OATH OF VENGEANCE.

In the protest signed and verified by the oath of Mr. Leilich it is claimed that Mr. Smoot has taken an oath as an apostle of the Mormon Church which is of such a nature as to render him incompetent to hold the office of Senator. From the testimony taken it appears that Mr. Smoot has taken an obligation which is prescribed by the Mormon Church and administered to those who go through a ceremony known . as “taking the endowments.” It was testified by a number of witnesses who were examined during the investigation that one part of this obligation is expressed in substantially these words:

You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

An effort was made to destroy the effect of the testimony of three of these witnesses by impeachment of their reputation for veracity. This. impeaching testimony was not strengthened by the fact that the witnesses by whom it was given were members of the Mormon Church, and would naturally disparage the truthfulness of one who would give testimony unfavorable to that church. The testimony of the witnesses for the protestants, before referred to, was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Dougall, a witness sworn in behalf of Mr. Smoot, and no attempt was made to impeach the character of this witness. It is true that a number of witnesses testified that no such obligation is contained in the endowment ceremony; but it is a very suspicious circumstance that every one of the witnesses who made this denial refused to state the obligation imposed on those who take part in the ceremony.

The evidence showing that such an obligation is taken is further supported by proof that during the endowment ceremonies a prayer is offered asking God to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation, and certain verses from the Bible are read which are claimed to justify the obligation and the prayer. The fact that such a prayer is offered and that such passages from the Bible are read was not disputed by any witness who was sworn on the investigation. Nor was it questioned that by the term “the prophets” as used in the endowment ceremony, reference is made to Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

That an obligation of vengeance is part of the endowment ceremony is further attested by the fact that shortly after testimony had been given on that subject before the committee, Bishop Daniel Connelly of the Mormon Church denounced the witnesses who had given this testimony as traitors who had broken their oaths to the church.

The fact that an oath of vengeance is part of the endowment ceremonies and the nature and character of such oath was judicially determined in the third judicial court of Utah in the year 1889 in the matter of the application of John Moore and others to become citizens of the United States. In an opinion denying the application, the court say:

In these applications the usual evidence on behalf of the applicants as to residence, moral character, etc., was introduced at a former hearing and was deemed sufficient. Objection was made, however, to the admission of John Moore and William J. Edgar upon the ground that they were members of the Mormon Church, and also because they had gone through the endowment house of that church and there had taken an oath or obligation incompatible with the oath of citizenship they would be required to take if admitted. * * *

Those objecting to the right of these applicants to be admitted to citizenship introduced eleven witnesses who had been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly called the ‘‘Mormon Church.’’ Several of these witnesses had held the position of bishop in the church, and all had gone through the endowment house and participated in its ceremonies. The testimony of these witnesses is to the effect that every member of the church is expected to go through the endowment house, and that nearly all do so; that marriages are usually solemnized there, and that those who are married elsewhere go through the endowment ceremonies at as early date thereafter as practicable in order that the marital relations shall continue throughout eternity.

On behalf of the applicants fourteen witnesses testified concerning the endowment ceremonies, but all of them declined to state what oaths are taken, or what obligations or covenants are there entered into, or what penalties are attached to their violation; and these witnesses, when asked for their reason for declining to answer, stated that they did so ‘‘on a point of honor,’”? while several stated they had forgotten what was said about avenging the blood of the prophets. * * *

The witnesses for the applicants, while refusing to disclose the oaths, promises, and covenants of the endowment ceremonies and the penalties attached thereto, testified generally that there was nothing in the ceremonies inconsistent with loyalty to the Government of the United States, and that the Government was not mentioned. One of the objects of this investigation is to ascertain whether the oaths and obligations of the endowment house are incompatible with good citizenship, and it is not for applicants’ witnesses to determine this question. The refusal of applicants’ witnesses to state specifically what oath, obligations, or covenants are taken or entered into in the ceremonies renders their testimony of but little value, and tends to confirm rather than contradict the evidence on this point offered by the objectors. The evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt that the endowment ceremonies are inconsistent with the oath an applicant for citizenship is required to take, and that the oaths, obligations, or covenants there made or entered into are incompatible with the obligations and duties of citizens of the United States. (Vol. 4, pp. 340-343.)

The obligation hereinbefore set forth is an oath of disloyalty to the Government which the rules of the Mormon Church require, or at least encourage, every member of that organization to take.

It is in harmony with the views and conduct of the leaders of the Mormon people in former days, when they openly defied the Government of the United States, and is also in harmony with the conduct of those who give the law to the Mormon Church to-day in their defiant disregard of the laws against polygamy and polygamous cohabitation. It may be that many of those who take this obligation do so without realizing its treasonable import; but the fact that the first presidency and twelve apostles retain an obligation of that nature in the ceremonies of the church shows that at heart they are hostile to this nation and disloyal to its Government.

And the same spirit of disloyalty is manifested ago in a number of the hymns contained in the collection of hymns put forth by the rulers of the Mormon Church to be sung by Mormon congregations.

There can be no question in regard to the taking of the oath of vengeance by Mr. Smoot. He testified that he went through the ceremony of taking the endowments in the year 1880 and the head of the Mormon Church stated in his testimony that the ceremony is now the same that it has always been.

An obligation of the nature of the one before mentioned would seem to be wholly incompatible with the duty which Mr. Smoot as a member of the United States Senate would owe to the nation. It is difficult to conceive how one could discharge the obligation which rests upon every Senator to so perform his official duties as to promote the welfare of the people of the United States and at the same time be calling down the vengeance of heaven on this nation because of the killing of the founders of the Mormon Church sixty years ago.