| OCR Text |
Show Uhe Apostle Politician lleed Smoot. The candidacy of plain Reed Smoot for United States Senator from Utah should bear no more important im-portant relationship to the public than any other like event. The candidacy of Reed Smoot, apostle of tho Mormon church, for the position indicated, is a proposition vastly different. For the purpose of this discussion his qualifications for the place would it not be really fairer to say his entire absence ab-sence of qualifications? are immaterial. Whether qualified or not, the fact will be gainsaid by no capable person of unbiased attitude with respect to tho questions involved, that his name would not be mentioned in connection with the honor but for his apostleship. His service to the Republican party gives no warrant for the aspiration; his commanding com-manding wealth does not entitle him to it; his commercial relations and business acumen fail to put him above hundreds of others in the State who are his peers and superiors, ripening years are not his, such as are popularly supposed to be accompanied accom-panied by acknowledged wisdom and tested judgment judg-ment No distinguished service to the State or country at large forms the basis of his lofty aspiring; as-piring; nor does he enjoy among the people of his own faith, where the most potent expressions are naturally found in his favor, a reputation for good sense, tolerance and a silence that might command respect on which to found the mighty hope he openly cherishes. On the contrary, judged by all accepted rules, his only utterances have been boastful and brutally frank. These statements are facts and being such the conclusion is tenable that his vaulting ambition grows from an egotism that argues unhappily for the State and is fed only because he is one of the twelve apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But waiving all question of mental disability conceding him deserving of the place on his personal per-sonal merits, should he be chosen to represent the people of Utah in the United States Senate? If behind the sentiment which prevented B. H. Roberts Rob-erts from retaining his seat in the national House of Representatives a valid moral uprising existed, then there can be no room for Apostle Smoot or any other apostle or higher official of the Mormon church in the United States Senate. I am aware of his claim that he is guiltless of any violation of the law, but I take that justification justifica-tion on his part as an evidence of the man's innate in-nate littleness of character and of that inherent business which leads weak men to aspire to high place even at thesacrifice of great principle for 1 cannot help feeling that a people who have suffered as Mormons have for their faith must have great principles to sustain them. This same disposition on his part was manifested by Mr. Smoot when B. H. Roberts was on the rack in the House of Rep. resentatives because of his polygamous condition. When asked what he thought should be done by Roberts he unhesitatingly guve it as his opinion that his co-religionist should be ousted and that quickly. Perhaps the significance of this utterance utter-ance which, by the way, was neither contradicted nor modified may not appeal to all as it does to me; but I have no earthly or heavenly sort of use for a man who expounds an unpopular doctrine, believes in it heartily, and is then ready enough to see the vengeance of an uprising public wreaked upon a man who has had the courage to give life and vitality to that which the cowardly apostle, beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt, in his heart of hearts firmly believes to be a vital decree of the Almighty. Conceding that he speaks truly when he declares de-clares himself no violator of the law, it simply argues that the law does not reach him, but it cannot be said for him by his friends, nor will it be claimed for him by himself, that he does not uphold and support, morally if not openly, the doctrine doc-trine of polygamy. The voluntary exoneration of himself is on a par with the subterfuges of Mr. Penrose, editor of the Mormon church organ; and he has a reputation for dodging the plain truth when he thinks it will please the church leaders that would do credit to the most astute and faithful faith-ful disciple of Michiavalli. Before the act always is the thought, the desire, de-sire, the faith. "Were the thought wanting the in-telligent in-telligent act would never follow. The doctrine of polygamy is as absolutely essential to the Mormon Mor-mon faith as the doctrine of direct revelation. Either or both may be suspended, but never abandoned. aban-doned. ' Whatever the practice at this hour, it cannot can-not and will not be frankly averred that the revelation reve-lation concerning a plurality of wives has been repealed. re-pealed. That would be equivalent to declaring that God, who is changeless, had changed. Every Mormon Mor-mon as ardently accepts the doctrine of polygamy today as he ever did. His failure to put it in practice prac-tice is the fear of punishment that may follow a violation of the law respecting this offense. Apostle Apos-tle Smoot is a polygamist in principle. He could not be an apostle were he not. His private belief, the confidential utterances of an apostle to his people, peo-ple, his public remarks will all indicate this where public remarks can be made without the danger of creating external opposition. He will not, he dare not deny this to his own people. Given an opportunity oppor-tunity where the law would be inoperative and Apostle Smoot would be a polygamist or he would cease to be an apostle. If he should contradict these statements, he would deliberately falsify. This he knows. This every intelligent Latter-day Saint knows and yet the exigencies of past casa have shown that there was no hesitation in practicing prac-ticing deception by high church men when some seeming advantage was to be gained to the cause. It might be necessary for Apostle Smoot to deny these statements. And he would therefore deny them to the world at large. It is because of such discipline that he is an apostle, but if he did deny j them every intelligent Mormon would know te lied, and most of them would hold that the service ser-vice of the Lord would render the falsehood jo tillable. As, therefore, in all but the overt act, Apostl' Smoot is an admitted polygamist one compel! by reason of his high ecclesiastical office, to tb! support of the doctrine and to the countenance and defense of those who may have more couraS3) than he and have given vitality to the faith cflj islied is it not just to hold him morally responsible respon-sible for the maintenance of a condition that is obnoxious to the sentimental side of the people 0f the country? Shall the man who has put into execution that which Smoot helieves to he a decree de-cree from God. he the object of public vengeance wliile the advising apostle's wethers go free and he he loaded with high political honors? Mark you, I say nothing for or against the practice prac-tice or belief of the Mormon system of marriage; but if Roberts may not represent Utah in Congress Con-gress because too often a concurrent husband, by what parity of reasoning are we to condone or endure en-dure the aspirations of an apostle who was free enough to advise the expulsion from Congress of bis religious brother, but who now seeks a higher office because he himself has had less courage to give effect to his belief? If I send my daughter to a school where the teacher inculcates immoral doctrines until respect for her personal virtue becomes extant, or if she and a youth yielding to natural desires, guard themselves by no restraint and fall, because the moral barriers have been destroyed by the teacher, shall I hold the fallen ones responsible or the teacher? Now I do not say Apostle Smooth is a polyga-mist. polyga-mist. I say that his statement that he is not a polygamist does not appeal to me as necessarily true. Whatever reply the exigencies of the occasion occa-sion might seem to demand from him, that is the answer I should expect him to give. There have been polygamous marriages solemnized since the Issuance by the church authorities of the so-called "manifesto" against further plural marriages. This is known to me and it is known to others. I do not think I could prove it. Perhaps others could. There are other cases also, but such is the faith of young women who have entered the relationship that they would admit .themselves husbandless and their children illegitimate rather than seem to betray the church or to jeoperdise the liberty of the men to whom they have been plurally sealed; and the men, to their eternal and infernal shame be it said, would suffer the women to do this so as to escape responsibility. It matters not whether Apostle Reed Smoot is a practical polygamist or not, the public effect is precisely the same. By reason of his ecclesiastical position he stands for all that the principle represents. rep-resents. If it be an ennobling one he should face it and declare his faith. If Its effect be degrading and its tolerance infamous, then he stands for all that is degrading and infamous in it. His denial of personal culpability is the attitude of the craven, the cur and the beggar of one who crawls for place and begs for it on this ground: "While 1 am a leading member of those whom ye oppose, I am personally free from the wrong doing which I uphold and advocate." It will be a liberal education to note the attitude atti-tude of the people both of this State and the country coun-try at large as to the aspirations of the new ecclesiastical ec-clesiastical freak coming forth from the Mdrmon stronghold, and it will be equally as interesting to note to what extent leaders of the Mormon church-will church-will continue the plain support they are now surrounding sur-rounding the Apostle Smoot with. DENNIS B. |
