s seat. And the grounds of the protest, briefly stated, were
these: The Mormon priesthood claimed supreme authority in politics,
and such authority was exercised by the first presidency and the twelve
apostles, of whom Smoot was one. They had not only not abandoned the
practice of political dictation, but they had not abandoned the belief
in polygamy and polygamous cohabitation; they connived at and encouraged
its practice, sought to pass laws that should nullify the statutes
against the practice, and protected and honored the violators of
those statutes. And they had done all these things despite the public
sentiment of the civilized world, in violation of the pledges given in
procuring amnesty and in obtaining the return of the escheated Church
property, contrary to the promises given by the representatives of the
Church and of the territory in their plea for statehood, contrary to
the pledges required by the Enabling Act and given in the State
constitution, and contrary to the laws of the State itself.

These charges were supported by innumerable citations from the published
doctrines of the Church, and from the published speeches and sermons
of the Prophets. Evidence was offered of the continuance of polygamous
cohabitation (since 1890) by President Smith, all but three or four of
the apostles, the entire Presidency of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion,
and many others. New polygamy was specifically charged against three
apostles, and against the son of a fourth. A second protest, signed by
John L. Leilich, repeated these grounds of objection to Apostle Smoot,
and charged further that Apostle Smoot was himself a polygamist; but no
attempt was made to prove this latter charge.

Upon the filing of the protest, there was a storm of anger at Church
headquarters; and the ecclesiastical newspapers railed with the
bitterness of anxious apprehension. Throughout Utah it seemed to be the
popular belief that Apostle Smoot would be excluded--on the issue of
whether a responsible representative of a Church that was protecting and
encouraging law-breaking should be allowed a seat in the highest body of
the nation's law-makers. But the issue against him was not to be heard
until twelve months after his election, and every agent and influence of
the Church was set to work at once to nullify the effect of the protest.

Every financial institution, East or West, to which the Church could
appeal, was solicited to demand a favorable hearing