Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 10 - E.B. Critchlow, part 4

March 12, 1904


I wanted 3 parts, but I had to make a fourth for this testimony.

This part of the cross-examination seems to be to be extremely "scatter-brained" and unimportant at the first -for that reason, I do not quote much of the opening testimony from this.  After reading the testimony and questions from Mr. Tayler and Mr. Worthington and even the cross-examination from yesterday by Mr. Van Cott, I'm left to wonder if he had any direction at all for these questions.  Did Mr. Van Cott stay up late Friday night, because many of these questions seemed irrelevant to me, almost as if he was unprepared for this session.  A few of the Senators do step in and take over the questioning from time to time; at least giving the meeting some stability.  When they do this, the questioning becomes pertinent, relevant, and interesting.

Some of the questions here were confusing, and I didn't blame the witness when he responded with an answer in the form of a question, like this:  "It's difficult for me to get the scope of your question ..."

With all of that in mind, and knowing that I'm going to avoid the confusing questions completely, I'll dive into this Saturday session where they start out talking about the laws passed to prohibit the practice of polygamy.

Mr. Van Cott.  So that when those acts were passed, whether it was in 1882 or 1887, the difference between unlawful cohabitation and polygamy was clearly understood by the people of Utah?
Mr. Critchlow.  It ought to have been clearly understood.  It was the most vital question we had there in Utah.

Commentary:  Finally, a quotable question and response.  He's speaking of the laws enacted to do away with polygamy:  The Edmunds Act of 1882, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887.  The understanding of these laws and what they meant and did for the State of Utah and the people living there was "the most vital question" Utah had known up to that point.  I think every resident of the State would be familiar with that.


Mr. Van Cott finally comes around to something interesting.  After going through a whole lot of dialog where he has Mr. Critchlow state his opinions on knowledge of people involved in the State, those that were in the Constitutional Convention, the laws enacted, etc., he wants to have 3 pages put in the record from the Constitutional Convention.  He is asked why by Senator Hopkins, and this is his response:

Mr. Van Cott.  The purpose of the offer is to show that when the attention of the constitutional convention was called to the enabling act, namely, prohibiting forever the celebration of plural marriages, the convention had before it a condition that had existed in Utah, namely, that they had been punishing unlawful cohabitation and polygamy; that when they came to the adoption of the constitution it was no oversight in omitting the punishment of unlawful cohabitation from the constitution; that their attention was invited to it, and the expressly omitted legislation on the subject of unlawful cohabitation, but instead legislated against polygamy.
Mr. Tayler.  There is no doubt there was a law passed by the State forbidding unlawful cohabitation.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is a different thing, Mr. Tayler.

Commentary:  That's interesting, especially in light of the previous comments made by Mr. Critchlow.  Most people in the State of Utah thought unlawful cohabitation was more offensive than the act of polygamy itself; yet, the leading men of the State did not legislate against this in the State constitution.  Mr. Tayler immediately recognizes the importance of this statement and must counter it - only to be told, "that is a different thing."


In the record on pages 642-656 is a stenographic record of the speeches of the members of the Constitutional Convention for Utah talking about this very subject brought up by Mr. Van Cott.

From page 554 of the committee record, this is testimony from Mr. Critchlow about the consitutional convention in Utah:

Mr. Critchlow.  Quite an effort was made in the constitutional convention, as appears in the reports and as was a matter of common knowledge there in the community at that time, to have the distinct pledge as to unlawful cohabitation put into the constitution - I mean privately, among the members, as we all understood, Mr. Varian, Mr. Goodwin, and others; but various reasons were given why they should not go beyond the exact terms of the pledge, if you call it a pledge, or the provision which was exacted from the new State by the enabling act which had just passed Congress.

He then runs down through the list of people that talked in the convention to help identify them, their political leanings and whether they were Mormon or not:

• Mr. Varian:  Former district attorney.  Mr. Critchlow worked for him.  Prosecuted polygamy vigorously.
• Mr. Maloney:  Lawyer from Ogden, gentile and Democrat.
• Mr. Richards:  F. S. Richards who is present at the committee hearings.  Mormon and Democrat.
• Mr. Thurman:  Mormon lawyer, and a polygamist.
• Mr. Dave Evans:  Non-Mormon, former assistant U.S. attorney.
• Mr. James:  Non-Mormon.
• Mr. Squires:  Non-Mormon.
• Mr. Kerr:  Mormon, polygamist, head of agricultural college in Logan, Utah.
• Mr. Goodwin:  Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune (anti-Mormon newspaper).
• B.H. Roberts:  Mormon, polygamist.
• Mr. Van Horne:  Judge of the court of first instance at Cairo, Egypt.

Mr. Van Cott then wishes to get Mr. Critchlow to admit point-blank, that there is no stipulation in the enabling act of Utah (to allow them to become a State) for the prohibition of unlawful cohabitation, which Mr. Critchlow is reluctant to admit to.

Mr. Van Cott.  Now, in the enabling act for Utah there was no provision against unlawful cohabitation, was there, Mr. Critchlow?  Would you like to look at the book to refresh your recollection?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think there is.
Mr. Van Cott.  Will you find it, please?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think that the Congress of the United States when they passed the act saying that "polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited," meant to prohibit the marriage ceremony, which was a comparatively immaterial thing, and the actual living in the state of polygamy.  That has always been my contention about it.  Of course, I am no more capable of judging of that than is anyone else.
Mr. Van Cott.  No one in the constitutional convention took that view of it, did he?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not know whether they did or not.  They were very tender in treating that subject; very tender.
Mr. Van Cott.  The provision in the enabling act is this:

First.  That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever by molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship:  Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.

Mr. Critchlow.  Yes.
Mr. Van Cott.  Is there anything in the enabling act bearing on the question, except what I have read?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not to my recollection.

Commentary:  Ok, well, there it is.  The United States Congress mentioned only the crime of polygamy or plural marriage as being a requirement for the Constitution of Utah.  Nothing was said about a statement of unlawful cohabitation being in the document.


Mr. Van Cott then discusses the candidacy of Mr. Smoot.  He was mentioned as a possible senatorial candidate back in 1898.  Therefore, by the time his candidacy became a reality, it was not a surprise to anyone.  One interesting thing mentioned here is that E.B. Critchlow put his "hat in the ring" to become a Senator for the State, but was never an extremely viable candidate against Mr. Smoot.

In the State Republican Convention of 1902, Mr. Critchlow was a member.

Mr. Van Cott.  Mr. Critchlow, it was well known at that time that [Mr.] Smoot was a candidate for United States Senator, was it not?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  I will show you the paper if you not recollect; but did you move to make unanimous the nomination of those senators and representatives who were for Mr. Smoot?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes.
Mr. Van Cott.  You did?
Mr. Critchlow.  I did.  That might be misunderstood, and I think I ought to be allowed to explain.
The Chairman.  We have your answer, and you may explain it if you want.
Mr. Critchlow.  I fought them as hard as I knew how.  I fought every man who I thought would vote for Mr. Smoot if he went to the senate.  There was quite a good deal of feeling, and it was rather a three-cornered fight.  I was there in the interest of Mr. George Sutherland, attempting to forward his hopes, and when we were beaten, as a mere matter of courtesy, in order to win as much as possible for future fights, or any other reason you please, I moved to make it unamimous.  That was all there was to it.  They had us beaten, and I thought they might as well have it unanimous.
Mr. Van Cott.  You knew that meant Reed Smoot for United States Senator if the Republican party won?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.

Commentary:  So, he heled to get Reed Smoot elected to the Senate, but the protested that election vigorously.  Yes, there is naturally a bit of a misunderstanding here.  His explanation is understood by me as him looking to the future and conceding the present.


Mr. Van Cott then asks Mr. Critchlow about his personal feelings of him being elected.

Mr. Van Cott.  As defining your mental attitude at this time, is not this correct?  If Mr. Smoot were a non-Mormon at the present time, he would be entirely unobjectionable as United States Senator?
Mr. Critchlow.  I may say even more than that.  If he were not a member of the presidency and the apostolate, he would be unobjectionable to me as a member of the United States Senate.
Mr. Van Cott.  If he were a member of the church, but not of the general authorities?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not of the general authorities.  That is a better way to put it, perhaps.
Mr. Van Cott.  It is because he is one of the general authorities?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  You knew that when you moved to make unanimous the nominations of senators and representatives?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes.

Commentary:  I guess if the aim of the cross-examination is to show a possible duplicity in thought, this is one way to do it (along with the others already shown: voting for, traveling with, not prosecuting or admonishing known polygamists, etc.).  In this instance he forwarded the cause of putting Reed Smoot in the Senate.  I presume that Mr. Critchlow is a tad miffed right now with this line of questioning.  He had to know something like this would be coming.  He's a very credible witness, so the defense has to find a way to put some chinks in his armor.  I think they're doing a good job.


Senator Hopkins jumps in to ask a few questions of the witness.

Senator Hopkins.  Do you say that the Mormon Church has no more influence over Senator Smoot now than it would have if he were United States Senator without holding the position he does in the church?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not know that I can answer that question yes or no.  What I meant to say is this:  Given any individual lay member of the Mormon Church, and the leaders of the church gave to him a command to obey certain counsel, that thus and so is the will of the Lord, and we want you to do it, that man must do it or he must get out of the church.
     I would say that would be the attitude of a member of the quorum of the apostles and first presidency.  If the president or the quorum of the apostles said to a member thus and so you must do, he must do it or get out of the quorum of apostles.  What I say that they do not have the control over the people as a mass I mean to say this:  That they cannot go, nor so far as I have observed or ever heard do they ever go, out in the community and say to the people as a mass so and so much be done.
     Their orders, and behests, and counsel are given to individuals; and in respect of the control of the people in political affairs, they never do say, and indeed it would be subversive of the very object of their control if they did, to the Mormons as a mass, "You become Republicans," or "You vote the Democratic ticket this year."  That would be subversive of the very element of control which is valuable to them.  There are certain persons in the Mormon Church, in a community, to whom they may say, "I want you to see that So-and-so votes this ticket" or "the other ticket," and enough are set apart or controlled in that way from thie floating contingent to make the thing go anyway they please.
Senator Hopkins.  Now, is Senator Smoot any more under the control of the Mormon Church in the discharge of his duties as United States Senator than he would be if he were simply a lay member of that church, holding no office whatever in the church?
Mr. Critchlow.  That I am unable to say except in this way:  He would have to obey the members of his quorum or his particular ruling file leaders in any particular; and, viewing it in that sense, any good member of the Mormon Church is just as much under the control of the president of the church, of course, as is the quorum, and if possible it might be even more so, because of the difference in elevation between the president and subordinate member.
Senator Hopkins.  In other words, he has more to lose now if he should disobey the church than if he were a lay member?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Hopkins.  That is, he has his ecclesiastical position to lose, in addition to the good will of the church, a position he could not lose if he were simply a member, because he would not hold it.
Mr. Critchlow.  True; but if I might be permitted to add just one observation there, from the history of the church and its practical operations we know that the president of the church and the quorum of apostles are always one, absolutely one, in unison and in harmony upon any particular question, or if one gets out of harmony, as Moses Thatcher did, he gets out of the quorum of apostles.

Commentary:  That is, in a nutshell, how Mr. Critchlow views the power the presidency of the church and the quorum of 12 apostles hold over the members of the church.  He considers that Reed Smoot is now, more than ever, under the control of the quorum, and as such must be responsible for their counsel and direction.

Mr. Van Cott.  If any Mormon should be a United States Senator, he could be charged with being subject to the will and dictates of the church absolutely just the same as Mr. Smoot is in this case?
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir.  If he is a member of the quorum the will and the practices and the control of the church are his will, his control.  His views are absolutely molded into harmony with those of the head of the church, whereas if he does not belong to that quorum, then it cannot so be said.  That is what I am trying to enforce.

Commentary:  So there's the summation of his feelings on the matter.


Senator Overman has a book called, Orson Pratt's Works, and from page 41, he reads (he states that the book was just handed to him this morning) and asks, "I want to know if that is their teaching today":

"The kingdom of God is an order of government established by divine authority.  It is the only legal government that can exist in any part of the universe.  All other governments are illegal and unauthorized.  God, having made all beings and worlds, has the supreme right to govern them by His own laws, and by officers of His own appointment.  Any people attempting to govern themselves by laws of their own making, and by officers of their own appointment, are in direct rebellion against the kingdom of God."

In response to this reading, here is what Mr. Critchlow says:

Mr. Critchlow.  It undoubted is, if the Senator please.  It is a theocracy, a hierarchy, a government of priests, and the highest priest must necessarily govern, and that may be illustrated and enforced by almost every issue of the Deseret News, in which the sermons of their presidents, and seventies, and so on, are published every week and have been for ten years past.  That is true of current volumes and the volumes of former years.

The committee recesses from 12:50 PM to 2:00 PM.

Mr. Van Cott.  I believe you have already stated that you thought that Wilford Woodruff was an honest, conscientious man?
Mr. Critchlow.  He was so regarded by the non-Mormon community as being such a man.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  Do you regard [John Henry Smith] as a truthful man?
Mr. Critchlow.  In anything where his church is not involved I would.
Mr. Van Cott.  Where his church is not involved?
Mr. Critchlow.  I regard him as beinglike any of the rest of them.
Mr. Van Cott.  Well, how is that?
Mr. Critchlow.  Making statements that are not true as to matters of fact as respects their practices.

Commentary:  So Mormons are truthful, as long as they don't speak about their church practices, because it is possible they will then lie.


While Mr. Van Cott is having Mr. Critchlow investigate a record, Mr. Tayler speaks up:

"Mr. Chairman, while the witness is looking at that, I want to say just a word, in justice to myself, but not in reference to this question or this line.  Many things have been asked that I thought were not relevant or in any way competent.  I have not objected, because I shall not object to any question that is asked this witness.  If the committee should feel that the examination is going along lines that are not profitable, I want the committee to interpose, because we do not want to be accused of attempting to narrow the inquiry."

Commentary:  Mr. Tayler has been particularly pleased with the questions given by Mr. Van Cott either.  I guess I can say I'm not surprised at all.


In 1895, B.H. Roberts ran a campaign against the wishes of the church, much like the campaign that Moses Thatcher ran.  In a like manner, B.H. Roberts refused to sign the political manifesto just as Moses Thatcher refused to sign it.  The church opposed Mr. Robert's candidacy, and he was eventually defeated.  During this time Mr. Roberts was out of harmony with his brethren in the quorums; however, he did repent of this problem.  Mr. Critchlow is asked how he knows that Roberts "repented."

Mr. Critchlow.  In the sermons of the apostles and leaders of the church explaining this manifesto matter, that he was for some six weeks prayed with and labored with by the apostles, and finally he stated that he had a vision in which a number of his dead and gone ancestors came to him and he saw them in a state of -
Mr. Van Cott.  Coma?
Mr. Critchlow.  No; he saw them lost and in perdition because of the fact that he could not go into the temple and be baptized to save their souls; and for the sake of his dead ancestors, and in order that he might enjoy the privileges of the church and be baptized for them, he put himself in harmony with the apostles of the church.

Mr. Critchlow is asked to name the members of the "supervising committee of elders" to help with legislation in the first legislative session of 1896.  He names six men:  Charles W. Penrose, W.W. Riter, James Sharp, William H. King, F.S. Richards [attorney at the committee hearing], and Joseph M. Tanner.

Mr. Van Cott.  How do you know the church appointed those men to supervise legislation?
Mr. Critchlow.  By the admissions made by George Q. Cannon and by Heber J. Grant and by certain of the members of the committee in public interviews, which were had with them directly after the charge was made, which was in April, 1896.
Mr. Van Cott.  And in what papers were those interviews reported?
Mr. Critchlow.  They were reported in the Sale Lake Herald, at that time edited by Brigham H. Roberts; in the Salt Lake Tribune, and I think the interviews with George Q. Cannon and Heber J. Grant were also in the Deseret News, but of that latter I cannot speak with definiteness.

This is the end of the cross-examination.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 9 - E.B. Critchlow, part 3

March 11, 1904


This is the third part of the testimony given by E. B. Critchlow.

The first part of cross-examination testimony concerns the protest and how it came about.  The Ministerial Association committee (of 3 members) wanted this protest drafted, and Mr. Critchlow met with Dr. Paden many times to bring this to pass.  He states that this protest was essentially what the non-Mormon public felt almost universally and was reduced to a "proper form of protest."

Mr. Van Cott asks if some of the signers of the protest were opposed to the church.  He asks if Mr. P.L. Williams and Mr. C.C. Goodwin have "always been bitterly opposed to the Mormon Church."  He says that Mr. P.L. Williams has always been "bitterly opposed to the practices of the Mormon leaders" and Mr. C.C. Goodwin has been opposed to the Mormon Church.

Mr. Van Cott.  Now, Mr. Critchlow - not intending it for any offense at all, but simply to get information - you have been, too, have you not?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have always taken occasion to oppose the domination of the church and their practices.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is not quite the question.  You have always been bitterly opposed to the Mormon Church, have you not?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not admit the word "bitterly," Mr. Van Cott.  I admit the word "opposition" to its very fullest extent.

Commentary:  Ok, so he is a self-described Mormon opponent "to its very fullest extent."


Mr. Critchlow states that in the drafting of the protest that Mr. Leilich asked them "to put in many things which we refused to put in because we did not know of the absolute truth of them."  Thus it is inferred that Mr. Leilich's protest is a fulfillment of what he wanted to see Mr. Smoot charged with and that the protest contains "absolute truth" in the eyes of its signers.


He is asked about the general repute of Mr. Smoot's marital condition.  He states that before he was an apostle there was no doubt that he was not a polygamist; however, after becoming and apostle, he has doubts.

Mr. Critchlow.  The only thing that comes in to qualify that is the question whether they would permit anybody to go into the quorum of the twelve apostles who had not become sealed to somebody.  That is the only thing which questions it.
Mr. Van Cott.  Is that the general opinion?
Mr. Critchlow.  The general opinion is that he is not a polygamist.
Mr. Van Cott.  Was it the general opinion out there that a man had to be a polygamist to be an apostle?
Mr. Critchlow.  It is among many people who are, or who profess to be, well acquainted with the doctrines of the church.
Mr. Van Cott.  What is your opinion?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have not any fixed opinion about it.  It depends entirely upon the person at the head of the church at the particular time.  If a person comes into the church at the present time I should think the chances were in favor of Joseph F. Smith requiring him to live his religion in some form or other before he could become an apostle.  With Lorenzo Snow, I do not think it was so.  With Wilford Woodruff, there might -
Senator Beveridge.  Do you think at the present time Mr. Smoot is a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not.

Commentary:  From this piece of testimony it would appear that there are people (Mormons?) who have studied or believe they know the doctrines of the Mormon Church who have stated that a requirement for becoming an apostle is living the doctrine of plural marriage.  I've heard different opinions on this and think it interesting for a non-Mormon to know this; therefore, it must have been semi-prevalent and not very secret for this type of information to be available.  I don't know the truth of this, but having heard rumblings about things like this, it would surprise me that it was very much like Mr. Critchlow stated.  I also appreciate his honesty:  If he doesn't believe something, he will not shy away for it but will come right out and state it.

Mr. Van Cott.  Did I understand you to say, in answer to a question propounded by Senator Beveridge, that you did not believe Joseph F. Smith would allow an apostle to come into the quorum unless he was a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir; I did not say that; at least I did not mean to say it.  I meant to say that I very much question whether Joseph F. Smith would consent to a man coming into the apostolate without he either was then or was willing to live up to the principles of the religion as he preaches and professes them, which includes the sealing for eternity, as is commonly understood.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is, you said before, to quote some of your words, "unless he would live his religion?"
Mr. Critchlow.  Live his religion.  That is a common phrase used in Utah.
Mr. Van Cott.  Do you want the committee to understand by that expression that he is a polygamist when he goes in, or that he has to become a polygamist thereafter?
Mr. Critchlow.  I want the committee to understand only this:  That I do not believe - and it is a matter simply of my own private belief, deduced from what I know of the man and his teachings and his course - he will permit a man to be an apostle unless he were either at the time of his election in the status of having lived his religion to that extent, or that he would become such, unless he were a member of the Smith family.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is, if he were a member of the Smith family you think he would allow a person to become an apostle without either being a polygamist or expecting him to become one?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think that would very largely influence Mr. Smith in permitting a man to become an apostle.  If he were his son or his nephew, I think he might be willing to waive any qualification of that sort.

Commentary:  Ok, there's some interesting opinions in that testimony.  I like the "live his religion" line; that is still used today.

Mr. Van Cott.  How do you explain this statement with reference to Anthon H. Lund [not being a polygamist, but yet being high up in the church authorities]?
Mr. Critchlow.  I can explain it only from information, and that is that his first wife will not consent to his taking another wife, and has never consented to it.

Commentary:  Ah, so he's not a polygamist because his first wife will not let him be one.  This can also be taken another way; namely, that he cares a great deal for his first wife and as such respects her wishes.


After a few questions going back and forth with Mr. Critchlow avoiding answering directly the question asked, Mr. Van Cott finally twists his arm enough to answer straight:

Mr. Van Cott.  Mr. Critchlow, you are a lawyer?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  I have asked the question several times about that:  Do you believe President Smith is not speaking the truth when he says that plural marriages have stopped?
Mr. Critchlow.  I believe he is not speaking the truth, if you wish me to say it.  He is not speaking the truth with regard to conditions as they exist in Utah, which I suppose he must know as everyone else knows them.

Commentary:  Well, there's the admission.  Mr. Critchlow believes Joseph F. Smith is a liar and is misrepresenting conditions as they really exist in Utah with regards to polygamous relationships and probably anything else he wishes to hide.  In his opinion, it is obvious that nothing coming from Mr. Smith can be trusted as being the truth.


Mr. Van Cott then brings up a situation where a non-Mormon, businessman (owner of a brewery), Republican, was not elected mainly because of the influence of the Ministerial Association.

Mr. Van Cott.  Have you any doubt but that it was the result of that fight which defeated him?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have not any doubt that they influenced enough votes to defeat him.

Commentary:  Alright, so this same Ministerial Association goes after people they don't like and they try and influence, politically, anyone and everyone to side with their opinion - and they are successful.  They influenced enough votes to defeat Mr. Jacob Moritz (brewery owner) and now they've got their sights set on Mr. Smoot.  They lost that battle with the legislature, but the carried their fight further because Mr. Critchlow was acquainted with how to file a protest with the Senate - so they used him to do this.  The other side of this coin is that it is dirty politics for a church to help elect, or fight the elections of someone; however, the Ministerial Association does not come under those "rules of politics;" that's just politics as usual because they aren't as powerful in the State as the Church is.  That seems rather hypocritical to me.


Mr. Van Cott then asks about prosecutions during his time as an assistant district attorney, and he asks if Mr. Critchlow ever prosecuted Joseph F. Smith or John Henry Smith.  He did not.

Senator Overman.  Why did you not prosecute him?  You were a Government officer and you knew he was living in unlawful cohabitation?
Mr. Critchlow.  Joseph F. Smith was not in the country at that time, as I now recall.
Senator Beveridge.  Is that the reason why you did not prosecute him?
Mr. Critchlow.  I cannot say that was the only reason.  Of course, prosecutions were based upon information brought in and put before the grand jury by those who were willing to volunteer it, or those of the deputy marshals who were able to procure it; and it is by no means easy to procure.  Whenever information was brought in it certainly was laid before the grand jury, which was the only method of prosecution.
Senator Beveridge.  Did you attempt prosecutions against Mr. Smith or any of these men?
Mr. Critchlow.  I cannot say I attempted it any further than to take charge of the information which the deputy marshals would bring in.  They were the ones who were seeking out this information, and whenever it was obtained it was used against any of the Smiths or the apostles or anyone else.
Senator Beveridge.  As a high officer of the law, if you yourself had knowledge, if you knew it was a matter of common repute, if you yourself knew the circumstances, or any violation of the law by any of these gentlemen, would it be your duty simply to sit there and wait until some person brought you information in a formal way on that subject or would it be your duty to take the initiative?
Mr. Critchlow.  It would be my duty to attempt to stir up the proper officers of the law, who at that time were supposed to be the deputy marshals, to procure the information.
Senator Beveridge.  Did you do that?
Mr. Critchlow.  Against Mr. Joseph F. Smith?
Senator Beveridge.  Or any of these prominent men as to whom you have testified as having been notorious in this regard?
Mr. Critchlow.  I do not recollect that I did.
Senator Beveridge.  Why not?
Mr. Critchlow.  Because I had no information with regard to it that was not common to everybody else, and it was not information sufficient to convict.  But the information that was before us all with regard to these matters at that time was that polygamy had stopped, and that unlawful cohabitation, which it was going on after September, 1890, that it was going to be stopped.  There was rather a disinclination upon the part of everybody connected with the prosecution of offenses to stir up these matters, because we thought it would work itself out; that the situation would become alleviated by the general progress of time.

Commentary:  I put myself in Mr. Critchlow's shoes while reading this testimony and I felt a little uncomfortable answering those questions.  I guess his job performance was being called into question by the Senators, and that wouldn't be comfortable at all.  Mr. Critchlow is opposed to the Mormon Church to the fullest extent possible; he files protests against its leader political leaders (and religious leaders); he prosecuted Mormons, etc.  However, he himself did nothing to bring in the top dogs of the Mormon Church - "I do not recollect that I did;" relying instead on the job description to bail him out.  It wasn't my job was as best he could come up with.  That seems a little weak given his pursuit against Reed Smoot - all the way to Washington before a Senate committee.  One thing that will play in his favor later on is that many witnesses will give essentially the same testimony as given here - they did not prosecute or pursue, and this will be to the Senator's shock.


In 1894, Mr. Critchlow was involved in politics and in fact traveled with politicians as they made rounds to "stump" for their party and ticket.  One of the people that he did with was John Henry Smith.  This traveling was done for the constitutional convention election to be held for drafting a constitution for the future State of Utah.

Mr. Van Cott.  Did you vote for your ticket in Salt Lake County that year?
Mr. Critchlow.  I undoubtedly did.
Mr. Van Cott.  Did you vote for John Henry Smith?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think so.
Mr. Van Cott.  He was a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Known to be a polygamist?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Did you think you were encouraging polygamists to live in unlawful cohabitation because you voted for John Henry Smith to be a member of the constitutional convention?
Mr. Critchlow.  I did not think I was voting on that subject; no; I did not think that I was.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  You went out on the stump also, as late as 1894, with John Henry Smith?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  He was a Mormon apostle?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Living in polygamy?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think so.
Mr. Van Cott.  I mean living in unlawful cohabitation.
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  You traveled with him disseminating Republican principles?
Mr. Critchlow.  As best I knew how.
Mr. Van Cott.  That was done for some time?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  Let me ask you a question right here.  Did you protest to him against his practices?
Mr. Critchlow.  Against the practices of Mr. Smith?
Senator Beveridge.  Yes.
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir; except -
Senator Beveridge.  Did you admonish him?
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir; not at all.
Senator Beveridge.  When you were assistant United States district attorney did you admonish any of these gentlemen  or warn them to cease their practices?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not at all.

Commentary:  Wow, he was just dragged through the mud again.  This is again a similar line of questioning where Mr. Critchlow's principles and character are brought to question.  If he believes that polygamy and unlawful cohabitation are illegal, as he has stated here, then why didn't he prosecute these people, and why didn't he admonish them when he spent a great deal of time with them?  I guess it is much harder to do when you meet the person and talk with them face to face.


Mr. Van Cott then revisits the statement by Mr. Critchlow that prosecutions don't take place in Utah; he wants to have Mr. Critchlow's reasoning on this point:

Mr. Van Cott.  Mr. Critchlow, is it not the fact that the general feeling in Utah, among non-Mormons - leaving the Mormons out of view - has been that if all plural marriages had ceased since the manifesto, these relations of unlawful cohabitation they were practically willing to close their eyes to?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think so, except in cases where they were really absolutely offensive, or where they occurred in such a manner as to be really examples to the people.  Amongst the higher officials, and even with them, I think it would be fair to say that people were inclined minimize these things as much as possible for the peace of the State and the community and for its upbuilding, and to remove the reproach of it before the country.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  Now, the other matter that you spoke of - this offensive flaunting.  I wish you would give to the committee a little more in detail what you understand by that, and I call your attention now to the language used by the Supreme Court of the United States where it has quoted that particular phrase.
Mr. Critchlow.  What would be offensive to one person of course might not be to another.  If a man had a polygamous wife and family right by my door side, and his children associated with mine, and he visited a half or a third of his time somewhere else, and it was placed there under my face, it might be offensive to me, while to you or to somebody else, living in another part of the town, it might not be offensive.
     Again, where a man takes two sisters under the same roof, that might be offensive to the whole community.  Then again, it might be entirely innocent and unoffensive to a great class of people who do not care anything about those things.
     Again, I may say, where a man has a polygamous wife in a community and brings other polygamous wives there and makes a sort of a colony of it, then it becomes offensive even to a whole community.  That sort of thing becomes offensive, in a greater or lesser extent, dependent entirely upon the sensibilities of the people immediately affected.
Mr. Van Cott.  But where the polygamists have had their wives living in separate houses, and have simply kept up the old relations without an offensive flaunting before the public of the relations, it has been practically passed over, has it not?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir; as a matter of fact it has been.

There are apparently different classes of polygamists in Utah at this time.  "Mr. John Henry Smith was a different man from polygamists generally."  I take this to mean that he acted like a normal gentlemen, even though he had multiple wives.

To close up the testimony for this day, Senator Beveridge wants to know more about how Mr. Critchlow came across the information about the revelation with the electric-light plant in Brigham City.

Senator Beveridge.  I understood you to say that you got this information from an attorney out there?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  And that he, of course, got his information from somebody else outside of general repute?
Mr. Critchlow.  Necessarily, I assume.
Senator Beveridge.  So that your testimony amounts to this - that you say that a man said to you that somebody else said to him that the president of the stake had a revelation on the subject of an electric-light plant at this place, that he laid it before the council, and there was a disruption, etc.?
...
Mr. Critchlow.  I take it in a legal sense that is as close as it comes to being evidence.

Commentary:  I find it a little comical that Senator Beveridge has to be the lawyer for the respondent and do the cross-examination.  He seems to be very sharp.  In this instance he brought out the source of the revelations as a very confusing line of people to tie hearsay to.  Really, that was Mr. Van Cott's job, not the Senator's.  Bravo to the Senator for paying attention enough to pick up on this fact.

At 4:10 PM the committe adjourned until tomorrow, Saturday, March 12, 1904 at 10:30 AM.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 9 - E.B. Critchlow, part 2

March 11, 1904


This is the second part of the testimony given by E. B. Critchlow.

Mr. Critchlow is asked to continue on his line of thinking from the previous day, and in so doing he reads from a letter written by Moses Thatcher to Lorenzo Snow, dated December 12, 1896:

"I do not claim that I cannot be wrong.  But with the light I have the manifesto (applied as its construction will allow, or as it would be interpreted by men whose personal ambitions might control and subvert their sense of right) could be operated to the injury of the State ... I am with the State constitution in the declaration that there shall be an absolute separation of church and State; that the State shall not control the church, nor the church encroach on the prerogatives of the State ... I invite neither the support nor the opposition of the church.  It has no concern in political issues.  The members of my former quorum have deemed it expedient to deprive me of my priesthood.  If I discuss their action, it is as a church member.  As a citizen and a Democrat I concede their right to discipline me for any cause whatever.  As a member of the Democratic party, as a citizen, I deny their right or their intention to interfere with my politics, the threat of the Deseret News, as the church organ, to the contrary notwithstanding."

Commentary:  Moses Thatcher was disciplined for making this letter public.

Mr. Critchlow then spends a little bit of time talking about the "Evans anti-polygamy" bill.  The design of this bill was not to overturn the national laws, but to "limit the prosecution for certain classes of offenses."  The bill passed the Utah houses of legislation, and was then vetoed by the Governor of Utah, a Mormon.  This all happened in 1901.  The bill created quite a bit of publicity both inside and outside of Utah because of the topic of it.  In the end, Mormons voted both for and against the bill with non-Mormons voting both for and against the bill.

Senator Overman.  What was the general sentiment all over the United States, so far as you could gather [about this bill in Utah]?
Mr. Critchlow.  The sentiment over the United States, so far as I could gather from the press, was that it was recognized as being a measure which had been intended to further the practice of polygamy and that it was a very proper and manly act on the part of the governor to veto it.

Commentary:  The Senator here is asking the opinion of Mr. Critchlow about the entire United States, without objection to the question from anyone.  However, later when Mr. Van Cott asks the same type of questions (asking about the general feeling of the people of the United States) of Mr. Critchlow, Senator Hopkins steps in and says the question is improper because of its scope and the fact that Mr. Critchlow couldn't possibly know what 80 million people think.

Mr. Critchlow then reads part of the veto response from Governor Wells concerning this bill:

"In my opinion nothing can be clearer than that this bill, if passed, would be welcomed and employed as a most effective weapon against the very classes whose condition it is intended to ameliorate.  Furthermore, I have every reason to believe its enactment would be the signal for a general demand upon the National Congress for a constitutional amendment, directed solely against certain social conditions here, a demand which, under the circumstances, would assuredly be complied with.  While it may be urged that in any event only the few could be made to suffer, is it not an odious thought, repulsive to every good citizen of whatsoever creed or party, that the whole State should thus be put under a bad?"

The entire veto response from the governor can be found here; the date is March 15, 1901, and the newspaper is the Salt Lake Herald.

Mr. Critchlow.  After the measure had passed, and while it was in the hands of the governor for action, there appeared an editorial in the Deseret News, I think under the date of March 12, 1901, and then after the veto message, which was on the 14th, there were numerous editorials in the Deseret News upholding the bill and contending in favor of the wisdom  of that class of legislation, and of this bill in particular.
Mr. Worthington.  And the members of the legislature did not respond to the views of the church as expressed through the news?
Mr. Critchlow.  No, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  Did the church authorities favor this bill?
Mr. Critchlow.  Those of the church authorities who expressed themselves did.
Senator Beveridge.  Some expressed themselves and some did not?
Mr. Critchlow.  I know of none of the authorities who expressed themselves against.

Commentary:  Despite the fact the Deseret News, the editorials in that paper, and several prominent church authorities expressed their approval of this bill, it was still vetoed by the governor.


Mr. Critchlow then goes into history about the candidacy and election of Reed Smoot for Senator.  This covers the period of the legislature of 1903.  The most interesting opening statement of this time-period is the following:

"... it was generally understood and conceded throughout the State that Senator Smoot would, in all human probability, be the next United States Senator provided the Republicans should be successful in electing a majority of the legislature of 1903."

Commentary:  That sounds almost like a foregone conclusion that Reed Smoot would win.

"The republicans were successful, and the ticket was elected, and immediately upon that, and even I think before election, certainly immediately after the election, there was very determined opposition upon the part of the Ministerial Association, and very determined expressions of opinion upon the part of non-Mormons, and Mormons as well, upon the question as to the propriety of the election of Apostle Smoot to the Senate of the United States.  This was expressed both in print and in private conversation ... it was well known to all of us that his candidacy evoked a very wide opposition among what may be called the lay members of the Mormon Church."

Mr. Critchlow then defines what the Ministerial Association is:

It is "an association of evangelical or protestant ministers of the city of Salt Lake, excepting, however, the Protestant Episcopal Church ... Roman Catholics [and] the Mormon Church ... They have weekly meetings, as I understand, to discuss general matters of interest to all of them."

Senator Smoot's lawyer goes off a bit on the admissible evidence for the committee.  Here is a piece of what he says:

Mr. Worthington.  The Leilich charge is one which was presented to the Senate, signed by Leilich only, in which it is charged that Senator Smoot is a polygamist, that he has plural wives, and it is charged that he has taken an oath as an apostle inconsistent with his Senatorial oath.  Those charges have been published all over this country, and I presume it is true that Senator Smoot has never taken any notice of them.  And yet when we come here we find that even the father of this charge will not come here and say he ever has had any proof to justify the making of it, and counsel have specifically announced, from the beginning to the end, that so far as they know there is no truth in either of those charges ... And yet when we come to the facts of the case we find that the charges are absolutely without foundation, and that there is nobody who will come here and stand sponsor for them.  If it is charged that Senator Smoot has made admissions to anybody, let those persons be brought here.  The subpoena of the committee will reach them wherever they may be.  Let us have their statements, made under oath, with the opportunity to cross-examine - the two sure tests of the weight of testimony.

At 11:55 AM the committee recessed for lunch until 2:00 PM.


The first statement made by Mr. Critchlow is to the objection or reason Mr. Smoot should not be a Senator from Utah.

Mr. Critchlow.  In conversation as well as the public prints, both in Utah and elsewhere, the attention of the people was drawn to the fact that the entry of an apostle into the political arena, clothed, as the apostolate and presidency of the church are recognized as being clothed, with such tremendous power in the State of Utah, a power which extends into the most minute details of religion and business and politics, was such as could not be tolerated under our system of government, and that was the objection to Mr. Smoot.
     I think I ought to say in that connection that never at any time, so far as I am aware, were the personal qualifications of Mr. Smoot or his fitness, outside of his relations to the presidency and apostolate of the church, brought into question by anyone.

Commentary:  In other words, Reed Smoot is a very good choice for a Senator, as long as he isn't an apostle as well.

Senator Dillingham.  May I inquire, in that connection, who was responsible for this form of petition that was sent broadcast from over the country?
Mr. Critchlow.  You are referring to the protest?
Senator Dillingham.  I am referring to the petitions that have come into the Senate from every State and almost every town in the country protesting against the seating of Mr. Smoot.
Mr. Critchlow.  I can only speak from information, and that is to the effect that it is due to the concerted action of certain organizations of women, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the International Congress of Mothers, or some such organization as that, and, I think, the Interdenominational Council of Women ...
...
Senator Beveridge.  Who got this protest up, Mr. Critchlow?
Mr. Critchlow.  The material of it was supplied in large part by Doctor Paden, and it was written, so far as the form of it and the connecting matter, etc., was concerned, by myself.
Senator Beveridge.  Who got the signatures to it?
Mr. Critchlow.  I did.
Senator Beveridge.  You got up the protest, then, practically?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir; to the extent I have suggested.

Commentary:  Mr. Critchlow, it would seem, is almost entirely responsible for the protest against Senator Reed Smoot.  He gives credit to Dr. Paden for gathering a lot of the information (probably the doctrinal information included - references to scriptures, etc.); however, it was he who put it together correctly, collected the signatures, and properly delivered it to Congress.


The Senators know that Mr. Critchlow is a friend of Mr. Rawlins, the former Senator defeated by Reed Smoot.

Senator Beveridge.  What is your business connection with Mr. Rawlins?
Mr. Critchlow.  I was his law partner for six years.
Senator Beveridge.  Were you his partner at the time of his last election to the United States Senate?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir; we dissolved our partnership when he come to Washington as Senator.
Senator Beveridge.  You had been partner with him up to that time?
Mr. Critchlow.  For six years prior to that time.
Senator Beveridge.  Mr. Rawlins was defeated for the Senate by Mr. Smoot?
Mr. Critchlow.  Well, I  hardly would say -
Senator Beveridge.  He was a candidate, was he not?
Mr. Critchlow.  He was a candidate in a legislature which was Republican.
Senator Beveridge.  Of course; but he was a candidate before the legislature, and so was Mr. Smoot?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  And Mr. Smoot got the votes?
Mr. Critchlow.  Mr. Rawlins got 6 votes and Mr. Smoot got -
Senator Beveridge.  Got the remainder?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not all the remainder; nearly all.

Commentary:  This doesn't prove anything except that Mr. Rawlins, the former Senator, and Mr. Critchlow were law partners for 6 years (probably good friends to work together that long) and it may have been somewhat coincidental that the former Senator's law partner was the lead in the protest against the person that defeated him.  Again, this doesn't prove a single thing; however, it does raise eyebrows I think.


Mr. Critchlow then describes the general opinion among non-Mormons and Mormons alike as to Mr. Smoot's candidacy for Senate:

"... in the event that men who were of the general authorities of the church, such as the presidency and twelve apostles, were to become candidates for the United States Senate, there was no opportunity amongst the lay members of the church, so to speak, to ever aspire to any high office, for the reason that it would be understood that consent given under the circumstances, as it must necessarily be given by those in the quorum, would be equivalent to the practical indorsement of the presidency and twelve apostles, and that no member of the Mormon Church would ever dare to aspire to political preferment in opposition to the men holding such positions.

From here Senator Beveridge questions the language that Mr. Critchlow used to describe this opinion.

Senator Beveridge.  Now, in reference to that.  You say "dare to aspire?"
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  What would happen to them if they did dare to aspire?  Suppose some member of the Mormon Church did dare to aspire, what would happen?

Commentary:  I have to jump in right here.  Why is Mr. Critchlow suddenly the expert on what the Mormon Church would do?  I guess they want the non-Mormon viewpoint of what people believe the church would do, even if it isn't true.

Mr. Critchlow.  He would undoubtedly be dealt with if he persisted in his political canvass in opposition to the will of the members of the higher quorum.  He would undoubtedly be dealt with for his fellowship as being out of harmony.
Senator Beveridge.  What do you mean by being dealt with?
Mr. Critchlow.  I mean he would be called in question as being one who is out of harmony, and who is not disposed to take counsel from those who are above him.
Senator Beveridge.  You are speaking, now, of a member of the church as well as an officer?
Mr. Critchlow.  Of a member as well as an officer.
Senator Beveridge.  Still, what could be done with him?  Out of harmony you say.  What would be done with him?  Would he be punished?
Mr. Critchlow.  He would be disfellowshipped from the church and ostracized from the society of those who were formerly his coreligionists.
Senator Beveridge.  Do you know of anyone who is not an officer who has been excommunicated from the church?
Mr. Critchlow.  I know a great many persons who have been excommunicated from the church for being out of harmony with it.
Senator Beveridge.  For the offense of independent political action?
Mr. Critchlow.  I cannot at this moment recollect any one individual man for independent political action, but in business.

Commentary:  This is interesting.  He strongly believes that if any member runs politically against a member of the church hierarchy, they will be disfellowshipped.  He cannot name any one single man where this has happened, but believes that because it has happened in business, so it would carry the same weight and punishment in politics.


Mr. Critchlow mentions the Walker Brothers who in the 1860's were counseled to not open up a mine in Utah because it would drain the resources of the State/Territory and bring in non-Mormons.  These men refused to listen to the counsel, went ahead with their mining operations, and were excommunicated.  To this report, Senator Beveridge responds:  "I think this is very serious."

He gives another, much more recent example:

"The people of Brigham City wanted to own their own electric-light plant, and a private corporation there which was engaged in the electric-lighting business induced President Kelly to favor this by offering him a present of 1,000 shares of stock.  Kelly then told the mayor of the city that he had had a revelation on the subject; that he was right, and that God had told him that the city ought to be lighted by a private company, of which he, Kelly, should be the president.  This matter was brought up at a meeting at the tabernacle at which were present the mayor, Mr. Bowden, Apostle Clawson, Peter Knudson, a member of the city counsil; Isaac A. Jenson, a member of the council, and J.P. Christianson, a member of the council.  This was called, as I understand it, on Sunday afternoon to pass a resolution which Apostle Rudger Clawson and Kelly had presented to them upon this subject.
     "The people had an election upon the subject and, without going into details, a very acrid controversy arose between the authorities of the church and the people, and for the offense of standing in opposition to the priesthood on the subject of a municipal lighting plant a number of the people in Brigham City were brought up before the high council and lectured and tried for their fellowship."

Commentary:  Wow.  If this is true, that's wild.

Senator Beveridge.  As a citizen of Utah, do you yourself believe that anybody out there told the common council that they had a revelation from the Lord on an electric-light plant?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have not the slightest doubt of it, Senator; not the slightest doubt in the world.
...
Mr. Worthington.  You said for these things the members were cut off.  What do you mean by "cut off?"  Do you mean excommunicated?
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes; disfellowshipped.  As the expression goes in that community, the right hand of fellowship is withdrawn from them.

Commentary:  I have actually heard that phrase before - "right hand of fellowship."

Senator Beveridge.  Let me ask you a question or two, if you please.  I assume - if I am not right you can tell me - that the members of the Mormon Church usually accept the so-called revelations when their superiors give them.  Is that correct, do I understand?
Mr. Critchlow.  Speaking as a practical matter, Senator, I say that they do accept them in the sense that they act in accordance with them, whether as a matter of conscience and belief -
Senator Beveridge.  I mean as far as their actions are concerned.
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes, sir.

Commentary:  Again the Senators are concerned and interested in the amount of control the authorities of the church wield.  This is the "power" question asked in the form of 'do the members obey revelations' from the church.  Nothing new is said here; however, this is from a non-member in whom there seems to be a lot of trust about the history and general knowledge of the area.  In other words, whatever Mr. Critchlow says, it is likely to be taken with a great deal of weight by the committee members.  This question was asked in the context of the members of Brigham City believing the purported revelation given by their Stake President.

Senator Beveridge.  How do you reconcile that with the people accepting in their actions these revelations which you say it is their custom to do?  They did not accept it in that instance, did they?
Mr. Critchlow.  In this particular case they went before the people and the people refused to take the revelation from Mr. Kelly.
Senator Beveridge.  Yes ... evidently the people did not think Mr. Kelly's revelation was valid in that instance on electic lighting.

Commentary:  Whoops.  Mr. Critchlow spoke too soon.  The people only accept revelations that make sense to them.

Senator Beveridge.  You helped prepare this case, did you not, with Mr. Tayler?
Mr. Critchlow.  Only since I have been here, since I arrived in Washinton; not at all before that.

Commentary:  Well, not only did he prepare the protest against Senator Smoot, he helped prepare the case to be presented against Senator Smoot.  I guess he has a very large interest in seeing Senator Smoot turned out of office.


Senator Beveridge wants to know more about the history behind Mr. Critchlow's involvement in writing this protest:

Senator Beveridge.  You said you got up this protest and that you secured the signatures to it.
Mr. Critchlow.  Yes.
Senator Beveridge.  How did you happen to do that?
Mr. Critchlow.  It happened in this way.  Before the Roberts matter was on before the House of Representatives, I was applied to by my friend, Doctor Paden, who was a college mate of mine, to assist him in getting up the protest.  I wrote the protest in the [B.H.] Roberts case.
Mr. Worthington.  Who did you say?
Mr. Critchlow.  Doctor Paden, the first signer of this protest.  I wrote the protest and advised the committee as to the proper method, in my judgment, of getting it before the House of Representatives.
Senator Beveridge.  That is, in the Roberts case?
Mr. Critchlow.  In the Roberts case.
Senator Beveridge.  Were you employed in that case?
Mr. Critchlow.  Not at all.  I never received any employment in any of these matters.
Senator Beveridge.  That is all right.
Mr. Critchlow.  When this matter came up he applied to me and said that he was one of the committee of the ministerial association; and again, as a matter of general interest as a citzen, I took the matter up and studied over it considerably, and with him drafted this protest.  It was then to have been submitted as a protest from the ministerial association.  I stated to him that, on account of the prejudices which had been engendered in the State against the ministerial association - because up to that time they had been the only persons who had ever protested against the condition of affairs there - if others than members of the ministerial association could be gotten to sign that protest it would have much more weight locally and perhaps some more weight in the country at large.  He expressed himself as more than gratified if that would be done, and I told him I had no doubt I could secure from my own acquaintence at least fifteen or twenty persons to sign that.  I did secure all but the names of the three persons who are there as members of the minsterial association - Doctor Paden, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Leilich.
...
Senator Dillingham.  Then are we to understand this movement was really inaugurated and pushed by the ministerial association in the first instance?
Mr. Critchlow.  In the first instance it was inaugurated by them because, if I may say so, they were up to that moment the only perons who ever made any public protest against the condition of affairs in that State.
...
Senator Dillingham.  Then, in the past, it is true, I suppose, that all of the religious denominations, through their ministers and their chief officers, have taken an active interest in the politics of Utah?
Mr. Critchlow.  I think so; yes, sir ... when I say that they took an active interest in politics it is only in the sense that the politics and the religion of Utah have been so absolutely interwoven that a man could not take an interest in the religious aspect of the matter without taking an interest in the effect of the religious system upon the political status.
Senator Beveridge.  As I understand you, Senator, you want to know what they do?
Senator Dillingham.  Yes; I was asking simply what they did.
Mr. Critchlow.  They take the same interest in politics that members of the same denominations do, within my observations, in other States.
Senator Dillingham.  Is it not true that they have been a combined force against the force of the Mormon Church?
Mr. Critchlow.  They have endeavored to be, I think, sir.

Mr. Worthigton tries to sum up Mr. Critchlow's feelings on this matter with a simple question.

Mr. Worthington.  I understand you consider it politics for religious organizations to get a man into the Senate, but it is not politics to try to get him out?
Mr. Critchlow.  I have no understanding upon that subject.  In fact, I have not known that they made any effort to get anybody into the Senate.
Mr. Worthington.  You said the Mormon Church did.  The effect of what you said is that the Mormon Church has put Mr. Smoot here, and that is politics.
Mr. Critchlow.  I say the leaders of the Mormon Church have given their consent, and that Mr. Smoot comes here, and that Mr. Smoot and his coleaders of the Mormon Church are responsible for the condition of things there, and that Mr. Smoot is responsible for things there, because by one word Mr. Smoot could either stop what is going on there or would no longer be an apostle of the Mormon Church.
Senator Beveridge.  Are you testifying to a fact?
Mr. Critchlow.  I am testifying to a fact; yes, sir.  I beg your pardon - a deduction.
Senator Beveridge.  Are you testifying to a deduction?
Mr. Critchlow.  I am testifying to a deduction which the whole community of Utah makes from the known facts which exist there.

This is the end of the direct-examination.  In the next part, the cross-examination will commence.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 8 - E.B. Critchlow, part 1

March 10, 1904

This is the first part of three parts (I hope it doesn't turn into more) of Mr. Edward Benjamin Critchlow's testimony.  As background to this man, his uncle and aunt (his father's older brother, William Coe Critchlow and Harriet Hawkins) joined the Mormon Church in August 1839, and moved to Nauvoo in April 1844, where they met Joseph Smith.  They then followed the rest of the LDS movement out to Utah in October 1851, where they settled in Ogden.  He is acquainted with Mormons and has known about them for quite some time.  He is, however, not a Mormon, and as will be seen from his testimony, he is opposed to the Mormon Church hierarchy very strongly (the General Authorities of the Church).

Mr. Critchlow is currently a resident of Salt Lake City and has been since 1883.  He was born in Mississippi in 1858 and moved to Utah in 1873, where his father was given the job as an Indian Agent in the Territory of Utah.  He was educated at Princeton University and Columbia Law School.  His profession is that of a lawyer.  He signed the protest against Reed Smoot.  In 1885, he was appointed as assistant United States attorney and served in the southernmost district of Utah Territory (Beaver, Utah) for two terms, and he again accepted the same position in 1890, serving for 1 year.  Mr. Critchlow also served a term in the first State legislature for Utah.

The purpose of Mr. Critchlow's testimony is to provide historical setting, background, and general public information on the politics within the State of Utah.  He is given a wide range of latitude in testifying about anything and everything that he is knowledgable about.  There are very large segments of testimony with several paragraphs in a row of Mr. Critchlow testifying without questions from the lawyers; obviously they wanted this testimony to be unhampered.  This type of testimony with a witness just speaking, is not the norm with this committee.  This testimony is divided into a number of parts, a summary of which is basically:

1. History before the manifesto of 1890.
2. History after the manifesto of 1890.
3. Laws enacted specifically because of polygamy.

A short summary of why Mr. E. B. Critchlow was called to testify is stated by Senator Beveridge (much later in the cross-examination of this witness):

"You have been testifying as an expert on general understanding and I thought you might know what the general understanding was as to this matter."

Mr. Critchlow is asked by Mr. Tayler to describe the legislation or laws enacted to stop the practice of polygamy (or bigamy).  He describes the laws of 1862, 1882, and 1887, and the basic understanding of those laws and what they attempted to do.  After the passage of the Edmunds Law in 1882, the first prosecution of note was that of Rudger Clawson; he was convicted in late 1884 of polygamy and sentenced to 4 years in the state penitentiary.  The next prosecution was that of Angus M. Cannon (Stake President of the Salt Lake Stake) - for the crime of cohabitation.

Mr. Critchlow.  In 1885, and from that time on, prosecutions were conducted with great vigor throughout the entire State.  Many of the men of the Mormon Church, and the women as well, went into hiding, and, first and last, as I now remember the figures, considerably over a thousand people were convicted and sentenced.
     In all these cases the opportunity was given by the court, before sentence was imposed, to the defendant to save himself from the punishment of incarceration if he would promise in the future that he would obey the law.  This was made a uniform practice from the time of the very first convictions, in the spring of 1885, as I remember it.
     There never were any of the members of the church who complied with or took advantage of the promise so made by the court, or rather the leniency so held out, excepting, as I now remember, three or four.  Three are all that I remember.  Bishop Sharp, a director of the Union Pacifc Railroad at that time, and a bishop of one of the larger wards in the city, an elderly man of considerable prominence, agreed to abide by the law in the future, having been found guilty under the law as construed by the court, and was promptly removed from his bishopric, the reason given by the church authorities in the papers being that it was the policy of the church to stand firm in their principles, and that any man who was inclined to be recalcitrant or to give up this principle, which they deemed a part of their religion, was no longer worthy to hold offices of that kind.

Commentary:  It is interesting that everyone was given a chance to avoid prison time, and only a few accepted the offer.  Bishop Sharp's case was large enough that the New York Times reported on it.


From here Mr. Critchlow describes that the church taught its people to reject the law of 1882, and to instead continue to practice polygamy.  However, after the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, the church appeared to change directions in its attitude about this.  This law called for the forfeiture of all church property to the United States government to be distributed by the Territorial Supreme Court.  This seizure of property may have brought a change of heart to the Church.  Mr. Critchlow describes this period;

Mr. Critchlow.  ... church authorities had set themselves against the doctrine, or practice, rather, of unlawful cohabitation; and in 1888 it has become quite generally understood among the Mormon people, according to their statement to non-Mormons and by the statements in public prints, and by declarations, as I have said, of their public leaders, that this, as a doctrine, was no longer observed, the doctrine of plural marriage; in other words, that no new plural marriages were being entered into.

He says that non-Mormons were still suspicious of their Mormon neighbors, but they did not have any evidence that plural marriages were being entered into.  It was well known that polygamy was difficult to prosecute against and that there was a 3 year statute of limitations on the offense.  Therefore, if a marriage was kept quiet for 3 years, after that only the charge of unlawful cohabitation could be raised against them.  However, with all of this, from 1887, "it was understood from all the circumstances that I have narrated that the practice of plural marriages had ceased."

A small piece of history is then rehearsed concerning the escheat of the property of the church and the disfranchisement of church members.  On this point, he says the following:

"... under the Edmunds-Ticker Act, suits were brought in escheat, and a great deal of the property was taken away from the church, so that in the spring of 1890, the Mormon Church had found that its property was taken away from it, and the test oath was declared to be constitutional, as given in Idaho.  Many of their people were under indictment in Idaho for having entered into a conspiracy to leave the church in a body in order that they might escape the test oath.  The constitution of Idaho had been adopted by the people and Idaho was about to be admitted as a State, and in addition to all that more stringent legislation than ever, in the nature of the Struble bill in the House and the Cullom bill in the Senate, had been introduced, and the Cullom bill had been reported back favorably, which absolutely disfranschised the Mormon people."

He then presents a view of history of these events that is in effect the following:  The Mormon Church was pressured politically, and by its members, to comply with the laws of the United States so that they could become a State in the Union.  Then, by the time September of 1890 came around, the manifesto was promulgated to ease the pressure from the government, comply with federal laws, allow the return of escheated property, and satisfy church members who disagreed with the practice of polygamy.  "Of course, the prosecutions which were going on for unlawful cohabitation still proceeded, but there were no prosecutions, so far as I know, for the crime of polygamy itself - that is, the entering into the relation."

Then described is a term called "the People's Party."  Until 1891, the People's Party was a political party organized by the Mormon Church and composed entirely of Mormons.  It stood in direct opposition to anything not Mormon and specifically the Liberal Party, which was another political party organized for only non-Mormons.  According to Mr. Critchlow, the differences between the parties and the members thereof was stark.  "The line was drawn as sharply as, in the nature of things, it could be drawn in a matter of that kind."  This effectively made politics a Mormons vs. non-Mormons affair.  However, this didn't last; when the People's Party disbanded in 1891, members of the church found their way into national political parties - Republicans and Democrats.

He speaks of a trial in Utah that would decide whether members of the Mormon Church could be naturalized citizens of the United States.

Mr. Critchlow.  There had been an inquiry by one of the courts of the State into the question as to whether the members of the Mormon Church were fit subjects for naturalization, and it had been adjudicated, after a lengthy examination, that hose who belonged to the church were not persons who were fit to be naturalized and become American citizens, and that ruling had been adopted in other districts of the State.  I ought to state, perhaps, in that particular that I believe Judge Zane (who was the chief Justice of the State, and who presided in the third district, together with other judges) did not adhere closely to that ruling.  But from the spring of 1890, every judicial district of the State, excepting that particular court of the third district over which Judge Zane presided, refused to naturalize the members of the Mormon Church. Immediately after the manifesto of President Woodruff in 1890 the judges regarded that as being a declaration of the church that the doctrine in reference to the practice of these matters had been changed, and I think from that time on no objection was made.

He then makes an interesting statement about what offended non-Mormons the most about lawbreaking Mormons:

Mr. Critchlow.  Of course, I think I ought to say right here that in the view of non-Mormons the mere act of entering into plural marriage between a man and a woman, nothing else appearing, although it was punished in the law as being the substantive offense, the punishment of which was very severe, was comparatively speaking, a matter of indifference to the non-Mormon people.  I am speaking now comparatively, because it made very little difference to any person in the community if, secretly and without anything else appearing, there being nothing to indicate that a woman was a man's plural wife, he had married her on a certain day.  Sensibilities were not outraged in any way, but the real offense, as felt by the non-Mormon people then and now, is the practice of unlawful cohabitation; or, as the Supreme Court says, the holding out or flaunting in the eyes of the community of more than one woman as a wife, and the semblance of a family relation of that kind.
     So that, when it was spoken of as the abandonment of polygamy, I think I may state with entire fairness that we did not care so much as to whether the people abandoned the practice of entering into new marriages as that they should abandon the active and - I think I may use the word - offensive practice of unlawful cohabitation.

After Utah became a State on January 6, 1896, Mr. Critchlow describes a few ways in which the Mormon Church overstepped its bounds - politically.  He accused the hierarchy of the Mormon Church with creating a committee with the express purpose in mind of "supervising legislation."  He states that "all of the bills which had been submitted to the legislature for passage had been turned over to this committee of elders of the church for the purpose of being passed upon by them to see whether they were proper legislation for the legislature of Utah to act upon."  This was for the very first State legislative session early in 1896.

Secondly, he charged the church with interfering with the candidacy of Moses Thatcher in becoming a United States Senator from Utah.  Quite a bit of time is spent on this, so I'll put relative information in about this incident.

Mr. Critchlow.  Moses Thatcher was one of the twelve apostles, and rather prominent on account of his wealth and social position, and he had rather a large personal following.  He had been one of the twelve apostles who were Democrats.
     Let me explain the situation in just a moment.  Utah was understood to be Democratic under Territorial times.  That was because, as we all understood, the Republicans were furthering legislation which was attempting to bring to an end the conditions [polygamy and unlawful cohabitation] out there, and the Democrats being in opposition on political lines, it was rather natural that the Mormons should ally themselves with the Democratic party.
     Moses Thatcher was a Democrat, and a rule was adopted in the presidency and the twelve apostles - this quorum of leaders of the church - that the Republicans might go out and proselyte among the people all they pleased, but the Democrats must stay quiet and not do it, because it was thought best by the leaders of the church that there should be somewhere near an equal division of the people.  In fact, it went even further than that, and as a part of the history of the times we know that ... Mr. Gibbs, the secretary of the first presidency, sent out a letter to Bishop Wright saying the policy of the leaders was to let the people divide as nearly as possible, and then in reserve a contingent which would be floated either way in order to affect the election.
     It is only fair to say that the presidency of the church affirmed, when they were brought to task about that, that this letter was sent out without their knowledge, and the disaffirmed any such policy as that; but that was a part of the history which led up to Moses Thatcher's relations with his quorum here.  He persisted in going out and talking among the people and proselyting to the Democratic cause, whereas the Republicans who went out at the same time insisted that it was a rule of the quorum that the Democrats should stay quiet.

He then spends some time reviewing hos Moses Thatcher continued politically talking, and going around campaigning against the wishes of the members of the twelve.  Eventually, he was dropped from the 12, in both April and October conferences of 1896.  Mr. Critchlow has this explanation as to why he was removed:

"He was not tried upon any charges in anyway; but it was proven against him that he was not in accord with the other members of his quorum in going before the people, and therefore he was dropped from the quorum."

The Further history on this is as follows:  Moses Thatcher did not quit.  He continued to campaign; however, the Church ran editorials in the Deseret Evening News against him, saying that "they had a perfect right to interfere in that and advise and control the members of the church, as a church matter, as to their duties in the premises."  Thee were also talks in conference speaking about the disharmony created by Moses Thatcher within the quorum of the 12.  This was a full-court press against Mr. Thatcher's political career.  The Church wanted to squash it.

Why members of the Mormon Church and non-members supported Mr. Thatcher is interesting:

"The personal adherents of Mr. Thatcher were those Mormons who were attached to him by business ties, social ties, etc., and who were the more progressive, and the non-Mormons of the State, almost to a man, were sympathetic, both Democrats and Republicans, with Moses Thatcher, for the reason that it is understood that he stood for the principle which the Mormon leaders had said should thereafter control them, namely, absolute liberty in political affairs.

The opposition of the Mormon Church to Mr. Thatcher was probably the tipping point in causing him to lose the Senatorial election to Joseph Rawlins [who held the office of Senator until Reed Smoot was elected in 1904].

Mr. Critchlow.  Mr. John Henry Smith, who is Republican in politics, and Heber J. Grant, who is a Democrat in politics, were both interesting themselves and did interest themselves in campaigning in behalf of one of the other candidates and against Mr. Thatcher.  It must be understood that the church was not in favor particularly, so far as appeared at least upon the surface, and as I think the facts were, in favor of either Mr. Rawlins or Judge Henderson for Senator, but they were directly opposed to Moses Thatcher, because, as expressed by the Deseret News in repeated editorials, his candidacy was a direct blow at the right of the church to control the action of the members of its quorums.
     The matter drifted along for days and days.  As I say, 50 or 53, I think, ballots were taken before a final result was reached, and it was proclaimed in the papers that the result was going to happen on a certain day, and that the church would bring over a certain number of men to one or the other of the candidates, and it was understood they would bring them from Judge Henderson to Mr. Rawlins to elect him - not that they were particularly advocating Mr. Rawlins to as against Judge Henderson, but that he seemed to be the one who could beat Thatcher.
     This is part of the common report and knowledge of the community.  I cannot speak of it from my own knowledge excepting as I get it directly from the candidate, Judge Henderson, himself, whom I should much prefer would speak upon this subject; but word did come from the church authorities that these men should go over to Mr. Rawlins and elect him as against Mr. Thatcher, and every one of the men who were Mormons and were advocates of Judge Henderson did leave him excepting one man.  One man stayed with him.  Those who were non-Mormons went to Mr. Thatcher, as I now remember the circumstances - every one of them.  At any rate, on the last ballot Judge Henderson had but one man.  He was a Mormon, and he refused to go ... Mr. Rawlins, as I recollect, had the exact number necessary to elect, which was 32 out of 63.

Senator Beveridge them questions him on the one Mormon who would not swing his vote to Mr. Rawlins.  He wants to know what happened to him - was he punished in the church for this action?  No.  Was he punished in his job for this action?  No.  However, it was rumored that the man did say:  "I will not do it, and I know just exactly what it means, and I know that I will be sent on a mission."  This did not happen either.

Commentary:  If this history is true, it would show a great deal of interference by the church in political affairs to affect who ran for office, where votes were placed, who won, and possible punishment(s) for those who did not vote the way the church wanted them to.  That's kind of scary.  I understand that the church had been involved in the politics of the Territory since they arrived in 1847.  For almost 50 years they had been involved.  Retracting from this type of involvement took some time and mistakes were made ... sometimes serious mistakes - this being one of them; if true.


Mr. Critchlow then explains a little about his views of the quorum's harmony and how Mr. Thatcher was perceived by the other members - this came off of a question from Senator Hoar.

Mr. Critchlow.  It was stated by the president of the twelve apostles, Lorenzo Snow, at that time, as being a want of harmony, which began when he persisted in going out among the people and not obeying the mandates of the presidency and the twelve apostles with regard to preaching politics.  That was one thing.
Senator Hoar.  Then the contumacy for which he was then reproved related to political action?  That is what I wanted to know.
...
The Chairman.  What was it that constituted the subject of the sermons in relation to Mr. Thatcher [October 1896 General Conference]?
Mr. Critchlow.  Those sermons are in part in that pamphlet which was introduced in evidence here, I think, called "The Thatcher Episode," and the position of the church as understood by the people living in Utah at that time was fully expressed by the editorials in the Deseret News.

Mr. Critchlow is then asked what happened to Mr. Thatcher, a summary of which would be the following:  He met with his Stake Presidency and repented of all the things he said and did which caused harm to the church, quorum of the 12, and the church's policy.  He was given back full fellowship, but was not returned to the quorum of the 12.  Much of what went on between Mr. Thatcher and the Church played out in the Deseret News editorials section - including the conclusion of the Thatcher episode.

Mr. Critchlow.  The article to which I refer in the Deseret Evening News appears in the issue of Saturday, August 14, 1897, on the editorial page, and is headed:  "The Case of Moses Thatcher."  [It can be found here].  It is four columns and one-half in length.
Senator McComas.  That is the official paper of the church?
Mr. Critchlow.  That is the official paper of the church - yes, sir.  The complaint was signed by Brigham Young -
Mr. Worthington.  It is the organ of the church for the publication or various matters.  The president of the church declared that the church is not responsible for its editorials.
Mr. Tayler.  It is the organ of the church; so announced by the church.

Commentary:  I like that last exchange there were the "official-ness" of the Deseret News is debated and then Mr. Tayler just slams the door at the end and calls President Smith the church - "so announced by the church."  I thought it funny.

From the committee record of Volume I, pages 563-573, appears evidence concerning the Moses Thatch episode.  Everything from the Deseret Evening News editorial (above linked) to letters and other correspondence within the church concerning this matter.  I will not summarize this data here, it will be in another post.

Senator Hoar then asks a question:

Senator Hoar.  There is one other question.  In your history of the political affairs of the State so far as it related to the election of Senators, you said nothing about the election of Mr. Cannon, a Mormon.  Was that done in the time when they expected harmony, and by a consent of both parties, or was that a political contest in which the church took a side, or how was that?
Mr. Critchlow.  The situation was about this -
Senator Hoar.  Perhaps you spoke of that when I was out.
Mr. Critchlow.  No, I think not, Senator.  The situation, in brief, was about this:  As I understand frequently happens in such cases, there is a sort of tacit agreement in the State, either upon geographical lines or upon certain other lines - in Utah it happened to be upon the line pertaining to old conditions there; in other words, it was rather agreed that there ought to be all times one Senator who represented the non-Mormons and one who represented the Mormons; and by virtue of the fact that he had been quite prominent in the bringing about of statehood, it seemed to be a rather logical thing that Mr. Frank J. Cannon, who was a Mormon, should be one of the Senators, and that, I think, went practically, I may say, among the Republicans, without any particular question, so that it left the only contest to be made between the non-Mormons, which was between Mr. Arthur Brown, Judge Bennett, and Mr. Trumbo.
Senator Dubois.  At that time there was no rule such as exists now, was there?
Mr. Critchlow.  The first time we ever heard of this rule about people getting the consent was the time it was submitted to Mr. Thatcher in 1896.  That is the first time it was ever put in writing, and so far as I am concerned, as so far as I know the history of it, we never heard of any such rule prior to statehood.

Commentary:  A "tacit" agreement to have one Mormon and one non-Mormon Senator from the State of Utah.  Wow.  Plus the rule from the church didn't exist prior to statehood when the church appeared to want to influence the selection of Senators.


The committee adjourned at 4:10 PM.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 8 - Andrew Jenson

March 10,1904

This is part II of Mr. Jenson's testimony before the committee.  He appeared before the committee yesterday.  Mr. Worthington is cross-examining the witness.

He starts out asking Mr. Jenson about the book Latter-Day Saints' Biographical Encyclopedia, and he finds out that Mr. Jenson used information from Bishop Orson F. Whitney's History of Utah, M. F. Cowley's History of the Lives of the Leaders, and individually talking to people that were included in the book.  However, even with all of that work, the book does contain mistakes.

Mr. Worthington.  For instance, I note that you say in the very first sentence about Mr. Smoot, that he has been "a member of the council of twelve apostles since 1898."  That is a mistake?
Mr. Jenson.  It is a typographical error.  It ought to be 1900.

Commentary:  That single error could possibly place the veracity of the book's contents into question.  If there is one thing wrong that was easy to find, how many more things are there that are wrong?  Can any of it be trusted absolutely?


Mr. Worthington has finished.  The Chairman then asks if Mr. Jenson can provide the names of all the bishops in the church (he can, but not from memory).

The Chairman.  There is a bishop for every stake, I understand?
Mr. Jenson.  No, sir.  There is a bishop for every ward and a president for every stake.
The Chairman.  Yes.  How many stakes and wards are there?
Mr. Jenson.  There are 53 stakes and about 700 wards.
...
Senator Depew.  How many wards are there for each stake?
Mr. Jenson.  All the way from about 5 up to thirty-three.
...
Senator Depew.  What is the relation of these officers?  You have first your ward bishop.  They are responsible to the stake president?
Mr. Jenson.  Yes, sir.
Senator Depew.  What are their relations to the apostles?
Mr. Jenson.  They are laboring immediately under the direction of the first presidency, not of the apostles.
Mr. Worthington.  It has already been brought out that the apostles are no part of the working machinery of the church.
Senator Depew.  This organization seemed so perfect that I wanted to get the detail of it.
Mr. Jenson.  There are three men, constituting the first presidency, presiding over the church, and there is a similar procedure of three presiding over each stake, and these are responsible to the presidency of the church directly.

Commentary:  As of the end of 2009, there were 2,865 stakes and 28,424 wards and branches throughout the church - my how the church has grown in a little over 100 years.  The statement by Senator Depew was a very nice complement to the church.  He appreciates the organization.  It is also noteworthy to again mention the fact that the apostles do not come into play with the wards or stakes of the church as far as the hierarchy is concerned.


He is then questioned about the selection of Stake Presidents and Bishops of wards.  A summary of this would be that the President of the Church is given names that he either agrees or disagrees with and then those names are presented to the people of the stake/ward for approval or disapproval.

The Chairman.  Is it usual to send up a large number of names?
Mr. Jenson.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  What is the usual practice?
Mr. Jenson.  I think the usual way is sending up only one name.
The Chairman.  The bishops of the various wards are not acted on by the people until the president indicates his approval?
Mr. Jenson.  No, sir; and yet I think there are exceptions.  For instance, in the distant stakes there may be variations where the president of the church is not personally acquainted with the names that have been sent in to him, and in that case it may be left almost entirely to the presidency of the stake.

Commentary:  When the church was small the president apparently made it a policy to try and get to know as many of the leading members across the church as possible; he could therefore pass judgment on whether he felt they would be good stake presidents or bishops.  Today, that type of intimate knowledge is impossible because of the sheer size of the church and geographic locations.  It is interesting that the officers of the church were given a "stamp of approval" by the president of the church himself.


Senator Dubois then asks Mr. Jenson to state the line of authority in the church from top to bottom:

First Presidency --> Apostles --> Presiding Patriarch --> 7 Presidents of the Seventy --> Presiding Bishopric

Commentary:  In October 1979, the priesthood office of the Presiding Patriarch was discontinued and Eldred G. Smith was released and designated Patriarch Emeritus.  The LDS Church no longer has this priesthood position today.  However, there are local stake patriarchs located throughout the church, just not a presiding patriarch.

Here's a link to the conference address where the Presiding Patriarch was removed:  Here



Here's an interesting comment from Mr. Jenson that doesn't really apply to the questioning, but I found interesting light of the present-day church policy of most members holding a calling.

Mr. Tayler.  Each elder is empowered by the church to solemnize marriages, is he not?
Mr. Jenson.  No, sir.  The great majority of the elders are not active officers.  They are not called to do anything.  They are elders only by title.

Commentary:  My how times have changed.  I cannot remember a time when I didn't have a calling.  I guess as the church has grown there were new needs and therefore new callings for members to help out with.  Apparently in the earlier stages of the church (100 years or more ago), members just attended church - that was all, and that was enough.  Today callings are used to help keep people active and give them something to do (a reason to go to church, I guess).


To finish up Mr. Jenson's testimony I'll quote a section of it where he is asked to know the limit of obedience for church members.

The Chairman.  Just one question I want to ask for information:  Suppose a member of your church in good standing is directed by the president or any of the men in authority to sell his property and remove to some locality.  Is that binding upon them?
Mr. Jenson.  No; he is under no obligation at all.
The Chairman.  He can disobey it if he wants to?
Mr. Jenson.  Yes, sir.
The Chairman.  What would be the effect of it?
Mr. Jenson.  The effect would not be serious at all.  He might be called disobedient to counsel, if it was given as counsel, but the church does not dictate in these matters.
The Chairman.  They never do that?
Mr. Jenson.  There was a time, Mr. Chairman, in the earlier days of the church, many years ago, in the early settlement of Utah, for instance, when the settled St. George and sent missionaries to what is now Nevada, when they called men to go on temporal missions, the same as they might do on preaching missions; but that was back in the earlier days in Utah, when that was necessary, and they were simply called to go, and they could refuse or accept as the chose, the same as any other mission.  But of late years no such call has been made that could be called binding at all.
...
Senator Dubois.  To illustrate now:  Suppose the authorities should ask the president of the stake up in Cache Valley to select 20 families and take them up to the forks of Snake River, in Idaho, what would the president of the stake do?
Mr. Jenson.  The president undoubtedly would call for volunteers and that so many families were wanted up there, "Are there any here who want to go?"
Senator Dubois.  Would he be likely to get 20 families?
Mr. Jenson.  He would not be under obligation to get 20 families.
Senator Dubois.  I say would he be likely to get 20 families?
Mr. Jenson.  If there were 20 who volunteered to go; otherwise he would not call them.
Senator Dubois.  Would 20 likely volunteer to go?
Mr. Jenson.  In many instances the people are very anxious to go to a new country if they find there are openings for settlers.
Sentor Dubois.  The if 20 families were called for by the authorities they would go, would they not?
Mr. Jenson.  I remember nothing of that kind since 1873, as far as I am acquainted with the history of the church.
Senator Dubois.  I am asking about the present day.  I suppose you can say no if you want to.
Mr. Jenson.  I will say no.  It has not happened for twenty or thirty years that I know of.

Commentary:  To me this means that members can choose to obey or not obey counsel that is given of a temporal nature.