 practical M ip lo n of nt them and that time wai vai Wil I the tM only ont certain solution of o the per I problem This centime has hu ha not only fl ever pter N I elmp contInued but with the constant I of the number nf of polygamous fn I and nd the |