Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 11 - Edward E. Barthell

April 20, 1904

Mr. Barthell is a resident of Nashville, Tennessee, and is a lawyer by trade; practicing law for the last 15 years (Slemmons & Barthell).

He is a member of a group of men that meet regularly and sometimes discuss religion.  In 1900, he was asked, by this group of men, to lead a discussion; he picked Mormonism as the subject.  He wrote to the Mormon Mission President in Chattanooga, Tennessee (he believes the name of the respondent to his letter was Ben E. Rich), for literature concerning the Mormon faith.  In consequence of his letter, a Mormon Elder came to him (George F. Fox) along with several tracts and two books:  (1)  Orson Pratt's Works and (2) "Tracts from the Southern States Mission."  According to the missionary that visited with him, "Orson Pratt's works were accepted by the Mormons as absolutely authentic."

As an aside, Ben E. Rich served as Mission President for the Southern States Mission for ten years.  He was there between 1899-1900 when Mr. Barthell sent him a letter, and when George F. Fox was asked to meet with Mr. Barthell.

The missionary next was invited to visit the group of men during a discussion on Mormonism.

The Chairman.  Can you give the committee some idea what this missionary said about the church and its doctrines?
Mr. Barthell.  Well, he said a great deal, Senator.  Among other things, he said that there was no trouble at all in performing miracles; that if a person had only one arm there was no trouble to give him two.
Mr. Worthington.  I would like to see him.  [Laughter]
Mr. Barthell.  We asked something about speaking in tongues.  I called attention to some of the literature which said that it was perfectly useless to undertake to study different books; that all you had to do was to talk.  He said that was absolutely true; that he had seen it himself even in Indian dialects, and a great many curious things of that general character.
...
The Chairman.  Did he impart to your association his ideas on the question of polygamy?
Mr. Barthell.  Yes.
The Chairman.  And the teachings of the church in that regard?
Mr. Barthell.  Yes.
The Chairman.  What did he say?
Mr. Barthell.  He said that polygamy was taught of God; that it was right, but that it had been abandoned; that it was not now followed by the good Mormons; that polygamous cohabitation still continued.  In other words, he did not exactly say that.  He said the cohabs still followed their customs.  He referred to them as cohabs, which was an expression we did not at first understand ... when he appeared before the club, we did not think that he had sufficient breadth of information to treat, certainly from an intellectual standpoint, that question, and we did not press him.  He was our guest.

Commentary:  It would appear from this discussion that missionaries sometimes traveled alone - they never do that today.  They also gave books away written by prominent Church members.  They fearlessly declared their beliefs and did not back away from any of them.  Nice little window into missionary work in the late 1800's (possibly early 1900's).  I suppose this piece of testimony was given to show that missionaries of the Church continue to teach about the doctrine of polygamy, even when Church authorities say this isn't happening.

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 11 - B.H. Roberts

April 20, 1904

Mr. Roberts is a resident of Centerville, Utah (north of Salt Lake about 10 miles).  He was born in England, but came to the United States as a boy and has lived most of his life in Utah.  He is currently one of the seven "first presidents of seventy" and has been such since 1888.  He is also an assistant historian of the Church (there are 4 assistants total, with Anthon H. Lund being the Historian), and he assists President Joseph F. Smith in the organization of young men in the Church.

He was elected as a member of the constitutional convention for the State of Utah in 1894.

Mr. Roberts has authored several books, among which are the following:  Biography of John Taylor; A New Witness for God; Outlines of Ecclesiastical History; The Gospel; The Missouri Persecutions; The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo; Documentary History of the Church (two volumes so far); Succession in the Presidency; and a pamphlet called 'Mormonism.'

Mr. Roberts has been married 3 times:  first in 1877, next in 1886, and finally to his third wife in 1890.  The last two marriages were to plural wives.  The last marriage took place in a house of First Street in Salt Lake during April, 1890, and was performed by Daniel H. Wells - there were no witnesses.

Mr. Tayler.  So far as the control of the membership of the church is concerned, as a church organization, where do the first presidents of the seventies rank as respects the apostles, for instance?
Mr. Roberts.  They rank next to the apostles.
...
Mr. Tayler.  What, if any, relation exists between the first presidents or the presidents of the seventies and the stake presidents?
Mr. Roberts.  No relation whatever, further than a common relation of brotherhood.
Mr. Tayler.  The first presidents, therefore, have no authority over the stake presidents?
Mr. Roberts.  None at all.
Mr. Tayler.  Nor the stake presidents over the presidents of the seventies, except as they would have over them in their individual capacity?
Mr. Roberts.  As members.

Commentary:  This section of testimony is actually straight-forward for any current member of the Church.  It shows the position of authority of the presidents of Seventy within the Church hierarchy.


In 1895, Mr. Roberts ran for a Congressional seat in Utah and was defeated by a Mr. Allen.  During this time, he admits to having differences with Church authorities over his involvement with politics.  Here is his description of the events of that time:

     "Previous to my becoming a candidate for member of the constitutional convention, there had some unpleasantness arisen about men in high church standing having anything to do in politics, and the presidency of the church at that time decided that members of the quorum of apostles, members of my own council, the presidents of the seventy, and the presidents of the stakes, and the bishops of the wards, would better stay out of politics, and to that I consented or agreed.  But during my brief absence from the State in the fall of 1894, I was nominated by our county convention to be a member of the constitutional convention, and on my return, being informed of the nomination, in conversation with some friends I stated that it was a nomination I could not accept owing to the previous arrangement that men of my standing in the church should not take part in politics.
     "But I was informed that during my absence that order had been somewhat changed, at least, and that it was thought there would be too many men of standing in the community eliminated from so important a gathering as a constitutional convention, and that it had been decided better that liberty be granted men of the character I have described to enter into politics, and at least to accept these nominations.  I inquired of the authorities of the church if that was correct, and was informed that it was.
     "In 1894, in company with Mr. Rawlins, I stumped the State and was elected to the convention. ... In the midst of the campaign, at a meeting of the priesthood of the church in Salt Lake City, Mr. [Joseph F.] Smith made some reference to Moses Thatcher and myself ... as having accepted these nominations, which would take us away from our ecclesiastical duties, without consultation with any of the apostles or the first presidency; and his remarks were in the nature of a complaint of that conduct.  Whereupon a number of men who had heard these remarks took it upon themselves to circulate the idea that Mr. Thatcher and myself were out of harmony with the church authorities, and that it would be agreeable to them to have us defeated.  And very naturally we protested.  I protested, and I think Mr. Thatcher also protested, against the action of these lesser authorities of the church making use of the casual remarks of Mr. Smith.  The country was considerably agitated.  Newspapers took it up; and that agitation resulted in the reconvening of the Democratic convention for the purpose of defining the attitude that the Democrats would take in that issue [the alleged exercise of religious influence in a political contest]."

The Chairman.  Then you made this inquiry of the first presidency [to accept the nomination for the Constitutional Convention]?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes; one of the presidents of the church.  I asked him if the rule with which I was acquainted had been altered, and he informed me that it had been.  This was in 1894.
The Chairman.  Who constituted the first presidency at that time?
Mr. Roberts.  Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith.
The Chairman.  Of which one did you inquire?
Mr. Roberts.  Mr. Smith.
...
The Chairman.  You have stated that your defeat would be "agreeable to them."  Whom do you mean by them?
Mr. Roberts.  I mean that the parties who carried this report from the priesthood meeting represented that it would be agreeable to the first presidency and the apostles for us to be defeated.  It was out of these circumstances that the friction counsel refers to arose between the authorities and myself.
...
Mr. Tayler.  In that convention and through that campaign you, in very bitter terms, inveighed against this intrusion of the church into politics?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.  I should like to disclaim any bitterness in the matter.
Mr. Tayler.  I do not want to characterize improperly the language that you used vigorously and most earnestly then?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes.
Mr. Tayler.  So vigorously and so earnestly that the higher authorities of the church assumed a similar attitude toward you - of vigorous and earnest opposition to your position?
Mr. Robert.  I think that is right.

Commentary:  Short summary - Mr. Roberts was upset that he was told one thing by Joseph F. Smith in private, and then heard of a completely different opinion from him concerning his political involvement.  This upset him.  The subsequent "vigorous and earnest" expressions, from both sides, I'm sure did little to diffuse this situation.


I'm putting this next section of testimony in because I find it interesting in light of the history of the times.  I wonder if this was a normal reaction for the people of this time.

Senator Overman.  Was it necessary to get the consent of any of the authorities of the church to marry a plural wife?
Mr. Roberts.  It was necessary to get those who were understood to hold the authority to perform the ceremony.
Senator Overman.  Did your first wife or your second wife consent to your marrying the third wife?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
Senator Overman.  Did they protest against it?
Mr. Roberts.  I did not hear the question.
Senator Overman.  Was there any protest on their part?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  Did they know of it at the time?
Mr. Roberts.  Not at the time.
Mr. Tayler.  When did they learn of it?
Mr. Roberts.  I cannot answer that question.
Mr. Tayler.  I mean about when - how long afterwards?
Mr. Roberts.  Two or three years afterwards, I think.
Mr. Tayler.  Did anybody know about it, so far as you know, until several years had elapsed?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
Senator Beveridge.  How is that?  I understand you to say, sir, that your marriage to your third wife was not known to any of your wives for three years.
Mr. Roberts.  No; I cannot say when they knew it.
Senator Beveridge.  Well, for a considerable period?
Mr. Roberts.  Hardly that.  There were a number of our friends who knew it.
Senator Beveridge.  But not your other two wives?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
...
The Chairman.  Why did you conceal this third marriage from your other wives?
Mr. Roberts.  Chiefly for the purpose of relieving them from any embarrassment should the discovery of the marriage by made.  Of course we understood that the marriage was illegal.
Senator Beveridge.  Then, how could they be embarrassed?
Mr. Roberts.  If called upon to testify, they would not wish to testify against me.
Senator Beveridge.  Oh!
...
Mr. Roberts.  If was known to a number of our friends I think shortly afterwards - that is, a few months afterwards.  But it was not generally known until some time in 1895 or 1896, perhaps.

Commentary:  This section of testimony speaks to the necessary authority:  Just someone who has been given the authority to marry.  And, this section speaks to how Mr. Roberts informed his two other wives of a new marriage:  he didn't.  This marriage was kept a secret for some two or three years from these wives.  There appears to be a time when friends of Mr. Roberts knew of the marriage even before his other wives (if I'm reading the testimony correctly).  I find this humorous only because of a hypothetical Q&A between Mr. Roberts and the other wives.  "And, when were you going to tell us you got married again?"

Senator Dubois.  Could you, occupying the position which you did in the church, take a plural wife without the knowledge of the authorities?
Mr. Roberts.  I did do so, with the exception of Mr. Wells.
Senator Dubois.  Mr. Wells was one of the authorities?
Mr. Roberts.  He was.
Senator Dubois.  Did Mr. Wells represent the authorities?
Mr. Roberts.  I think likely he did.
Senator Dubois.  Then you took your plural wife with the knowledge and consent of the authorities, did you not?
Mr. Roberts.  I did not know of any of them having any knowledge of it except Mr. Wells.
Senator Dubois.  Mr. Wells, as I said awhile ago, represented the authorities, did he not?
Mr. Roberts.  He was one of the authorities.
Senator Dubois.  What was his position at that time?
Mr. Roberts.  He was councilor to the twelve apostles.
Senator Beveridge.  To get to the point of Senator Dubois's question, do you know of anything that has come to your knowledge that leads you now to understand that Mr. Wells, when he learned of this contemplated marriage, told the other authorities, of whom he was one of the councilors?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.

Previously in the testimony of B.H. Roberts, this piece about Daniel H. Wells was given.  I am inserting it here so as to give clarity to the ecclesiastical position of Mr. Wells in the Church hierarchy.

Mr. Tayler.  Who was Daniel H. Wells?  What was his position?
Mr. Roberts.  Daniel H. Wells at that time was sustained as councilor to the apostles.  He had been a councilor to President Brigham Young, and was continued in that capacity - that is, a councilor to the twelve apostles, who were during an interim the presiding authorities of the church.
Mr. Tayler.  Now, your language is somewhat guarded in that respect, and no doubt it is in order to be accurate about it, and not for any other reason.  Do you mean he was not what we now understand to be one of the councilors to the first presidency?
Mr. Roberts.  No; he was not, because there was no first presidency in existence at that time.
Mr. Tayler.  Exactly.  But his status was akin to that of a councilor to the first presidency?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  Had he been a councilor to the first president immediately preceding?
Mr. Robers.  Yes.
Mr. Tayler.  Was he a councilor to the next first president?
Mr. Roberts.  No.
Mr. Tayler.  The first president himself selects the councilors, I believe?
Mr. Roberts.  He does.
Mr. Tayler.  Daniel H. Wells had been for many years a very prominent official in the Mormon Church?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.

Commentary:  This discussion is focused on the authorities of the church and their knowledge, or lack thereof, concerning plural marriages.  This goes directly to a point of complaint that the authorities of the church continue to encourage plural marriages either by not stopping them or by participating or officiating at them.  Apparently no one outside of Daniel H. Wells knew that a first president of the seventy had taken a plural wife.  This event did not come to the attention of any other Church authorities.  I suppose that the men in authority do not speak to each other about these events???  If this is true, then there is a very real possibility for a great many plural marriages to take place without their knowledge.  I cannot tell if this decision to keep the knowledge is calculated or situational.


Mr. Roberts is then asked about the plural marriage ceremony, and he talks about it, but only in a general way.

Mr. Tayler.  Was the ceremony a simple ceremony, whereby -
Mr. Roberts.  I understood it was the usual ceremony used by the Mormon Church in the temples.
Mr. Tayler.  Was it the same ceremony, practically, as that by which you married Celia Dibble?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler.  Was it the same as that by which you married your first wife?
Mr. Roberts.  It was, as I understood it.

Commentary:  OK, that's not much, but it is something.  If correct, this means that the ceremony performed in the home, is the same ceremony performed in the temple and the same as the one performed in the Endowment House (before it was torn down).  Nothing specific is mentioned, but it is interesting to know that he believed they were essentially the same in substance.


Mr. Tayler is curious as to why Mr. Roberts would violate a law of the land after knowing of the laws Congress passed, and the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States.  Why did he feel himself "called upon to violate the law of the land":

"In explanation of that conduct I wish to say that from my boyhood I had been taught the rightfulness of plural marriage.  I believed that doctrine and believed it to be a commandment of God.  I knew that the law of God was in conflict with the statutes enacted by Congress.  I regarded it as binding upon my conscience to obey God rather than man, and hence I accepted that doctrine and practiced it; that is all."

Of course, he cannot get away with this statement without a few questions from the committee members.

The Chairman.  This revelation or this manifesto of 1890 you think was inspired by God?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes; in a way.
...
Senator Overman.  You say the manifesto was a revelation of God?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
Senator Overman.  What do you mean by being inspired of God?
Mr. Roberts.  I believe that a revelation from God, of course, is a direct, uncolored communication from the Divine to man.  I believe that a man may be an inspired man, but yet more or less of the human characteristics of the man may enter into his actions.  I believe, however, that this manifesto was an official act of the church, that the church was perfectly competent to pass it, and I believe it binding upon the members of the church.
Senator Overman.  That it was a human institution, rather than from God?
Mr. Roberts.  I would not like to say it was not inspired of God.  I rather think that President Woodruff, to meet the hard conditions confronting him, was inspired of the spirit of the Lord to take that course.

Commentary:  Not a revelation, but inspired (in a way) by circumstances surrounding the Church in 1890; and then implemented as a Church policy by President Woodruff.  The Senators were trying to have him define the Manifesto as he had hinted - not a revelation, and not completely inspired.  He didn't want any part of that; although, he answer was not as strong and confident as I would have supposed it should have been.  I guess it stands to reason that if you break the laws of man and the Manifesto by living with polygamous wives, your opinion of the Manifesto may be a little different than others as to its inspiration/revelatory nature.


Recess for lunch is taken from 11:50 AM to 2:00 PM.



To start out, Mr. Robert is asked to define the basic duties of a Seventy.

Mr. Tayler.  What are the seventies?
Mr. Roberts.  The seventies constitute in the church with the twelve apostles what is recognized as the foreign ministry of the church.  They are the propaganda of the church.
     In further explanation I will say that the quorums consist of 70 persons, and over each quorum there is what we call a council of 7 presidents.  Then the first quorum, organized in the same way, has a general jurisdiction over the entire body of seventies.
...
Senator Overman.  How many seventies are there?
Mr. Roberts.  There are about 145 quorums.  All of the quorums, however, are not full.  We estimate, perhaps, that there are between nine and ten thousand men in the body.

Commentary:  The Seventies are no longer a position that lay members of the Church in a Stake are called to (this was discontinued in 1986 - check wikipedia for more information and history).  I think the use of the word propaganda is old for today, but I assume it was perfect for that time.


Mr. Tayler then directs the questioning back to the subject of the Manifesto and its perceived authority within the Church.  It makes sense that this would be revisited because there just wasn't enough time before lunch to fully get a sense of his understanding along these lines.

Mr. Tayler.  Now, Mr. Roberts, you have characterized this manifesto of 1890 in such a way as to leave the impression upon my mind that you would not call it a specific and direct revelation, such as other revelations that the people of your church believe in.  Was that inference of mine justified by your statement?
Mr. Roberts.  I think it was.
Mr. Tayler.  Then, will you define the character that you attribute to that manifesto as a revelation or inspiration, its origin and its force?
Mr. Roberts.  I regard the manifesto as an administrative act of the president of the church, accepted by the church, and of binding force upon its members.  But I regard it as an administrative act which President Woodruff, holding in his own hands the direct authority controlling that particular matter - that is, the matter of marriages - had a perfect right to make, and the acceptance of that action by the church makes that a positive binding law upon the church.
Mr. Tayler.  And those who do not obey it are subject to the pains and penalties such as a church under its discipline may inflict upon its members who disobey it?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes, sir.

Commentary:  This appears to be the understanding - in more detail - of B.H. Roberts concerning the manifesto.  Earlier he stated that he wouldn't call it revelation, but rather, inspiration.  Here he confirms that previous statement and says the inspiration was in the form of an administrative act.  I won't touch this set of the discussion anymore, but rather let the words stand for themselves.


He is asked once again to explain his viewpoint with keeping the manifesto and why he is breaking a law of the church.  Like the previous witnesses that have testified before him, his response is extremely similar:

"... the part of it relating to plural marriages prohibits the bringing into existence of those relations.  In the other case the relations exist and men in my status are confronted by a very awkward and trying situation.  Of course, we know that our lives are in violation of the law of the land, and by this action of the church they are brought into violation of the rules and law of the church, and yet there are moral obligations and responsibilities that we feel, in our relations with our wives, we cannot easily - at least I cannot - set aside.  Consequently, under those trying circumstances, I presume that others, with myself, are doing the best we can to meet what we regard as our moral obligations to those families.  That is my status on the subject at least."

This ends the direct examination by Mr. Tayler.  Mr. Van Cott then proceeds with the cross-examination.


Mr. Van Cott asks about the conflict between Church authorities and Mr. Roberts.  Mr. Roberts is given a chance to explain everything he wants to, in detail, concerning this conflict.

     "The commencement of the difficulty arose out of the remarks of Mr. Joseph F. Smith at a priesthood meeting in which he made complaint that Mr. Thatcher and I had accepted nominations for political office, which would take us from our religious duties, without leave of absence or without obtaining the consent to be released from our religious duties by the first presidency or any of the twelve.
     "In explanation of their insistence that that is what we ought to have done, they made declarations in the press and out of that, as I say, grew the general excitement of the campaign.  After the close of the campaign they proposed to reduce to writing, to a written rule, the idea or the doctrine that men upon whose whole time the church had a claim should obtain leave of absence or permission in that sense to engage either in business that would take them away from their religious duties or in receiving political nominations.
     "I was unwilling at first to subscribe to that rule, for the reason that it had been charged in the prologue or preface to the Democratic declaration of principles that through that means they might seek to control the political affairs of the State.  It was charged, I think, in speeches and in the papers, that they might give their consent, for instance, to one man to participate in politics and withhold it from another, or the people might be led to interpret their willingness to excuse one man from religious duties to mean that they favored both his nomination and his election and in this way bring their influence to bear upon the politics of the State.
     "It was upon that point especially that I made my contest against them.  In the course of several meetings with them for the purpose of discussing these matters, however, they satisfied me that it was not their intention to control the politics of the State, but they sought only the management of their own ecclesiastical affairs; and in consequence of being convinced that that was their purpose I joined with them in signing the rule that hereafter men should not accept positions of any kind that would take them from the performance of their ecclesiastical duties without the consent of their superiors."

Senator Bailey then dissects the political rule of the Church, trying to determine if any church or body of men, ought to hold sway over citizens of the country who want to run for political office or who are appointed to political office.  Here's a sampling:

"I should regard any organization in this country - religious, industrial, or of any other character - as not to be tolerated if it teaches that those who profess to follow it cannot perform the duties of a good citizen.  You are a man of great intelligence and you are thoroughly familiar with the subject, and I would like to hear what explanation - you can give as good a one as any man connected with the church - they have for declaring that a man cannot be a good Christian and a good citizen at the same time, in effect.
...
"I never like to see a man's religion and patriotism in conflict.  That is the embarrassing thing to me."

Both Mr. Roberts and Senator Bailey go back and forth for a few minutes on this.  My take on this is that Senator Bailey doesn't believe Mr. Roberts fully understands what this political rule of the Church actually requires of its leadership.  Mr. Roberts cannot get Senator Bailey to comprehend that it is merely the Church trying to manage its leadership.

Mr. Tayler asks a few more questions, and the story he paints here with his questions is quite interesting with regards to possible Church interference in the politics of the State.

Mr. Tayler.  Now, in the campaign of 1895, feelings ran very high on the subject of alleged church interference in politics, did it not?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes.
Mr. Tayler.  Very high.  And doubtless there were a good many inflammatory and perhaps ill-considered statements made by those on either side of that question?
Mr. Roberts.  I think that is true.
Mr. Tayler.  You yourself talked rather heatedly on the subject, did you not?
Mr. Roberts.  I think I did, sometimes.
Mr. Tayler.  Do you remember the statement that was made during that campaign that Apostle [Francis M.] Lyman had attended a meeting of his people somewhere outside of Salt Lake City, elsewhere in Utah, in which he urged them to divide up - part of them to go on one side, part of them to the other side, and part of them to stay in between - so that they might switch at will from one side to the other?
Mr. Roberts.  My recollection is that such a charge was made against Mr. Lyman, which, however, in justice to him, I ought to say he disclaimed.

Commentary:  Wow, if the Church was engaged in that, I would consider it a very serious charge.  Mr. Lyman disclaimed the statement, so apparently nothing came of this.  I wonder if this was just a frivolous statement made by an anti-Mormon, or if there was actually some sliver of truth in the statement.


The cross has now completed, and so the Chairman decides it is time for him to take over.  He then submits his usual "tell me about the Mormon temple ceremony" line of questions to Mr. Roberts for answers.

The Chairman.  Do you know, Mr. Roberts, of any change in the ceremony performed in the endowment house, and as it is performed today in the temple?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  The ceremony is the same.  Now, will you state to the committee what the ceremony was, or is, as nearly as you can?
Mr. Roberts.  Well, the ceremonies consist of what would be considered a series of ceremonies, I take it, of which I only have a general impression.
The Chairman.  You have something more than a general impression in your own case?
Mr. Roberts.  No; I think not.
...
The Chairman.  Can you tell the committee any portion of that ceremony?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  Why not?
Mr. Roberts.  Well, for one reason, I do not feel at liberty to do so.
The Chairman.  Why not?
Mr. Roberts.  Because I consider myself in trust in relation to those matters, and I do not feel at liberty to make any disclosures in relation to them.
The Chairman.  It was then a secret?
Mr. Roberts.  Yes.
The Chairman.  Does this religious denomination have, as one of its ceremonies, secret obligations or covenants?
Mr. Roberts.  I think they could not be properly called secrets.  Of course they are common to all worthy members of the church, and generally known by them.
The Chairman.  Well, secret from the world?
Mr. Roberts.  Secret from the world.
The Chairman.  The obligations and covenants, whatever they are, then, you are not at liberty to disclose?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.  I would be led to regard those obligations as similar to those who perhaps have passed through Masonic fraternities, or are members of Masonic fraternities.
The Chairman.  Then your church organization in that particular is a sort of Masonic fraternity?
Mr. Roberts.  It is analogous, perhaps, in some of its features.
...
The Chairman.  The reason you have assigned is accepted.  The obligation, whatever it is, taken in the endowment house, is such that you do not feel at liberty to disclose it?
Mr. Roberts.  That is right.
...
The Chairman.  Do you recall whether any penalty was imposed upon a person who should disclose the covenants?
Mr. Roberts.  No, sir.
The Chairman.  You do not remember?
Mr. Roberts.  Beyond the disfavor and distrust of his fellows.

Commentary:  Questions asked and answered.  I cringed only when the reference to the LDS ceremonies were "analogous" to the Masonic fraternity.


There is more questioning on the ceremony, but Mr. Roberts continues to state that he cannot reveal what the Chairman wants to know.  In the end, it is finally dropped.

He is allowed to answer a general question on the content of the endowment ceremony, which I think is worthy to be included here.

Mr. Worthington.  I would like to ask, Mr. Roberts, whether this obligation or ceremony to which you refer, in the endowment house, relates entirely to things spiritual, or whether it relates to things temporal also?
The Chairman.  Would it not be better, Mr. Worthington, to let him state what the obligation is?
Mr. Worthington.  Yes, so far as I am concerned, I would very much prefer it; but I understand the suggestion by Senator Pettus was that he was interpreting that which he would not state.  Of course I do not know anything more about this than the members of the committee do, but I think it might very well be that a witness might be allowed to state, and might properly say, that he would answer here as to anything that related to any temporal affairs, but as to things which related to matters between him and his God, or which be conceived to be between him and his God, he would not answer here or anywhere else, and that would not be an interpretation, but would simply be taking the protection which I understand the law gives to every man - that as to things which do relate entirely to religious matters, they are matters which he has a right to keep within his own breast.
...
Mr. Roberts.  I regard them as relating to things spiritual, absolutely.

Commentary:  That was a good explanation - a bunch of interpretation or rights and what could/could not be said with limited information.  In the end, Mr. Roberts was allowed to give his opinion and short interpretation of what the Senators were not allowed to see.  I wonder if the committee dismissed it all because they could determine if his conclusion was valid or not due to a lack of source material to judge from.

Reed Smoot House

I have been wanting to get by and see this house for quite some time.  Finally!  The pictures in this post were all taken by me; so if there are any photographers out there looking at this and scratching their heads over the angle, view, lighting, etc. ... it's because I'm just a point-and-shoot kind of photographer.

From what I saw, the house was in absolutely amazing condition, inside and out. I learned that the owner was the great-great-grandson of Reed Smoot. Wow! After a few minutes of talking I was invited inside to the parlor. I did not take photographs of the inside of the house - perhaps that will come later (I felt as if I were already intruding enough and it would have been rude.  So, because I didn't want to become too much of a tourist photographing everything I saw ... click, click, click, I didn't even ask; I just appreciated the invitation and talked with the owner a little). The house has been kept in the family since Reed Smoot lived there and it is therefore, essentially in the same condition as when he left. There is original wood, heating, a large painting of Reed (complete with a mustache) and another of his father (A.O. Smoot).  One thing that floored me (pun intended), thinking about it now, is that the floors did not creak when I walked on them.  I've been in older houses with wood floors and you can hear them as you walk.  I heard nothing but silence as I walked into the house.  Nicely done, Smoot family.  I guess they just don't make things (houses) like they used to.  I saw a photograph on the wall of the Smoot family outside the house with essentially the same view of the house as the photograph below.  The family was all standing a few feet apart inside the front fence on the corner.  This photo was in black and white, obviously, and the trees, bushes, etc., around the house were smaller, but the house looked the same as what I have shown below.

Something I was told, by the house owner, that I did not know:  Reed Smoot was 6'-3''.  Obviously there are many things I don't know, but I found that piece of information interesting.  He was a rather large man for that day and age.  Wikipedia doesn't have that little piece of information.

I was told that Reed Smoot lived in the house for only about 12 years.  I'm not sure of the time frame that would cover yet; however, I do know that he moved to Washington D.C. (from this house) permanently - I believe it was around 1902 to 1904.  Some quick math can get you a basic move-in date, and knowing the house was built in 1892 (there's a stone marker on the house itself that registers this date - and it was built for him; the plate below claims that), can also fill in some of that timeline.  I'll get more definite information on this and fill it in later.  With the above timeframe in the house that I believe is correct (1892-1902/4), he would have lived in this house when he was called to be an Apostle in 1900, when he was elected as Senator from Utah in 1902, and possibly when his seat was challenged, in 1904.

The house is located in pretty much downtown central Provo, Utah.  Photos follow.  All have been resized from the original 3000 pixels, down to 1024x768.
 
 

Reed Smoot Hearings: Day 10 - Ogden Hiles

March 12, 1904


Ogden Hiles is a resident of Salt Lake and has been for the past 17 or 18 years (back to about 1886).  He moved to Utah to accept an appointment as assistant United States attorney for the Territory of Utah.  He continued in this position for about 3 and a half years.  In 1895, he was elected as one of the judges of the third judicial district court and served 5 years there.  Currently he practices law in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Tayler wants information on what Judge Hiles did during his time as an attorney for the Territory of Utah.

Mr. Hiles.  From 1886 to 1889, I was in the United States attorney's office as assistant.  And during what were called the polygamy prosecutions I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under the Edmunds law and the Edmunds-Tucker law than any other officer.  My duties called me from Ogden to Salt Lake, to Provo and to Beaver, in all parts of the Territory; and, as I say, I drew more indictments and prosecuted more cases under those laws than any other officer.  I examined hundreds and I may say thousands of witnesses during that time.
...
Mr. Hiles.  At that time [1886], under orders from the Attorney-General's office here in Washington, we were directed to proceed and prosecute offenders against these laws with as much vigor as we could, and we did proceed, commencing in the forepart of 1886.  There had been some prosecutions in 1885.  We had not proceeded far before it was made very clear as a general fact - it was already pretty well known in the community - that the people of Utah were living under a theocracy, under a government of priests.  This state or condition was disclosed by the examination of witnesses before the grand juries by the examination of jurors touching their qualification to sit as jurors in polygamy cases, as they were called.
Mr. Tayler.  Now tell us definitely what you mean by that - what answers were given?
Mr. Hiles.  Invariably, if we would ask a Mormon whether he would obey the laws of the United States, or the laws of the church, he would say that he would obey the law of the church.  As stated by Mr. Critchlow yesterday, in every case - or in most every case - the judge would offer the defendant who was convicted the clemency of suspension of judgment if he would in future obey the law.  He would say no.  "Why not?"  "Well," he would say, "I choose to obey the law of God rather than man-made laws."  If we suggested that the laws of the Republic were mild and that any lady or gentleman of standing might live under them without coming in hostility to them, he would say it made no difference.  If we asked him what the law of God was, he said it was that which was revealed to them in their Doctrine & Covenants and in the Bible, and was expounded to them by the authorities - that is to say, the authorities of the church ... It was regarded by the Mormons and by the priesthood as a badge of apostasy to agree to obey the law.  I do not know that anyone was disfellowshipped for it, but it was considered an act of apostasy to agree to obey the law.

Commentary:  This testimony is similar to that given by Mr. Critchlow with a few pieces of history that cast more light on this time in history.  Apparently the church had instructed its members to live only the law of God because the laws of man were inferior.  Additionally, if you agreed to live man's laws, you were immediately in a state of apostasy - possibly subject to disfellowship or excommunication.  The only way so many people that were prosecuted would say things like this is if they really believed it - and that comes from their ecclesiastical leaders.


He goes on to say that after the 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act that his court took advantage of the added offense of unlawful cohabitation or adultery.  "We immediately took advantage of that in every case where we could bring a case of adultery."  Because of this there was a lot of pressure upon the people of the Territory.  These prosecutions were done against many poor people; people would could not pay fines.  At this time "they commenced, and many of them would promise to obey the law, and did promise to obey the law, and judgment was suspended in every instance."

Mr. Hiles.  After, in 1889, there was a more evident disposition on the part of the Mormon people to obey the law, and, as has been said, the people became restive under the continuous hammering of the Government to enforce the law ... Mormons and Gentiles at that time began to meet and discuss the situation.  Before that they would not discuss the matter at all of the differences between Gentile and Mormon.
     In 1890 it was concluded that something would be done by the church toward an amelioration of these conditions, and upon that the Government seemed to relax its prosecution.  There were prosecutions, however, all the way through 1890 up to the issuance of the manifesto in 1890, but there was some relaxation of the pressure of the law officers upon the people.  There was a general disposition among all kinds of people to do something that would amerliorate these conditions, because it was a hardship upon the Mormon people.
...
     I believe for a time there was an observance of [the manifesto of 1890], I do not know for how long; but gradually since statehood, as it is called, there has been a recurrence of those old conditions.  Polygamous cohabitation has become more flagrant.  We see continually coming on a new crop of polygamous children, and it seems to a great many people ... with whom I talk that they are getting back to old polygamous conditions and that they are not obeying the law of the State of Utah in that respect.
     After the admission of Utah as a State, the polygamists took the position that there was no inhibition in the constitution of the State of Utah against polygamous cohabitation; that the inhibition was against polygamy merely, and that the framers of the constitution, having put in an interdiction a against polygamous marriages, new marriages, having omitted to say anything about polygamous cohabitation or unlawful cohabitation and those other offenses that were mentioned in the Edmunds law, that therefore there was no offense in Utah such as unlawful cohabitation and adultery.  When I was judge a case come up before upon a habeas corpus in which counsel took that position, and I decided that the law was constitutional.

Commentary:  That was a quick history review, and I think was fairly well done.

Senator Hopkins.  Now, Judge, is it the practice of the church at each election, local and general, in the State to take part and select some for election and others for defeat?
Mr. Hiles.  No; not as a rule.  It is only occasionally.  They do not take up each man on the ticket and say whether he shall be elected or shall not be elected, but if they do take up a man and say that he shall be elected, he will be elected.
Senator Hopkins.  Is it any more than where a good Methodist is running, other good Methodist brothers think he is a little better by reason of that, and give him their vote?  Or do they exert a wider and more potential influence in elections?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; their influence is more effectual because it is an organization which controls large masses of men and women.  It is an organization which is distinct from the Government of the United States and the government of the State of Utah, and exercises political and secular control over the affairs of the people.

And that is the end of the direct-examination of Judge Hiles.  Actually, that was a whole lot shorter than I expected.

Mr. Van Cott does the cross-examination of Judge Hiles and sarts out his questioning with with asking for a specific example of where the Mormon Church has interfered in politics in the State of Utah within the last 5 years.

Mr. Hiles.  Well, the election of Senator Smoot is one.  Smoot would not have been elected to the United States Senate if he had not been approved by the authorities of the Mormon Church.
Mr. Van Cott.  Right there, Judge, before you go on, do you mean by that if Mr. Smoot had been a lay member in the church and had run for United States Senator he would not have been elected, or do you mean if he were an apostle and did not get a leave of absence or consent, that then he would have been defeated?
Mr. Hiles.  I mean that Mr. Smoot would never have been elected United States Senator unless he had been an apostle and had received their consent and their indorsement.  When Mr. Smoot's candidacy was announced and it was known that he had the consent of the church, it was then known that he would become Senator of the United States.
Mr. Van Cott.  But Mr. Smoot was a candidate for Senator, was he not, before he became an apostle?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; a perfunctory candidate.
Mr. Van Cott.  A perfunctory candidate?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes.  He was not seriously considered until he became an apostle and after his candidacy, subsequent to his apostolate.
Senator Hopkins.  Do you mean that his standing in the Republican party of the State was such that he was not seriously considered until they learned that the church was for him?
Mr. Hiles.  His standing in any party - the Republican party, the Mormon party, or any party.  I mean he had no standing as a candidate for the United States Senate, and when it was known that he was a candidate, then everybody said, "Why, that is the end of it.  That settles it."
Mr. Van Cott.  And your opinion is, Judge, that he would not have been selected for United States Senator if he had not been an apostle?
Mr. Hiles.  He would not.
Mr. Van Cott.  And do you mean by that that no Mormon Republican would be selected for United States Senator unless he was an apostle, or do you not go to that extent?
Mr. Hiles.  Oh, no; a Mormon may become a United States Senator without being an apostle, but I say that in Smoot's case he would not have been unless he was an apostle.
...
Mr. Van Cott.  For instance, Judge, name one candidate for the United States Senate belonging to the Mormon Church and to Republican politics who you consider more prominent for the position than Mr. Smoot.
Mr. Hiles.  Why, Governor Wells.
...
Senator Hopkins.  The evidence, as I have undertsood it, is that Mr. Smoot has always acted with the Republican party out there and that his influence has been strong with that party and that he favored the election of men who belonged to that political faith.
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; I think that is the history of it.
...
Senator Hopkins.  Is it or is it not a fact that Mr. Smoot has been a consistent, straightforward Republican all his mature life, or ever since he took any part in politics?
Mr. Hiles.  Well, I have heard so.
Mr. Van Cott.  Do you know anything to the contrary?
Mr. Hiles.  I know nothing to the contrary.

Commentary:  His opinion was stated, and it was then called into question by Mr. Van Cott and Senator Hopkins.  From this reading, it would appear that Mr. Hiles is rather negative toward Reed Smoot and that his testimony (opinion) cannot be trusted in this specific matter.  The previous testimony seemed fair and knowledgeable when he talked about the prosecutions.

Mr. Van Cott.  What are your means of knowledge that he would not have been elected if he had not been one of the twelve apostles?
Mr. Hiles.  Because there are men in politics in Utah who have much more influence simply as politicians than he has and whom the people would prefer.
Senator Hopkins.  Do you mean by that that his position in the party has been such that he had no reasonable claim to such a promotion?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; no reasonable claim to such a promotion, and if he had he could not obtain it, in my judgment.  Of course, that is a matter of opinion.
Senator Hopkins.  You are giving it as your opinion.  Have you anything which you predicate that, which you can give this committee, which will enable us to judge from those facts?
Mr. Hiles.  It is only from the general talk of men in the Republican party and in the Democratic party.

Commentary:  He states this as opinion and not fact and is questioned on that by Senator Hopkins and cannot provide any facts that the committee can use.  This again serves to qualify his testimony on this matter as opinion only.


At this point Judge Hiles makes a flat out mistake.  He's already gone off on his opinion of Senator Smoot's election and standing in the Republican party of Utah.  I kind of feel sorry for him because the hole he's digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper, and consequently his believability or relevancy to this committee, are greatly diminished.  He's being asked by Mr. Van Cott about the Senators that have been from Utah.

Mr. Van Cott.  Now, the next Senator was J.L. Rawlins?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  He is not a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes; he is a Mormon.
Mr. Van Cott.  Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir ... I have heard Mr. Rawlins say he was not a Mormon.  He was baptized a Mormon.  He was reared among them.  His father was a bishop - his father was Bishop Rawlins.
Mr. Van Cott.  Becaues he was born of Mormon parentage and because his father was a Mormon, do you understand that that makes him a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Pretty close.
Mr. Van Cott.  Pretty close?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes.
Mr. Van Cott.  So that if persons leave the church and if they happen to be of Mormon parentage, in your opinion they are pretty close to being Mormons.  Is that right?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is right.  Is all the testimony you have given along the line on which you have testified and do you speak with just as much knowledge on other matters as this, namely, that Joseph L. Rawlins is a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  He is a Mormon under the qualifications I have named; yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  Under the qualifications you have named?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  That is, he is pretty close to being a Mormon?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  And all your other testimony is just along that same line; just as close?
Mr. Hiles.  No; I do not qualify my other testimony as I qualify that.  I know what I am talking about sir.
Mr. Van Cott.  You do know that?
Mr. Hiles.  Yes, sir; I know -

Commentary:  I have a suggestion:  Think before you open your mouth.  On Sunday, March 13, 1904, a letter is received by the committee from Mr. Rawlins on this subject to be read stating that he is, in fact, not a Mormon (see New York Times article on this subject here).  This is just one more piece of the puzzle here that throws doubt on all of the testimony of Judge Hiles - even though I thought his opening statements were very well done.  To close off this section he says:  "I know what I am talking about sir."  Doh!  That just sealed his testimony with a stamp of arrogancy.  I must say I'm not sure the cross-examiner had anything to do with walking the Judge into these mistakes; rather, it was more of the Judge making "unforced errors."


Mr. Van Cott asks him how he knows that polygamy and/or unlawful cohabitation have increased after 1890, and he wants the Judge to state specific instances if he knows of them.

Mr. Hiles.  I know one instance, but I do not want to mention his name, because he is a friend of mine, although he is a polygamist.
Mr. Van Cott.  We will excuse you from mentioning his name.
Mr. Hiles.  That is to say, I have received acts of kindness from him, and I would not say anything that might be to his injury.

Commentary:  Well ok now.  He prosecuted case after case after case for law-breaking Mormon polygamists - with vigor.  However, when it comes down to turning one in that is his friend and has been nice to him, he won't do it.  He only wants to have prosecuted those people that he doesn't know.  I find that very "human" of him and at the same time duplicitous and hypocritical.


One interesting side not here is that there was discussion before the end of the day where Mr. Tayler was anxious to have 8 men who have been subpoenaed appear - but they have not.  Because of this there are no more witnesses currently for the protestants and thus there is about one month of time taken off from the committee meetings.  I assume that two of the men he is speaking of are M. F. Cowley and John W. Taylor - these two never do show up in Washington, they avoid the committee completely by not allowing themselves to be subpoenaed.  I also assume the others he mentions would be Marriner W. Merrill (cannot come for health reasons), George Teasdale (cannot come for health reasons), and John Henry Smith (cannot come for health reasons; he does however, make it out eventually).


The committee adjourned at 4:25 PM.

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.