MORMON POLYGAMY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 96, 22 April 1904, Page 3

MORMON POLYGAMY.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Respecting the article on "Mormon Polygamy," published in the "Star" of the 16th inst, in order to have avoided misleading the public through the evidence given by the woman Clara M. Kennedy more of her evidence ought to have been quoted, for then the case would have appeared in a different light. Mrs Kennedy, in paragraph 2 of the article in question, is alluded to as "a woman from Salt Lake City," and it is there stated that "she swore she was ■married to a Mormon named Johnson in 1896 by the Apostle C. E. Merrill. At the same time Johnson Lad other wives." The evidence given by her is reported at much greater length in the "Deseret News" of Salt Lake City of March 7th and 10th, as telegraphed by Association Press of America. The evidence given by both Mrs Kennedy and her mother, Mrs Morris, shows that -Mrs Kennedy contracted a surreptitious marriage! with Johnson. It. moreover, shows that the Apostle Teasdale had been appealed to to sanction that marriage, and that he replied that the ceremony could not be performed, as it was against the law of the church. Mrs Kennedy _ testimony also brought out the fact "that she did not tell the man who married her that her husband had already one wife. She also admitted in cross-examination that she was unable to swear to the man who performed the marriage ceremony. She declared she received no marriage certificate. She further admitted that she went from her home in Diaz (Mexico) to Juarez, in order to have the marriage ceremony performed, and when asked why she had done so she replied that she knew no reason. Mrs Kennedy, when attention was called to the inconsistency of her statements in having said that she did not know a reqhest

had been made to another person to perform the ceremony, answered. ~T do not know how I happened to say that." and continuing she said with some emotion, "It was not pleasant for mc to think abaui_»-t_ose things, and I tried to put tfiem aside —I tried to forget all I couid about ft." There is no reason to wonder that such a marriage resulted in remorse and misery. The evidence adduced before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate conclusively proves that not a single polygamous marriage has been sanctioned by the authorities of the Mormon Church since 1890. Under a tacit understanding those who contracted marriage with more than one wife before that time have not since been interfered with either by the Government of the United States or by the legal Executive of the State of Utah. A just regard both for their wives and their children has restrained those men from repudiating either wives or children, and this sentiment has hitherto been respected. The evidence also proves that Reed Smoot, having been duly elected to the Senate of the United States, cannot be unseated, except in gross violation of the Constitution of the United States. Nothing, can be proved against him, except that he is a Mormon. Religious bigotry and political chicanery are the real forces that are arrayed against him. These twin powers ' are now endeavouring to show that the loyalty of Mr Smoot to the Government of the United States is incompatible with his membership in the Mormon Church —a proposition identical in its nature with the arguments long employed against Catholic emancipation in England. History repeat.. itself. There are palpable errors in the article in question, notably respecting the forms of Mormon marriages, which, however, it would be useless to discuss. —I am, etc., CHARLES HARDY.