Thursday, February 18, 2010

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 7 - Joseph F. Smith

March 9, 1904

Joseph F. Smith  resumes the stand for more questions.

Mr. Tayler again has a chance to question Mr. Smith.  His examination is not extremely long nor indepth.  This is just a set or series of questions that clarify the current position and prior testimony given.  Because of that, the subject of the questions moves about quite a bit.

Mr. Tayler begins by bringing out a copy of the Deseret Evening News printed for December 3, 1902.  In this paper is the interview referred to previously in Mr. Smith's testimony with a reporter from the Associated Press.  This is the interview where Mr. Smith quotes testimony speaking to the point that polygamy is dying out, and all that remain are old men.  This generation of old men will quickly be taken (by death because of old age) and this will result in the eventual complete removal of polygamous members from the church.

Here's a link to the prior testimony where this interview is mentioned:
Day 4 Testimony from Joseph F. Smith

The copy of this interview in the newspaper with President Smith can be found at this location:
Deseret Evening News - December 3, 1902

Mr. Tayler reads the last couple of paragraphs in the article, and this ends with the following statement therein by Mr. Smith, speaking of those that object to Reed Smoot being a senator:  "The objection in the present case is without substantial reason or foundation."  Mr. Smith is allowed to explain that his statement previously was incomplete because his secretary handed him a type-written copy of the interview before he left.  This copy did not have the full interview.

Mr. Tayler then asks Mr. Smith about Benjamin Cluff, Jr.  Mr. Smith says that Mr. Cluff is reputed to be a polygamist, and before moving to Mexico 6 months ago, he was "President of the faculty of Brigham Young Academy" in Provo, Utah.

Commentary:  This is extremely nitpicky, but I think it interesting that Mr. Smith focuses on calling Mr. Cluff the faculty president, not president of the school/academy, even though both of these titles are apparently in the same job description.  Look on the official BYU site today (President Cluff), it calls Mr. Cluff the principal of the school.  So what is he?  Principal of the school?  President of the faculty?  I doubt this distinction of words even matters.
Mr. Tayler.  Now, the church - I gather from your statement the officials of the church have been ever since 1890, and are now, very sensitive as to the charge that plural marriages have been solemnized?
Mr. Worthington.  Since the manifesto?
Mr. Tayler.  Since the manifesto.
Mr. Smith.  Yes; I think we have been very sensitive about that.
Mr. Tayler.  Very sensitive?
Mr. Smith.  Yes.
Commentary:  I guess this would be equivalent to finding a cut on your hand and then pouring lemon juice in it.  Ouch!  Yeah, they're sensitive.  They've been hounded about this for 40+ years, so there's a little bit of hesitancy in "liking" being assailed about it or accused about it.

Mr. Tayler asks Mr. Smith why he did not pursue the public charge that Abraham H. Cannon had married a plural wife around 1896, or why he didn't investigate the rumor that George Teasdale married a plural wife.  The thinking is that if the church is serious in stopping this practice, why were these charges not investigated.
Mr. Smith.  The public charge, or what you call a public charge, is simply the charge made by the bitterest anti-Mormon publication in Salt Lake City, and its charges are of such a vicious character that I pay no attention to them.  If I were to undertake to answer one-hundredth part of the vicious and vile charges that are made in the anti-Mormon papers against me and my people I would have nothing else to do in the world.
Mr. Tayler.  Then you mean to say that as a general proposition, notwithstanding your sensitiveness on the subject of plural marriages having been authorized or performed under the sanction of the church, you do not investigate any charges that are made of that character?
Mr. Smith.  It is not my business to investigate them.  I have given to this honorable committee -
The Chairman.  The question is, Do you make any investigation?
Mr. Smith.  I have made the assertion and explanation here to this honorable committee that our courts of original jurisdiction in the church are the bishops' courts, and it is the duty of the bishops to inquire into the moral character and the moral standing and the good fellowship of members of the church who reside in the wards of the bishops.
Senator Hoar.  Including officials?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  Including all officials?
Mr. Smith.  They have jurisdiction over all members of the church, and all officials are members of the church.
Mr. Tayler.  Did you feel any duty laid upon you to investigate this, in the interest of the church, apart from any personal lapse?
Mr. Smith.  No; not in the way that these reports and rumors came to me.  They were the reports and rumors of malicious persons.
Mr. Tayler.  Malicious persons?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  Sometimes malicious persons tell the truth.
Mr. Smith.  That may be.
Mr. Tayler.  Or is it your assumption that they never do?
Mr. Smith.  We become habituated to hearing reports of malicious persons until we pay no attention to them, even if they do tell the truth.
Commentary:  This is just a quick run-down of why none of the rumors spread in Salt Lake City or plural marriages are never looked into.  They, the leaders of the Church, take absolutely no stock in what they hear from rumor, and if there is anything to investigate, it is up to the individual ward bishops to do that investigation.

The Chairman then wishes to revisit a subject from Day #2 of testimony:  types of marriages or sealings.
The Chairman.  I should like to ask one or two questions.  I am not clear with respect to your statement.  I understand, according to the practice of the church, you formerly performed the marriage for life, the marriage for time and eternity, and also the marriage for eternity - three different kinds.
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  And the marriage for eternity was called sealing?
Mr. Smith.  They were all called sealings.
The Chairman.  They were all called sealings?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  You will have to excuse my ignorance about it.  I wish to get at the facts.
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.  I take very great pleasure in trying to enlighten you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.  Is the sealing for eternity ever performed between two living mortals?
Mr. Smith.  I have heard, Mr. Chairman, of one or two instances of that kind.
Mr. Worthington.  Between living persons?
Mr. Smith.  Between two living persons.
The Chairman.  Could a person living in polygamy, married for time, be sealed to some other woman for eternity?
Mr. Smith.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  You have heard of instances where two living persons have been sealed for eternity?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  According to the doctrines of your church, did that carry with it the right of earthly cohabitation?
Mr. Smith.  It was not so understood.
The Chairman.  Then, what is your -
Mr. Smith.  It does not carry that right.
Commentary:  More about this "sealing for eternity" business.  It carries no weight in the current earthly realm, only in eternity, or life after this life is where it has any affect.

The Chairman then moves on to another topic.  He is now interested in questioning Mr. Smith about polygamy and the doctrines of the church about this as found in the Book of Mormon.
The Chairman.  I hold in my hand the Book of Mormon.  I should like to have you look at it to see if it is the book.  I want you to identify the book.
Mr. Smith.  (after examining the book).  I recognize the book.
The Chairman.  That is the Book of Mormon?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir; that is the Book of Mormon.
The Chairman.  One of your -
Mr. Smith.  One of our editions.
The Chairman.  One of your authorized publications?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir; authorized publications.
The Chairman.  It is the revelation of Joseph Smith?
Mr. Smith.  Sir?
The Chairman.  A revelation to Joseph Smith?
Mr. Smith.  It was translated by Joseph Smith.
The Chairman.  Is the doctrine of polygamy taught in that revelation?
Mr. Smith.  Taught in it?
The Chairman.  Yes.
Mr. Smith.  It is emphatically forbidden in that book.
The Chairman.  In this book it is emphatically forbidden?
Mr. Smith.  It is.
The Chairman.  Do you recognize these words?  I read from page 132, verse 24:
24.  Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which things was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  (Reading:)
25.  Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26.  Where, I the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27.  Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife, and concubines he shall have none.
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  You recognize that?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  You recognize it as the teaching of your church?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.  Will the chairman please read a little further?
The Chairman.  Yes; I will be very glad to read the next verse:
28.  For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women.  And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Mr. Smith.  A little further, please.  There is still more in connection with that.
The Chairman.  (Reading:)
29.  Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
Mr. Smith.  That is right.  Still further, if you please.
The Chairman.  I do not want to read the whole book.
Mr. Smith.  You have to read the context to find out what it means.
The Chairman.  I will allow you to read it in explanation.
Mr. Smith.  If you will be kind enough to pass me the book I will do so.
The Chairman.  Yes; in a moment.  Was that doctrine overruled or annulled by the revelation of polygamy?
Mr. Smith.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  It was not?
Mr. Smith.  No, sir.  If you will be kind enough to let me have the book, I will show you.
The Chairman.  I want to know when the doctrine of the Mormon bible was repudiated.
Mr. Smith.  It is not the Mormon bible.  It is the Book of Mormon.
The Chairman.  Well, the Book of Mormon.  You know what I mean.  When was that repudiated or modified in any way, and by whom?
Mr. Smith.  If you will permit me, I will read a little further.
The Chairman.  Certainly.
Mr. Smith.  It is this:
29.  Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed by the land for their sakes.
30.  For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Mr. Smith.  All you need to do, sir, is to read the whole thing, and it explains itself.  The revelation to Joseph Smith does not repeal this.  It is simply a commandment of the Lord to him, and received by him and accepted by him to enter into plural marriage by His law and by His commandment and not by their own volition.
The Chairman.  Then you construe that which you have read as the commandment of the Lord to practice polygamy when -
Mr. Smith.  He commands it.
The Chairman.  When He commands it.
Mr. Smith.  That is exactly what the words say.
Commentary:  I may be mistaken here, but it appears from this that the Chairman thought he had a point of emphasis to show that the church believes in two different doctrines:  1)  The doctrine of polygamy as taught in the church now (and formerly) and 2) The doctrine of only marrying one woman, as taught in the Book of Mormon.  He makes a special emphasis on the book to make sure that everyone knows this is an authentic copy, produced and santioned by the church.  Then he reads where it says only one wife is allowed.  Well, if true, it means that the current church has gone terribly astray.  Mr. Smith had probably seen this scripture many times before, and was well prepared for this and just had him read further on.  After doing this, the Chairman was probably a little disappointed.  Oh well.  I guess there's an answer for everything and the scriptures can be made to say whatever you believe in.

Senator Dubois then questions Mr. Smith about revelations he has received.  I put this in only because it seems to clarify his position concerning previous explanations on the subject.
Senator Dubois.  Have you received any revelation from God, which has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church in their semiannual conference, which revelation has been sustained by that conference through the upholding of their hands?
Mr. Smith.  Since when?
Senator Dubois.  Since you became president of the church.
Mr. Smith.  No, sir; none whatever.
Senator Dubois.  Individual members of the church can receive individual revelations, can they not?
Mr. Smith.  If I may be permitted, the word "revelation" is used very vaguely here all the time.  No man can get revelations at his will.  If a man is prayerful and earnest in his desire and lives a righteous life and he desires information and intelligence, he will inquire of the Lord, and the Lord will manifest to him through the presence and influence of his Spirit, his mind, and his will.  That would be a revelation to that individual.
The Chairman.  What is the answer to the question?
Senator McComas.  Is not that an answer?
Senator Foraker.  I think it is an intelligent answer, and a very satisfactory one.
Senator McComas.  It seems to me it is full.
The Chairman.  I want to hear what the question was.  Mr. Reporter, will you please read it? (the question is read).
Mr. Smith.  I think I have answered that.
The Chairman.  Very well; if you think that is an answer.
Senator Dubois.  Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became president of the church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?
Mr. Smith.  I cannot say that I have.
Senator Dubois.  Can you say that you have not?
Mr. Smith.  No; I cannot say that I have not.
Senator Dubois.  Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelation as you have described, or whether you have not?
Mr. Smith.  Well, I can say this:  That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be.  And so far as that is concerned, I say yes; I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense revelations.
The Chairman.  Senator, do you think it is important to pursue that farther?
Senator Dubois.  No.
Commentary:  Having two other senators on the committee put the chairman in his place appears to read slightly funny.  Besides that, Senator Dubois' questioning of Mr. Smith further reinforces what had been previously testified to; namely, that there are no new revelations from God to Mr. Smith, or anything that Mr. Smith would consider a revelation.  He does, however, qualify this slightly by saying that he has frequently had impressions from the Spirit.

Mr. Tayler then starts down the path of the endowment oath with Mr. Smith.  This was really talked about previously with him, so this is new ground.

Mr. Tayler.  I wish to ask two questions.  Mr. Smith, something has been said about an endowment oath.  I do not want to go into that subject or to inquire of you what it is, but whatever oath or obligation has been taken by those who have been admitted to the church, at whatever stage it is taken, is the same now that it has been for years?
Mr. Smith.  It is the same that it has always been.
Mr. Tayler.  It is the same that it has always been?
Mr. Smith.  Yes; so far as I know.
Mr. Tayler.  No other oath is taken now than heretofore?
Mr. Smith.  We do not take oaths unless we are forced to take them.
Mr. Tayler.  You have known them [the endowment ceremony] for forty years or more?
Mr. Smith.  I have been more or less qcquainted with them for a great many years.
Commentary:  These were easy, "sfotball" type questions.

Mr. Worthington then questions Mr. Smith and it comes up that Mr. Smith had a conversation with George Teasdale about his plural marriage standing.  Mr. Tayler gets a little anxious about this and says:  "I should like to have him tell what the conversation of Apostle Teasdale was, in explanation."  He makes this same request twice.
Mr. Smith.  I will try to tell it as nearly as possible as he told it to me.  He informed me that at the time he married Marian Scoles he was under the impression that he had not a legal wife living.  That is what he told me.
Mr. Worthington.  Did he go into the particulars of it to tell you what were his relations to his first wife and why he supposed he had no other wife living at that time?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, to some extent.
Mr. Worthington.  I understand it is desired that you should state what he told you, so far as you can recollect it.
Mr. Smith.  He told me - it was like one of the cases spoken of by the Chairman here - it was a case in which an elderly lady, who was deormed, but who had been a housekeeper in his family for a number of years before his first wife died, had been sealed to him for eternity, with the understanding that they were not to be husband and wife, and were not husband and wife, and never had been at all.  And he was under the impression that she was not his wife in a legal sense and that therefore he was at liberty to marry Marian Scoles.  He told me that when he discovered -
Mr. Worthington.  Did he tell you how he discovered it?
Mr. Smith.  Yes.
Mr. Worthington.  Tell us.
Mr. Smith.  He said he sold a piece of property, and when he came to give the title to the property the person purchasing it demanded that his wife sign the deed with him.  The law of Utah requires that a man and his wife shall sign a deed of coveyance.  And he informed the person that he did not have a wife, but he was reputed to have a wife.  He went to a lawyer and informed his attorney of his status and condition and the attorney informed him that she would be construed as his legal wife, she having been sealed to him for eternity after his first wife's death.
Mr. Worthington.  I understand that the first wife, the one to whom it appears he was legally married, was an old lady, deformed?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  And they had been sealed for eternity?
Mr. Smith.  For eternity.
Mr. Worthington.  And that the relation of husband and wife had never existed between them?
Mr. Smith.  It had never existed between them.
Commentary:  If true, this means that the supposed plural wife of Apostle George Teasdale was nothing more than a woman to whom he was sealed for eternity only and he had never cohabitated with her ("relation of husband and wife had never existed").  In the mind of the committee this should be chalked up as nothing more than a religious binding that in no way interferes with or breaks the law of the land or the state.  It may be "different ," or "weird," or possibly just classified as religious; but, this cannot be construed as being illegal or against the law ... at least from my point of view.

Mr. Smith then goes on to say that Mr. Teasdale obtained a divorce from this woman on the basis of counsel from the attorney.  He therefore obtained a divorce from a woman he was never really married to in the eyes of the state even though it shouldn't have been necessary to do so.
Senator Depew.  As new revelations are received, are they embodied in the new edition of the Book of Mormon?
Mr. Smith.  No revelations that are received are put in the Book of Mormon - none whatever.  The Book of Mormon is a complete work in itself.  In the book the Doctrine and Covenants, if the Lord should reveal His mind to His people and it should be accepted by His people in the way that He has appointed, it would then become a matter to be added to the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.
Commentary:  Thee it is; plain as day.  If any new revelations are received, approved, and sustained by the church membership, they will be added to the Doctrine and Covenants.  Therefore, no new revelations in the D&C indicate no new written revelations received by the prophet, or head of the church, as given by the Lord.  This has plainly been admitted to by the current president of the church (in 1904), and if we fast-forward to the current day, we know that 1976 was the last time new revelations were added to the D&C (Section 137 from 1836 and Section 138 from 1918).  There is nothing new beyond that, unless you count the 1978 revelation which wasn't written, but was included as Official Declaration #2 (Official Declaration #1 is the manifesto issued by Wilford Woodruff from 1890).  Neither of the Official Declarations is considered a written revelation, therefore they were not given a section number in the D&C; however, both of them were sustained in a General Conference of the church, so it was revelation sustained without the written part.  Kind of interesting.

Senator Depew.  Does the Mormon bible include the New Testament?
Mr. Smith.  Yes, sir.  I should like to state for the information of the Senator who makes the inquiry that we have no bible except the Christian Bible.  King James' translation is the translation that we have accepted as the standard work of the church.
Commentary:  The term "Mormon Bible" is used by those who are ignorant, or possibly combative, of Mormon religious doctrines.  They use the term to specifically refer to the Book of Mormon.  It is inferred from this statement, that the Mormons have no other Bible; however, Mr. Smith states for all to hear (and read) that the LDS Church uses the KJV translation of the Old and New Testaments just like other Christian churches.

At the end of the examination of Mr. Smith, three (3) sections from the codification of the State law of Utah in 1898, are read into the record.  The sections are 2848, 2849, and 2850.  This is in addition to an earlier one read (section 2833).  Here's a quick summary of these sections:
2833:  Illegitimate children can inherit from their parents as if they were legitimate children.
2848:  Children from polygamous and bigamous marriages are included in section 2833's definition of illegitimate children, except as specifically defined otherwise in the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.
2849:  Inheritance trials decided in the Territory of Utah can be retried under the state laws if they were decided before March 1897.
2850:  Polygamous children born prior to January 4, 1896 are legitimate and are uncluded with the seciton 2833 rules.

Then included is a court case from the Supreme Court of Utah ruling that section 2849 is unconstitutional (June 28, 1897).

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Bigfoot = Sasquatch = Cain?

I'm preparing for my Sunday School lesson and one of the things that immediately struck me was that we talk about Cain and Abel this week.  I typically just look over the lesson, get a basic idea of the doctrines presented, scriptures needed, stories told to emphasize the points, etc.  This week Cain stood out to me on first glance.  There's some interesting things that can be done with him and his sin.

When I was younger I heard a story where someone actually claimed to have met Cain.  Now that is interesting, and I wanted to find it again.  My first source was the Miracle of Forgiveness by President Spencer W. Kimball, pp. 127-128.  I knew this book had the basic quote about it.  This was good, but wasn't good enough.  I wanted the source.  Thankfully President Kimball put a reference to his source, and a few clicks on the internet brought me right to the actual book itself.  I love technology.  The PDF was downloaded and now I can read the whole chapter where the quote was pulled from; context is important.

The source of President Kimball's quote is David W. Patten as told by Abraham O. Smoot (the father of Reed Smoot).  David W. Patten is the apostle that was killed at the Battle of Crooked River in Missouri on October 25, 1838.  The Prophet Joseph Smith called Brother Patten the first martyr of this dispensation.  As a side note, it is this battle that "inspired" then Missouri Governor Lilburn W. Boggs to issue the now infamous "Extermination Order" against all Mormons living in Missouri.

Lycurgus A. Wilson wrote a book entitled, The Life of David W. Patten.  It was apparently first published in 1900, by Deseret Book.  There is a letter at the beginning of the book addressed "To the Reader" from President Lorenzo Snow talking about a few of his memories of Brother Patten.  I point this out only so that we can assume that the source is legitimate.  Chapter 5 of this book has the following story.  I quote the letter from this chapter as found on pages 45-47.

Mr. Patten was living in Tennessee, near the town of Paris, with the step-father and mother of Abraham O. Smoot (1815-1895).  This was Brother Patten's second mission to the state.  Before the death of A.O. Smoot, Joseph F. Smith inquired of him about this specific event, and the following letter was written, addressed to President Smith (a member of the First Presidency of the Church; therefore, the title of 'President' is appropriate.)

President Joseph F. Smith, Salt Lake City :

     Dear Brother:  -  In relation to the subject of the visit of Cain to Brother David W. Patten in the State of Tennessee, about which you wrote to me, I will say that according to the best of my recollection it was in the month of September, 1835.

     It was in the evening, just twilight, when Brother Patten rode up to my father's house, alighted from his mule and came into the house.  The family immediately observed that his countenance was quite changed.  My mother having first noticed his changed appearance said:  "Brother Patten, are you sick?"  He replied that he was not, but had just met with a very remarkable personage who had represented himself as being Cain, who murdered his brother, Abel.  He went on to tell the circumstances as near as I can recall in the following language:
"As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me.  He walked along beside me for about two miles.  His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle.  He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair.  His skin was very dark.  I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro.  He said he was a very miserable creature that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men.  About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight.  When he left me I found myself near your house."
     There was much conversation about the circumstances between Brother Patten and my family which I don't recall, but the above is in substance his statement to us at the time.  The date is, to the best of my recollection, and I think it is correct, but it may possibly have been in the spring of 1836, but I feel quite positive that the former date is right.

     Hoping the above will be satisfactory to you and answer your purpose, I am with the kindest regards, as ever,

                                        Your friend and Brother,
                                                            A. O. Smoot

The book's author does take issue with the date, and says that it was in the spring of 1836.  Other than that minor detail, the author doesn't correct or embelish any of it.  It stands on its own for review.

I don't know exactly what to make of this description.  Does this mean that Cain is the mythical Bigfoot that we've been searching for?  Sasquatch killed Abel?  This hairy beast, a devil of a man, has been living for ... a long time running around naked trying to destroy the souls of men?  Maybe.  That is essentially what the scriptures tell us about him.  Maybe this was just some wild man living in the wilderness of Tennessee that had long hair, stood a good 8 feet or so tall and kept up for a couple of miles with a walking mule.  Oh, and he had dark skin.

Whatever or whomever it was, the story was interesting.  I won't quote the scriptures from Genesis or Moses about him.  I'll leave that as an exercise for the interested reader (Genesis 4; Moses 5).

Monday, February 8, 2010

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 6 - Francis M. Lyman, part 2

March 8, 1904

Picking up from where part one left off, Mr. Lyman is being questioned about missionary work in the church.  The Chairman is interested in finding out what Mormon missionaries do if they are verbally attacked concerning polygamy.  Do they respond?
Mr. Worthington.  To what extent, if at all, since 1890, in instructing your missionaries and sending them out to their work, have you told them to inculcate or encourage the practice of polygamy?
Mr. Lyman.  They are always thoroughly warned, Mr. Chairman, to avoid the discussion of that subject, and prohibited from discussing it or advocating and defending or putting it forth, because we have yielded that requirement to the law and have ceased plural marriages entirely, and they never refer to it.  They never advert to it at all unless they are approached and compelled to.
The Chairman.  And then what, if they are assailed?
Mr. Lyman.  If they are compelled, we always advise that they should not listen, should not yield.
The Chairman.  But if compelled, then what?
Mr. Lyman.  How is that?
The Chairman.  If compelled to, by an assault?
Mr. Lyman.  I suppose they do, likely.
The Chairman.  Do what?
Mr. Lyman.  I very much regret that they should answer at all in regard to it.
Mr. Worthington.  They do what?
The Chairman.  What do they do?
Mr. Lyman.  They speak of the principle, I presume, when they are compelled.
The Chairman.  They denounce it or defend it?
Mr. Lyman.  Defend it.  They would not denounce it.
Mr. Worthington.  What are they instructed to say about the practice of it as distinguished from the theory?
Mr. Lyman.  Forbid it entirely, and to instruct the people that nothing of the kind is tolerated in the church.
Mr. Worthington.  that is, you defend it as a belief?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes. 
Mr. Worthington.  But instruct that it is not to be pursued as a practice?
Mr. Lyman.  They are entirely forbidden to handle it or do anything with it, and what they do of course I am unable to say.
The Chairman.  Right there just a moment.  If your theory upon that is assailed in regard to polygamy, do you then defend it?
Mr. Lyman.  If I did anything, I would have to.
Mr. Worthington.  Do you mean defend its rightfulness as a principle or as a practice?
Mr. Lyman.  As a principle of faith.
Mr. Worthington.  I understand.  You always instruct and tell everybody it is forbidden - the practice of it?
Mr. Lyman.  Entirely; always.  We never fail.
Commentary:  This is again a repeat of what Joseph F. Smith has testified to previously; namely, that the missionaries teach that the practice is wrong, but that they believe the principle itself.  This is not new, but it is corroborated information now from a second witness stating essentially the same thing.

Mr. Worthington then take a detour from this line of questioning, and asks about the authority to perform a plural marriage.  He is curious about the alleged marriage of Mrs. Kennedy in Mexico (at which time Wilford Woodruff was president of the church):
Mr. Worthington.  If any elder or preacher of the church had desired to have authority to perform a plural marriage ceremony at that time, from whom could he have obtained that authority?
Mr. Lyman.  I am sure he could not have obtained it from anyone, but President Woodruff would have been the only man that could have given in.
Mr. Worthington.  Do you know what President Woodruff's instructions were at that time, and what he was doing about that?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir; he forbade it entirely.
Commentary:  Alright, so this type of authority is only obtained from the president of the church, and from nowhere else.  To me this means that if a plural marriage is performed correctly, the authority to do this has to be obtained from the president, otherwise it is done outside the church's authority and oversight, and is thus illegal in the eyes of the church.

There is a bit of a discussion here about the authority and "what if " questions.  The committee is interested in knowing the extent to which the president of the church can act should he want to, so that plural marriages could be performed again.  They make all of these queries with the understanding that there has already been a revelation prohibiting the practice of polygamy.  This conversation does get him into a little bit of trouble here with explaining what he knows.
Senator Overman.  I understand you, Mr. Lyman, to state that this manifesto or revelation was only holding in abeyance the law as to plural marriages?
The Chairman.  Suspending it.
Senator Overman.  Suspending it for the time, but that the president still has the authority to confer that upon the elders and apostles?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes; but he is not at liberty to exercise it.
Senator Overman.  He is not at liberty to exercise it?
Mr. Lyman.  He is not at liberty to exercise it, because the Lord has forbidden it.
The Chairman.  If he had a revelation to suspend the suspension, then he would be authorized?
Mr. Lyman.  I do not think there is any - I would not think there was any probability of that at all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.  I am not speaking of the probabilities.
Mr. Lyman.  No.
The Chairman.  Suppose the Lord should appear to him and direct him to suspend the suspension; he would then have to obey it?
Mr. Lyman.  He has obeyed the law in -
The Chairman.  I say he would then have to obey that latest revelation?
Mr. Lyman.  He has obeyed the law wherein the Lord forbade plural marriages.
Commentary:  They are trying to pin him down here and see if another revelation would reverse the position of the church on plural marriages.  So far Mr. Lyman has been unwilling to directly answer this question.  He only states that the president has followed the first revelation and is obeying the law (of the land).  He also states, although I'm not sure how he would know this, that the Lord will "probably" not give this type of revelation to the prophet.  Unless Mr. Lyman has had a revelation where the Lord has told him this (not out of the question), then he knows something internally where the church has decided never to implement this practice again, no matter what happens around it (which would seem to be against spiritual instruction for any principle when a decision is made no matter what the Lord says or will say).

The Chairman never does get a direct answer to his question above, and the committee continues on with the hearing by wrangling over the wording of the manifesto of 1890 for a few minutes; what is said exactly, what is mean, is the word "suspended" in there (no), etc.

The Chairman then continues questioning Mr. Lyman, and comes to this little tid bit, which I thought was interesting.
The Chairman.  And they [missionaries] are instructed not to go into the mysteries.
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, of the kingdom.
The Chairman.  Is polygamy one of the mysteries?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir; it would be now.  [Laughter]
The Chairman.  But if that doctrine is assailed, then you would be called upon to defend it as a faith, would you?
Mr. Lyman.  No; I do not think I would say anything about it.  I would let them assail.
The Chairman.  You would let them assail and you would walk off?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes.
The Chairman.  But you would defend the faith, would you not?
Mr. Lyman.  No; I think I would let the faith take care of itself.
The Chairman.  But you would attend to the practice?
Mr. Lyman.  No, sir.  [Laughter]
Commentary:  Polygamy is now classified as a mystery; previously it was not so classified.  He also states, somewhat in opposition to what he stated previously, that he would not defend the principle of polygamy if it were assailed right in front of him; he would let it go and say nothing.

After being asked again about the use of the Doctrine in Covenants by missionaries (haven't we already covered this ground?), Mr. Lyman responds with a similar answer as he testified to before:  "It is not used as a proselyting work at all."  Mr. Tayler then proceeds to question him about revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and ties that in with the current modern day revelations.
Mr. Tayler.  I understood you to say that some of your apostles have been chosen through revelations?
Mr. Lyman.  Every one of them.
Mr. Tayler.  Every one of them?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes.
Mr. Tayler.  Mr. Smoot was chosen, then, through a revelation?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  Who received that revelation?
Mr. Lyman.  Lorenzo Snow - President Lorenzo Snow.
Mr. Tayler.  What kind of revelation was it?
Mr. Lyman.  From the Lord.
Mr. Tayler.  What is written or -
Mr. Lyman.  Oral.  It was not written.  It was the voice of the Lord to Lorenzo Snow.
Mr. Tayler.  Speaking directly to him?
Mr. Lyman.  To him.
Mr. Tayler.  And specifically indicating Mr. Smoot?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir; it pointed him out exactly.
Mr. Tayler.  You do not define it as being a desire of Lorenzo Snow?
Mr. Lyman.  No, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  To have Mr. Smoot one of the apostles, which he imagined would be approved by God?
Mr. Lyman.  No, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  But it is more specific and certain and substantive than that I have just stated?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  I would like to ask one question there.  You say that Mr. Smoot was selected as an apostle by the voice of the Lord to Lorenzo Snow?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  Do you know whether that voice was audible, in the sense of an ordinary sound?
Mr. Lyman.  It was, no doubt, audible to him.
Senator Hoar.  Audible as a sound rather than a light?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  How do you know?
Mr. Lyman.  How do I know?
Senator Hoar.  Yes.
Mr. Lyman.  The Lord revealed it to me.
Senator Hoar.  The Lord revealed it to you also?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes; by his spirit.
Senator Hoar.  How did He reveal it to you?
Mr. Lyman.  By the spirit of the Lord.
Senator Hoar.  Did He reveal it to you by an audible sound, as you hear the voice of an ordinary person speaking to you?
Mr. Lyman.  He spoke to me by his spirit.
Senator Hoar.  How?
Mr. Lyman.  By his holy spirit.
Senator Hoar.  How?
Mr. Lyman.  To my soul.
Senator Hoar.  How?
Mr. Lyman.  And heart.
Senator Hoar.  How?
Mr. Lyman.  By the spirit of the Lord.
Senator Hoar.  How did the spirit of the Lord speak by the spirit of the Lord to your soul?  In what way was the speech made?
Mr. Lyman.  I could tell you, Mr. Senator, how I obtained that spirit and testimony so that not only when Mr. Smoot has been chosen, but when every other apostle has been chosen, the spirit of the Lord has borne record to my spirit.
Senator Hoar.  I understood Mr. Smith to testify that he had never had a revelation since he has been president of the church.
Mr. Lyman.  Yes.
Senator Hoar.  You have had some?
Mr. Lyman.  What President Smith does as the president of the church he does by the direction of the spirit of the Lord, not a written revelation.  Two of the apostles were chosen, and revelation was written when George Teasdale was chosen, and Heber J. Grant, but ...
Commentary:  This was an interesting coversation between Mr. Tayler, Senator Hoar and Mr. Lyman.  I don't know if Mr. Lyman was present during some of the questioning of Mr. Smith where he testified that he had not received any revelation since becoming president of the church.  However, he didn't miss a beat and answered in step with the question.  I also found the questioning by Senator Hoar kind of funny.  He wants to know how God speaks to man ... how? ... how? ... how?  He was like a five year old just digging and digging and digging for the answer he wanted.

There is a bit of a "wait a minute" moment where Senator Hoar asks Mr. Lyman to clarify how Mr. Smith could receive no revelations yet lead the church constantly by revelation.  However, this apparent uncomfortability didn't last too long.

Senator Hoar then tries to understand more about the thinking of people, Mormons specifically, in response to a revelation from the Lord.  He wants to understand what Mr. Lyman does with a revelation after it is received.
Senator Hoar.  Have you always obeyed those revelations in your actions about the selection of apostles?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir; in the selection.
Senator Hoar.  Do you make any distinction in your mind between the commands of the Lord, that you are at liberty to disobey, and commands that you are at liberty to obey?
Mr. Lyman.  The commands of the Lord that I have disobeyed - that I presume the Senator refers to - in my life, I trust myself to the mercy of the Lord.
Senator Hoar.  Have you repented of that disobedience?
Mr. Lyman.  How is that?
Senator Hoar.  Have you repented of that idsobedience?
Mr. Lyman.  Not yet; no sir.
Senator Hoar.  Not yet?
Mr. Lyman.  Not yet.  [Laughter]
Commentary:  Mr. Lyman saw ahead and predicted what Senator Hoar was going to ask him.  By knowing two or three questions in advance and seeing the trap being placed for him by Senator Hoar, he knew how to avoid it.  I wonder why the Senator tried to lay the trap in the first place.  Why hide the meaning of the question in a future question?  Just come right out and ask the question without trying to trap someone and make them look silly.  Or, maybe that's what he wanted, to make Mr. Lyman look silly so that he could look superior and smart.  Not cool.  The trap would have been that Mr. Lyman testifies that he obeys all of God's revelations.  Then Senator Hoar would have said he doesn't obey unlawful cohabitation and he needs to explain how he chooses which ones to obey and not obey.  That wouldn't have been a fun conversation.  So, he admitted it up front, and defused the land mind placed for him by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Senator Hoar, never the one to give up easily, does finally catch Mr. Lyman in a conversational trap.  Mr. Lyman states that generally people know and believe he is a polygamist and is living against the rule of the church.  He further states that he excludes Mr. Smoot from this general group of people.  Senator Hoar does not understand how this can be so and drills down on this quite a bit.  At the end, the Senator comes back to the spiritual side of this question and answer after Mr. Lyman recants the testimony that was confusing.
Senator Hoar.  Do you not think, Mr. Apostle, that in this hearing it behooves you to be a little careful of your answers so that in so important a matter you do not have to take back in two or three minutes what you have said?  Have you had any revelation or commandment in regard to the testimony you should give to this case?
Mr. Lyman.  No, sir.
Senator Hoar.  There is no inspiration of that or any part of it?
Mr. Lyman.  As to the testimony I should give here?
Senator Hoar.  As to the testimony you have given or are to give?
Mr. Lyman.  No; I do not know that I have, particularly.  I came here to answer the questions of the committee.
Senator Hoar.  But I want to know whether you are answering them under the direction of the Lord, according to your belief, or merely in your human and uninspired capacity?
Mr. Lyman.  I believe I shall answer the questions that are asked me here as the spirit of the Lord directs me, and truthfully.
Senator Hoar.  Do you mean to say that the spirit of the Lord directs you in your answers here?
Mr. Lyman.  I believe so.
Senator Hoar.  You believe so.
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  Then in your belief, did the spirit of the Lord direct you to make the answer which you just ook back and said was a mistake?  Well, if you cannot answer it I will not press it.  That is all.
Commentary:  The scriptures so say something very close to what Mr. Lyman is trying to describe to the committee.  Here are a few references to it:
Matthew 10:19:  "But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak:  for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak."

D&C 84:85:  "Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion shall be meted unto every man."

D&C 100:5-6:  "Therefore, verily I say unto you, lift up your voices unto this people; speak the thoughts that I shall put into your hearts, and you shall not be confounded before men; for it shall be given you in the very hour, year, in the very moment, what ye shall say."

The conversation then turns to the "righteous" people known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; as compared with the "unrighteous" troublemakers known today as the Mormons or those that followed Brigham Young out of Illinois.  Mr. Lyman is asked to state the differences between the two religions and this necessarily follows with a discussion of what is proper to investigate (other religion's doctrine?).  Finally, I've placed an eye opening statement by Mr. Tayler in here where his belief and understanding were very transparent, as was his purpose and direction.
Senator Overman.  Do I understand you to say the difference between the Reorganized Mormon Church and yours is that they are not required to obey their leaders and your people are required to obey their leaders?
Mr. Lyman.  No, I did not say that.  Somebody suggested that.  I do not criticize them in that regard.  I believe they do not gather.  We gather.  I know of no other religious people that gather.  They do not gather.
Mr. Lyman.  Yes; from Europe to the United States and to the land of Zion.  We gather together and they do not.  We build temples and they do not.  We marry for eternity and they do not, as I understand.  I would not like to be taken to task.  I may be mistaken in some of these ideas, but I believe these things make us differ.  On the first principles of the gospel I think they agree pretty well with us, but they do not believe in the endowments, I understand, not temple building, nor the gathering.  I do not think they engage in the doctrine of salvation for the dead, which we do.
Mr. Tayler.  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be foreclosed by the fact that this informal discussion has taken place from taking a different ground when the juncture comes than that which is stated by Mr. Worthington, for we shall argue that here are two branches, said to be branches of the same church, in which the only difference is that one believes in the doctrein of plural mjariages and in the subordinations of its people.  That is the only distinction between the two.  One of them has a history with which we are all familiar.  I do not comment on that now at all.  It has made great trouble in this country.  The other is composed, so far as history tells us anything about it, of a peaceable, law-abiding, orderly people; and it is in respect of those two things around which all of this case gathers - polygamy and the direction of the people by the apostolate - and if those two were eliminated this hearing would not be going on here.
Commentary:  I thought the discussion about "gathering" was enlightening.  I take it that "gathering" to Mr. Lyman means physically relocating to Zion or to Utah to be with the Saints from whatever locale currently you reside in.  I'm not sure that no other people do this as he states, as Jews do gather to Israel (7 million + there at the current time and growing); however, the gathering of the Saints to Utah was unique in its time and scale.  Over the course of the early part of church history (1830-1890), people were encouraged to move to where the prophet was (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young specifically), and for the most part, converts to the church did move.  Currently the church's position on gathering to Zion has reversed; namely, we are told not to gather but to create a Zion-like atmosphere whereever we are.

One more comment:  While the comparison to the Reorganized Church may have been mostly true when it was said, some of it has changed.  The church now has a temple in Jackson County, Missouri, and they have stated that temple building is something they have believed in all along.  The other items mentioned, I believe, are still true.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 6 - Francis M. Lyman, part 1

March 8, 1904

Mr. Lyman is the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and has been a member of this group of men since 1880.  He has been a member of the church his entire life.  He is 64 years old, has 3 wives (2 of which are living).

He states that he was married to his first wife in 1857, and his second wife on Oct. 9, 1884, in the Endowment House in Salt Lake City.  From this second wife he had 5 children, the first born on July 4, 1891, and the last born in 1900. 

Mr. Tayler is interested in knowing about Mr. Lyman's signing of the plea for amnesty.
Mr. Tayler.  Were you a signer of the prayer for amnesty?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  And in that prayer for amnesty did you pledge yourself to obey the law?
Mr. Lyman.  I do not remember exactly what the article contains.  I pledged myself to all it says.  I have not read it for a long time.
Mr. Tayler.  Did you, as a matter of fact, pledge yourself, by that plea for amnesty; to obedience to the law, not only respecting the taking of plural wives, but the other laws respecting the plural marriage relation?
Mr. Lyman.  Whatever the article contains I signed.

[There is a bit of an argument about the rules of questioning a witness concerning a document that can be produced.  After a minute, Mr. Tayler reads to Mr. Lyman specifically what he wants to question him about.]

Mr. Tayler.  In this prayer for amnest there is this sentence:  "As shepards of a patient, suffering people we ask amnesty for them and pledge our faith and honor for their future."  Do you recall that statement?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. Tayler.  Did you interpret that as meaning that you would obey the law respecting polygamous cohabitation?
Mr. Lyman.  I intended to do everything that was right in the observance of the law.
Mr. Tayler.  Did you think it would be right to abstain from polygamous cohabitation with your plural wife?
Mr. Lyman.  I think it would have been right.
Mr. Tayler.  You did not do that, though?
Mr. Lyman.  No, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  Then you did wrong?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir; according to the law.
Mr. Tayler.  According to the law?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  It was wrong according to the church law as well?
Mr. Lyman.  It was wrong according to the rule of the church.
Mr. Tayler.  So you violated both laws?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  The law of the land and the rule of the church?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Commentary:  Mr. Tayler immediately tries to show, and does very effectively, that Mr. Lyman has broken his word for the plea of amnesty to the Federal Government and is currently breaking the law of the land and rule of the church with respect to polygamous cohabitation.  This is a similar situation to that of Joseph F. Smith; namely, he was married before the manifesto, but continues to live as if it never happened, even though he signed a document stating he would change his lifestyle.

The committee Chairman wants then to get his thoughts in about living in a polygamous cohabitation relationship.
The Chairman.  I wish to as a question right here.  You are now continuing in this polygamous relation?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  And intend to?
Mr. Lyman.  I had thought of nothing else, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.  And you are the next in succession to the presidency?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Commentary:  I believe the Chairman wants to point out that there is a succession of polygamists and law-breakers in the ranks of the apostles.  The current president lives with 5 wives, and the next in succession does the same with his two wives and has "thought of nothing else."  This is meant to show, I suppose, that Mr. Lyman is a defiant law-breaker, and has no intention of changing the error of his ways.

Senator Hoar then wants to know why Mr. Lyman would break a law of God if he knows better.
Senator Hoar.  Then, do I understand you to say that you are living and intend to live in violation of the law of God and of the law of man, as you understand them?
Mr. Lyman.  Mr. Chairman, I fully intend to be true to my obligations and covenants with the Lord and with my wives and children and to the Government of the United States.  I have lived in all good conscience before the Lord and I have never done a thing willfully against the church nor my God nor my country.
     If I may be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to make a remark, my case is possibly a little different from the case of other men generally.  I was born in 1840.  I can hardly remember when my father was not a polygamist.  He married a number of wives in 1845, the next year after the death of Prophet Joseph.  He was taught that doctrine by the prophet, and he was charged that it was important for him that he should embrace that principle.  He was selected at one time as a councilor to the prophet.  He entered into that principle and married six plural wives in 1845 and 1846, so that as my earliest recollections I remember my father's wives and families as I remember my father and my own mother.
     I was taught the truthfulness of that principle from the very beginning, and I lived in that plural family till I married and had a family of my own.
     I have never been able to see but that that principle is correct and true.  I have always felt that it was, in my heart and soul, and hence when I becamse a man I married, in 1857.  I married again in 1869, and had families by both my wives.  I married again in 1884, and I have greatly regretted - my soul has been very much pained - to find myself in opposition to the law of my country and the rule of my church.  But I covenanted with those wives most solemnly to love and respect and revere them as my own heart and soul, and I felt I could not separate from them so long as they were true to me.
Senator Hoar.  You have said more than once that in living in polygamous relations with your wives, which you do and intend to do, you knew that you were disobeying this revelation?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  And that in disobeying this revelation you were disobeying the law of God?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  Very well.  So that you say that you, an apostle of your church, expecting to succeed, if you survive Mr. Smith, to the office in which you will be the person to be the medium of Divine revelations, are living and are known to your people to live in disobedience of the law of the land and of the law of God?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hoar.  He says "yes."  That is all.
Commentary:  I liked the discussion of Mr. Lyman on his history and how he was brought up to know and believe that polygamy was a correct principle.  It shows background and gives understanding as to why he believes what he believes.  Senator Hoar, however, wanted this to point out that the next in line to the presidency of the church was a law breaker and a rule breaker, and was cognizant in doing both.

Coming back from lunch, Senator Dubois asks Mr. Lyman if Senator Smoot ever took him to task for living a polygamous relationship (no), in private or in public (no).  He then hands Mr. Lyman a book which has a biographical sketch of church leaders, and asks him to testify as to the age and marital status of every one of the current apostles.  Mr. Lyman does not know them all, but comes pretty close on many of their ages.

After the Chairman takes some time to review when the apostles meet (weekly), where they meet (Salt Lake Temple), who presides (president), if Reed Smoot was ever present at these meetings (yes), and if Mr. Smoot ever told him that living in a polygamous relationship was wrong (no), he switches gears to the Endowment House and Temple.  Specifically he is interested in getting to the bottom of the ceremonies held there and he wants to know about the marriage ceremony and other oaths that take place in the temple.  He asks about Mr. Lyman's marriage in the endowment house.  What transpires is interesting:
The Chairman.  What is the difference between the endowment house and the temple?
Mr. Lyman.  The endowment house was a temporary building for the purposes for which it was built - sacred purposes; but it was not a substantial building like the temple.  It was just for the time being until we could build the temple.  Our temple was forty years in building.
The Chairman.  This ceremony was performed in the endowment house?
Mr. Lyman.  In the endowment house; yes, sir.
The Chairman.  You went through the endowment house, as it is commonly spoken of, did you?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  Will you please state what the ceremony is in going through the endowment house?
Mr. Lyman.  I could not do it.
Mr. Worthington.  I object to that, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that it is inquiring into a matter prior to 1890, and I understood, or we were informed, that the committee had decided that would not be done.
The Chairman.  One of the charges is that Mr. Smoot has taken an oath or obligation incompatible with his obligation as a Senator.  The object of this question is to ascertain from this witness, who went through the endowment house - of course I know nothing about it - whether any such obligation is taken.
Mr. Lyman.  Is that the question you asked me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.  No; that was not my question.  It was a statment to counsel.
Mr. Worthington.  I had understood, Mr. Chairman, that that was expressly disclaimed by counsel here the other day.
The Chairman.  Counsel stated that they did not propse, as far as they were concerned, to offer any proof upon that question; but the Chair did not understand that therefore the committee was precluded from showing it.  Is there any objection to the question?
Mr. Worthington.  I do object to it, for the reasons already stated; and further because it does not follow at all that because the witness went through certain ceremonies or took certain obligations, if you please, Senator Smoot took them.
The Chairman.  That would not follow of itself.  If nothing further than this can be shown, of course it will have no bearing upon Mr. Smoot at all.
Mr. Worthington.  I do insist upon my objection.  I understood the Chair to ask me whether I had any further objection.
The Chairman.  The Chair thinks it is permissible; and as the Chair stated, if nothing appears beyond this to connect Mr. Smoot with it, of course it will have no bearing upon this case.
Can you state what the ceremony was?
Mr. Lyman.  I could not, Mr. Chairman; I could not do so if it was to save my life.
The Chairman.  You could not?
Mr. Lyman.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  Can you state any portion of it?
Mr. Lyman.  I might approximate something of it that I remember.
The Chairman.  As nearly as you can.
Mr. Lyman.  I remember that I agreed to be an upright and moral man, pure in my life.  I agreed to refrain from sexual commerce with any woman except my wife or wives as were given to me in the priesthood.  The law of purity I subscribed to willingly, of my own chlice, and to be true and good to all men.  I took no oath nor obligation against any person or any country or government or kingdom or anything of that kind.  I remember that distinctly.
Commentary:  This starts out fine, and then the Chairman wants detailed information about the marriage ceremony or other ceremony (endowment) as it happened in either the temple or endowment house.  Mr. Worthington then gets a little cranky about this because supposedly the counsel decided not to investigate the "oath" charge.  Specifically this charge came from the separate filing of charges by Mr. J.L. Leilich, who also charged Senator Smoot with being a polygamist.  In other words, this separate charge is thrown out completely, except for this one part which the Chairman believes is important; a kind of line item veto on everything Mr. Leilich submitted, but one.  The Chairman doesn't see the counsel agreement as binding upon the committee or the Chair to investigate the matter.  So, Mr. Lyman gives a brief statement about the endowment ceremony as he remembers it.  It is interesting that the line "wife or wives as were given me in the priesthood" is used.  This specifically refers to plural marriage in that the "priesthood" could give wives to men.  My guess is that something like this existed in the ceremony previously and has been altered or removed for today's guests in the temple.

Just to ensure that he had his questions answered, the Chairman tries probing again on this same subject:
The Chairman.  There was nothing of that kind [oath or obligation inconsistent with the office of being a Senator]?
Mr. Lyman.  Nothing of that kind.
The Chairman.  No obligation or oath?
Mr. Lyman.  Not at all; no, sir.
Commentary:  Alright; there it is, black and white.  What the Chairman is looking for doesn't exist as far as this witness is concerned.  However, like most lawyers, they trust no one and want multiple sources to confirm or deny; so, this will continue with other witnesses (same questions, etc.).

He tells the committee that Daniel H. Wells officiated at his 3 marriage ceremonies.  Mr. Wells was a counselor to Brigham Young and later a counselor to the apostles.

He then states that the weekly meetings of the apostles last nearly 2 hours; sometimes it takes more time if there is a lot of business to consider.
Mr. Tayler.  Have the first presidency and the twelve apostles ever, to your knowledge, taken any action looking to the disciplining or prosecuting of persons who were charged with living in polygamous cohabitation?
Mr. Lyman.  I think not.
Commentary:  Again back to the "has anyone tried to do anything about these men" topic.  No man in the 12 has been taken to task by another man in the 12 or the first presidency for living with plural wives.  I believe this would hit on one of the charges that this is a group that conspires (by not self-correcting its members) to continue to live polygamy and angage in unlawful cohabitation.  This shows that each member, even if they're not completely knowledgeable about another member's personal relationship, does nothing to rectify this and in essence allows it to conitinue.  Therefore, they must be complicit with the action in the first place to be a member of the group and participate in this conspiracy.  At least, that's how I read the reaction from the Senators about this particular question.

Here's a short Q&A on Mr Lyman becoming the next president of the church:
Mr. Worthington.  You have said you are next in succession to the presidency?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes.
Mr. Worthington.  Has that been simply by virtue of the fact that you have been longer in the quorum of the apostles than any other member of it?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  And your turn comes in rotation?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  Which, I understand, has been the universal practice from the beginning?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  As to these other apostles who come next in order to you, are they also there by virtue simply of the rule of seniority?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  They have come into their places by that rule?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  And not because they were polygamists?
Mr. Lyman.  Oh, no.
Mr. Worthington.  Have you known of any instance of any man being appointed or coming into high place in your church because he was a polygamist?
Mr. Lyman.  Never.
Mr. Worthington.  By virtue of what is it they get into those offices?
Mr. Lyman.  His merit and the designation of the Lord.
Commentary:  Absolutely nothing new here.  Mr. Lyman essentially confirms everything that President Joseph F. Smith said in prior testimony.  The difference is that this is a different witness, and this witness is the successor to the president currently.

Mr. Worthington then continues his questioning, directing his queries at missionary work and Mr. Lyman's direction of it.
Mr. Worthington.  You have not been asked anything particularly today about the missionary work of the church.  I understand that is the principal work of the apostles?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  And you are their head?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  I want to ask you as to the books which you use of late years.  I will confine my inquiry on this subject to the time since Senator Smoot became an apostle, about four years ago.  During that time, what books have been used or have been most used by your church in its missionary work?
Mr. Lyman.  The Book of Mormon.  We have taken great pains to publish that extensively in the United States and in foreign countries; and of the commentaries, the Articles of Faith, by Talmage, is the most popular work.  If a man asks for a book, a comprehensive work, from which to learn something of the doctrines of the Latter-day Saints, we always recommend the Articles of Faith.
Mr. Worthington.  That is the book that has been here?
Mr. Lyman.  I do not know whether there has been one here or not.  It has been spoken of.
Mr. Worthington.  You have not mentioned the Doctrine and Covenants.  Is that circulated, too?
Mr. Lyman.  No; not so much.
Mr. Worthington.  In what proportion do you circulate the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon?
Mr. Lyman.  Oh, the Doctrine and Covenants is not circulated as a book to make converts with.  It is not circulated at all.  If anybody wants it - we do not put it forward; but the Book of Mormon and the Articles of Faith.  Then, there is the Voice of Warning, by Parley P. Pratt, and Key to Theology, by Parley P. Pratt, and works of that kind.
Mr. Worthington.  the Book of Mormon, I understand, was the original book.  It is the Mormon Bible, if I may use that expression?
Mr. Lyman.  That is what it is called in the world; yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  In what proportion is the Doctrine and Covenants circulated, compared with the Articles of Faith, the Talmage book, which we have here?
Mr. Lyman.  We do not look upon the Doctrine and Covenants as a book to circulate at all.  It is a law of the church, the word of the Lord to the church, and the law and discipline, but for the doctrines of the church we take the commentaries more.
Commentary:  That's interesting.  This mirrors how the church still does missionary work today, in a way.  Today the Book of Mormon is used as the main tool, if you will, at finding converts.  However, we do not ever say that scriptural commentaries are the basis for doctrinal understanding as Mr. Lyman did here.  To me that sounds very much in the same vein as the Jewish Talmud or commentaries on the scriptures from Moses that turned into Jewish "law" eventually.  Is that right to do?  I don't know.  I find that statement of Mr. Lyman's very interesting for that very reason.  Has the passage of time changed the methods, even slightly, and manner in which missionary work is done?  Today I know we do not recommend any commentaries and in fact tell missionaries to stick to the scriptures almost completely.

Mr. Worthington.  Now, say in the last [fourteen] years, what has been the custom about instructing missionaries who go out on their work?
Mr. Lyman.  We always instruct the elders that they are sent out to preach the first principles of the gospel.
Mr. Worthington.  Who instructs them?
Mr. Lyman.  The twelve, and the first presidents of seventies.
Mr. Worthington.  They personally instruct them, do they?
Mr. Lyman.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  And do you participate in that instruction, so that you know what it is?
Mr. Lyman.  Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. Worthington.  Just tell us what it is.
Mr. Lyman.  We instruct them particularly to go into the world and preach the first principles of the gospel.  That is what they are send out for, and particularly to leave the mysteries alone.
Commentary:  This is apparently the nuts & bolts of what missionaries are taught about; they are to teach just the basics and avoid the mysteries.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Reed Smoot Hearings: Members of the Committee (short Bios)

I've decided to include one post with a short bio of each of the members on the committee for the Reed Smoot Hearings.  This information came from the internet (Library of Congress, U.S. Senate, Wikipedia).  Sometimes it's easier for me to understand the person when I see a picture and read a little about him/her.

I have additionally identified those on the committee that signed for retaining Senator Smoot's seat in the Senate.  Conversely, if no statement is made for a Senator, for instance Senator Bailey just below, it means he signed the majority report for removing Senator Smoot.

BAILEY, Joseph Weldon, (1862 - 1929)
Senate Years of Service: 1901-1913
Party: Democrat

BAILEY, Joseph Weldon, (father of Joseph Weldon Bailey, Jr.), a Representative and a Senator from Texas; born near Crystal Springs, Copiah County, Miss., October 6, 1862; attended the common schools; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1883 and commenced practice in Hazlehurst, Miss.; moved to Gainesville, Tex., in 1885 and continued the practice of law; elected as a Democrat to the Fifty-second and to the four succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1891-March 3, 1901); was not a candidate for renomination in 1900; elected to the United States Senate in 1901, reelected in 1907, and served from March 4, 1901, until January 3, 1913, when he resigned; chairman, Committee on Revolutionary Claims (Sixty-first Congress), Committee on Woman Suffrage (Sixty-first Congress), Committee on Additional Accommodations for the Library (Sixty-second Congress); resumed the practice of law in Washington, D.C.; subsequently moved to Dallas, Tex., in 1921 and continued the practice of law; unsuccessful candidate for Governor of Texas in 1920; died in a courtroom in Sherman, Tex., on April 13, 1929; interment in Gainesville Cemetery, Gainesville, Tex.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 15 days of testimony.

BEVERIDGE, Albert Jeremiah, (1862 - 1927)
Senate Years of Service: 1899-1911
Party: Republican

BEVERIDGE, Albert Jeremiah, a Senator from Indiana; born near Sugar Tree Ridge, Concord Township, Highland County, Ohio, October 6, 1862; attended the common schools; graduated from Indiana Asbury (now DePauw) University, Greencastle, Ind., in 1885; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1887 and commenced practice in Indianapolis, Ind.; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate on January 17, 1899, reelected in 1905, and served from March 4, 1899, until March 3, 1911; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1910; chairman, Committee on Forest Reservations and Game Protection (Fifty-sixth Congress), Committee on Territories (Fifty-seventh through Sixty-first Congresses), Committee on Indian Depredations (Fifty-ninth Congress); returned to Indianapolis and engaged in literary and historical pursuits; unsuccessful Progressive candidate for Governor of Indiana in 1912; chairman of the National Progressive Convention at Chicago in 1912; unsuccessful candidate as a Progressive in 1914 and as a Republican in 1922 for election to the United States Senate; died in Indianapolis, Ind., April 27, 1927; interment in Crown Hill Cemetery.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 14 days of testimony.

Signed the Views of the Minority (in favor of keeping Senator Smoot).

BURROWS, Julius Caesar, (1837 - 1915)
Committee Chairman; Majority Report Author
Senate Years of Service: 1895-1911
Party: Republican

BURROWS, Julius Caesar, a Representative and a Senator from Michigan; born in North East, Erie County, Pa., January 9, 1837; moved with his parents to Ashtabula County, Ohio; attended district school, Kingsville Academy, and Grand River Institute, Austinburg, Ohio; studied law; admitted to the bar at Jefferson, Ohio, in 1859; moved to Richland, Kalamazoo County, Mich., in 1860; principal of the Richland Seminary; commenced the practice of law in Kalamazoo in 1861; raised an infantry company in 1862; served as its captain until the fall of 1863; elected circuit court commissioner in 1864; prosecuting attorney for Kalamazoo County 1866-1870; declined appointment as supervisor of internal revenue for Michigan and Wisconsin in 1868; elected as a Republican to the Forty-third Congress (March 4, 1873-March 3, 1875); chairman, Committee on Expenditures in the Department of the Navy (Forty-third Congress); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1874; elected to the Forty-sixth and Forty-seventh Congresses (March 4, 1879-March 3, 1883); chairman, Committee on Territories (Forty-seventh Congress); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1882; elected a Republican to the Forty-ninth and to the five succeeding Congresses and served from March 4, 1885, until his resignation on January 23, 1895, having been elected Senator; chairman, Committee on Levees and Improvements of Mississippi River (Fifty-first Congress); elected as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Francis B. Stockbridge; reelected in 1899 and 1905 and served from January 24, 1895, to March 3, 1911; unsuccessful candidate for renomination; chairman, Committee on Revision of the Laws of the United States (Fifty-fourth through Fifty-sixth Congresses), Committee on Privileges and Elections (Fifty-seventh through Sixty-first Congresses); member of the National Monetary Commission and its vice chairman 1908-1912; retired from active business pursuits and political life; died in Kalamazoo, Mich., November 16, 1915; interment in Mountain Home Cemetery.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections as Chairman through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 52 days of testimony.

CLARKE, James Paul, (1854 - 1916)
Senate Years of Service: 1903-1916
Party: Democrat

CLARKE, James Paul, a Senator from Arkansas; born in Yazoo City, Yazoo County, Miss., August 18, 1854; attended the public schools and Professor Tutwilder’s Academy, Greenbrier, Ala.; graduated from the law department of the University of Virginia at Charlottesville in 1878; admitted to the bar in 1879 and commenced practice in Helena, Phillips County, Ark.; member, State house of representatives 1886-1888; member, State senate 1888-1892, serving as president in 1891 and ex officio lieutenant governor; attorney general of Arkansas 1892-1894; declined to be a candidate for renomination; Governor of Arkansas 1895-1896; moved to Little Rock, Ark., in 1897 and resumed the practice of law; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1903; reelected in 1909 and again in 1915 and served from March 4, 1903, until his death on October 1, 1916; served as President pro tempore of the Senate during the Sixty-third and Sixty-fourth Congresses; chairman, Committee on Disposition of Useless Executive Papers (Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses), Committee on Commerce (Sixty-third and Sixty-fourth Congresses); died in Little Rock, Ark.; interment in Oakland Cemetery.

Served on the Committee of Privileges and Elections until he resigned his office in January 1906. He did not attend a single day of testimony.  He was replaced by Senator Patterson.

DEPEW, Chauncey Mitchell, (1834 - 1928)
Senate Years of Service: 1899-1911
Party: Republican

DEPEW, Chauncey Mitchell, (great-great-nephew of Roger Sherman), a Senator from New York; born in Peekskill, N.Y., April 23, 1834; attended private schools; graduated from the Peekskill Military Academy in 1852 and from Yale College in 1856; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1858 and commenced practice at Peekskill, N.Y., in 1859; member, State assembly 1861-1862; secretary of State of New York 1863; appointed United States Minister to Japan by President Andrew Johnson, was confirmed by the Senate, but declined; unsuccessful candidate for election as lieutenant governor in 1872; colonel and judge advocate of the fifth division of the New York National Guard 1873-1881; unsuccessful Republican candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1881; appointed president of the New York Central Hudson River Railroad Co. 1885-1899, and later became chairman of the board of directors of that railroad system; unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 1888; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1899; reelected in 1905 and served from March 4, 1899, to March 3, 1911; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1910; chairman, Committee on Revision of the Laws of the United States (Fifty-seventh through Sixtieth Congresses), Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico (Sixty-first Congress); resumed his legal and corporate business pursuits in New York City, where he died on April 5, 1928; interment in Hillside Cemetery, Peekskill, N.Y.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 6 days of testimony.

DILLINGHAM, William Paul, (1843 - 1923)
Senate Years of Service: 1900-1923
Party: Republican

DILLINGHAM, William Paul, (son of Paul Dillingham, Jr.), a Senator from Vermont; born in Waterbury, Washington County, Vt., December 12, 1843; attended the public schools of Waterbury, Newbury Seminary, and Kimball Union Academy, Meriden, N.H.; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1867 and commenced practice in Waterbury; prosecuting attorney of Washington County 1872-1876; secretary of civil and military affairs 1874-1876; member, State house of representatives 1876, 1884; member, State senate 1878, 1880; State tax commissioner 1882-1888; Governor of Vermont 1888-1890; president of the Waterbury National Bank 1890-1923; trustee of the University of Vermont at Burlington; president of the board of trustees of Montpelier Seminary; elected in 1900 as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justin S. Morrill; reelected in 1903, 1909, 1914, and 1920, and served from October 18, 1900, until his death in Montpelier, Vt., July 12, 1923; chairman, Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard (Fifty-seventh Congress), Committee on Immigration (Fifty-eighth through Sixty-first Congresses), Committee on Privileges and Elections (Sixty-second, Sixty-sixth, and Sixty-seventh Congresses), Committee to Establish the University of the United States (Sixty-third through Sixty-fifth Congresses); chairman of the United States Immigration Commission 1907-1910; interment in the Village Cemetery, Waterbury, Vt.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 25 days of testimony.

Signed the Views of the Minority (in favor of keeping Senator Smoot).

DOLLIVER, Jonathan Prentiss, (1858 - 1910)
Senate Years of Service: 1900-1910
Party: Republican

DOLLIVER, Jonathan Prentiss, (uncle of James Isaac Dolliver), a Representative and a Senator from Iowa; born near Kingwood, Preston County, Va. (now West Virginia), February 6, 1858; attended the public schools and was graduated from the University of West Virginia at Morgantown in 1876; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1878 and commenced practice in Fort Dodge, Iowa; city solicitor of Fort Dodge 1880-1887; elected as a Republican to the Fifty-first and to the five succeeding Congresses and served from March 4, 1889, to August 22, 1900, when he resigned to become Senator; chairman, Committee on Expenditures (Fifty-sixth Congress); appointed as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1900 to fill the vacancy in the term ending March 3, 1901, caused by the death of John H. Gear; reappointed and subsequently elected for the term beginning March 4, 1901; reelected in 1907 and served from August 22, 1900, until his death in Fort Dodge, Iowa, October 15, 1910; chairman, Committee on Pacific Railroads (Fifty-seventh through Fifty-ninth Congresses), Committee on Education and Labor (Fifty-ninth and Sixtieth Congresses), Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (Sixty-first Congress); interment in Oakland Cemetery.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections beginning in late 1905, replacing Senator McComas. Attended 2 days of testimony.

DUBOIS, Fred Thomas, (1851 - 1930)
Senate Years of Service: 1891-1897; 1901-1907
Party: Republican; Democrat

DUBOIS, Fred Thomas, a Delegate and a Senator from Idaho; born in Palestine, Crawford County, Ill., May 29, 1851; attended the public schools, and graduated from Yale College in 1872; secretary of the Board of Railway and Warehouse Commissioners of Illinois 1875-1876; moved Idaho Territory in 1880 and engaged in business; United States marshal of Idaho 1882-1886; elected as a Republican Delegate from the Territory of Idaho to the Fiftieth and Fifty-first Congresses and served from March 4, 1887, to July 3, 1890; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1891, to March 3, 1897; unsuccessful Silver Republican candidate for reelection to the United States Senate in 1896; chairman, Committee on Public Lands (Fifty-fourth Congress); elected as a Silver Republican to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1901, to March 3, 1907; not a candidate for reeelection; shortly after his election to the Senate as a Silver Republican he became a Democrat; took up his residence in Washington, D.C.; appointed civilian member of the Board of Ordnance and Fortifications 1918-1920; appointed by President Calvin Coolidge to International Joint Commission created to prevent disputes regarding the use of the boundary waters between the United States and Canada 1924-1930; died in Washington, D.C., February 14, 1930; interment in Grove City Cemetery, Blackfoot, Idaho.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 43 days of testimony.

FORAKER, Joseph Benson, (1846 - 1917)
Minority Report Author
Senate Years of Service: 1897-1909
Party: Republican

FORAKER, Joseph Benson, a Senator from Ohio; born near Rainsboro, Highland County, Ohio, on July 5, 1846; pursued preparatory studies; during the Civil War served in the Eighty-ninth Regiment, Ohio Volunteer Infantry, attaining the rank of brevet captain; graduated from Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., in 1869; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1869 and commenced practice in Cincinnati, Ohio; judge of the superior court of Cincinnati 1879-1882; unsuccessful Republican candidate for Governor of Ohio in 1883; Governor of Ohio 1885-1889; unsuccessful candidate for Governor in 1889; elected in 1896 as a Republican to the United States Senate; reelected in 1902 and served from March 4, 1897, to March 3, 1909; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1908; chairman, Committee to Examine Branches of the Civil Service (Fifty-fifth Congress), Committee on Pacific Islands and Puerto Rico (Fifty-sixth through Sixtieth Congresses); resumed the practice of law in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he died May 10, 1917; interment in Spring Grove Cemetery.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 24 days of testimony.

Signed the Views of the Minority (in favor of keeping Senator Smoot).

FRAZIER, James Beriah, (1856 - 1937)
Senate Years of Service: 1905-1911
Party: Democrat

FRAZIER, James Beriah, (father of James Beriah Frazier, Jr.), a Senator from Tennessee; born in Pikeville, Bledsoe County, Tenn., October 18, 1856; attended the common schools and Franklin College near Nashville, Tenn.; graduated from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville in 1878; read law in Nashville, Tenn., admitted to the bar in 1881, and commenced practice in Chattanooga, Tenn.; Governor of Tennessee 1903-1905; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate March 21, 1905, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of William B. Bate and served from March 21, 1905, to March 3, 1911; unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1910; resumed the practice of law; died in Chattanooga, Tenn., March 28, 1937; interment in Forest Hill Cemetery.

Replaced Senator Patterson on the Committee on Privileges and Elections, February 12, 1906. Attended 3 days of testimony.

HOAR, George Frisbie, (1826 - 1904)
Senate Years of Service: 1877-1904
Party: Republican

HOAR, George Frisbie, (grandson of Roger Sherman, son of Samuel Hoar, brother of Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, father of Rockwood Hoar, and uncle of Sherman Hoar), a Representative and a Senator from Massachusetts; born in Concord, Mass., August 29, 1826; attended Concord Academy; graduated from Harvard University in 1846 and from the Harvard Law School in 1849; admitted to the bar in 1849 and commenced practice in Worcester, Mass.; elected to the State house of representatives in 1852; elected to the State senate in 1857; elected as a Republican to the Forty-first and to the three succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1869-March 3, 1877); was not a candidate for renomination in 1876; one of the managers appointed by the House of Representatives in 1876 to conduct the impeachment proceedings against William W. Belknap; appointed a member of the Electoral Commission created by act of Congress to decide the contests in various States in the presidential election of 1876; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1877; reelected in 1883, 1889, 1895, and 1901 and served from March 4, 1877, until his death in Worcester, Mass., September 30, 1904; chairman, Committee on Privileges and Elections (Forty-seventh through Fifty-second Congresses), Committee on the Judiciary (Fifty-second Congress, Fifty-fourth through Fifty-eighth Congresses), Committee on the Library (Fifty-second Congress); overseer of Harvard University 1874-1880 and from 1896 until his death; Regent of the Smithsonian for many years; interment in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, Concord, Mass.

Served on the Committee of Privileges and Elections until his death on September 30,1904. Attended 10 days of testimony. Replaced by Senator Knox.

HOPKINS, Albert Jarvis, (1846 - 1922)
Senate Years of Service: 1903-1909
Party: Republican

HOPKINS, Albert Jarvis, a Representative and a Senator from Illinois; born near Cortland, De Kalb County, Ill., August 15, 1846; attended the public schools and graduated from Hillsdale (Mich.) College in 1870; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1871 and commenced practice in Aurora, Ill.; prosecuting attorney of Kane County 1872-1876; presidential elector on the Republican ticket in 1884; elected as a Republican to the Forty-ninth Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Reuben Ellwood; reelected to the Fiftieth and to the seven succeeding Congresses and served from December 7, 1885, to March 3, 1903; did not seek renomination, having become a candidate for Senator; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1903, to March 3, 1909; unsuccessful candidate for reelection; chairman, Committee on Fisheries (Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses), Committee on Enrolled Bills (Sixtieth Congress); resumed the practice of law in Aurora and Chicago, Ill.; died in Aurora, Ill., August 23, 1922; interment in Spring Lake Cemetery.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 22 days of testimony.

Signed the Views of the Minority (in favor of keeping Senator Smoot).

KNOX, Philander Chase, (1853 - 1921)
Senate Years of Service: 1904-1909; 1917-1921
Party: Republican; Republican

KNOX, Philander Chase, a Senator from Pennsylvania; born in Brownsville, Fayette County, Pa., May 6, 1853; attended the University of West Virginia at Morgantown, and graduated from Mount Union College, Alliance, Ohio, in 1872; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1875 and commenced practice in Pittsburgh, Pa.; assistant United States district attorney for the western district of Pennsylvania in 1876; president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association in 1897; appointed Attorney General of the United States in the Cabinet of President William McKinley in 1901; reappointed by President Theodore Roosevelt and served until June 1904, when he resigned, having been appointed as a Republican to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Matthew S. Quay; subsequently elected to fill the unexpired term and for the full term in 1905 and served from June 10, 1904, until March 4, 1909, when he resigned to enter the Cabinet; chairman, Committee on Coast Defenses (Fifty-eighth and Fifty-ninth Congresses, Committee on Rules (Sixtieth Congress); appointed Secretary of State by President William Taft 1909-1913; again elected to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1917, until his death in Washington, D.C., October 12, 1921; chairman, Committee on Rules (Sixty-sixth and Sixty-seventh Congresses); interment in Washington Memorial Cemetery, Valley Forge, Pa.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections after replacing Senator Hoar in late 1904. Regarded as the “brainiest” man in the senate due to being the most widely read. Attended 15 days of testimony.

Signed the Views of the Minority (in favor of keeping Senator Smoot).

McCOMAS, Louis Emory, (1846 - 1907)
Senate Years of Service: 1899-1905
Party: Republican

McCOMAS, Louis Emory, (grandfather of Katharine Edgar Byron and great-grandfather of Goodloe Edgar Byron), a Representative and a Senator from Maryland; born near Hagerstown, Washington County, Md., October 28, 1846; attended St. James College, Maryland; graduated from Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa., in 1866; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1868 and practiced in Hagerstown, Md.; unsuccessful Republican candidate for election in 1876 to the Forty-fifth Congress; elected as a Republican to the Forty-eighth and to the three succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1883-March 3, 1891); unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1890 to the Fifty-second Congress; secretary of the Republican National Committee 1892; on November 17, 1892, was appointed by President Benjamin Harrison an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which office he held until elected Senator; professor of international law, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1899, until March 3, 1905; chairman, Committee on Organization, Conduct, and Expenditures of Executive Departments (Fifty-sixth Congress), Committee on Education and Labor (Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses); appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt as a justice of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in 1905, and served until his death; died in Washington, D.C., November 10, 1907; interment in Rose Hill Cemetery, Hagerstown, Washington County, Md.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections until his retirement in 1905. Replaced by Senator Dolliver. Attended 24 days of testimony.

OVERMAN, Lee Slater, (1854 - 1930)
Senate Years of Service: 1903-1930
Party: Democrat

OVERMAN, Lee Slater, (son-in-law of Augustus Summerfield Merrimon), a Senator from North Carolina; born in Salisbury, Rowan County, N.C., January 3, 1854; attended private schools and graduated from Trinity College (now Duke University), Durham, N.C., in 1874; taught school two years; private secretary to the Governor 1877-1879; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1878 and began practice in Salisbury, N.C., in 1880; member, State house of representatives 1883, 1885, 1887, 1893, 1899, and served as speaker in 1893; president of the North Carolina Railroad Co. in 1894; unsuccessful Democratic candidate for United States Senator in 1895; president of the Salisbury Savings Bank; member of the board of trustees of the University of North Carolina and Duke University; presidential elector on the Democratic ticket in 1900; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1903; reelected in 1909, 1914, 1920 and 1926 and served from March 4, 1903, until his death; chairman, Committee on Revolutionary Claims (Sixty-first Congress), Committee on Woman Suffrage (Sixty-second Congress), Committee on Rules (Sixty-third through Sixty-fifth Congresses), Committee on Engrossed Bills (Sixty-sixth Congress); died in Washington, D.C., December 12, 1930; funeral services were held in the Chamber of the United States Senate; interment in Chestnut Hill Cemetery, Salisbury, N.C.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 40 days of testimony.

PATTERSON, Thomas MacDonald, (1839 - 1916)
Senate Years of Service: 1901-1907
Party: Democrat

PATTERSON, Thomas MacDonald, a Delegate, a Representative and a Senator from Colorado; born in County Carlow, Ireland, November 4, 1839; immigrated to the United States with his parents, who settled in New York City in 1849; attended the public schools; moved with his parents to Crawfordsville, Ind., in 1853; worked in a printing office for three years and as a watchmaker and jeweler for five years; during the Civil War enlisted in the Eleventh Regiment, Indiana Volunteer Infantry, in 1861; attended the Indiana Asbury (now De Pauw) University, Greencastle, Ind., 1862 and Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Ind., 1863; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1867 and commenced practice in Crawfordsville, Ind.; moved to Denver, Colo., in 1872 and continued the practice of law; city attorney of Denver 1873-1874; elected as a Democrat to be a Delegate to the Forty-fourth Congress and served from March 4, 1875, to August 1, 1876, when the Territory became a State; successfully contested the election of James B. Belford to the Forty-fifth Congress and served from December 13, 1877, to March 3, 1879; was not a candidate for renomination in 1878; resumed the practice of law in Denver; member of the Democratic National Committee 1874-1880; purchased the Rocky Mountain News in 1890 and later the Denver Times; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1901, to March 3, 1907; was not a candidate for reelection; twice an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for governor; resumed newspaper activities in Denver, Colo., and died there July 23, 1916; interment in Fairmount Cemetery.

Served on the Committee of Privileges and Elections from January 31, 1906 to February 12, 1906. He did not hear any testimony from the committee.  He was replaced by Senator Frazier.

PETTUS, Edmund Winston, (1821 - 1907)
Senate Years of Service: 1897-1907
Party: Democrat

PETTUS, Edmund Winston, a Senator from Alabama; born in Limestone County, Ala., July 6, 1821; attended the common schools of Alabama and Clinton College in Smith County, Tenn.; studied law; admitted to the bar in 1842 and commenced practice in Gainesville, Ala.; elected solicitor for the seventh circuit in 1844; served as a lieutenant in the Mexican War; again solicitor 1853-1855; elected judge of the seventh circuit in 1855 but resigned in 1858 and moved to Dallas County; resumed the practice of law; served as envoy from Alabama to Mississippi during the formation of the Southern Confederacy; entered the Confederate Army as major in 1861; was made a brigadier general of Infantry in 1863 and served until the close of the Civil War; returned to Selma, Ala., and practiced law; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 1897; reelected in 1903 and served from March 4, 1897, until his death at Hot Springs, Madison County, N.C., July 27, 1907; interment in Live Oak Cemetery, Selma, Ala.

Served on the Committee on Privileges and Elections through the entire Smoot hearings. Attended 27 days of testimony.