UC-NRLF 
 
 y 1D1 Ofifi 
 
 U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 University of California Berkeley 
 
 From the Papers of 
 
 DALE MORGAN 
 
Hollinger Corp. 
 pH 8.5 
 
CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 between 
 
 Senator Reed Smoot 
 
 and 
 
 N. V. Jones 
 
 Including a Discussion 
 & -pt) of the Senator's Record in the 
 
 \ at. 
 
 United States Senate 
 
 1ALT LAKE CITY, 
 
 . have resulted in the 
 the whole meets with 
 .e your valuable assist- 
 

 
CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 between 
 
 SENATOR REED SMOOT 
 
 and 
 
 N. V. JONES 
 
 Including a Discussion of the Senator's Record 
 in the United States Senate 
 
 SALT LAKE OfTY, 1914 
 
 Washington, D. C, September 7th, 1914. 
 Mr. N. V. Jones, 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 My Dear Sir: 
 
 At the Republican State Convention held at Salt Lake City on 
 September 1st, 1914, I was nominated for re-election to the United 
 States Senate. During the time that you have honored me as one of 
 your representatives in the upper house of Congress, I have given my 
 best efforts to the interests and welfare of our State and Nation. No 
 citizen of Utah, irrespective of religion, politics or social position, has 
 ever made, a request of me which has not received my prompt, care- 
 ful and personal attention. 
 
 My record as senior senator from the State of Utah is open for 
 all to read, and I go before the people for re-election basing my claim 
 upon that record. If my work has not brought credit and honor to 
 our State, I do not deserve to be re-elected as your representative in 
 the Senate. But if, in your opinion, my labors have resulted in the 
 advancement of our State and my record on the whole meets with 
 your approval, then I shall greatly apjpreciate your valuable assist- 
 ance during the coming campaign. 
 
 3 
 
Assuring you that I am ready and willing at all times to serve 
 you, and with very best wishes, I remain, 
 
 Yours sincerely, 
 
 (Signed) REED SMOOT. 
 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah, October 2, 1914. 
 Hon. Reed Smoot, 
 
 United States Senate, 
 
 AYashington, D. C. 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 Your note of the 7th inst., addressed to me, arrived in due. course 
 of mail. Like most other citizens I am intrested in the political wel- 
 fare of our state, and as a consequence, I am not a stranger to your 
 record in the senate. Since receiving your note, and from the fact that 
 you have referred me to the record, and that you base your claims 
 for support and re-election upon that record, I have for my own satis- 
 faction, and further information, examined your record, with particu- 
 lar reference to the investigation before the Senate committee and the 
 discussion of your case upon the floor of the senate in 1907. After 
 that examination of the record I feel better qualified to speak in rela- 
 tion to it. 
 
 I wish here and now to state that although I did not support 
 you in your election to the senate, because I was opposed to your Re- 
 publican principles, yet after you were elected to the senate, I stood 
 firmly and patriotically behind- you, and gave you my moral support, 
 for the reason that you were duly elected to the senate by the legisla- 
 ture of the state of Utah, and there were no proper or legal grounds 
 justifying either your exclusion or subsequent expulsion from the 
 senate. To that extent you had my support during your battle to re- 
 tain your seat, as fully as if you had been my political choice. In your 
 note you say : 
 
 "My record as senior senator from the state of Utah, is open for 
 all to read, and I go before the people for re-election basing my claims 
 upon that record. If my work has not been brought credit and honor 
 to our state, I do not deserve to be re-elected as your representative 
 in the senate, but if, in your opinion, my labors have resulted in the 
 advancement of our state and my record as a whole meets with your 
 approval, then I shall greatly appreciate your valuable assistance 
 during the coming campaign. Assuring you that I am ready and will- 
 ing at all times to serve you, and with very best wishes I remain,'' 
 etc. 
 
 Your appeal to me to support you for re-election to the senate is 
 a direct one, and as frankly stated by you is based upon your record 
 in the senate during your incumbency. I shall endeavor to answer 
 
you in the same spirit of directness and frankness. I trust that al- 
 though we may differ in our views and conceptions of governmental 
 policies, as well as with reference to some other things in your offi- 
 cial record, which to me are inconsistent, that we may both be toler- 
 ant of each other's opposing views^^ 
 
 I am free to say at the outset, that I do not share in your views 
 or attitude in relation to the bill relating to the Panama Canal Toll 
 Exemptions, the Currency bill, nor the tariff. Xur do I agree with 
 what seems to be your reversible attitude on the Mexican question. 
 I shall not, however, at this time enter into detail of my reasons for 
 such differences. 
 
 My deductions and comments resulting from the examination of 
 the record of the proceedings had in your case before the senate com- 
 mittee on privileges and elections. I have reduced to writing. I here- 
 with enclose you a copy of the article, not because it is necessarily a 
 part of our correspondence, but simply as a frank statement of my 
 views upon the record. As you very properly suggest, the record "is 
 open for all to read" "if my work has not brought credit and 
 
 honor to our state I do not deserve to be re-elected as your repre- 
 sentative in the senate/' It is therefore a public rcord of a public offi- 
 cial, and my criticisms of the record are not of a private character. 
 ( The article referred to covers pages 1 to 23, inclusive, and may prop- 
 erly be considered at this juncture.) 
 
 I shall assume that you will read and reflect somewhat at least 
 upo nthat part of your record to which I refer in the enclosed article, 
 and which is also a part of the record to which you refer me and 
 upon which you base your claims for re-election, and ask my support. 
 
 It seems to me that in view of your knowledge of our people, that 
 you ought to consider and look with a reasonable degree of sympathy 
 upon those, who are of the old school, (from a church standpoint , and 
 consider that class so unmercifully berated, maligned, misjudged, slan- 
 dered as I believe by your advocates upon the floor of the senate, viz. : 
 by Senators Dillingham, Hopkins, Beveridge, Foraker, and I think 
 some others. 
 
 Senator, you and I were born, reared, and still are members of 
 the same church. I indulge the belief that my membership entitles 
 me to a standing equally as good as yours, I am therefore in full sym- 
 pathy with my church and people, and am jealous of their honor and 
 good name. 
 
 Our people like you and I have been solemnly taught to 
 respect the Ordinance of Plural marriage, (vulgarly denominated as 
 'polygamy" in our penal statutes) into which our parents entered as 
 one of chastity and purity, within the law of the church. That they 
 were sincere and consistent in their lives there can be no reasonable 
 doubt. Their family relations, as also your father's house, and my 
 father's house, are built upon that foundation. During the many years 
 of rigorous legal treatment of the people of Utah, prior to the issu- 
 
ance of the manifesto, and of Utah's admission to statehood, these peo- 
 ple have passed through rough and stormy seas. They have suffered 
 prosecutions, bonds, privations, and imprisonment. Some of them 
 have sacrificed their lives, or members of their family, in consequence 
 of it. These people cannot properly be regarded as libertines, moral 
 lepers, or criminals as portrayed by your advocates upon the floor of 
 the. senate. They have not violated the law of their church, under 
 which they entered into that relation. They have lived within the 
 law of the church and of their covenants, and observed the moral law 
 as scrupuously as any other living person. Their good name, honor 
 and family reputation are as sacred as yours or any other person. 
 You cannot consistently believe them to be criminals, nor entitled to 
 the brand of dishonor sought to be placed upon them, by those gen- 
 tlemen, who appeared as your advocates in the senate. 
 
 While those base charges were made, you sat silently by and 
 acquiesced in them, when the truth and good conscience should have 
 impelled you to speak. No one, so far as I know, expected you to en- 
 dorse the actions of those people in their marital status, if you were 
 opposed to it, but you knew then as now that those base charges made 
 against that class of your constituency were false. 
 
 It may freely be admitted that in years past some of our people 
 have been subject to the, charge of a violation of the civil law, with 
 reference to their marital status, but that was not a violation of the 
 ecclesiastical law by which they entered into that relation. They 
 are. justified in standing unequivocally upon that ground. 
 
 Senator, for more than seven years last past, many of our peo- 
 ple have smarted under the brand of immortality, moral degradation, 
 licentiousness, and illegitimacy, which in your presence, and by your 
 acquiescence you permitted your spokesmen and advocates upon the 
 floor of the senate to place upon the brow of that class of your con- 
 stituents; upon my father's house and yours, upon my mother and 
 upon yours. 
 
 So far as my parents are concerned and the marriage vows into 
 which they entered, and by which they lived consistently and sincerely, 
 in accordance with their 'faith, and from their viewpoint, I do not per- 
 mit any living man with impunity, in my presence, to arraign their 
 motives, impeach their integrity, or challenge their honor. 
 
 Your record upon that point, is doubtless satisfactory to you, be- 
 cause you point to it with seeming pride. It is not satisfactory to me 
 as one of your constituency, and I here and now enter my exception, 
 and record my solemn protest. 
 
 Senator, I now ask you whether you can consistently expect me, 
 (or the class aboved referred to), to support you for re-election in 
 view of the circumstances and the record, which you have made and 
 to which you refer me? 
 
 How are. you going to answer to Mormon Motherhood, when you 
 
 6 
 
failed to defend their honor and good name, when they were wantonly 
 assailed? 
 
 How true and pertinent to this issue are the words of Shakes- 
 peare : 
 
 "Good name in man and women, dear my lord, 
 Is the immediate jewel of their souls ; 
 
 Who steals my purse steals trash; 't is something, nothing; 
 ? T was mine, 't is his, and has been slave to thousands ; 
 But he that filches from me my good name, 
 Robs me of that which not enriches him. 
 And makes me poor indeed." 
 
 Senator, yoja permitted the senate of the United States, and all 
 the world so far as it was advised, (by your silence and acquiescence) 
 to believe as stated by Senator Hopkins, that you "had done more to 
 stamp out this foul blot, upon the civilization of Utah, and the other 
 territories, where polygamy has been practiced, than any thousand 
 men outside of the church.'' 
 
 Quaere : 
 
 Was that statement consistent with the actual truth? 
 
 If not, why did you not deny it? 
 
 If true, was it consistent with your profession as an apostle, pro- 
 phet, seer and revelator, in the church to which you belong? 
 
 For more than fifteen years you have been sustained by the 
 members of your church in general assembly, with uplifted hands, 
 and before the world as a prophet, seer and revelator, and as a special 
 witness for Christ, and the divinity of the doctrines of your church. 
 
 This dual record is of your own making. It is a painful dilemma. 
 Painful to your people, and when measured by any consistent stand- 
 ard of honor, should be equally painful to you. Candor compels me 
 to say that this dilemma has two horns. The first is, falsehood. The 
 second is hypocrisy. The only logical conclusion is, that you have 
 impaled yourself upon one or the other of these two horns. Possibly 
 upon both. If you are able to make any explanation upon that point 
 that will honorably exculpate you, you ought to get busy for the rec- 
 ord is certainly against you. 
 
 The last part of this letter goes only to the question of your in- 
 consistency in view of your office of an apostle, and as a special wit- 
 ness for the truth of the doctrines of your church ; but there are other 
 important questions upon which we differ, and which would neces- 
 sarily have to be overcome before I could support you for re-election. 
 
 I observe that in your note to me you say : "If my work has not 
 brought credit and honor to our state, I do not deserve to be re- 
 elected as your representative in the senate." 
 
 Now senator, I have always supposed that "our state," was big- 
 ger than any man, and that the honor conferred by the selection of 
 
 7 
 
a man to represent the state in -the United States senate, was a dis- 
 tinct honor conferred by the state upon the individual. 
 
 You seem to assume that the converse of that proposition is the 
 correct one in your case ; or in other words that your standing con- 
 fers an honor upon the state, rather than the state by its selection 
 confers an honor upon you. 
 
 It might seem immodest for me to argue my view of that propo- 
 sition to you, and so I desist. 
 
 Senator, I just now recall a statement accredited to you by mem- 
 bers of your own political party, that you stated while attending a cer- 
 tain Republican convention in Ogden, Utah, that you had enough 
 Democrats in cold storage, to turn the election. 
 
 I recall also what has seemed to be a favorite argument of your 
 Republican co-workers, in fact it was recognized as a "stock in trade" 
 argument in Utah, during the last twelve years of Republican Na 
 tional administration, viz : that it would be the part of political wis- 
 dom, and that much good could be accomplished, if we Democrats 
 would vote for the Republican congressmen, presidential electors, and 
 state legislators, who would elect a Republican senator, so that our 
 state might be in harmony with the National administration. 
 
 I assume that you and your party take a similar view at the 
 present time. 
 
 Now senator, I confess that that argument has not appealed 
 strongly to me. in the past, but it sounds good to me now : and in view 
 of the fact that you are out of harmony with the National administra- 
 tion at Washington ; that you have been and are strongly opposed to 
 the president's Mexican policy; and have opposed the repeal of the 
 Canal Toll's Exemption Bill ; and opposed the. downward revision of 
 the tariff; and opposed the Currency Bill; and for the further reason 
 that you have been selected to oppose the administration measures ; 
 and are out of harmony generally with the present administration, 
 consistency suggests that for the good of the service, you ought to re- 
 sign, vacate the premises, and let in someone who is in harmony with 
 the National administration. 
 
 Yours for consistency, 
 
 N. V. JONES, 
 
 Salt Lake City. 
 
 A DISCUSSION OF SENATOR REED SMOOT'S RECORD 
 
 FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A CHURCHMAN AND 
 
 OF A CITIZEN. 
 
 Was the Defense of Senator Reed Smoot Before the U. S. S. Com- 
 mittee On Privileges and Elections A Concession of Principle? 
 
 In discussing the above proposition, it may seem to be in some 
 respects a narrow and limited view which the writer takes of his 
 
 8 
 
subject seeing that it is discussed, first, from the religious viewpoint, 
 and from the standpoint of a churchman. It must, however, in all 
 fairness and consistency, be remembered that the main portion of the 
 constituency of the Hon. Senator Smoot, is of the faith and church 
 and people known as the ''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day 
 Saints." 
 
 It should be remembered also that his position and standing as a 
 apostle in that church has contributed largely to, and is the principle 
 cause of his selection to the political office, which he now holds. This 
 is so in part at least, because the experience of tjie wiser class of the 
 people of Utah, both "Mormon" and "non-Mormon" have taught them 
 that one of the best ways to deal with their prejudice and established 
 opinions is to recognize the prejudices and opinions of both classes. 
 With that point in view, selections are frequently made of men for 
 political offices who are representatives of either of the two classes. 
 
 It is intended in this article to present what seems to be some, 
 only, of the more important features of the Smoot investigation, from 
 the viewpoint of a Churchman, and points not heretofore discussed 
 by the press or people to any extent. It is intended also to briefly 
 discuss the. Senator's attitude and record in said investigation from 
 the standpoint of a "non-churchman" or citizen of the United States. 
 
 As Viewed From the Standpoint of a Churchman. 
 
 The position which Senator Smoot assumed in his defense before 
 the Senate Committee has been objectionable to very many of his 
 church constituents and a subject of honest criticism by them; not- 
 withstanding the fact that he has been upheld and lauded profusely 
 by prominent leading churchmen. 
 
 It is proposed briefly to consider the theory and groundwork of 
 the Senator's alleged defense before the Senate Committee referred 
 to, from the record in the case. 
 
 The record, as far as the defense is concerned, was made, shaped, 
 and presented to the Senate Committee and to the world by the Sen- 
 ator himself, through his counsel, who, of course, were subject to his 
 direction. We shall first look to the record and consider it from the 
 standpoint of a churchman. 
 
 In the month of January, A. D. 1903, Senator Smoot, was chosen, 
 by the Legislative Assembly, to the office of Senator, of the United 
 States. A protest was filed by the Reverend Mr. Paden, and seven- 
 teen others, in the Senate, protesting against Mr. Smoot being per- 
 mitted to occupy a seat in the Senate, upon the grounds set out in 
 the protest. 
 
 An investigation was had, before the Committee on Privileges 
 and Elections, which was not closed uniil in the early part of the 
 year A. D. 1907. More than seven years have elapsed since the in- 
 vestigation closed, and we may be able after that lapse of time to look 
 
back upon the record, and discuss it temperately and in the light of 
 reason and judge it without political heat or religious excitement. 
 
 As before stated, Senator Smoot was at that time and still is, 
 holding the office of an apostle in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
 Day Saints, and at all times sustained before, the church in general 
 assembly, as a prophet, seer and revelator, in connection with other 
 members of his quorum. 
 
 It follows logically and conclusively therefore, that the duties 
 of the high office, of his apostleship should be esteemed with that 
 sacredness which any conscientious man must naturally feel in re- 
 cepting so high and sacred a trust. Principal among the duties of 
 his ecclesiastical office, is the duty to expound, preah, teach, and main- 
 tain before the world the. divinity of the work in which the apostle is 
 engaged and to maintain the righteousness and purity of its prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 Let it be distinctly understood, at the threshold of this discussion, 
 that there is no intention to make or present an argument at this 
 time in favor of the doctrine of "plural marriage," which under the 
 civil law, is described as "polygamy." It is contended, however, and 
 the theory upon which this criticism of the. record is made, is, that 
 the religious opinions and convictions of the individual citizen are 
 above legislation. That they are higher than the law, and as such, 
 the religious views and opinions of any citizen of the United States 
 may not be invaded by legislative enactment. 
 
 RELIGIOUS TEST FORBIDDEN BY CONSTITUTION OF 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 Congress has no power to make any religious test of the opinion 
 of any man, with reference to his right, or qualification to hold any 
 office, or public trust under the United States government. 
 
 See Art. VI Constitution of the United States. 
 
 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of re- 
 ligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the free- 
 dom of speech, or of the press," etc. 
 
 Art. 1 of Amendments to Constitution of United States. 
 
 The. above provisions from the Federal Constitution carry with 
 them the plenary rights of freedom of conscience, of religious con- 
 viction, of freedom of speech, and of the press, to the extent of one's 
 religious opinions and convictions. These, rights are more than mere 
 matters of privilege ! they are guaranteed by the organic law of the 
 nation. 
 
 Religious opinions and doctrines, as such, are not objectionable 
 nor within the pale of legal condemnation. It is only in cases where 
 some positive overt act is done, which is forbidden by statute, that 
 
 10 
 
any persons may be condemned by law. i'he intention must coincide 
 with the overt act in order to constitute an offense. It follows then 
 conclusively, that all evidence introduced by Senator Smoot, with 
 reference, to his religious opinions and views in regard to polygamy, 
 were entirely voluntary and unnecessary. 
 
 THE PADEN PROTEST AND SENATOR SMOOT'S ANSWER. 
 
 At page 25, Vol. 1 of the Record in the Smoot Investigation, the 
 protestants against the right of the Senator to take his seat said: 
 "We wage no war against his religious belief, as such. We do not, to 
 the slightest extent deny him the same freedom of thought, the. same 
 freedom of action within the law, which we claim for ourselves. We 
 accuse him of no offense cognizable by law. nor do we ask to put him 
 in jeopardy of his property or his liberty. We ask that he be deprived 
 of no natural right, nor of any right which, under the Constitution or 
 laws of the land, he is fitted to exercise." 
 
 It would not be true to say that the protestants at all times in the 
 investigation stood by the above declaration, but it is true, that Sen- 
 aaor Smoot, at all times had a right to hold the protestants to their 
 declaration, and properly to limit at least, his own evidence, to those 
 questions and matters which were the proper subject of the investi- 
 gation. 
 
 Time and space will not permit that an investigation which cov- 
 ered so many months and filled so many volumes, may be properly or 
 fully discussed in the short limits of one article. 
 
 Attention is here called to the answer of the Hon. Senator Smoot 
 to the protest of Mr. Paden and seventeen others. 
 
 In the answer the Senator moved to "strike out and eliminate 
 irom said protest each and every matter and thing therein contained, 
 except the two charges above mentioned." The charges referred to 
 were, first, that the Senator was a polygamist, and second, that he was 
 bound by some oath or obligation inconsistent with the oath required 
 by the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Notwithstanding the statements of the protest and answer, the 
 Senator then proceeded to answer, and did answer the other charges 
 made by the protestants, and in conclusion protested "against evidence 
 being introduced on all or any of those issues which were alleged by 
 him to be irrelevant, immaterial and immpertinent to the question of 
 the qualifications of the respondent, and his right to retain his seat 
 as United States Senator, from the State of Utah," pages 31, 39, Vol. 
 1 Smoot Investigation. 
 
 SENATOR SMOOT DID NOT MAINTAIN HIS CONSTITU- 
 TIONAL RIGHTS. 
 
 If Senator Smoot had stood squarely upon his legal rights the 
 record would have been very different from what it is at present. In 
 submitting his proof to meet the case, as presented by the protestants 
 
 11 
 
the Senator, as we contend, abandoned in part, the position which he 
 had taken by his answer, viz. : as to the irrelevancy of various matters 
 referred to in the protest. It must be admitted that Senator Smoot 
 was cognizant of his legal rights in the premises. It cannot consist- 
 ently be assumed that he was ignorant of the fact, that the Senate had 
 no authority to put him on trial for his religious belief, or opinion, 
 nor to make any "religious test," of his right or qualification to hold 
 office. If the Senator himself was not fully aware of his rights, he 
 must in any event, have been advised of the same, for he had eminent 
 legal advisers to counsel him. 
 
 THE THEORY OF SENATOR SMOOTHS DEFENSE. PROOF 
 PRESENTED BY HIM VOLUNTARY AND UNNECES- 
 SARY. A WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 
 
 He then waived his legal right, and proceeded upon the theory, 
 (as shown by the evidence) that he must meet and overthrow the. 
 opinion of his fellow senators, viz. : that he believed in polygamy. 
 He did not make that admission in specific terms, but that was the 
 theory of his defense, and he presented proof to sustain it. In so do- 
 ing, it is contended that his action was entirely voluntary and un- 
 necessary. It was an evidence of his desire to conform to public 
 opinion, which, from the standpoint of an apostle, was at the sacrifice 
 of principle, and the sacrifice of consistency. That he. had the right 
 and privilege of so doing, is here freely admitted. But the inconsist- 
 ency of his position is manifest, when we consider .that he was at the 
 same time, upheld by his fellow churchmen as an apostle, prophet, seer 
 and revelator in the church, which represented to the world that the 
 ordinance of "plural marriage" was instituted by divine command. 
 
 The question of his religious conviction and opinion, his belief 
 in the abstract principle, of polygamy or plural marriage, was a mat- 
 ter absolutely irrelevant and impertinent as to his right to take or 
 hold a seat in the Senate; so long as he was not found promulgating 
 or conspiring to violate the law, or commit some overt act forbidden 
 by the law of the land. 
 
 SENATOR SMOOT'S PROOF AND ATTITUDE INCONSTIT- 
 ENT WITH HIS APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 This point is urged here (not because it will cut any figure as to 
 Senator Smoot's standing in the world and with people who are not 
 members of his church) but for the reason that the position which he 
 took, and the proof which he offered, as to his attitude upon that prin- 
 ciple, were entirely inconsistent with his religious profession, and 
 
 12 
 
gave evidence that he was the enemy of the principle which had given 
 him birth, and that his opposition to that principle was contrary to 
 his profession as an apostle in the church. 
 
 Among other things, the. record (Senator Smoot's answer) al- 
 leges and shows : 
 
 ''Respondent (Senator Smoot) alleges that never at any time did 
 he either teach, practice, advise, or encourage polygamy or polyg- 
 amous cohabitation." 
 
 This allegation bears out the evidence subsequently introduced 
 to show that he was at all times opposed to that doctrine. This, of 
 course, the Senator had a perfect right to do, and his position in that 
 respect would have been consistent, if the profession of his faith had 
 been other than what it was. But it is not consistent in view of his 
 official position in the church, to seek to prove that he was at all times 
 against that principle, which as a principle, he could not properly re- 
 pudiate. 
 
 Xo direct contention was made that the Senator could be expelled, 
 merely for his religious belief. It was stated in substance, in the 
 case of United States vs. Reynolds, That Congress could not interfere 
 with a man's belief, no matter what he believed : that so far as he 
 confined it to a belief, Congress could not interfere with it: but that 
 when in pursuance of that belief, he undertook to violate any law. he 
 was outside of the protection of the Constitution and must be pun- 
 ished. 
 
 98 U. S. 145 page 51. 
 
 There was no occasion therefore, for the Senator meeting the 
 question of prejudice and undertaking to prove to the Senate that his 
 opinion was, and always had been adverse to the principle so well rec- 
 ognized in his church. Presumably, he met that condition that he 
 might gain favor and strength with his opponents. To sustain the 
 writer's theory that Senator Smoot went beyond what he needed to 
 have gone, and undertook to demonstrate, and did successfully dem- 
 onstrate, to the Senate, that he had always been the enemy of trie prin- 
 ciple of "plural marriage/' 
 
 SENATOR SMOOT'S PROOF THAT HE WAS AGAINST 
 
 PLURAL MARRIAGE AND HAD BEEN A FACTOR 
 
 IN SUPPRESSING IT. 
 
 Xote among other things, what appears at page 67, Vol. 1, Smoot 
 Investigation, in the remarks of Senator Smoot's counsel. This, of 
 
 13 
 
course, must have been done with the approval of Senator Smoot, or 
 otherwise he would have repudiated it. 
 
 MR. VAN COTT: "At the hearing, which was had before the 
 Senate Committee in 1892, appeared Judge John W. Judd, who had 
 been appointed by President Cleveland as one of the judges in the 
 Territory of Utah. Judge Judd is in the room. He was from the 
 State of Tennessee. Judge Judd came down here after all the trouble 
 and fight in Utah, and made a statement before the Committee in 
 regard to the conditions there, and one statement which Judge Judd 
 made to the Committee on that occasion I deem it pertinent to read 
 to the, Committee, because it shows just the state of mind that Reed 
 Smoot had at that time, in 1892. Judge Judd on page 41 of 
 
 this Senate Document, said: 
 
 * * * -phe y OUn g er people would come to me in my room and 
 talked to me about it. I could give names and incidents of Mormons 
 high in life, some of whom the chairman of this committee is ac- 
 quainted with who came to me and urged me saying : 'Judge for God's 
 sake break this thing up ! We have had enough trouble ; we have had 
 all we can possibly stand of it. We have had one. right after another 
 taken from us. We have been put in an awkward attitude before our 
 fellow citizens of the United States and for God's sake break it up/ 
 Others said to me, notably Reed Smoot, son of the president of a 
 stake, and the Republican candidate for Mayor, and himself a product 
 of a polygamous marriage : 'Judge, we cannot stand this thing and we 
 will not stand it; it must be settled.' And I know whereof I affirm 
 when I say before this committee, that when the Mormon church 
 made its declaration of the abandonment of polygamy, it was done as 
 much from a force within as from a force without." 
 
 When that statementwas made Judge Judd and Senator Smoot 
 were present. Evidently it was the truth. 
 
 One of our criticisms of Senator Smoot, is that by the theory of 
 his defense and the evidence he introduced, he broadened the. investi- 
 gation to an improper extent, and inferentially at least, thereby ad- 
 mitted the right of the Senate to put him on trial for a question of 
 conscience and a matter of religious opinion; and in his effort and 
 desire to prove that he was and had been an opponent of polygamy, 
 he dragged into the investigation matters which were irrelevant and 
 ought never to have been brought into it. 
 
 It was clear from the evidence he introduced that he sought at 
 all times to show that he had at least been a secret opponent, if not 
 an open foe, against the doctrine of polygamy; and had not believed 
 in it. This opposition might have been perfectly consistent in some 
 persons, but certainly it was not consistent in one who stands before 
 his church and all the. world as a "special witness' of the divinity of 
 
 14 
 
the doctrines of his church and as one holding the apostleship, and as 
 a prophet, seer and revelator. 
 
 Church people, generally without a question, believed that Sen- 
 ator Smoot, (or Apostle Smoot) was a believer in the doctrine of 
 "plural marriage," as formerly taught by the church of which he was 
 and still is a member. Senator Smoot, however, seems to have made 
 a very different impression upon many of his "non-Mormon" friends. 
 For example, Mr. Whitecotton, a non-Mormon friend of Senator 
 Smoot, testified as follows, referring to the Senator. 
 
 MR. VAN COTT: "Speaking of the other heresies that Mr. 
 Smoot had, what was the general understanding in the community 
 in Provo about any heresy that Mr. Smoot had as being opposed to 
 the practice of polygamy in those early days? 
 
 MR. WHITECOTTON: He was a heretic on that too. 
 MR. VAN COTT: He was opposed to polygamy? 
 
 MR. WHITECOTTON: He was opposed to polygamy. He 
 was understood so to be. He was looked upon as one of the young 
 men in Utah who were to redeem Israel." Vol. 11, Page 680, Smoot 
 Investigation. 
 
 * * * "MR. VAN COTT : Outside of a few men who may 
 be in the American party, I will ask you what is the general opinion 
 among gentiles, as to whether Reed Smoot, or men like Reed Smoot, 
 who are prominent in the church, prominent in politics, who are op- 
 posed to polygamy and in favor of the enforcement of the law, should 
 be encouraged or not? 
 
 MR. WHITECOTTON : I should say the best answer I could 
 give to that question would be Mr. Smoot's election. I do not know 
 how better to express it." Page 684, Vol. 11. 
 
 * * * "MR. WHITECOTTON: I never heard Mr. Smoot 
 expressly say what he thought of any particular case of plural mar- 
 riage, but I have understood ever since I have known him that he 
 was very much opposed to polygamy, and as bearing on that, I have 
 here an extract from a statement it is in the official record made by 
 the Hon. John W. Judd, who w r as United State Judge out there in 
 territorial days: 
 
 MR. TAYLER: That is in the testimony in the case already." 
 Page 688. (This was the statement referred to by Mr. Van Cott) : 
 
 Speaking of Senator Smoot's position as an apostle, the following 
 occurred: 
 
 15 
 
::: * * MR. TAYLER: "Do you understand that he is chosen 
 by revelation and inspiration? 
 
 MR. WHITECOTTOX : Xo sir, I don't know anything- about 
 that. 
 
 MR. TAYLOR: Do you understand that he is a living oracle 
 of God? 
 
 .MR. WHITECOTTON: Xo, he wasn't to me. 
 
 MR. TAYLER: Oh no, no, no! you are his counsel? 
 
 MR. WHITECOTTON: He takes my advise sometimes. 
 
 MR. WORTHIXGTOIN: The witness is the oracle? 
 
 MR. WHITECOTTOX: I don't know anything about that. I 
 don't know anything about the importance that the Mormons even 
 attach to the choosing- of a.n apostle. It would be hard for us in 
 Provo, who know Mr. Smoot so intimately, to think of him as a man 
 who got revelations. I can scarcely credit that. 
 
 MR. TAYLER: Exactly, but you have no doubt at all that it 
 'is the view of the rank and file of the Mormon church, that an apostle 
 is a prophet, seer, and revelator, have you? 
 
 MR. WHITECOTTON: In matters pertaining to religion, I 
 think that is accepted as a settled article of faith.' 7 Page 691. 
 
 The above shows, that while Senator Smoot,' had been successful 
 in making an impression upon the minds of non-Mormons that he 
 was against the doctrine of polygamy, that he had also left such an 
 impression that it was hard for them to accept him as a prophet or 
 revelator, although his people held him up as such. 
 
 Again at page 831, Judge Miner testified as follows: with ref- 
 ence to Sefiator Smoot: 
 
 MR. VAN COTT : "When he became a senatorial candidate 
 was he. prominent or not, for that position? 
 
 MR. MINER: He was. 
 
 MR. VAN COTT : Do you know anything about the reputation 
 he bore in those early days in regard to the practice of polygamv? 
 
 MR. MINER: Yes sir. 
 
 MR. VAN COTT: What was it? 
 
 16 
 
MR. MIXER: My deputies were, deputies for that district, which 
 included Mr. Smoot's, residence that is, Utah County, and those depu- 
 ties during the year 1890 from July on, were over the entire district, 
 and before I personally became acquainted with Mr. Smoot during 
 the time of those prosecutions, or about the time of the manifesto, 
 they reported to me, and I obtained from that reputation, and from 
 others in speaking of him, that he was strongly in favor of the en- 
 forcement that is, the people should obey the law. He was against 
 the practice of polygamy. They reported him as the coming young 
 man of the state." 
 
 IMPRESSION MADE BY SENATOR SMOOT UPON MINDS 
 OF NON-MORMONS, IN REGARD TO HIS OPPOSI- 
 TION TO PLURAL MARRIAGE. DISCUS- 
 SION IN THE SENATE. 
 
 Passing over the testimony, (for we have only opportunity to 
 briefly touch upon it) let us look to the impression made by it upon 
 the minds of Senators, who discussed it, principally as friends of Sen- 
 ator Smoot, and who were opposed to his expulsion from the Senate. 
 
 Excerpts From Addresses of Senator Smoot and Others Upon the 
 Floor of the Senate, February, 1907. 
 
 Senator Smoot addressed the Senate, and among other things 
 said: 
 
 "I am not a polygamist. I deem it proper to further 
 
 state, that I have never taught polygamy." Part IV Vol. 41, page 
 3268 Congressional Record. 
 
 He might also have consistently added that: "I have shown 
 you by the evidence that I have always been and am now opposed to 
 that doctrine in theory and principle, as well as in practice.'' 
 
 At page 3272 .of the Record, Senator Dillingham, among other 
 things, quoted the remarks of Judge Judd, with reference to what 
 Reed Smoot had said some years previously to him. 
 
 Mr. judd said : 
 
 ''The younger people would come to me in my room in private 
 and talk to me about it. I could give the names and incidents of 
 Mormons high in life, some of whom the chairman of this committee 
 is acquainted with, who came to me and urged me saying: 'Judge, 
 for God's sake break this thing up! We have had enough trouble!' 
 Others said to me, notably Reed Smoot, son of the. pres- 
 
 17 
 
ident of the stake, and the Republican candidate for Mayor, and him- 
 self the product of a polygamous marriage : 'Judge, we cannot stand 
 this thing, and we will not stand it. It must be settled/ And I 
 know whereof I affirm, when I say to this committee that when the 
 Mormon church made its declaration of the abandonment of polyamy, 
 it was done as much from a force within as from a force without." 
 
 Senator Sutherland said: 
 
 "The statement which the Senator is reading was made by Judge 
 Judd, I understand some fifteen years ago, when Senator Smoot was 
 a young man." 
 
 MR. DILLINGHAM: "It was made in 1892, fifteen years ago." 
 At page. 937, Vol. 41 Congressional Record, Senator Hopkins said: 
 
 "I listened, Mr. President, with a great deal of interest to the 
 eloquent denunciation of the crime of polygamy by Mr. Burrows, the 
 senior Senator from Michigan, in his speech here, the other day, and 
 I sympathize with him fully in his arraignment of polygamy and 
 polygamous cohabitation. I think it is a relic of a barbarous age, 
 and as such I denounce it. It is the destroyer of the ideal American 
 home life and the corrupter of the morals of those who practice it." 
 
 Again at page 938, Vol. 41, Congressional Record, Senator Hop- 
 kins said: 
 
 "Reed Smoot, is an apostle of this higher and better Mormonism. 
 He stands for the sacred things in the church and against polygamy 
 and all the kindred vices connected with that loathsome practice. 
 In his position, as. a member of the church and as an apostle and 
 preacher of the doctrines of the church, he has done more to stamp 
 out this foul blot upon the civilization of Utah, and the other ter- 
 ritories where plygamy has been practiced than any other thousand 
 men outside of the church." 
 
 Thus Senator Smoot stood before the Senate and the world, and 
 heard, and by his silent acquiescence, endorsed the representations 
 made by his advocates upon the floor of the Senate, that he was the 
 enemy of plural marriage, that he had done more "to stamp out this 
 foul blot upon the civilization of Utah , than any thousand 
 
 men outside of the church." 
 
 Upon the other hand, he accepts, and holds unblushingly the of- 
 fice of an apostle, prophet, seer and revelator, in the church of Jesus 
 Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which he stands as a "Special Wit- 
 ness," for the. divinity of the doctrines of the church. 
 
 18 
 
Can inconsistency reach a higher pitch? 
 At page 3281 Senator Dillingham said: 
 
 "Xow, I was saying, for I was about to close, it seems a strange 
 thing to me, in the light of the. progress that has been made by the 
 Mormon people since 1890, that the man who back of that time was 
 laying the foundation of this progress, co-operating with the author- 
 ities of the United States in bringing to an end a pernicious system, 
 who has always stood for law and order, whose life, has been so pure 
 and upright that among all the witnesses testifying in this case not 
 one has brought a charge against him either in his business or social 
 life." 
 
 At page 3409 Senator Beveridge said : 
 
 "And, Mr. President, the country has been misinformed. The 
 average man and woma nhas been told for three long years that Reed 
 Smoot is a criminal, guilty of a disgusting and filthy crime a crime 
 abhorrent to our face and destructive of civilization * * * The 
 country has been told that this man is a polygamist. That is the 
 charge on which he has been tried before the bar of American public 
 opinion; that is the charge upon which he has been convicted by the 
 millions; and the charge that has injured him as deeply as Dreyfus 
 was injured. 
 
 "The evidence shows and it is finally admitted, that this accused 
 Senator is not a polygamist the word is too full to utter, except on 
 compulsion, never was that base thing, and that his home life is ideal 
 in purity. 
 
 "Not only is this true, but the evidence shows, that from the 
 first, Reed Smoot has been the leader of the younger, wiser and more 
 modern element of his church, that oppose this insult to marriage. 
 
 "Yet the American people believe this Senator is a practicer of 
 this horrible shame. How that impression has been circulated it is 
 not necessary, as it would not be pleasant to describe. But the be- 
 lief that he is such a monster is general among the masses and held 
 by most of the reading public." 
 
 At page 3410 Senator Beveridge said : 
 
 "Scores of witnesses have testified like. Dr. Buckley, the great 
 Methodist editor, and Mrs. Coulter, the accomplished American wo- 
 men. Yet all the while the country heard only the foul word "polyg- 
 amy !" Men testified that Senator Smoot was active against that in- 
 famy, not recently only, but for years. In 1892, Judge Judd of Ten- 
 nessee; a gentile appointed by President Cleveland as Territorial 
 Judge, of Utah, before the Committee of Territories, of the Senate, 
 
 19 
 
testified that the younger Mormons were active against polygamy, and 
 that their leader was Reed Smoot. 
 
 "This, Mr. President, was- fourteen years ago. Certainly Mr. 
 Smoot, fourteen years ago, had not corrupted a United States' Judge 
 into telling before the Senate a falsehood. After describing at length 
 my time does not permit me to quote the movement of the younger 
 Mormons' to end this curse, others said to me listen, Senators, no- 
 tably Reed Smoot, son of the president of a stake, and the Republican 
 candidate for Mayor, himself the. product of a polygamous marriage, 
 'Judge, we cannot stand this thing, and we will not stand this thing. 
 It has got to be settled.' ' 
 
 At page 3415, Senator Foraker said, speaking of Mr. Smoot: 
 
 "Hs is so good a man that I sometimes almost doubt him. He 
 seems to have no vices whatever. He seems to have no vices what- 
 ever. He does not drink or chew, or smoke, or swear, and he is not 
 a polygamist; but on the contrary, Mr. President, in very early youth, 
 as the testimony read by the Senator from Indiana a few moments 
 ago shows, he was distinguished in the Mormon church for his op- 
 position to plural marriages. In early youth, although the son of 
 a plural wife he raised his voice against the continuance of polyg- 
 amous marriages in the Mormon church ; and from that day until 
 this, has stood the opponent of that idea. It is not on that ground, 
 then, that we. can expel him, and of course, we cannot expel him for 
 a. mere belief." 
 
 At page 3417, Senator Bacon, said , referring to Senator Smoot : 
 
 "The fact, that he is a Mormon and believes in the tenets and 
 dogmas of the Mormon church, will not in my opinion, justify his 
 exclusion from the. Senate. It would be an extremely dangerous 
 precedent to exclude a Senator because of his religious or political 
 belief, however, erroneous we may believe that belief to be." 
 
 The foregoing quotations are made from the record to sustain 
 the point, as it clearly appears, that the theory upon which Senator 
 Smoot conducted his defense, was that he intended to introduce and 
 did introduce, such evidence' as would convince the Senate that he 
 was an unbliever in the doctrine of plural marriage, in principle, 
 and as a matter of religious conviction ; that he had been at all times 
 an enemy to that doctrine. 
 
 The statements made, by Senator Hopkins, Dillingham, Beveridge 
 and others, show that Senator Smoot accomplished that purpose. It 
 is safe to say, that in convincing the Senate upon that point he has 
 also convinced the majority of the people of his own church upon the 
 point. 
 
 20 
 
EVIDENCE INDICATES SENATOR'S DESIRE FOR ,SENA- 
 
 TORSHIP, IS GREATER THAN HIS LOVE FOR 
 
 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 The view of the writer here expressed is to show that Senator 
 Smoot could not consistently repudiate the divinity of the doctrine 
 of "plural marriage," as a matter of religious conviction only, and at 
 the same time consistently stand in the office of an apostle, prophet, 
 seer and re.velator to his church. The two positions are altogether 
 antagonistic and out of harmony. They cannot be reconciled. 
 
 By the evidence and the record, the only fair deduction is, that 
 Senator Smoot has shown that his love and desire for the senator- 
 ship, were greater than his love for the apostleship. If that is true, as 
 it appears to be, then he ought to resign his apostleship, or otherwise, 
 the senatorsip. 
 
 There is another reason why he ought to resign either one office 
 or the other. He cannot properly attend to the duties of the two 
 offices at the same time. These two offices are too big for one man 
 at the same time. If one person holds the two offices, the duties of 
 one or the other must go unfulfilled. There is no escape from that 
 conclusion. The duties and responsibilities of each and both of these 
 offices are constantly increasing. It will not always be as it is at 
 present. There must and will come a change in this respect. 
 
 There are hundreds of young and middle aged men in Utah who 
 could impart equal, if not greater dignity and correctness to the great 
 office of Senator, than the present senior Senator from Utah. Many 
 of our citizens are as well and better equipped by natural endow- 
 ments, by education, both legal and otherwise, by integrity to prin- 
 ciple, and patriotism, than is Senator Smoot. We have many men 
 qualified for that office who differ from Senator Smoot in this, that 
 their patriotism stands higher than party spirit: 
 
 While it is not intended to discount the business ability and in- 
 dustry of our senior Senator, it should be understood that the honors 
 which have come to Utah and its Congressional representatives, have 
 not been due to any great ability of the senior Senator, but rather 
 because our Senators and Congressmen represent the people of a 
 great, rapidly-growing and important state in the union. Equal hon- 
 ors, and perhaps greater, would have come to other persons as our 
 representatives in that capacity. The. inconsistency of Senator Smoot 
 from a religious standpoint is not the only point upon which his 
 record is vulnerable. It is equally objectionable from the standpoint 
 of a citizen. 
 
 21 
 
FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A CITIZEN SENATOR SMOOT 
 
 UNNECESSARILY SURRENDERED A FUNDAMENTAL 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 
 
 After Reed Smoot was elected to the Senate, it is safe to say 
 that the great majority of the people of Utah, desired to see him take 
 his seat in that body, (although many of them had not voted for him), 
 for the reason that he was lawfully elected. But they did expect 
 of him, that he would stand firmly upon his Constitutional rights. 
 Every citizen of the United States, who has a proper conception of 
 the fundamental rights of citizenship, as guaranteed by the Federal 
 Constitution, is desirous of seeing those rights maintained, for the 
 benefit and protection of every citizen in this great and magnificent 
 government. 
 
 The fundamental rights of the citizen, as vouchsafed by the Con- 
 stitution, may not be invaded, nor voluntarily surrendered with im- 
 punity. The. surrender or invasion of any Constitutional right of 
 any citizen, is a matter of concern to every other citizen of this gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 The clamor of people for the expulsion of Senator Smoot from 
 the Senate, or the protest against his being seated in that body, upon 
 the grounds, that he believed in polygamy, (and probably there were 
 some such fanatical and overzealous people among his opponents and 
 protestants), was altogether an untenable, illogical and illegal con- 
 tention. It is possible also that some Senators may have indulged 
 that view. 
 
 Let us suppose for the purpose of illustration, that Senator Smoot 
 had broadly admitted that he was a believer in the doctrine 
 of "polygamy" or "plural marriage," as a religious tenet of his faith, 
 but that he had never entered into the practice of it, and never ad- 
 vised others to do so, for the reason that the. Senate made it a penal 
 offense. Would he, under such circumstances, be liable to expulsion 
 from the Senate? It is confidentially submitted that he would not, 
 and if not, then why not? Because it would be a "religious test," 
 such as is forbidden by .the Constitution of the United States ; or 
 stating it a little differently, an exclusion or expulsion for a religious 
 conviction or matter of opinion. Hence, if under those circumstances, 
 for a religious opinion, he. could be excluded or expelled today, then 
 tomorrow some other test might be proposed, that would, upon sim- 
 ilar grounds, exclude a Catholic, a Protestant, an Athiest, or an Ag- 
 nostic, and there would be no end of controversy upon such grounds. 
 
 It may be repeated therefore, that Senator Smoot's proposed 
 
 9? 
 
allegations or proof that he never did believe in the doctrine of polyg- 
 amy, were voluntary and unnecessary. Evidently, his counsel was of 
 the. same opinion, for, while Senator Smoot was being examined upon 
 the witness stand, his counsel, Air. Worthington, (after asking him 
 if he had "advised or promulgated the doctrine of polygamy since he 
 was an apostle" said, "I will not ask you as to your belief in the doc- 
 trine, because in my judgment, that is a matter as to which nobody 
 has the right to inquire." Page 189, Vol. 3, Reed Smoot Investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 It was all sufficient for him to show he had never committed any 
 overt act of that nature, nor violated the law, and rested upon his 
 Constitutional rights in the premises. It is safe to say, that the best 
 and highest thought of the Senate (and of the nation) and the wisest 
 Constitutional lawyers of that body, would have, stood patriotically 
 behind him. They could not consistently have done otherwise, even 
 though they held his religious opinions and convictions in derision. 
 
 Though religious prejudice and excitement may run high, the 
 American people have not come to a state of mind, nor is it believable, 
 that the Senate of the United States would exclude or expel any Sen- 
 ator, lawfully elected, under such conditions. 
 
 For the foregoing reasons, it is contended, that aside from all re- 
 ligious convictions or prejudice, that the defense of Senator Smoot 
 was objectionable, from the standpoint of a citizen, in admitting, as 
 he impliedly did, (by the evidence he introduced) the right of the 
 Senate to put him on trial for his belief, and to exclude or expel him 
 for a matter of religious opinion. 
 
 .SENATOR SMOOT'S GREAT OPPORTUNITY. HIS FAILURE 
 TO MEASURE UP TO THE STANDARD. 
 
 The opportunity presented before Senator Smoot, to stand boldly 
 for and vindicate a great Constittuional principle, viz. : freedom of 
 religious opinion, and freedom from any religious test, was the great- 
 est opportunity ever presented to any Congressman or Senator from 
 the State of Utah, and upon that point Senator Smoot made the worst 
 failure. Instead of showing the characteristics of the patriot and 
 statesman, he played the part of a politician. He surrendered a great 
 Constitutional principle to confer mto the demands of popular preju- 
 dice, and proved that he was willing to sacrifice a Constitutional 
 right, where he was tempted by the lust of office. What supineness 
 he manifested ! 
 
 Suppose, for illustration, he had stood up, as hundreds of the 
 native sons of Utah would have done under similar circumstances, 
 and said, in substance and effect, to the Senate : "My religious opin- 
 
 23 
 
ions are my own. They are of no concern to the Senate, I claim 
 the rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution for freedom of con- 
 science, freedom of speech, and that no religious test shall be made 
 of my right or qualification to hold office under the United States." 
 By so doing, he would have won the respect of the strongest minds 
 in the senate and in the nation ; and doubtless their support upon a 
 final vote in the controversy. He would have forced the respect even 
 of his opponents, some of whom admitted upon the floor of the Senate, 
 that he could neither be excluded nor expelled for a matter of mere 
 opinion or belief. Page 3415, Vol. 41, Cong. Record. 
 
 It is contended, therefore, that aside from all religious senti- 
 ment, Senator Smoot's attitude was cowardly and unstatesmanlike, 
 and a proper subject of criticism by any citizen who stands for the. 
 rights of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, as guaranteed 
 under the Federal Constitution. These doctrines are known and rec- 
 ognized to be among the guaranteed rights under the Federal Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 The Senator, by his compromising and vacillating attitude, dem- 
 onstrated that he was willing to sacrifice a Constitutional right to 
 minister to his vaulting ambition for office. 
 
 THE SENATOR'S APOLOGY FOR TAKING HIS ENDOW- 
 MENTS. 
 
 Senator Smoot was charged with having received the church 
 ordinance, known as the "endowments," and being called upon by 
 the committee to explain his attitude upon that point, he pled his 
 youth, viz. : that he was about eighteen years of age, and unloaded 
 the burden of his conduct upon his father, in the following apologetic 
 statement. 
 
 Among other things, Mr. Smoot testified : 
 
 "Father asked me if I would go to the Endowment house and 
 take my endowments. I told him I did not particularly care about 
 it. He stated to me that it certainly would not hurt me, if it did 
 not do me" any good, and that as my father, he would very much like 
 to have me take the 'endowments' before I crossed the water or went 
 away from the United States." Page 183, Vol. 3, Inv. of Reed 
 Smoot. 
 
 In proving to the Senate that he did not believe in the doctrine 
 of "plural marriage," while holding the high and important office of 
 
 24 
 
an apostle in the church, the Senator thereby demonstrated (to his 
 own people and to the world) his utter inconsistency in assuming to 
 stand for the divinity of that principle in his own church, and re- 
 pudiating it to the world. Consistency is a jewel! Is it consistent 
 that an apostle in the church should occupy this dual relation? He 
 ought to elect what ground he proposes to stand upon. 
 
 THE SENATOR'S SILENCE WHILE FALSE AND MALICI- 
 OUS CHARGES WERE MADE AGAINST HIS CONSTITU- 
 ENTS UPON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. HIS 
 ACQUIESCENCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF BENE- 
 FITS RESULTING THEREFROM. 
 
 Another criticisim for the Senator is upon the point of cold- 
 blooded indifference and inconsistency, as shown in his quiet ac- 
 quiescence in the vile epithets and charges so freely hurled at the 
 ordinance of "plural marriage/' which gave the Senator a being and 
 honorable introduction into the world. The foul charges made against 
 that branch of the marriage ordinance in his church were : 
 
 "That it was a disgusting and filthy crime. Abhorrent to our race. 
 Destructive of civilization. Something too foul to be uttered, except 
 upon compulsion. That it was a great infamy, a horrible shame," etc. 
 
 These charges were made by some of the Senator's advocates 
 and friends. He became a beneficiary, in a way at least, of these base 
 charges, because, the Senators who made them upon the floor of the 
 Senate of the United States, declared that Senator Smoot, for years 
 previously, had been laying the foundation for the destruction of 
 that so-called "pernicious system." "That Senator Smoot was active 
 against that infamy, not recently only, but for years." 
 
 All these foul charges were made upon the floor of the Senate 
 in the presence of Senator Smoot and for his benefit. He sat supinely 
 by and acquiesced, by his silence, in all of the above charges, and 
 more. And these charges brought from him no word of protest, of 
 denial, of palliation, or of .remonstrance. By these, same men, in the 
 same harangue, Senator Smoot was painted in robes of spotless pur- 
 ity, because he had convinced the Senate, and particularly tnese 
 speakers, (his advocates) that he had been an enemy, and an oppon- 
 ent to the so-called "pernicious system," lo ! these many years ! Sen- 
 ator Smoot was the product of a system of marriage which he did not 
 at any time have the courage or inclination to defend. 
 
 In so far as Senator Smoot was satisfied to quietly acquiesce in 
 the foul charges of moral degradation, criminality, and filthiness 
 publicly hurled from the floor of the senate against the marriage 
 
 25 
 

 ordinance, which gave him birth, and challenged the purity and chast- 
 ity of his father and mother and their marriage vow, and in permitting 
 their good names to be blackened by the voice of- calumny and ignor- 
 ance, I forbear to speak, and leave him to answer at the bar of his 
 own conscience, if such a place, there be. 
 
 In so far as he permitted such charges to be wantonly made 
 against the people and the church which upheld him as apostle, 
 prophet, seer and revelator, and as he by his silence, acquiesced 
 therein, and became the beneficiary of those false and infamous 
 charges that he might retain his seat in the Senate, or win fame and 
 glory, and permitted such charges to stand upon the record as con- 
 fessed and unchallenged by him ; it is fitting that his moral cowardice 
 should be held in resentment and derision by the people for whom he 
 had not the moral courage to speak one word of vindication. That 
 his glory should be written in water, and that his fame should perish 
 in empty air. 
 
 In all the record of that notorious investigation, and in the face 
 of all these insults, charges of moral turpitude, of degradation, of 
 crime and unchastity, so made against the people whom Senator 
 Smoot represented, he found no time or opportunity where, he could 
 offer words of justification or even of condonation, sincerity or refut- 
 ation of these monstrous charges, so freely made against them. As 
 the record stands, as made by him in part, and as permitted by him 
 to stand unchallenged, it is such a record as mars the face of con- 
 sistency, and leaves behind it only wounds and scars. It ought to 
 bring the blush of shame to the Senator's cheek. 
 
 CONTRAST BETWEEN THE COWARDICE O'F SENATOR 
 
 SMOOT, AND THE COURAGE OF HONORABLE H. E. 
 
 BOOTH, A NON-MORMON IN DEFENDING 
 
 THE HONOR OF PLURAL WIFEHOOD 
 
 AND MOTHERHOOD. 
 
 Unforunately, for Mr. Smoot, it remained for a non-Mormon a 
 so-called gentile, the Hon. Hyrum E. Booth, U. S. District Attorney 
 for Utah, to offer a contradiction of some of the foul and unfounded 
 charges made against the class of Utah's people described as "polyg- 
 amists," and to make some statements of vindication, in part, of 
 plural wifehood and Mormon motherhood, which Senator Smoot had 
 neither the inclination nor the courage to defend. Viol. 2, page 732, 
 Reed Smoot Investigation, reads as follows : 
 
 SENATOR DUB'OIS: "Mr. Booth, do you not understand that 
 these children, who are now being born into the world, in this polyg- 
 
 26 
 
amous relation, come, into the world contrary to the laws of God and 
 man? 
 
 MR. BOOTH : Well, they do contrary to the laws of man. The 
 other law is not so well defined and definitely settled as to enable me 
 to testify concerning it. 
 
 SENATOR DUBOlIS: Would you take the authority of Joseph 
 Smith, the president of the church, on that point, as to whether it is 
 contrary to the law of God? 
 
 MR. BOOTH : I do know this, Senator 
 
 SENATOR DUBOIS: Would you take his authority? If you 
 are not clear on that yourself, would Joseph F. Smith's authority be 
 good? 
 
 MR. BOOTH : I do know this that the women who have gone 
 into polygamy have done so from pure motives, believing it to be the 
 law of God, and these children are born under those conditions. 
 
 SENATOR DUBOIS: If you are not clear as to whether they 
 come into the world contrary to the laws of God, would you take Jo- 
 seph F. Smith's testimony, and Francis M. Lyman's testimony, the 
 present president, and the next president, if he outlives Smith, of the 
 church? 
 
 MR. WORTHINGTO^ T : Mr. Booth is not a Mormon. 
 
 MR. BOOTH: I am not a Mormon. I am not subject to their 
 control in any way. 
 
 SENATOR DUBOIS : I ask that question have you any sym- 
 pathy for these children, who are now being born into the world in 
 this relation? 
 
 MR. BOOTH: I certainly have! 
 
 SENATOR DUBOffS: You have, for the children? 
 
 MR. BOOTH ; I have for the children and I have, for the women. 
 
 MR. TAYLER: Is your sympathy for the children, who are in 
 no wise responsible, equal to your sympathy for the plural wives? 
 
 MR. BOOTH : Well, that would be a matter of separation that 
 I could not make. 
 
 M'R. TAYLER: You could not make that? 
 
 27 
 
MR. BOOTH: I do not think so. My sympathies are for both. 
 Page 741 : 
 
 MR. BOOTH : "I have told you that the women, so far as they 
 are concerned, went into this relation believing that it was the law 
 of God, and that they are generally pure minded women 
 
 . TAYLER: I am not talkin about the women. 
 
 AIR. BOOTH: as pure rninded women as exist on the 
 
 face of the earth anywhere ; and so true is that, that in sixteen years 
 residence in Salt Lake City, I cannot now recall a case of infidelity 
 on the part of a plural wife to her husband. It is practically unknown 
 in Utah." 
 
 To the credit of Mr. Booth let it be said that he had some con- 
 victions as to the integrity and purity of the wives and mothers re- 
 ferred to, and that he also had the courage to state it, where the Hon- 
 orable gentleman from Utah, although an apostle in the church, was 
 struck dumb with fear, or otherwise bribed by lust of office. What a 
 humiliation ! 
 
 Lest the writer be misunderstood, let it be here repeated, that this 
 is a criticism on the inconsistency of Senator Smoot in assuming to 
 stand as an apostle and prophet, seer and revelator before his church, 
 and for the divinity of its doctrines, and at the same time proving thai 
 he was an opponent, either secretly or otherwise, of the doctrine of 
 "plural marriage." This is not an argument made, nor intended to 
 be made, in favor of that ordinance. It would have been, entirely 
 consistent (for example) in the junior Senator from Utah, to have 
 made the proof, and to have acquiesced in all that Senator Smoot ac- 
 quiesced in, upon that investigation, because the junior Senator did 
 not make the professions that Senator Smoot made, nor stand before 
 the world as an apostle, in the church. 
 
 SENATOR SMOOT NOT A JEALOUS GUARDIAN OF THE 
 HONOR OF HIS CONSTITUENCY. 
 
 Xo man who is a jealous guardian of the honor and good name 
 of his parents, his people, or his constituency, occupying a position 
 similar to the one occupied by Senator Smoot, would have permitted 
 himself to take credit, or honor (?) (so-called), or political office, at 
 the sacrifice of the good name and reputation of his parents, his peo- 
 ple, or his constituents. If such a record is justifiable, or the proper 
 measure and conception of either religious or political integrity, I 
 can only say, with one of old, "Oh, my soul, come out thou into their 
 secrets, and unto their assembly mine honor be not thou united." 
 
 28 
 
RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY DISCOUNTENANCED. ALL 
 MEN EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW. 
 
 Let it be distinctly understood, that this criticism of Senator 
 Smoot's record is not an attack upon his religious belief, neither is it 
 an argument in favor of his religion, nor any principle thereof. It is 
 not made to introduce religious controversy. On the contrary, all 
 such efforts in the, past or present are sincerely deprecated. As to 
 religion or irreligion, either as a qualification or a disqualification to 
 the right to hold office, our political institutions know no distinction. 
 All men are equal before the law. 
 
 This article is merely a discussion of part of the Senator's record, 
 to which he invites attention as having brought "credit and honor to 
 our state." This discussion is not alone from the viewpoint of a 
 churchman. It is also from the viewpoint of a citizen. 
 
 Senator Smoot's Record Speaks Two Ways. 
 
 Senator Smoot testified in substance, with reference to the divin- 
 ity of the doctrine of ''polygamy" and "the reveltion that was given 
 to Joseph Smith" that "he received it from the. Lord." Also, that "as 
 an abstract principle approved by the Bible and permitted by the 
 Doctrine and Covenants I believe it, but as a practice against the 
 law of my country I do not/' Page 210, Vol. 3, Smooth Investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 Among other things he was asked, "Mr. Tayler. Was the law 
 commanding polygamy a revelation from God? A. Mr. Smoot: I 
 understand so." Then he amended his answer by saying that he did 
 not think there was a revelation commanding polygamy, but that the 
 revelation on the eternity of the marriage covenant, 'came directly 
 from God,' as he understood it." Page 253-4, Vol. 3. Smoot In- 
 vestigation. 
 
 Thus the Senator testified and shows that he has at all times be- 
 lieved in the divinity of the revelation permitting a plurality of wives, 
 that he "understood it came directly from God." At the same time 
 he introduces evidence to show that he applied to Federal Judges 
 and officers of the United States to suppress it, and encouraged the 
 prosecution of his people as far back as 1892. He admits and takes 
 the benefits and credit before the outside, world, with having "done 
 more to stamp out this foul blot upon the civilization of Utah, * * 
 than any thousand men outside of the church." 
 
 It is not understandable to the common mind, by what refined 
 mental or psychological process of reasoning, or legerdemain the 
 Senator justifies his dual position as revealed by the Record. 
 
 29 
 
Can it be possible that he has been facing two ways? 
 
 Was his profession and faith of one color to his own people, and 
 of another color to those against them? 
 
 How Does Such a Record Appeal to Non-Churchmen? 
 
 How does this record appeal to persons outside of the Senator's 
 church? 
 
 Does it look like sincerity, or fair dealing among honorable men 
 of any class? 
 
 Senator Smoot says: "If my work has not brought credit and 
 honor to our state, I dcjhot deserve to be re-elected as your repre- 
 sentative in the Senate." The public will finally render its verdict, J 
 and determine whether the Senator's "record on the whole meets with * 
 their approval," as suggested by him, and whether it has brought 
 "credit and honor to our state," or otherwise. 
 
 What History Will Say of the Senator's Record and Defense. 
 
 Whenever a fair and impartial history shall be written of the 
 proceedings before the Senate Committee on privileges and elections 
 in the case of Reed Smoot, and the truth is told it must be admitted 
 that his so-called defense, or otherwise his failure to speak at the 
 time when honor and good conscience shoul dhave impelled him to 
 speak in defense of his constituency, and defend their good name and 
 to honestly explain his own attitude ; were both inconsistent and un- 
 justifiable. His defense can only be properly regarded as a con- 
 cession of principle both from the viewpoint of a churchman and from 
 the viewpoint of a non-churchman and citizen. That when the record 
 is squarely presented to the people of Utah, in its true light that they 
 should and will repudiate it. 
 
 30 
 
I 
 

Hollinger Corp. 
 pH8.5