"If President Joseph F. Smith has stated in public what it is currently reported he has, that in the statements made by him when a witness before the Senatorial Committee, whose sittings for inquiry have lately been finished, the report of which in regard to the unseating of Senator Smoot is awaited, he testified to that which was not true, he has done an unfortunate and unwise thing. There may have been some moral bravery in doing as he did in stating that he was breaking the law of the State, the law of the United States, and the law of God by continuing to live with his five wives; and such boldness may have made some admirers of the President of the Utah Church; but, when that president publicly states that he lied when he gave his evidence before the Senatorial Committee, those who may have admired him for his avowal of his guilt will not, cannot admire him as a confessed perjurer. It may be said that President Joseph F. Smith did not make oath to what was false, as he was not sworn, that is, no judicial oath was administered to him, but, when a witness chooses to affirm that privilege is granted by the courts; the form of the affirmation is much like this: 'I do solemnly affirm, subject to the pains and penalties of perjury, that the testimony I shall give in the case now pending * * * shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' If President Joseph F. Smith faced the committee on such an affirmation, and gave false testimony, can it be called anything but perjury? We think not. "We were surprised when he testified as he did; we now are more surprised to learn that he has said that he affirmed what was not true. What can honorable men in or out of the Church think of such a man? What reliance can be placed on what such a man declares? If he sought by falsehood to avoid falling into a "trap" set for him before the committee, by confessing that he did so falsify, he has assuredly fallen into a more open and dangerous one." (Saints' Herald, Vol. 52:314-315).