THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE
Volume 2
THE HORN MADE WAR WITH THE SAINTS
AND PREVAILED
3 Mar. 1887 - 2 Sep. 1898
being a compilation of official decisions of the Supreme and lower courts
together with other items concerning the action of the United States
Government against the Mormon Church in relation to its teachings and
doctrines concerning Plural Marriage and other doctrines and policies.
GEMS
Copyright 1970
Gems Publishing Company
Box 7434
Murray, Utah 84107
2.
And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the
Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall
be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach
us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4.
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war no more.
5.
O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.
Isaiah 2:2-5
EXPLANATORY NOTE
This three-volume work was compiled and is being published in an
attempt to present the plural marriage question as it relates particularly
to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly called the
"Mormon" Church, and the Territory and State of Utah, in a chronological
and historical manner. Heretofore, it has in various ways been presented
in relation to its doctrinal and moral content. This work presents the
doctrinal considerations in their historical setting and is primarily
documentary in nature and includes the laws directly applicable to the
subject and the times and places directly involved in the history of the
Mormon people.
The Publisher
PREFACE
- - - This was the first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me on the
subject of plural marriage. He informed me that the doctrine and principle
was right in the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that it was a doctrine
which pertained to celestial order and glory. ---From him I learned that
the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and
important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without
obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of
exaltation in celestial glory.
Sig: William Clayton
I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of
plural marriages since I have been president. I know that President
Taylor, my predecessor, also refused. Since the Edmunds-Tucker law we have
refused to recommend plural marriages, and have instructed that they
should not he solemnized. * * * I told the Bishop that it would not do at
all. There must be no more plural marriages. I am confident that there
have been no more plural marriages since I have been in this position.
Wilford Woodruff
13 Oct 1889
[i]
INTRODUCTION
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless,
governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were
created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible,
whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or
throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son - the
Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all
perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a
personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the
form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and
in his image; he is also the express image and likeness of the personage
of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same
fullness with the Father; being begotten of him, and ordained from before
the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those
who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the
flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer; or in
other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful
contradictions than any man can be. But, notwithstanding all this, he kept
the law of God, and remained without sin, showing thereby that it is in
the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin: and also,
that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all
who walk not in the law of God may justly be condemned by the law, and
have no excuse for their sins. * * *
Having treated in the preceding lectures of the ideas, of the
character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of
the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they
pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled
to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.
This knowledge supplies an important place in revealed religion; for
it was by reason of it that the an-[ii]cients were enabled to endure as
seeing him who is invisible. An actual knowledge to any person, that the
course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is
essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God without
which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the
ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to
take joyfully the spoiling of their, goods, knowing (not believing merely)
that they had a more enduring substance. Hebrews x. 34.
Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was
agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the
spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but
also to suffer death in its most horrid forms; knowing (not merely
believing) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved,
they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens. 2 Corinthians v. 1.
Such was, and always will be, the situation of the saints of God,
that unless they have an actual knowledge that the course they are
pursuing is according to the will of God they will grow weary in their
minds, and faint; for such has been, and always will be, the opposition in
the hearts of unbelievers and those that know not God against the pure and
unadulterated religion of heaven (the only thing which insures eternal
life), that they will persecute to the uttermost all that worship God
according to his revelations, receive the truth in the love of it, and
submit themselves to be guided and directed by his will; and drive them to
such extremities that nothing short of an actual knowledge of their being
the favorites of heaven, and of their having embraced the order of things
which God has established for the redemption of man, will enable them to
exercise that confidence in him, necessary for them to overcome the world,
and obtain that crown of glory which is laid up for them that fear God.
For a man to lay down his all, his character and reputation, his
honor, and applause, his good name among [iii] men, his houses, his lands,
his brother and sisters, his wife and children, and even his own life also
- counting all things but filth and dross for the excellency of the
knowledge of Jesus Christ - requires more than mere belief or supposition
that he is doing the will of God; but actual knowledge, realizing that,
when these sufferings are ended, he will enter into eternal rest, and be a
partaker of the glory of God.
For unless a person does know that he is walking according to the
will of God, it would be offering an insult to the dignity of the Creator
were he to say that he would be a partaker of his glory when he should be
done with the things of this life. But when he has this knowledge, and
most assuredly knows that he is doing the will of God, his confidence can
be equally strong that he will be a partaker of the glory of God.
Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the
sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith
necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man,
the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could
be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through
this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy
eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly
things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are
well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all
that he has for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and
believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice
because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God
does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor
will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can
obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.
It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs
with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in
sacrifice, and by this means obtain faith in God and favor with him so as
to obtain [iv] eternal life, unless they, in like manner, offer unto him
the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that
they are accepted of him.
It was in offering sacrifices that Abel, the first martyr, obtained
knowledge that he was accepted of God. And from the days of righteous Abel
to the present time, the knowledge that men have that they are accepted in
the sight of God is obtained by offering sacrifice. And in the last days,
before the Lord comes, he is to gather together his saints who have made a
covenant with him by sacrifice. Psalm 1:3, 4, 5: "Our God shall come, and
shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be
very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the heavens from above,
and to the earth, that He may judge his people. Gather my saints together
unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."
Those, then, who make the sacrifice, will have the testimony that
their course is pleasing in the sight of God; and those who have this
testimony will have faith to lay hold on eternal life, and will be
enabled, through faith, to endure unto the end, and receive the crown that
is laid up for them that love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. But
those who do not make the sacrifice cannot enjoy this faith, because men
are dependent upon this sacrifice in order to obtain this faith:
therefore, they cannot lay hold upon eternal life, because the revelations
of God do not guarantee unto them the authority so to do, and without this
guarantee faith could not exist.
All the saints of whom we have account, in all the revelations of God
which are extant, obtained the knowledge which they had of their
acceptance in his sight through the sacrifice which they offered unto him;
and through the knowledge thus obtained their faith became sufficiently
strong to lay hold upon the promise of eternal life, and to endure as
seeing him who is invisible; and were enabled, through faith, to combat
the powers of darkness, contend against the wiles of the adversary,
overcome the world, and obtain the end of their faith, even the salvation
of their souls.
[v]
But those who do not know that the course which they pursue is well
pleasing in his sight; for whatever maybe their belief or their opinion,
it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind; and where doubt and
uncertainty are there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do
not exist in the same person at the same time; so that persons whose minds
are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence; and where
unshaken confidence is not there faith is weak; and where faith is weak
the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition,
tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order
to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ Jesus; and they will grow,
weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and
destroy them. (Lectures on Faith; V, VI)
[1]
3 Mar 1887:
The Edmunds-Tucker law took effect without the signature of President
Cleveland.
15 Mar 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
"WHY DON'T YOU PROMISE TO OBEY THE LAW?"
"Whenever the harshness and cruelty with which the Edmunds law is
enforced has been pointed out by the press, the cry has been raised by the
supporters of that Act and the agitators for more anti-`Mormon'
legislation, `Why don't you promise to obey the law?'
"To every complaint about strained and unprecedented interpretations,
injustice to defendants, packed juries, insults heaped upon accused
persons by ribald and abusive attorneys, unlawful multiplication of
penalties, vindictive harangues from the bench, merciless infliction of
the extreme term of imprisonment upon aged persons, needless sufferings of
dependant families, the compelling of legal wives to testify against their
husbands, the shameful imprisonment of women for unwillingness to
criminate the fathers of their children, and other proceedings that have
disgraced the judicial crusade against the `Mormons,' the response has
been invariably, `Why don't you promise to obey the law?'
"Because this promise has not been forthcoming, the `Mormon' people
have been denounced officially and through the public prints, as rebels
against the Government, defiant violators of the law, nullifiers,
fanatics, stiff-necked traitors and generally incorrigible. Attempts have
been made to increase the penalty for merely associating in a friendly way
with a plural wife, from six months' to five years' imprisonment, for the
purpose of forcing `Mormon' defendants to make the desired promise.
"And now, that men who have not broken any law, and who are free from
the relationships which forbid making the promise, come forward when
required and agree to observe the law and refrain from helping others to
break it, the very creatures who made the country mog with their anathemas
against men who could not honorably make the promise, are white with
excitement and fiendish [2] in their curses against those who are able to
do what the law requires. And those inconsistent agitators pretend to be
scandalized at what they term the lack of `Mormon' consistency!
"If the promise to obey the law which was demanded by the courts was
the great desideratum, the one thing needful, why should not the
disposition now manifested by monogamous `Mormons' to make it, be a
subject of great congratulation among those who required it of
`polygamists?' Instead of rejoicing over this manifestation of `loyalty,'
as they professed to regard it when it was not complied with, they are in
a perfect ferment of disappointment and disgust. After crying out, `Why
don't you promise to obey the laws?' until it was like the continual
ringing of a chestnut bell, they are as mad as hornets because a large
number of `Mormon' citizens are ready to make that promise, and no
language is too violent and undignified to express their anger because the
request is complied with.
"It is true the promise does not come from the plural-wived
`Mormons,' and does not have the effect desired by the plotting and
promise-demanding anti-`Mormons.' The `Mormon' with more wives than one
could not honorably make the promise demanded by the courts. But the
`Mormon' with but one wife or no wife at all, providing he has no present
intention of entering into plural marriage or advising or helping others
to do so, can make the promise required by the law as a condition to
voting, both honorably and consistently. Why, then, the denunciation of
the former for not making a promise which they could not give, and still
worse denunciation of the latter for promising something which they can
agree to?
"The answer is, the taking of the test oath, though a much simpler
and less comprehensive matter than making the promise required in court,
affects the main object in view of the anti-`Mormon' schemers, while the
promise did not, except as it could be used against the `Mormons' by way
of deceiving and prejudicing the public. Every `Mormon' who subscribes to
the oath counts one against the rule of an unprincipled minority, a clique
of [3] political black-legs gambling to pluck a Territory. Every `Mormon'
vote is a nail in their political coffin. The sound of its rapping is a
death-knell to their hopes. It says `good bye' to their scheme for
plunder. No wonder that they are unhappy. It is not surprising that they
are raving and inconsistent.
"It has often been said that the abandonment of polygamy by the
`Mormons' would be the worst misfortune that could happen to their
maligners. Nothing would be so disastrous to the adventurers and their
scribes, the F.O.H's and L.L's, the ambitious wirepullers and their pious
and profane toadies and tools, than the abolition of the theory and
practice which they pretend to be anxious to suppress. Everybody who
understands the situation knows that the local plotters care nothing
whatever for polygamy, except as a popular cry in their interest.
"What they want and all they are after is possession of the
Territory, its offices and its treasury. This is now, demonstrated to all
who have not seen it before and who will take the trouble to look at the
fact. The rage of those rascals at the spectacle of `Mormons' agreeing to
obey the laws of the United States and especially those against polygamy
and polygamous association, should be sufficient to show every sane person
what they want and where they stand. Morality, religion, monogamy, social
order! Faugh! they care nothing for anything of the kind. They are a few,
and they want to govern, coerce and tax the many. They are despised by the
majority so that they cannot hope to gain their ends by fair means, and
they have resorted to foul. They have crawled and lied and then leaped to
grasp their coveted prize, and have fallen short and landed in the mud.
And now they wallow and wait, and curse the very thing that they asked
for.
"Let the press and the legislators of the country look at this. The
professed object was to force the `Mormons' to agree to obey the laws. Now
that the majority, who are able to do this in the manner provided by law,
are responding to the demand, those who demanded it accuse the `Mormons'
of `monstrous depravity' for complying with the requisition. Congress
provides a condition as a qualification for voters, and the people for
whom it was [4] made accept that condition. If they had refused it the
would have been denounced as rebels and disloyal ingrates for spurning the
offer of political salvation. And now, that they submit their compliance
is proclaimed as `moral rottenness.'" (Deseret Evening News, Charles W.
Penrose, Editor)
8 May 1887, Salt Lake Stake Conference:
ELDER ABRAHAM H. CANNON next addressed the congregation. He had been
caused by the remarks he had heard, to reflect on the position the Saints
occupied in relation to the government. If they had done their duty they
had an absolute knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, and were not
dependent on the opinion of any man. God had promised them the spirit of
revelation for their guidance, and it was of this spirit that every true
Saint had partaken. It taught that obedience to the Gospel Would bring
life eternal, and disobedience bring death eternal. Whom shall they obey,
God or man! Blackstone had said that when the two laws came in conflict,
the law of God should be obeyed in derogation to that of man because it
was superior. The speaker had been born and reared in this city, and had
never heard his parents or the Saints say anything in derogation of the
Constitution of the laws, except such as infringed on their religious
rights, and which were unconstitutional. The Lord had told the Saints that
He had inspired the Constitution, and that all laws which sustain the
rights of man were constitutional. The Saints would be justified in
sustaining all such. When these revelations were given there was no law of
the country against the doctrines of the Gospel. Because enactments had
been made since then, should God retract what He had said? The principle
of plurality of wives was known to the Prophet in 1832, though the
revelation was not written until ten years after. In 1852 it was publicly
proclaimed as a doctrine. In 1862 a law was passed against it, but so
little faith had its framers in the constitutionality of the act that for
ten years no effort was made to enforce it. Since then other laws had been
made against it, but, as God lives the principle will not be driven from
the earth. It [5] was no new thing for the Saints of God to be legislated
against. Even Jesus Christ was murdered under a form of law perverted by
wicked men. It was under the forms of law that the Huguenots, Waldenses
and others were persecuted and driven for their religion. And it would so
continue till Christ should come to reign. * * *
"What the Almighty says is true, for His words cannot fail, and, my
brethren and sisters, His blessings will follow you if you are faithful,
if you are true, if you sin not against God, if you maintain your
integrity, if you obey His commands and hearken unto His words. But if you
do not keep His commandments curses far worse than those that fell upon
the Jews will come upon you, and upon your children and children's
children: for unto you is committed the greatest dispensation that ever
came upon the earth, even the dispensation of the fullness of times. His
work will progress until the Gospel is proclaimed in all the world, until
every soul has had the privilege of receiving the plan of salvation or
rejecting it to his own condemnation. Now, the Lord says to Israel, choose
this day whom ye will serve--God the Ruler of this earth, or whether you
will bow the neck and receive the yoke of the oppressor, and become
subject to the rule and power of the unbeliever. If you serve God all will
be well with you. Dark clouds may appear for a time and persecution and
trouble be heaped upon you by the wicked and those who do not know God,
but He will put upon you His Holy Spirit. It will whisper consolation to
your souls, and His power will be made manifest in the midst of his
people.
"It would not be long before Zion will be free and Israel be redeemed
from the hand of the wicked. I do not believe that God is going to desert
His people in the hour of trial. Those who keep His commandments will be
brought up out of their tribulation and trials, while the wicked will be
overthrown. Remember the words of God given to the Prophet Joseph Smith on
August 6th, 1833: `Verily, I say unto you, my friends, fear not,' let your
hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore and in everything give thanks,
waiting patiently on the Lord, for your prayers have entered into the ears
of the Lord [6] of Sabaoth, and are recorded with this seal and testament,
the Lord hath sworn and declared that they shall be granted; therefore He
giveth this promise unto you, with an immutable covenant that they shall
be fulfilled, and all things wherewith you have been afflicted shall work
together for your good, and to my name's glory, saith the Lord. And again
I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord,
will turn away all wrath and indignation from you and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against you.'
"PRESIDENT ANGUS M. CANNON said the authorities of the Church, now in
enforced exile, were anxious to again meet with the Saints and give to
them the word of the Lord. The speaker rejoiced in listening to the
precious truths enunciated at this conference. Repentance was necessary in
some respects among the Saints. Their hearts were now being turned more
fully to the truth through repentance, and he felt that there was hope
that the servants of the Lord will yet come forth in liberty to administer
the word of God. Will the Saints turn from all iniquity, and cleave only
to righteousness? If they did their leaders would be liberated to again
meet with them. President Taylor's heart went out to the people to have
them live in purity and observe the laws of God in all things. The houses
of those in authority among the Saints should be set in order. The
revelation on celestial marriage had been embraced by a considerable
portion of the Saints. They had been put through an ordeal, and few of
them had swerved from their integrity. They had not been cast into a fiery
furnace, but they were thrown into dungeons. They preferred prison rather
than accept liberty at the price of renouncing their sacred covenants. A
law had been passed requiring all who desired to register to take an oath
provided for them. Many were unable to take this oath because of having
entered into the relationship of celestial marriage. Abraham, to secure
God's friendship, had been willing to undergo all things and had been
rewarded. To-day men who had entered into celestial marriage were not in a
position to take the oath, but those who had not were. Men who take the
oath should do it to honor God, and [7] stand as a bulwark to protect the
people from a horde of plunderers who would crush them into abject
slavery. The Saints should obey God in all things and be faithful to their
covenants with Him. They would receive the recompense of their actions.
The present condition was only history repeating itself. The
responsibility was with the Congress who made such an infamous law. If men
took the oath and intended to keep it, their motives in that regard were
pure. The manner in which many professing Saints had neglected the law of
celestial marriage showed that they could keep the other. He hoped they
would be true to God and to their country. If they would do this they
would defend the liberties of the people. The Lord would justify them in
what they did honestly. If you take the oath, keep it, but do not promise
that you will not obey God. If the oath required that, the Saints could
not take it. It did not, however, do this, but only required that they
continue to live in obedience to the law. The speaker exhorted the Saints
to live lives of righteousness.
"ELDER JOHN T. CAINE stated that the Saints expected the laws to be
enforced, but they objected to the unconstitutional manner in which they
were enforced. President Cleveland expressed himself as wishing the law
enforced as all as others were, with equality. In reference to the
searching of a man's belief and conscience, it had been thought proper
that the people make some expression, and he therefore presented the
following:
"PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION.
"WHEREAS, Congress has passed a law prescribing an oath to be taken
by the citizens of Utah Territory, as a condition precedent to
registering, voting, holding office, or serving as jurors; and
"WHEREAS, the discussions in Congress while the said law was pending,
showed plainly that the intention of the law-makers was that the said oath
should not interfere with the rights of conscience or religious belief;
and
"WHEREAS, some of the courts of this Territory, in the election of
jurors, have departed from both the letter [8] and spirit of the law' and
have required to be taken a form of oath that is not authorized by said
law, because of its infringement upon the domain of conscience and
religious belief; and
"WHEREAS, on application to a court of this Territory, of certain
persons or naturalization, the applicants were questioned, by the
presiding judge, as to their membership in a particular Church, their
belief in certain of its doctrines aid what would be their course of
action should they receive a revelation from God in regard to the same,
and having declared their belief in Divine revelation, they were
arbitrarily denied the privilege of citizenship, solely on account of
their religious belief, although they declared their intention to support
the Constitution of the United States and obey the laws and signified
their willingness to take all the oaths required by law; and,
"WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides that no
religious test shall ever be imposed; therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, that we, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, residents of Salt Lake County, Utah Territory, in conference
assembled, do enter our solemn protest against such inexcusable and
unwarrantable infringements upon the rights and liberties of the people.
We hold that if these outrageous abuses of power are permitted to go
unchecked, they will endanger the most sacred institutions of our country,
and we appeal to all lovers of freedom to discountenance these
unconstitutional proceedings as antagonistic to the fundamental principles
of our government, and violative of the rights of American citizens, in
their enjoyment of freedom of conscience and religious liberty.
"The foregoing was unanimously adopted by the vast congregation."
(Deseret Evening News, 9 May 1887)
9 May 1887, Deseret Evening News:
THE PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION
"The preamble and resolution adopted by a large body of Latter-day
Saints assembled in Conference, in this city, yesterday, May 8, will be
heartily endorsed by an [9] overwhelming majority of the people of Utah.
They will also receive a harmonious response in the breast of, every lover
of freedom whose attention may be called to them in every other part of
the country. It would certainly be the case to an extensive degree were
information as wide as it should be in relation to the outrages that are
being perpetrated in the sacred name of liberty upon the majority of the
people of this Territory. The laws that have been enacted against them
during the last few years are bad enough in all conscience, but when they
are stretched outside their purpose and intention the wrong is intensified
beyond endurance.
"The Edmunds law has been held by some of the best jurists of the
nineteenth century to be ex post facto and therefore unconstitutional. The
successor or father twin brother to that infamous measure--the Edmunds
Tucker act--is, however, made by the courts in this Territory, to do
service--by unwarrantable construction--in the other direction as well. If
the punishment of people for conduct prior to the passage of the act
inflicting it is only fit to be denounced as unconstitutional and
subversive of the rights of the people, what can be said of the action of
courts that give the statutes a forward operation, depriving the people of
privileges to which they are entitled both by their past and present
obedience to the law? Take, for instance, the deprival of a certain class
of citizens of the right to serve as jurors because they declined to
subscribe to an oath said by Mr. Bennett to have been formulated by local
`political authorities.' That oath hypothecates a fictitious future
contingency--something that has not and never had existence--and because
the citizen declines to state what he would do in case it should arise he
is deprived of a privilege which is plainly guaranteed to him under the
law. Thus is the domain of conscience entered and a requirement placed
upon the individual that no person can correctly answer in any other way
than by conjecture.
"When laws are made to apply to other than actions they are foolish,
as it is beyond the province of human enactment to control the conscience.
That is a domain [10] which may not be entered. What the law properly
deals with are the manifestations--in the form of deeds--of the mind or
conscience. When it is interpreted to apply to suppositional acts whose
future existence is a mere matter of presumption, devoid of the slightest
basis in fact, the height of human folly and tyranny are exhibited.
"The extreme phase of this judicial anomaly was reached by Judge
Henderson in his examination of applicants for naturalization. The
interrogatories stretched into the matter of the membership of the
applicant in the particular Church to which he belonged and gradually
reached the culminating point--his belief in revelation from God. It
appeared that the applicant did believe that he might receive a revelation
from God. From what could be learned from the account of the proceeding it
appeared that the sole ground for the application being denied was that,
believing that a revelation from God might come to him individually, he
did not know how he would act in case the divine communication was given.
He did not know whether he would be prepared to reject a divine behest,
and for that reason--notwithstanding that his past conduct allowed him to
be well disposed toward the Constitution of the United States and the laws
thereof, and his intention was to obey the laws--he was denied
naturalization. This is the case as we understand it, and if there be no
misapprehension of it, it exhibits, in our opinion one of the most
striking instances of intolerance, bigotry and extra judicial interference
with the rights of conscience that the nineteenth century has produced.
"We esteem the preamble and resolution adopted by the people in
conference assembled yesterday afternoon, as fitting and proper. More than
this, when the institutions of our country are imperiled, the principles
and safeguards of the Constitution disregarded and defied and the people
robbed of their dearest rights and privileges, no occasion for protesting
against such outrages should be allowed to slip past unused. It should
also be remembered that the right of petition and to represent facts where
true statements will do the most good, are still within the grasp of a
wronged and abused people, of [11] whom a nest of conspirators are anxious
to make a prey for the sake of spoilation. All these conditions and the
legitimate actions of the people in reference to them, strengthen the
latter in the attitude of supporters of the Constitution and sturdy and
unyielding advocates of human liberty. Eventually the truly patriotic, as
the lines become more sharply defined, will come to their aid. Truth and
right will triumph in the end." (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose,
Editor)
30 Jun 1887:
A constitutional convention, consisting entirely of Mormons, met to
frame a constitution preparatory to an application to Congress for
admission to Statehood. The proposed constitution which was adopted by the
convention contained the following provisions:
"Section 3 (of Article I). There shall be no union of Church and
State, nor shall any church dominate the state."
"Section 12 (of Article XV). Bigamy and polygamy being considered
incompatible with a `republican form of government,' each of them is
hereby declared a misdemeanor.
"Any person who shall violate this section shall, on conviction
thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and
imprisoned for a term of not less than six months nor more than three
years, in the discretion of the court. This section shall be construed as
operative without the aid of legislation, and the offenses prohibited by
this section shall not be barred by any statute of limitation within three
years after the commission of the offense; nor shall the power of pardon
extend thereto until such pardon shall be approved by the President of the
United States."
Section 1 (of Article XVI, Amendments). Provided, That Section 12 of
Article XV shall not be amended, revised, or in any way changed, until any
amendment, revision, or change as proposed therein shall, in addition to
the requirements of the provisions of this article, be reported to the
Congress of the United States and shall be by Congress approved and
ratified, and such approval [12] and ratification be proclaimed by the
President of the United States, and if not so ratified and proclaimed said
section shall remain perpetual.
6 July 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
"THE BIGAMY AND POLYGAMY PROVISIONS.
"The provisions in relation to bigamy and polygamy which were
reported to the Convention on Tuesday, are something novel to State
Constitutions. The idea is not new, neither did it originate among the
Delegates chosen by the people to formulate an instrument for the
establishment of fundamental laws. It has been urged upon Utah for many
years. It has come to be a matter of certainty in the popular mind, that
Utah cannot be admitted into the Union as a State, without some
constitutional provisions against practices about which the country has
been much misinformed and unduly excited. Former efforts for Statehood
without such provisions have been treated with the coldness that arises
from reference to a committee which usually freezes over with silence on
the subject.
"The committee to which an application of Montana for admission into
the Union was referred at the last Congress, made a report requiring
Montana to insert a plank on the polygamy question forbidding its practice
in the new State. It has been proposed in Congress that an amendment to
the National Constitution shall be made forbidding polygamy in every part
of the Union.
"Thus the question is not new, the idea is not novel, it has merely
been taken up and practically treated by the Utah Constitutional
Convention. But no State has heretofore embodied it in the fundamental
law, because there has never been such an occasion requiring it as now
exists. Everybody, friend and foe, has declared emphatically that without
some provision of this character it would be perfectly useless for Utah to
attempt to get into the Federal Union. Friends have advised such a step
for many years; foes have jeered about it and urged it sneering, believing
that it would never be done.
"Under the former condition of affairs in this Territory, it is
probable that no such action as that of the [13] present Convention would
have been taken. The most active men in movements of this character could
not consistently take such a step because they were engaged in the
practice of something which they were asked to prohibit. The members of
the present Convention are free from those conditions. They have taken the
oath required by Congress in regard to the practice condemned by national
statute, and their course now is in line with the oath and the condition
understood to be imperative on the part of the authorities and the great
masses of the people of this nation. They have acted, as we have
heretofore explained, entirely in a political capacity. They have entered
into no compacts, formulated no agreements, made no compromises of a
religious or any other nature.
"As American citizens representing American citizens, they have
recognized a political exigency and a popular demand in relation to a
political question. The provisions they have inserted in the Constitution
are in the nature of civil law on a matter relating to civil government,
without reference to religion in any shape or form. The State cannot
legislate for or against any religion, neither can the Nation as a whole.
The acts of either, to be valid and in harmony with the principles of this
republic, must be entirely devoid of enmity or favor to any religious
creed or ecclesiastical body; they must be civil, political, secular,
entirely and integrally.
"The provisions in regard to bigamy and polygamy, which are unusual
for State Constitutions, have been inserted as a political necessity
arising from a peculiar condition of affairs requiring political
settlement. So in regard to the relinquishment of certain rights or
privileges common to State governments in reference to pardons and
amendments. The objections have been raised that if Utah should frame and
adopt a constitution forbidding polygamy, the Legislature would not make
it practical by appropriate legislation; that if the penalties were
embodied in the fundamental law it would soon be amended after Statehood
was achieved; and that if not, the State Governor could pardon the
offenders and thus [14] render the law, and the constitution nugatory.
"To meet these objections it is provided that no amendment shall be
made on this one question without the consent of Congress and the
President, and that the endorsement of the National Executive shall be
required to make a pardon effective. This is also unusual. But the
situation is unusual. Utah has been served with repeated notices, voiced
by Congress, in demonstrative acclamations, that without certain
provisions Utah will never be admitted as a State into the Union; and now
these conditions are met frankly and fully. And because the action is not
an imitation of some former methods, shall that be considered a tangible
objection? We think not, in the mind of any rational person.
"The provisions in relation to Congress and the President do not
pretend to confer any powers on them or to require any duty on their part.
They can act or decline to act. It is merely stated that until such action
is taken, the amendment proposed or the pardon granted shall not take
effect. The State does not presume to say what either Congress or the
President shall do or shall not do. It does not ask any action on the part
of either. It does not step outside of its own domain in any way. It
simply relinquishes a common right or privilege, for a special contingency
and to meet one of the objections considered insuperable to its existence.
"The objectors to these provisions on such grounds as are being here
treated of, will be found to be those who have helped to raise the
obstacles and are now, completely chagrined and exasperated at the removal
of their barriers. Objections to the provisions on other grounds may be
raised by those who have not studied them or who cannot divest them of
some religious import, but one fact stands out clear and unmistakable as a
sign to the wise, and that is, the worst enemies of the people of Utah
will fight this movement and find fault with these provisions to the very
utmost of their strength and ability to falsify and misrepresent.
"We simply advise our readers to take time to think, examine the work
of the Convention, try to view the matter in all its bearings, be slow to
jump at conclusions [15] until all the ground is surveyed, and to keep
calm, and clear headed, and silent-tongued until they comprehend the
situation and the reasons for the course of the Convention, and then they
can speak and act intelligently, being wise as serpents and harmless as
doves." (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
13 Jul 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
"INCOMPATIBLE WITH A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT."
"The opponents of Statehood for Utah exhibit the weakness of their
cause by carping criticisms of simple phrases in the Constitution, and
endeavors to attach to them a meaning foreign to their import and intent.
For instance, much has been made of the opening sentence of the section in
reference to the practice which has been proclaimed the great barrier to
Utah's admission into the Union. It says:
"`Bigamy and polygamy being considered incompatible with a republican
form of government, each of them is hereby forbidden and declared a
misdemeanor.'
"It is asked, why are these practices any more incompatible with a
republican than a monarchial form of government, and why should the
`Mormon' members of the Convention formulate such a prohibition? It is
very difficult to satisfy persons who are determined to be dissatisfied,
and impossible to make those whose living and pleasure depend upon
determined hostility to Utah's political advancement agree to anything
fair and rational relating to the movement. Objections are to be expected,
and some of them foolish and fallacious, but these are so silly as to be
beyond anticipation.
"The State of Utah and the National Government have nothing to do
with monarchical antipathies or affinities The United States have to
guarantee to each state a republican form of government. This is provided
in the national Constitution. It has been claimed, as an objection to
Utah's Statehood, that bigamy and polygamy are incompatible with a
republican form of government. Whether this objection is reasonable or
foolish has nothing to do with the fact. The objection has been [16]
raised. It has been quite common. The only constitutional objection that
could be interposed to Utah's admission into the Union is one founded on
that constitutional provision.
"All that Congress is really required to do in the matter of
admitting new, States into the Union is to see that they have a republican
form of government. Religious questions may not be interposed. They are
outside of the purview of the government. Whether citizens are `Mormons'
or Methodists, Catholics or Protestants, Puritans or Infidels, has nothing
to do with their political status. The government of each State must be
republican in form and spirit, and anything in it that appears to be
antagonistic to this requirement may be considered as an objection.
"We have not stated that polygamy is either incompatible or out of
harmony with a republican form of government. The convention did not pass
upon the truth or falsity of the theory. That body made no affirmation or
negation of its correctness. The convention recognized the fact that such
an objection had been raised, and to meet that objection the prohibitory
provisions were inserted in the Constitution. The object was to frame an
unexceptionable instrument as the fundamental law of the new State, one
that could not be reasonably assailed by the strictest sticklers for
Utah's conformity with the laws and institutions of the several partners
in the Federal compact. We believe the Convention succeeded. And it cannot
be urged that its work was not thorough, direct, comprehensive and
complete.
"If bigamy and polygamy are not incompatible with a republican form
of government, the objections to Utah's admission into the Union are
responsible for the declaration that they are incompatible, and not the
members of the Constitutional Convention. If they are incompatible, then
no objection can reasonably be raised against the sentence complained of.
In either case, the Convention is not to be blamed and the criticism is
groundless.
"As to the religious status of the members of the Convention, that
should cut no figure in the argument. It was a political body. It was not
in any sense ecclesiasti-[17]cal. It had to do with political questions,
and all its acts had relation to civil matters. It was not providing for
or against a Church. It formally declared that the state should have no
union with or domination from any religious organization. The members were
not polygamists. They were all registered voters. They had taken the oath
provided in the special legislation for Utah. They proceeded in the line
of that legislation. They were differently situated from many of the
members of preceding conventions. They were consistent in the position
they took, and in good faith sought to remove the barriers raised by the
opponents of Utah's Statehood.
"It is a significant fact that the papers and persons who have made
the most clamor and the strongest demands that the younger and monogamic
men of this Territory should take hold of affairs, and remove the alleged
obstacle to Utah's political advancement, are now the bitterest denouncers
of the members of the Convention for doing what was demanded. It proves
that the requirement was a sham, and that nothing which gives the faintest
hopes for fairness and justice to Utah will suit her malignant enemies.
The only thing that will satisfy them is the turning over of this
Territory, its offices, its treasury and the lives and fortunes of its
founders and builders and thrifty population, into the hands of a very few
and comparatively recent in comers, who lay claim to a monopoly of all the
loyalty, intelligence, education and right to control, but many of whom
have not a stake in the country and no qualities to recommend them but
invincible impudence and some knowledge of political wire-pulling and
intrigue.
"The situation is this: Utah has many times sought admission into the
Union as a State. The cry has been raised, `Polygamy exists in Utah; it is
incompatable with a republican form of government; no State can be
admitted with any recognition of the practice; provide against it and
there is no reason why Utah should not come in.' The fact of the objection
has been recognized, the provision demanded has been made as thoroughly
and unchangeably as is possible in any Constitution, and now the opposers
find fault with the removal of the ob-[18]stacle which they pretended to
want taken out of the way. Is anything consistent to be expected of the
enemies of the honest and peaceable citizens of the United States who have
built up a great commonwealth in the deserts of these mountains?" (Deseret
Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Friday 15 Jul 1887, St. George, U.T.:
* * * Apostle H. J. Grant addressed us on Statehood for Utah. "The
First Presidency and Twelve indorsed the Constitution formulated and
adopted by the Convention at Salt Lake City on the 7th of July 1887, and
of the independence of the United States the 111th. * * * (Journal of J.
D. T. McAllister)
16 Jul 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
"THE CHURCH AND THE CONSTITUTION."
"The enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are
making strenuous exertions to identify it with the political movement now
in progress having Statehood for Utah as the object. Also to fasten upon
the plurally married members of the Church the responsibility attached to
the measures adopted to reach that end. This is very unfair and
inconsistent. For a long time it has been claimed that the polygamists
ruled in politics and that the Church dominated the state. By special
legislation all polygamists were deprived of political power and this
alleged difficulty was then removed.
"The younger portion of the community were urged to take a stand and
adopt measures to put Utah into harmony with the rest of the country. The
Constitutional Convention was composed of monogamic members. The
Constitution they framed will be submitted to the registered voters, who
have all taken the oath to obey the laws of the United States and
particularly those specially relating to Utah. This renders the clauses in
the Constitution on the polygamy question consistent, and the objections
raised against them by anti-`Mormons' inconsistent. As we have many times
affirmed, the movement is purely political. And it is made by monogamic
voting citizens and not by polygamists or any ecclesiastical body or
authorities.
"When journals attempt to cast obloquy upon the men [19] who have
suffered imprisonment for a principle, alleging that they are now
sacrificing principle, they must know they are doing those gentlemen great
injustice. The polygamists are not in this movement, for they are barred
out of all participation in active politics. Why try to mix them up with
matters placed beyond their reach, and endeavor to put them on ground that
they are prevented from occupying? Why blame them for doing something that
is made impossible for them to do? And further, even if they were able to
take any part in the measures adopted by legal voters, why should those
who have demanded that the polygamists take steps to conform to the will
of the nation, now abuse them on the ground that they are trying to do the
very thing which was declared absolutely necessary for them to do?
"The fact is, their defamers have placed it beyond their power to
take any political action whatever. And now that they are outside of
politics, they are held up to the world as the prime movers in a political
project in which they cannot take part, and are abused for something which
in the very nature of things they cannot accomplish, would be just what
they have been asked to do and berated for not doing.
"The fact is well known that the monogamic population of Utah is very
largely in the majority. And yet this fact is ignored by many papers
taking part in the discussion of the Statehood question. It is also known
that recent legislation has placed all political power in the hands of the
monogamous citizens. Why, then, assume that polygamists have `gone back'
on their principles and sacrificed their religious convictions, when they
have taken no action for the potent reason already given? And why attack
the `Mormon' Church for a movement that is not in any sense
ecclesiastical, but is entirely secular and political?
"The pretended union of Church and State has never really existed
under our national and locally stems of government. The cry was set up in
lieu of the polygamy clamor, when that was found to be losing effect. If a
prominent `Mormon' takes part in politics or occupies an office under the
laws, that is no more than if he were a Methodist or a Catholic. It is
considered quite proper [20] for a Methodist minister to do all this. And
yet he is a professional preacher, making his living to his calling, which
the `Mormon' Elder is not. Ministers of various denominations take an
active part in politics, and run for office, and get elected and no one
complains. But when a `Mormon' Elder does the same things, the senseless
exclamation is heard, `A union of Church and State!'
"But it is alleged that these `Mormons' ask and receive counsel from
leading Church men in all their political movements. We will not take the
trouble to dispute this. Let us assume, for the present, that this is
absolutely correct. What then? Have not `Mormon' citizens the same right
to choose their advisers as their opponents have? Must they go to the
leaders of their enemies for counsel? Is this the kind of liberty that the
fanatics who are howling about Church and State want to thrust upon the
people of Utah? We claim the right to take advice from any person whom we
choose to consult, and to reject the efforts of our adversaries when they
want us to listen to and be regulated by their suggestions. And a wise,
experienced, sober and honest Bishop or Apostle is a far safer counselor
than a crafty, intemperate, whisky-soaked, profane and wire-pulling
politician or place-hunter, who wants to pull somebody down to hoist
himself up.
"In a movement for Statehood or any other political measure, the
people must be viewed and treated within a political capacity and not as
Church members. It is of no use to talk about the `Mormon' Church in
connection with this subject, for it is entirely outside of the question.
Congress cannot make terms with the `Mormon' Church more than with any
other Church. What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints thinks
of this step and the provisions of the State Constitution, can cut no
figure in the movement in its relations to the government or the country.
It is not to be confounded with the State, or with the Territory, or with
the registered voters taking action in their political capacity. As an
establishment of religion it occupies its own sphere and the attempt to
drag it within the lines of this political question is wrong and
impertinent.
"The new Utah Constitution says: `There shall be no [21] union of
Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State.' This will be
agreed to by every rational American citizen. On the other hand the State
must not interfere with any Church as a religious body. And this is also
in harmony with our national institutions. Let the political body, then,
which is responsible for this political movement, stand where it belongs
and do not try to confound it with an ecclesiastical organization that
occupies another position entirely.
"Let the press and the country view the facts as they are: The
majority of the voting citizens, who are not polygamists, in their civil
capacity by their representatives have formed a State Constitution which
will be submitted to all of the same class who choose to vote on it at the
general election. The `Mormon' Church is not its author. The polygamous
`Mormons' are barred by special law from taking part in the measure. Let
it stand on its merits and let extraneous questions be kept outside the
discussion. If the Constitution is bad, or the voting citizens of Utah
have no political rights, demonstrate these points, but do not abuse men
who are barred out of politics nor a Church which has no part in the
matter, for things that are beyond their action. In other words, for once
try and be consistent. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
25 Jul 1887:
President John Taylor died in exile * * *.
30 Jul 1887:
In the Supreme Court of Utah, suit was commenced against the Church
and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, according to the provisions of
the Edmunds-Tucker Law.
1 Sep 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THE ADMISSION OF UTAH.
To the Editor of the Sun: (New York)
Sir: There is no necessity whatever for the people and Government of
the United States to trouble themselves about the religious doctrine of
the Mormon Church on the subject of marriage when the admission of Utah as
a State under the proposed Constitution comes to be acted on in Congress,
nor is it of any consequence that this [22] Constitution was framed by a
convention composed exclusively or chiefly of Mormons, or that it was a
voluntary assembly, not called together by any authority of law, Federal
or Territorial. The people of any community have an inalienable right to
assemble and lay their wishes before the ruling powers; and if the Mormons
of Utah have framed a Constitution that ought to be satisfactory to the
country in the matter of polygamy, it is not of the slightest consequence
whether they were asked or authorized to do so by any legislative
authority.
In one aspect it is fortunate that this Constitution was framed by a
Mormon body, because it is to be judged upon its merits and because its
provisions show what the Mormons are willing and anxious to do. Moreover
the Constitution has been submitted to a preliminary popular vote, at the
last general election in the Territory, and it was approved by an almost
unanimous Mormon vote.
The charge that its framers and supporters are seeking to play a
trick, and that when the Territory has been admitted as a State the
anti-polygamy section will be repealed, is nothing but a ridiculous
attempt to awaken popular prejudice and distrust. This transparent
nonsense will be appreciated by every intelligent person who reads the
provisions of this Constitution, which renders it wholly unnecessary to
inquire into the Mormon religious belief about marriage or to consider
whether the Mormons of Utah, in what they propose to make the fundamental
law of their new state, are consistent or inconsistent with their
professed religious beliefs.
Permit me to touch briefly one other topic. Whatever may have been
the uncertainty caused by the action of the Supreme Court of the United
States thirty years ago in the Dred Scott case, I suppose every well
informed constitutional lawyer of the United States will now admit that
the doctrine for which I contended in that case, and which was adopted by
the minority of the judges, was correct. It is that the source of the
power of Congress to establish and govern those peculiar dependencies
called Territories is in the third section of Article IV, of The
Constitution of the United States; that this section imposes upon Congress
a trust, the proper dis-[23]charge of which requires that every Territory
shall be brought into the Union as a State as soon as its inhabitants
desire it, and they have the requisite numbers and resources to sustain a
State government. It is not a proper discharge of the trust to keep any
Territory indefinitely in the condition of a Territory, thereby keeping
open a field for the exercise of Federal patronage and power. What shall
be deemed a sufficient population has varied in different cases, and will
always vary. But in the case of Utah there can be no question of a
sufficient population and resources. Utah is the oldest Territory that the
United States possesses, and it has a larger population than any other
dependency of the United States, excepting the District of Columbia.
I have lately read, in the Deseret Evening News, published in Salt
Lake City, an excellent exposition in which I entirely concur--that no
Territory has or can have, so long as it remains a Territory, a
"republican form of government," in the proper sense of those descriptive
terms. A Territorial government is not self-government or home rule. In
Utah, although there is a Legislature elected by the people, no bill can
become a law without the Governor's approval, and he is not obliged to
veto a bill or to render any reason for not signing it. He has simply to
pocket it, and it drops. The Governor and the Judges and the executive
officers are not elected by the people; they are appointed at Washington.
This is not republican government; it is Territorial government.
It is because the Mormon people of Utah wish to live under a
republican government that they have framed this Constitution, and there
is no good reason why they should not be allowed to become a State, under
a Constitution which will put at rest forever the unpleasant subject of
polygamy by making it an offense against the State itself, and by
rendering it impossible to be legalized without the consent of Congress.
George Ticknor Curtis.
Richfield Springs, Sept. 1st. (Deseret Evening New 10 Sep 1887)
[24]
29 Sep 1887, Report of the Utah Commission:
The church leaders have been very much disturbed by the sale of
property to non-Mormons, and have from the pulpit urged upon the people
not to sell their inheritance in Zion, that has been entrusted to them to
carry out the purposes of the Lord, and not for the purposes of gain.
The people are very tenacious of what they claim to be their rights,
and have never yielded a point. They stand to-day where they stood when
they first entered the Territory. They persistently claim that they have
been persecuted. * * *
Undoubtedly in Missouri and Illinois they were the victims of many
unlawful attacks; but there has always been something in their methods
which have excited the opposition and the distrust of every people among
whom they have lived. They have been invited and had it in their power
while in Utah to settle honorably the contest which has been waged between
the Government and them. All that has been asked of them is to acknowledge
the supremacy of the law. * * *
The majority of the Mormons are a kindly and hospitable people. They
possess many traits of character which are well worthy of emulation by
others. In their local affairs they strive to suppress the vices which are
common to settled communities. In matters of religion they are intensely
devotional, rendering a cheerful obedience to their church rules and
requirements. They possess many of the elements which under wise
leadership would make them useful and prosperous people. * * *
The great body of the Gentiles are equal in intellect, courage, and
energy to those of any other community. When they went to Utah they found
all the agricultural and that had water convenient already appropriated.
Both the land and the water had been secured, and land without water is
practically worthless for agriculture in that Territory. There was nothing
left for them but he mines. These they searched for and, as found, opened.
This is work that none but superior men can carry through. It takes
capital, courage, faith, sagacity, [25] endurance, and ceaseless work. Of
all the mines found some have brought rich returns. But of these a vast
proportion goes for labor, for supplies, for machinery, and to make roads.
Silver mines are generally found among almost inaccessible mountain tops,
and every movement connected with them is costly. These mines have
yielded, up to the present time, $96,000,000. Quite half the sum has been
paid to Mormons for labor and supplies, and through this, from a very poor
people, they have become very prosperous. They possessed the land when the
Gentiles went among them, but they were so poor that some whole families
did not secure $10 in money throughout the year.
What the Gentiles have been able to accomplish has been in spite of
the Mormon combined competition and opposition. They wrenched from the
rugged and barren mountain tops the gold and silver until they owned of
the assessed property of the Territory nearly one third, exclusive of
railroad property. * * *
The non-Mormons have always been regarded as intruders in Utah, and
are referred to as "outsiders." Within the past five years one of the
first presidency of the Mormon Church in an address delivered in the
Tabernacle, in substance said, "We ought never to have let them secure a
foothold here;" and this expresses the sentiments of the great majority of
the Mormon people. They attribute the troubles which have come to their
leaders to the presence of these "outsiders," and not to the awakened
public sentiment of the nation. The non-Mormons who have played a
conspicuous part in the work of reforming the Territory are referred to as
it aggressive persons, blatant assailants of the religion and politics of
the majority of the business men and people of the Territory,
"conspirators and adventurers." * * *
The political history of the Territory of Utah and the system of
plural marriage are so closely interwoven that the one cannot be
considered separate and apart from the other. In fact, since July 24,
1847, polygamy has given tone to the political policy of the Mormon
people. Under the provisional government of the [26] State of Deseret, and
the Territorial government which followed after, every act of the
legislative assembly had, even remotely, a political bearing, was voted up
or down solely upon the question of its relation to the overshadowing
interest. Every effort has been made to strengthen polygamy which the
strength of forty years could suggest, and every chord has been struck
which it was supposed might send back a responsive and friendly note.
The result has been that nearly every man of prominence in the church
became a polygamist; the controlling intellect of Utah became involved in
the practice. They filled nearly every office of importance in the church,
and in the Territorial and county governments, and had a large majority of
every legislative assembly down to the year 1882, when the "Edmunds law"
disqualified them. Utah was governed by men who seemed determined to build
up in the heart of the American continent a polygamous empire. * * *
The statistics for 1880 will give an idea of how far they had
progressed.
The census found a population of 143,962, of which 60,576 were over
twenty-one years of age; about 10,000 of these are estimated to be
non-Mormons. The number of persons then living in polygamy was found,
after careful inquiry, to be about 12,000, and there were at least 3,000
who had lived in polygamy, but a separation had been effected by death or
otherwise, making a total of 15,000, or 30 per cent, of the adult Mormon
population, or one out of every 3 1/3, who had entered into polygamy.
While all did not enter into polygamy, all believed it right as a divine
revelation and upheld it in those who chose to enter into the relation.
The system was united by ties of kindred with nearly every Mormon family
in the Territory. * * *
In 1851 (sic) polygamy was publicly proclaimed as a tenet of the
church by alleged "Divine revelation," by Brigham Young, president of the
Mormon church and governor of the Territory.
At a special conference of the Mormon church, held at Salt Lake City
during the same year, was begun the [27] controversy between the Mormon
people and the representatives of the Federal Government, which has
continued till the present time. Judge Brocchus, of the Territorial
supreme court, who was present, rebuked the people for their polygamous
practices. His speech was, as he said, "the result of deliberation and
care." It gave great offense to Brigham Young and the Mormon people, who
charged him with falsifying "the eternal principles of truth," and with
insulting the Mormon women.
From 1851 to 1862 polygamy flourished unchecked and uncontrolled. The
Mormon people claim that plural marriage during this period was not
unlawful. Certainly there was no statute law against the practice of
polygamy, and if the common law did not come into the Territory at the
time the United States acquired possession they are right, but it is an
indisputable fact that the common law was in full force during these
years. The act of 1862 provides that-"Every person having a husband or wife living who marries another,
whether married or single, in a Territory or other place over which the
United States has exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall
be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a
term of not more than five years."
The Mormon people claimed the law was not constitutional. At the
first session of the legislative assembly following, Governor Harding, in
his message, said:
"I respectfully call your attention to an act of Congress passed the
first day of July, 1862, entitled `An act to punish and prevent the
practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and in other
places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the Territorial
legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah.' I am aware that there is a
prevailing opinion here that said act is unconstitutional, and therefore
it is recommended by those in high authority that no regard be paid to the
same, and still more be regretted, if I am rightly informed, in some
instances it has been recommended that it be openly disregarded and defied
merely to defy the same. I take this occasion to warn the people of this
[28] Territory against such dangerous and disloyal courses. Whether such
acts are unconstitutional or not, it is not necessary for me either to
affirm or deny. The individual citizen, under no circumstances whatever,
has the right to defy any law or statute of the United States with
impunity. In so doing he takes upon himself the risk of the penalties of
that statute, whatever they may be, in case his judgement should be in
error. The Constitution has amply provided how and where all such
questions of doubt are to be submitted and settled, viz, in the courts
constituted for that purpose. To forcibly resist the execution of this act
would be, to say the least, a high misdemeanor, and if the whole community
should be come involved in such resistance would call down upon it the
consequences of insurrection and rebellion. I hope and trust that no such
rash counsel will prevail. If, unhappily, I am mistaken in this, I choose
to shut my eyes to the consequences."
The timely advice contained in the recommendations of Governor
Harding was not heeded. The people continued to violate the law, with
impunity. The courts and the officials were powerless, under the
Territorial statutes, to enforce and execute the punitory provisions of
the law. The anomalous condition of affairs was presented of the will of
the nation being ignored by a few men who claimed the sanction of Divine
authority for their acts. It is reported that the Mormons make the claim
that they were led to believe by national authority that the law of 1862
was not to be enforced, but was to remain a dead letter on the statute
books. Certainly this was an error, and nothing but the fact that the time
of Congress was occupied with matters involving the life of the nations,
and, after the war, with other matters of importance, prevented prompt and
energetic action on the subject. Congress has at every opportunity taken
occasion in the most signal manner to express its abhorrence of the
practice of polygamy. On June 23, 1874, the "Poland act" became law. It
was the first law by which Congress had struck at the judicial system
under the cover of which the Mormons had so long rendered the district
courts powerless. The jury panel was now, to [29] be selected by the
clerks of the district courts and the probate judge of the county in which
the terms of court were held. Two hundred names were to be selected
annually, 100 by each. The experiment of mixed juries proved a failure.
The grand juries were about equally divided, which rendered abortive all
attempts to indict polygamists. In 1878 a partial relief came from an
unexpected source. The legislative assembly passed an act regulating the
mode of procedure in criminal cases, which provided for challenges for
actual bias to be tried by triers appointed by the court. When the case of
Miles, indicted for polygamy, was reached for trial, the district attorney
challenged the Mormon jurors for actual bias. The court appointed triers
and the challenge was sustained. The Mormon legislature had practically
adopted the California code, which contained this provision, probably not
anticipating such a construction by the court. The act popularly known as
the "Edmunds Act" was approved March 22, 1882. A penalty for polygamy was
made the same as that fixed by the laws of 1862. A penalty was also
provided "against any man who simultaneously, or on the same day, married
more than one woman." "Simultaneous" nuptials was an expedient adopted to
protect those who chose to violate the laws. The law further provided a
penalty for unlawful cohabitation. Theretofore the law made the marriage a
crime. Now, the living together, the holding out of two or more women to
the world as wives, was made a misdemeanor. The great necessity for this
amendment arose from the difficulty of securing the conviction of
polygamists.
The entire Mormon community conspired to conceal the evidence of such
marriages until the statute of limitations would prove a bar to
prosecution; then the polygamous relation would be openly acknowledged.
Before the passage of this act the Mormon leaders were frequently seen on
the streets, in the theaters, and other public places with their
polygamous wives. The law, also provided for amnesty to such offenders as
would in good faith renounce polygamy. Eighty-one persons have thus far
been amnestied by the President. The issue of [30] polygamous marriages
before January 1, 1883, were legitimated.
The vital importance of making the continuance of the polygamic
relation a misdemeanor is seen in the incipient contest which it has
produced in the Mormon Church. At first, several of the persons thus
arraigned promised in open court to obey the laws thereafter, and this in
the face of strenuous opposition. The DESERET NEWS, the Church organ,
editorially proclaimed that no Mormon could consistently make such a
promise without violating obligations which bound him for time and
eternity. Those who did so were referred to in a manner calculated to make
their neighbors feel that they had incurred disgrace. In the case of John
Sharp decisive action was taken. He was a prominent man in the Territory,
a gentleman of high character, who had secured the respect of the people.
He had the courage and patriotism to appear in court and announce his
intention to obey the laws. He was promptly removed from the office of
bishop of the twentieth ward of Salt Lake City, in which office he had
become endeared to the people by associations extending beyond a period of
twenty years. It was thought that his patriotic force would have an
influence upon others and encourage them to respect the law. Hence the
summary treatment he received. * * *
In the enforcement of the law the present officers of the Federal
courts in Utah are entitled to special commendation, and this should also
include the late able and efficient prosecuting attorney.
While but a small proportion of the offenders have been convicted,
the tension produced by these prosecutions cannot be overestimated.
Actuated by a determination not to recognize the supremacy of national
laws where they forbid crimes sanctioned by a religious creed, it is not
surprising that the leaders have resorted to unusual methods to defeat the
law, and so great is their influence and so compact their organization,
that the entire membership have been a unit in aiding and abetting the
offenders in their obstructive course and in escaping the penalty of their
crimes. The law of 1882 invites the Mormon people, through their
legislative assembly, to [31] bring Utah into harmony with the expressed
will of the nation; to recognize the fact that every interest must remain
subordinate to the general welfare and be subjected to the Constitution
and the laws; to cease the wretched policy of evasion and resistance to
law, which, if persisted in, will destroy the public pride and result in
moral decay; and to correct the wrongs which have so long held Utah up to
the public gaze in deplorable pre-eminence.
Governor Murray, in his message to the legislative assembly of 1884,
the first after the passage of the Edmunds act of 1882, and again in 1886,
called attention to the invitation to the Mormon people contained in the
law, and expressed his willingness to cooperate with them in the adoption
of proper measures.
The national laws relating to bigamy and polygamy have been in
effective operation for about three years.
Standing face to face with the law, the leaders and their obedient
followers have made no concession to its supremacy, and the issue is
squarely maintained between assumed revelations of the laws of the land.
As late as August 23, 1887, and seven weeks after the adoption of the
proposed State constitution at Provo City, Utah, a public reception was
tendered by the Mormon people at their meeting house to several persons,
polygamists, who had just been released from the penitentiary. Among the
speakers were two of the stake presidency, two bishops and elders of the
church, nearly all of whom were polygamists, and who proclaimed their
intention to live in the future as they had in the past.
The first annual election since the act of Congress prescribing a
registration oath for voters was held on August 1, of this year, and was
preceded by a registration under that act, made in the months of May and
June last. The Commission, after careful consideration, to aid in securing
uniformity of action by the registration officers, formulated and
submitted to them for their use, as an advisory act of the part of the
Commission, a form of registration oath, substantially in the words of the
act, as follows:
[32]
TERRITORY OF UTAH,
County of________________________, ss.
I, _______________________, being duly sworn (or affirmed),depose and
say that I am over twenty-one years of age, that I have resided in the
Territory of Utah for six months last past, and in this precinct for one
month immediately preceding the date hereof; and that I am a native born
(or naturalized, as the case may be) citizen of the United States; that my
full name is ____________; that I am_______years of age; that my place of
business is ____________; that I am a (single or) married man; that the
name of my lawful wife is __________________; and that I will support the
Constitution of the United States, and will faith fully obey the laws
thereof, and especially will obey the act of Congress approved March 22,
1882, entitled "An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of
the United States in reference to bigamy and for other purposes, approved
March 22, 1882," in respect of the crimes in said act defined and
forbidden, and that I will not, directly or indirectly, aid or abet,
counsel or advise any other person to commit any of said crimes defined by
acts of Congress as polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest,
adultery, and fornication.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of _______,
188___.
Deputy Registration Officer for _______________ Precinct, ________
County.
Although the person applying to have his name registered as a voter
may have made the foregoing oath, yet if the registrar shall, for
reasonably or probable cause, believe that the applicant is then, in fact,
a bigamist, polygamist, or living in unlawful cohabitation, incest,
adultery, or fornication, in our opinion the registrar may require the
applicant to make the following additional affidavit:
[33]
TERRITORY OF UTAH,
County of _______________, ss.
I, _____________________________, further swear (or affirm) that I am
not a bigamist, polygamist, or living in unlawful cohabitation, or
associating or cohabiting polygamously with persons of the other sex, and
that I have not been convicted of the crime of bigamy, polygamy, unlawful
cohabitation, incest, adultery, or fornication.
____________________.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this _____________ day
of __________, 188___.
Deputy Registration Officer for ______ Precinct, _________
County. * * *
Members of the Liberal party, in view of the evasive interpretation
given by the central committee of the "People's" party, were not satisfied
with the form of oath formulated by the Commission, and asked the
Commission to recommend a form of oath which they claimed was necessary to
bring the true intent and meaning of the law within reach of the
conscience of the voter, as follows:
TERRITORY OF UTAH,
County of ________________, ss.
I, __________________________, being duly sworn (or affirmed), depose
and say that I am over twenty-one years of age; that I have resided in the
Territory of Utah for six months last past, and in this precinct for one
month preceding the date hereof; that I am a native born (or naturalized
as the case may be) citizen of the United States; that my full name is
_______________________________; that I am ______ years of age; that my
place of business is ________________; that I am a married (or single)
man; that the name of my lawful wife is ____________________________; that
I will support the constitution of the United States, and will faithfully
obey the laws thereof; that I will especially obey the acts of Congress
prohibiting polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery, and
fornication. that I will not hereafter [34] at any time, within any
Territory of the United States, while said acts of Congress remain in
force, in obedience of any alleged revelation, or to any counsel, advice,
or command, from any persons or source whatever, or under any
circumstances, enter into plural or polygamous marriage, or have to take
more wives than one, or cohabit with more than one woman; that I will not
at any time hereafter in violation of said acts of Congress, directly or
indirectly, aid or abet, counsel or advise, any person to take, have, or
to take more wives than one, or to cohabit with more than one woman, or to
commit incest, adultery, or fornication; that I am not a bigamist or
polygamist; that I do not cohabit polygamously with persons of the other
sex, and that I have not been convicted of any of the offenses above
mentioned.
______________________.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of
____________, 18___.
___________________.
Deputy Registration Officer for ________ Precinct, _________
county.
In all of the election districts the form recommended by the
Commission was used by the registration officers, * * *.
The form of oath suggested by members of the Liberal party was first
used in the third district court, presided over by Chief Justice Zane, and
is now used in the district courts of the Territory for the qualification
of jurors.
The present year has been marked by proceedings to form a
constitution on which to demand admission to the Union of States, the
fourth attempt for that purpose in the history of the Territory.
Before the election, and on June 16, 1887, a call appeared signed by
the chairman and the secretary of the People's party (Mormon), calling
upon the people of Utah, irrespective of party, creed, or class, to
assemble in mass conventions in their respective counties on June 25,
1887, at 12 m., for the purpose of appoint-[35]ing delegates to a
convention to be held at Salt Lake City on the 30th day of June, 1887, to
frame a constitution preparatory to an application to Congress for
admission to statehood. * * *
The convention met and with surprising unanimity, adopted a proposed
constitution, which declares bigamy and polygamy to be misdemeanors, and
affixes punishment. It also provides that no further legislation shall be
required to make or define these offenses; that the provision is not
amendable without the consent of Congress, and proclaims the separation of
church and State. The instrument is silent as to the offense of unlawful
cohabitation. * * *
The action of the convention and the result of its labors did not
tend to allay, but rather to increase, the apprehensions and opposition of
the non-Mormons. They make many objections to the admission of Utah as a
State at present, and unanimously declined to vote upon the subject or in
any way recognize the move. The following is a summary of some of their
objections:
1. that the action taken is without authority from the proper source
and not entitled to any recognition, and is accompanied by many and strong
evidences of evasion and bad faith in professing an abandonment of
polygamy and the accompanying social evils, with the intent to acquire
statehood, and without any intent to restrain and punish such offenses,
but merely to entrench them behind statehood;
2. that the historical attitude of the great body of the people
towards the laws on this subject had not changed down to the eve of
calling the convention, and that until then the Mormons, their press and
pulpits, had not ceased to declare the laws of Congress unconstitutional
and their enforcement persecution;
3. that though the press and pulpits suddenly became silent with
indications in a few places of a muzzled silence, there was still no sign
or intimation of any change of sentiment in words or acts, and the
hostility to the enforcement of existing laws and Federal authority was
still as active and general as before;
4. that scarcely any Mormon in good standing would [36] even promise
to obey the laws in the future to escape punishment after conviction in
court;
5. that they were unable to understand how the great body of the
people could undergo an overnight conversion on the subject of these
offenses, when the day before their consciences were so strong that
nothing could induce them to promise obedience to the laws;
6. that the Deseret Evening News, their leading and uncompromising
organ had, after the framing of the proposed constitution, and before the
election, printed an editorial leaving the question to the voters with the
most judicial fairness, but ending with the advice to be "as wise as
serpents and harmless as doves;"
7. that in view of their past history the first evidence of a bona
fide intent to obey and execute laws making these offenses punishable
should be a cessation of hostility to present laws and the announcement of
obedience to them;
8. that notwithstanding the great unanimity in the convention and in
the subsequent vote of the people, no member of the convention or voter
has, in the constitution or elsewhere, declared he considered or believed
either of the offenses named is or should be a misdemeanor or punishable,
but the provision in the constitution is introduced by the remarkable
whereas, for the reason that somebody, perhaps some wicked persons at
Washington, deem those crimes incompatible with a republican form of
government, they are made misdemeanors and punishable;
9. that it is not easy to conceive why the incompatibility should be
limited to a republican form of government, or why it should not extend to
every form of civilized government, unless full force is given to the
dogma taught by the dominant sect, that the only true and rightful
government is a theocracy in which the powers of government are derived
from God and delegated to ministers, who govern by divine right;
10. that no constitutional provision can execute itself, but requires
prosecutors, jurors, and judges, all of whom, under statehood, would be
Mormons, and if a whole people can be suddenly converted one way in one
[37] night, they might be susceptible to a reconversion equally sudden,
and all the prosecuting powers become hostile to the law;
11. that the rules of evidence and the laws of marriage under
statehood are proper subjects of State legislation, and while a marriage
without witnesses may be good a rule of evidence that it requires one or
more witnesses to the direct fact of marriage to commit polygamy would
leave the constitutional provision worthless, and should the courts adopt
the rule, still existing in some States, that on a charge of bigamy
cohabitation and the repute of marriage are insufficient to prove the
marriage, no new law or rule of evidence would be needed;
12. that it is historical there are many polygamists in Utah, and as
such marriages are conceded the number is unknown, and so far as the
constitution is concerned all these could live openly with their numerous
families as soon as the Federal law ceased, and point to their relations
as the reward of those who had lived up to the privileges of their
religion;
13. that there is no grant of power in the constitution authorizing
Congress to sanction or refuse an amendment to the constitution of a
sovereign State;
14. that the people of a State cannot deprive themselves of the power
to amend a constitution the creation of their will, nor can they legislate
to bind those that come after them;
15. that the Mormons have hitherto justified their opposition to the
Federal laws under plea of conscience in respect to religious matters, but
they have apparently made their consciences marketable commodity and
statehood the exchangeable value if they offer in good faith to suppress
these offenses, unless their religious view's have suddenly changed, of
which there is no evidence or pretense;
16. that the claim that this constitution emanates from and is the
work of non-polygamous Mormons is no argument in its favor;
17. that good citizenship does not involve only the question who in
fact practices polygamy, but also who believes in it as a moral and
religious right, superior to [38] all human laws, and hence will be
influenced in his conduct by such belief;
18. that the non-polygamists have always been a large majority, but
have in every way upheld the polygamists, have been equally active and
bitter in their opposition to the laws, and without their aid and support
the polygamists could not so long have defied the laws;
19. that there has been no evidence of any struggle or contest
between the polygamists and monogamists, but all have acted with the
greatest possible harmony and vied with each other in attaining the wisdom
of serpents and harmlessness of doves.
That the church leaders, who control in such matters have never
manifested in any manner their intention to cease to enforce the practice
of polygamy by their people, but that their silence indicates that the
converse of the proposition is true; that the Mormon church has never
abandoned its purpose of ultimately becoming a controlling political
power, and adopts this method of promoting it; and further, that if the
non-polygamists have reached this conclusion, that the law in respect to
these offenses is superior, and that it is the first duty of citizens to
obey the laws of Congress prescribing rules of conduct, it is an easy
matter for them to announce it and give some evidence of their good faith.
In accordance with these views the non-Mormons abstained from voting
on the subject at the polls, desiring not to recognize the movement in any
manner whatever.
The monogamous Mormons cast 13,195 votes in favor of the
constitution, 500 votes being cast against it.
The action of the Mormon people in adopting a constitution which
forbids polygamy and bigamy, in view of their past history, is an anomaly
which demands some explanation. In all its Territorial history, Utah,
under the control of the dominant sect, which is in reality a political
organization, with aims and methods which are political, has stood arrayed
in opposition to laws of Congress on these subjects and still maintains
united efforts to nullify them.* * *
The call for the assembling of mass-meetings to [39] appoint
delegates to meet in convention and frame a constitution was evidently the
result of a very sudden inspiration, so much so that the Deseret News
editorially said: "It would occasion some surprise." There had been no
previous discussion in the press, nor among the people, in relation to
such a movement, which was conceived and carried through with the utmost
haste.
The provision in the constitution with reference to polygamy and
bigamy is as follows:
"Sec. 12. Bigamy and polygamy being considered incompatible with `a
republican form of government,' each of them is hereby forbidden and
declared a misdemeanor.
"Any person who shall violate this section shall, on conviction
thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment
for a term of not less than six months nor more than three years, in the
discretion of the court. This section shall be construed as operative
without the aid of legislation, and the offenses prohibited by this
section shall not be barred by any statute of limitation within three
years after the commission of the offense; nor shall the power of pardon
extend thereto until such pardon shall be approved by the President of the
United States."
The crime of polygamy is to be a misdemeanor (in every other State it
is a felony), and is punishable by a term of not more than three years,
whereas, under the federal law the fine is fixed at a sum not exceeding
$500 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Under the Federal law polygamists are denied the right to vote and to
hold office, but under this proposed constitution persons who have
committed, or who shall hereafter commit, the crime of polygamy, and all
such as continue to live in that crime, will be invested with the full
rights of citizenship. Under the Federal law, unlawful cohabitation is
punished by a fine not exceeding $300 and by imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months: under the proposed State this offense, which
perpetuated the evils of polygamy against society and posterity, is to go
unpunished.
[40]
The legislature of the proposed State is shorn of its power to raise
the grade of the crime to that of felony, or to annex any disqualification
on conviction while it is left free to promote polygamy by providing
through inheritance and by means of the wills for the maintenance of
polygamous households, and to deny the legal wife the right of dower, or
other rights, as heretofore.
The provisions for amendments to the proposed constitution only by
the consent of Congress, and for pardon of convicted polygamists only by
approval of the President, are incongruous and futile and need not be
considered. It is sufficient to say they are open to the criticism that if
a community can not be trusted to amend a constitution it can hardly be
said to be fit to be trusted with the powers of a State under any form of
constitution. And if it can not be trusted to deal with those who have
violated its laws, it should not have the control of the administration of
the laws.
If Utah should be admitted into the Union as a State, the following
results would follow, viz: There would be an immediate cessation of all
further prosecutions for polygamy and unlawful cohabitation under laws of
Congress. No prosecution for polygamy would ever take place in the State
until the ruling power in the State chose to do what they now arraign the
Government for "Persecute" for a crime which is "an essential part of
their religion." This claim has been set forth in a formal way, which has
made it a solemn declaration of the whole Mormon population of Utah. At a
general conference held at Logan April 6, 1885, a resolution was adopted
and a committee appointed to draft a protest and address to the President
and people of the United States. Such address was adopted at a
mass-meeting held May 2, 1885, at which the Hon. John T. Caine, Delegate
from the Territory, presided, and who was deputed as the agent to present
the same. In that document is formally proclaimed:
"As to religious faith, it is based upon evidence which to our minds
is conclusive; convictions not to be destroyed by legislative enactments
or judicial decisions; force may enslave the body, but it can not convince
the mind. [41] To yield at the demand of the legislator or judge the
rights of conscience would prove us recreant to every duty we owe to God
and man. Among the principles of our religion is that of immediate
revelation from God; one of the doctrines so revealed is celestial or
plural marriage, for which ostensibly we are stigmatized and hated. This
is a vital part of our religion, the decision of courts to the contrary
notwithstanding. * * *
The Mormon people cannot be called hypocrites. They boldly proclaim
their religious belief to all the world. Until that belief shall be
changed, if they be true to their creed, polygamy with its kindred evils
will be fostered by every means in their power. The leaders of the church
will probably do in the future what they have done in the past. They do
not recognize the authority of the Government to call upon them for
purpose, and determination of the church in this respect has been fully
developed. * * *
For these reasons the Commission has been led to fear that the
provision in the proposed constitution making polygamy a misdemeanor was
not adopted, nor the action taken with any purpose to suppress polygamy;
that it does not indicate an abandonment by the people of Utah in the
manner which is demanded by the will of the American people, as expressed
in their national law; that the late movement for statehood was the
offspring of necessity, inspired with the hope of escaping from the toils
which the firm attitude of the Government and the energetic course of the
Federal officers had wound around them. Realizing that they could expect
no aid nor comfort from the national administration, and actuated by a
determination not to recognize the supremacy of national laws where they
forbid crimes licensed by their creed, it is not surprising that the
majority in Utah should resort to some expedient to get relief from their
dilemma. In the light of these facts it is evident that the relief sought
for is expected in statehood, and that this expedient is, in the case of
Utah, inspired by more than the usual motives operating in other
communities, which are composed of homogeneous American population in
accord with the [42] laws and institutions of the country.
The presentation of the proposed application for statehood will
demand the consideration of the question by Congress whether the course of
the dominant majority in Utah, in the use of delegated powers in a
Territorial condition, has been such as to induce Congress to withdraw
certain of these powers until the perpetuated evils should be corrected
(which has not been done).
If Utah, as a Territory, has refused to recognize the force and
validity of national laws, and decisions of the supreme court, can it be
reasonably expected as a State it will do so? Can it be reasonably
expected that crimes and evils which the Government has failed to suppress
with its supervision over a Territorial government will be suppressed in a
State ruled by the majority which now maintains and propagates these
crimes and evils as "an essential part of their religion?"
It is submitted if it would not be wise to continue a Territorial
government in which the National Government could continue to deal
directly with these evils until they should be eradicated, even if it
should be necessary, as suggested in former reports (1884-'85), to take
all political power from those who have not sufficient allegiance to
recognize the validity of national laws and the decisions of courts, and
that no harmony in the Union could be maintained with a State ruled by a
creed which claims all governments but its own to be illegal, and claims a
"separate political destiny and ultimate temporal dominion by divine
right."
The Commission is of the opinion that Utah should not be admitted to
the Union until such time as the Mormon people shall manifest by their
future acts that they have abandoned polygamy in good faint, and not then
until an amendment shall have been made to the Constitution of the United
States prohibiting the practice of polygamy. * * *
The names of sixty-seven men have been reported to the Commission who
have entered into polygamy during the year ending June, 1887. This
information has been requested of all registrars. The number given has
been reported by non-Mormons, there being no in-[43]stance in which has a
name been reported by a Mormon registrar. The law imposes upon the
Commission the duty of registering voters, and it has been the uniform
policy of the Commission in filling these offices to select men, whenever
they could be found, who were in open and avowed sympathy with the law
under which they were acting. The necessity for this is apparent. * * *
MINORITY REPORT:
In former official reports the Commission several times expressed the
opinion that the laws of Congress, in connection with other influences,
were "setting strongly in the direction of reform" in Utah; and that at no
distant day "this relic of Asiatic barbarism (polygamy) would be swept
from the land." We have predicted from the beginning that the legal
discrimination in favor of the monogamous Mormons against the polygamists
would sooner or later be attended with good results. Early in the present
year we thought we discerned a disposition among the Mormons to give up
the practice of polygamy; and we wish to add that we have used our
official and personal influence to induce the Mormons to take such a step.
Early in June of the present year we were gratified to learn that a
general movement for the abrogation of polygamy was taking an organized
form. The central committee of the "People's (Mormon) party" published a
call in the newspapers for mass meetings of the legal voters to be held in
all the counties of the Territory, to select delegates to a convention to
be held in Salt Lake City, June 30, 1887, for the purpose of adopting a
State constitution, and inviting all parties in the Territory to
participate in those meetings. The other political parties in the
Territory declined to participate in the movement. * * *
The convention concluded not to furnish the separate ballot-boxes,
but to rely on the judges of election, or some of them, to count the votes
and make return of the election on the adoption or rejection of the
proposed constitution. This was done in nearly all the voting precincts,
and the result was:
[44]
For the constitution . . . . . . . . . 13,195
Against the constitution . . . . . . . . . 504
But few of the Gentiles voted on this proposition, and of the 504
negative votes probably about one-half were cast by Mormons. The total
vote for members of the legislative assembly was about 16,500, of which
the Gentiles cast about 3,500; so it appears that about 95% of the Mormon
voters cast their ballots for the constitution. * * *
Many of the Gentiles in Utah claim that this anti-polygamy movement
among the Mormons is "all a sham." But we do not think so. After careful
and impartial investigation and consideration, our conclusion is that,
whatever may be their motives, and whether they are influenced by choice
or necessity, the generality of the monogamous Mormons (who are more than
three-fourths of the Mormon population) have deliberately and wisely
resolved that their highest earthly interests, the prosperity and
happiness of themselves and their posterity, and the avoidance of the
odium which attaches to them throughout the civilized world, demand that
polygamy shall be abolished.
The Mormons have been led to believe that if the practice of polygamy
shall actually and in good faith be abolished, Congress will not further
pursue them with hostile legislation, and that their religious faith will
not be the subject of legal animadversion or discrimination. If the
premises are granted (namely, the bona fide abrogation of polygamy), their
conclusion is impregnable upon well settled principles and precedents. * *
*
After such assurances have been held out to the Mormon people by the
Supreme Court of the United States, by those eminent statesmen who
championed the anti-polygamy legislation in Congress, and by the
Commission, representing no party or faction, but the Government of the
United States; now, while the great mass of the Mormon people are making
an effort for the abandonment of the practice of polygamy, we are asked to
recommend further legislation of a hostile and aggressive character,
almost, if not entirely, destructive [45] of local self-government,
thereby inflicting punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. Our
answer is, we cannot do so; we decline to advise Congress to inflict
punishment by disfranchising any portion of the people of Utah on account
of their religious or irreligious opinions. * * *
Churches and creeds are subject to the laws of evolution, and
Mormonism must yield to the inexorable logic of civilization. Polygamy
must go, and its abrogation will, sooner or later, be an accomplished
fact. Other objectionable features are gradually giving way; and we are
thoroughly satisfied that whatever the Federal authorities can rightfully
accomplish in the way of reform can be done without resorting to the total
overthrow of local self government.
Polygamous marriages in Utah are becoming less frequent, as will
hereinafter be shown. No polygamist votes, holds office, or sits on a
jury. The mass of the Mormons have taken the test oath and voted against
polygamy. The conclusion is that the present laws of Congress are working
successfully; that there is no necessity of resorting to un-American plans
of government; and that if, as we apprehend, the object of the Government
is to reform and not to destroy the Mormon people, they should be
encouraged and not spurned in their efforts for the abrogation of polygamy
and for reform.
During the last two years and a half there has been no relaxation in
the enforcement of the laws for the suppression of polygamy. During that
period there have been about three hundred convictions to the penitentiary
for offenses against those laws, which, notwithstanding the signs of
reform, should continue to be enforced against all persons violating them;
no step backward should be tolerated; at the same time the innocent should
be scrupulously protected.
In a larger view polygamy is adjudged by the most enlightened nations
to be a manifold evil. It is the parent of caprice, cruelty, and license.
It enervates the male and degrades the female. Socially, politically, and
physically it is corrupting and deteriorating. Despotic [46] in the
family, it is the prototype of despotism in the government. It largely
accounts for the differing characteristic of the Asiatic and European; for
the indolence and feebleness of the one, and the energy and enterprise of
the other. Inferiority is its badge. In the armed contests of rival
civilizations, alike in ancient Greece and modern India, it succumbed to
the superiority of monogamy. It is at variance with the divine economy in
that originally God created but one man and one woman, Adam and Eve, each
as the only partner in wedlock of the other. Logically, and as a
consequence, it is irreconcilable to the idea of the marriage covenant as
practiced and revered by the masterful Teuton, Celt, and Anglo-Saxon. * *
*
The vigorous enforcement of these laws has resulted in a sense of
disquietude and insecurity in the mass of the Mormon population, and, as
we have before said, the indications of an important change are apparent.
***
For ourselves we may repeat, that the practice of polygamy appears to
be declining and in the course of ultimate abandonment, and that our
observation leads us to believe that the present intention of the
ascendent numbers of the monogamous Mormons is to compass and hasten that
end. * * *
Considering these facts, and the importance of continuing the power
of Congress over the subject of polygamy and of relieving the power from
any question, we venture respectfully to recommend the adoption of an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting the
institution of practice of polygamy in any form in the States and in the
Territories of other places over which the United States have exclusive
jurisdiction, supplemented with appropriate power of legislation to carry
it into full effect. This recommendation is in accordance with
propositions which have already been submitted, respectively, in the
Senate and House of Representatives, of which that in the House was
supported by an able and elaborate report from its Judiciary Committee.
Such an amendment would put an end to special and [47] provisional
legislation upon a disturbing question, which legislation, under the
present Constitution, must cease to operate with the cessation of the
territorial status. it would raise an implied and incidental power,
primarily drawn from the power of Congress "to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States," to the dignity of an express power
embedded in that instrument itself.
Other considerations favor it. It would insure us a solemn and
deliberate verdict of the American people against the practice of
polygamy, either as a social institution or religious rite. It would serve
as a rampart for the protection of monogamy, the bed-rock of American and
European civilization, against the inroads of an Asiatic vice. It would be
an authoritative notice to immigrants from all lands that the United
States are dedicated to the virtues of monogamy, and, passing as a lesson
into the common schools of the country, would form the minds of rising
generations in harmony with its ideas and object.
25 Oct 1887, Deseret Evening News:
The New York WORLD of October 18th has an editorial on "The Utah
Problem." It was prompted by the recommendation of J. Randolph Tucker,
that a Constitutional amendment be passed providing against polygamy, then
that Utah be admitted into the Union as a State. The WORLD drops into the
comparatively new groove of opposing journals, marked out since the
polygamy objection began to lose force. It is that polygamy is not after
all, the great factor in this so-called problem.
Only a little while ago the chorus of the press was: "Let the
`Mormons' provide against polygamy and no one will object to their
Statehood." Now that the provision is made, and placed too beyond cavil as
to its thoroughness, it is suddenly discovered that polygamy is not the
great bugbear. What is the matter now? The WORLD says:
"The radical objection to it is its essentially un-[48] American and
un-democratic character. It is in direct opposition to the fundamental
principles of our government in that it means the rule of a church or
hierarchy, and not of the people. It places the temporal authority of the
church above that of the national government and authorizes its members to
perjure themselves in the national courts. The admission of Utah under
present circumstances will throw the state government wholly into the
hands of this church. There is a much larger nut to crack here than
polygamy."
The truth is that the WORLD is entirely in the wrong. Every assertion
in the above paragraph is positively untrue. A little inquiry on the part
of the writer, from authentic sources of information, would demonstrate
this. "Mormon" words and "Mormon" expositors would show, the exact
contrary to all the extract contains. "Mormonism" is of American origin,
so far as this world is concerned, and is essentially identified with
American ideas, interests and destinies. It is also democratic in theory
and practice. The vote of the people is made paramount in all its
proceedings. No matter if the voice of revelation speaks, until it is
endorsed by the will of the people it does not become part of the Church
policy.
It may be asked, can the body of the Church repudiate a divine
command or counsel? The answer is, certainly. Just as much as Adam and Eve
acted on their agency, so can all their posterity. And in this Church it
is provided that common consent is necessary to establish its doctrine and
policy. The consequences of persisting in a human instead of a divine
course must be with those who follow it, and only very wicked and
rebellious people would reject that which they believed to be divine. But
the freedom of choice and action is not denied or abridged by anything in
"Mormon" teaching or discipline. * * *
"The temporal authority of the Church" is not placed above the
National authority, and the WORLD can not establish its assertion with a
scintilla of evidence. And the calumny that the Church authorizes its
members to commit perjury is simply contemptible. It is one of those
unsupported charges that anti-"Mormons" make [49] without care as to its
recklessness and its refutation by a thousand well known facts. The rest
of the paragraph is in the same vein. It is all in the style of an
advocate who has nothing to offer but abuse in opposition to the solid
grounds of an adversary.
All this talk of the "Mormon Church," "Mormonism" and "Church rule"
is foreign to the question before the nation. Congress has no business
with ecclesiastical affairs. The Government of the United States cannot
interfere in questions of religious faith or the doctrine or discipline of
a religious body Individuals who break the law can be prosecuted under the
law, no matter what may be their creed or standing in any Church. But the
people who are moving for Statehood are not violators of the law. They do
not propose to violate it. They are acting as American citizens striving
for those political privileges which belong to citizenship in its full
sense. It is not a question of "Mormonism" or any other ism except
constitutionalism. The attempt of those who oppose it to mix religion up
with politics is not to be admired. It is practising that of which they
have falsely accused the "Mormons." It is an evidence of weakness. It is
purile and paltry. And the continual misrepresentation in which they
indulge is proof positive that they have taken a false stand and can find
no facts to help their cause. (Deseret Evening News, Editorial)
11 Nov 1887:
Receiver Dyer took possession of the Tithing Office, Salt Lake City,
but did not interfere with regular business.
15 Nov 1887:
Receiver Dyer took possession of the Historian's office and the Gardo
House. The Tithing office and the Historian's office were leased to the
Church. The marshal demanded the President's office delivered to him.
17 Nov 1887, New York Sun:
STRANGE PROCEEDINGS IN UTAH.
[50]
Under the law passed at the end of the last session of Congress, the
United States government is prosecuting proceedings to wind up the affairs
of the corporation known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.
The anti-polygamy measures prepared by Senator Edmunds, Senator
Ingalls, and others, provided, among other things, for the dissolution of
two great corporations which have been the material basis of the Mormon
system, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the
Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company.
The act declared the existence of these corporations at an end, and
directed the Attorney General to institute proceedings in the Supreme
Court of the Territory to wind up their affairs conformably to law; that
is to say, to pay the debts and lawful claims, and to dispose of the
property of the concerns, the proceeds, after the settlement of all
equitable claims, to be forfeited to the United States, and by the United
States to be applied to the benefit of the common schools of the
Territory. The law excepts from forfeiture all buildings and grounds used
exclusively for church purposes, also the parsonages and cemeteries. * * *
Few people at the east are aware of the scope of the anti-Mormon
legislation adopted in the last days of the Forty-ninth Congress, or that
this tremendous process of dissolution and settlement is now under way in
the Utah courts. * * *
Whatever are the merits of the law under which the United States of
America, plaintiff, has now brought suit in the Supreme Court of Utah
against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints et al.,
defendants, it will be seen that this law, must be executed with the
utmost care and caution, and with the most scrupulous regard for all the
safeguards of justice and equity. Otherwise it is capable of becoming the
engine of outrageous oppression, of abominable and un-American
persecution.
Is the law now being fairly and justly executed? We learn from Utah
that in the due course of the proceedings to wind up the corporations, the
Supreme Court has appointed a receiver of the property of the Mormon
Church. This receiver is no other person than the United [51] States
Marshal for the Territory of Utah. In other words, the plaintiff is made
receiver. In a private suit such an appointment would be scandalous,
incredible. For this appointment as receiver or a representative of the
plaintiff--and that officer of the government, too, who as Marshall will
have to serve all the processes that may be issued in order to get the
property into his possession as receiver--two of the Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court of Utah are responsible. We understand that Chief
Justice Zane dissented from the extraordinary appointment, although
concurring in the order directing a receiver. * * *
These are strange proceedings. Not so much in justice to the Mormons
as in justice to the United States government and the common rights of its
citizens, of whatever religious faith, we should say that the Judiciary
Committee of the House ought to investigate this matter as soon as
Congress meets. -- New York SUN, Nov 17. (Deseret Evening News, 23 Nov
1887)
18 Nov 1887:
Receiver Dyer took possession of the property belonging to the
Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company.
22 Nov 1887:
"* * * Brother John T. Caine being sent for, came and received such
instructions as the brethren had to give him. Afterwards he was blessed
and set apart for his labors as Delegate from Utah at Washington by Bro.
W. Woodruff, Geo. Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith and Franklin D. Richards.
Geo. Q. Cannon, mouth. I was then blessed and set apart for my labors, to
assist Bro. Cain, and do all the good in my power in the interest of Utah
and the Saints at Washington by these same brethren, Jos. F. Smith, mouth.
(Diary of L. John Nuttall)
23 Nov 1887:
Receiver Dyer took formal possession of the President's office,
leaving two deputies in charge.
[52]
5 Dec 1887:
Receiver Dyer demanded the Weber Stake property delivered over to him
but was refused.
7 Dec 1887:
Receiver Dyer seized the President's office and carried off books,
some of which never belonged to the Church.
12 Dec 1887:
Several anti-polygamic measures were introduced in the U.S. Senate.
1888:
The year, generally speaking, was a prosperous one for the Saints in
Utah and surrounding Territories, although more arrests and imprisonments
for conscience sake took place this year than during any previous season
since the prosecutions under the Edmunds law commenced - - -.
13 Jan 1888:
An act for the punishment of polygamy was introduced into the Utah
Legislature by Wm. H. King, a Mormon, of Millard County. See Deseret
Evening News, 14 Jan 1888.
28 Jan 1888, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THE NEW "CRY" AGAINST UTAH.
It has often been said that should the Latter-day Saints relinquish
any principle of their religion, it would make no difference in the
hostility of its enemies. The abandonment of one doctrine would be
immediately followed by a demand for the renunciation of another, and the
encroachment would go until not a vestige of the distinctive features of
our faith would be left to show its identity.
In Missouri, before there was any adoption of peculiar marriage views
by the "Mormons," they were ordered by General Clark, while their leaders
were under a military sentence of death, to separate and no more organize
with Bishops and other Church officers, or [53] pretend to believe in
healing the sick, speaking with new tongues or any other religious powers
different from their neighbors. This illustrates the spirit of opposition.
It is antagonistic to that liberty which is supposed to be the common
right in this free land and which is really guaranteed by the Constitution
of the United States.
Today the uncompromising and conscienceless enemies of the people of
Utah are shifting their ground of assault while still acting in the same
spirit as of old. It is but a little while ago that the only point of
difference was declared to be the practice of polygamy. Now that is
declared to be not the issue at all. Belief in its rightfulness under any
circumstances is made to answer in the absence of the practice, and
law-abiding citizens are excluded from jury service and other situations
of public trust, simply on account of their abstract belief. Also aliens
who have every statutory qualification for citizenship are excluded from
naturalization, solely and entirely because of their religious faith
although ready and willing to take the prescribed oath for the regulation
of their actions.
And the change of base goes a great deal farther. The "polygamy" cry
is almost abandoned in many quarters. The operations of special
Congressional laws, and the fact that the masses of Utah's population are
practically monogamous, with the very general subscription to the
anti-polygamous test oath, have taken away the ground from under the feet
of those who were continually shouting "polygamy," and the country is
getting information as to the manner in which a small thing has been
magnified, and a comparative mole-hill has been made to appear as a
monstrous mountain.
The offense of the "Mormons" now is their unity, and the cry to take
the place of "polygamy" is "the rule of the Church." The Latter-day Saints
are told that they must repudiate Church direction, and it is intimated,
may asserted as a matter on which there is no dispute, that a hierarchy
here controls political action and interferes with the liberty of the
citizen. The unity of the Saints, one of the grand objects of Christian
teachings and [54] Christian influence, is to be made the new rock of
offense to the country. The authority exercised in Church affairs by
Church leaders "chosen by the body" and upheld by the members, is to be
distorted and construed into theocratic rule destructive of political
freedom.
This "crime" of unity, whether it be religious, social or political,
is the real offense of the Latter-day Saints against their opponents. And
it is that which is desired to be broken up. If the "Mormons" would
dissolve their organization and have no order, discipline or common
purpose, they would perhaps be tolerated by their so-called "Christian"
friends and the union-haters who are hungering for spoils, no matter what
might be their morals or family relations or associations. This unity
which is not but ought to be as firm and general as it is described by
those who wish to dissolve it, is a result which they do their very utmost
to bring about among themselves. And it is a fact that cannot be denied
without lying, that there is a thousandfold more coercion used to
establish it among the pronounced anti-Mormons than has ever been
exercised among the "Mormon" people. The abuse that has been heaped upon
non-"Mormons" who have dared to speak in favor of the majority of the
people of Utah, and the issues by which they have been whipped into line
when they have attempted to act with the least independence, has been
something awful yet ludicrous, and as shameful to those who have submitted
to it as it was dastardly and vile in those who resorted to it.
Such union as exists among the "Mormons" today is in the fullest
sense a voluntary union. There is no power by which it could be enforced.
It comes from inward, individual conviction. This union of purpose and
act, in any direction, is the result of belief and intent. There is no one
man or class of men who could possibly compel it. Men of influence might
by argument, persuasion or other legitimate means, bring others to see as
they see and act as they desire. But the rule and coercion which designing
persons pretend are in force among the "Mormons," are not only figments of
the imagination but an impossible force among a people who have
em-[55]braced an unpopular faith from conviction, and who are armed with
the voting power in church and a secret, impenetrable ballot at the polls.
Such influence as certain leading men among the "Mormons" are
supposed to wield, is the very power that the petty politicians who
misrepresent it desire to obtain. And it is because they cannot exercise
it that they are so venomous and intolerant. If it were true that the
majority of the people of Utah voted, either in religion or politics, as
their Church leaders advised, there would be nothing in it unlawful,
improper or subversive of republican principles. Citizens have the right
to choose their own counselors on every matter that relates to their own
welfare, spiritual, temporal, social and political. It is the purpose of
the maligners of the people of Utah to deny them that liberty, and compel
them to cease from acting on their own volition if it involves the seeking
or acceptance of advice from any one but their opponents.
He who states that there is any compulsion over the "Mormon" people,
whereby they are deprived of their liberty to vote as they choose or to
refrain from voting if they so desire, is either grossly mistaken or
asserts a naked and baseless falsehood. Individuals may have advanced
theories and enthusiasts may have advocated extreme notions, but the very
genius of the "Mormon" faith and the positive revelations which the Saints
regard as the word of God to them, preclude anything like slavish
submission to human dictates, come when or how they may. The doctrine of
rewards and punishments is based on the principle of human agency and the
freedom of the creature, and both are essentials and fundamentals in the
"Mormon" creed.
It matters not that the class of persons engaged in misrepresenting
the "Mormons" cannot comprehend unity of action except as effected by
coercive force. The fact remains that the "Mormons" have a common faith
which is exhibited in United action, and that the motive and the force are
internal, individual and from a common impulse, and that they are not and
cannot be forced to do anything against their will and desire. And while
that [56] will and the acts springing therefrom are not in violation of
law, no lawful or rational objection can be urged against either.
The "Church rule" which is denounced is a myth. It is worse. It is a
creation of the unprincipled and scheming persons who lust after power and
would destroy every liberty left to the people of Utah, so that they might
revel in the rule and have a free path to a career of irresistible
plunder. Papers that echo their latest cry become accessories before the
fact to a contemplated political crime, a double crime--the deprivation of
rights and privileges of a body of citizens who are justly entitled to
them, and the investment of power in the hands of persons bent on the
enslavement of an industrious and peaceable community, for their own
profit and advancement. The fair-minded and respectable non-"Mormons" of
Utah, as well as the thoughtful and just elsewhere, should refrain from
joining in or giving countenance to the latest outcry, designed to
supplant the now dying objection to Utah's freedom and form a new obstacle
to her advancement and prosperity. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W.
Penrose, Editor)
18 Feb 1888, Franklin S. Richards:
By Telegraph to the NEWS.
UTAH AND STATEHOOD.
Taking testimony before the Senate Committee:
Washington, Feb. 18. --The Senate committee on territories gave a
hearing today upon the admission of Utah as a state. Franklin S. Richards,
of Salt Lake City, described the barrenness of Utah when the settlers
first entered it, and the wonderful productiveness, prosperity and wealth
which have resulted from their diligence and enterprise. This was Utah's
fifth petition for admission and, as eldest of the territories, it was
hoped her appeal would be heeded. She had reached a point beyond which
progress, under a territorial government was impossible. It had been
objected that the "Mormons" were polygamists. As a matter of fact, not
more than two per cent of them ever were polygamists or are such now. Time
was rapidly solving [57] the problem. The members of the constitutional
convention took oaths against polygamy and adopted a constitution which
made polygamy or bigamy a crime. As the speaker read the paragraph of the
constitution providing that the anti-polygamous sections shall never be
repealed or changed without the assent of Congress and the President,
Senator Butler queried: "You don't expect Congress to act favorably upon
such a proposition, do you? I, for one, say frankly and emphatically I
will not vote for it. I do not believe Congress or the President has
anything to do with changing the constitution."
Senator Stewart assenting, said he did not think Congress had a right
to make a treaty with a State or Territory.
Richards said that whatever might be the opinion of the committee,
the provision at least demonstrated the good faith of the men who framed
the constitution to do all in their power, if permitted, to wipe out
polygamy. The people of Utah recognized that the country required it and
they wished to meet the requirements. They, however, proposed to
accomplish it by more humane methods than those proposed by the present
laws. He sketched cases of "Mormons" who had been tried and convicted by
the courts, and showed by what he declared to be indisputable facts that
parties were innocent of charges brought against them. The prosecution and
courts were unable to bring proofs of unlawful cohabitation and, in fact,
had invented constructive cohabitation and convicted and punished
offenders for this.
Some of the committee asked if the stories as Richards related them
embodied facts which were conceded by the prosecution.
Richards could not say what they conceded, but said he stated what
he, having been present as counsel for the defence, knew to be the truth.
It was proposed by Senator Platt and others that the names of the
prosecuting officers be taken with a view to inquiring of them as to their
version of the matter, and with this understanding the witness proceeded.
As to the marriage relation, he said, much misapprehension existed by
reason of a confusion of the terms [58] "celestial" with "plural"
marriages. He explained the difference at great length, and read "Mormon"
revelations on the point. A celestial marriage might or might not be a
plural marriage. Under both, however, cohabitation with more than one wife
was permitted. Celestial marriage was made for time and for eternity. It
was not true that plural celestial marriage was enjoined upon the
"Mormons," the fact being that it was only merely permitted. (Deseret
Evening News, 18 Feb 1888)
29 Feb 1888, Angus M. Cannon:
THE CHURCH SUITS.
The testimony now being taken before the examiner.
The process of taking testimony in the suits of the government
against the Church, has dragged slowly on, each day being occupied in the
examination of witnesses before Judge E. T. Sprague. Yesterday was the
second day that President Angus M. Cannon was on the witness stand. The
testimony as taken by stenographer John M. Whitaker, is as follows: * * *
Mr. Williams--Mr. Cannon, how many temples are completed and how many
are in course of erection?
C. --Two are completed, and two in course of construction.
W. --Are these temples used for public worship?
C. --No, sir; they are for the performance of sacred rites, but in
the temple at Logan there are lectures delivered to the students of the
school, not only in relation to our faith, but also on scientific
subjects, as we were told by the founder of this church, Joseph Smith, to
store our minds with knowledge from all good books, so that our
intelligence would correspond, if not exceed that of the people of the
world. And only those who can get the proper recommend, or whose names are
on the list, are permitted to attend these schools.
W. --Will you state whether or not it is a tenet of your church that
a man may marry more than one woman at the same time?
C. --That is according to the revelation received by Joseph Smith in
1843.
[59]
W. --Is it taught now by the Church?
C. --I will say I have not heard it taught for some time.
W . --Is it still a tenet of the Church?
C. --I believe it is; at least, that is my opinion.
W. --Do not the authorities of the Church perform polygamous
marriages in the Temple now?
C. --No, sir. It has been discontinued--it must have been for nearly
a year, that persons who have applied have been refused.
W. --Do you issue certificates or recommends?
C. --No, sir; I have simply to sign them. And when persons have come
to me, I have told them the consequences if they did.
W. --Are these marriages which have been discontinued, permanent?
C. --I cannot say.
W. --Why was it suspended?
C. --I don't know, unless it is that it has entailed so much
suffering upon the people and brought them in conflict with the
government. But we feel that the responsibility rests upon those who
prevent us; and it is out of honor for the laws.
W. --Why have you refused to recommend persons to the Temple?
C. --Because I have heard that President Woodruff would not endorse
their recommends.
W. --Do you refuse to grant or endorse recommends on hearsay?
C. --No, sir; I wrote to President Woodruff, and he told me he could
not grant recommends to the Temple for such marriages.
W. --How long has this been stopped?
C. --I should think about a year.
Mr. Sheeks--Mr. Cannon, are there any other ordinances performed in
these temples, or do they continue these marriages?
C. --No, sir; the authorities of the Church have seen best to
discontinue them. (Deseret Evening News, 29 Feb 1888)
[60]
13 Mar 1888, L. John Nuttall:
"* * * The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia yesterday
decided that the Edmunds-Tucker law was not applicable to the District of
Columbia. The court held that the statute was intended for the Territory
of Utah alone and was not intended to be enforced or apply in the
District. * * * (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
14 Mar 1888, Deseret Evening News:
THE NATIONAL CAPITAL IS EXCLUDED.
Doubtless many of our readers will remember the case of Surgeon
Millard H. Crawford, U.S.N., who, about a year ago, as is alleged, seduced
a young girl, at Washington, and was soon afterwards prosecuted for
fornication, under the Edmunds-Tucker law. There were no merits on the
side of the defense to rely upon. The evidence of the defendant's guilt
was not impeached, and his sole hope of escape from the vengeance of the
law was based upon the technicality that the statute under which the
prosecution had been instituted was not intended to apply to the District
of Columbia. Since the prosecution of Crawford began, other cases similar
to his have arisen at the National Capital, and it has been reported that
considerable uneasiness existed there, relative to the question as to
whether the Edmunds-Tucker law embraced the District of Columbia or not.
California papers have received a telegram from Washington to the
effect that the appellate court in the Crawford case, Chief Justice
Bingham presiding, has decided that the statute in question does not apply
to the District of Columbia. The decision holds that the "statute was
clearly intended to meet the practices of the Mormons in the Territory of
Utah, " and that "when Congress passed laws for the District it usually
included a statement to that effect." * * *
In view of the circumstances under which it was delivered, Judge
Bingham's decision in the Crawford case is a remarkable one. The
Edmunds-Tucker ace, by the explicit language of its title, is declared to
be "An act to amend an act entitled `An act to amend section fifty three
hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the [61] United States,
in reference to Bigamy, and for other purposes' approved March
twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two." In other words it is
amendatory of what is popularly known as the Edmunds law. * * *
In no less than three different sections of the Edmunds law does
language occur making its provisions applicable "in a Territory or other
place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction." The
clause quoted occurs in section. 1, defining and punishing polygamy; in
section 3, punishing unlawful cohabitation; and in section 8,
disfranchising polygamists. The punative sections of the Edmunds law are
in terms made to apply wherever the United States have exclusive
jurisdiction, and no intimation diverse from this occurs in the punative
sections of the Edmunds-Tucker law, which are amendatory of and
supplementary to the former. True, some of the sections of the
Edmunds-Tucker law are in terms limited to Utah, but this circumstance is
an argument in favor of the view that other sections, not so limited, have
the broader scope.
According to this remarkable decision, so apparent in its conflict
with the language of the law, the "Mormons" in Idaho, Arizona and
elsewhere outside of Utah are not subject to the operations of the
statute. If Judge Bingham is right in excluding the District of Columbia
on the ground stated by him, by no known process of logic could any other
Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive
jurisdiction be included.
If he be correct, then the law is a delusion and a snare and one of
the most gross and inexcusable pieces of special and therefore
unconstitutional, legislative hypocrisy ever perpetrated in this or any
other nation. The arguments while both the original and subsequent or
amendatory measures were pending showed plainly that, so far as words
convey an impression, the legislation was not intended to be of a special
or class character. (Deseret Evening News, 14 Mar 1888)
26 Mar 1888:
The U. S. Senate Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the
Utah State constitution and accompany-[62]ing memorials, reported
unfavorably for Utah's admission into the Union, and was discharged from
its further consideration.
9 Jul 1888:
Receiver Frank H. Dyer petitioned the Supreme Court of Utah to have
$157,666.15 worth of Church property delivered to him.
11 Jul 1888, Deseret Evening News:
THE CONFISCATION
The Seizure of Church Property Still Goes On.
Up to last night Marshal Dyer made demands for alleged Church
property, and received the same to the amount of about $181,000. The
demands were made in his capacity of Receiver in the confiscation of
Church property by the United States.
SHEEP AND CATTLE.
Among the property asked for were 30,000 head of sheep, which had
been sold on March 2, 1887, and $75,000 worth of cattle similarly disposed
of. By an arrangement with the Receiver, this stock is to be delivered by
September 1st next. The following is the agreement entered into:
Salt Lake, Utah, July 9, 1888. The undersigned hereby undertake and
agree to surrender and deliver to Frank H. Dyer, as Receiver of the
corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on or
before September 1st next, of the personal property claimed to have been
assigned to the various stake corporations throughout the Territory of
Utah by John Taylor, trustee in trust, on or about February 28th, 1887,
livestock of the value of $75,000, or as much thereof as may be
practicable, and that in case the said live-stock so to be turned over
shall amount in value to less than $75,000, the balance thereof the
undersigned undertake and agree to pay to the said Receiver in cash.
The undersigned also hereby undertake and agree to surrender and
deliver to the said Frank H. Dyer, as such Receiver, on or before
September 1st next, 30,000 head [63] of sheep of the grade and quality of
those delivered to LeGrande Young on or about May 1st, 1887, by Francis
Armstrong.
(Signed)
JOHN H. WINDER,
Wm. B. PRESTON,
ROBERT T. BURTON.
By JOHN R. WINDER.
THE THEATER.
A demand was also made on LeGrand Young for notes to the amount of
$27,000, covering stock in the Salt Lake Dramatic Association, or the
Theatre, transferred March 2, 1887. Mr. Young produced the receipt for the
notes and handed it over to the Receiver. The notes are described as
follows:
One for $13,333.32, signed by John Sharp and Feramorz Little; due two
years from the date hereof with interest at 6 per cent.
One for $1,833.33, signed by James Jack and secured by 250 shares of
the capital stock of the Salt Lake Dramatic Association; due and interest
same as above.
One for $1,666.66, signed by LeGrand Young and secured by 100 shares
of the capital stock of the Salt Lake Dramatic Association; interest and
terms same as above.
Also one for $5,000.00 signed by B. B. Clawson, secured by 300 shares
of the capital stock of the Salt Lake Dramatic Association; interest and
terms same as above.
DESERET TELEGRAPH.
On March 1, 1887, the stock of the Deseret Telegraph Company held by
the Church was distributed to the various Stake Associations. Yesterday
afternoon the demand for this stock was complied with. The Deseret
Telegraph line therefore passed into the hands of the United States
marshal. The agreement says:
We hereby agree that, in accordance with the agreements heretofore
made between the agents of the Church [64] of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints and the Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court of Utah Territory,
in the case of the United States of America against the late corporation
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in regard to the
delivery of the stock of the Deseret Telegraph Company that lately
belonged to the said church, and that was by said Trustee-in-Trust on the
3rd of March, 1887, assigned to the several Stakes of Zion in this
Territory of Utah, consisting of--shares of stock, shall all be turned
over and delivered to said Receiver within a period of thirty days from
this date, and the offices, and possessions of said line and
appurtenances, subject to existing contracts with any other company, shall
be delivered to said Receiver within two days from date.
JOHN R. WINDER,
LeGRAND YOUNG.
July 10th, 1888.
THE COAL MINES at Grass Creek, near Coalville were taken by the Receiver,
the value thereof being placed at $100,000.
The property of the Church now in the hands of the Receiver,
exclusive of the Temple Block, upon which no valuation is at present
placed, is placed at the following sums:
Aggregate amount of values settled by order of
the Supreme Court Monday, July 9 . . . . . . . . . . . $137,666.15
Church Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000.00
Coal Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000.00
Thirty Thousand Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000.00
Notes for Theatre Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,000.00
Deseret Telegraph Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,000.00
Personal Property (cattle, etc. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,000.00
Gas Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,000.00
Tithing Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000.00
Gardo House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000.00
Historian's Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000.00
Dividends on Gas Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000.00
-----------[65]
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $798,666.15
Added to this, in the line of seeking Church property, is the suit in
the First District Court for the tithing office and grounds at Ogden. The
demurrer of the defense in this case was overruled by Judge Henderson
yesterday, and thirty days' time given in which to file an answers. This
afternoon District Attorney Peters and Marshal Dyer leave for Washington.
Their principal business there is to confer with the government officials
regarding the suit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. (Deseret Evening News)
25 Aug 1888, John T. Caine:
POLYGAMY IN UTAH--A DEAD ISSUE.
(The House having under consideration a resolution introduced by Hon.
Fred T. Dubois, of Idaho, viz:
Resolved, That the Attorney General be requested to furnish to the
House of Representatives a list of pardons granted by the President of the
United States to persons convicted of the crime of unlawful cohabitation
in Utah Territory and in Idaho Territory since March 4, 1886, giving the
name, date of sentence, length of sentence, and date of pardon in each
case-And the substitute reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, as
follows:
Resolved, That the Attorney General be requested to furnish to the
House of Representatives the number of convictions for polygamy, adultery,
and unlawful cohabitation had in the Territories of Utah and Idaho under
the provisions of the anti-polygamy law of 1862 and the act of 1882
amendatory thereof, and the act of March 3, 1887, and the dates thereof as
shown by the records of the Department of Justice, together with the
amount of fines, forfeitures and costs collected from said prosecutions,
with the date of judgments under which said several sums were collected; a
list of pardons granted by the President of the United States to persons
convicted of such crimes of polygamy, adultery, and unlawful cohabitation,
respectively, in the said Territories of Utah and Idaho, giving the name,
date of sentence, time of im-[66]prisonment, amount of fine, date of
pardon, and the reason for granting the same in each case--) Mr. Caine
said:
Mr. Speaker: The purpose of those who originated this resolution was
plainly political. As to the resolution as reported from the Judiciary
Committee I not only have no objection, but I most earnestly favor its
adoption. The information it calls for will show conclusively that undue
leniency has not been shown to convicted persons in Utah and Idaho, and at
the same time it will demonstrate under whose administration the laws in
question have been most rigidly enforced.
Mr. Speaker, there is no longer a possibility of objecting to Mormons
on account of polygamy. That is a dead issue. It can not be vitalized. But
undoubtedly our opponents will be most reluctant to abandon the old cry
which has served them so long and so well. They will, however, have to
abandon the cry against polygamy, because it has ceased to exist. It has
been suppressed by act of Congress, and the great bulk of the Mormon
people have accepted the situation.
What does the record show? It shows that recently in regular judicial
proceedings in Salt Lake City, the fact was proven by a high church
official that the Mormon Church no longer gave permission for plural
marriages. The late Chief Justice Zane of the supreme court of Utah, in
answer to an inquiry from General McClernand, one of the Utah
commissioners, says no case of polygamy occurring since the passage of the
Edmunds-Tucker law has come under his judicial notice. Moreover, the
Territorial Assembly adopted a resolution in regard to the laws enacted by
Congress known as the Edmunds, and Edmunds-Tucker acts, respectively of
March 22, 1882, and March 3, 1887, which is as follows:
"Resolved, That said Assembly are in favor of a just, humane, and
impartial enforcement of said laws of the United States, in the same
manner as other criminal laws are enforced, under the Constitution and
laws of our country, to the end that said offenses may be effectually
prohibited."
[67]
And further, the Legislative Assembly has enacted, and the governor
has approved, a marriage law for the Territory prohibiting and declaring
void a marriage "when there is a husband or wife living from whom the
person marrying has not been divorced;" providing also that no marriage
shall be solemnized without a license, for the issuing of which the most
stringent regulations, under pains and penalties, are provided, and
prescribing who shall solemnize marriages and making it a penal offense,
punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years
or fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, for any
person knowingly, with or without such license, to solemnize a prohibited
marriage. No State in the Union has a more complete and perfect marriage
law, and few if any States have one in all respects so good.
I assert, moreover, and the official evidence supports my assertion,
that since the constitutionality of the act of Congress of July 1, 1862,
was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States plural marriages
were exceptional and not general among the Mormons.
This is the sober truth. Less than 1 per cent of the population of
Utah to-day have been polygamists. The great majority of the Mormon voters
have voted to make polygamy a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. A
Mormon Territorial assembly demands the enforcement of the laws of the
United States against bigamy, polygamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest,
adultery, and fornication. It provides a marriage law which imposes heavy
penalties in the event of plural marriages being solemnized. This ought to
satisfy reasonable men.
Among the 165,000 Mormons of Utah, as I have heretofore stated, there
are not more than 2,000 men who have ever had a plurality of wives. Not
one of these 2,000 men, under the law, exercise any political rights. They
can not vote and they can not hold office. Before a citizen of Utah can
register and be qualified to vote he must take the following oath: (See
under date 29 Sep 1887, Report of the Utah Commission.)
The only male citizens who can participate in political affairs in
Utah are those who can pass the ordeal of the [68] above oaths. They are
the great majority, because only a small fraction of the Mormon men have
ever practiced polygamy.
Mr. Speaker, the monogamous Mormons, those who not only have never
practiced polygamy, but have solemnly sworn that they will obey the law of
March 22, 1882, and that of March 3, 1887, and, further, that they will
not directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel or advise by acts of
Congress as "Polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery,
and fornication," have made and accepted a constitution under which they
ask the admission of Utah as a State in the Union. * * *
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the convention which framed this
constitution under which the people of Utah are asking admission to the
Union, I repudiate with scorn the accusation which, in effect, is made
against the men who framed that constitution and the thirteen thousand and
odd hundred people who voted to ratify their work, that it was the result
of a conspiracy hatched for the purpose of deceiving the people of the
United States. I denounce as an infamous slander the insinuation that it
was an attempt to gain admission to the Union under false colors and upon
false pretenses. * * *
It is the merest balderdash to insist that the Mormon Church has
maintained, does maintain, or may hereafter maintain that plural marriage
is one thing and bigamy and polygamy are other and entirely different
things. The members of the constitutional convention who as a committee,
draughted section 12 of article 15, who voted to incorporate it in the
constitution, and the people who voted to ratify the work of the
convention did so without any mental reservation whatsoever. They knew,
perfectly well what they were doing. They intended that bigamy and
polygamy should be made offenses in the future State, punishable by heavy
fine and imprisonment, and they not only fixed the offense in the organic
law and provided the penalty for the infraction thereof, but they provided
that in this particular the constitution should not be "amended, revised,
or in any way changed" without the approval of the Congress and the
President of the United States.
[69]
Why should we be accused of insincerity? Why should we be suspected
of bad faith? The whole history of the Mormon people gives the lie to the
assertion that they are hypocrites. Even the majority of the Utah
commissioners, men who have no love for us, are compelled to declare that
"the Mormon people can not be called hypocrites." Of the 16,640 votes cast
at the last election in Utah, 13,195 were for the ratification of the
constitution with section 12 of Article XV, prohibiting polygamy and
prescribing penalties for its infraction, and only 502 against it. Of the
16,640 voters who went to the polls, only 2,913 refrained from voting for
or against the constitution. The 13,195 voters, I insist, were honest and
conscientious men. They never had been polygamists. They never had
violated the law against polygamy or against unlawful cohabitation. They
had not accepted the revelation concerning plural marriages as mandatory
and obligatory upon them. They had taken the stringent oath I have read;
had solemnly sworn that they intended to obey the laws, and that they
would not "directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel or advise any other
person to commit any of said crimes defined by acts of Congress as
polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery, and
fornication."
It is a preposterous proposition to insist that a whole people have
deliberately forsworn themselves. You must bear in mind that every man who
sat in that constitutional convention, every man who recorded his vote in
favor of that constitution, had, with uplifted hand, in the presence of
his God, solemnly sworn that he was not a bigamist or polygamist, that he
would obey the laws known as the Edmunds and the Edmunds-Tucker laws in
respect to the crimes in said acts defined and forbidden, and that he
would not, directly or indirectly, aid, abet, counsel, or advise any other
person to commit any of said crimes defined by acts of Congress as
polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery, and
fornication. * * *
Mr. Speaker, I admit that the Mormon people are united, but I deny
that their unity is due to ecclesiastical authority. Irishmen are united.
Is their unity due [70] to the fact that they are Roman Catholics? No,
sir. It is due to the fact that they are determined to regain the right of
community self-government, which they were wrongly deprived of, and which
is unjustly denied them. The Mormon people are united because there has
been, and there is a settled purpose on the part of a small but persistent
minority to deprive them of the right of local community self-government.
Mr. Speaker. I have endeavored thus briefly to show what the
monogamic Mormons of Utah have done to place themselves and the Territory
in accord with public sentiment and to solve a troublesome problem.
Entertaining as they do the highest veneration for the institutions of
their country, as well as a due respect for the opinions of the majority,
they deliberately determined on the course they ought to pursue. They put
their hands to the plow. They drew the furrow broad and deep. They will
not look back. (Pamphlet, published, Washington D. C.)
17 Sep 1888:
Apostle George Q. Cannon, who had been hiding for some time,
surrendered himself to U. S. Marshal Dyer, pled guilty to two indictments
charging him with unlawful cohabitation, and was sentenced by Judge
Sanford in the Third District Court to 175 days' imprisonment and to pay a
fine of $450.
24 Sep 1888, Report of the Utah Commission:
The crime of polygamy is complete with the performance of the
marriage ceremony. But a great evil resulting from such marriage consists
in unlawful cohabitation, the pernicious moral example of one man living
with two or more women as wives under the plea of performing a religious
duty. The proposed constitution is silent with respect to this offense.
The full importance of this omission will be better understood by the
statement that during the twenty-seven years and over the anti-polygamy
laws have been in force but few persons have been convicted for the crime
of entering into polygamy, the evidence of such marriages being studiously
concealed.
[71]
The Commission was therefore of the opinion that, before the people
of Utah Territory had passed beyond the wholesome restraints of the
national law's into the sovereign domain of statehood, they should at
least manifest by their acts that the new departure was taken in good
faith; that there was in truth a complete emancipation from the errors of
the past. This conclusion seemed to us to be supported by the principles
both of justice and policy; justice--for the Government has the right to,
and should know before it yields its authority that the sentiment of the
country as expressed in its legislation respecting polygamy, in all its
breadth and depth, has been accepted by the Mormon people; policy--because
the Government can not afford to assume any risk in its treatment of the
evil of polygamy--cannot afford to surrender the great advantage which it
now holds, and which has been secured at so much expense and trouble.
Further, there can be no harm result from delay in the admission of
the Territory to the Union of States.
If, in truth, polygamy has departed, as is now claimed, such action
should be taken as will forever prevent its return. * * *
The majority also said: "The Commission recommends as a measure of
great importance the passage of a law conferring upon the governor of the
Territory the power to appoint the following county officers: Select-men,
clerks, assessors, recorders, and superintendents of public schools. * * *
One of the obstacles to the enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws is
the presence of a majority having exclusive occupancy of a large part of
the Territory who have hitherto declared that they do not believe these
laws to be constitutional and morally just. It is true there have been
some desertions from their ranks. The commission has learned, however,
from years of experience in the appointment of its registration and
election officers that there are many instances where persons who have
withdrawn from the majority have sought homes in some other State or
Territory; thus, [72] while to a small extent there has been a decrease in
the strength of the majority, who have opposed the enforcement of the
laws, it has not resulted in a corresponding increase in those who have
supported the laws. It therefore appeared to us to be very necessary that
some steps should be taken looking to the encouragement of that portion of
the population who are disposed to withdraw, from the church and become
the steadfast friends of the Government. If the above enumerated officers
are made appointable by the governor, it will enable him to utilize them
so as to afford this encouragement, and to strengthen the influence and
the energy of the Federal authority. * * *
The placing of the control of the county offices and the public
schools in the hands of persons appointed through an agency of the Federal
Government will bring home to every citizen the power and determination of
the Government to enforce obedience to its laws, and may prove a strong
inducement to those who may desert the majority to remain in the
Territory.
In our opinion one of the chief causes for the long delay in the
settlement of the contest in Utah has been the exercise of political power
subordinate to the interests of the church.
It has been repeatedly asserted that the punitory provisions of the
laws are harsh and unjust, and the manner of their enforcement cruel,
resulting in the disruption of families and subjecting many innocent
persons to unnecessary hardships. This claim is not supported by the
facts, but if the leaders of the people desire a relaxation in the
enforcement of the laws they should not object to recommendations which
have in view the securing of a condition of things which will obviate the
necessity for these persecutions. * * *
The public schools have been largely under the control of the
Mormons. With the exception of a few districts in the mining camps in Salt
Lake City and elsewhere, they have exclusive control of the public school
system.
Under the Edmunds-Tucker law the Territorial superintendent of
district schools is appointed by the Territorial supreme court. Of the
twenty-four county superin-[73]tendents of the district schools, all save
one are Mormons. In Salt Lake City, where the non-Mormons are gradually
increasing in strength, the school districts in the central part of the
city are passing into their hands. While in Utah there is a public-school
system, there is not a free-school system. The scholars have to pay
tuition fees to support the school. At the last session of the legislative
assembly a bill was introduced looking to the establishment of free public
schools. The bill passed the house of representatives and went to the
council. There it was amended by the adoption of a substitute, which reads
in part as follows:
"All schools organized under the direction of the trustees in the
respective school districts of this Territory shall be known in law by the
name and title of district schools, and all other schools shall be known
as private schools. All schools, both district and private, shall be
entitled to a just and equitable apportionment of any public school fund
arising from the United States or from legislative enactments of this
Territory.
The substitute was returned to the house of representatives, where it
was agreed to, and sent to the governor for his approval. The governor
returned it with his veto, upon the ground that the bill, if permitted to
become a law, would destroy the present public-school system, and was in
conflict with the general sentiment of the country regarding the public
schools. The passage of this act committed the legislature to the doctrine
of supporting private (which includes the denominational) schools from the
public funds.
It seemed to be an attack upon the system of free public schools,
which is regarded as one of the strongest supports of our system of
government. This action of the legislature, when considered in connection
with the policy of the Mormon Church in establishing church schools in
different parts of the Territory, and with the action of the church
authorities in establishing a "general board of education for the church"
in each church stake (there are twenty-four in the Territory), and with
the following extract from a letter of President Wilford Woodruff, under
date of June 8, 1888:
[74]
"We feel that the time has arrived when the proper education of our
children should be taken in hand by us as a people. Religious training is
practically excluded from the public schools. The perusal of books we
value as divine records is forbidden. Our children, if left to the
training they receive in these schools, will grow up entirely ignorant of
those principles of salvation for which the Latter Day Saints have made so
many sacrifices. To permit this condition of things to exist among us
would be criminal. The desire is universally expressed by all thinking
people in the church that we should have schools where the Bible, the Book
of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants can be used as
text-books, and where the principles of our religion may form part of the
teaching of the schools;--may be accepted as conclusive evidence that the
Mormon Church is committed to a policy which, if allowed to succeed, will
prove destructive of the public school system in Utah. To these schools
many have looked for aid to accomplish the purposes of the Government in
Utah. The action of the legislature and the church authorities furnishes
all the argument which is needed in support of the recommendation made by
the majority last year, and elsewhere in this report, that superintendents
of public schools be made appointable by the governor. If this
recommendation should become a law the public school system of the
Territory will be placed in the hands of those who are in favor of
preserving it. * * *
We have annually noted such facts as were deemed important in their
bearing on the state of affairs in Utah, and the result of our observation
during the current year in regard to the progress made toward securing a
general observance of the laws of Congress. Since our last annual report
it has been claimed by and in behalf of the Mormon people that a great
change, amounting almost to a social and political revolution, has taken
place in the Territory. It is claimed that the church has ceased to
sanction violations of the laws prohibiting polygamy, and like all
religious associations leaves [75] individual members free to act on their
own responsibility; that the legislature, as far as it could, declared in
favor of enforcing the laws of Congress. Having done these things, it is
now claimed the inducements to special Federal control and the main
objections to statehood have been removed.
We find the only accessible evidence offered is the testimony of
Angus M. Cannon, president of the Salt Lake Stake, before a United States
commissioner, in his examination in proceedings by the receiver to reach
church property in the suit of the United States against the church and
other parties. The following is the testimony on that point:
Q. I wish you would state whether or not it is one of the doctrines
and tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that a man
may marry more than one woman and have more than one wife at the same
time.
A. That is according to the revelation received through Joseph Smith
in 1843.
Q. Well, it is a tenet or doctrine of your church, is it not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is taught?
A. I will say that I haven't heard it taught for some time.
Q. It is a tenet, however?
A. It is embraced in one of the revelations published in our works.
Q. And is accepted by the authorities and priesthood of the church as
a doctrine of the church?
A. By part of them.
Q. By what part of them?
A. I can't say how many. From the accounts I have seen lately there
is a good many who appear to have gone back on it.
Q. It has been taught publicly and privately, in the course of the
teaching of the church for years past, has it not?
A. Yes, sir.
[76]
Q. Is that doctrine or tenet abandoned by the church?
A. Not that I am aware of.
Q. Is it still a doctrine of the Church?
A. It is still a doctrine of the church, although, as I stated, I
hadn't heard it proclaimed of late.
Q. And the church, through its officials, not only teaches the
doctrine of plural or celestial marriage, but the sanction of the church
its officers perform such marriage, do they not?
A. No, sir. It has been discontinued.
Q. Since when?
A. It must be a year I think, very near a year, not quite, since
persons applying have been refused.
Q. All persons?
A. All persons that I have known.
Q. To whom did you apply for entering into such marriage?
A. Well, I have had them come and ask me if we were still doing
anything of that kind. I told them there was nothing done that I knew of.
Q. Is that abandonment of polygamous marriage permanent?
A. I can't say about that.
Q. Why is it abandoned or suspended?
A. I don't know, unless it is that it is because it is found to
entail so much suffering on the people, and it has brought us into
conflict with the Government.
Q. It was not abandoned simply because there was a law against it,
then?
A. I think that the primary object was because the law enforced
conditions upon us that the officers felt they were not justified in
doing.
Q. You know that the law, has existed for a good many years, do you
not, prohibiting polygamy and making it penal?
A. It is true, but the judgment was proclaimed against the officers
performing or taking part in that--no penalty attached to those
ceremonies.
Q. Never has been at any time, has there?
A. A recent act of Congress proclaimed there should be.
[77]
Q. A penalty for performing those?
A. Taking part in them; yes, sir.
Q. And it was because of that, as you understand it, that they have
ceased to perform those marriages?
A. And we have felt that the responsibility rested upon those who
interfered and prevented us from performing these ceremonies.
Q. Then it is a cessation because you could not safely perform these
marriages; is that the idea?
A. It is a cessation because the law declared we should not do it:
out of honor for the law.
Q. It was what?
A. Out of honor for the law.
Q. Why was it that when the law made these marriages penal that out
of honor for the law they were not stopped twenty-five years ago?
A. I will state that upon persons applying to me for recommends to
go, when I believed such was their object I have told them the
consequences.
Q. And gave them the recommend?
A. They didn't get the recommend from me; it was from the bishop, but
I had to approve it.
Q. Then you approved the recommend?
A. I approved the recommend after explaining to them that if they
performed them they must endure the penalty as Daniel did when he prayed
contrary to law, and when they insisted that they preferred to endure the
penalty to forgoing the promised blessings of God in that direction, I
have signed the recommends.
Q. And now when they desire to avail themselves of those expected
blessings, you deny them that benefit?
A. I have told them that I can't grant them that, from the fact that
I had understood the president above me had refused to do so.
Q. That was the president of the church?
A. President of the church refused to sanction them or permit them to
be performed in our sacred houses at present.
Q. Did the president of the church, to your knowledge, decline to do
so, or is that hearsay to you?
A. I remember seeing him on one occasion, when he [78] told me that
he could not do it.
Q. Which president was that?
A. President Woodruff; several months ago, since the death of
President Taylor.
Q. Those polygamous marriages are solemnized in these temples, are
they not, when they are solemnized?
A. That is where they used to be solemnized, and those temples were
used for that amongst other services of the church.
Q. And the church, or under the sanction of the church, its proper
officers perform these plural marriages, do they not?
A. They did; yes, sir.
Q. And in pursuance of the doctrine you have referred to as being a
doctrine of the church?
A. Until they were forbidden.
Q. Until the officers were forbidden to participate?
A. Until the officers refused.
Q. Until the officers refused?
A. Yes; the law forbade them.
Q. Has this refusal been since the death of President Taylor only?
A. I have understood that it existed before his death, but I was not
conscious of it. I had no occasion to sign any for some time, and when I
did, being told that persons had been refused, I made inquiry from
President Woodruff, and he had failed to approve them. I made the inquiry
because parties told me that they were not permitted to pass through those
ordinances in the temple, and I desired to be informed directly from the
first president. He was the one I received my instructions through always.
This testimony has been referred to as proof that the church is now
free from the imputation of inculcating or sanctioning violations of law.
It may be observed that no authoritative publicity of such a change has
been given; that it came out incidentally in proceedings in court, and the
source of the information, the fact that it was desirable to show the
church property was not used for unlawful purposes, and the nature of the
[79] evidence gives to it a suspicion that under license church, before
declining to sanction such marriages, had provided other means and places
for their solemnization. It had appeared by testimony in court some years
ago that marriages could, by license, be solemnized anywhere. (See Deseret
Evening News, 18 Oct 1884)
The non-Mormons are so accustomed to try to see within the wooden
horse of Mormonism, that in this case they may have been unjustly
suspicious and suspected stratagems where there were none. We do not
decide, and merely state the facts; but a man who testifies that for
twenty-five years the church officials sanctioned and solemnized such
marriages, leaving the parties subject to the penalty, and only declined
"out of honor for the law" when the penalty was extended to them as
abettors, has invited suspicion and has but little ground for complaint.
Assuming the literal truth of the statement, it does not show the
important fact it is quoted to prove, that the church and its doctrines
and teachings is loyal to the laws. It quite clearly shows the contrary.
It appears that until within less than a year prior to the date of the
testimony the church had not only taught the unlawful doctrine of plural
marriages, but had, through its officials, solemnized them, and only
ceased, if at all, when a penalty reached its officers. The testimony
shows the solemnization of such marriages by church officials was a
regular business during some of those later years in which it was
announced at home and abroad that polygamous marriages had ceased.
In this state of affairs a loyal attitude can not be shown by merely
refusing to sanction polygamous marriages. The most important question is,
does it encourage or discourage them? We find no change in its doctrines
or in its teachings. It has not ceased to deplore prosecutions as
persecutions for conscience' sake, or to withhold excuses and sympathy for
offenders; the church organ constantly referring to men convicted under
the law as being convicted for living with their wives. * * *
It will thus be seen that if the Mormon problem is not settled until
the Territory is filled by non-Mormon immi-[80]gration the end is not
near.
The reform must come from within the ranks of the Mormon people, and
it is to this end that the Government should direct its efforts, and to
aid in the accomplishment of which we have made the recommendations else
where referred to in this report, and expressed our conclusions with
regard to them.
In conclusion we have only to say, the Government ought not to turn
back; the enforcement of the laws should be continued; and, if we are
right in assuming that the evil will not end until a majority (and it
should be a strong majority) believe in the enforcement of the laws, then
so long should the laws be enforced. How, and when this end will be
reached we can not tell. We express the opinion, however, that an
energetic enforcement of the laws, and of the continuation of political
disabilities, together with the measures we have recommended will combine
to effect the end. These will be aided by the spirit of the age, the
habits and customs of the times, contact with the world, financial
considerations, and education.
Minority Report:
* * * Apart from sexual offenses (which are decidedly on the
decrease) the Mormon people of Utah will compare favorably with other
communities for peace, good order, sobriety, honesty, and industry. the
mass of the Mormon voters have taken the registration oath, swearing that
they will not go into polygamy, and 95 per cent of them voted in August of
last year for the adoption of a constitution prohibiting and punishing the
offense. * * *
Within a few days past a number of Mormons, charged by indictment
with sexual offenses and who had been evading trial, came into open court,
waived trial, voluntarily pleaded guilty to the indictments and received
sentence of fine and imprisonment. Among the number so doing were one or
more leading men. We repeat that this example is, in our opinion, pregnant
with significance, and that it will be followed by other like examples;
that the hindrance which has hitherto impeded [81] the course of law and
justice is giving way as a raft before the steady and increasing current
of the rising stream. It is hardly to be supposed that they or other men
in the same category would voluntarily take such steps, with the purpose
to repeat and continue to repeat them. On the contrary, rationally, they
conduct to a different conclusion, namely, a disposition on the part of
the Mormons to abandon the commission of sexual offenses and to yield
obedience to the law. Yet the laws should continue to be vigilantly and
strictly enforced against all violating them. No step backward in this
regard should be sanctioned. Let the laws be executed.
The facts above set forth with others that have fallen under our
observation confirm the opinion that a great majority of the Mormons have
wisely resolved that the practice of polygamy should be abandoned.
Our view that polygamy is on the decline in Utah is supported by an
eminent Methodist minister who for many years has been in charge of the
"Methodist mission in Utah," and who has mingled with the people in all
parts of the Territory. He is credibly reported as having stated in
conference, at Cincinnati, early in this month, "that notwithstanding
reports given out by the press in general, polygamy is on the decline,"
and that "in a few more years it will be driven out of Utah."
The ex-chief justice of Utah, the Hon. C. S. Zane, over a year ago
expressed the opinion "that the existing laws, diligently and strictly
enforced, might be reasonably relied on to work a cessation of polygamy as
a practice," and about the same time the Hon. William G. Bowman, surveyor
general of Utah, stated that it the change in Mormon sentiment in the last
year has been marked and encouraging on the question of the suppression
and abandonment of polygamy."
The statement of the reverend gentleman, hereinbefore mentioned,
suggests the remark that on account of the "peculiar institutions" of a
portion of the people of Utah, "the reports given out by the press" are
not only at present, but have been for years, of a sensational and highly
colored character. That the condition of affairs has been improving in
Utah for many years is evidenced [82] by the following statement made
about five years ago by the leading anti-Mormon newspaper of Utah:
"Salt Lake City is so changed from the Utah of ten years ago that,
could the old style of affairs be restored for a week, the old slavery,
the old tyranny and the restrictions, the Mormon people would themselves
rise up in rebellion. There are forces at work in Utah which are
all-powerful, and which no artifice or restrictions, no falsehoods and no
superstitions can resist."
The "forces at work" at that time have been supplemented by
additional Congressional legislation, and such vigorous enforcement of the
laws that there can be no doubt of a successful result in the near future.
We are thoroughly satisfied that the work of reformation in Utah is
progressing rapidly, and that it will soon result in a successful issue
without a resort to legislation that is proscriptive of religious opinion.
Our view may be epitomized in a few words: Punish criminal actions; but
religious creeds, never. * * *
This year, in the real estate excitement in Utah, commonly called a
"boom," the Mormons freely sold their city lots and other real estate to
Gentiles as well as to others; and this, notwithstanding the general
understanding that the Mormon Church leaders have deprecated and
remonstrated against their people selling their land to Gentiles. This is
another strong evidence of the spirit of independence among the monogamous
Mormons that is influencing young Utah, and of the general disposition to
repudiate the authority of the Church leader, in secular and civil
affairs. "Business is business," and it has a wonderfully cosmopolitan
effect upon all classes of men, the Jew and the Gentile, the saint and
sinner, the Catholic and the Puritan. * * *
We are not under any obligation, nor have we any disposition, to
defend the Mormons against all that has been alleged against them, but we
believe they are entitled to be treated with justice and humanity; that
they are subject to be influenced by the same causes that have changed and
ameliorated other peoples' churches and creeds. We also believe that they
have got common [83] sense, and by the exercise of this valuable attribute
they have found out that polygamy must go. * * *
These laws variously and powerfully re-inforced by the progress of
ideas, intelligence, and the modern agencies of communication and
intercourse, as railroads, the telegraph, and the press, have, in our
opinion, struck a deadly blow at the institution of polygamy and the
indulgence of sexual offenses in Utah. * * *
The revolution of opinion and conduct among the Mormons in Utah,
particularly in the rising generation, is inaugurated and advancing with
increasing momentum to the front and the control, and, in our opinion, it
will irresistibly proceed until its mission is finished. Revolutions, as a
rule, do not retrograde. * * *
In the discharge of our official duty relating to Utah we have
endeavored to divest ourselves of all prejudice and animosity, and in a
calm and judicial frame of mind to ascertain the truth. Our conclusion,
from all the evidence before us, including our personal observation, is
that a radical reform in the near future is morally certain, and that
"Young Utah" will stand forth redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled
from the heavy burden that has so long rested upon the people.
(U.S.G.P.O.)
12 Oct 1888, L. John Nuttall:
Prest. Budge and Bro. Nibley asked counsel in case the decision of
the Idaho court should be adverse and they suggested as a last resort the
idea of disorganizing the Stakes and Wards of the church in Idaho for a
term of three weeks or a month for the purpose of enabling the voters to
register and cast their votes, and then reorganize again, to do this
openly and let it be known and understood why it was done. Bro. Nibley was
requested to see Messrs Sheeks and Rawlings and ask their legal opinion of
such a measure. It was also decided to call the Apostles together at 6:30
this evening to consider this question. At 6:30 p. m. Prest. W. Woodruff,
Apostles B. Young, Jos. F. Smith, John H. Smith and H. J. Grant, Atty. F.
S. Richards, Elder C. W. Nibley and L. John Nuttall met to consider the
question of dis-[84]organizing the stakes and wards of the church in Idaho
as submitted by Prest. Budge and Bro. Nibley. Bro. Nibley reported that
Sheeks and Rawlins thought the move would be a good one and favored it.
Atty. Richards was not in favor of it, thought it would have a bad effect
and the Courts would rule against it. Other propositions were submitted
and the matter fully considered. Elder H. J. Grant moved: If the people
are driven to the necessity, that all members of the church in Idaho, who
are entitled to vote, have our consent to withdraw, their membership in
the Ward where they reside, and after they have voted, when they apply for
membership, they can again be received, provided that the Governor of the
Territory will exercise the pardoning power in all cases, should any of
the brethren be convicted for registering and voting. Sec. by Elder Jos.
F. Smith and carried Unanimously. Adjourned. Prest. Woodruff informed
Elder Jos. F. Smith and myself that he purposed taking a trip for a few
days for recreation, to start on Monday, so that he would not be with us
until his return, and he wished us to keep the business going and change
our quarters for a few days. Bro. C. H. Wilcken said he would arrange for
quarters for us. Bro. Smith went home this evening and I went to Bro. R.
C. Badger's where I met Sophia. Bro. Geo. Reynolds, at my request stayed
with Bro. Woodruff on Saturday. Bro. Bateman took me home this evening.
(Diary of L. John Nuttall)
Nov 1888:
Marshal Frank H. Dyer demanded $25,000 for his services as Receiver.
So far, $750,000 worth of Church property had been placed in his charge.
6 Nov 1888:
In Idaho, a number of the brethren, who had withdrawn from the
Church, voted, but nevertheless Mr. Fred. T. Dubois, a bitter anti-Mormon
Republican, was elected delegate to Congress.
20 Nov 1888:
Wm. W. Drummond, ex-chief Justice of Utah, died [85] in a grog shop
in Chicago, Ill., as a drunken pauper.
1889:
By the Saints in Utah, 1889 will be remembered as the year when the
question whether or not the Church to which they belonged could be robbed
of its property by the government was laid before the supreme tribunal of
their country; and also the question whether they could be robbed of civil
and political rights as individual citizens, because of their religious
belief. * * *
19 Jan 1889:
In the U.S. Supreme Court, arguements were heard in the Church
escheat suits.
19 Jan 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
When this last desperate attempt to secure Statehood for Utah
ignominously fails, we wonder if Messrs. RICHARDS and CAINE will not have
their faith in the efficacy of a bluff somewhat shaken. Under what pretext
will they next proceed and ring in the old declarations as to the final
decease of polygamy and the utter absence of church domination? And did
our average Saintly friends ever stop to consider in what light Messrs.
CAINE and RICHARDS are showing up the ancient seers, prophets and
revelators of their creed? For instance, when they say that polygamy is
dead, they in effect declare that every Mormon in Utah has proven
unfaithful to his creed, for every true Mormon must believe that polygamy
is a divine sacrament, whether he practice it or not, until a new
revelation shall be received, announcing that it may be stopped; and no
such revelation has yet come. When they declare that there is no
despotism, no church control in temporal affairs among their people in
Utah, they in effect declare that JOSEPH SMITH, BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOHN
TAYLOR, ORSON PRATT and all the long array of Saintly chiefs were most
unconscionable liars, because each one of these declared that the rule of
those who possessed the keys were the very keystone of the arch of
Mormonism; that they stood in God's stead, that what they said was as
though God Himself had spoken, [86] and more, that theirs was the only
legal government which the earth had known since the Church was first
established by the Messiah. (Salt Lake Tribune)
23 Jan 1889, L. John Nuttall:
Prest. Woodruff signed 12 recommends. I read to him the letters and
answered them. A letter was written to Pres. M. W. Merrill of Logan Temple
to discontinue plural marriages for the present until further advised,
unless for special occasions, for prudential reasons. (Diary of L. John
Nuttall)
22 Feb 1889, Nephi Ensign:
Apostle John W. Taylor and Lorenzo Snow came south last Sunday
morning intending to fill an appointment in San Pete that day. They found
that the S.P.V.R.R. ran no train on Sunday and they were therefore obliged
to remain in Nephi to the very great, but very pleasant, surprise of those
who gathered in the Tabernacle on Sunday afternoon to participate in the
usual Sunday services. They both spoke to the congregation. Apostle Taylor
had been rubbed crossways very roughly by reading John T. Caine's speech
in Congress where he stated polygamy in Utah was a "dead issue" and seemed
to be very much relieved and consoled after he had told his hearers that
when Mr. Caine made that statement he told a d-d lie. Having got thus far
in his remarks, he became very earnest, if not very eloquent, and assured
his hearers that as he understood Mormonism when polygamy was a dead issue
the whole religion was dead. He did not wish to teach polygamy, but it was
one of the principles of the religion, and if any of the principles of
Mormonism were true and correct, this one was. As American citizens, if we
break the laws of our country, let us be punished for it, but let us not
lie to a nation like ours, for there is no such thing as deceiving a
nation like this. He expounded on the necessity of telling the truth at
all times and under all circumstances and abiding by the consequences and
scored Mr. Caine and all others who would for policy's sake state anything
other than the exact truth. Polygamy [87] was one of the principles of the
Mormon religion and was not a dead issue. Its practice was another thing
and was governed by a Mormon's conscience and the law of the land. Apostle
Snow delivered an excellent discourse on the causes of apostacy from the
Mormon faith, dwelling mainly upon the spirit of speculation that absorbs
the mind and leads it from things spiritual. Warned the Saints against
exposing themselves to different temptations, and spoke of the glory in
store for the faithful. (Nephi Ensign; also Salt Lake Tribune, 6 Mar 1889)
2 Mar 1889:
The Supreme Court of Utah rendered a decision fixing the compensation
of Receiver Dyer and his attorneys at $27,365.63 for one year's services.
16 Mar 1889, John W. Taylor, Deseret Evening News:
To Whom It May Concern:
Some remarks made by me at Nephi, on the 3rd instant, having caused
considerable comment leading to misapprehension, I freely admit, on
further investigation, that I was in error respecting the attitude of Hon.
John T. Caine in his speech before the Congressional Committee on
Territories respecting polygamy being "a dead issue in Utah. " I do not
now dissent from his statement on the important question involved.
My remarks were not fully, nor in all respects, correctly reported,
but, finding that I was in error, I hasten to acknowledge that I did him
great injustice in denouncing his utterance, and I freely, in this public
manner, express my deep regret and acknowledge the wrong I did him. Other
than myself; no person is responsible for my utterances or acts, but when
I wrong anyone I am willing to make restitution, as far as I can, and with
this in view, I publish this card.
17 Mar 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
Apostle TAYLOR does not deny the language attributed to him at Nephi;
all he says is that his remarks "were not fully, nor in all cases
correctly reported." Of course there was no claim that his remarks were
fully or in all [88] cases correctly reported; but as to the specific
matter that was quoted, it was undoubtedly quoted correctly, and more
fully, it appears, than is now agreeable to apostle TAYLOR. So he has to
take it back; that is he did CAINE "an injustice in denouncing his
utterances. " He now thinks he shouldn't have done that, but ought to have
let CAINE lie on unchallenged. It was simply a question of policy, not of
fact. Or, perhaps "on further investigation" he finds that Caine's denial
of polygamy was in the usual Mormon vein; that is, that while repudiating
"polygamy," Caine wanted simply to satisfy the Gentiles at Washington, but
did not want the Saints to understand him as saying anything against
"celestial marriage," which they hold to be a different thing altogether.
That would of course reconcile him. As to the Apostle's further statement
at Nephi that "as he understood Mormonism, when polygamy was dead the
whole religion was dead," there is no taking of that back. The whole
trouble appears to be that apostle TAYLOR thought when he was making his
Nephi talk he was in one of the remote settlements, where what he was
saying would not leak out, and that so he was at liberty to talk the true
business to the brethren. In this he miscalculated, for Nephi is no longer
a back-country town, and what he said was promptly aired. His policy
retraction is worth little in view of all the facts; he no doubt thinks
privately exactly as he spoke at Nephi. (Salt Lake Tribune)
24 Mar 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
The Nephi Ensign which first reported Apostle TAYLOR'S d--d lie
sermon in refutation of Delegate CAINE, now prints TAYLOR IS "Correction,"
saying it should have been headed instead, "A Retraction. It says further:
"The Ensign is called upon for a few, words upon this matter. The
Ensign is in no way an anti-Mormon sheet--we are guaranteed freedom, and
no censure can be laid upon us for telling the world what Apostle Taylor
said that Sunday afternoon in the Nephi Tabernacle. We have been dealt
with unjustly by Apostle Taylor in his [89] "Correction." He says "My
remarks were not fully, nor in all respects, correctly reported." No,
friend Taylor, your remarks were not fully reported. Had they been--had we
repeated all you said about this "d--d lie," you would have been in a
worse boat than you are now in. You would have had a great deal more to
"correct."--you would have had a great deal more about which to "freely
admit, on further investigation" that you were in error. This part of your
"correction" does hurt us. It is where you state that you were not
correctly reported. Our brief mention of your remarks could hardly be
called a report, but we said nothing in that mention but what was truth
and you said all that we gave you credit for and considerably more that
was hardly fit for publication. If by stating that you were not correctly
reported, you mean that all you said was not published, you are
understood; but as it stands now you have done us an injustice in
publishing to the world something about us that is untrue. The Provo
American and THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, two anti-Mormon sheets, took this
matter up, quoted the article in question and made comment on the same,
all of which they or any other journal are perfectly welcome to do, as we
always tell the truth and report correctly, to the best of our ability,
Apostle Taylor to the contrary notwithstanding."
There is no doubt of the correctness of the TAYLOR remarks; indeed,
TAYLOR doesn't deny their correctness as to the main point, where he said
that in proclaiming polygamy to be a dead issue in Utah Delegate CAINE
told "a d--d lie," and that when polygamy is dead Mormonism is dead. There
is equally no doubt that TAYLOR canidily told the truth. His taking of it
back was simply for effect, to keep the Mormon counsels solid, and for use
on the outside. The brethren understand the play thoroughly. (Salt Lake
Tribune)
26 Mar 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
Conference is once more growing very near. Have the chiefs of the
Church decided upon doing anything to relieve the pressure upon their
people? That is the [90] question which is being asked anxiously in ten
thousand Mormon homes. They are asking: "Have we not waited long enough
and suffered enough?" We tell the chiefs that so long as they cling to the
delusion that they will eventually triumph; that the old prestige will be
given to polygamy and polygamists, and that the old rule in politics and
business will be restored to them in its old offensive audacity, they are
running a fearful risk. Young Utah may make no plaint, but it is growing
exceedingly restive under the burdens of unfulfilled prophecy and
increasing poverty. THE TRIBUNE repeats what it has been saying for years;
the Saints must either come within the laws or must find some other spot
in which to carry out their purposes. To what other spot can they go? Has
the world any other place for them? There has been a lull of late because
there has been a change of administration, but the man who is President
now is a straight laced man and disciplined soldier. He believes in the
majesty of the law, and believes that unwise laws even must be enforced
until they are legally repealed or amended. The old man threw, turf at the
boys, but when they would not come down he resorted to stones. Does any
Mormon, high or low, believe that he will permit things to go on here as
they have been going on during the past three years? The Saints are fond
of declaring that they are being persecuted. Did they ever stop to think
that possibly their persecutions have not yet really commenced? There is
not one of them who is a real citizen of the United States, because there
is not one who has ever given his first allegiance to the Republic of the
United States. Suppose that the next move shall be to deny to Saints the
right to enter lands, and to attack the titles already secured to land?
What will the 170,000 Mormons in Utah do in case a real contest comes
between them and the sixty millions of the Republic? And the
responsibility of all this rests upon the chiefs. Under the discipline of
the organization the rank and file obey. It is possible for the chiefs to
hold them yet for a period, but they run a fearful risk, a fearful double
risk; first that the people will break away, and second, if they do not,
that the Government, through the machinery of the [91] law, may outlaw and
disinherit them. See what BISMARK is doing with an alien sect in his
dominions. He will have no people within his country's borders that cannot
be depended upon to yield full and true allegiance to the Empire of
Germany. If republics are more generous, they are no less severe than
empires when aroused. And it is time for the chiefs to make the needed
diversion here, and to bring their people out of their troubles. Will they
do it now, or will they trust to luck and Providence for six months more?
(Salt Lake Tribune, Editorial)
7 Apr 1889:
In the general conference of the Church, held in Salt Lake City, a
First Presidency was sustained, consisting of Wilford Woodruff, President;
George Q. Cannon, First Counselor, and Joseph F. Smith, Second Counselor.
Franklin D. Richards was sustained as Church Historian and General Church
Recorder.
7 Apr 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
* * * I am strongly impressed today, in reflecting upon our history
and the history of myself, and the position which I occupy, with the
promises of God to me in those early days. They have been fulfilled; and
this day has crowned the pinnacle of the responsibility which is placed
upon my head. I marvel when I contemplate these things, which are in
fulfilment of the promises of God unto me. And when I say this of myself,
I speak of hundreds of the Elders of Israel who have been moved upon in
the same manner that I have been. Those with whom I stood connected in the
early period of the Church--the Prophet Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and
those men that laid the foundation of this Church and kingdom, together
with other Prophets and Patriarchs--have passed away. They are on the
other side of the veil. I still have the privilege of remaining, and I
this day have been called to this responsibility in the midst of my
brethren;--a responsibility that no man can fill unless he is inspired of
God.
But I will say this to my brethren and sisters, in the name of
Israel's God; The Almighty will never permit me, [92] nor any other
President who holds the keys of the Kingdom of God, to lead you astray. If
I do not walk in the paths of righteousness and do what is right in the
position that I occupy, He will remove me out of my place, or any other
man who attempts to lead the people astray. The position which I occupy,
and that occupied by my brethren the Apostles, should not have a tendency,
if we have the Spirit of God, to make us lifted up or exalted in our
spirits before the Lord. I know, as the God of Israel lives, that I have
no power, nor have I had, in this Church, to perform any work pertaining
to this Kingdom until it has been given unto me by the God of heaven. I
know Joseph Smith had not, nor Brigham Young, nor John Taylor, nor any
Apostle or Elder in this Church and Kingdom. And the moment that I attempt
to become lifted up in the pride of my heart, because of any position that
I hold, that moment I become a very unwise man. So with anyone else. The
higher our position the more our responsibility. During the little time I
may spend here in the flesh, I stand in need of the prayers of the
Latter-day Saints, of those who have faith in God. So do my brethren that
surround me. So do all the authorities of the Church. We all stand in need
of the Holy Ghost and the power of God. Without this we are not qualified
to fill the positions which we are called to occupy. * * *
We have, however, a mighty responsibility resting upon us. The eyes
of all the heavenly hosts are upon us. The eyes of Father Adam, and the
patriarchs and prophets, both ancient and modern, who have gone to the
other side of the veil, are over us. And if our eyes are open to
comprehend the things of God, we can comprehend our responsibilities; we
can comprehend the powers of the Holy Priesthood, and the relationship
which we sustain to God. We certainly should humble ourselves before the
Lord. We should labor with all our might to build up the Kingdom of God in
what little time we have [93] to spend here in the flesh. Our aim is high.
We aim at eternal life; we aim at immortal glory; we aim at a place in the
celestial Kingdom of our God, with God and Christ and those who have kept
the celestial law. In order to get there, we have got to keep the same law
that has exalted those who have gone before us. This is not our home. We
were kept in the spirit world until this generation, and have been brought
forth, through the loins of Joseph and Ephraim, to stand in the flesh and
to bear off the Kingdom, to hold the Holy Priesthood, to do the works of
righteousness, to build temples, to redeem our dead, and to attend to
those ordinances which the God of heaven has declared we shall perform.
This is our work. We have a long eternity before us. But all of us will
have to meet at the bar of God--the righteous and the wicked, those who
are living and those who are dead.
This is the condition of the Latter-day Saints. I hope that we may
escape the power of the enemy. As was said here this forenoon, it matters
but very little what may take place outside of Zion, or outside of the
Kingdom of God. The God of Israel holds the destiny of this nation; He
holds the destiny of this people, and of all men on the face of the earth.
They are at His command and in His power. He will hold this nation, as He
did Jerusalem, responsible for the curse they pursue with regard to the
Latter-day Saints. We also will be held responsible for the course we
pursue. The Lord has led this Church from its organization until the
present day. He will lead it until the coming of the Son of Man. He is not
going to desert His people not His cause. But it is our duty to plead with
the Lord, remember our prayers, keep our covenants, and walk perpetually
before Him, that we may have His favor and blessing resting upon us.
I wish to say with regard to the rising generation:--the sons and
daughters of the Latter-day Saints--that they should take the counsel of
their fathers; they should honor their parents, and honor God, and receive
such counsel as is given unto them by wise men. I think many times that
our children do not comprehend the position they occupy. They do not
comprehend what lies before them. [94] Their fathers are passing away. Yet
this Kingdom has got to remain on the earth until the coming of the Son of
Man. This work has got to follow their fathers; it has got to rest upon
the sons and daughters of Zion. I have a great desire that the
institutions which have been organized in Zion for their welfare may be
blessed; that our sons and daughters may attend the Primaries, the Sabbath
Schools and Mutual Improvement Associations, and unite together in these
societies, that they may receive the benefit of the same. * * * (Deseret
Evening News, 13 Apr 1889)
15 Apr 1889, George Teasdale:
THE REAL POINT AT ISSUE:
Those who think "Mormonism" never would have encountered any great
amount of opposition had it not been for the principle of plural marriage,
utterly fail to comprehend the forces at work in this matter. The
agitation on "Mormon" matrimonial affairs simply serves as a cloak to
cover other designs, as we shall hereafter see.
The assault against the Church is made on the line of the marriage
question because it seems to offer at present the greatest prospect for
the success of hostile effort. The Saints in general are less firmly
united on this principle than on many others belonging to the Gospel, and
it is hoped by our enemies that this circumstance will conduce largely, if
not successfully, to bring about its renunciation by the people in a
Church capacity. Such an act would be tantamount to an apostacy, and the
consequent destruction of the power and authority of the Priesthood would
be consummated. This is the great object aimed at.
That the question of marriage among the Saints can not be justly
chargeable with arousing more than a proportionate share of anti-"Mormon"
antipathy, is evident from the fact that popular hatred against us as a
people was just as violent before the law of plural marriage was revealed
as it was after that event. This fact is notorious. If there were any
phase of the "Mormon" question which could be used at present more
successfully to inflame public prejudice and fanaticism against us, no one
[95] need suppose it would not be made to do duty forthwith. The
correctness of this assertion is supported by facts of history. Not many
years have rolled into the eternities since it was almost universally
regarded as sacrilegious, if not blasphemous, to teach the doctrine of
continued and immediate revelation from heaven, and there were not lacking
pious zealots who thought they were doing God's service by imbruing their
hands in the blood of their fellows who dared to believe in and advocate
the unpopular doctrine. But with millions of spiritualists at present in
the United States and elsewhere, the old pious war cry against personal
communication with the spirit world can not be made to subserve the same
purposes which it did formerly, and hence we hear less and still less of
it in these later times. It was this principle of immediate revelation
from God which aroused the first great anti-"Mormon" agitation, nor was it
allowed to lapse into comparative forgetfulness until something was
forthcoming which was found to be more effectual in exciting the basest
and most merciless of human passions. When, however, the opportune moment
arrived there was a change of tactics.
The next war cry was founded on the question of human freedom. In
all sobriety, which made the hideous burlesque more conspicuous, the new
complaint against the Saints was set forth by the free citizens of an
alleged free country who assembled in convention at a town called Liberty,
in Missouri. This assembly of freemen set forth that the "Mormons" "were
eastern men, whose manners, habits, customs, and even dialect, are
essentially different from our own. They are non-slave-holders, and
opposed to slavery, which in the peculiar period, when abolitionism has
reared its deformed and haggard visage in our land, is well calculated to
excite deep and abiding prejudice in any community where slavery is
tolerated and protected."
Thus it appears that in a land avowedly dedicated to the cause of
human liberty, the Saints became odious and were made to suffer untold
hardships and privations because they espoused the cause of universal
freedom for mankind. Such things read more like the vagaries of a [96]
mind diseased than the stern realities of history. This same charge
against the "Mormons" is no longer agitated, because it is not now "well
calculated to excite deep and abiding prejudice in any community." If it
had not lost this acceptable and prized feature in the eye of the
anti-"Mormon" agitators, it would not be allowed to lapse into oblivion.
Satan is wise enough to employ his best instruments against the cause of
God, and he has a knack of always selecting men with natural aptitude to
operate with them.
A further objectionable feature of the latter-day movement, and which
was made quite prominent in earlier days, was based upon the doctrine and
practice of "gathering." The Saints assembled from all quarters of the
world and devoted their energies to building up communities of their own.
There was nothing in such proceedings which should justly provoke the
wrath of a Christian nation. If the "Mormons" were the vile and
disreputable people their enemies represented them, the exodus of so many
dangerous persons from moral communities should have been looked upon as
an unmitigated blessing, and every facility should have been afforded to
aid, and make general the migratory movement. In opposing it, however, our
enemies gave the lie direct to their own charges of gross immorality
against the "Mormon" people, or they may be considered as being in
sympathy with vice and corruption, since they were strenuously opposed to
having the alleged, vicious classes depart and live in isolated
communities by themselves.
Other specific charges have been made from time to time against this
people, but none of them have ever directly embraced the real cause of
antagonism which exists between the Church and the world. This, all shall
ultimately discover, arises from the principle of the priesthood which the
Almighty has restored to the earth. So long as men do not possess
legitimate authority to minister in the ordinances of the Gospel, the
Gospel must practically be no more than a theoretical system of religion,
and consequently no one can be saved by it. We are not left to conjecture
in regard to the real issue between the opposing powers of good and evil,
but may [97] readily understand the situation by reference to the
description of one of the wonders which St. John the Revelator saw in
apocalyptic vision. He speaks of it as follows:
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with
the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve
stars; and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to
be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a
great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon
his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and
did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which
was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was
born." (Rev. xii, 1-4)
In this symbolical representation the woman stands for the true and
apostolical Church of God, while the anti-Christian power appears in the
form of a great, red dragon. It will be observed that the woman herself,
or the Church, is not that against which the dragon is specially disposed
to exert his power of destruction; but the chief object of his animosity
is the man-child which should be born. Who, or what this child is, has
greatly puzzled the learned theologians of the world. Some of them imagine
that Christ is meant; and others that some great friend of the Church is
signified. All such views are manifestly erroneous. With respect to the
first one, Scripture in a number of passages represents Christ as the
husband of the woman or Church, and hence He must be the father of the
man-child which was to come forth. The proposition is too absurd for
serious consideration, that a son should be his own father, and hence
Christ can not be intended. Nor can any individual of purely earthly
origin be meant, for the parentage of the child is wholly celestial and
Divine. None of the difficulties alluded to will appear if we consider
that the man-child represents the priesthood. This comes through the
Church, and has God for its author. It is in every sense Divine. It is the
ruling power in the Church and kingdom [98] of God, and is given for the
very purpose for which the child was to have a being, viz: to rule, to
hold power, and to officiate in the ordinances of the Gospel of the Son of
God.
Such in brief, is the correct interpretation of this sacred
symbolism; and those who have read the vision of St. John and understand
it cannot be deceived by any of the false pretenses which are set up from
time to time by the enemies of this work. Their primary object is the same
as that of the dragon, which is, to destroy the power and authority of the
Priesthood of God on the earth; and there is little doubt that ere long
the true is sue will be squarely made. The indications point in that
direction already, and upon that question the fiercest conflict will
probably be waged. Let each one, by continually striving to magnify his
office and calling in the Priesthood, prepare himself to meet, without
fear before God, the most determined assaults of our foes. The issue of
the conflict is certain, and the wicked shall know that the Lord reigneth
in Zion. (M.S. 50:232-235)
26 Apr 1889, The Woman's Industrial Christian Home Association. The
Woman's Industrial Christian Home Association of Utah is in hearty
sympathy with those women who feet themselves wronged and oppressed by
polygamy. In order to help them out of this condition be securing for them
the means of self-support, this association has secured from our homane
Government in Washington an appropriation of about $70,000 with which to
purchase ground and erect a building suitable for a pleasant home, and
also for giving instruction in various branches of self-supporting
industry, such as telegraphy, typewriting, shorthand, book-keeping,
laundrying, and scientific cooking and housekeeping.
A three-story building suitable for the purpose has been erected,
where these industries will be taught as soon as there is a demand for
them. The new Home will be opened in June, under the supervision of the
kindhearted Christian women who belong to the association, [99] and they
will leave nothing undone to make it an attractive place of residence for
those who wish to learn some industry in order to be self-supporting.
An Act of Congress put the Home within reach of the following classes
of women:
1. Women who renounce polygamy, and their children of tender age, and
first or legal wives who wish to get away from polygamy.
2. Women and girls with polygamous surroundings in danger of being
coerced into polygamy.
3. Girls of polygamous parentage anxious to escape from polygamous
surroundings.
4. Women and girls who have been proselyted elsewhere and removed
into the Territory in ignorance of the existence there of polygamy.
These different classes of women who wish to renounce polygamy, and
the children of such women of tender age will be received into the Home,
where school privileges will be provided for the children. Free
transportation from any part of the Territory will be granted to any of
the above classes who wish to avail themselves of these privileges of this
attractive Home.
And all the friends of this philanthropic enterprise over the
Territory are hereby requested to seek out those who desire to enter the
Home, and report their names to the president of the association, Mrs. Wm.
M. Ferry, of Park City, Utah, or to the secretary, Mrs. N. L. Putnam, Salt
Lake City.
By order of the directors.
Salt Lake City, April 26, 1889.
(Report of the Utah Commission, 19 Dec 1889)
13 May 1889:
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the First District
Court of Utah and decided that a man cannot be convicted of two different
offences (adultery and unlawful cohabitation) which are covered by the
same transaction, etc.
2 Jun 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
Before the close of this conference there is a subject [100] upon
which I wish to bear my testimony. There were perhaps very few people here
yesterday who are in this assembly today, when Brother Thatcher delivered
a lecture upon the life of President Brigham Young. He referred to a
saying of President Young which I, being a witness of, feel it my duty to
allude to. I am the first person unto whom he made the remark, and the
only one living in the flesh who was with him and Joseph Smith, the
Prophet of God, when he gave to the Twelve Apostles their charge
concerning the Priesthood and the keys of the Kingdom of God; and as I
myself shall soon pass away like other men, I want to leave my testimony
to these Latter-day Saints.
I was sitting with Brigham Young in the depot in the city of Boston
at the time when the two Prophets were martyred. Of course we had no
telegraphs and no fast reports as we have today to give communication over
the land. During that period Brother Young was waiting there for a train
of cars to go to Peterborough. Whilst sitting there we were overshadowed
by a cloud of darkness and gloom as great as I ever witnessed in my life
under almost any circumstances in which we were placed. Neither of us knew
or understood the cause until after the report of the death of the
Prophets was manifested to us. Brother Brigham left; I remained in Boston
and next day took passage for Fox Islands, a place I had visited some
years before, and baptized numbers of people and organized branches upon
both those islands. My father-in-law, Ezra Carter, carried me on a wagon
from Scarborough to Portland. I there engaged passage on board of a
steamer. I had put my trunk on board and was just bidding my father-in-law
farewell, when a man came out from a shop--a shoemaker--holding a
newspaper in his hand. He said, "Father Carter, Joseph and Hyrum Smith
have been murdered in Carthage jail!"
As soon as I looked at the paper the Spirit said to me that it was
true. I had no time for consultation, the steamer's bell was ringing, so I
stepped on board and took my trunk back to land. As I drew it off, the
plank was drawn in. I told Father Carter to drive me back to [101]
Scarborough. I there took the car for Boston, and arrived at that place on
Saturday night.
On my arrival there I received a letter which had been sent from
Nauvoo, giving us an account of the killing of the Prophets. I was the
only man in Boston of the Quorum of the Twelve.
I had very strange feelings, as I have no doubt all the Saints had. I
attended a meeting on the following day in Boydston's Hall, where a vast
number of the inhabitants of Boston and some three hundred Latter-day
Saints had assembled. Hundreds of men came to that meeting to see what the
"Mormons" were going to do now that their Prophets were dead. I felt
braced up; every nerve, bone and sinew within me seemed as though made of
steel. I did not shed a tear. I went into that hall, though I knew not
what I was going to say to that vast audience. I opened the Bible
promiscuously and opened to the words of St. John where he saw under the
alter the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and heard
them cry, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge
our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" The Lord informed them that
they must wait a little season, until their brethren were slain as they
were. I spoke on those words.
Next day I met Brigham Young in the streets of Boston, he having just
returned, opposite to Sister Voce's house. We reached out our hands, but
neither of us was able to speak a word. We walked into Sister Voce's
house. We each took a seat and veiled our faces. We were overwhelmed with
grief and our faces were soon bathed in a flood of tears. I felt then that
I could talk, though I could not before--that is, to Brother Brigham.
After we had done weeping we began to converse together concerning the
death of the Prophets. In the course of the conversation, he smote his
hand upon his thigh and said, "Thank God, the keys of the Kingdom are
here. Brother Thatcher referred to that yesterday.
All that President Young or myself, or any member of the Quorum need
have done in the matter was to have referred to the last instructions at
the last meeting we had with the Prophet Joseph before starting on our
mission. [102] I have alluded to that meeting many times in my life.
The Prophet Joseph I am now satisfied had a thorough presentiment
that that was the last meeting we would hold together here in the flesh.
We had had our endowments; we had had all the blessings sealed upon our
heads that were ever given to the Apostles or Prophets on the face of the
earth. On that occasion the Prophet Joseph rose up and said to us,
"Brethren, I have desired to live to see this temple built. I shall never
live to see it, but you will. I have sealed upon your heads all the keys
of the Kingdom of God. I have sealed upon you every key, power, principle
that the God of heaven has revealed to me or sealed upon me. Now, no
matter where I may go or what I may do, the Kingdom rests upon you." Now
don't you wonder why we, as Apostles could not have understood that the
Prophet of God was going to be taken from us? But we did not understand
it. The Apostles in the days of Jesus Christ could not understand what the
Savior meant when He told them "I am going away; if I do not go away the
Comforter will not come! Neither did we understand what Joseph meant.
"But, he said, after having done this, "Ye Apostles of the Lamb of God, my
brethren, upon your shoulders this Kingdom rests; now, you have got to
round up your shoulders and bear off this Kingdom." And he also made this
very strange remark, "If you do not do it you will be damned."
I am the last man living who heard that declaration. He told the
truth, too; for would not any of the men who have held the keys of the
Kingdom of God or an Apostleship in this Church have been under
condemnation, and would not the wrath of God have rested upon them if they
had deserted these principles or denied and turned from them and
undertaken to serve themselves instead of the work of the Lord which was
committed to their hands?
When the Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom of God, the keys of the
Melchisedeck Priesthood, of the Apostleship, and sealed them upon the head
of Joseph Smith, He sealed them upon his head to stay here upon the earth
until the coming of the Son of Man. Well might Brigham Young say, "The
keys of the Kingdom of God are here." [103] They were with him to the day
of his death. They then rested upon the head of another man--President
John Taylor. He held those keys to the hour of his death. They then fell
by turn, or in the providence of God, upon Wilford Woodruff.
I say to the Latter-day Saints the keys of the Kingdom of God are
here, and they are going to stay here, too, until the coming of the Son of
Man. Let all Israel under stand that. They may not rest upon my head but a
short time, but they will then rest on the head of another Apostle, and
another after him, and so continue until the coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ in the clouds of heaven to "reward every man according to the deeds
done in the body."
I want to add another thing, because, I feel it my duty to say it to
the Latter-day Saints. There is a feeling--it was so in the days of Joseph
Smith--that he was not the man to lead the Church. Even his bossom
friends, men with whom he saw the angels of God, Oliver Cowdery and
others, considered him a fallen Prophet and thought they ought to lead the
Church. This history is before the world. The same feeling was manifest in
the days of Brigham Young when he was called to hold the keys of the
Presidency of the Church. There were other men who thought they should be
appointed to that office. But the God of heaven manifested to you, and to
me, and to all men, who were in Nauvoo, upon whom the mantle had fallen.
Brigham Young took his place, and led the Church and Kingdom of God up to
the day of his death.
There are men today, there will be men till the coming of the Son of
Man, I expect, who feel as though they ought to lead the Church, as though
it is not going on right--that this, that, and the other is wrong. I say
to all Israel at this day, I say to the whole world, that the God of
Israel, who organized this Church and Kingdom, never ordained any
President or Presidency to lead it astray. Here it, ye Israel, no man who
has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the Kingdom of
God and lead the people astray.
We talk of revelation. There has been a feeling of wonder many times
as to why Brigham Young did not have [104] revelation, why John Taylor did
not have revelation, why Wilford Woodruff does not have revelation, why
any other Apostle does not have revelation. I hold in my hand a book of
revelations, enough to lead this Church into the celestial kingdom of God.
Anybody who will obey that law will have all the revelation that he can
fulfill on the earth. We are not without revelation. The heavens are full
of it, so is the holy Priesthood.
I know the destiny of this people; it is revealed by the God of
Israel and left on record. I know the destiny of this kingdom, and I want
to say, let us try to unite together and fulfill the law of God. You need
not trouble about the Kingdom God has established. He will take care of
it. The same God who has organized this Zion and gathered one hundred and
fifty thousand people here from the nations of the earth, has His eye over
you, He is watching over you, and He will take care of you when you do
your duty. Zion is not going to be moved out of her place. The Lord will
plead with her strong ones, and if she sins He will chastise her until she
is purified before the Lord.
I do not pretend to tell how much sorrow you or I are going to meet
with before the coming of the Son of Man. That will depend upon our
conduct.
With regard to the keys of the Kingdom of God, they were placed on
the earth to remain, and they will remain until Jesus Christ comes in the
clouds of heaven. But I and other men, the Apostles, and all who are
called to officiate in the name of the Lord need the faith and prayers of
the Latter-day Saints.
By way of closing I will say that Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford
Woodruff, these Twelve Apostles around me, and everyone of the Seventies,
High Priests, High Councilors, Presidents of Stakes, the Melchisedek and
all the Aaronic Priesthood, and all the Latter-day Saints--all will get
what they labor for. Whatsoever we sow, whether good or evil, of that we
will reap the fruit.
But in the morning of the resurrection you will find Joseph Smith
holding the keys of this kingdom and dispensation at the head of all
Israel who belong to this dispensation; he will hold them to the endless
ages of [105] eternity, notwithstanding that we shall all get our reward
for what we do. The keys of the Kingdom were given to Joseph Smith. They
were placed on the heads of other men to make use of on earth for a short
time and when we get through we shall all have our reward.
Let us make up our minds to serve and honor God. Do not have any
fears concerning the kingdom; the Lord will lead that aright; and if
Brother Woodruff or any of the Presidency of this Church should take any
course to lead you astray, the Lord will remove us out of the way. We are
in the hands of the Lord and those keys will be held and taken care of by
the God of Israel until He comes whose right it is to reign.
God bless you all. (Contributor 10:380-384)
16 Jul 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
In the process of time strangers, attracted by the opportunities to
acquire property created by the Saints who preceded them, have gradually
settled down in their midst and obtained possession of lands which
"Mormons" were willing to turn over to them for money. These persons have
brought with them the spirit of the world as well as its ways and customs,
its vices and its ambitions. They have also set their hearts upon
obtaining control of this Territory and its people. To accomplish this a
large number of them will stop at nothing that appears safe for them to
attempt. Success in small things naturally emboldens them to attempt
greater things. Their purpose is to divide us * * *.
We are approaching a crisis. The very atmosphere seems to bear a
warning of it. The calamities of the world seems to bear a warning of it.
The calamities of various kinds that are overtaking the world are
indications of its advent. The spirit that is working in the midst of the
Saints, leading to worldiness, recklessness, excess of pleasure, disregard
of good counsel and of solemn obligations; the disposition to contend and
complain, and believe evil reports and accuse others of wrong motives; the
readiness exhibited to be swayed by invective and censure, instead of
wisdom and principle, by sound rather than sense to be captious,
resentful, [106] faultfinding and opinionated; and the lethargy in regard
to many important things, spiritual, social and political, all mark the
approach of troublous times, when "all things that can be shaken will be
shaken, and only those that cannot be shaken will remain."
The people of God have been forewarned of this, and that which is to
come should not take them unawares. But who are the wise that will see,
and harken, and be prepared to "stand in holy places and be not moved,"
when the Lord shall shake terribly the world? Is it not time that all who
are called by the name of Saints should examine themselves and see "what
spirit they are of." Look at the history of the people called of God in
former ages, note the causes that led to their downfall, and see if
similar influences are not now operating among us tending to the same end.
We do not wish to act the alarmist. We do not believe that there will
be any failure of the prime object for which the Saints gathered to this
favored spot. But we cannot close our eyes to the evils that have been
gaining ground, nor fail to sound a warning when we see troublous times
ahead. A great change is needed in the course of many professed Latter-day
Saints and it ought to be commenced at once. When any who are called by
that name are so blind that they cannot discern the difference between the
purpose of their friends and the intent of their enemies, nor behold nor
appreciate the dividing line between the two hostile elements, it is a
sign that Satan has had power to befog their vision and that they are upon
very dangerous ground. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
24 Jun 1889:
The Supreme Court of Utah ordered the Church farm leased to John R.
Winder for $401 per month.
29 Jul 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
I consider that the mother has a greater influence over her posterity
than any other person can have. And the question has arisen sometimes,
"When does this education begin?" Our prophets have said, "When the spirit
[107] life from God enters into the tabernacle." The condition of the
mother at that time will have its effect upon the fruit of her womb; and
from the birth of the child, and all through life, the teachings and the
example of the mother govern and control, in a great measure, that child,
and her influence is felt by it through time and eternity. * * *
Now brethren and sisters, we are trying to prepare ourselves for
exaltation and eternal life. We have received the Holy Priesthood. There
is no change to that Priesthood. It belongs to the Celestial Kingdom of
our God. It does not belong to the terrestrial nor to the telestial
kingdom. If you and I ever get into the celestial kingdom, we have got to
keep the law of that kingdom. Show me the law that a man keeps and I will
tell you where he is going. We, as Latter-day Saints, have everything to
encourage us. We have received the Gospel of Christ and the blessings
thereof. What did we know in regard to God and salvation until the Lord
revealed Himself? Who ever knew, before the Lord revealed it to us, that a
man could have his wives and his children with him in the morning of the
resurrection, in the family organization, with himself at the head, to
dwell together for ever and ever? I have thought many a time that if I
labored until I was as old as Methusalah and by that means could have my
family dwell with me in glory in the eternal worlds, it would pay me for
all the pain and suffering I could endure in this world. And this is only
one of the blessings that are promised unto us.
Our young people should labor to qualify themselves by reading the
revelations of God. There is not time to waste in reading novels. Read the
Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the records
which the Lord has given unto us, and treasure up these revelations and
see what the Lord has promised unto us . We then treasure up something of
worth to us. (Tooele Stake Conference, Deseret Evening News, 10 Aug, 1889)
9 Aug 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
At the time the polygamy question gave them some [108] apparent
excuse for the working of this scheme. They took advantage of the popular
ignorance and the popular prejudice concerning this subject, and their
success in procuring inimical legislation against Utah were the result of
that advantage. Today they boast of what they have accomplished in this
direction. That is, that they have succeeded in depriving of the ballot
most of the leading spirits who pioneered the way for those who now enjoy
the benefits of civilization in these mountains, and made it possible for
their enemies to exist here and plot against them. Also that they have
robbed of the elective franchise all the women of this Territory who had
held and used it consistently for many years. * * *
This is an undeniable fact: The objective point of every "Liberal"
plot, speech and anti-"Mormon" falsehood disseminated by type or
telegraph, is the destruction of the franchise in "Mormon" hands, the
political enslavement of the whole "Mormon" people. If they succeed in
their persistent scheme no "Mormon" young, old or middle-aged will be able
to vote at any election or hold any civil office, local or national. This
has no actual relation to the polygamy question. It is the monogamists who
are to be robbed of the right to vote. Politically polygamy now, cuts no
real figure. It is only its shadow that is held up as a bugaboo to the
uninformed. The present project is directed against monogamic "Mormons"
and, so far as this "Liberal" movement is concerned, polygamy is truly "a
dead issue." (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
26 Aug 1889, Deseret Evening News:
THE "MORMONS" IN CANADA.
The press of the country divides its continued comments on the
"Mormon" question between rejoicings over the result of "the Salt Lake
City election"--which has not yet taken place--and predictions as to the
trouble which will arise over the practice of polygamy by the "Mormons" in
Canada--which has no actual existence.
We are told in regard to the former that "the Mormon power in the
municipality is broken for ever," and this will "induce Gentile
immigration and create a real estate [109] boom of large porportions," and
in regard to the latter that lithe Mormons in the Northwest Territory are
practising polygamy openly in spite of the government." These are both
gross errors. The first has been occasioned by intentional misstatements
made from this city, the second has arisen partly from some arguments made
by Mr. Stenhouse, formerly a member of the Canadian Parliament and who
resigned his place to cast his lot with the colony of Latter-day Saints in
Alberta.
It appears that this gentleman has written his opinions on the
marriage question, which have been published in several papers, and
conclusions have been drawn there from entirely unwarranted by the text.
Mr. Stenhouse has the right to entertain what opinions he pleases and to
publish them if he can get them into print. But he does not speak for the
Church to which he belongs, nor for the colony where he resides. They are
simply his views and nothing more.
It does not follow because the gentleman advocates plural marriage
that the "Mormons" in Canada practice polygamy. We understand he is
himself a bachelor. The colonists in Alberta are not there to violate the
laws of the Dominion. If any of them should do so they can be prosecuted.
It will be time enough to raise the cry of "polygamy" in Canada when
somebody attempts its practice. Diligent inquiry will fail to find a
single case of plural marriage in that settlement. The New York Times
closes an editorial on the subject with this sentence:
"The Dominion Government will act wisely if it shall speedily
prosecute and punish every person at Lee's Creek or elsewhere in the
Dominion? Why, it says, Mr. Stenhouse has declared:
"That the practice of polygamy was sanctioned and even required by
the Mormon Church, and that the polygamous settlers ought to be permitted
to live in accordance with their religious belief."
With all due respect to the New York Times, Mr. Stenhouse has done
nothing of the kind. He has not declared that the "Mormon" Church
"requires" this, nor has he asked that the "polygamous settlers be
permitted" [110] to do anything. He is not likely to have done either,
because no such requirement is made by the Church and there are no it
polygamous settlers" to ask anything for. (Deseret Evening News, 26 Aug
1889)
1 Sep 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
Nearly sixty years have passed and gone since this Church was
organized. It has fallen to my lot to be associated with this people for
the last 56 or 57 years of my life. I traveled with Joseph Smith and the
Apostles and with many who are now in the spirit world, hundreds and
thousands of miles laboring for the salvation of our fellow men. We are
very differently situated today from what we were in the early days of
this Church. We now occupy permanent homes in the valleys of these Rocky
Mountains. I came here with Brigham Young when the country was a barren
desert. The record of our lives for the last forty years, during which
time we have been here, is before the world as history. The aim and object
of our lives today are what they were in the beginning, namely the
building up of the Kingdom of God upon the earth. And I wish to bear my
testimony to the Latter-day Saints and to the world that this Gospel of
the Kingdom which the angel of God delivered unto Joseph Smith will be
preached as a witness to all the world before the end come. It is the same
Gospel that was preached by Christ and the Apostles, and which the Jews
rejected. There is but one Gospel plan of salvation, and it is eternal and
everlasting in its character; it cannot be perverted or changed with
impunity; hence the Apostle Paul has said in this connection, "Though we,
or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. "What was the Gospel
taught by Paul, and by Peter, James and John? The first principle of the
Gospel they taught was faith in God; the next was repentance of sins, and
then baptism for the remission of sins. Jesus Himself was baptized of
John, that he might fulfill all righteousness, because baptism was a
righteous law, and one of the ordinances of the everlasting Gospel. At
first John declined to baptise the Savior, recognizing the fact that He
was without [111] sin, and that baptism was for the remission of sin. But
Jesus answering said, "Suffer it to be so now for or thus it becometh us
to fulfill all righteousness. And He baptized the Savior and Redeemer of
the world. As soon as this ordinance was attended to the heavens
acknowledged the act by the manifestation of the Holy Ghost. And the next
ordinance after baptism is the laying on of hands for the reception of the
Holy Ghost. This was the Gospel taught by the Apostles while they lived.
The Holy Ghost gave unto men a testimony that Jesus was indeed the Christ,
the Redeemer of the world; and it was a guide to their feet and a lamp to
their path during their whole lives. The Church at first was organized
upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief
corner stone. We are told that Christ has set in the Church, "First
apostles, secondarily prophets;" that "He gave some apostles; and some
prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers , and they
were to be standing ministers to the Church "for the perfecting of the
Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, into a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ." The Lord required Joseph Smith to organize the Church
of Christ after this order. He did so, and this Church has remained intact
in its organization from that day to the present; and it will continue to
remain until the coming of the Son of Man. And I would say here that there
is no change of the Gospel of Christ in this, neither has there been in
any other age of the world. There never has been any change from eternity
to eternity, neither has there been any change of the ordinances, or of
the Holy Priesthood; they are the same yesterday, today and forever."
(Deseret Evening News, 14 Sep 1889)
2 Sep 1889, George Q. Cannon:
There are many things growing up among us that are contrary to the
spirit of Zion; many things operating upon our people that call for grave
thought and careful consideration. We are now, as has been the case with
[112] us from the beginning, passing through new scenes, encountering new
difficulties; and so much has this been the case that our lives as
Latter-day Saints have possessed, it might be said, dramatic interest. Our
history, as a Church, has been like a drama. No scenes acted upon the
theatrical stage ever possessed more engrossing interest than have the
scenes of our lives as Latter-day Saints. And there is a constant change
of circumstances. We are environed by new, difficulties, and it requires
constant watchfulness on our part to avoid taking a wrong step or
committing ourselves in some direction, that might be injurious to us.
Therefore, God has ordained that there shall be Prophets and Apostles
whose duty it is to guide and counsel, to instruct, to reprove when
necessary, to warn; and great responsibility rests upon them in connection
with these duties I tremble at the very thought of it. I am filled with
feelings that cause me to shrink when I think about the great
responsibility that God has placed upon the leading Elders of this Church.
The welfare, the future happiness and the prosperity of the people are to
a great extent entrusted to those men who are called to be the shepherds
of the flock of Christ. I often ask myself, how can I appear before the
Lord Jesus, my Master, if He should call me to account for the charge that
He has placed upon me; can I stand up and say I have not obstructed the
work with which I am connected; I have not obscured the light of heaven; I
have not acted in any way to divert the rays of truth from shining in the
midst of the children of men--I ask myself, can I stand in this position
and look upon the face of God without feeling condemned, and that my
garments are unstained with the blood of this generation; that I have been
a faithful minister of the Lord, a faithful shepherd of the flock of
Christ, a watchman who has never slept at his post, who has never failed
to utter the cry of warning when danger has menaced the Zion of God. This
is a feeling it seems to me every man who bears the holy Priesthood ought
to have. I say, every man, not any one class of men, but every man bearing
the Priesthood of the Son of God in this Church, should feel that there is
a responsibility resting upon [113] he be not careful he may him, and that
perchance if wake up in eternity and find himself under serious
condemnation for having neglected to do his duty to his fellowman, and to
magnify the holy Priesthood that God has placed upon him. It would be a
dreadful thing in my view, to be found with the blood of man staining our
garments--that is, to feel that God had intrusted to us powers, and
afforted us opportunities, and laid upon us responsibilities, and we had
failed to discharge them honorably and faithfully in the interest of our
fellowman.
We are at present in peculiar circumstances. I need not say to you,
for you doubtless are familiar with the fact, that those who oppose us
expect in a very short time to gain a great victory over us; this, in
fact, has been the expectation of our enemies from the beginning of this
work. It is not a new thing for those who have opposed this work to
anticipate a triumph over it, and to imagine that they had laid the plans
and perfected the details for a victory, for the overthrow, of the church
and the destruction of the power of the Holy Priesthood. Already they are
reveling over their expected triumph, reveling in the prospect of having
us in their power--something they have labored for long and hard. Much
depends upon us, brethren and sisters, whether this will be so or not. We
hold, so to speak, our destiny in our own hands. If we are overcome we
ourselves shall be to blame; the work that we are connected with cannot be
charged with this. If defeat befall us and we are subjected to the power
of our enemies, the cause of defeat will be found within ourselves,
traceable to our own conduct, either through neglect to do that which we
should have done, or doing that which we should not have done. This every
one of you should take to heart. Trouble of any kind has never yet come
upon us that was not traceable to ourselves. There never has been a
people, I don't think, in any dispensation who have had the flood of light
bestowed upon them that has been poured out upon us in this day. For forty
years and upwards the voices of inspired men teaching the people the
principles of life and salvation have become familiar to us. Can you think
of any people who have had such opportun-[114]ities as we have had?
Doubtless the Nephites had in some parts of their history. But there never
was a more favored people than we. When I think of the mighty men that
have stood in our midst, filled with the power of God--Prophets and
Apostles, whom God chose and whom He bestowed His gifts and graces; and
how many of them have worn themselves out preaching to this people,
entreating them in the most eloquent manner, adducing the greatest and
strongest reasons that could appeal to our human natures, and revealing to
us the mind and will of God, it does seem to me that a terrible
responsibility rests upon us if we depart from the path which God has
marked out. We can never say we have not been taught, that we have not had
opportunities. We can never blame our Father for not imparting to us, in
the utmost plainness, and through the demonstration of His Holy Spirit,
His word and His counsel, President Young, while he lived, labored
indefatigably to the utmost of his ability; never sparing himself, but
constantly teaching the people, teaching them with his counsels, and
giving them suggestions that are unequaled. I do not know such a record
anywhere to be found as even the record of his discourses to this people;
and then, think of President Taylor, and the others associated with
President Young, and the effect their labors have had in teaching this
people.
Now we are brought face to face with this question, shall we take
these counsels to heart, shall we listen to the voice of God through his
servants which we have heard now these 42 years in these valleys, and
follow the direction which they have given concerning the people of Zion,
or shall we make a new departure? Shall we throw aside all that we have
heretofore been taught as the correct course and policy to be adopted in
building up the kingdom of God, shall we throw it aside, cast it behind us
and adopt some new principles, some new policy and practice concerning the
Zion of our God in the earth? This is a question that is forcing itself
upon us. I have seen things already which I never believed I would see; I
have witnessed conduct I never believed I would witness. I had hoped
better things. I have ob-[115]served a disposition to disregard the
counsels of the servants of God, to turn aside from the path that God has
marked out, to spurn that authority which He has said shall reign. I have
seen a disposition to bend and bow to the wishes of the world, to take to
heart and to partly believe as true the accusations and the
misrepresentations and the charges that have been made by the enemies of
the Kingdom of God against the Kingdom of God and its policy, and against
the men whom God has chosen. And today in our midst there is a great
amount of falsehood in circulation concerning the truth, concerning the
work of God, and concerning the servants of God; and a disposition to
believe evil and to misconstrue conduct and counsel and various things of
this character.
If this spirit should prevail among the Latter-day Saints it will
certainly prove disastrous to those who receive it and afford it a
lodgment in their hearts.
I do not think that those who are present today are the ones who are
susceptible to this influence--at least very few, if any. Many of those
that are absent I am afraid are the ones who ought to be talked to and
seasoned with upon this point. The men and women who attend meetings
regularly, and who think it important to come here to receive instructions
are not the ones, as a rule, who require censuring or reproof; as a
general thing they are found in the path of duty and are walking in the
ways of the Lord.
One of the speakers at our meeting last evening called your attention
to and spoke upon the subject of union. Whenever the Latter-day Saints
become divided; Whenever you see one Latter-day Saint arrayed against
another, you may know that one or both are in the wrong. When they become
divided in their interest, when they seek their own aggrandizement,
careless about the rights of their fellowmen; whenever you see this spirit
prevail, then it betokens trouble among ourselves and we shall lose power.
Let me ask you what is it that gives us strength? Are we numerous? Why, we
are but a small handful of people; our opponents outnumber us by millions.
Are we wealthy? Our wealth is not to be men-[116]tioned in comparison with
the wealth that is opposed to us. Are we learned? We do not compare in
worldly learning with those who are arrayed against us. In what then does
our strength consist? It consists in the union of the people, and their
faithfulness in keeping the commandments of God; it consists in our
obedience to the counsels of God's servants. Whenever this people shall
fellowship a spirit to disregard the counsels of the Priesthood, seeking
to accomplish ends by methods that are popular in the world, then they
become like other people, and their strength leaves them. Samson, after he
disregarded certain commandments to him personally by shaving his head and
divulging the secret of his wonderful strength, easily fell a prey to the
Philistines. This will be the case with us if we take the course advocated
by many so-called Latter-day Saints, and which they think is right to
take. I will tell you, and risk my reputation as a prophet upon it,
although I don't often talk about being a prophet; I say, I am willing to
risk my reputation, as a prophet upon this, that the man who takes this
course, the family or the community that takes it will become as weak as
water, and eventually become part of the world for departing from the way
that God, through his servants, has pointed out. Our strength consists not
of being part of Babylon, but the very opposite of that. Our strength
consists in God; and the fact that this is so has made us a peculiar
people. Divest ourselves of this peculiarity and we then become like the
rest of the world, no better, no stronger than they are; and we will be
overcome by them, for their forces are stronger and greater than ours. Can
you not see this ? To me, it is as clear as the light that shines. If we
are strong at all, we are strong because we are Latter-day Saints. That is
the cause of our strength-the strength which God has given unto us through
His Gospel. Whenever we depart from that policy we become weak like other
men. It is time we understood this; it is time we looked at it in its true
light. We are going arm in arm with the world, are we? We are going to be
like them? Whoever has that spirit will apostatize as sure as God lives,
unless he repents. I do not mean by this to say there is any
antag-[117]onism between us and the world. We have no warfare to wage,
none whatever. All we have to do is to be true to our principles. If our
enemies conspire against us, let us be true to our God, true to Zion, true
to the methods that God has revealed unto us for the building up of His
Kingdom, and take the course that will be right and pleasing in the sight
of God. I do not mean by this that I wish to put myself on opposition to
the laws, or to that which is now the counsel concerning matters. I want
to define my position so you will understand it, that no advantage be
taken of it.
God has established His Zion, and He is building it up in the way He
has revealed and that He communicates to His servants from time to time.
And let me say to you, my brethren and sisters, any spirit that leads
to division among the Latter-day Saints, you may know is not the Spirit of
God; you may know it is from beneath; and if it be evil it will bring
destruction upon those who indulge in it. We must see eye to eye; we must
progress in this direction. It is true our progress in some things is not
what it ought to be. We do not progress, for instance, in the proper
management of financial matters, and in union as foreshadowed in the
revelations of the Lord concerning temporal matters to the extent and with
the rapidity that many of us hoped we would see. But nevertheless it is
our duty to keep on doing the best we can, striving to come to the unity
of the faith in regard to these affairs. The time must come in Zion when a
new order of things will be established in regard to temporal matters. We
all look forward to it; we all pray for it; we all labor for it--that is,
all who have the love of Zion at heart; and we deprecate and deplore
everything that would retard us in this direction. The spirit of
selfishness appears to be prevalent, the spirit of self-aggrandizement,
and we deplore its aggrandizement, and we deplore its manifestation. We
would like to see the Latter-day Saints receive the counsel of God, and
the burden of the preaching of the Elders of this Church should be to
endeavor to get the Latter-day Saints to see the importance of this
principle--to be unselfish. God will bless the man who loves his neighbor,
[118] who seeks to promote his neighbor's interest. I do not care what his
station may be; he may be humble and obscured; whoever he may be, if he
seeks to promote his neighbor's interests he will find that God will bless
him, and He will do everything for the man that will be good for him. We
must cultivate this spirit; we must seek for it, and struggle for it. The
spirit of selfishness is in the earth; every man for himself. And this
spirit comes into our borders, and we partake of it to a greater or less
extent. Nevertheless, the time will come when this will be changed. God
will bring it about. He will bring us through circumstances that will make
us know the evil of it, and make us see the necessity of cultivating the
principle of unselfishness in our midst. Selfishness is our weak point
today. The fact that we are organizing after the fashion of the world, and
that every man is for himself to a great extent, is our weak point; and to
guard against it we should be careful not to permit that spirit to enter
into our hearts. (Deseret Evening News, 28 Sep 1889)
13 Sep 1889, Deseret Evening News:
The Milwaukee Wisconsin Evening has an editorial on "Religious
Liberty," suggested by the clause in the Idaho State Constitution which
disfranchises citizens for professing the "Mormon" religion. That paper
makes a mistake in charging this great wrong against Montana. With this
exception its remarks are so just and pertinent that we copy most of the
editorial from its columns. After expressing the opinion that the
convention that framed the constitution will "invite defeat" for the
instrument by this clause, it says:
"Civil and religious liberty is one of the boasts that is in every
man's mouth in this country, and it is no part of the business of any
state to meddle or concern itself with any man's religion. Every man has
the undoubted constitutional right in this free country to adopt any form
of religious worship that he pleases, or espouse any creed, no matter how
absurd, provided he obeys the laws and does not interfere with the rights
of his neighbors. As distasteful as Mormonism is to most rational [119]
people, it is nevertheless a most unquestionable privilege to profess it,
just as much as it is another privilege to become a Methodist or a
Presbyterian. The adjunct of polygamy is a crime against the laws, and
punishable as such, but the Montana (Idaho) people go too far when they
aim to eradicate the whole of the Mormon faith.
It may not be generally known, so much popular clamor has been raised
against the Mormons, that their creed is eminently orthodox, except that
it goes to far, and takes in some things that modern Christians repudiate.
Indeed, the Mormons hold to the cardinal doctrines promulgated by John
Calvin as firmly as any Presbyterian or Baptist, and in defense of
polygamy they quote the practice of some notable men of ancient times who
loved the women not wisely but too well. They believe in God, in the
Trinity, in the fall of man in Adam, in vicarious atonement, in baptism by
immersion, in miracles and the punishment of the wicked after death.
It will be all right for Montana (Idaho) to exclude polygamists from
the polls because that is now a criminal practice under our laws, but no
Mormon should be persecuted simply because he has become a proselyte to
that particular form of religious fanaticism." (Deseret Evening News, 13
Sep 1889)
23 Sep 1889, Utah Commission Report:
When the Commission was first organized, it was a matter of grave
consideration with the able men then composing it, headed by that wise and
safe counselor ex-Governor Alexander Ramsey, as chairman, as to the proper
policy to be pursued in discharging the very responsible as well as
delicate trust committed to its direction.
After mature thought and deliberation, it was unanimously considered
by the Commission that, under the act of Congress establishing it, the
duty of the Commission was to so shape its policy, and the administration
of the affairs committed to it, as to be in harmony with the spirit of the
laws of Congress regarding the principal and perhaps sole object in view
in its creation to be the extinction of polygamy, and the stamping out,
[120] as far as possible, of all polygamous influences and tendencies.
How best to accomplish this was a grave question, and was approached
with some hesitation and much serious thought, but as subsequent events
have shown, was determined wisely.
The act of Congress of March 22, 1882, commonly known as the "Edmunds
law," cut off polygamists, bigamists, and those who might thereafter be
convicted of kindred offenses, from exercising the right of sufferage, and
from the privilege of holding office in the Territory, and it became the
duty of the Commission to exclude all such persons from participating in
the elections.
The commission did not, however, consider this to be the sole object
of the law, but that it was also intended to make those offenses which
were practiced by the Mormon people in direct violation of the law, and
which were under the ban of civilization everywhere, odious.
In order to accomplish this and to thoroughly convince the Mormon
people of its earnestness of purpose, and to impress them with the idea
that the Government, through its authorized agencies, meant that polygamy
should be punished and eradicated, and its sovereign power in the
enactment of laws for the suppression and punishment of crime should be
respected and obeyed by all people within its jurisdiction and limits, the
Commission adopted the rule of appointing registrars, wherever
practicable, from the Gentile or non Mormon element of the population,
believing them to be more in harmony with the attempts to carry out and
enforce the provisions of the law than members of the other party, and in
the matter of judges of election, the law requiring three persons, it
appointed, wherever they could be found, two out of the three from the
non-Mormon element. In many precincts none but Mormons were to be found,
and in such places Mormons were appointed. They have thus had re
resentation upon all election boards, and entire control of some.
This policy of the Commission has been steadily pursued to the
present time, and, it is believed, with the most satisfactory results, as
evidence by the steady [121] increase of the anti-Mormon vote, and by the
abandonment, except in some remote districts, of the open practice of
those offenses for the suppression of which the law was enacted. * * *
But the Commission has acted on the idea that it was the intention of
Congress to impress upon the Mormon people that it has a fixed purpose to
compel obedience to the laws enacted by it, and if possible, to bring them
and their institutions into harmonious relations with the General
Government; that to do this it has prescribed grave punishments for
offenses either sanctioned or tolerated by them and a denial of the right
to participate in the affairs of the Government by voting or holding any
office of honor, trust, or profit to all who are guilty of such offenses,
and thereby to convince those who are not actual offenders and criminals,
but who adhere to the same creed and lend their moral, if not open,
support and encouragement to those who do violate the law, concealing
their crimes and persons from the officers of the law and ostracising
those of their number who give aid in enforcing the law in any manner;
that they, to that extent, are under bans and not to be promoted to places
of trust and emolument so long as they thus give aid and comfort to those
who defy the law and lionize those who are convicted and punished as
heroes and martyrs who have suffered persecution for conscience sake by
meeting them with bands and triumphal processions as they leave the door
of the penitentiary and promoting them to higher offices in the church.
It may be considered a quasi punishment imposed upon them while they
are still permitted to use the ballot in all elections held in the
Territory. It is quite certain, to, that if Mormons were placed in control
of the election machinery they would give the most liberal construction
possible in favor of the peculiar practices and tenets they profess to
hold as revelations from God.
We therefore insist that the Commission did right originally in
adopting the rule that the duties pertaining to registrations and
elections should be placed in the hands of and be performed by those who
were not in sympathy with the Mormon church and creed, and that [122] the
wisdom of a strict adherence to that line of policy has been demonstrated
by the charges that have been produced and in the awakened prosperity and
progress which are everywhere visible.
Polygamy is not at the present openly practiced, except perhaps in a
few remote and out of the way places, but the non-Mormon element insists
that plural marriages are solemnized clandestinely and practiced secretly
in the larger centers and throughout the Territory. This may or may not be
true. This Commission neither affirms nor denies in the absence of
positive evidence. We know this, however, to be a fact. There are places
where Mormons must necessarily be appointed registration officers for the
reason that no Gentile qualified to hold the position is to be found in
the community in which the duties are to be performed. This Commission
annually sends out circulars to each registration officer in the
Territory, requesting him to report any cases of parties who have entered
into polygamy or bigamy, and while from a number of places reports have
been made by Gentile registrars, giving names, times, and places as nearly
as practicable, not one case has ever been reported by a Mormon registrar,
although it is sometimes strongly asserted, and generally believed, that
the practice has been indulged in openly in some of their precincts. * * *
In the opinion of the Commission, the influences brought to bear
under the act of Congress creating it and those amendatory thereof,
together with the vigorous administration of the criminal law by the
courts, have had a marked influence in restraint of polygamy. That which a
few years ago was practiced openly, and flaunted in the face of the world
as the boast and pride of this peculiar people, has been driven to cover
and the secrecy of other crimes. If plural marriages are now celebrated it
is done in the secret chambers of the temples and endowment houses, where
the light of the sun never enters and no eyes but those of priests and
neophites are allowed to witness the ceremonies.
If polygamy is practiced, it is with the secrecy with which the
burglar guards his housebreaking and the thief [123] his larcenies. Few,
convictions are had for polygamy. Few, polygamous marriages can be proven
within three years, the period of limitation, but the trials and
convictions for unlawful cohabitation and kindred offences, a frequent
incident to polygamy, and generally with indications that they are of a
polygamous character, are, as will be seen from the statistics presented,
quite numerous in each of the three district courts of the Territory.
Those who are convicted invariably regard themselves, and are
regarded by the church, as martyrs. When one is convicted, the usual
announcement in the organ of the church is that he has been convicted of
"living with his wives," or of "living his religion." Those eminent in the
church who have been convicted of sexual crimes on emerging from the
penitentiary, have in some instances been met at the prison doors by brass
bands and a procession with banners, escorted to their homes to be
toasted, extolled, and feasted as though it were the conclusion of some
brilliant and honorable achievement, rather than the expiration of a
sentence, an expiation for a crime committed against the laws of the
country, and a disgraceful confinement within the walls of a penal
institution.
It is not regarded as any disgrace by the Mormons of Utah to have
served a term in the penitentiary for any of the sexual offenses inhibited
by the laws of Congress. On the contrary it is regarded as a badge of
merit, and as entitling the persons so convicted to promotion in the
church, as has been the case in some instances.
The law, as administered by the courts, mercifully keeps open the
door to escape punishment for all convicted of polygamy by offering them a
suspension of sentence and amnesty for the past, upon the sole condition
that they make a promise in open court to obey and live within the laws,
and keep the same; yet few accept the offer so graciously made, nearly all
preferring the prison life and its privations to a renunciation of the
article of their creed which puts them under the ban of the law and at
war, as it were, with the Government which gives them protection.
[124] Fear of punishment for their crimes, dread of further and more
stringent legislation, and a policy dictated by the hope of statehood at
an early period, when they would be the State and make and administer the
laws in accord with their peculiar institutions and pretended revelations,
are sufficient motives to account for the prudent submission that is shown
at present. * * *
The Commission in previous reports has made certain recommendations
which were, in its opinion, necessary and proper to give force and effect
to the provisions of the law under which it was created and which had not
yet been enacted into law.
These may be summarized as follows:
(1) In regard to the courts. The conferring upon the district courts
jurisdiction of all polygamous and sexual offenses without regard to the
place in the Territory committed; investing them with power co-extensive
with that possessed by the United States circuit and district courts in
the States in the matter of contempt and the punishment thereof;
authorizing the process of subpoena to run from the Territorial courts
into any other district of the United States; authorizing the selection of
jurors by open venire, providing that when continuance is granted on
motion of defendant, depositions of witnesses on the part of the
prosecution may be taken on notice and used in case the witness be dead,
absent from the Territory, or so concealed as to elude the service of
subpoena, and that a sufficient fund to enable the prosecuting officers to
efficiently perform their duties and enforce the laws be furnished by the
Department of Justice to the proper law officers of the Territory.
(2) That prosecutions for polygamy and bigamy be exempted from the
operation of the general statue of limitations.
(3) That the term of imprisonment for unlawful cohabitation, fixed by
section 2 of the act of 1882, be extended to at least two years for the
first and three years for the second offense. The Commission adds to this
the recommendation that the term of imprisonment for polygamy, bigamy, and
unlawful cohabitation be extended, and that hard labor be added to the
punishment.
[125] (4) That it be made a penal offense for any woman to enter into the
marriage relation with any man, knowing him to have a wife living,
undivorced, coupled, however, with the provision that in cases where a
polygamous wife is called as a witness against the husband, her testimony
could not be used in any future prosecution against her, and a like
provision as to the husband.
(5) The appointment of the Territorial auditor, treasurer,
commissioners to locate university lands, probate judges, county clerks,
selectmen, assessors and collectors, recorders and superintendents of
district schools, by the governor, subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(6) That all persons be excluded by law from making a location and
settlement upon any of the public lands who shall refuse on demand to take
and subscribe an oath, before a proper officer of the land office in which
his or her application is made, that he or she does not cohabit with more
than one man or one woman, as the case may be, in the marriage relation,
and that he or she will obey the laws of the United States in relation to
polygamy and bigamy.
(7) That the laws with reference to the immigration of Chinese, and
the importation of contract laborers, paupers, and criminals be so amended
as to prevent the immigration of persons claiming that their religion
justifies the crime of polygamy.
(8) A Constitutional amendment forever prohibiting polygamy.
(9) The enactment of a law creating a board to consist of the
governor, Utah Commission, and the secretary of the Territory, to
apportion Salt Lake City into aldermanic and councilmanic districts.
The Commission respectfully recommends all these propositions to the
attention of Congress, and in addition makes the following
recommendations:
(10) Authorizing this commission, in its discretion; to cause to be
made annually a new registration instead of revisions of former lists, and
to make and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws
of the United States for the conduct of registrations and elec-[126]tions.
(11) That Congress pass laws for the government and public schools in
the Territory of Utah.
(12) That as soon as the result of the census of 1890 is known, there
be created a board consisting of the governor, Utah Commission, and
secretary of the Territory with power to redistrict the Territory for
legislative purposes.
Some of these propositions are of grave importance, and may provoke
much discussion and adverse criticism. Those relating to the practice in
the courts will be at once understood by our law-makers, and need no
explanation. * * *
In regard to a law establishing and regulating the management of free
schools, the Commission is not of the opinion that the legislature of
Utah, as likely to be constituted for some time to come, can be expected
or trusted to establish a system of free schools in sympathy with the
enlightenment of the age, or free from the teachings of polygamy and so
called revelations, and therefore recommend that Congress assume the duty
providing for the education and enlightenment of the youth of the
Territory.
The Commission believes the limitation on prosecutions for polygamy
and bigamy should be extended, among other reasons, because, under the
peculiar missionary service of the church it is easy for one to enter
polygamy, go on a mission for three years, and return to assume his
polygamous relations, defying the authorities to punish him for the main
offense, and be in danger only of prosecution for the lesser offense of
unlawful cohabitation. The term of imprisonment for this offense should be
increased to meet this state of affairs, and sentence of hard labor should
be added, that their confinement may not be spent in idleness and
glorification of their supposed martyrdom.
The Commission has no doubt that punishment of the woman for
voluntarily entering the polygamous relation would do much to lessen her
zeal for the peculiar institution, and thus tend to remove one of its
strongest bulwarks.
[127] It recommends the granting to the governor the power to appoint the
officers named, because:
(1) He is more nearly than any other the representative of the power
and majesty of the Government among the people of the Territory, and
granting powers to him which will bring him more and more into direct
contact with them would tend to increase their respect for the National
Government, an element almost unknown to them.
(2) Because residing among them, he can better judge of the
necessities of the case and of the qualifications of the officers to be
appointed than would be possible if the appointing power should be vested
in the President.
(3) Because such power would take the control of Utah affairs out of
the hands of officers who are chosen, not by a free selection of the
people, but whose nomination is made by "counsel" from the priesthood, and
whose election is a mere form, and place it in the hands of men who
represent civilized ideas, are in sympathy with the efforts of Congress to
suppress polygamy, and will assist the officers of the Government in the
work of enforcing the laws, instead of using all the influence and moral
support of their positions to nullify the laws, prevent execution, and
shield offenders, as is now the rule and practice.
In regard to the proposed amendment of the immigration laws and the
restriction upon the location of public lands the Commission respectfully
submits, that while we forbid the immigration of the non-proselyting,
peace loving, docile Chinaman, because we fear a future danger from his
coming, while we forbid the landing on our shores of contract laborers,
because they cheapen wages of American-born citizens, and paupers, because
they may become a burden, there is far greater reason for closing our
doors as a nation, and forbidding citizenship to the hordes who are
brought here to swell the ranks of an organized body, which teaches them
in advance to hate the Government of the United States, denominates its
executive, law-makers, judges, and prosecutors as persecutors, and
instills into every mind the constant teaching that their pretended
revelations are more bind-[128]ing than the highest and best laws of the
land, and that resistance to such laws is a virtue and a rendering of
obedience to God. How far short of treason these teachings are we leave
those who can to answer. By cutting off this importation of generally
ignorant and fanatical classes, many of whom neither speak nor care to
learn our language, and to say the least are not in sympathy with the
institutions or the laws of our country, the principal source of the
growth of this conspiracy against what we hold as best and dearest in
American civilization would be materially diminished, and the spread of
this relic of Oriental barbarism to that extent averted.
The Commission would further suggest for the careful consideration of
Congress, the propriety and expediency of enacting laws providing for the
disfranchisement of such persons who may not themselves be guilty of
crimes forbidden by law, but who are or may become members of
organizations or societies whose tenets and principles are inimical to the
Constitution and laws of the country, and teach that the practice of
certain criminal acts are virtues, and throws about its members who do
practice such crimes the shield of the whole power of such organizations,
morally, socially, and otherwise, and to debar them from the privileges of
the homestead laws. The Commission does not strenuously urge such
legislation at this time, partially because the Supreme Court has not yet
passed upon the constitutionality and legality of such enactments.
The Commission yields to none in reverence for and earnest desire to
protect from violation every provision of that instrument, sacred to every
true American citizen as the palladium of his liberties and the great
safeguard of the Republic, but it is not of the opinion that laws made to
prevent crime, to prevent combinations and conspiracy against the State,
and to punish persons who combine and conspire to commit crime can be
called laws which interfere with religion, whether the persons who so
combine and conspire call themselves by the name of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints or by any other name, whether they pretend
that their conspiracy is a religion or openly declare their object to
[129] be to commit crime.
Religious fanaticism even can not be allowed to commit crimes against
the law or to teach others to do so, either by the acts of the individual
or an organization composed of many individuals, whether they avow that
they act voluntarily or under a pretended spiritual revelation.
The law aims at the crime against society, no matter by what name it
is called, or in what guise it is perpetrated. The man who robs you in the
guise of a Samaritan is no less a robber because of his disguise.
It may not he considered out of place to mention the fact that
similar views to those above expressed have received the sanction and
approval of the supreme court of Idaho in deciding the appeal in the case
of Dooley vs. Watkins et al., a case in which the principles involved in
the suggestion of the Commission are ably discussed. The Commission
desires to commend the governor, the judges, and district attorney and
assistants of the Territorial district courts, and the officers of the
United States generally for Utah, for the intelligent, zealous, and
faithful manner in which they have performed their difficult and sometimes
arduous and distasteful duties in enforcing the laws of Congress, and for
the willing and efficient aid they have given the Commission upon all
occasions. The utmost harmony exists among all the Government officials in
the Territory, so far as is known to the Commission.
In concluding, the Commission is of the opinion that in this matter
the Government and Congress should take no backward or even wavering step,
but should continue the active and vigorous enforcement of the laws, and
the improvement of them by the amendment of such as would be made more
effective thereby, and by enacting such into laws as experience may show
to be wise and more efficacious to accomplish the desired end, until not
only the practice but the inculcation of crimes of this nature shall, as
far as possible, be stamped out, and until a majority of the people shall
abandon a pretended belief in doctrines which incite to treason against
the state, which sap the foundations of society, and re-[130]tard the
growth of nineteenth-century civilization, and until they show that they
can be trusted to make and enforce laws which forbid the practices
elsewhere universally condemned. * * *
MINORITY REPORT, John A. McClernard:
Recapitulating with brief addition: Polygamy is contrary to the
divine exonomy; contrary also to the moral law and to enlightened opinion.
It breeds caprice, cruelty, and license. It enervates the man and
debauches the woman. Physically, socially, and morally it deteriorates and
corrupts. Despotic in the family, it prototypes and engenders despotism in
the state. Perforce it works its own retribution, and so it accounts for
the unequal development of the Asiatic and European races; for the
indolence and feebleness of the one; for the enterprise and energy of the
other. Incapacity and inferiority are its label and condemnation. Hence,
in the armed contests of rival civilizations (sic) notably in ancient
Greece and modern India, it succumbed to the characteristic valor and
vigor of represented monogamy.
Following the example of the wisest and most progressive nations, and
with them holding fast to the attar of individual purity and
self-restraint as the imperative condition to national esteem, strength,
and prestige, the United States have placed the seal of condemnation upon
polygamous practices everywhere within the domain of their exclusive
jurisdiction. The relevant laws enacted by Congress are numerous and cover
a period of nearly forty years. To assist to an easy and ready
apprehension of their purport, I subjoin here substantially their
pertinent provisions and their familiar popular titles:
The act of 1862 declares, as a rule, that any person having a husband
or wife, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single,
shall be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and upon conviction thereof, by a
jury, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $500, and by imprisonment
not exceeding five years. (Sec. 1.)
The "Poland act" of 1874 provides that in all criminal [131] cases
the court and not the jury shall pronounce the punishment under the
limitation prescribed by law and withholds from each party more than three
peremptory challenges in any criminal case except murder. (Sec. 4.)
The "Edmunds act" of 1882 is more comprehensive, yet more minute. It
declares polygamy and unlawful cohabitation severally to be offenses, and
defines what shall constitute each; annexes to the one the same penalties
enacted by the act of 1862, and to the other a fine not exceeding $300, or
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, in the discretion of the
court; and allow's a joinder of counts for polygamy and unlawful
cohabitation in the same information or indictment. (Secs. 1, 3, 4.)
Disqualifies any person from serving as a juror in any prosecution
for polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, who is living or has lived in th
(sic) practice of bigamy, polygamy, or of unlawful cohabitation with more
than one woman, or who believes it right for a man to have more than one
living and undivorced wife at the same time, or who believes it right to
live in the practice of cohabitation with more than one woman, if such
person shall be challenged as a juror for any such cause. (Sec. 6.)
Legitimates the issue of polygamous marriages solemnized according to
the ceremonies of the Mormon sect, who were born before the 1st day of
January, 1883. (Sec. 7.)
Disqualifies any polygamist or other person cohabiting with more than
one woman from voting at any election, or for election or appointment to
any office of trust, honor, or emolument. (Sec. 8.)
The "Edmunds-Tucker act" of 1887, extending the purview of the
previous acts, defines other crimes and misdemeanors with their penalties,
namely:
Incest, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than
three nor more than fifteen years. (Sec. 4.)
Adultery, punishable by like imprisonment not exceeding three years.
(Sec. 3.)
[132] Fornication, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months or
by fine not exceeding $100. (Sec. 5.)
Waives, in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful
cohabitation, the process of subpoena, for sworn cause, for the process of
attachment, instead, to the witness. (Sec. 2.)
Qualifies the lawful husband or wife, each, with his or her consent,
to testify as a witness touching the other, in any prosecution for bigamy,
polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, except as to any statement or
communication made by either deemed at common law confidential. (Sec. 1.)
Requires every celebration of marriage performed in Utah to be signed
by the parties thereto, and by every priest or other person taking part
therein, and that the evidence of marriage when so authenticated shall be
filed in the office of the probate court for record, and that such record
shall remain subject to inspection, and punishes any willful violation of
the requirement by fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding two years, or by both, in the discretion of the court. (Sec. 9.)
Vests in the commissioners who are or may be appointed by the supreme
court or district courts in the Territory the same powers and jurisdiction
possessed by the justices of the peace therein, or by the commissoners
appointed by the circuit courts of the United States. (Sec. 7.)
Continues the powers and duties of the Utah Commission until it shall
have been superseded by the legislative assembly of the Territory with the
express approval of Congress. (See. 23.)
Abolishes the right of female suffrage for any public purpose (sec.
20), and limits the right of male suffrage by the precedent condition that
such person shall have registered his name as a voter and subscribed an
oath or affirmation that he is over twenty-one years of age; has resided
in the Territory six months and in the precinct of his residence one
month--including in such oath or affirmation a statement, according to the
fact, that [133] he is a native-born or naturalized citizen, of his age,
his place of business, his status, whether single or married, and if
married, the name of his lawful wife; that he will support the
Constitution of the United States and faithfully obey the laws thereof,
and especially the act of 1882 and this act in respect to the crime
therein defined and forbidden, and will not, directly or indirectly, aid
or abet, counsel or advise any other person to commit any of said crimes.
(See. 24.)
Disqualifies any person to serve as a juror or to hold any office who
shall not have first taken an oath or affirmation setting forth his full
name, his age and place of business, his status, whether single or
married, and, if married, the name of his lawful wife, and that he will
support the Constitution of the United States and obey the laws thereof;
or who shall have been convicted of any crime under the act of 1882 or
this act. (Sec. 24.)
Regulates and secures the right of dower (sec. 18); makes the judges
of the probate courts appointive by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate (sec. 19); requires the governor and the
secretary of the Territory, with the Utah Commission, to redistrict the
Territory into representative and councilor districts, and to apportion
the representation of the people of the Territory in porportion to their
numbers and the number of the districts and of the members of the present
legislative assembly. (Sec. 23.)
Provides the agencies and mode of forfeiting and escheating to the
United States, for the use of common schools, the property of corporations
obtained or held in violation of the act of 1862, except buildings, with
their appurtenant grounds, held and occupied exclusively for the worship
of God, or for the parsonages connected therewith, or for burial places.
(Secs. 13, 14.)
Disapproves and annuls all laws of the legislative assembly of the
Territory, or of the so-called State of Deseret, creating, organizing,
amending, or continuing the corporation called the Perpetual Emigration
Company, and, dissolving it, provides the mode and agencies of adjudging
its dissolution and of carrying the same into effect. Forbids the assembly
from passing any law [134] operating to bring persons into the Territory;
and escheats the property and assets of the corporation, in excess of its
lawful liabilities of the United States for investment and disposition, by
the Secretary of the Interior, for the benefit of common schools in the
Territory. (Secs. 15, 16.)
Disapproves and annuls all acts of the legislative assembly of the
Territory; also the ordinance of the so-called state of Deseret
incorporating, continuing, or providing for the corporation known as the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; disincorporates and dissolves
that corporation; vests the supreme court of the Territory with equity
power to wind up the affairs of the corporation conformably to law, and to
carry all these provisions into effect, and, in so doing, to cause to be
transferred to trustees, for the use of the corporation, the real estate
now held and used by it for places of worship, and for parsonages
connected therewith, and for burial grounds, subject to the limitation
imposed in that regard by sections 13 and 26 of the act. (Secs. 13, 17,
26.)
Suspends the laws of the Territory providing the method of electing
and appointing the Territorial superintendent of district schools;
abolishes the office of such superintendent, and makes it the duty of the
supreme court of the Territory to appoint a commissioner of schools,
clothed with the same powers and charged with the same duties appertaining
to the Territorial superintendent under the laws of the Territory; clothed
also with the power to prohibit the use of any book of a sectarian
character or otherwise unsuitable in any district school; and charges him
also with the duty of reporting annually to Congress, through the governor
of the Territory and the Secretary of the Interior, concerning the number
of children of school age, the proportions attending and not attending
school, and generally of the progress of the schools and the operation of
his office. (Sec. 25.)
It annuls all laws passed by the so-called state of Deseret or by the
legislative assembly of the Territory for the organization of the militia
or the creation of the [135] Nauvoo Legion, and provides that the militia
of Utah shall be organized and subjected in all respects to the laws of
the United States, and that the governor of the Territory, by and with the
advice and consent of the council thereof, shall appoint all general
officers of the militia, until, as further provided, the assembly shall
have passed other laws for organizing the militia, subject to the approval
of Congress.
These laws are far-reaching and stringent. They bespeak an unusual
remedy for an obstinate and formidable evil. They extend to all offenders
convicted of violating them not only the penalty of fine and imprisonment,
or both, but forfeiture of the elective franchise and eligibility to hold
office or to perform jury service. More than that, they cautiously
require, even of non-offenders, a test oath involving divers unusual
precedent conditions to the exercise of the elective franchise or to the
holding of office or serving as a juror. * * *
From the earliest history of England, the mother country, the offense
was treated as one inimical to the well being of society, and a statue of
James I, denounced it as a felony punishable with death, if committed in
England or Wales. In 1788 Virginia re-enacted substantially the same
statue, including the death penalty, (see Appendix) and since then it may
be safely affirmed that there has never been a day in any State in the
Union when polygamy was not cognizable as a crime by the civil courts and
was not punishable with more or less severity.
Recurring to the subject of actual decline of polygamous offenses, as
already noticed, it is proper to remark that that fact carries with it a
pregnant and welcome moral significance. It means the birth of a
reformatory spirit and its advancing development. This truth is variously
evidenced. * * *
In conformity with these cannons, thus variously pro-pounded, the
Commission has from time to time officially assured the Mormon people
domiciled in Utah that the Government of the United States had no no (sic)
design to coerce them for their church membership, or their religious
opinions, and that all that was required [136] or could be rightfully
required of them was to obey the laws.
In the Commission's first annual report, 1882, it said:
"The legislation of Congress as we understand it is not enacted
against the religion of any portion of the people of this Territory. The
law under which we are acting is directed against the crime of polygamy.
In its report of 1883 it said that"By abstaining from the polygamic relation they (the Mormons) will
enjoy all the political rights of American citizens. "
In its report of 1886 is said:
"We recognize the obligation of the Government of the United States
to protect the personal and property rights of the Mormon people, and to
deal with them as equals before the law, yet it is equally the duty of the
Government to punish crime."
Again, in its circular of March, 1887, to election officers, it said,
after enumerating all the disqualifications of voters"That no opinion which they (the Mormons) may entertain upon
questions of religion or church policy should be the subject of inquiry or
exclusion from the polls."
But this limitation, while shielding the elector, does not
necessarily include the juror, the nature of whose functions imperatively
requires of him judicial impartiality. Hence the law of 1882 wisely and
conservatively provides that any one offered as a juror in a prosecution
for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation under a statue of the
United States, who believes the acts constituting these offenses right,
shall, for such cause, upon challenge, be rejected.
With this record of historic names and wisdom and of [137] the
organic and municipal law of the land outstretched before us, what
addition to it, if any, does experience now admonish?
Answering this question, I would respectfully recommend an amendment
to the Federal Constitution perpetually prohibiting polygamy under
whatsoever its guise, not only in the States, but also in the Territories
and other places over which the United States have or may have exclusive
jurisdiction.
The importance of such an amendment can not be overestimated. I would
draw under a common and uniform civil cognizance the conditions of
marriage and divorce, with the evidence and the authentication of the
evidence of their verity, and thus subserve convenience and certainty in
respect of the paramount feature of social life. Moreover, it would draw
under the same cognizance the question of monogamy and polygamy, upon the
dual terms of which in the one case turns the capacities of individual,
social, and national development, and, in the other, turns the deadening
and corrupting influence of the patriarchal principle and stationary
despotism.
It would substitute a lasting organic law for a fugitive legislative
enactment, which must cease to operate with the cessation of the anomalous
Territorial condition.
It would raise an inferred and parasitic power, obscurely deduced
from another power, administrative in its terms, and pointing directly to
the disposal of property, to the dignity and distinctness of an expressed
power.
It would inure as a solemn, deliberate, and final repudiation in this
country of the Asiatic and African pestilence, polygamy.
It would be an authoritative and conclusive notification to
immigrants from every land that We United States are dedicated to the
virtues and blessings of monogamy, and, not least, the amendment, passing
as a lesson unto the common and higher schools of the land, would form and
train the minds of generations in accord with its Spirit, and reason. * *
*
The Mormon religion purged of its impurities will [138] probably
survive, how long no one can foresee. Its votaries, impelled by the zeal
characteristic of a new sect, are active propagandists. Its vices,
however, like those distorting any other system, must be amenable to the
corrective laws of progress and intelligence. Civilization is a sublime
revelation, modifying, improving, and elevating the yearnings of the human
heart and mind. The ages of that fanaticism and fatuity which contrived
the inquisition and the rack; which invented the medieval writ "de
heretico comubrento"; which burned Latimer and Ridley at the stake; which
inflicted the massacre of St. Bartholomew; which ruthlessly exterminated
dissenters from orthodoxy in the Netherlands, and which drove the
Puritans, the Huguenots, the Quakers, and their co-devotees to the cause
of freedom in their native lands to find refuge in the New World, and to
people it with teeming millions, and to bless it with republican
principles and forms--those ages have passed away. To revive their dark
and intolerant spirit now, in the nineteenth century, would add another
proof and lament that the course of nations is not upon straight lines,
but in wayward circles, ending where they began and rebeginning where they
ended. The commentary of the philosophical historian would not be doubted.
Passing the dismal panorama of reaction before him, he would not spare
just censure upon whomsoever or whatsoever it should fall.
25 Sep 1889, A House of Ill-Fame Raided:
"Yesterday about noon J. B. McLellan. arrested Eugene Cambell of the
Globe hotel on Grant avenue, for keeping a house of prostitution. He also
took in charge four girls, one of them colored, on the charge of resorting
to the house of ill-fame for immoral purposes. They were at once taken
before Commissioner Cross, where the girls pleaded guilty with the
exception of one, who was sick and who was allowed to go. Their names were
Sou Cleveland, Jane Doe and Carry Green. They were fined $10 and costs and
committed to the county jail for thirty days.
[139] "Campbell was placed on the stand and from his testimony one would
judge that the family had lived in a fearful condition for sometime. He is
said to have a daughter who is a prostitute and has now, a child only
three days old. He had kept several girls in the house for some time, and
his wife and small children lived in the midst of this sin and misery. The
resort was kept for parties of both color. He was committed to the county
jail for four months, and was fined $100 and costs, to stand committed
until the fine and costs were paid.
"Deputy McLellan states that Eugene Campbell was convicted some time
ago in the First District Court of adultery, but Judge Henderson suspended
sentence during good behavior." (Ogden Standard, see also Deseret Evening
News, 25 Sep, 1889)
29 Sep 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
This morning THE TRIBUNE lays before its readers the current annual
report of the Utah Commission. The telegraphic summary of its points was
given in a fairly accurate manner; it also justifies reasonably well the
forecasts made of it by the Associated Press. Best of all, it will please
the loyal Americans of Utah, and will give them courage and strength for
the heavy fight they must win against the legions of darkness. A very
large portion of the report is taken up with a review of facts familiar
here and a statement of laws and conditions we all know. We are glad to
see that this report recognizes the continued tendency toward polygamy of
the Mormon people, in the advocacy of it by their press and priests, and
in the persistant reports from the Mormon temples. It is true, as the
Commission say, that it is so difficult as to be in the main impossible to
obtain legal proof of these illicit marriage ceremonies; but it comes out
incidently in a large number of the unlawful cohabitation cases that there
must have been to give rise to them, recent polygamous marriages. And
cases of proof of the actual polygamous ceremony are not altogether
wanting. A very plain case was developed against HANS JESPERSON at Provo
on Thursday last, where the plural wife swore positively to the ceremony
and the [140] place and time; conviction will be easy. The report as to
the Mormon attitude on this matter is able and accurate. It is equally
true and emphatic on the results which would follow the admission of Utah
as a State, and against any such disastrous move.
For the recommendations made, the Gentiles owe thanks to the
Commission. The suggestions relating to the amendment of the laws in such
manner as to facilitate the work of the courts are such as experience has
shown to be needful, so that the courts may work freely and with
efficiency. The recommendations that the time limitation be removed for
prosecutions; that punishment for unlawful cohabitation be extended to two
years, that hard labor be coupled with the sentence, and that women be
made amenable to the law, if they knowingly enter into polygamy, are all
strictly in the line with the narrowing of the circle around the
law-breakers that was promised if they refused to surrender to the law.
They are also right in themselves. Unlawful cohabitation is simply
continuous polygamy, and is the real offense aimed at; it was a blunder to
fix the penalty so low. Hard labor is the usual sentence of felons, and
there is no reason why the most persistent of them should escape it. Women
are not now obliged, even by Church pressure, to go into polygamy; if they
sin knowingly and perversely, as they must do now when they sin at all,
there is no reason in the world why they should escape the penalty.
The recommendation to forbid the immigration of defiant polygamists
and to forbid such taking the public lands, are well, though tardy; these
measures have been advocated in Utah for years, and are just. The
recommendations for a redistricting of Salt Lake City and a Legislative
reapportionment for the Territory after the coming census should be
complied with as a matter of course; they are but the ordinary political
provisions that usually prevail without question.
The recommendation that the public schools be lifted out of Mormon
solution and put in loyal hands is but the dictate of patriotic wisdom; it
is a recommendation that cannot be carried out too soon, and when done it
will be a long step toward the final and permanent solution [141] of the
long-pending "Utah question."
The report strikes a vital point also where it recommends that the
county officials it names should be appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the Commission; an entirely practicable plan of procedure,
and one that would do more than any other one thing suggested to destroy
the theocratic power here, since it would deprive the theocracy of the
power of distributing these offices (which are often great rewards and
bribes) as rewards of merit or inducement to the wavering to stay with the
organization.
Altogether, the tone of the report is admirable, the Commissioners
have done themselves credit in formulating and signing it. (Salt Lake
Tribune)
29 Sep 1889, The Mice Do Play:
Yesterday we printed the rebellious expressions of a Mormon paper at
Nephi against the undue influence of the priesthood in Mormon politics. We
give herewith an editorial of the latest issue of the Wasatch Wave,
printed at Heber City, ABE HATCH's home. It deals with another phase of
Mormon "peculiarity, " and though not quite as squarely put as the Nephi
man's protest, it is yet a hopeful sign of progress. The Wave, in speaking
of Judge JUDD's recent charge to the grand jury at Provo, says:
"Judge Judd in his charge to the grand jury last Monday said, that
when the jury came to consider the offenses peculiar here, they should
remember that what they did should be done in a humane and Christian
spirit. They should not carry out some person's malicious schemes, and
should bring in no indictment unless they believed it was bound to
convict. "These people," he said, "must bow to the supremacy of the law.
They must acknowledge the law; must respect the law, and not hate it. The
people must take a new stand; they must obey the law or leave the
territory and government of the United States. There is a cims of people
here who married plural wives before the government actively undertook to
enforce the laws, and who are aged people; [142] they should be delt with
leniently. But when young men 30 or 40 years of age violate the law with
their eyes open, they should be dealt with vigorously and without mercy".
"No fairer charge than this could be made by any Judge under the
present peculiar condition of affairs in this Territory.
"The United States Congress has enacted laws against certain
practices in this Territory. These laws have been declared constitutional
by the highest judicial power of the land, and, as the Judge says, they
must be obeyed. It is impossible for any people or association of persons,
in any country or under any government, to live to open violation of the
laws passed by the legislative department of that Government, and declared
valid by the highest judicial function. The people must obey the law or
the Government is worthless, and cannot stand. Every subject must
acknowledge the supremacy of the law and obey it, or suffer the
consequence of disobedience.
"In this Territory there are aged men who years ago married plural
wives, some of them before there was any law of the United States
forbidding it; others, after such a law had been enacted but before it had
been declared valid by the courts. These men married their young wives
long, long ago, have lived and associated with them and raised families,
and it is hard for them now to give up their families, discard them,
disown them, and say they will literally obey the law. These men deserve
leniency and sympathy. But men who have married plural wives of late
years, who have knowingly and defiantly, and, as Judge Judd says, violated
the law with their eyes open-well, it is quite a different thing. Of this
we have nothing to say. We pass."
It is only now that any Mormon papers would dare to say such things,
and they only dare to say them now because of the progress made by Liberal
sentiment. That progress saps the foundation of the ridiculous Mormon
claims to infallibilty (sic), and undermines the foul structure of sin and
shame that has been reared in Utah. It would not be possible for the
Mormon papers in Salt Lake to say such things as the remoter papers are
saying; [143] the presence of the terrible central cat prevents any such
display of friskiness on the part of the central mice; but on the
outskirts the mice take more freedom, even risking the deadly stroke of a
paw that might annihilate them. But this stolen freedom may, by-and-by,
get to be a right; such liberties sometimes grow that way. That they may
do so in this case constitutes the need and the hope of Utah. (Salt Lake
Tribune)
30 Sep 1889, Deseret Evening News:
THE report of the Utah Commission to the Secretary of the Interior, a
synopsis of which has been furnished by the Associated Press and which we
have already reviewed, is being noticed by the newspapers and will no
doubt be widely commented upon.
The Springfield Republican, referring to the suggestion of the
Commission as to the adopting of the Idaho test oath infamy, says:
"So long as Congress aims at the immoral practices of Mormons it will
be on safe ground. Beyond that a policy of repression is perilous."
The Philadelphia Press remarks:
"Every new measure brought forward against polygamy is more radical
than would have seemed possible a few years before. We have no doubt that
the twin relic will be suppressed eventually, though the process of
reaching it threatens to strain severely a good many old-fashioned notions
of personal right."
Yes, those "old-fashioned notions of personal right" which were
entertained by the founders of this nation, and are embodied in the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States,
have received several severe strains in the treatment of the people called
"Mormons." And in their anxiety to supress and destroy an unorthodox creed
and people, the pretended puritans and moral legislators of the age will
continue to strain them until they are stretched beyond all
recog-[144]nition.
The, measure now proposed, a few years ago would have been denounced
by every journal and statesman in the land, professing any veneration for
that civil and religious liberty considered essential to the perpetuity of
republican institutions. Familiarity with acts and projects that violate
the spirit of our system of government, blunts the perceptive powers and
dulls the sensibilities of those who favor them, and thus that veneration
for the basic principles of free government, which once imbued all hearts
in this great country, is giving place to sympathy with schemes of
expediency, and the doctrine that the end justifies the means is gaining
ground in high as well as low places in the land.
We are sorry to see this, not only on account of its probable effects
upon the people of Utah, but because of its certain results, if it is
continued, upon the future of this whole government and nation. When those
sacred rights for which the fathers of our country struggled and died are
trampled upon by national sanction, woe to the people and their rulers by
whom the wrong is perpetrated: (Deseret Evening News)
1 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
Up to an early hour on Sunday morning, we had hoped for his own
credit and for the patience of the loyal men of Utah, that Gen. McCLERNAND
would refrain from inflicting on the public an adverse report as a member
of the Utah Commission. But the infliction came along, like other
nuisances in their season, to exasperate and annoy, like the, potatobug,
the curculio or the appleworm. An abstract of the childish rubbish he sent
in for a minority report of the Utah Commission was telegraphed on Sunday
morning. Since a similar abstract telegraphed Friday night turned out to
be a very fair and accurate statement of the points in the Commission
report proper, we are justified in assuming that this abstract of
Commissioner McCLERNAND'S paper is also a fair summary of its contents. We
may, then, confidently say that this alleged "report" of a minority which
is composed of one member is simply a Mormon [145] harangue; we report
such every week in brief from the Tabernacle speakers, and see them
constantly in the Mormon papers. The whole tone of the document is that
somebody is proposing to interfere with the liberty of conscience, and to
undertake the extripation of a religion by a persecution for which it
cites the burning of LATIMER and RIDLEY at the stake and the massacre of
St. Bartholomew as parallels. Such talk is simply the babbling of a feeble
and malicious old man in his dotage. There is no proposition to do
anything whatever by law with respect to any religion or in any way to
affect the freedom of conscience; it is proposed to stop active crime and
to bring Utah into harmony with American institutions; that is all; and
the gush about religion and conscience is but foolish twaddle, having no
relevance to any living issue; the froth about individual liberty and
political rights threatened are simply vain beatings of the empty air. The
most that has ever been proposed is that aliens shall be treated as
aliens; when they forsake their alien allegiance then they are entitled to
political rights in the United States, and not before.
Commissioner McCLERNAND was sent out here under the provisions of an
act to aid in the suppression of polygamy in Utah, and to take the control
of the elections out of the hands of a polygamous priesthood; he has
constantly voted to restore the control of elections to that priesthood,
and for now these three years has openly come out as the friend and
apologist of polygamy and polygamists, urging in their behalf the very
sophistries and deceptive phrases which they themselves employ in
protesting against the enforcement of existing statues. It is therefore
plain that General McCLERNAND has ranged himself on the side of the
law-defiers and against the law, and this with a persistent obstinacy
which leaves no room for doubt that all chance for his usefulness as a
member of the Commission is gone. He is hostile to the law which gives him
place and in sympathy with the very thing that he, as an official, is
pledged to oppose. Such an anomalous position would be an intolerable one
for a man of spirit and conscience; such a man finding himself in the
position Gen. McCLERNAND is would [146] escape by resignation; but Gen.
McCLERNAND is very old, and probably does not realize, as a man in the
full possession of his faculties would do, the dishonorable nature of his
position. Yet his failure to respond to what honor demands should not
operate as a brake on the loyal people of Utah. They should move promptly
in this case, and protest in no unmistakable terms against the continuance
of a Mormon mouthpiece in a position which he prostitutes; of an official
in a place where he openly proclaims his hostility to legislation to which
he owes his position; of an imbecile where vigor and strength are of all
needed requirements the chief . This is the appropriate vent for the
public indignation which will surely follow this renewed insult to loyal
sentiment and intelligence and outrage on public propriety. The demands
for Gen. McCLERNAND'S removal should follow swift and strong on the heels
of this wretched infliction he has put upon the public, and should be
backed by the full power and force of the Liberal sentiment and numerical
strength in Utah. The patience of the loyal men has been abused long
enough; their forbearance has been mocked at. There remains but one thing
to do; we must move on the enemy's works. (Salt Lake Tribune)
2 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
We have waited for some days to see what the exponents of Mormonism
would say about the latest developed polygamy case, that of HANS JESPERSON
of Goshen, Utah County; but all have been silent. The complaint on which
the warrant for JESPERSON'S arrest was issued recites that the accused
committed the crime of polygamy on the 8th day of April, 1889, in Salt
Lake City, by feloniously marrying one ALICE HORTON, while he already had
a living and divorced wife. * * *
On this state of facts our correspondent at Provo, on Monday of this
week, interviewed several of the leading lights of the polygamous church
there, with the following result:
"The reporter called at the First National Bank to [147] interview
Stake President A. O. Smoot. The old gentleman was busy in the money vault
but on hearing himself asked for stepped out, and on being made acquainted
with the reporter's business, asked the scribe to step into the private
office. Asked the reporter, "Mr. Smoot, in view of what John T. Caine said
in Congress about polygamy being a dead issue in Utah, and the development
of the Jesperson case, what have you to say about the situation?"
"I can say that I think Mr. Jesperson acted very unwisely and
indiscreetly. I don't think the authorities of the church sanctioned the
Jesperson marriage. If he was married at all, it is a bogus marriage. So
far as I know the church authorities have repudiated the practice, not the
doctrine of polygamy, therefore Caine's statement is substantially true.
If plural marriages are consummated now, they are clandestinely performed,
so far as I know. I didn't give a recommend to Jesperson to marry
polygamously. I may have endorsed a bishops recommend for him to do temple
work. I understand that no more plural marriages are solomnized in the
Temples."
Thanking Mr. Smoot for the courtesy shown him THE TRIBUNE man
retired.
David John, First Counselor to A. O. Smoot in this stake of Zion
said: "I don't know anything about it--don't understand it. The case has
created a regular stink, and no one in the Territory regrets the affair as
much as Mr. Smoot and myself. I have never given a recommend in this or
any other instance for a man to take a plural wife since the passage of
the Edmunds-Tucker law. As I understand it, polygamy is practically
repudiated by the Church, the practice, not the belief."
S. S. Jones was seen in his office this morning buried in a bundle of
business letters. He smilingly greeted the reporter and talked freely of
the Jesperson case. Mr. Jones's plural wife is sister to Jesperson's legal
wife and, therefore, it is apparent that Mr. J.'s opinion would be of
public interest. Mr. Jones said:
"As long as I live I'm not going back on my religion, polygamy
included, but I've got no United States to set [148] up on end. I am not
responsible for what Mr. Cain or any one else say. I believe in polygamy
as much as ever, but the practice is another thing, just now. I'm not
directing the affairs of the Church; I have enough to do to manage my own
business."
John G. Grahm, editor of the Enquirer hadn't heard that the doctrine
or practice of plural marriage had been authoritively repudiated by the
Church authorities; don't think there is anything in the Jesperson case;
was perfectly astounded at it, when he heard of it. I have been under the
impression that no polygamous marriages had taken place in two or three
years past. If Caine stated in Congress that polygamy is a dead issue--but
I don't think he did, without some qualifications--in view of the
Jesperson case, it will be an awful position for our Delegate Caine in
Congress next winter.
Acting City Prosecuting Attorney W. H. King, a leading light in the
People's party and the church here, held that Caine spoke truly. "There
may be isolated cases," said Mr. King, "of violating the law, as the
Jesperson one for instance. I wouldn't say that the church has repudiated
polygamy, but there has been a great diminution in if not entire cessation
of polygamous marriages. It is a dead issue in Utah, politically. I think
the authorities of the church act negatively rather than otherwise with
respect to the principle. I don't think the ecclesiastical authorities
would recommend a man to violate the law, by entering into polygamy, and
would refuse to extend that opportunity to him."
It is clear from the above that the pretended abandonment of the
practice of polygamy is all humbug; that the preliminary steps thereto
have been altered, and that instead of the candidate for surreptitious
matrimony receiving a permit from his bishop, which must be endorsed by
the president of the stake, some other routine has been established.
President SMOOT, who has the repute of being one of the most
straightforward and honest of the polygamous presidents, is not quite
candid in his statement, for whatever the routine is he undoubtedly is
familiar with it, and his concealment on this point is [149] not in accord
with his frankness elsewhere when he confesses that the approaches to
these illicit weddings are such that he is able to disown an active part
in them. "So far as I know," says SMOOT, "the church authorities have
repudiated the practice, not the doctrine, of polygamy, therefore CAINE'S
statement (that polygamy is, a dead issue in Utah) is substantially true."
This is very guarded language, both at the opening, and at the close of
the sentence. Its true interpretation probably is that the church
authorities have so hedged polygamy about just now as to be able to disown
responsibility for its practice, while preaching the doctrine as lustily
as ever; and that if any man desires to enter that "celestial state," the
responsibility is his own; but the church authorities will be found at the
old stand, ready for business.
The other churchmen interviewed did not harmonize well with each
other nor, with President SMOOT. JONES would not go back on his religion,
polygamy included, as long as he lives, but as he wasn't running the
church he declined to assume any responsibility. W. H. KING conceded that
"there may be isolated cases of polygamy," has not abandoned the practice,
but stands willing to perform the polygamous ceremony. GRAHAM "hadn't
heard that the doctrine or practice of polygamy had been authoritatively
repudiated by the church authorities;" nor has anybody else heard it. He
further said if CAINE stated in Congress that polygamy is a dead issue in
Utah, this case puts him in "an awful position;" but he doesn't think
CAINE said so without some qualification, which means that CAINE made with
the repudiation of polygamy some statement that appeared to be no
modification of his declaration, but which the brethren understand to mean
that he made sufficient reservation to save his bacon. That clears the
saintly sky all around. The church shifts the responsibility of the
present polygamous marriages to the shoulders of those who apply for them,
but preaches the doctrine and stands ready to abet the crime by performing
the ceremony and protecting to the utmost possible extent those who are
the principals [150] in that crime (two prominent Saints promptly go
JESPERSON'S bail for instance). CAINE'S repudiation of polygamy is to be
taken with that modification; and, so modified, everything is to go on
pretty much as before.
This polygamous marriage ceremony took place in Salt Lake; probably
President ANGUS CANNON knows no more about it than does President SMOOT,
but it is plain that the general authorities of the church know all about
it, and no doubt about other like affairs; but they persist in asserting
that polygamous marriages are not now celebrated; what explanation have
they to offer the public for their shameful imposture? (Salt Lake Tribune)
4 Oct 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
The people of the United States have been greatly agitated over the
imagined horrors of polygamy in Utah, and special legislation has been
obtained looking to its supression. The Utah Commission report that it is
not now, openly practiced, and that they do not know, of any new cases of
polygamy themselves; however they give publicity to rumors of which they
admit they have no proof, but these amount to very little even if they are
true, which we do not admit.
So much for the practice which the people of the United States seem
so anxious to destroy. The Commission are not satisfied with this, nor
with the eradication of the custom of plural marriage. They want people
who are members of a Church which the Commission claims still teaches this
form of marriage, to be pursued by the law, and deprived of the right of
suffrage simply because they belong to that Church. This is carrying
animosity against the "Mormons" a little too far for reasonable people,
and we do not believe it will have the desired effect.
We have quoted remarks from several leading papers on this subject.
We now take the following from the San Francisco Examiner, a paper that
has never been favorable to the "Mormon" Church or its tenets:
"The members of the Utah Commission have kept their eyes fixed on the
Mormon problem until they are [151] unable to see anything else. In their
just published report they say:
"While we forbid immigration of the non-proselyting, peace-loving,
docile Chinaman because we fear the future danger of his coming * * *
there is far greater reason for closing our doors as a nation and
forbidding citizenship to hordes who are brought here to swell the ranks
of an organized body which teaches them in advance to hate our government,
denominates its executive, law-makers, judges and prosecutors as
persecutors, and instills into every mind the constant teaching that their
pretended revelations are more binding than the highest and best laws of
the land, and that resistance to such laws is a virtue and the rendering
of obedience to God."
That is the sort of caricature of the truth that we used to see while
we were discussing the first Restriction Act. The Mormons are bad enough,
but it is simply extravagance to say that they are worse than the Chinese.
The "non-proselyting Chinaman" is not, to be sure, a drummer for religious
novelties. But he is a missionary of vice and counts his converts by the
thousands in the human driftwood of our streets--the wreckage of once
promising lives.
The "peace-loving Chinaman" is at this moment beginning an
internecine war in which the Wongs and Lees will slaughter each other,
men, women and children, because they could not agree about some burying
grounds. He rose in Bangkok the other day in a quarrel between two
high-binding societies, and 5000 coolies fought with spears and tridents,
impaling their enemies and carrying their bodies on the points of their
weapons. He fought pitched battles in the streets of Eureka until the
people put him out and kept him out. He maintains standing armies of
professional assassins in San Francisco, open to engagement for any
undertaking of riot or murder on a fixed scale of foes.
The `docile Chinaman' is the most unruly and impudent worker in the
world. He is the terror of the kitchen, and when he works in a factory he
demands and obtains privileges which the white operatives beside him go
without. He has reduced the boycott to an exact science, and an [152]
employer or landlord who is dependent upon him must humor his caprices or
go into bankruptcy.
There are two objections to the Mormons--they believe in polygamy and
they have a government within a government. That is sufficient to justify
our opposition to their increase, but the Chinese have both these faults
and innumerable others. The Mormons have taken the dregs of Europe and
turned them into what would be, but for its religious drawbacks, a
comparatively desirable population. Their towns are neat, temperate and
moral. To say that such immigrants are worse than the Chinese is to
discredit the whole argument in which the opinion appears."
The foregoing is addressed chiefly to the proposal of the
Commission--not an original one by the by--to prevent people who belong to
the "Mormon" Church from landing on our shores. The annexed is clipped
from the New York World, a paper that has been very pronounced against
"Mormonism," sometimes being very unfair in its criticisms, but it cannot
endorse this proposition to legislate against belief. Under the heading of
"Mormons and the Law," it says:
"It appears from the report of the Utah Commissioners that under the
stringent laws now in existance for the suppression of polygamy, the
practice of that crime has almost entirely ceased, but that, as the
commissioners believe, the Mormon Church still secretly teaches the
doctrine that polygamy is a `saving grace,' wherefore they recommend some
additional legislation.
We have no particle of sympathy with Mormon ideas, and only loathing
for polygamy, as a practice or as an institution, and we have steadfastly
urged not only the enactment but the relentless enforcement of stringent
laws for the punishment and suppression of the system. But we may be
permitted to suggest to the commissioners that it is none of their
business what doctrines of "saving grace" the Mormon or any other church
teaches. With that the law in this free country has nothing whatever to
do, its function being to deal with the punishment of [153] criminal
conduct and not with the suppression of unsound, speculative doctrines.
Polygamy as a practice is now in effect suppressed. The laws against
it are rigorously enforced, and in aid of the laws changed circumstances
have rendered the system practically impossible. Mr. Hepworth Dixon, when
he saw Harper's Bazar for sale on Salt Lake news-stands, declared that
polygamy was doomed. Whatever might have been possible in an isolated
community where women dressed in calico and sun-bonnets, plural marriage
could not exist in company with fashion journals which set wives dressing
against each other.
If there is any point in which the laws for the punishment of bigamy
in Utah can be strengthened, by all means let them be amended and enforced
until the stain shall be utterly wiped out; but there could be no more
serious mistake than for the government to assume an attitude of
surveillance and dictation in the matter of doctrinal teaching. That way
danger lies."
No matter how much the intent may be disguised by words, it stands
out clear and distinct as advice for legislation against belief. People
usually join churches because they believe in the doctrines taught
therein. At any rate it is taken for granted that this is their object. If
therefore any citizen is deprived of political rights or privileges
because only of his membership in a Church, it is legislation against
belief, and any pretense to the contrary is hypocritical and false.
To this length we do not believe Congress is prepared to go, and
therefore we think the recommendation of the Utah Commission, and the
hopes and plans of the "Liberals" here who promoted that body, will fall
to the ground and provoke only disfavor and disgust in the breasts of
fair-minded Americans, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. (Deseret
Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
6 Oct 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
* * * As far as constitutional liberty is concerned, I will say, the God
of heaven has raised up our nation, as [154] foretold by His Prophets
generations ago. He inspired Columbus, and moved upon him to cross the
ocean in search of this continent. The world is acquainted with the
history of his course; his pleadings with courts of Europe, and his final
triumph in finding sympathy in the King and Queen of Spain, who furnished
the necessary means to make the exploration. It is also well known how our
forefathers found a home and an asylum in this land from the hand of
persecution, and how they planted here the tree of liberty and jealously
guarded it from the attempt of the mother country to uproot and destroy
it. The hand of God was in all this; and it is through the intervention of
His providence that we enjoy today the freest and most independent
government the world ever saw. And what was the object of this? It was to
prepare the way for the building up of the Kingdom of God in this the last
dispensation of the fullness of times; and as long as the principles of
constitutional liberty shall be maintained upon this land, blessings will
attend the nation. But wo (sic) unto those who fight against Zion, said
the Lord. I have heard the Prophet Joseph Smith remark, that if he were
Emperor of the world, and had the power to control the whole human family,
he would sustain every man, woman and child in the enjoyment of their
civil and religious rights, let their religion be what it may. In saying
this he expressed my sentiments, and the feelings of this entire
community. For God has given to every man individual agency, and He will
hold him accountable for the use of this agency. And while we in our
hearts and feelings accord to the whole world this blessing, we claim the
same for ourselves. To obtain this and to secure it to our children, we
have struggled; and we look forward with joyful anticipation when it shall
be beyond the power of man to drive any more from the earth. Our feelings
with regard to religious liberty have been manifested towards the
religious denominations that have come among us. Not a single one of them
can accuse us of doing anything to hinder them in their labors by way of
establishing themselves among us; on the other hand, we have opened our
doors to them; they have occupied our public stands until [155] they have
had meeting houses of their own. We have never had a fear that our people
or our children would be captivated by their doctrine or converted to
their religion; if they have a single truth which we have not, we want it,
for it is truth we are after. This Church has been organized now, nearly
sixty years. It certainly has been like the little stone cut out of the
mountain without hands. It has withstood all the opposition that has been
aimed against it; and it will remain firm and immovable, fulfilling the
destiny marked out for it, until the winding up scene. Zion will arise,
clothed with the glory of God, no matter what we may have to pass through.
We are in the hands of God, and so are all men and nations; and if this is
the work of God--and we say it is--He will bear it off triumphant.
Brother George Q. Cannon in his discourse this morning referred to
the different laws which govern man, and the different glories that attend
their observance. And I say, show me a nation or people and I will tell
you their future condition by the laws which govern them. All the
creations of God are governed by law; and all blessings are predicated
upon the observance of law. Opposition to the laws of God commenced in the
councils of heaven at the time one-third of the heavenly hosts were cast
out; and they are here upon the earth still opposing the work of God. They
are without tabernacles; they never had bodies, and that is the curse
visited upon them. Those who did not rebel were permitted to take
tabernacles. The war that commenced at that time is still being waged, and
the struggle will continue until Christ shall come to assume the reigns of
government. * * *
We have at present about two hundred thousand people in these
mountains who have received the Gospel, out of the millions that now
inhabit the earth, and it seems, in consequence of the unpopularity of the
Gospel, that we are under the necessity of passing through more or less
persecution. We have these things to meet, as other men have met them. In
ancient times the Apostles were ready to lay down their lives for the
truth's sake. They know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that
they had been called to and endowed with the Priesthood [156] of heaven.
Are we any better than they? Are the Apostles of this day any better than
those of former days? If God were to require it at our hands that our
testimony be sealed by our blood, I believe there is not a single member
of the Council of the Twelve but what would be ready to make the
sacrifice. Why? Because we, like the former day Apostles, know for
ourselves that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that we
are His servants. Whatever sacrifices the Lord may require at the hands of
this people, will be met by the people. But ours is not a day of
sacrifice. Our special calling is to build up Zion, and prepare the people
to stand in holy places while the judgments of the Lord are being poured
out upon the wicked. And whatever may be before us we must meet in the
fear of our God, believing that He will deliver us in His own due time.
The Lord, for our encouragement, has told us that Zion shall not be moved
out of her place. But if we do not do our part, as the brethren have said
who have preached to us during this Conference, we shall be chastised.
This is my testimony to the Latter-day Saints.
To the Latter-day Saints I would say, be ye faithful in keeping the
commandments of God the little time we have to remain here. We are as much
upon a mission to this generation as the Prophets which have preceded us
were to the generations in which they lived. We have our day; they had
theirs. As they have gone to render an account of their stewardship, so we
shall follow, and will be held to answer for the deeds done in the body,
and the manner in which we shall have used the talents entrusted to us.
Brothern and sisters, be true and faithful, and keep inviolate the
covenants you have entered into, that we may be worthy of eternal life,
the greatest of all the gifts of God to man. * * * (Deseret Evening News)
13 Oct 1889, A Strange Interview, Wilford Woodruff:
The New York Herald of the 13th inst., has a special dispatch from
this city dated the previous day, which is the substance of an interview
between the correspondent and President WILFORD WOODRUFF, in which the
head [157] of the Mormon church declares that it is the intention of the
Mormons to fully obey the laws. The substance of his statement is as
follows:
"I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of
plural marriages since I have been president. I know that President
Taylor, my predecessor, also refused. Since the Edmunds-Tucker law we have
refused to recommend plural marriages, and have instructed that they
should not be solemnized."
Becoming more and more explicit as he proceeded President Woodruff
told of a special case. One of the bishops at the head of a stake, which
is a Church designation for a large district, came to him with the
petition of a couple to have the plural marriage ceremony performed
between them. The stake bishop represented that the parties fully
understood the risk they were runing. He wanted from the head of the
Church a ruling on the course to pursue. "I told the bishop," said
President Woodruff, "that it would not do at all. There must be no more
plural marriages. I am confident," said the president, it that there have
been no more plural marriages since I have been in this position, and yet
a case has recently occured which I will say to you I do not understand at
all. It is giving us a good deal of trouble. Perhaps you have heard of
it?" The president referred to the Hans Jesperson case. Jesperson is a
Dane. He lives at Goshen, at the head of Utah Lake. Recently a neighbor
reported to the United States authorities at Provo that he believed
Jesperson was sustaining the plural marriage relations with Mrs. Alice
Horton. A deputy marshal went out and brought in the Jesperson family and
Mrs. Horton. All of them denied knowledge of any improper relationship. At
last, Mrs. Horton broke down and testified that she was married to
Jesperson on the 8th of last April. She said that part of the ceremony
took place in the Temple at Manti and part of it at the Endowment House in
Salt Lake City. This testimony was given before the United States
Commissioner. Jesperson was convicted and sentenced to five years in
prison for polygamy and three years on another charge. [158] It is the
only performance of a plural marriage ceremony this year which the courts
have unearthed.
"It seems incredible if it is true," Woodruff said. "It is against
all of my instructions. I do not understand it at all. We are looking into
it and shall not rest until we get at all the facts. There is no intention
on our part to do anything but to obey the law." We give the statement for
what it is worth. We will not charge, either, that President WOODRUFF
spoke insincerely in what he said. But he confesses that a case has arisen
which he does not understand. If he but knew it there are plenty more just
such cases. The permits are no longer given in the old way, but the
marriages are going on. One of the bishops that testified in one of the
Idaho registration cases, last autumn, said that it was not necessary to
visit a temple or endowment house to be married, that it could be done
anywhere. And those marriages are going on. If there was a suspension that
fact would be stated authoritatively and openly to the people. It would be
explained that while the law remained in force polygamous marriages must
be suspended. No such word has been passed along the line, and on that
question the attitude of the church has not changed one particle since the
old, roaring days of JEDEDIAH GRANT. The bad feature of the foregoing is
that the head of the church tells to a newspaper correspondent a something
relating to a great feature of the creed of which he is the head, which he
refuses to state openly to his people and the country. (Salt Lake Tribune,
20 Oct 1889)
16 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
The News grows captious. Telegrams sent East giving the synopsis of
Conference proceedings, stated that the Saints had yielded nothing, that
there was the same commands given, to live their full religion, to obey
the laws of God and the counsels of their leaders. One dispatch said that
this command included polygamy. At this the News calls the attention of a
just world to the spectacle of what a liar the news dispatcher must be,
[159] inasmuch as polygamy was not once mentioned at the Conference. Now
we would not wrong a contemporary knowingly. We put the News on its honor
to answer whether for a Mormon to live his full religion and to obey the
law's of God in all things, includes polygamy or not? If it does not why
have both the chief editors of the News suffered a cheap half-martyrdom
for their religion? And if there was a studied effort on the part of all
the speakers at the Conference to avoid even mentioning the word, was not
that proof conclusive that they meant to include that sacrament of their
creed with the rest? Did any one of them say: "You must live your full
religion in all things except in teaching and practicing polygamy. That
has been inhibited by the laws of the land, and hence the sacrament has
been suspended for the present?" If that is still a sacrament of the
creed, was it not included in the injunction, and was it not so understood
by the faithful? And if that was included, is not our pious comtemporary
resorting to the most vulgar sort of jugglery when it puts on a long face
and cries out: "See what liars they are; polygamy was not mentioned at the
Conference?" (Salt Lake Tribune)
17 Oct 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
* * * The three natural rights that are inalienable, unconferable and
inherited are the right to life, liberty, and to hold property, of none of
which can any citizen be deprived by any process than applies equally to
all others. This position is unassailable, and on that ground the law that
seizes and appropriates the property of the Latter-day Saints must be
unconstitutional. It may be made otherwise in a legal sense, but never as
a matter of fact and justice.
Aside from that of constitutionality, another phase in question is
being discussed. * * * We refer to the utility of confiscation in the
attainment of the object said to have been the incentive to the creation
of the law. Its passage was based upon the erroneous theory that the
genius of "Mormonism" is inimical to the American commonwealth. This
impression has been created by a flood of misrepresentation proceeding
from designing [160] politicians and jealous sectarian religionists. But
be this as it may, the idea was that the religious system must be put
down, and robbing its adherents of their hard-earned property was deemed
an effective method by which the purpose could be accomplished. The theory
was necessarily a false one. A serious and dangerous blunder was
committed. The question is being agitated from that standpoint by journals
which are noted for unfriendliness, amounting to antipathy, toward the
"Mormons." Even the New York Mail and Express, remarkable for anti
"Mormon" bias, declaims against confiscation as a means of suppressing the
religion of the Latterday Saints, properly holding that it does not touch
the question at all, and that it is a detriment instead of a benefit.
Straws show, the direction in which the wind is blowing on the subject of
the confiscation scheme. The breeze has begun to blow, and it is not too
much to expect it to develop, at no distant day, into a hurricane.
(Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Sunday 20 Oct 1889, George Q. Cannon:
I have read in your hearing a portion of this great chapter which
forms a part of the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. The whole
chapter is worth reading, as other portions of Scripture are, because they
are the words of God. This chapter gives us a clear conception of that
which can be accomplished through the exercise of faith. I have been led
to think that some of the Latter-day Saints do not appreciate as they
should do the power of faith, and that they reason that if certain results
do not appear likely to come to pass, looking at them from a natural
standpoint, it is useless for us to expect them. In other words, there is
too much of a disposition growing up on our midst to walk by sight and not
by faith. I have heard that some of our people feel discouraged and
disheartened at prospects that are before them, and they are disposed to
look at the dark side of affairs to anticipate disaster, and to imagine
that there is some fate awaiting us that will be very serious in its
character, and from which it is useless for us to make any exertions to
escape.
[161] I do not know how general this feeling may be. I have not met with
it myself, not probably having had the opportunity of mingling with those
who entertain it; or, if they have entertained it, they have not expressed
it in my hearing. I have, however, as I have said, heard considerable
concerning its existance. But I wish to say to you, my brethren and
sisters, this afternoon, that this whole work is which we are engaged,
from its inception until the present time, has come in contact with
everything that men would call natural; that is, the results which have
been wrought out have not been according to the judgment of men concerning
them. If the Latter-day Saints had believed, in the beginning of this
work, that which was said by men of the world concerning the work and the
preaching of the Gospel, they would have sat down and resigned themselves
to the fate that was predicted regarding this work. But this was not the
spirit of him whom God chose to lay the foundation of the work--the
Prophet Joseph Smith. It was not the spirit of those associated with him.
They were filled with faith. And when the Church numbered no more than
would occupy a small room, I have heard those who were present on many
occasions say that they heard the Elders then predict in the plainest
manner that which we now behold. They foresaw, by the spirit of prophecy
which God poured out upon them, the development and advancement of this
work and the great and mighty result that would be accomplished through
the preaching of the Gospel unto the inhabitants of the earth. No greater
evidence can be brought forward of the divinity of the mission of Joseph
Smith and his prophetic office than the predictions which he uttered in
early days concerning the future of this work.
I might go on and dwell upon many things that have occurred since
then, to show unto the Latter-day Saints here assembled that faith is a
very great and important principle with us. There never has been a work
accomplished in preaching the Gospel to the nations that faith has not
been required. Those who in their ministry have united energy and
perseverance with faith have always succeeded. No matter how, unpromising
the field [162] to which a man may be sent, if he have faith in God and he
labor with energy, obstacles that would appear insurmountable will be
overcome and pass away. He may think at times that his path is entirely
hemmed in, and that it is impossible for him to overcome the things which
may be in the way; but if he be resolute, if he be determined, if he be
full of faith, as he progresses he will find that every step which he
takes will only make the pathway clearer; difficulties will vanish, and
his way will come out victorious if he will only persevere. All of you who
have been on missions must have had experience of this character. My life
is full, I might say, of illustrations of this kind. I might go on and
give, if it were prudent or in good taste, from my personal experience,
many illustrations of the principles of which I speak, where it has seemed
as though it were impossible to do certain things, and yet by
perserverance and faith, believing that God has power to extend help and
deliverance to those who seek for it, everything has been accomplished
that could be desired and success has rested down upon our efforts. In
fact, the history of this entire people, from beginning to end, is an
illustration of this glorious principle of which Paul writes so
beautifully in this chapter to the Hebrews. I know that the lives of
thousands who are listening to my voice this afternoon, are full of
illustrations of it; and if you had the privilege of telling your
experience it would be corroborative of that which I am endeavoring to say
this afternoon. Those of you who have heard the gospel in foreign lands;
those of you who have been gathered from the nations of the earth; those
of you who have gone as missionaries in foreign lands; those of you who
have dwelt in this country, and who have had the difficulties to contend
with incident to a residency here, can also bear abundant testimony of
this principle that I am dwelling upon.
You have all had experience in it, to a greater or less extent; and
if the opportunity, as I say, were given to you, we could have thousands
of testimonies to the truth of this--that God, in a miraculous manner, has
helped each and all of you. You have witnessed His power. You [163] have
seen His hand. He has enabled you, individually, to do things that would
appear impossible. Is it not so? I know it is. Therefore, in speaking to
you in this strain, I am not talking to a people who have had no
experience in these matters, and who are compelled to trust to my words
and to my theories. It is not a matter of theory; it is a matter of
practical knowledge among us. All of us, even our children, know that
there is a power in faith which makes apparently impossible things easy of
accomplishment.
Now, after all this experience, is there any man among us who will
yield to discouragement, and who will become disheartened, because
sometimes there are prospects before us that are not as bright as they
might be? I dread it among this people more than anything else, excepting
actual transgression. When I hear of the Latter-day Saints becoming supine
and indifferent and careless, and imagining that certain things will come
despite their efforts, I feel sick at heart; I am inclined to lose
courage, to lose hope; because I know that when that feeling prevails, we
are beaten; Satan has gained his point, and we cannot accomplish that
which God designs we shall do. We have lost our faith. We have lost our
grip. We have lost our hope, and we are in the worst possible
condition--in a condition to be easily overcome and driven by our enemies.
They like to infuse that feeling into you. They would like to weaken your
hands. They would like to make your hearts sink within you. They would
like to take from you every hope and give you every discouragement.
Nothing would please Satan better. Nothing would give his allies or his
satelites more encouragement and make them feel better, than to have you
sink in your faith and indulge in fears, in doubts and in discouragement.
I know that it is not of God. I know that any man who gives way to that
spirit has not got the Spirit of God in him. I care not if we were opposed
by millions, or if the whole world were to band itself against us, it is
not for us to yield to discouragement and to give way to doubt and to
relinquish hope. It is contrary to the mind and will of God concerning
this work, and I warn you against it--every man, [164] every woman and
every child. Dismiss these feelings from your hearts; for if you do not,
Satan will obtain power over you, and you will lose your faith--that faith
which should be as strong and as unyielding as the pillars of heaven. We
have a tremendous work to do in the earth, and if we are discouraged at
obstacles, then we shall prove that we are unworthy of the trust God has
reposed in us. He has chosen us to do this work. He fills us with His
Spirit when we do that which He asks of us. He gives us hope. He fills us
with joy and with peace; and however dark the prospect may be, when we do
as we ought to do we are filled with that feeling which I describe. Did
you ever have any other kind of feeling when you were under the influence
of the Spirit of God? No matter how dark the circumstances might have been
that surrounded you, did you ever have any other feeling than that? No, I
know you never did. I know that when the Spirit of God rests upon a man,
or upon a woman, or upon a child, it fills these individuals with hope,
with joy and with peace, and they know that God is with them, that angels
are on their side, and that they will come off conqueror if they will only
do that which He requires at their hands. All the circumstances and
conditions may not be such as they would like, or as they would provide if
they had the power; but by putting their trust in God, He shapes
circumstances and brings to pass results, and they are always glorious to
His name and full of salvation to His people.
I beg of you, therefore, my brethren and sisters, to strengthen
yourselves in the Lord. This is a good day for Zion. I never saw a better
day myself. I never saw a happier time. I never saw a time when I had
cause, it seems to me, for more joy and thanksgiving than I have this day
of the Lord, in this Tabernacle and in the midst of this congregation. We
may have difficulties and trials and sorrows to contend with; but accept
them as coming from God, and not be weighed down by them, nor imagine that
we are foresaken and forgotten. Never let that feeling enter into our
hearts; but, as I have said, let us strengthen ourselves in the Lord. Let
us reflect upon the many, many times He [165] has delivered us. He has
never yet forsaken us. He has never yet refused to listen to us. He has
never yet failed to come to our deliverance. He has always provided a way
of escape for us. He has always filled us with His Spirit when we have
sought for it. Did you ever go to Him in a secret place and call upon Him
without His hearing you, without His answering you, or without His pouring
out upon you a blessing and filling you with His Holy Spirit? In hours of
sorrow, of affliction and of deep trial, did He ever fail to respond to
your cries? I know He never did. No faithful man, no faithful woman or
child ever went to Him and poured out their sorrow unto Him without His
coming to their aid and their deliverance, and filling them with
inexpressible peace and joy. He has lifted their burdens and He has
lightened their sorrows and given them all that their hearts could desire.
Brethren and sisters, let us continue to put our trust in God, and I
can testify to you that if you do so He will lead you onward until He will
bring you into His presence and crown you with glory at His right hand;
which I ask in behalf of all of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
(Deseret Evening News)
Monday 28 Oct 1889, Judge Zane's Decision:
THE FULL TEXT Of Judge Zane's Decision on Ending the Polygamous
Relation.
The following is the opinion rendered in the Bennett case yesterday
afternoon, a synopsis of which appeared in last evening's NEWS:
The question asked by Mr. Rawlins, and objected to by Judge Powers,
is as follows: "What has been the reputation among your mother's relatives
and the defendants, as to their having finally and fully separated from
one another as husband and wife?
THE DECISION:
Judge Zane said--The question read is objected to on the grounds that
it is immaterial and irrelevant, because, as insisted, if a polygamous
marriage with this woman in respect to whom the question was asked was
proven, that it continues until the defendant obtains pardon and [166]
amnesty from the President of the United States; that no agreement between
the parties to terminate the polygamous relation is sufficient, though
made in good faith and the parties thereafter cease to recognize each
other as husband and wife and refuse to maintain the relation by act or
intent.
The eighth section of an act of Congress approved March 2d, (sic) is
as follows: "No polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more
than one woman, and no woman cohabitating with any of the persons
described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place
over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be
entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory," etc. The
question is, what is the meaning of the term polygamist, as used in this
section? If it is a relationship, what is necessary to terminate it? The
act of Congress known as the Edmunds-Tucker law, which is an amendment to
this statute, uses similar language. The last clause of section 24 of that
act is as follows: "No person who shall have been convicted of any crime
under this act, or under the act of Congress aforesaid, approved March
22nd, 1882, or who shall be a polygamist, or who shall associate or
cohabit polygamously with persons of the other sex, shall be entitled to
vote in any election in said Territory, or be capable of jury service, or
to hold any office of trust or emolument in said Territory."
In the general sense, a man is termed a polygamist who practices
polygamy, or who maintains that it is right--that would be broader than
intended of this statute. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the
case of Murphy vs. Ramsey (114 U.S., page 40) referred to has had the
question under consideration. That was an action against the Utah
Commissioners for refusing to register the plaintiff in that case, and in
reference to one of the questions raised by demurrer the court says: "But
in both cases the complaints omit the allegation, that, at the time the
plaintiffs respectively claimed to be registered as voters, they were not
such, either a bigamist or a polygamist." They did not deny in the
complaint that they were bigamists or polygamists at the [167] time they
offered to register; and the demurrer was to the effect that the complaint
was insufficient in not so averring. The court says further: "It is agreed
that they cannot be understood as meaning those who, prior to the passage
of the act of March 22nd, 1882, had contracted a bigamous or polygamous
marriage, either in violation of an existing law, such as that of July
1st, 1862, or before the enactment of any law forbidding it; for to do so
would give to the statute a retrospective effect, and by thus depriving
citizens of civil rights, merely on account of acts which, when committed,
were not offenses, would make it an ex post facto law." The question was
whether the law in question applied to such persons as entered into
polygamy before the act referred to took effect, or whether it referred to
an existing relation. * * *
"In our opinion any man is a polygamist or bigamist in the sense of
this section of the act who, having previously married one wife, still
living, (sic) and having another at the same time when he presents himself
to claim registration as a voter, still maintains that relation to a
plurality of wives, although from the date of the passage of the act of
March 22, 1882, until the day he offers to register and vote he may not in
fact have cohabited with more than one woman. Without regard to the
question whether at the time he entered into such relation it was a
prohibited and punishable offense, or whether by reason of time since its
commission a prosecution for it may not be barred, if he still maintains
the relation he is a bigamist or polygamist, because that is the status
which the fixed habit and practice of his living has established. He has a
plurality of wives, more than one woman whom he recognizes as a wife, of
whose children he is the acknowledged father, and whom with their children
he maintains as a family, of which he is the head. And this status as to
several wives may well continue to exist at a practical relation, although
for a period he may not in fact cohabit with more than one; for that is
quite consistent with the constant recognition of the same relation to
many, accompanied with a possible intention to renew cohabitation with one
or more of the others when [168] it may be convenient." And further in the
opinion the Court says: "But because, having at some time entered into a
bigamous or polygamous relation, by a marriage with a second or third
wife, while the first was living, he still maintains it, and has not
dissolved it, although for the time being he restricts actual cohabitation
to but one. He might in fact abstain from actual cohabitation with all,
and be still as much as ever a bigamist or a polygamist. He can only cease
to be such when he has finally and fully dissolved in some effective
manner, which we are not called on here to point out, the very relation of
husband to several wives, which constitutes the forbidden status he has
previously assumed." * * * "The crime of bigamy or polygamy consists in
entering into a bigamous or polygamous marriage, and is complete when the
relation begins. That of actual cohabitation with more than one woman is
defined and the punishment prescribed in the third section. The
disfranchisement operates upon the existing status and condition of the
person and not upon a past offense. It is, therefore, not retrospective.
He alone is deprived of his vote who, when he offers to register, is then
in the state and condition of a bigamist or a polygamist, or is then
actually cohabiting with more than one woman." * * * "Continuing to live
in that state afterwards is not an offense, although cohabitation with
more than one woman is. But as one may be living in a bigamous or
polygamous state without cohabitation with more than one woman, he is in
that sense a bigamist or polygamist, and yet guilty of no criminal
offense."
The point that the court seemed to have its attention more
particularly directed to was as to whether cohabitation with more than one
woman was essential to the justification of the registration officer in
refusing registration on the ground that the applicant was a polygamist
and the definition given here seems to be with respect to this point. The
court says: "He can only cease to be such, that is, a polygamist, when he
has finally and fully dissolved in some effective manner, which we are not
called on here to point out, the very relation of husband to several
wives, which constitutes the forbidden status he has previously assumed."
The court held that [169] the polygamous relation may exist, though the
polygamous marriages may have been contracted before the law took effect,
and it may exist though the parties do not actually cohabit together. The
question is, what is necessary to constitute the relation? Because it is a
relation. It is the relation which a polygamist bears to his wives, where
there is no cohabitation existing; what, therefore, is necessary to
constitute a polygamous relation where there is no cohabitation? The court
says: "He still maintains that relation to a plurality of wives." And
further: "If he still maintains the relation he is a bigamist or
polygamist." What is the meaning of this term maintain as here used? Does
it simply mean the relation that may exist after the parties have in good
faith agreed to be husband and wife no longer and ceased to recognize each
other as such, and refuse by physical or mental act to maintain the
polygamous relation; does it mean simply the relation existing be reason
of the former unlawful marriage and cohabitation? To maintain, in its
ordinary sense, means to continue to act or intent. It includes some
consent--some act of the mind. There may not be any outward act, but some
act of the mind, consenting to the continuance of the relation, consenting
to recognize the woman as his wife, consenting to maintain the relation is
necessary.
The Court further says: "He has a plurality of wives, more than one
woman whom he recognizes as a wife, of whose children he was the
acknowledged father." There the necessity of recognition is stated--that
he recognize her in some way; and there is no way of recognizing except by
some act of the mind admitting the relation as existing. The question is,
whether a man recognizes a woman as his wife, when both agree that she
shall not be his wife, when they have in good faith said that they will
not live together, and when they refuse to continue the relation and to
recognize the relation. Is that a recognition? The court says further:
"recognizes a wife of whose children he is the acknowledged father, and
whom, with their children he maintains as a family of which he is the
head." There the Court undertakes to give a description of what
constitutes the relation. I [170] confess it is a very imperfect one: "He
has a plurality of wives, more than one woman whom he recognizes as a
wife, of whose children he is the acknowledged father, and whom, with
their children, he maintains as a family of which he is the head." The
Court speaks of, the polygamous relation as a status; a state or condition
is here referred to--a status which the law recognized as unlawful. The
law may recognize things as lawful or unlawful; when unlawful it is
condemned. "And this status as to several wives may well continue to
exist," the court says, as a practical relation, although for a period he
may not in fact cohabit with more than one. For that is quite consistent
with the constant recognition of the same relation to many, accompanied
with a possible intention to renew cohabitation with one or more of the
others when it may be convenient." It is spoken of as a practical
relation. "Although for a period he may not in fact cohabit with more than
one woman, for that is quite consistent with constant recognition." So
that the Court holds to the idea that there must be recognition to
constitute the polygamous relation. The idea is held all through the
opinion that there must be recognition of the relation--there must be a
recognition that the woman is his wife. The Court refused to say in terms
how the relationship could be terminated. It says: "He can only cease to
be such when he has finally and fully dissolved the relation in some
effective manner."
The most effectual manner of dissolving the polygamous relation is
for the man and his polygamous wife to agree in good faith to terminate
and dissolve the polygamous relation, to cease to recognize each other as
man and wife, and to refuse to maintain the relation longer. A divorce
would not of itself terminate unlawful cohabitation, and pardon and
amnesty would not terminate the polygamous relation if the parties should
continue to recognize each other as husband and wife. Such a construction
as given above encourages polygamists to abandon unlawful cohabitation and
the polygamous relation, and in that respect to obey the law, and become
good citizens. The dissolution would be effective if the parties, before
other persons, agree in good faith to separate [171] and afterwards
continue to disregard the polygamous relation and abandon it, and refuse
to recognize each other as husband and wife. Of course it is for the jury
to determine whether the dissolution is in good faith and whether the
parties are keeping it.
Pardon and amnesty are not intended as a means of terminating a
polygamous relation. Pardon is the remission of the consequences of an
offense after the parties have been convicted. Amnesty is the remission of
the consequences of a crime, and may be after or before a conviction.
Though pardoned, the defendant might be guilty of maintaining and
recognizing the polygamous relation. It is for the jury to determine
whether the parties in good faith have terminated the polygamous relation
in this case, and the evidence on that point that is competent is
admissible. The only question left is whether the answer to question tends
to prove the dissolution of the polygamous relation, and tends to prove
that the parties in good faith are keeping the dissolution--whether they
consider the marriage as dissolved, and in good faith are keeping their
agreement. (Deseret Evening News, 29 Oct 1889)
Tuesday 29 Oct 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THE STATUS OF FORMER POLYGAMISTS.
The decision of Judge Zane in the Bennett case has given great
offense to the "Liberal" plotters, who counted on the obstruction of a
number of legal voters of the People's Party, but have failed in their
nefarious project. A synopsis of the decision appeared in our issue of
Monday evening, and in this paper will be found the full text thereof.
The position taken by Judge Zane is exactly the ground we assumed
when the case was first opened. It is the only common sense position that
can be found. It is not a new, point of argument, And the Judge's views,
as expressed on this occasion, are consistent with those he has held on
previous occasions. It is also in strict accordance with the opinion of
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murphy vs. Ramsay.
So the Judge can afford to be at outs with the rabid portion of [172] his
own party, and can smile at the arrant nonsense voided by their organ.
The only question at issue was, the status of a man who, having at
one time been a polygamist, had severed his relations with his plural wife
and no longer recognized her as such or associated with her in family
relations. Is he a polygamist when he has only one wife? Common reason
answers, no. But what does the law say? Is there any statue, or rule of
law, or judicial decision, which would give color to the notion that a man
at present having but one wife is now- a polygamist. We do not know of
anything of the kind, and nothing of the sort has been cited during the
case at issue.
The question has been asked many times during the legal discussion of
the polygamy problem, how, is a man who has married a plural wife to
effect a legal dissolution of the relationship. It has never been
answered, because it cannot be. The fact that the marriage is not
recognized as legal, precludes any legal action for divorce. In the Snow
case Mr. F.S. Richards desired the counsel of the government to show how
this relationship could be extinguished, but failed to obtain a
satisfactory reply. The Court also pressed the question in vain. Mr.
Richards said, in his argument:
"A great deal has been said during this discussion about putting an
end to the relationship existing between these parties, and opposing
counsel has intimated that there are many ways in which this may be done;
but as yet he has failed to point out any one of these ways, although
pressed by the court upon this very point. Why was it that he refrained
from telling, in clear unmistakable forms, how this relationship could be
dissolved? Is it possible that he could not do so? Let us see. There is
existing between Mr. Snow and his wives a marital relationship which they
believe to be eternal and indissoluble in its character. Except as to the
first or legal wife this relationship is not recognized by the law as
being valid, but on the contrary all the subsequent marriages are legally
void, hence there can be no divorce. Considered from a legal standpoint
these marriages never existed and therefore cannot be dissolved. No [173]
lawyer will dispute this proposition, and when it is conceded we perceive
at once the utter impossibility of legally terminating a relationship
which never had a legal existence. I suppose it was for the purpose of
avoiding this dilemma that counsel asserted here that the women named in
these indictments made the pretense of being lawful wives. Doubtless he
believed what he said to be true, but it is not. Such a claim is not made
by any plural wife. Their claim of marriage is based entirely upon their
religious belief, and not upon any recognition of the law, for they
realize that they have no legal status as wives."
This position is legally unassailable. Under the Dickson regime here
it was claimed that some judicial action must be taken to dissolve
entirely a plural marriage, but the courts were not committed to the legal
absurdity. In the present case it was argued by Mr. Powers that the
polygamous status could only be dissolved by amnesty or pardon from the
President. The nonsense of this was clearly exposed in the decision of
Judge Zane.
In the case of Murphy against the Utah Commission, the Supreme Court
of the United States said:
"It is not therefore because the person has committed the offense of
bigamy or polygamy at some previous time in violation of some existing
statute and as an additional punishment for its commission, that he is
disfranchised by the Act of Congress of March 22, 1882, nor because he is
guilty of the offense as defined and punished by the terms of that Act;
but because at some time having entered into a bigamous or polygamous
relation by a marriage with a second or third wife while the first was
living, he still maintains it and has not dissolved it, although for the
time being he restricts actual cohabitation to but one. He might in fact
abstain from actual cohabitation with all and be still as much as ever a
bigamist or polygamist. He can only cease to be such when he has finally
and fully dissolved in some effective manner which we are not called on
here to point out, the very relation of husband to several wives which
constitutes the forbidden status he has previously assumed." * * *
[174] "The disfranchisement operated upon the existing state and condition
of the person and not upon a past offense. It is therefore not
retrospective. He alone is deprived of his vote who, when he offers to
register is then in the state or condition of a bigamist or polygamist or
is then actually cohabiting with more than one if woman."
There is no more effectual way that we know of by which the relations
between a man and his plural wife can be dissolved in this world than by
the means adopted in the Bennett case. That is by what is commonly called
a "Church divorce." The marriage was a Church marriage unrecognized by the
civil law. The divorce was a Church divorce and was as valid as the
marriage, no more and no less. The relations of the parties ceased from
the date of the document, and could not be assumed except by means of a
new marriage. A resumption of the relations without such a marriage would
be adultery in the eyes of the Church, a new marriage would constitute
polygamy in the eyes of the law.
We do not believe that either of the lawyers who planned or
prosecuted the Bennett case believe in their own theory. It is evident
from the anger of the crowd they repressed that the whole thing was a
political scheme. The design was to prevent every man who had been at any
time a polygamist and had not received executive clemency, although he
might be a practical monogamist or even a widower, from voting at the
coming election, on the false ground that he was still a polygamist.
This would be very bad policy for courts or the Government to
encourage, if the desire is the suppression of the practice of polygamy.
And it seems by the tactics of certain professed opponents of that
practice that its cessation is the very thing they do not want. Those who
have abandoned the practice are not encouraged, but stumbling blocks are
placed in their way by the hypocrites who claim so loudly their hatred of
plural marriage.
If we could feel sorry for the schemers who planned this vexatious
Bennett prosecution, we would pity their [175] discomfiture. But we feel
so much contempt for their serpentine curse that we have, at present, no
place for the softer sentiment. But if they have any sense left they
should not exhibit, so openly, their deep chargrin.
And now let it be understood as judicially settled that any citizen
who is not now a polygamist in practice, and who can take the oath
provided in the Edmunds-Tucker act, is entitled to register and vote and
that it is not only his right but his duty to do so and to help his fellow
citizens in maintaining good order and good government. (Deseret Evening
News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Wednesday 30 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
THAT VERY STRANGE DECISION
The original EDMUNDS act made polygamy a misdemeanor; the
EDMUNDS-TUCKER act makes it a felony. In his reasoning and ruling in the
BENNETT case, Judge ZANE seems to have been governed by the Supreme Court
decision in the case of MURPHY vs. RAMSEY. In the body of that decision
the Court say of the polygamist:
"He can only cease to be such when he has finally and fully dissolved
in some effective manner, which we are not here called upon to point out,
the very relation of husband, etc."
Why was the Court not called upon to point out the effective manner
to procure the needed release? Simply because the EDMUNDS act did point
out the manner in Sec. 6 which reads as follows:
SEC. 6. That the President is hereby authorized to grant amnesty to
such classes of offenders guilty of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful
cohabitation, before the passage of this act, on such condition and under
such limitations as he shall think proper; but no such amnesty shall have
effect unless the conditions thereof shall be complied with.
That section was inserted for the very purpose of providing a way for
polygamists to absolve themselves [176] from a crime. The law was meant as
an olive branch to them, but still it withheld from them the privileges of
citizenship until they should manifest repentance and sue for grace, that
is, give the church and the world notice that they meant to offend no
more. Judge ZANE holds that there is no offense the moment a man can get a
Church divorce and get two or three neighbors to testify that they
understand the pair have separated. Were a man arraigned for
horse-stealing, and were he to take the stand and admit that he did steal
the horse, but that he had since given the horse away, Judge ZANE would
hardly instruct the jury to acquit. Again, in the same EDMUNDS law, we
find one ground of challenge to a juror, "that he believes it right for a
man to have more than one living and undivorced wife at the same time."
Surely if a man has a right to register and vote, he has also the right to
sit on juries, but in this case of BENNETT not one trace of evidence was
shown that in the Church he had relinquished one belief or changed his
mind in the least on the question. The plural wife testified that he and
the woman "had become sick of the bargain." There was not a trace of
evidence that the act was performed through a desire to place themselves
right before the law, but it was the result of a growing dislike for each
other. How does anyone know but that the anger of the wife was due to
BENNETT'S taking some other plural wife to himself? He has made no
renounciation; he stands all right with the Church; if he was put under
examination tomorrow as to his qualifications as a juror, and were asked
the question whether he believed it was right for a man to have more than
one wife at the same time, the conslusion is irresistible that he would
answer yes, for according to his own testimony he lived in that relation
until a certain time, and then only dissolved it, not on conviction that
it was wrong, but because he did not like the plural wife, while the
woman's testimony was that she compelled the separation. Still it is held
by Judge ZANE that a polygamist can absolve himself simply be ceasing to
live with a plural wife. While the certain proof of such a course would,
perhaps, be a good defense on a trial for unlawful cohabitation, [177] the
EDMUNDS law flatly declares that before a man so tainted can exercise the
full privileges of citizenship; before he can vote or hold office or serve
on juries, he shall petition to the President for amnesty. The reason for
the rule is patent. Without it the world has no notice of any changed
relations; without it any other polygamist can do what this one did; he
can go and swallow all the oaths necessary to register as a voter and,
when arraigned for the act can procure a paper which will set forth that
the man and the woman have agreed to permanently disagree and get two or
three of their neighbors to state that they so understand it, and though
the man still holds his full standing in the Church, though he has never
relinquished a belief or in any way changed his mind, he is solid and can
vote. It seems to us that the decision is a direct slap in the face of the
EDMUNDS law; it treats what the law declares is a felony as merely a bad
habit which the offender can absolve himself from by seeming to give up
the habit. Naturally there is exulting among the Mormons, and the notice
for them to act at once is supplied in the following closing paragraph of
an editorial on the subject in last evening's News:
"And now let it be understood as judicially settled that any citizen
who is not now a polygamist in practice, and who can take the oath
provided in the Edmunds-Tucker act, is entitled to register and vote, and
that it is not only his right but his duty to do so and to help his
fellowcitizens in maintaining good order and good government." (Salt Lake
Tribune)
Tuesday 5 Nov 1889:
WHY THE DESERET NEWS SHOULD BE SUBSCRIBED FOR IN PREFERENCE TO ANY
OTHER
PAPER.
1. It is the Organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, and the authorized medium through which the views, wishes and
instructions of the Church Authorities are expressed, and given to the
Saints. (Deseret Evening News)
[178]
Tuesday 5 Nov 1889, Report of Gov. Thomas:
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Means Suggested Whereby the Troubles Here May be Mitigated:
Elsewhere in this report I have recommended that the public schools
be placed under the control and authority of some Federal agency; that
certain county officers by made appointable by some Federal authority;
that a new Legislative apportionment be made after the taking of the next
census, and that prisoners confined in the Penitentiary be placed at work.
I believe it is the intention of the American people to extripate
polygamy and its kindred evils from their land; and that Congress is
determined to give force and effect to this intention by appropriate
legislation. The reports made by previous Governors of the Territory, and
by the Utah Commission, recommend special measures for consideration by
Congress, all of which, so far as they are now essential, have my hearty
endorsement and support. Encouraging Gentile immigration has been
suggested. The walls are up against it, unless a great increase in mining,
the establishment of manufacturing on a large scale, or the founding and
enlargement of industrial pursuits, other than agriculture, take place.
The founding, example and teaching of Christian churches has been
recommended. Several denominations have established churches, but the
converts from Mormonism are none too numerous. There is a selfsufficient
complacency in the Mormon, which entirely satisfies him with his religion.
Establish schools throughout the Territory, others say. This has been done
to some extent by various religious denominations, but the progress is
slow, in producing any marked result. It has been suggested that the
courts should be increased and offenses vigorously prosecuted. The
Government has been for years well represented by able and effecient
officers, and the result has been important but not decisive. This course
has not changed opinion, but has caused greater care in concealing
offenses. (Salt Lake Tribune)
[179]
Friday 8 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
In the Third District Court on Thursday, Judge Anderson, who is
assisting in this District, and attending every morning to cases of
naturalization, drew a line which everybody who is not foolish or unfair
will agree is parallel with law, with good common sense, and with sound
political economy.
"The law of the land requires that a man shall be of good moral
character and attached to the principles of the Constitution. The fact of
a man's religious belief or that he is a member of the Church in good
standing is not a ground for exclusion."
Judge Anderson, in reply to some foolish questions and objections by
a "Liberal" hireling, whose impudence is out of all porportions with his
intellect, referred to the prohibition law of Iowa, which he, with many
others, believed to be wrong, and said he had worked with them for its
repeal. But he had never heard of a proposition to exclude a man from any
political right or privilege because he was opposed to the law, so long as
he did not violate it. The Judge also showed that a man might be a member
of a Church and yet not conform to all of its teachings.
These are fair and common sense propositions. And the point reached
by their judicial enunciation is this: The bare belief of any alien who is
a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should cut no
figure in admitting him to citizenship, no matter what may be the doctrine
of that Church in reference to the polygamy question. If the man is of
good moral character and attached to the principles of the Constitution
and has complied with the laws relating to naturalization, he should be
admitted to citizenship.
A practical polygamist would not be admitted, because under the
rulings of the Courts here, he would not be considered a man of good moral
character. Courts may be justified in this view of the case, under the
circimstances. As Judge Anderson remarked: "The Court is not here to say
what the law should be but what it is." [180] And if a man should declare
in Court that he considered it right and proper to violate the laws of
Congress in any particular, very few persons would blame the Court for
considering that attitude, in using the discretion which he is authorized
to exercise in cases of naturalization. But a man's abstract belief, or
his mere membership in a Church, whatever may be its tenets, ought not to
enter into the question of his moral character or his admission to
citizenship. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that
actions, not beliefs, are proper subjects of legislation.
A man may believe that a law of the United States or of State or
Territory is wrong or impolitic, and he has perfect right to his opinion
and to the expression thereof. He is also at liberty to strive in all
lawful ways for its repeal, and to obtain judicial decisions as to its
validity. But if he breaks the law he is liable to its penalties. This is
true in regard to laws in relation to polygamy as to those in regard to
prohibition. There is no law of the United States which makes it criminal
to believe in plural marriage or in celibacy. He may believe either to be
right and the other wrong and may advocate his view's by tongue and pen,
and there is nothing in the spirit or the letter of the law to forbid this
freedom of faith and of speech.
The "Liberal" quibbler referred to had the impertinence to inform the
Court that the heads of the Church ought to be summoned, and be required
to testify as to the requirements for admission to Church membership and
as to whether polygamy was compulsory or not. The courts have nothing to
do with the mere tenets of a church or its conditions of membership.
Ignorance and impudence generally go together, and the latter is often the
sure sign of the former.
For the information of persons not of our faith, we take the
opportunity of stating that the conditions of admission into the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are: Faith in Jesus Christ, and
repentance of sins. Persons who truly believe and repent are baptized for
the remission of sins and confirmed members of the Church by the laying on
of hands for the gift of the Holy [181] Ghost. The fact of submission to
these ordinances in in (sic) itself a recognition of the claims of the
officiating minister to Divine authority, which has been received by
modern revelation, and of the position of the Church to which he belongs
as the true Church of Christ. But no other requirement is made of the
candidate. Repentance, however, includes a godly life for the future as
well as regret for and forsaking the wrong-doings of the past.
Members of the Church are free as to their opinions. There is no
bondage in its creed or discipline. The Church has the right under the
institutions of this land of liberty to promulgate doctrines and defend
principles pertaining to religious faith, no matter how unorthodox they
may be or how erroneous they may appear to other persons. Courts have
nothing to do with creeds. Congress has no control over religion. Acts in
violation of statutes are within the purview of the civil power, but
tenets, principles, opinions and organizations for their lawful
promulgation are protected by the Supreme Law of the land in full and
perfect liberty.
It is the policy of this country, everywhere else but in Utah, to
encourage aliens in their efforts to become citizens of the United States.
Nowhere else are obstructions placed in their way in any respect like
those interposed in this Territory. We admit that Courts are, perhaps,
justified in making special interrogations here in view of the situation
and the past prevalence of a practice made an offense by law. But there
should be a limit to this, and that limit should, in our opinion, be the
private belief of an applicant, which God and the Constitution have made
free. With that neither courts, nor lawyers, nor by-standers have any
right to interfere or to call in question.
A man's character is exhibited by his acts. If his deeds are immoral
his character is immoral. And it should be remembered that the law which
makes it criminal for a man to cohabit with more than one woman by later
additions which should be construed with the original statute, reaches out
and covers several immoral acts and is not confined to polygamous
associations. Yet the courts do not seem to be anxious to learn of the
moral or [182] immoral character or doings of any applicants for
naturalization but "Mormons, " and most notoriously immoral persons have
been admitted to citizenship quite recently, without a gulp from a judge
or an objection from pretended champions of a pure morality.
We hope the courts at least will keep clear from party bias. It would
be a disgrace to the ermine if the stamp of the "Liberal" party were
affixed to it and exhibited in judicial discrimination. When every
People's Party applicant is obstructed, and the path of every "Liberal"
applicant is smoothed, and the difference is so obvious and marked, people
with eyes and brains cannot refrain from opinions, which will some time be
expressed, and perhaps in a way and in places where they will receive due
and effective consideration.
We feel pleased to be able to commend Judge Anderson's ruling on
Thursday, as it touches a vital question, and is in accordance with the
genius of American institutions and in harmony with the spirit of civil
and religious liberty. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Saturday 9 Nov 1889:
VICE SUSTAINED:
Yesterday, in Ogden, a female known as Elsie St. Omair was tried
before Commissioner Perrin, on a charge of keeping a house of ill-fame. C.
C. Richards conducted the prosecution and L. R. Rogers and Thomas Maloney
appeared for the defense. During the impaneling of a jury, Charles
Duchaman was challenged by the prosecution. In answer to a question he
said that he thought, in a town the size of Ogden, houses of ill-fame ough
(sic) to exist. Further questioning confirmed the bias of the juror in
favor of vice, yet a challenge for cause was denied, and the prosecution
peremptorily challenged him. The jury was completed, and the prosecution
offered evidence which showed, directly and positively the guilt of the
defendant, both from her own confessions, and from the circumstances.
Mr. Rogers, for the defense, made a startling statement to the
following effect: It was true that a law, exist-[183]ed here against
keeping a house of ill-fame, but there were also in Kentucky, Delaware and
other States of the Union laws passed which were not considered in force
by the people and they gave such heed or respect to them as they chose.
There was for instance the old blue-laws which are not enforced, yet
appear on the statues. In the matter of the law under which this case had
been brought, the city officers, to whom eminently belonged the right of
acting in the premises, had not seen fit to enforce it, and the legal
voters of this city did not consider that they ought to be enforced; the
legal voters had proclaimed at the polls that such things should exist;
and he further considered the City Council, under whom the officers acted,
to be the proper guardians of the public morality and the public itself;
for that reason he did not consider that the law should be held in force
in this case.
After the closing speech of Mr. Richards the jury were charged. It
took them but a short time to decide, and in a few moments they returned a
verdict of "not guilty."
The particulars of this case are given by the Ogden Standard. (See
also, Deseret Evening News, 9 Nov 1889)
Saturday 9 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
Today was again occupied by Judge Anderson in hearing applications
for citizenship, * * *
When John Moore came he passed the examination satisfactorily and was
about to be sworn, when Hurd and Lipman asked him if he had taken an oath
in the Endowment House. He said he had not. They further urged that he had
taken an oath against the government of the United States. Mr. Moore
denied that he had, or that he had any memory of the government even being
referred to.
Lipman--I know that they so take an oath, and I want somebody
acquainted with those ceremonies--some of the leaders--subpoenaed to tell
the court about them. It is the general rule there to take an oath against
the government of the United States, but they won't reveal it.
B. W. Driggs, Jr., said that Mr Lipman's statement [184] was untrue.
The applicant had testified that he never took such oath, and the courth
(sic) had not the right, upon the assertion of an officious and
irresponsible person to compel the exposure of the secret rites of any
organization.
Court--I know we cannot make persons divulge the secret rites of any
society. But if any organization requires an oath against the Government,
then we have the right to get at it. If Mr. Lipman's statement is correct,
then there are some who have left the Church who can tell it.
Lipman--It is a notorious fact such an oath is taken, but it is of
such a terrible nature that not even an apostate dares to divulge it. I
want some of these people who know, who are in this organization, to tell
the court what that oath is.
Mr. Driggs again objected, unless the court would confine the inquiry
to matters referring to the government. He thought it was a gross wrong to
compel men to divulge secrets just to gratify the curiosity of
unscrupulous enemies. If the matter was to be confined to any oath against
the government, he would like the court to express it.
Court--The issue will be confined to assertaining whether there is
required of those who go through the Endowment House an oath that is
inconsistent with the duties of a citizen. Other secret rites or
obligations shall not be interfered with. Congress has made special laws
against this organization and its members, and if there is an oath that is
incompatible with the duties of a citizen, that fact should be known.
Lipman wanted authority to subpoena witnesses who might not be
willing to come upon his invitation, and the court granted the request.
Mr. Moore's application was deferred till Thursday next, at 10 a.m.,
when the witnesses will be called to tell what they know on the subject
introduced by Lipman. (Deseret Evening News)
Monday 11 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
NO "MORMONS" NEED APPLY.
[185]
That is the Order for the Present, in Naturalizations.
The matter of hearing applications for naturalization was up before
Judge Anderson again today. One man who had been a Mormon" was admitted,
and Fred W. Miller was called. He passed the court's examination all
right, saying that he believed polygamy wrong, and that he would obey all
the laws against it. To the "Liberal" representative he said he had never
been through the Endowment House, but was a "Mormon."
Joseph Lipman then objected to Mr. Miller's admission on the ground
that he was a member of the "Mormon" Church. He said that he expected to
show that there was a ceremony of the Church, connected with the Endowment
House, which required every member of the Church to take an oath that he
would avenge, on the United States, the blood of Joseph Smith and all the
other Saints that had been killed. He did not know how the avenging was to
be done, whether by maiming or killing citizens, but he would show that
such an oath was taken, and he thought that no member of the Church should
be admitted to citizenship.
Mr. Moyle denied that any such oath was required; and, however that
might be, this man had never been through the Endowment House.
The court said he would pass upon Mr. Miller's application on
Thursday, as it had been shown he was a member of the Church.
Mr. Moyle said it was plain that the course followed by Lipman and
his associates was merely a political trick, and asked the court, if it
refused to hear the applications of "Mormons" for naturalization, that no
distinction be made, and the business of admitting citizens be deferred
till after the investigation on Thursday.
This request was refused by Judge Anderson.
Wm. J. Owen was another applicant. His parents were members of the
"Mormon" Church, and he was at one time, but he had never performed any of
the duties of a member, and did not now consider himself one. He did not
know that he had ever been excommunicated.
The "Liberals" objected to him because of his membership, and he was
ordered to wait.
[186] Thus every "Mormon" who came up was peremptorily ordered to stand
aside, simply because of his membership in the Church, while those who
were brought in by the "Liberal" whips were passed through in short order.
Finally one John Y. Phillips presented himself. He passed the court's
questions all right. To Mr. Moyle he stated that he had been married a few
months. When asked whether he had been guilty of sustaining improper
relations with persons of the other sex he looked surprised that such a
thing should be considered anything unusual, and answered "Yes".
Mr. Moyle objected to his admission, as by his own confession it was
shown that he was guilty of a crime and was not a man of good moral
character.
This brought Hurd, Lipman and Laney to their feet. They were
"righteously indignant" that a man who had engaged in indiscriminate
sexual relations should be referred to as not of good moral character and
unfit for citizenship in this great government. They were very wrathful at
the course taken, and were very emphatic in their denounciations. "Why,"
said Hurd, "there is not a man in a dozen who hasn't done just the same as
this man, only he has been more honest than most of them, and has admitted
it. Besides all the Mormon applicants here are liars and have perjured
themselves."
Mr. Moyle--Mr. Hurd, it ill becomes you to judge the "Mormons" by
yourself or by your own methods. If any "Mormon" has perjured himself you
would prosecute him to quickly, and that he has not is proved by the fact
that you dare not proceed against one of them whom you have unjustly
accused.
F. Ferguson, the deputy clerk, remarked that Phillips did not belong
to a people who organized themselves to commit a crime.
Mr. Moyle--No, but to the nine-hundred and ninety-nine out of a
thousand who are not only guilty but think it all right to be.
There was some further discussion of a like nature, which Judge
Anderson cut short by saying he had given no thought to the ground of
objection, but would take it under advisement and pass upon it next
Thursday. (Des-[187]eret Evening News)
Tuesday 12 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
At 4 p. m. Pres. L. Snow, and Apostles M. Thatcher, John Henry Smith,
H. J. Grant, and A. H. Cannon, also Bros. C. W. Penrose, James H. Moyle,
and myself met at the Gardo House office. The question before the U. S.
Third District Court on Naturalization and the supposed oaths made in the
Endowment House and was presented by Bro. Moyle for consideration, that
whatever steps, if any needed, may be taken so as to be ready for the
Court on Thursday at 10 a.m. It was deemed proper for some of our brethren
to be present in Court on Thursday whether they are subpoened by our
enemies or not, and give testimony that no such oath is required of any
Latter-day Saints against the Government of the United States in the
Endowment House or elsewhere. That this is an opportune time for the
Church to declare itself against these foul untruths so often repeated. It
was agreed to have a number of brethren invited to meet tomorrow evening
at 7:30 o'clock at the Gardo House office. Telegrams were sent to Bro.
A.H. Lund at Manti and to Bros. M.W. Merrill and A.D. Thatcher at Logan to
be present at the meeting. (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
Wednesday 13 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
---At 7:30 p.m. ---at the Gardo House office. Pres. L. Snow stated the
object of the meeting, and referred to the rulings of Judge Anderson on
the naturalization of citizens, his objections to Mormons and the efforts
to bring before the Court the Endowment House ceremonies. He requested
Bro. Moyle to lay before the meeting anything further that should be said.
He also referred to the meeting held last night. Bro. Moyle referred to
the rulings of the Court and what he thought would be required of the
witnesses before the Court. He suggested that some of the brethren who may
be called upon might be asked some questions so that some idea may be had
as to what can be answered. This was approved. Bro. Moyle asked several
questions of Bros. John H. Smith, [188] A.H. Lund, and M.W. Merrill, also
of Bro. A.D. Thatcher, John Clark, W.W. Riter, E.G. Wooley, Frank Jennings
and Jas. H. Anderson which was quite satisfactory. It was decided that the
following brethren attend the Court tomorrow and if wanted that they
testify, viz. John H. Smith, M.W. Merrill, A.H. Lund, A.D. Thatcher, John
Clark, E.G. Wooley, and J.H. Anderson. Bro. C.W. Penrose said The Central
Committee had suggested that one or two outside lawyers be employed to
assist our lawyers in this business. Bro. LeGrand Young did not think it
to be necessary to employ any outside lawyers. No action was taken. (Diary
of L. John Nuttall)
Wednesday 13 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
It has been proclaimed by representatives, in open court, that nine
hundred and ninety-nine men out of a thousand have committed sexual sins,
which are crimes under the same law that provides penalties for polygamy.
These offences are "Liberal" every day affairs. It has been admitted by
our opponents, official and otherwise, that they are not usual with the
"Mormons." Attorneys in court who object to a man's naturalization because
he is a "Mormon," are highly indignant that any objection should be made
to a "Liberal" because he is an adulterer or fornicator!
And now Judge Anderson rules that one or several acts of this
character do not make a man immoral, if secret, but only when he is
continuously and habitually lewd. And yet the Edmunds-Tucker Act provides
a penalty for a single act of this kind, and the law was supposed to have
been passed in the interest of general morality and to take away the odium
of the appearance that its penalties were only enacted against the
"Mormons."
God preserve us against the morality of the "Liberal" party, which
sustains prostitution in Ogden and champions fornication in Salt Lake. And
let the country judge of the moral intentions and spirit and actions of
the thrice condemned hypocrites, who pretend to oppose "Mormon" plural
marriage on the ground of its immorality! (Deseret Evening News, Charles
W. Penrose, Editor)
[189]
Thursday 14 Nov 1889:
In the Third District Court, Salt Lake City, the extra-ordinary
proceedings, in which John Moore and other "Mormons" were refused
citizenship, on the pretence that they had subscribed to a certain secret
and disloyal oath in the Endowment House, was commenced before Judge Thos.
J. Anderson. Proceedings were continued day by day until the 25th.
Thursday 14 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
* * * At the U. S. Dist. Court, this morning a number of apostates had
been subpoened and they were given every opportunity to say all they
desired in regard to the Endowments &c. R.N. Basken & W.H. Dickson are
employed on the part of the Liberals & LeGrand Young. J.H. Moyle & R.W.
Young for the Peoples Party. John Bond, Martin D. Wardell, James McGuffie,
Andrew Cahoon, James Spillett, Chas. Gilmore and Joseph Silver, apostates
were sworn & testified in a very bitter vindictive manner. Bro. Moyle also
testified as one of their witnesses but refused to give the Endowment
House ceremonies. Judge Anderson allowed all kinds of evidence to be
admitted, notwithstanding the objections of our attorneys. I wrote out a
telegram in cipher & sent to Pres. Woodruff at Portland informing him of
what is now going on. At 7:30 p.m. Prest. L. Snow, Apostles J.H. Smith,
H.J. Grant, M.W. Merrill & A.H. Lund, also Bros. LeGrand Young, J.H.
Moyle, R.W. Young, C.W. Penrose, A.D. Thatcher, J.H. Anderson, F.
Jennings, S.R. Thurman, E. Stevenson & myself met at the G.H. office. The
proceedings of the day were spoken of -- Pres. Snow said I shall be very
much disappointed if after this investigation we don't come out all the
brighter for it, and make a good record for the Church. As witnesses in
that court we have a right to the spirit of the Lord. This is His work and
He will stand by us in doing our best to maintain it. The question of
testifying to any of the Endowments or instructions was considered; some
thought that the instructions given about praying to the Lord to avenge
the blood of the Prophets and referring to the 6th Chapter of Revelations
of John, [190] 9th & 10th verses, so as to refute the testimony which has
been given today, would be proper, others thought it should not be
mentioned as fully &c. Bro. E. Stevenson was asked some questions as to
memory & c. The propriety of Bros. Merrill, Lund & Thatcher going onto the
Stand was discussed as they are so intimate with the Temple labors -- also
that those who are expected to testify should be subpoened, so that they
would be properly in court. After talking upon these matters the brethren
of the Apostles & Elder Thatcher & myself remained. After consideration,
it was decided that the witnesses should meet at Bro. Moyle's office at
9:00 a.m. tomorrow where they could be subpoened. Prest. L. Snow was of
the opinion that Bros. Merrill & Lund and Thatcher could go onto the stand
and testify that there were no such oaths, obligations or covenants
required in the Endowments, but if they should be asked what did transpire
there, they could refuse to answer. Bro. John Henry Smith, asked if there
would be any objections to his referring to what is written in the
Revelations of St. John in regard to prayer &c., by way of rebuttal. Bro.
Snow answered "No!", that it would be proper for him to do so and that
Bros. Merrill and Lund could corroborate that; but that none of the
brethren should give any of the Endowments or instructions but refuse to
answer question to that end. With this understanding the following
brethren will be subpoenaed and if necessary will testify. Viz: John Henry
Smith, M.W. Merrill, A.W. Lund, A.D. Thatcher, E.G. Woolley, John Clark,
James H. Anderson, Heber M. Wells. (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
Friday 15 Nov 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE MORALITY QUESTION.
The News discusses the morality of the Liberal party. It holds that
it is immoral on the part of Liberals to refuse naturalization to men
simply because they believe in polygamy, while at the same time immoral
men are admitted. The News quibbles on words. A man who has vices may be a
strictly honest man in business and may be a patriot who would on demand
cheerfully lay down his [191] life for his country. Such a man, despite
his vices, is a first-class citizen. Again, a man may live a respectable
life, but may hold certain of this country's law's in derison. Such a man,
if tried, would certainly prove a bad citizen. Again, a man may be ever so
good a citizen in the general acceptation of that term and be still
ineligible to citizenship in this country, because his real allegiance may
be to another power. There are Liberals no doubt who are addicted to
vices, but they are bound to no organization which makes the practice of
those vices a sacrament, to be taught to little children and to be held as
a club over women to impress upon them their inferiority. Neither do
Liberal ministers of religion urge that certain practices must be
authorized by the church, else members cannot be trusted to restrain their
animal desires. This has been advanced by the chiefs of the Mormon creed
within the last few years, and hence the plea of virtue on the part of the
News, if it were true--which it is not--would amount to nothing but a
confession of satiety. But the real point hinges on the score of
patriotism, and the rule is an inviolable one. When a man under oath
admits that he is an extreme Mormon and believes in polygamy as a divine
ordinance, it is a clear case that he has swallowed the whole business,
and that in the event of a crisis he would obey the government which holds
his only legitimate allegiance, and which is not the Government of the
United States. The News knows of men who are common liars, who frequently
get drunk, who do never so many wrong things, but who are admitted into
priesthood meetings without question. It knows of plenty of Gentiles who
have not a stain upon their characters who would not be permitted in a
Mormon priesthood meeting for an instant. The reason is, one has given his
fealty to the creed, the other has not. So it is perfectly proper to
refuse citizenship to Mormons who believe in polygamy, for it is certain
proof that they are not well enough disposed toward the Government of the
United States to defend it under all circumstances. That is the supreme
test of citizenship, and hence a wrong was committed when citizen papers
were issued to the editor of the News. (Salt Lake Tribune)
[192]
Sunday 17 Nov 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.
The News denies the truth of the statements made by witnesses
regarding the nature of the Mormon creed. It sees no object on producing
it except in furtherance of a deep laid conspiracy to rob the Mormon
people of all their political rights. It is mistaken. The object, or at
least one of the objects, is to ascertain what political rights men have
in a free Republic like this who have voluntarily, under the most solemn
forms and with the most frightful obligations, bound their allegiances to
another temporal power. That is legitimate, is it not? Can men bear true
allegiance to two governments at the same time? These witnesses swear that
the creed teaches treason to the Republic. That in itself establishes
nothing beyond a suspicion. But if that testimony can be corroborated by
proof that such teaching is the rule, then the proof is perfected and the
testimony is conclusive. If when dedicating a temple, room by room, a
place set aside for the secret and most sacred rites of the church, one
next to the highest in authority invoked of Almighty God His destruction
upon this nation and if he was followed in other rooms by an echo of the
same prayer, pronounced by lesser members of the priesthood; if we find in
the holy books the claims of the creed are nothing less than absolute and
universal rule; if in them, too, we find described the extent of this
kingdom which includes a celestial kingdom and a kingdom of God on earth
the power and authority of which extends downward to the minutest affairs
of life, politics, business and even the domestic affairs of the people;
if upon this we see that through forty years there has been nothing but
obedience to the priesthood which claims to rule in God's stead, what else
is needed to make the awful circle complete? Especially what further
assurance is required to show that it is suicide for the Government of the
United States to place in such hands the only weapon which the fathers
left with which the republic might defend itself? The News treats this
effort to purge the registration list and to keep men who have surrendered
their consicences to the keeping of priests, as a mighty hardship. Suppose
it [193] were reversed what would the News urge? Would it not be that men
must be against us if they are not with us? Would the News permit radical
Gentiles to have any part in the government of the Mormon temporal
kingdom? Certainly not, though such men would be bound by no oaths and if
they took an oath to faithfully perform the duties of their office, there
would be no other oath that would overshadow it. The News tells its people
that there is nothing behind all this movement but a desire to prosecute
men for opinion's sake. There it is wrong again. The movement is only one
of self-preservation. It was urged just as strongly when there were but a
handful of Gentiles here as it is being urged now. And no one understands
the fact better than the News. The desire is to awaken this people and to
induce the chiefs of this creed to throw over board what is Aslatic,
tyrannical and barbarous in their system, and to become Americans. Until
they do, they of right have no political rights in a Republic, and the
privileges which are extended to free and patriotic American citizens no
more belong to them; than the right to help elect the officers of the
Mormon kingdom belongs to a Gentile. These present developments are no new
developments to old residents here. They may be startling and shocking to
the nation at large, but to men here they are but a confirmation of what
they have known to be the facts through the ebb and flow of a score of
years. And the lesson it all teaches is that the thing for the chiefs of
the Mormon creed to do is to Americanize their system, stop this
contention, and go about making of Utah a spot fit to become an American
State. (Salt Lake Tribune)
Sunday 17 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
EDITOR TRIBUNE: --I feel to rejoice at the noble report of our worthy
Governor Thomas to the Secretary of the Interior. In my mind it is a
strong document, it presents in a strong and dignified manner the wants of
the loyal-hearted of this Territory to be put in harmony with the rest of
the States and Territories of this Republic. Our Governor is frank, manly,
as well as courageous. Long may he live for his fidelity to the cause of
[194] right and duty, which I am satisfied is a characteristic of his
disposition. He has taken a wide and comprehensive view of the situation
and wants of the whole people, and should the Government act upon his
recommendations they will have the desired effect to ameliorate this much
neglected disloyalty in Utah. This report, too, will, if acted upon,
strike the deep-rooted cankered ulcer. We have a man now who is tried, and
who, too, by the rights of free men, will see all are equal under the law.
I have no doubt but the majority here will read his opinions and
recommendations through different spectacles, and that it will raise the
ire of those who are determined that their pet theocracy shall live
irrespective of the enlightenment of this Republic. He does not falter in
setting forth the true inwardness of this monstrosity. I have talked with
a good many in this vicinity, as well as in the Liberal precinct of Echo,
with reference to the Governor's report, and they all pronounce it a
sound, good document; it meets with general approval and approbation. They
say he is a brick, and long may he live to help vindicate the right. I
still live in hopes that his wise recommendations setting forth truthfully
what the eye can see and the ear can hear, will have a hearing in the
halls of Congress, for the good of all; and that this tiresome and
unlawful iniquity may be banished from the land, so peace and prosperity
will reign triumphantly. I shall rejoice when the Latter-day Saints come
within the laws of common decency, and take from their name all that is
illegal and immoral and un-American in their system and banish it to the
wind forever. I am mindful that the situation is a grave one; I have lived
in Utah in its darkest days; I know of the sorrows of the fair daughters
and sons; of their crying to their God in secret for just retribution to
fall on their oppressors, and I am confident there is only one way (and
that is by Congress) to right their grievances. God speed the day, and let
them breath the air of liberty as a free people, and take the shackels off
which are bound so tightly--the chains of superstitious slavery and lust.
LOGAN TEMPLE A BREEDER OF POLYGAMY. I wish to call to the notice of this
Republic, as well as [195] the News, that polygamy is not dead. I have had
brought to my notice within the last two weeks, people who I know went
through the Logan Temple, that breader of polygamy. I have heard a man's
wife say since she and her husband came from the same, that she never was
jealous before as to polygamy; but now, she said, if he did not do
differently, she would insult the young woman the first time she came to
the house, as she wanted no polygamy in hers. Now is this not brazen and
defiant of the Mormon Church authorities? That polygamy is a dead issue is
simply preposterous to think of. Are we, my fellow-citizens, going to sit
supinely down and not make an effort to prevent the dishonor to our land
and Americans' homes? I say for one, no; our homes shall be free, and
woman shall be the equal of man, and she the queen of the household, and
the sorrow, stricken wives in Utah shall cease to be the saviors of
lustful barbarism in this enlightened age of Christian civilization. I say
for the sake of humanity, forbid it, Almighty God, so peace, love and joy
shall inhibit the hearts of the disloyal, and may they be brought to a
knowledge of the enraged moral sentiment of society. Washington still
lives, and there I hope we shall get redress of our grievances. Then, and
not till then, will we hold out the olive branch of peace.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, A CHANGE.
I wish to say with reference to the public school system of Utah,
that it is quite faulty, and in my judgment a change is required. I am of
the opinion that the whole Mormon people with almost entire unanimity are
publicly advocating denominational schools in which their children may be
taught Mormon theology. Stake academies have been established under Church
auspices. I will say with such a presentment of facts, it would be unwise
on the part of our Government, to give the theocratic power aid or
assistance, while their ideas are foreign to a republican form of
government.
Therefore I coincide with our worthy Governors report as to the
schools. Congress should at once place the schools in the hands of the
loyal Americans, the stay of our Nation, and abolish the system which is
so dangerous to our country and society. The strongest pillars [196] that
support our political fabric are the proper safeguards of our school
system. I believe in the enlightenment of our society to make a
progressive country, not as it has been taught here for half a century
almost by Brigham Young and other high dignitaries, to keep the young and
rising generation ignorant and poor so they could be handled easily. A
nice system, to be sure, while they were sending their children to the
best of Gentile colleges. The only thing which I think made the Mormon
people in later years take an interest in schools, was a fear of the
schools of Gentile enlightenment. I believe in progression. I have stood
here years gone by, when this theocracy was in its bloom of blood. I had
manhood then, but I dare not assert it for fear of that dreaded monster,
death, the peril of which they now so strenously deny. I say, I could not
be a conscientious Mormon and a dutiful citizen; therefore I denounced
that which is called the kingdom of God, a theocracy, or in other words, a
kingdom governed by direct revelation from God. I am now trying to do my
duty, as a conscientious citizen of this Republic, I thank God, too, that
my Government has a big heart, and does not put its subjects through such
oaths and penalties to be a dutiful subject as does the Mormon Church.
APPEAL FOR LIBERTY.
I say as I was born and raised in the Mormon Church, to its
adherents, come back within the laws, denounce lust, and such treasonable
acts as have been taught you and me for half a century. Will you do it? I
hope so. Then you and I can be friends, while otherwise I will be socially
ostracised, and my associations with my Mormon neighbors broken off for my
present course. But I dare to do right. I am not compelled to ask my file
leaders as I used to years gone by. My leader is my own conscience. That
is my inward monitor to direct me aright, and I truly hope they will take
the same course. Thuggism was the supreme law at one time here, but thanks
be to God, this Republic still lives. We have a way to escape, and get
redress of our grievances. The Mormon monster is not dead, it is alive and
flourishing, still gnashing its jaws with rage at our God-given
Repub-[197]lic. I say, long may it live and prosper as a shining light to
all nations. I say and do this knowing I will have to face my acts and
sayings before the bar of God, and an enlightened people. If I have said
anything to injure any one, put it down as a fault of the head, not of the
heart. Duty is my motto. I call upon Young Utah, come within the law. We
can then stand by one common cause of advancement, prosperity and good
government. JOHN BOND, HENNEFER, Summit Co., Nov. 14. (Salt Lake Tribune)
Monday 18 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
IT DOESN'T YIELD MUCH.
Thus far the political scheme operated in the Third District Court by
the political "bosses" of the "Liberal" party has not yielded much capital
to those who instituted and have operated the proceedings. To our
knowledge not a few prominent members of that party have been
inexpressibly disgusted at the whole movement. They are heartily ashamed
of the attempt to compel persons to divulge secret religious ceremonies,
and denounce the whole thing as an outrage.
Even if the ceremonies were described, those who have sought to
compel persons to exhibit them, would be more than disappointed, as they
would not get what they want, but directly the opposite.
It is plain to the most casual observer, as it is thoroughly known to
the initiated, that there is no element of antagonism to the institutions
of this government and the principles upon which it was founded, in the
religion of the Latter-day Saints. Its whole genius and tendency is
preservative in that regard. The testimony of certain apostate
anti-"Mormon" cranks will not weigh to the contrary with sensible people.
As was stated before in these columns their presence in court after a
record of virulent opposition to the Priesthood gives the lie direct to
their assertion that disobedience incurred the death penalty. Their
situation is supremely contradictory and absurd. Similarly false is their
statement regarding a covenant of antagonism toward the government of the
United States.
[198] Outside of the bitter and unscrupulous class of apostate "Mormons,"
doubtless there are members of seceders from the Church who have too much
honor and regard for truth to be guilty of bearing such false witness upon
those two important points that have been made so prominent in these
extraordinary proceedings. The testimony of Mr. Harrison in relation to
the alleged antagonism to the government is in point, and in that
direction joins with that given by the brethren, which was clear,
straightforward and not susceptible of being overturned.
The evidence given by witnesses showing the preservative character of
the Gospel in its relation to the government appeared to sit sourly on the
stomachs of Mr. Baskin and Mr. Dickson. The former admitted, ironically
and sarcastically, that 10,000 "Mormons" would testify similarly, and the
latter increased the array to 150,000, both admissions being accepted by
the other side. This admission was in the nature of an insinuation against
the honesty and truthfulness of the "Mormon people. We are pleased to be
able to state, from a knowledge of their character, that for truthfulness
and integrity they are not excelled by any other people as a class,
abundance of evidence could be offered in substantiation of this
assertion, the testimony coming from non-"Mormon" sources. Mr. Baskin
himself has even made genuine admission on that score.
In this connection it may be appropriate to quote from a statement
made in testimony by a non-"Mormon" devoid of affection for that people,
before the congressional House committee on Territories, on January 21st,
1870:
"I have been for five years past a resident of Utah. I must do the
Mormons the justice to say that the question of religion does not enter
into their courts, in ordinary cases. I have never detected any bias on
the part of jurors there in this respect, as I at first expected; I have
appeared in cases where Mormons and Gentiles were opposing parties in the
case, and saw, much to my surprise, the jury do what is right.
[199] It will, perhaps, appear somewhat remarkable to our readers when we
say that the gentleman who made that statement so eulogistic of the
Latter-day Saints, showing how regardful they were of the rights of
others, was Robert N. Baskin, ex-Assistant United States District
Attorney, and one of the bitterest of bitter anti-"Mormons." (Deseret
Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Tuesday 19 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE AVENGERS OF BLOOD.
The exposures now making in the Third District Court of the awful
nature and treasonable forms of the Endowment House Oaths are having a
deep effect upon the community. Especially is this effect marked upon
newcomers and upon young men raised in the country who have never been at
outs with their Mormon relatives or with the Church particularly, but who
have never taken much interest in the alleged "religion." To be sure,
these have heard in a general way pretty much all that has been now
disclosed, but in scraps and by piece meal, and the prompt denials of the
truth of these bits of information have left the minds of these young men
about as if they had heard nothing. But now it is different. Here is a
practical test made of a man's eligibility to become a citizen of the
United States while he at the same time adheres to an organization which
requires in its fellowship secret oaths of vengance upon this Nation,
enforced by bloody penalties. The nature of these oaths is told by witness
after witness with such eumulative effect that the force of the evidence
cannot be evaded. The enforcement of the penalties is recited, and an
instance given of the murder of a man who had "violated his covenants."
Citations are made of teachings by the authorities of the Mormon people in
direct line with the testimony offered; of prayers for the breaking up of
this Nation "unless it repents," or ORSON PRATT'S solemn and accepted
declaration that "the Kingdom of God on earth" is the only legal and
authorized government that exists or can exist among men. All this makes a
perfect case. To meet it the Mormons put on their witnesses, who make a
[200] pitiably showing. Apostle JOHN HENRY SMITH was all loyal and bland
till he was asked a few questions involving the practical application of
his pretensions; then he collapses utterly, refuses to answer, and his
counsel finally appeals to the Court to instruct the witness that he need
give no answer that "would criminate (sic) himself." Surely a most
contemptible outcome from such lofty claims so the witness began with; his
mission on the stand was to show, how loyal and true his people were to
this Nation, and his counsel turn white with apprehension lest his own
testimony will land him in the penitentiary! He took the hint, and his
refusal to answer pointed questions was virtually an admission on the
general issue that the evidence of the "Apostates was true, and personally
that a truthful reply would open for him the gates of jail.
The other witnesses to Mormon loyalty were all of the same sort on
the main question. When it came to the point, they with one accord refused
to answer, which demonstrated that they could not deny facts sworn to by
Messrs. BOND, WARDELL, CAHOON and others. Mr. AARON THATCHER, indeed,
stated very plainly that this was so in his case, when he said he would
answer as to what was not said, but not as to what was said; following
this up with "decline to state" when the questions involving these very
disclosures were put to him. Yesterday's Mormon testimony was of precisely
the same character as on Saturday. The turth is, that all these matters
testified to have been notorious for years; only just now they are put
with a coherency, connectedness and practical force never before
attempted. The showing is a thorough vindication of the Apostates, of THE
TRIBUNE and of loyalty in Utah. Its effect is bound to be very great.
(Salt Lake Tribune)
Wednesday 20 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
HE GOES TO THE PENITENTIARY.
In the proceedings before Judge Anderson yesterday afternoon, CHAS.
W. PENROSE continuing his testimony, said--The first Doctrine and
Covenants I ever saw (in about 1850) contained the article on government,
and [201] I understand it has been in all editions. The officers of the
Church get office by the vote of the people, in a general or local
capacity. In 1880 the General Assembly of the Church elected John Taylor
President. The authority of the Church is announced in the Doctrine and
Covenants. If any man, even the President of the Church, preaches contrary
to the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations stand,
and are the standard by which to judge. (Mr. Penrose read from Sec. 107,
of the Doctrine and Covenants, in regard to the powers of the Priesthood,
and its organization and officers.) If the people, as a body of the
Church, reject the President, then there would be no President till
another is elected. The President receives revelation for the Church; but
the members are not compelled to receive it. The portions of the Doctrine
and Covenants relating to this were read. Mr. Penrose also read from a
sermon by President Brigham Young, June 5, 1859, regarding the agency and
freedom of choice that belongs to mankind; also other extractions on the
same subject, from President Young's remarks. I know of instances where
the people refused to accede to the expressed desire of President Young.
It was in 1876 or 1877, in the Third Ward, where the President's candidate
for Bishop was voted down, and afterwards the old Bishop was sustained. In
Iron County, the President wanted a man for President of the Stake, but
the people voted him down. There is not, nor has there been any doctrine
of the Church, that the President or any man has the right to order a man
to be killed. Such an idea would be contrary to the Church doctrine. I
never heard of one being killed in that way. In regard to the doctrine of
the blood atonement, I never heard it taught that a man could be killed
for any purpose. I have preached on the subject, and my teachings have not
been disapproved. I believe that they are in conformity with the Church
doctrines. The killing of an individual is viewed with abhorrance by the
Church. In section 12, paragraphs 18 and 19, the Lord commands us not to
kill, and says that he who kills shall not have forgiveness in this world
nor in the world to come. The Bible is also a standard work of the Church,
and it forbids murder. The [202] Doctrine and Covenants says that those
who kill shall be delivered up to the laws of the land. John's epistle
says a murderer has not eternal life. The Bible and Book of Mormon are
both standards of doctrine to the Church. They contain the revelations
given anciently, and the Doctrine and Covenants those given in this age,
and all combine. The doctrine of blood atonement is believed in as Paul
says, that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins
that Jesus Christ died for man's sins and this is blood atonement--that
Christ's blood atoned for sin, and by obeying His laws we receive the
benefit of that atonement. We believe that if men sin against the Spirit
of God so far as to shed blood, they cannot be forgiven; their only
atonement is the shedding of their blood, and that must be done by the
law's of the land. There is no one in the Church authorized to do it. Our
idea is that a murderer's blood should be shed, and that is the reason the
Utah statutes gives one condemned to death the choice of the manner of
death. We regard the crime of adultery by a man who has taken certain
covenants as worthy of death, but we do not believe we have any authority
to inflict that penalty; we accept the Mosaic doctrine. We think that if
the law of God were enforced there would be a provision in the law of the
land inflicting that penalty on adulterers. This is what Brigham Young,
Jedediah M. Grant and others referred to.
Mr. Penrose's address on "Blood Atonement" was offered in evidence.
Mr. Penrose then read from President Young's remarks on the killing
of Dr. Robinson. In this the President denounced the killing and said that
if anyone ever said that he counseled them to kill any one it was a lie.
Mr. Penrose further testified--It is not a doctrine of the Church that
apostasy is punishable with death. I do not know any one who believes in
it. We abhor the shedding of blood except in self-defense, in the
execution of the civil law, and in defense of country and family. I have
preached the Gospel more or less the past thirty-eight years, and have
preached a great deal. It has been largely the business of my life, and I
think I am fairly [203] acquainted with the doctrines of the Church. I
have been a student and expounder of Church doctrines. The extreme penalty
of the Church is excommunication; dis-fellowship is a lesser penalty. In
the course of the endowments there is nothing in opposition to the laws of
any country. The government is not referred to. The endowments relate
principally to the future state; there is no authorization to shed human
blood under any circumstances. There is no penalty for apostasy. I know
what the Articles of Faith of the Church are. They were formulated by
Joseph Smith, as Prophet and President of the Church.
The Articles of Faith were introduced as evidence and were read.
Dickson then began the cross-examination of Mr. Penrose, who
testified--I was born in London, and came to Utah in 1861; joined the
Church in 1850; took an oath of allegiance to the government in 1865 or
1866; Judge Titus was judge of the court when I was naturlized. I have
been amnested by the President of the United States.
Mr. Dickson insisted that Mr. Penrose should tell how many wives he
had.
Mr. Penrose said he was pardoned and amnestied by the President.
The court said the fact that any witness was a polygamist should be
known to the court, to be considered in weighing the evidence, and that he
should answer the question.
Mr. Penrose--Does not the fact that I had received pardon show that I
had violated the law?
Court--Yes, but it does not show any foundation for it.
Dickson--He says that so far as he knows there is nothing
inconsistent with good citizenship in the teachings of the Mormon Church.
LeGrand Young--That has nothing to do with how many wives he had. He
was under indictment for unlawful cohabitation. The people had been
advised by eminent counsel that the law of 1862 was unconstitutional, but
in 1879 it was decided constitutional. It was not charged that Mr. Penrose
had violated it since then. Inquiry into his marriage relations cannot be
gone into after the [204] Chief Magistrate of the nation has wiped the
crime out of existence.
Mr. Dickson insisted that the question should be answered, and said
he had not only violated the law, but continued to violate it, and to
preach that it was unconstitutional up to 1884.
LeGrand Young--I admit that polygamy is a doctrine of the Church
today. I don't deny it; but I do not say it is right to violate the law,
against it. I have a right to speak against the law of the country, and
agitate its repeal. We think that in the peculiar circumstances of the
case, Mr. Penrose has a right to refuse to answer.
The court ruled that the question should be answered.
Dickson--How many wives have you?
Mr. Penrose--I decline to answer.
Dickson--Lest it would criminate you?
Mr. Penrose--No, sir; but on the grounds that I have received pardon.
Mr. Young said he understood the ruling to be that the question could
be inquired into. He was surprised at the position the witness had taken.
Court--I am surprised also.
R. W. Young--It might be construed into holding them out. Court--That
would be a reason for refusal.
Dickson --It would not be a reason, we could compel him to answer if
he was now violating the law, in cases where the United States is a party.
Mr. Moyle--The United States is not a party in this case.
Mr. Penrose--I have reasons for not answering the question in its
present form, and could explain them to the court in private.
Dickson said the Court had ruled the question proper, and the witness
declined to obey the injuction of the court. It was an attempt to trifle.
If he still refused to answer he should be dealt with.
The Court said it could not hear any private reason. Judge Anderson
suggested that the witness be given a short time to consider.
LeGrand Young asked that time be given till morning.
[205] The Court said it was not disposed to be arbitrary, but if it was
insisted upon, must commit the witness.
Mr. Moyle suggested that the witness have the privilege of consulting
with counsel.
Dickson said he protested against any trifling or defiance. He wanted
an answer compelled and no time given.
LeGrand Young--Judge Zane has given witnesses time to consider, and
it did not infringe on the dignity of the court.
Dickson again opposed the request.
Mr. Moyle suggested that the court had said that some time ought to
be given, and as counsel on the other side sought to compel the court it
indicated that there was vindictiveness.
Baskin then made a speech urging the court to act summarily.
The court said many witnesses had declined to answer questions, but
they were not insisted on. This case was, however, different.
R.W. Young--We only ask a postponement till morning at the same time
wishing to preserve the dignity of the court.
There was further discussion, and the court said it would commit Mr.
Penrose for contempt.
Mr. Penrose--I would like time to consult with my attorneys, and
respectfully request the court to defer action till tomorrow morning.
P.L. Williams opposed the granting of the request, and said the
witness was defying the laws of the land.
Court--I feel it is my duty to commit this witness. But he says he
has reasons which he cannot state here, and in view of that fact will give
him till tomorrow, morning to consider whether he will answer or go to
jail. But this will not be a precedent. Court adjourned till 9:30 today.
When court resumed its session this morning. MR. PENROSE again took
the witness stand.
Dickson again asked the question--How many wives have you?
LeGrand Young stated that if the witness still declined [206] he
should make a written answer to the court, giving his reasons, and denying
any intention of contempt.
Baskin--Does he intend to answer?
LeGrand Young--He does not. I am stating it for him, and ask the
court to permit a written statement of his reasons.
Court--You may file such statement. The counsel have a right to
insist on the answer, and he will be committed for contempt. He will be
committed in the penitentiary.
Dickson--We ask that this investigation be continued till he answers.
LeGrand Young--That is not right. We are not responsible for this,
nor is Mr. Moore. This case should be drawn to a close; we want to
introduce more testimony.
Dickson said he was unwilling to proceed without cross-examining Mr.
Penrose.
Baskin--He is their most important witness and without a
cross-examination the case before the court would be imperfect. We could
strike the testimony out.
LeGrand Young--Mr. Penrose is willing to answer any question--except
as to his family affairs. There is no pretense that he has not been a
polygamist. I don't think the court has power to go over Mr. Penroses
actions that have been amnestied. I have the authority of the United
States Supreme Court for this statement. They expect to follow him back
through his life, and I say they have no right to do so.
The court said that the amnesty did not wipe out the fact that he had
violated the law. The witness was one of the most important men in the
Church, and as to the fact whether he had violated, or had taught
violation of, the laws of the United States was pertinent, he cannot
answer in the way he has. He is squarely in contempt. He, is upon his
dignity.
LeGrand Young--No, your honor, he is not. They show, that they intend
to pursue him into that for which he has been pardoned.
Mr. Moyle said this proceeding had been instituted to deprive men of
the privilege of citizenship, and the scope [207] of the evidence had been
very broad. Because a witness now refused to answer, was no reason for
postponing it. The question had no relevancy to the issue. The evidence
that had been admitted by the court, to a great extent, was not lawful.
The Court said that so far as the applicants for naturalization were
concerned it would be right to continue this case till the witness did
answer. But the court will go on.
Dickson said they expected to show that the witness misstated facts
when he said the Church had not dictated in political matters. He expected
that blood atonement would be shown to be a doctrine of the Church, and
that they considered it would yet be enforced against those, for instance,
who committed adultery. We say that no member of the Church has any right
to citizenship, and the government now, purposes to take that position by
its authorized representative.
Baskin--When this case ends, which ordinarily would end in a day or
two, he will be released from the penitentiary, and I think the court
should keep him in the penitentiary, long enough to make it irksome, and
should make him an example. The case should be kept alive for a whole year
if necessary.
R.W. Young--It seems to me that the other side are arbitary in their
manner, and it is quite plain to all.
Baskin--We can't go on today anyhow.
LeGrand Young--Mr. Penrose stated emphatically that he will not
decline to answer any question that is proper cross-examination.
Court--Mr. Penrose must answer the questions that are held to be
proper.
The anti-"Mormon" demonstrations that had frequently been made during
the examination again broke forth, but in a more marked degree, there
being stamping of feet and clapping of hands.
Judge Anderson interrupted it, and made an order that if it was
repeated the court room would be cleared.
P.L. Williams urged the court to adopt Baskin's plan. Judge Anderson
said he had to go to Beaver next week [208] and the case could either be
finished before then or be postponed till after he returned. "I propose
that this witness must answer this question, unless he puts his refusal
upon the one ground that he can put it on--self-crimination. If any
witness refuses to answer any question except upon legal grounds, he will
be compelled to answer.
The court continued the investigation till 10 a.m. tomorrow.
The latest information respecting Mr. Penrose, this afternoon, was
that he still declined to answer the question. He was in custody in the U.
S. Marshal's office, and the probability was that he would soon be
conveyed to the penitentiary. (Deseret Evening News)
Wednesday 20 Nov 1889:
Charles W. Penrose, who had testified as a witness in the
naturalization case before Judge Anderson in the Third District Court, was
committed to the penitentiary for refusing to answer an impertinent
question with reference to his family affairs.
Wednesday 20 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THE POLITICAL SCHEME.
The proceedings in the Third District Court, Judge Anderson
presiding, are growing more and more peculiar in their aspect. In a number
of particulars they are violative of the common law, because they tend to
withdraw from the citizen the protection which it guarantees. One of its
provisions forbids that a witness shall be required to testify to anything
that would render him infamous.
The Judge has insisted, in the proceedings that have been consuming
the time of his court for several days, that a witness shall answer a
question propounded by the attorneys claiming to represent the "Liberal"
party, as to how many wives he has. In this instance the relation of the
question to the protective provision of the common law alluded to can be
seen at a glance. Judge Anderson has already ruled that a man who has at
any time had more than one wife is not a man of good moral character,
[209] and has refused application for naturalization on that ground alone.
The case of Mr. William C. Dunbar is in point. Mr. Penrose, as a witness,
is coerced into stating, in effect, whether he is or is not a man of good
moral character. This is equal to an insistance that he be compelled to
render himself infamous in violation of the common law provision already
cited. It is indeed an anomalous position for the court to declare a
certain status to be immoral or infamous and then compel a witness to
testify to his own position in that regard.
We are unable to understand what warrant the court has for compelling
a witness to testify to his own injury. If there is authority in civilized
jurisprudence for the position, we are not familiar with it. Besides its
incompatibility with the common law, it seems to be contrary to common
sense.
The raking over of the dead embers of the past, in the form of
expressions made by prominent men under circumstances entirely different
to those of today, and seeking to fasten the responsibility for them upon
the people of the present, is also unjustifiable on its face.
The statements thus resurrected were made under extraordinary
conditions, which caused excitement to prevail to a large extent. But even
such expressions as have been fished out of the tomb of the past that have
been used as a handle to suit the political purpose of the opposition are
buried under the accumulated weight of utterances as patriotic, pacific,
humane and philanthropic as ever dropped from human lips. They have been
spoken and written too by the same men as are quoted on the contrary. In
fact nothing has been produced that has been incompatible with the genius
of patriotism. It is unfair, however, to judge a people or community upon
any other basis than the present exhibits.
The attempt made by leading active politicians of the "Liberal" Party
to use the court to compel the members of a religious organization to
divulge secret rites and ceremonies that are deemed sacred, in an
inexcusable invasion of the rights of the citizen. It is an outrage to
make such an unprecedented and proposterous demand. It is enough for all
legal purposes for witnesses to state [210] that the ceremonies have
nothing in them, in form or genius, antagonistic to the government. Beyond
that point the State cannot step without invading a sacred right.
If the position taken by the "Liberal" representatives should carry,
and the Court demand of a witness not only a statement as to whether the
rites and ceremonies in question are or are not in conflict with the
government, but that he divulge the whole formula, the Masonic fraternity
and every other secret society would be jeopardized. The State has no
right to information as to the secret formula further than that which
relates to its friendly character to the government. Any other position is
unqualified tyranny. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Thursday 21 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE LESSON IT SHOULD TEACH.
The revelations now being daily given in the Third District Court
room will lose half their effect if the Mormons who want to be good
citizens of the United States do not heed their real significance and at
the same time take into consideration the fact that a government like
ours, which rests entirely upon the loyalty of its citizens, must take the
necessary steps to see that its sovereignty is absolute here. Let them
try, also, to see in what a position their own chiefs are placing them in
before the world. Elder PENROSE was skulking and hiding for years. He at
last obtained a pardon from the President upon representations made by his
brother Priesthood that he was in point of fact without blame before the
laws, and also that he had done so much to heal the differences between
the Mormons and the Gentile people. But day before yesterday when the
direct question was asked him, how many wives he had at present, he
declined to answer, insisting at the same time that his refusal was not
because the answer would criminate him, and yesterday, rather than answer,
went off for a little cheap martyrdom to the Penitentiary. We believe his
refusal was because an honest answer would have established that he has
been living right along in polygamy, [211] and further that it would have
revealed the fact that after the EDMUNDS law was passed he, like JOHN
TAYLOR, GEORGE Q. CANNON, ANGUS CANNON and plenty of others, merely to
show contempt for the law and as an example to the rank and file of the
people, was sealed to one or more women. Had it not been so, the answer he
would have made suggests itself to everybody. It would have been, in
effect, "I have four (or six or a dozen). I have not formally separated
from any of them. I have no divorce. I still look upon polygamy as a
righteous sacrament. I still extend my care over my children, but I have
accepted peculiar grace from the President of the United States. I have
permitted my friends to become security for my honor. I am like a soldier
on parole. I live with my legal wife only." That would have raised the
witness in the estimation of Mormons and Gentiles alike; but he could not
so answer, and when he declined, and went to the Penitentiary, it was
under a double conviction. It was as good as a clear conviction that since
the EDMUNDS law was passed he has been guilty of both unlawful
cohabitation and polygamy, and by it he admitted that he had consented to
have his friends lie for him to the President; that he has continually
violated the honor that was pledged for him, that he is not only not a
loyal citizen of the United States, but that he takes a delight in defying
the laws. He in his regular business often deplores the cruelty that has
made it impossible for "the eldest and best citizens" of the Territory to
vote. What Mormon in his heart thinks it would not be a crime to place the
free American ballot in his treacherous and dishonest hands? He not only
stands before the country as a disloyal man, but as a soldier who has
broken his word of honor. What would any other government save ours do
with him? What would any other government do with men who feel like him?
It is not hard to decide. Yet this man so suits those who rule here that
even during all the time of his exile his name was paraded daily as the
editor-in-chief of the acknowledged organ of the Mormon Church. Well, our
country is not like any other. It is so free; the people are so free and
the laws are so gentle that men brought [212] up as our Nation has been
brought up hesitate along time before they trench in the least upon the
fullest perrogatives of the citizen, and especially is this so when there
is a question of religion in any way involved. But that mercy is not a
sign of any want of power, and we tell the Mormon people that unless they
change their front there will come a time, and that in the very near
future, when every member of the church will be disfranchised. That fact
is as clear as the midday sun when the smile of June is upon these
mountain tops. The Nation recoils astonished before the revelations now
being made in the District Court, and when it is understood everywhere, as
it has been for years here, that this creed here is an absolute temporal
kingdom within the Republic, that for years has been claiming every right
of citizenship for its people, and all the time has been working with the
certain purpose of ultimately overthrowing the Republic; then there will
be awakened a sentiment which will be filled with sinister omens to
law-defiers. Surely it is time for the church to change both its course
and its ritual. Every Mormon father should think of this as at night he
goes home and sees his little children asleep in their cribs, for a
persistence in present methods will just as surely bring sorrow to those
children as it is sure that effect follows cause. (Salt Lake Tribune)
Friday 22 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
PRESIDENT WOODRUFF SPEAKS.
His Views Regarding the Recent Proceedings in Court.
Following is the full text of the statements made by President
Wilford Woodruff to an Associated Press reporter and as published in the
eastern press:
SALT LAKE CITY, Nov. 22, 1889. President Wilford Woodruff, of the
"Mormon" Church, in the course of an interview today, expressed the
following views concerning the investigation now taking place in the Third
District Court, arising from the application of a "Mormon" for
naturalization.
President Wilford Woodruff said: You must understand that this is the
periodical anti-"Mormon" sen-[213]sation which we are accustomed to expect
in November. Congress meets in December and it is presumed that the usual
efforts will be made to secure legislation against the "Mormons. " Of
course, this cannot be accomplished unless the public mind is first
prepared for it. In addition to this, I might explain we are on the eve of
an important municipal election here in which the anti-"Mormon" party by
preventing the naturalization of "Mormons," and in other improper ways,
hope to be
successful.
Reporter--But, President Woodruff, what can you say as to the claim
made before the court that membership in the "Mormon" Church is
incompatible with good citizenship?
I can truthfully say there is absolutely nothing in the "Mormon"
religion that is not consistent with the most patriotic devotion to the
government of the United States.
The revelations and commandments to the Church require that the
Constitution and laws of the land shall be upheld. It is also a part of
our belief that a time will come when this country will be distracted by
departures from the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and when
general lawlessness will prevail, and that when the condition shall arrive
the "Mormon" people will step forward and take an active part in rescuing
the nation from ruin. As a people the "Mormons" have the highest
veneration for the institutions of the Republic. There are among our
community quite a number of decendents of the revolutionary fathers who
fought and bled to establish our popular government.
Reporter--But, Mr. Woodruff, to be specific, what about the claim
that the Priesthood or chief authorities of the Church assert or usurp the
right to control the Mormon people in all their temporal (including
political) affairs?
President Woodruff--I am the present head of the Church and I do not
make any such claim. It would be impossible to exercise it if I did. The
Mormon people would not tolerate any such absolutism. It is true the
authorities of the Church have taken a great deal of interest in the
temporal affairs of the people, and the [214] results are apparent
everywhere. One is that the great majority of the "Mormons" own their own
homes. The leading men among them have been mostly men of experience,
accustomed to wrestle with the crude elements. Their advice and direction
to the people in temporal affairs have therefore been of great value.
About political matters, the charge of undue interference is absurd.
Elections are conducted under a strictly secret ballot system, so that no
man knows how his neighbor votes. All the management of elections, down to
the smallest details, is in the hands of the officers of the United States
Government and their appointees. True, the "Mormons" are to a considerable
degree knited in their political affairs. This is largely due to their
being constantly and vindictively assailed by a small minority in Utah who
have sought to wrest the control of public affairs from the hands of the
majority. They have thus been driven together by a common interest and
compelled to distinguish their friends from their enemies.
Reporter--One of the aims of the proceedings now, going on in court
is to prove that there is something antagonistic to the government in the
"Mormon" Endowments. What about that charge?
President Woodruff--I have already said that there is nothing of that
kind in any part or phase of "Mormonism." I ought to know about that as I
am one of the oldest members of the Church. A good deal is being made of a
form of prayer based upon two verses in the sixth chapter of the
Revelations of St. John, as contained in the New Testament. It relates to
praying that God might avenge the blood of the prophets. An attempt has, I
see, been made to connect this with avenging the death of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith, and to have reference to this nation. It can have no such
application, as the Endowments were given long before the death of Joseph
and Hyrum Smith, and have not been changed. This nation or government has
never been charged by the "Mormon" people with the assassination of Joseph
and Hyrum Smith, as it is well known the murder was the act of a local mob
disguised.
Reporter--Then there is nothing in the cry about blood atonement?
[215] President Woodruff: Well, there is this: The foundation of our
religious faith is belief in the atoning blood of Christ, through which
the resurrection will be brought about. We believe in the scriptural
doctrine, whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed; but
we also believe that all executions for murder should be under the law of
the land and by its offices only.
Reporter--What about the statements made by two or three apostate
"Mormon" witnesses to the effect that the Endowment ceremonies involved
the death penalty upon those who leave the Church and disobey the
Priesthood?
President Woodruff--Well, there is no accounting for the bitterness
and untrughfulness of some men who have been connected with an
organization, especially a religious one, and have turned against it. All
their former sweetness turns to vinegar and gall. The Catholic and other
churches have had much to contend with in that line. If it were not a
serious subject, the position of such men would be amusing, it is so
ridiculous. After they have been fighting the Church for from fifteen to
twenty-five years, they are living witnesses to the falsity of their own
statements: The investigation in progress shows that no such penalty has
ever been inflicted. Many ex-"Mormons" are too honorable to make such
horrible and unwarranted assertions. It is unjust to judge a church from
the statements of its relentless enemies.
Reporter--Why do "Mormons" when on the stand decline to disclose the
formula of the endowment?
President Woodruff--Because secret religious rites and ceremonies are
the property of the individual citizen, and do not belong to the State.
You might as well ask why a Mason, if he were placed on the witness stand,
should refuse to reveal the rites and signs of that order. I myself am a
Master Mason and have been informed that many Masons as well as people not
connected with that fraternity have been indignant at the attempt that has
been made during the last few days, to extort secret information from
"Mormons." Members of other benevolent societies can see that their rights
and organizations would be in danger should such proceedings [216] carry.
While Mormons have refused to divulge the rites for the court they have
uniformly sworn that there is nothing in the endowment ceremonies
inconsistent with good citizenship. Several prominent ex-Mormons testified
to the same effect.
Reporter--What is the exciting cause of the present agitation here?
President Woodruff--As I before stated, it is purely political. There
are two local parties. The People's Party is composed largely of our
people, although a number of non-Mormons sympathise with it. The
self-styled Liberal party is composed almost entirely of anti-Mormons, and
they are but a small minority in the Territory. There will be a municipal
election next February. The present proceedings have been instituted by
the anti-Mormons as a means to enable them to carry that election. A man
named Moore, a Mormon, applied to the court for naturalization. Some of
the anti-Mormon whips objected on the ground of his membership in the
Church. Hence the alleged investigation conducted by prominent
anti-Mormons and designed to obstruct, if not prevent, the naturalization
of Mormons on account of their religion. Doubtless the agitators have also
in view the approaching session of Congress. If they intend applying for
more special legislation they are gathering a mass of anti-Mormon
sensational material to aid them in their proposed work. (Deseret Evening
News, 26 Nov 1889)
Saturday 23 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
* * * DR. JAS. E. TALMAGE was called by the defense. He testified--I am
principal of the Latter-day Saints College in this city; was formerly
member of the faculty of the Brigham Young Academy in Provo; acted in that
capacity four years; attended school there five years; have studied at the
Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, and the John Hopkins University,
Baltimore; in the Latter-day Saints College we give instructions in
theology, the same as other branches; our theological classes study the
Bible and other Church works; the principles of the New Testament are
taught there; the New Testa-[217]ment is a text book of daily use, The
Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are also; sermons are not
referred to. The Constitution of the United States is taught. We teach
that the Constitution is inspired, and of all human documents approaches
nearest to perfection; it is taught that it is the foundation of the
government of the United States and must be revered. We teach celestial
marriage, but not plural marriage. We teach that celestial marriage is a
contract for both time and eternity, while the civil marriage binds people
only in this life; we teach that marriage is a religious as well as a
civil contract. We never say anything about polygamy. There may have been
a question asked about it, but I recall no instance. The B.Y. Academy
follows the same rule as does our college. Both are sustained by voluntary
donation from members of the Church. I have been a member of the Church
eighteen years. We teach man's free agency as a part of our course. We
teach that man's free agency is paramount--that it has not been interfered
with by the Creator, and should not be by any power. We teach that man's
future depends on his course in this life; that he might by the exercise
of his own agency show his nature and preferences. We also teach that the
Kingdom of God is to be an outgrowth of the Church of Christ; that it is
not here, but that it will be established, and that we should pray for it.
When it is established, Christ will be its King. We say that he will come
as the Bible says, but the time no man knows, not even the angels in
heaven. We have never taught anything contrary to the laws of the land. It
is a part of our teachings that people should prepare themselves to be
good citizens. The teachings in the B.Y. Academy and in our own college
have been approved by the authorities of the Church--that is the plan of
instruction has.
To Dickson--We teach that celestial marriage is distinct from plural
marriage; the meaning of plural marriage is expressed, and the meaning of
celestial marriage is explained. We teach that celestial marriage may be
entered into in the monogamic relation; that it is different from ordinary
marriage in that it is available in eternity. We teach the pupils to obey
all the [218] laws of the United States. We mention no laws specially. We
have not had any questions upon the laws relating to polygamy, that I can
recall. We also teach obedience to the revelations of God as a religious
duty. We teach that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. We
teach students to obey the laws. We also teach them that they have the
privilege of obeying God in their religion. I believe in the revelation on
plural marriage, and that if the Constitution had been conformed to there
would have been no law against it. I teach the pupils what I believe, but
not all that I believe. We also explain that the revelations do not
require violation of law. I think the statutes against bigamy are
constitutional. I don't think plural marriage is characterized by the
features of bigamy, as a crime. I think Congress sought to suppress plural
marriages and I think they overstepped the Constitution. In the school we
teach the free agency of man; we also teach that it is proper to seek
counsel from the best sources. We have not taught that it is wrong to
revel against the Priesthood. We have taught that members of the Church
should obey the authority of the Priesthood, but they may disobey if they
choose. I think that we should obey the instructions of the President of
the Church in his official capacity in relation to the Church. The subject
of obedience to the Priesthood is not discussed. I don't teach anything I
do not believe, but I do not force on the pupils all that I do believe.
There are many topics that are not referred to. In our college the pupils
are from 14 to 30 years of age. I am 27 years old. In regard to the
Kingdom of God, I do not understand that it is set up at all. I understand
it is the mission of this Church to prepare for the Kingdom of God, but to
do so that it is not necessary for them to exercise temporal authority. I
have read the sermons of the leaders of the Church, but have not seen any
declarations that the Kingdom of God is set up, without modifications of
those declarations. I understand that when the principles of righteousness
taught by the Church shall prevail, then the Kingdom will be established.
But in the sense of a kingdom, it is the teaching that it is not set up.
[219] To the court--When Christ comes and reigns, then the kingdom will be
established; it cannot be a kingdom yet, because there is no king.
To Dickson--The President of the Church is not the representative of
the King in temporal matters. He is in spiritual matters. I believe that
when Christ comes He will hold control in temporal matters, and that all
men who work righteousness will aid in control--that the Priesthood holds
no control in temporal matters, but in spiritual matters. I do not believe
that the Priesthood have the right to control men in all temporal matters.
I don't think the President has a right to direct absolutely in all
temporal matters. A doctrine to that effect is foreign to my
understanding. I never have understood that they have a right to dictate
in all matters. I have studied the teachings of the authorities of the
Church.
To Baskin--We teach the pupils that there is a distinction between
plural and celestial marriage. We designate no revelation as the one on
polygamy. We have one on the eternity of the marriage covenant. We teach
that the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants are divine, and this
includes the revelation on celestial marriage. Plural marriage is not
given as a command to the Church, but celestial marriage is. Plural
marriages in the Church are celestial marriages, but celestial marriages
are not all plural marriages. I believe that a deception or fraud is a
necessary characteristic of bigamy. I understand there was no law, in 1843
against a man marrying two wives, unless he practiced fraud. I understand
now that there are law's against polygamy now in existence. I do not
consider that our system includes bigamy. In the school we have not given
any instructions as to whether plural marriage should or should not be
practiced.
To the Court--In the highest grade in the school these questions may
come up. We say that celestial marriage is binding for eternity, being
consummated, by divine authority. We do not explain what plural marriage
is, but I understand it to mean plurality of wives. We teach that marriage
can be performed as a religious ceremony or as a civil contract. We don't
mention plural mar-[220]riage, either one way or another. I am neither
authorized nor qualified to teach plural marriage. We do not understand
that teaching that plural marriage is corrupting the morals of the pupils,
because we do not teach it. There has never been any comparison between
the laws of the government and the doctrines of the Church. I believe
plural marriage to be a proper condition, but have given no instruction
upon it. I think a young man educated in the college would believe that a
law which binds his conscience is unconstitutional, but he would not
believe that such a law was not binding. I would not advise the breaking
of any law, for I consider a law binding until it is annulled.
To Dickson--I believe the anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional, but
that it is binding. I have never taught the children that plural marriage
is right because I have not taught it at all. The Priesthood do not now
control in temporal matters. I have never heard it taught that plural
marriage, of itself, will exalt anyone, I believe celestial marriage is
essential to exaltation.
To LeGrand Young--A celestial marriage is one consummated between a
man and a woman that will be of avail in eternity as well as in this life.
This is the revelation on celestial marriage. I understand that polygamy
is not obligatory, but is permissive. I think celestial marriage is
obligatory for exaltation--that is an eternal union in marriage of husband
and wife. The revelation has been read in school. We teach that marriage
for eternity is necessary. We have never taught that polygamy is
necessary. We have never taught that the Priesthood control in temporal
matters. We teach that advice in temporal matters from those who
understand them is proper, and the same as to spiritual matters. I think
there must be a king to a kingdom. I think Christ will be King of the
Kingdom of God, and that there will be no other ruler. As to the
proportion of polygamists in Utah, I would say there is not to exceed one
in thirty among the adult male members of the Church.
To Dickson--I think there are less than 200,000 people in the
Territory; do not know how many Gentiles there are.
[221] To Baskin--I said if I needed medical advice I would ask one
qualified to give it.
Baskin--Is laying on of hands for the healing of the sick a doctrine
of the Church?
The court ruled that this was improper.
To Mr. Young--When a man is a polygamist, it is usually but a short
time before his neighbors know of it. I don't think it possible to keep it
secret long. I know the monogamists have the elective franchise, and
polygamists do not take the oath. Some people do not take it from
conscientious scruple. A man who does not take it is usually spotted.
To Dickson--I have never taken any steps to prosecute polygamists. I
consider it my duty to mind my own business.
To the court--I know prominent men in the Church who are not
polygamists. I do not understand that all the Apostles are polygamists.
Brigham Young, John Taylor, Geo. Q. Cannon, J.H. Smith, C.W. Penrose were
polygamists. I understand that Apostles H.J. Grant, John W. Taylor and
A.H. Lund are not polygamists.
Did you never hear that Heber J. Grant had a second wife, now in
England?
Dr. Talmage--I never did.
Court took recess till 7:30 this evening when it is expected that the
testimony will all be in. (Deseret Evening News)
23 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
"* * * Bro. Young felt it will be a proper time to state in Court that
instructions have been given by the Presidency that no more plural
marriages shall be solemnized, etc, * * * Pres. Cannon was not in favor of
such action and said that Pres. Woodruff was the only one to decide that.
It was proposed that Bro. Young see Pres. Woodruff tomorrow. (Diary of L.
John Nuttall)
Sunday 24 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
CURRENT EASTERN COMMENT.
The press of the East is horrified at the disclosures [222] that have
been made in the endowment house investigation now in progress in this
city. It begins to discover that polygamy, bad as it is and which the East
has harped upon for so long as the chief evil of Mormonism that it has
come to believe that way, is a trivial matter compared with the awful
oaths taken and the bitter hatred of this Nation inculcated in the
endowment house. Much of the comment of Eastern papers is born of this new
light, and is bitter, both because of the nature of the exposures here and
because of the discovery that former opinions were erroneous; for we are
little inclined to forgive peole whom we have always despised for one bad
trait when we find that what we have taken for their worst quality is far
short of their actual iniquity. (Salt Lake Tribune)
24 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
"* * * Bro. D. R. Bateman called for me---and took me to the Gardo House.
I found Pres. Woodruff there. He with Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon had met this
afternoon with Bro. John W. Young. LeGrand Young, Jas. H. Moyle and R.W.
Young to consider the matters as presented and talked upon yesterday, and
the question was left with Pres. Woodruff to decide. The President told me
of this and said that he had made the subject a matter of prayer and by
the voice of the spirit he was directed to write after he had concluded
writing which he was doing when I arrived. He asked me to copy a
Revelation which he had received--I did so. Having heard Bro. J.W. Young's
reasoning, I felt very much worked up in my feelings for I did not feel
that as a church we could assume the position in regard to Celestial
Marriage which he seemed to desire should be taken, and when Pres.
Woodruff commenced talking to me this evening I felt that he had become
converted and actually trembled, for I knew, such had not been Pres.
Woodruffs feelings before, but as I wrote at his dictation, I felt better
all the time and when completed I felt as light and joyus as it is
possible to feel, for I was satisfied that Pres. Woodruff had received the
word of the Lord. When Pres. Jos. F. Smith returned and read the
revelation he was moved to tears and expressed his approval and acceptance
of [223] the word of the Lord to His Servants and Saints. We all felt well
and thankful to the Lord. Prest. Woodruff remained with us at the Gardo
House Tonight." (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
24 Nov 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
Attended a meeting with the lawyers at the Gardo (House) in the
evening. They wanted me to make some concession to the court upon polygamy
and other points, and I spent several hours alone and inquired of the Lord
and received the following revelation:
"Thus saith the Lord to my servant Wilford. I, the Lord, have heard
thy prayers and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of my
spirit.
Thus saith the Lord unto my servants the Presidency of my Church, who
hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. I the Lord hold the
destiny of the courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and
the destiny of all other nations of the earth, in mine own hands, and all
that I have revealed and promised and decreed concerning the generation in
which you live shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand.
Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of My Church
deny My word or My law, which concerns the salvation of the children of
men. Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guide
them in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by
promise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of my
people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the council of my
servants, the wicked shall not prevail.
Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts
make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without
any further pledges from the Priesthood.
I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of government
and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.
I, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, am in your midst. I am your
advocate with the Father. Fear not, [224] little flock, it is your
Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Fear not the wicked and
ungodly.
Search the scriptures, for they are they which testify of me; also
those revelations which I have given to my servant Joseph, and to all my
servants since the world began, which are recorded in the record of divine
truth.
Those revelations contain the judgements of God which are to be
poured out upon all nations under the heavens, which include Great
Babylon. These judgements are at the door. They will be fulfilled as God
lives. Leave judgement with me, it is mine, saith the Lord. Watch the
signs of the times and they will show the fulfillment of the words of the
Lord. Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy
Ghost as your constant companion and act as you are moved upon by the
Spirit and all will be well with you.
The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off by
the judgements of God. Great events await you and this generation and are
nigh at your doors. Awake! O Israel, and have faith in God and his
promises and He will not forsake you. I the Lord will deliver my Saints
from the dominion of the wicked in mine own due time and way.
I cannot deny My Word, neither in blessings nor judgements. Therefore
let mine anointed gird up their loins, watch and be sober, and keep my
commandments. Pray always and faint not. Exercise faith in the Lord and in
the promises of God; be valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The eyes of the Lord and the Heavenly Hosts are watching over you and
your acts. Therefore be faithful until I come. I come quickly to reward
every man, according to the deeds in the body, even so, Amen. (Journal of
Wilford Woodruff, see also Diary of L. John Nuttall under the date of 27
Nov 1889)
Monday 25 Nov 1889:
On order of Judge Anderson, C.W. Penrose, Esq., editor-in-chief of
the Deseret Evening News, was released from the penitentiary. (Deseret
Evening News, 26 Nov 1889)
[225]
Monday 25 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
MORMONS IN CANADA.
By Telegram to the NEWS!
Mormon Immigration to Canada.
OTTAWA, Ont., Nov. 25. --The Journal, which supports the government
of Sir John McDonald, says:
It looks as though there would be a large Mormon immigration into the
Canadian Northwest unless checked by hostile legislation. The colony near
McLeod has propsered. It has been visited by delegates sent from Salt Lake
City to report and arrange for immigration to the British Territory, and
there is little doubt but the result will be a rapid growth of Mormon
settlements within the prairie territories of the Dominion. Unless the
threatened mischief is nipped in the bud, Canada is destined at no very
distant period to witness within her borders a repetition of the horrors
the United States have had to contend with in Utah. The press and public
men of Canada may as well make up their minds before the next session of
Parliment upon what terms Mormon immigration into this country will be
allowed, if at all.
The Dominion government have detectives about the Mormon colony near
Lee's Creek, investigating the marital relations of a few suspected
persons and keeping in close surveilance a number of recent arrivals.
(Deseret Evening News, 26 Nov 1889)
Tuesday 26 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
PRESIDENT WOODRUFFS REPLY.
WILFORD WOODRUFF has found it necessary to step forward, and as
President of the Mormon Church undertake to defend it from the logical
consequences of the dreadful showing of its disloyalty and
bloodthirstiness made in court the past ten days. Inasmuch as he is
particeps criminis in an eminent degree in all the things charged against
the church, his defense of it must be taken much as would be the
disclaimer of a culprit of the crime alleged against him. But what a weak
disclaimer the old man makes. "It is the periodical Mormon sensation" he
says, when the fact is that the Gentiles didn't [226] get it up at all; it
was brought on by the Mormons themselves in the application of one of
their oath-bound aliens to be made a citizen of the United States. This
application was opposed by Gentile counsel, and then the whole flood of
villainy was exposed--a living, polluted stream that ramifies into every
Mormon family and vitiates every Mormon pretense of loyalty to this
Nation. The action of the Gentiles was purely negative; they simply
resisted a disloyal aggression upon American institutions. Yet WOODRUFF
has the effrontry to assume that it is "the periodical Mormon sensation,"
thus exactly reversing the true state of the case, which is natural enough
after all for him to do, since that is the way of his sect.
WOODRUFF also gets off the stereotyped claim of loyalty; "the
revelations and commandments of the church require the Constitution and
laws to be upheld," he says; yet it has been fully proved that Mormon love
for the Constitution goes solely to the point that they claim under that
instrument, liberty to disregard and defy such law's as are not in accord
with their revelations; and that when they have so determined any law to
be unconstitutional, their ruling upon it is what they hold to, in utter
disregard of any ruling of the United States Supreme Court. When WOODRUFF
says further that the Mormon people expect a time to come when the country
will be given over to lawlessness and then they expect to step forward and
save it from ruin, we can only say, God help this Nation in that day; the
salvation offered it by Mormonism would be a more complete and disastrous
ruin than any other of which it is possible to conceive.
WOODRUFF makes a disclaimer of the claim of authority by the
priesthood over temporal or political affairs. Yet the assertion and
exercise of that claim has been fully proved in this investigation; it has
been open and continuous all along; no one acquainted with the workings of
Mormonism could possibly fail to run up against it. WOODRUFF himself has
preached it. He now denies for outward effect a thing he knows perfectly
to be a radical part of the Mormon system.
The "form of prayer" in the endowment ceremonies [227] with regard to
avenging the blood of the prophets, WOODRUFF explains as did apostle JOHN
HENRY SMITH; yet no sooner had JOHN HENRY'S cross-examination begun than
he landed in deep water and began his long series of "declines to answer."
Doubtless, WOODRUFF would also land in deep water could he be asked a few
questions on this point. It is idle to squirm, lie and evade; this
avenging of the blood of the prophets was to be on this Nation, and not
one in the ten thousand of the oath-bound endowment house devotees
understood any other prophets to be referred to than the Mormon
"martyers," beginning with JOSEPH and HYRUM SMITH.
"Concerning the cry about blood atonement," says WOODRUFF, it means
really the atoning blood of Christ; that executions for murder shall be
under the law of the land and by its officers only. This is not the fact.
Apostacy was to be followed by death; and no laws of the land could
possibly take notice of such an alleged offense. Besides, if the laws of
the land and the civil officers were to be the only agencies in this
matter, what had the church to do with it? What business has the function
of a criminal court of high resort in church ceremonies? If the law of the
land is to alone take control of the shedding of blood, how does it come
that every person who passes through the endowment house is obligated to
enforce that penalty, and that his arm is anointed to make it strong in
the church service in the enforcement of these bloody covenants? It won't
do, Mr. WOODRUFF. The case is made against you on sworn testimony. Your
explanations are not true, and you can see easily that they do not meet
the case. Your words leave the showing against your sect worse than if you
had not spoken; for people will naturally say on reading your ramshackle
defense that it is practically an admission of everything, since you are
not able to shake in the slightest degree the case made; in fact, make a
worse showing than some of your pitiable tools who shook with fear on the
stand at the shadow of the jail gradually reaching out towards them, for
violations of law almost confessed.
Mr. WOODRUFF finally enters a formal denial of the truth of the
disclosures made on the stand by "apostate [228] Mormon witnesses." But
his denial counts for nothing. He adds that Mormons have as much right to
decline to divulge the "innocent formula of the endowment" as Masons have
to refuse to disclose the Masonic ritual. It is a weak plea; for as has
been perfectly shown those endowment formulas are by no means innocent;
they are traitorous and bloody, involving pledges to crime and to an alien
service hostile to this Nation. When any one has the audacity to charge
anything of the sort upon the Masonic ritual, it will be time enough to
talk about disclosing it. (Salt Lake Tribune)
Saturday 30 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
A PRIVILEGE, IS IT?
In a discourse to the people of Bear Lake, reported in the Deseret
News of September 22, 1883, the late JOHN TAYLOR, then President of the
Mormon Church, said:
"I will here call your attention to the revelation itself, which
reads:
"Verily, thus saith the Lord, unto you, my servant Joseph, that
inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I,
the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; as also Moses,
David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of
their having many wives and concubines;
"Behold! and lo! I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as
touching this matter;
"Therefore, prepare thyself to receive and obey the instructions
which I am about to give unto you for all those who have this law revealed
unto them must obey the same.
"This you will see is strictly in accordance with what I have told
you Joseph Smith told the Twelve--that if this law was not practiced, if
they would not enter into this covenant, then the Kingdom of God could not
go one step further. Now, we did not feel like preventing the Kingdom of
God from going forward. We professed to be the apostles of the Lord, and
did not feel like putting [229] ourselves in a position to retard the
Kingdom of God. The revelation, as you have heard, says that all those who
have this law revealed unto them, must obey the same. Now, that is not my
word. I did not make it. It was the Prophet of God who revealed that to us
in Nauvoo, and I bear witness of this solemn fact before God, that He did
reveal this sacred principle to me and others of the Twelve, and in this
revelation it is stated that it is the will and law of God that `all those
who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.' And the
revelation further says:
"For behold: I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if
ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned."
"Think of that, will you. For it is further said:
"No man can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my
glory."
There are many people who try to excuse themselves in this matter,
and who essay to do as they please, but as the Lord liveth, he will not
excuse them. He expects those who profess to be His people to carry out
that law. The revelation continues to say:
"For all who will have a blessing at my hands, shall abide the law
which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof as were
instituted before the foundations of the world.
* * And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was
instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness
thereof, must and shall abide the law or he shall be damned, saith the
Lord God."
The woods seem to be full of Mormons now-a-days who "are damned,"
unless the foregoing is simply rot. But perhaps the covenant wasn't so
dreadfully "everlasting if after all. Within six brief years it seems to
have passed away entirely. President WOODRUFF, [230] JOHN HENRY SMITH,
Bro. PENROSE, and all the witnesses for the defense appear to know nothing
about it. (Salt Lake Tribune)
Saturday 30 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
The Federal Courtroom was filled this morning by those assembled to
hear the decision of Judge Anderson in the case involving the eligibility
of "Mormons" for citizenship. The reading of the opinion occupied an hour,
and at its conclusion the crowd, which was almost entirely anti-"Mormon,"
expressed their approval of the judge's decision by stamping their feet
and clapping their hands. The opinion is as follows:
In the District Court for the Third Judicial District of the Territory of
Utah.
In the matter of the application of John Moore, Fred W. Miller, Henry
J. Owen, John Berg, Walter J. Edgar, Charles E. Clissold, Nils Anderson,
Carl P. Larsen, Thomas M. Mumford, John Garbet and Arthur Townsend, to
become citizens of the United States.
OPINION:
Anderson, J.
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. The admission of the other applicants was
objected to solely on the ground that by their own statements they were
members of the Mormon Church, although they had not gone through the
Endowment House, and had not taken the oath usually administered there,
nor in fact any oath incompatible with citizenship.
[231] The claim is made by those who object to the admission to
citizenship of these persons, that the Mormon Church is and always has
been a treasonable organization in its teachings and in its practice,
hostile to the government of the United States, disobedient to its laws,
and seeking its overthrow, and that the oath administered to its members
in the Endowment House binds them, under the penalty of death, to implicit
obedience in all things, temporal as well as spiritual, to the Priesthood,
and to avenge the death of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith upon the
government and people of the United States. The taking of further
testimony at this time is for the purpose of determining whether or not
these allegations are true.
The third subdivision of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States provides that in order to entitle an alien to be admitted as
a citizen of the United States, it shall be made to appear to the
satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided in the
United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where
such court is at the time held, one year at least, and that during that
time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the
principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to
the good order and happiness of the same. 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 a date
thereafter as practicable, in order that the marital relation shall
continue throughout eternity. That these ceremonies occupy the greater
part of a day, and include the taking of an oath, obligation or covenant,
by [232] all who receive their endowments, that they will avenge the blood
of the Prophets, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, upon the Government of the United
States, and will enjoin this obligation upon their children, unto the
third and forth generations; that they will obey the Priesthood in all
things, and will never reveal the secrets of the Endowment House under the
penalty of having their throats cut from ear to ear, their bowels torn
out, and their hearts cut out of their bodies. The right arm is annointed
that it may be strong to avenge the blood of the prophets. An
undergarment, a sort of combination of shirt and drawers, called the
endowment robe, is then put on, and is to be worn ever after. On this
robe, near the throat, and over the heart, and in the region of the
abdomen, are certain marks or designs intended to remind the wearer of the
penalties that will be inflicted in case of a violation of the oath,
obligation or covenant he or she has taken or made.
On behalf of the applicants, fourteen witnesses testified concerning
the endowment ceremonies, but all of them declined to state what oaths are
there 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. John H. Smith, one of the
Twelve Apostles of the Church, testified that all that is said in the
endowment ceremonies about avenging the blood of the prophets is said in a
lecture, in which the 9th and 10th verses of the sixth chapter of
Revelations is recited, as follows:
"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the alter the
souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony
which they held. And they cried with a loud voice saying, How long, O
Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that
dwell on the earth."
Other witnesses for the applicants testified that this [233] is the
only place in the ceremonies where avenging the blood of the prophets is
mentioned.
John Clark, a witness for applicants, testified he took some
obligations, made some promises, entered into some covenants in the
Endowment House, and wore his endowment robes, but did not know the
significance of the split over the heart. E.L.T. Harrison, another of
applicant's witnesses, testified he had a clear recollection that his
right arm was washed, and something said about it being made strong to
avenge the death of the Prophets, and that the names of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith were not mentioned, but were understood to be among the number whose
blood was to be avenged; and E.G. Woolley, a witness for the applicants,
testified they were to pray to the Lord to avenge the blood of the
Prophets. Every other witness for the applicants who was asked the
question stated that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were understood to be included
among the Prophets whose blood was to be avenged.
The witnesses for the applicants, while refusing to disclose the
oath, 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 oaths, obligations or
covenants are taken or entered into in these 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. The applications of John Moore and Walter J. Edgar, both of
whom were [234] shown on the former examination to be members of the
Mormon church, and to have gone through the endowment house, are therefore
denied.
As to the objection made to the admission of the other applicants
upon the ground solely of their being members of the Mormon church, a
large amount of evidence, mostly documentary, has been introduced, only a
small portion of which can be noticed in this opinion without extending it
to too great a length. The evidence consists mostly of the sermons and
writings of the Mormon rulers and leaders, published under the direction
of the church. On the subject of the right of the priesthood and rulers to
dictate to the members in temporal matters, portions of section 124, page
436, of the Doctrine and Covenants is offered by the objectors, containing
the prophecies of Joseph Smith as follows:
"And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I
have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built
unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph,
and his house, have place therein, from generation to generation. For this
anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put
upon the head of his posterity after him. And as I said unto Abraham
concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant
Joseph, in thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.
Therefore, let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in that
house, from generation to generation, for ever and ever, saith the Lord.
And let the name of that house be called Nauvoo House, and let it be a
delightful habitation for man, and a resting place for the weary traveler,
that he may contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this the
corner stone thereof. That he may receive also the counsel from those whom
I have set to be as plants of renown, and as watchmen upon her walls.
Behold, verily I say unto you, let my servant George Miller, and my
servant Lyman Wight, and my servant John Snider and my servant Peter Haws,
organize themselves, and appoint one of them to be a president over their
quorum for the purpose [235] of building that house. And they shall form a
constitution whereby they may receive stock for the building of that
house. And they shall not receive less than fifty dollars for a share of
stock in that house, and they shall be permitted to receive fifteen
"thousand dollars from any one man for stock in that house; but they shall
not be permitted to receive over fifteen thousand dollars stock from any
one man; and they shall not be permitted to receive any man as a
stockholder in this house except the same shall pay his stock into their
hands at the time he receives stock."
Also from page 241 of the same book, as follows:
And now verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant
Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks should return upon his business, and to
his agency in the land of Zion; and that which he hath seen and heard may
be made known to my disciples, that they perish not. And for this cause I
have spoken these things. And again I say unto you, that my servant Isaac
Morley may not be tempted above that which he is able to bear, and counsel
wrongfully to your hurt I gave commandment that his farm should be sold."
From page 242 of the same book as follows:
And it is not meet that my servants, Newell K. Whitney and Sidney
Gilbert, should sell their store and their possessions here for this is
not wisdom, until the residue of the Church, which remaineth in this
place, shall go up unto the land of Zion."
Also an extract from a discourse by President Brigham Young delivered
in the Tabernacle in this city, June 16, 1867, in which he used the
following language:
"You may say it is hard that I should dictate you in your temporal
affairs. Is it not my privilege to dictate to you? Is it not my privilege
to give this people counsel to direct them so that their labors will build
up the Kingdom of God instead of the kingdom of the devil? I will [236]
quote you a little scripture if you wish, the words of an apostle of the
Lord Jesus Christ to me. You may think that I saw him in a vision, and it
was a vision given right in broad daylight. Said he: `Never spend another
day to build up a gentile city, but spend your days, dollars and dimes for
the upbuilding of the Zion of God upon the earth, to promote peace and
righteousness and to prepare for the coming of the Son of Man, and he who
does not abide this law will suffer loss.' That is a saying of one of the
apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. He said it to me. Do you want to know,
his name? It is not recorded in the New Testiment among the apostles, but
it was an apostle whom the Lord called and ordained in this, my day, and
in the day of a good portion of this congregation, and his name was Joseph
Smith, Jr. These words were delivered to me in July, 1833, in the town of
Kirtland, Geauga County, in the State of Ohio. The word to the Elders who
were there was: `Never from this time henceforth do you spend one hour to
sustain the kingdoms of this world, or the kingdoms of the devil, but
sustain the Kingdom of God to your uttermost. Now, if I were to ask the
Elders of Israel to abide this, what would be the reply of some amongst
us? The language in the hearts of some would be, `It is none of your
business where I trade.' I will promise those who feel thus that they will
never enter the celestial kingdom of our Father and God. That is my
business. It is my business to preach the truth to the people, and it will
be my business by and by to testify for the just and to bear witness
against the ungodly. It is your privilege to do as you please. Just please
yourselves, but when you do so, will you please bear the results and not
whine over them?"--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 59.
In another discourse made in the Tabernacle in this city, March 9th,
1862, the same distinguished leader used the following language:
"There is not a man upon the earth who could magnify even an earthly
office without the power and wisdom of God to aid him. When Mr. Fillmore
appointed me [237] Governor of Utah, I proclaimed openly that my
Priesthood should govern and control that office. I am of the same mind
today. We have not received our election returns, but should I be elected
Governor of the State of Deseret, that office shall be sustained and
controlled by the power of the eternal Priesthood of the Son of God, or I
will walk the office under my feet. Here it, both Saint and sinner, and
send it to the uttermost parts of the earth, that whatever office I hold
from any government on this earth shall honor the government of heaven, or
I will not hold it."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 42.
Elder George Q. Cannon, in an address in this city on the 1st day of
January, 1865, used the following language:
"When the counsel of God comes through his servants to us, we should
bow to that, no matter how much it may come in contact with our
preconceived ideas; submit to it as though God spoke it, and feel such a
reverance towards it as though we believed that the servant of God had the
inspiration of the Almighty upon him."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p.
77.
In a discourse delivered in this city on the 30th day of August,
1857, Elder John Taylor, afterwards one of the Presidents of the Church,
used the following language:
"God has established His Kingdom. He has rolled back the cloud that
has overspread the moral horizon of the world. He has opened the heavens,
revealed the fulness of the everlasting Gospel, organized this His
Kingdom, according to the pattern that exists in the heavens, and He has
placed certain keys, powers and oracles in our midst, and we are the
people of God; we are His government. The Priesthood upon the earth is the
legitimate government of God, whether in the heavens or on the
earth."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, 187. (sic)
In a discourse by President Heber C. Kimball, de-[238]livered in this
city, Sunday morning, August 30th, 1857, he used the following language:
"I want to tell some of my feelings here today in a few words
relative to Brother Brigham. I call him brother, because he says if I call
him President he shall call me President, and just as sure as he does, I
am flat as a pancake. I shall only call him President before the Saints in
his calling. I was going to say, before our enemies, but damn them, they
shall never come here. Excuse me, I never use rough words only when I come
in contact with rough things, and I use smooth words when I talk upon
smooth subjects, and so on, according to the nature of the case that comes
before me. You all acknowledge Brother Brigham as President of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then you acknowledge him as our
leader, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and then you acknowledge him in
every capacity that pertains to his calling both in Church and State, do
you not? (Voices, Yes.) Well, he is our governor. What is a governor? One
who presides or governs. Well, now, we have declared in a legislative
capacity that we will not have poor, rotten hearted curses to rule over us
such as some they have been accustomed to send. We drafted a memorial and
the council and house of representatives signed it, and we sent to them
the names of men of our own choice, as many as from five to eight men for
each office, men from our own midst, out of whom to appoint officers for
this Territory. We sent that number for the President of the United States
to make a selection from, and asked him to give us men of our own choice
in accordance with the rights constitutionally guaranteed to all American
citizens. We just told them right up and down that if they sent any more
such miserable curses as some they had sent were, we would send them home;
and that is one reason why an army or rather a mob, is on the way here as
reported. You did not know the reason before, did you?
I want you to go and get your butcher knives, your bowie knives and
jack knives, and sharpen them. There is nothing to fight and there will
not be this year. We shall [239] have a year of peace. They may try to
come here, and then they will not come here. If they do not undertake to
come here, then there will not be any trouble; but they never will force a
governor on us again. No, never. Nor their poor, rotten-hearted judges and
marshals, etc., if you will do right."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p.
160.
Elder Wilford Woodruff, now president of the church, on the 8th day
of April, 1862, delivered an address in this city, in which he used the
following language:
"This Kingdom has got to rise up and take its stand in majesty, in
strength and power among the nations, and all that the Lord has promised
will be realized. Our President has frequently told us that we shall not
separate the temporal from the spiritual, but they must go hand in hand
together. And so it is, and so must we act in reference to building up the
Church and Kingdom of God."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 325.
On the 22nd day of October, 1865, President Woodruff delivered an
address in the Tabernacle in this city, in which he used the following
language:
"The Lord has said that in the last days the kingdom should not be
taken from the earth nor given to another people, but that the kingdoms of
this world should become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. We have
the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other
revelations of God to this effect. Either this is the Kingdom of God or it
is not the Kingdom of God. If it is not the Kingdom of God, then are we
like the rest of mankind. Our faith is vain, our works are vain, and we
are in the same condition of ignorance with regard to the Gospel and the
purposes of God as the rest of the world. There are tens of thousands
throughout these valleys who know that this is the Kingdom of God. They
know this by the revelations of Jesus Christ. It is not the testimony of
another man that gives me the knowledge for myself. If I had not the
testimony of truth for myself, I would not be [240] qualified to build up
this kingdom. There is no man or woman qualified to build up the kingdom
of God if they have not the testimony of truth for themselves. I will say
to this congregation, Jew and Gentile, believer and unbeliever, that this
is the great kingdom spoken of by Daniel, the commencement of the Zion of
our God, which every prophet has spoken of who has referred to the Zion of
the last days. The Lord has sworn by Himself, because he could swear by
none greater, that He will establish it in the latter days."--Journal of
Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 245.
Evidence was also introduced showing that the Bishops courts of the
Church exercise judicial functions to the extent of rendering judgments
and annuling or modifying judgments rendered by the civil courts. It is
contended, however, that they have no power of enforcing their judgments
except by excommunication or other like means. This is perhaps true, but
with a people so completely under the control of their leaders as the
members of this Church are, this method is in many, if not in most cases,
as effectual as an execution or other process of the civil courts. The
following are samples of the procedure in the Bishops' courts:
"Salt Lake City, Utah, November 20th, 1889. "Brother Otto Van Ostrum:
"You are hereby notified to attend a Bishop's court to be held in the
Sixteenth Ward School House, Salt Lake City, on Friday evening, November
22nd, 1889, at 7 o'clock, to answer the following charge, which has been
preferred against you:
"SALT LAKE CITY, Oct. 30, 1889. "To Bishop F. Kessier:
"Dear Brother--I hereby prefer a charge against Otto Van Ostrum, a
member of the Sixteenth Ward, for unchristianlike conduct, in enforcing a
contract to exchange property between us through the United States
commissioner's court, before my wife had agreed to the transaction, and
before I fully understood the nature of the [241] contract, through my
limited knowledge of the English language. And also for my being about to
sell a portion of my property by marshal's sale to satisfy damages which
he has never sustained, as neither him nor I were in the least injured by
the failure of the exchange. The time of the sale having been advertized
for November 16th, I would respectfully ask that a hearing may be had
before you in this case as early as possible. (Signed) "G. L. JENSEN."
"Do not fail to appear with your testimony prepared for investigation
of the above charge.
"By order of Bishop F. Kessler and council.
"GEORGE R. EMERY, Ward Clerk.
"N. B. --If you do not appear or send a justifiable excuse for your
absence, this case will be heard and acted upon whether you are present or
not. "G.R.E."
SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 24, 1887.
"We, the bishop and council of the Fourth Ward, after due
deliberation render the following judgment in the case of Joseph Sowdan
vs. Charles Williams. The interest now due, amounting to $178, is to be
paid on the 15th day of April, 1887; $100 of the principal and $12.50
(interest on $350 for six months at 10 per cent per annum) to be paid on
the 24th day of July, 1887, the remaining $450 principal and $22.50
(interest on $450 for six months at 10 per cent per annum) to be paid on
the 24th day of January, 1888.
"Harrison Sperry, Bishop; Thos. Cerless and Charles Knight,
Counselors; W.F. Smith, Clerk."
I think there can be no question but that the Church claims and
exercises the right to control its members in temporal as well as
spiritual affairs.
The evidence also shows that blood atonement is one of the doctrines
of the Church under which, for certain offenses, the offender shall suffer
death as the only means of atoning for his transgressions, and that any
member of the Church has the right to shed his blood.
In a discourse delivered September 21st, 1856, Brig-[242]ham Young
said:
"There are sins which men commit for which they cannot receive
forgiveness in this world or in that which is to come; and if they had
their eyes open to their true condition they would be perfectly willing to
have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might
ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; where as, if such is not
the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit
world. I know when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off
from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save
them, not to destroy them. It is true the blood of the Son of God was shed
for sins through the fall, and those committed by men, yet man can commit
sins which it never can remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our
day, and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still
the people do not understand them. Yet the law is precisely the same.
There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in
ancient days and there are sins that the blood of a lamb or of a calf or
of turtle doves cannot remit; but they must be atoned for by the blood of
the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this
stand. They understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it.
You have been taught that doctrine, but you did not understand it."
And again, on the 8th day of February 1857, in a discourse in the
Tabernacle, President Young used the following language (see DESERET NEWS,
Vol. 6, p. 397):
"But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin
no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven
them without taking of life. You are aware that when Brother Cummings came
to the point of loving our neighbors, he could say yes or no, as the case
might be. That is true; but I want to connect it with the doctrine you
hear in the Bible. When will we love our neighbors as ourselves? In the
first place, [243] Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is
admitted by all, every person loves himself. Now, if we do rightly love
ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist; we want to go into
the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity and see no more sorrow, or death.
This is the desire of every person who believes in God. Now, take a person
in this congregation who has knowledge with being saved in the Kingdom of
our God and our Father, and being an exalted one, who knows and
understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and
excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain, foolish
things of the world, and suppose he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he
has committed a sin which he knows will deprive him of that exaltation
which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of
his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for
that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods. Is there a man or woman
in this house but what would say, `Shed my blood, that I may be saved and
exalted with the gods?' All mankind love themselves, and let these
principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his
blood shed. That would be loving themselves even unto an eternal
exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they
have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of
their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their
blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to
love their enemies in their wickedness. He never intended any such thing.
I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously
slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of
people for whom there would have been a chance in the first resurrection,
if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled upon the ground as a
smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil,
until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up, conquers death, hell
and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left the Church for
whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had
been spilled it would have been better [244] for them. The wickedness and
ignorance of the nations forbids this principle being in full force, but
the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This is
loving our neighbors as ourselves. If he needs help, help him; and if he
needs salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood upon the ground in
order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the
principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of
blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until
your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you
desire. That is the way to love mankind."
President Jedediah M. Grant delivered a discourse March 12th, 1854,
on the subject of what he calls "covenant breakers," that is, those who
leave the Mormon Church, in which he used the following language:
"Then what ought this meek people, who keep the commandments of God,
to do unto them? `Nay,' says one, `they ought to pray to the Lord to kill
them.' I want to know if you wish the Lord to come down and do all your
dirty work. Many of the Latter-day Saints will pray and petition and
supplicate the Lord to do a thousand things they themselves would be
ashamed to do. When a man prays for a thing he ought to be willing to
perform it himself; but if the Latter-day Saints should put to death the
covenant breakers, it would try the faith of the very meek, just and pious
ones among them. It would cause a great deal of whining in Israel. Then
there was another old commandment. The Lord God commanded them not to pity
the person whom they killed, but to execute the law of God upon persons
worthy of death. This should be done by the entire congregation, showing
no pity. I have thought there would have to be quite a revolution among
the Mormons before such a commandment could be obeyed completely by them.
The Mormons have a great deal of sympathy. For instance if they can get a
man before a tribunal administering the law of the land, and succeed in
getting a rope around his neck and having him hung up like a dead dog, it
is alright; but if the [245] Church and Kingdom of God should step forth
and execute the law of God, Oh, what a burst of Mormon sympathy it would
cause. I wish we were in a situation favorable to our doing that which is
justifiable before God without any contaminating influence of Gentile
amalgamation, laws and traditions, that the people of God might lay the
axe to the rest of the tree, and every tree that bringeth not forth good
fruit might be hewn down. What! Do you believe that people would do right
and keep the law of God by actually putting to death the transgressors?
Putting to death the covenant breakers would exhibit the law of God, no
matter by whom it was done. That is my opinion. You talk of the doings of
different governments, the United States if you please. What do they do
with traitors? What mode do they adopt to punish traitors? Do traitors to
that Government forfeit their lives? Examine also the doings of other
earthly governments on this point, and you will find the same practice
universal. I am not aware that there are any exceptions, but people will
look in the books of theology and argue that the people of God have a
right to try people for fellowship, but they have no right to try them on
property or life. That makes the devil laugh, saying, "I have got them on
a hook now. They can cut them off, and I will put eight or ten spirits
worse than they are into their tabernacles, and send them back to mob
them." (Deseret News, July 27th, 1854.)
Referring to the right of the Church to shed the blood of those who
apostatize, Brigham Young, in an address delivered in the Tabernacle March
27th, 1853, and found in Vol. 1, Journal of Discourses, page 81, used the
following language:
"I will tell you a dream that I had last night. I dreamed that I was
in the midst of a people who were dressed in rags and tatters. They had
turbans upon their heads, and they were also hanging in tatters. The rags
were of many colors, and when the people moved they were all in motion.
Their object appeared to be to attract attention. Said they to me, `We are
Mormons, Brother Brigham.' `No, you are not,' I replied. `But [246] we
have been,' said they; and they began to jump and caper about and dance,
and their rags of many colors were all in motion, to attract the attention
of the people. I said, `You are no Saints, you are a disgrace to them.'
Said they, `We have been Mormons.' By and by along came some mobocrats,
and they greeted them with `How do you do, sir? I am very happy to see
you.' They kept on that way for an hour. I felt ashamed of them, for they
were, in my eyes, a disgrace to "Mormonism." Then I saw two ruffians, whom
I knew to be mobbers and murderers; and they crept into a bed where one of
my wives and children were. I said: `You that call yourselves brethren,
tell me, is this the fashion among you? They said, `But they were good
men. They are gentlemen.' With that I took my large bowie knife, that I
used to wear as a bosom pin at Nauvoo, and cut one of their throats from
ear, to ear, saying, `Go to hell across lots.' The other one said, `You
dare not serve me so.' I instantly sprang at him, seized him by the hair
of the head, and, bringing him down, cut his throat and sent him after his
comrade. Then told them both if they would behave themselves they should
yet live, but if they did not, I would unjoint their necks. At this I
awoke. I say rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will
unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die. (Great commotion in the
congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling assenting to the
declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put
to the line and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices generally, `Go it,
go it.') If you say it is right raise your hands. (All hands up.) Let us
call upon the Lord to assist us in this and every good work."
An effort was made to show that the blood atonement, as preached by
Brigham Young, and Jedediah Grant is not now the doctrine of the Church,
and a pamphlet containing an address on this subject by Elder Charles W.
Penrose in October, 1884, was offered in evidence, but in this pamphlet
Mr. Penrose sustains the doctrine of blood atonement as preached by
Brigham Young and President Grant. On page 13 of the pamphlet, containing
the ad-[247]dress of Mr. Penrose, referring to the blood atonement, he
uses the following language:
"Now, according to the doctrine of President Brigham Young, the blood
of Jesus Christ as I have shown you, atoned for the original sin, and for
sins that men commit and yet there are sins which men commit for which
they cannot receive any benefit through the shedding of Christ's blood. Is
that a true doctrine? It is true, if the Bible is true. That is Bible
doctrine."
Again on page 36 he says:
"Now, Brothers Jedidiah M. Grant and Brigham Young, because of the
transgression of the people, spoke as I have quoted. This was the time of
the reformation, and the fears of evildoers were worked upon to induce
reform, and hence the strong language used at that time. Do we need the
same language now? I hope not; but if there was any need for it, it would
be just as applicable now as then."
And again, on page 43 he uses the following language:
"These are some of the ideas entertained by the Latter-day Saints on
the subject of blood atonement. After baptized persons have made sacred
covenants with God and then commit deadly sins, the only atonement they
can make is the shedding of their blood. At the same time, because of the
laws of the land and the prejudice of the nation, and the ignorance of the
world, this law cannot be carried out, and when the time comes that the
law of God shall be in full force upon the earth, then this penalty will
be inflicted for these crimes committed by persons under covenant not to
commit them."
As to the feelings of the members of the Mormon Church toward the
government of the United States, the evidence discloses a condition of
things greatly to be deplored. Brigham Young was the first governor of the
Territory, and for years resisted all attempt of the auth-[248]orities to
instal (sic) the proper officers for carrying on of the Territorial
government, unless men of his own selection should be appointed. He
claimed the right to say who the officers of the Territory should be, and
the President of the United States finally found it necessary to send an
army to Utah. Referring to the sending of troops here, Brigham Young, in a
speech in this city on Sunday, April 13th, 1857, said:
"I do not often get angry, but when I do I am righteously angry, and
the bosom of the Almighty burns with anger towards those scoundrels, and
they shall be consumed in the name of Israel's God. We have borne enough
of their oppression and hellish abuse, and we will not bear anymore of it
for there is no just law requiring further forbearance on our part, and I
am not going to have troops here to protect the priests and hellish rabble
in efforts to drive us from the land we possess, for the Lord does not
want us to be driven, and has said `If you will assert your rights and
keep my commandments you shall never again be brought into bondage by your
enemies. If you do your duty in this respect you need not be afraid of
mobs nor of force sent out in violation of the very genius of our free
institutions, holding you till mobs kill you. Mobs? Yes, for where is
there the least particle of authority, either in our constitution or laws,
for sending troops here, or even for appointing civil officers contrary to
the voluntary consent of the governed. We came here without any help from
our enemies, and we intend to stay as long as we please. They say that
their army is legal, and I say that such a statement is as false as hell,
and that they are as rotten as a pumpkin that has been frozen seven times
and then melted in a harvest sun. Come on with your thousands of illegally
ordered troops, and I will promise you in the name of Israel's God that
you shall melt away as the snow before a July sun. We are not to be
persecuted as we have been. We can say, `Come as a mob and we will sweeten
you up right suddenly.' They never did anything against Joseph until they
had ostensibly legalized a mob, and I shall treat their army and every
armed [249] company that attempts to come here, as a mob. (The
congregation responded `Amen.') You might as well tell me that you can
make hell into a powder house, as to tell me that you could let an army in
here and have peace. I intend to tell them and show them this, if they
don't keep away. By taking this course, you will find that every man and
woman feels happy, and they say, `Allright, all is well' and I say that
our enemies shall not slip the bow, on Old Bright's neck again."
Referring to the same subject, President Heber C. Kimball, in August,
1857, delivered a discourse in this city, found in volume 5, page 133, of
the Journal of Discourses, in which he used the following language:
"Will the president in the chair of state be tipped from his seat?
Yes, he will die an untimely death, and God Almighty will curse him, and
He will also curse his successor if he takes the same stand, and He will
curse all those who are his coadjutors, and all who sustain him. What for?
For coming here to destroy the Kingdom of God and the Prophets and
Apostles and inspired men and women, and God Almighty will curse them, and
I curse them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ according to my calling;
and if there is any virtue in my calling, they shall be cursed, every man
that lifts his heel against us from this day forth."
Elder Orson Hyde, in a discourse delivered in this city, and found in
the DESERET NEWS, volume 7, page 275, used the following language:
"The last eastern mail, I think, brought me a pamphlet or tract
written by Elder Orson Pratt at Liverpool, England--subject, `Gathering of
the Saints and building up the Kingdom of God.' The whole matter is
handled in a masterly way, free from blind obscurity, unchecked and
unrestrained by fear, and untrammeled by the religions or political dogmas
of the age. It is the product of a clear head, of a strong heart, and of
an unflinching hand. In short, it is heaven's eternal truth. I do
exceedingly [250] regret having mislaid it, for I would like to send it to
Senator Douglas, with a request that he read it faithfully before he
applies the knife to `cut out the loathsome ulcer.' Having read it, then
if he shall be disposed and able to cut, cut away, and carve up to suit
his own peculiar appetite and that also of his friends. Will some person
having said tract or pamphlet be kind enough to mail it to Hon. Stephen A.
Douglas, Washington D.C.? But let all men, however, know that if what the
honorable gentleman calls the loathsome ulcer be cut out, according to his
views and suggestions, the United States will be cut off from being a
nation. And her star of empire set, and set in blood."
In September, 1857, Brigham Young, in an address delivered in this
city, and found in volume 5, Journal of Discourses, used the following
language:
"There cannot be a more damnable, dastardly order than was issued by
the administration to this people while they were in an Indian country in
1846. Before we left Nauvoo, no less than two United States senators came
to receive a pledge from us that we would leave the United States, and
then, while we were doing our best to leave their borders, the poor, low,
degraded curses sent a requisition for five hundred of our men to go and
fight their battles. That was President Polk, and he is now weltering in
hell, with old Zachariah Taylor, where the present administrators will
soon be if they do not repent. * * * Liars have reported that this people
have committed treason, and upon their lies the President has ordered
troops to aid in officering this Territory, and if those officers are like
many who have previously been sent here, and we have reason to believe
that they are, or they would not come when they know they are not wanted,
they are poor, miserable blacklegs, broken down political hacks, robbers,
and whoremongers, men that are not fit for civilized society, so they
dragoon them upon us for officers. I feel that I won't bear such cursed
treatment, and that is enough to say, for we are just as free as the
mountain air. * * * There is high treason [251] in Washington, and if the
law was carried out, it would hang up many of them, and the very act of
James K. Polk in having five hundred of our men, while we were making our
way out of the country, under an agreement forced upon us, would have hung
him between the heavens and the earth if the law's had been faithfully
carried out. And now, if they can send a force against this people, we
have every constitutional and legal right to send them to hell, and we
calculate to send them there. Our enemies had better count the cost, for
if they continue the job they will want to let it out to sub-contractors
before they get half through with it. If they persist in sending troops
here, I want the people in the west and in the east to understand that it
will not be safe for them to cross the plains."
Whether such language as the above instigated the Mountain Meadow
massacre, or whether that horrible burchery was done by direct command of
Brigham Young, will probably never be known; but it is a part of the
history of this Territory that about this time a party of peaceful
emigrants, who were passing through Utah, on their way to California,
consisting of about 130 men, woman and children, were mercilessly
butchered by men under the command of John D. Lee and Captain Dame, both
Mormons of high standing.
On the 4th day of April 1859, Judge Cradlebaugh caused the following
order to be entered in the records of his court, to wit:
"This court has sought diligently and faithfully to do its duty, to
administer the laws of the United States and of this Territory. It could
have no other object. But at every turn it has had to encounter
difficulties and embarrassments. Men high in authority in the Mormon
Church, as well as men holding civil authority under the Territorial
government seem to have conspired to obstruct the course of public justice
and to criple the earnest efforts of this court. The whole community
presents a united and organized opposition to the proper administration of
justice, every art and every expedient have [252] been employed to cover
up and conceal crimes committed by Mormons. Witnesses have been prevented
by threats and violence from obeying the summons of this court. Others
that have testified have been driven to seek safety in the protection of
United States troops stationed near here--who it is proper to say are here
on the requisition of the court, and for whose presence the court is
responsible.--The absolute necessity of having these troops here have been
fully demonstrated by all that has transpired during the session of the
court. To crown all, the grand jury, sworn to perform a high public duty,
has lent itself as a willing instrument to this organized opposition to
the law's of the country and refused to meet its obligations. A most
willing inclination has been manifested to prosecute Indians and other
persons non Mormons, for their offenses, while Mormon murderers and
thieves are allowed to go unpunished. This court has determined, as its
action manifests, that it will not be used by this community for its
protection alone, but that it will do justice to all, or it will do
nothing. Not being able to do this, the court now adjourns without delay.
(Signed.)
"Jno. CRADLEBAUGH
Judge, 2nd Judicial Dist.,"
Counsel for applicants, however, contended that the feelings of the
people of the Mormon Church towards the government have undergone a
change, and that in later years the former feeling of hostility has
disappeared, or become greatly modified. The evidence, however, does not
sustain this claim. In January, 1887, (sic) at the dedication of the St.
George Temple, Wilford Woodruff, who is now President of the Church,
prayed for the destruction of the government in the following language, to
wit:
"Therefore, O Lord our God, we pray that Thou wilt give Thy people
faith that we may claim this blessing of Thee, the Lord of Hosts; Thou
wilt lay Thy hand upon Thy servant Brigham unto the renewal of his body,
and the healing of all his infirmities, and the lengthening out of his
days and years. Yea, O Lord, may he live to [253] behold the inhabitants
of Zion united and enter into the holy order of God, and keep the
celestial law, that they may be justified before Thee. May he live to
behold Zion redeemed and successfully fight the devils, visible and
invisible, that make war upon the saints. May he live to behold other
Temples built and dedicated unto Thy name and accepted of Thee, O Lord our
God. And we pray Thee, our Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ,
if it can be consistent with Thy will that Thy servant Brigham may stand
in the flesh to behold the nation which now occupies the land upon which
Thou, Lord, has said the Zion of God should stand in the latter days; that
nation which shed the blood of the Prophets and Saints, which cries unto
God day and night for vengeance; the nation which is making war against
God and His Christ; that nation whose sins and wickedness and abominations
are ascending up before God and the heavenly hosts, which causeth all
eternity to be pained and the heavens to weep like the falling rain. Yea,
O Lord, that he may live to see that nation, if it will not repent, broken
in pieces like a potter's vessel and swept from off the earth, as with the
besom of destruction, as were the Jaredites and the Nephites; that the
land of Zion may cease to groan under the wickedness and abominations of
men."
In May, 1879, one Miles was on trial in this court for polygamy.
Daniel H. Wells, one of the Presidents of the Church, was duly called as a
witness, and on refusing to answer a question propounded to him concerning
the records of marriage in the Endowment house, was committed to prison
for contempt of court. On being released, a procession, variously
estimated by the witnesses at from two thousand to ten thousand Mormon
people, headed by the city council and fire deaprtment, escorted him from
the prison through the streets of the city to the Tabernacle, where a
meeting of eight thousand or ten thousand people were held, and speeches
were made endorsing his conduct. As the procession moved up Main Street,
the American flag was dragged in the dust, and a large banner was carried
by little girls on which [254] were inscribed the words "We will uphold
polygamy." As the procession passed the building where the district court
was being held, the people gave vent to the feelings by hooting and
jeering and hissing. At the meeting in the Tabernacle, banners were
numerous, on which were inscribed such sentiments as the following:
"The nineteenth century is too late for religious pains and penalties
to be imposed in the name of the law." "Prisons are made for thieves,
vagabonds and law-breakers, and not for honorable men. When used for such
purposes we honor the prisoner more than the persecutor." "Honor to the
man who prefers fealty to his friends, his religion, his country and his
God to obediance to the unjust fiat of a jaundiced judiciary." "When
Freemasons, Odd Fellows and others are compelled to make their secrets
public, it will be time enough to practice on `Mormons.' "Better the
penitentiary for faithfulness in this world than the `prison house for
perjury in the next." "It would accord more with the dignity of the
judiciary in fining an honorable gentleman for contempt, to find a more
powerful reason than the cut and color of an apron for its action." "The
women of Utah uphold polygamy."
On the 4th day of July, 1885, the flags were displayed at half mast
by the Mormons in this city at the city hall, at the county court house,
at the office of the Deseret New, at the Gardo House, at the Mormon
Co-operative store building, and other places. Counsel for applicants
claim that this demonstration was not intended to be an insult to the
government nor its flag, but as a sign of mourning, because of the unjust
laws against polygamy, and the acts of the officers of the government in
enforcing them. But the evidence fails to show that crape or any other
emblem of sorrow was displayed in any manner, and there can be no question
but that the half masting of the flags was intended to be, as it was
understood by those who witnessed it, an insult to the national authority.
The evidence shows that the Church has, in the most [255] determined
manner, and with all the means at its command, opposed the enforcement of
the law's of the United States against polygamy and unlawful cohabitation,
while polygamy has been constantly preached as a cardinal doctrine of the
Church. A fund has been raised in this Territory to aid in the defense of
all who may be prosecuted for violation of these laws, not only in Utah,
but in Arizona and Idaho Territories. In May 1885, John Taylor and George
Q. Cannon of the First Presidency of the Church, both of whom were then
under indictment for unlawful cohabitation, and were hiding from the
officers to avoid arrest, issued a circular to be read in all the
churches, calling for contributions to this fund. When men have been
convicted for violating these laws, and the court has offered to suspend
sentance or inflict a light penalty if the offenders would promise to obey
the laws in the future, they have almost invariably refused to make any
promise whatever. It has been a common custom among the Mormon people,
ever since the enforcement of these laws began, when one of their number
has been convicted and sentanced to imprisonment for violating the law, to
give him a reception on his return home, and honor him in every way
possible, while those who have promised obedience to the law's have been
ostracised, and held up to the public execration and scorn. To suffer fine
and imprisonment for violating the law, or for "living his religion," as
they usually term it, is deemed by them as worthy of all praise, and will,
as their leaders teach, result in the exaltation in the life to come of
him who thus proves the sincerity of his faith. As showing the manner in
which the violators of the law are honored, I quote from the DESERET NEWS
of date January 16th, 1889, which introduced in evidence, as follows:
"A CORDIAL RECEPTION."
"William Chatwin writes as follows from Santaquin, January 14th,
1889. `Will you please insert in the NEWS an account of the following
heart-melting scene that was transacted at the Santaquin depot on Sunday
morning last, the 13th inst. The residents of Santaquin had been informed
that their Bishop, George Halliday, would return [256] home from the
penitentiary, as one who had endured imprisonment for conscience sake, by
the morning's Utah Central train. The Sunday school children and teachers
were prompted by a feeling of love and respect to go down to the depot in
procession to welcome him home, singing songs of welcome, and bearing a
banner with the following inscription: `Bishop George Halliday, we truly
welcome you home.' But the weather being too unfavorable for such a
project, the teachers and larger scholars could only go, though the
smaller ones were with great difficulty restrained from following after,
notwithstanding the snowy condition of the morning. In arriving at the
depot all were moved to tears of joy. Since his arrival home the members
of the ward have decided to give him a reception party, but to accommodate
all it was found necessary to divide the town and take one half at a time.
May all honorable convicts for the truth's sake be so worthily treated.
As illustrating the pressure brought to bear by the Mormon leaders to
prevent their members when convicted of violating the law from promising
obedience, I quote two editorials offered in evidence from the DESERET
NEWS, the Church organ, of date September 29th, 1885, one in regard to a
member who had refused to make such promise:
"IMPRISONMENT AND HONOR."
"The position taken by Bishop H.B. Clawson this morning will be
endorsed by every true Latter-day Saint. He could assume no other and be
true in his religion, his family, and his own manhood. The dilema in which
he was placed was tersely defined by himself. He was left to elect between
imprisonment and honor, and liberty and dishonor. To his honor be it said
in time and eternity that he chose the former. No man under similar
circumstances can consistently take any other course. The reasons for
adopting the stand he took were clearly though briefly given by the
accused. They might, however, be elaborated indefinitely. There is one
principal involved that makes the attitude, from the stand-[257]point of
the Latter-day Saints, infallible, Celestial marriage, including plurality
of wives, has been accepted by them as a divine revelation. Those who
enter into the covenant it involves, take that step with this
understanding, and that God is recognized in the formations of the
contract. This being the status of the member, to presume that any persons
who have entered into the relationship can consistently take part in a
divorce contract with any other and necessarily lower power to render it
nugatory for any portion of time is absurd. The agreement is for time and
eternity, and it is therefore continuously in force, unless broken by one
or the other of the parties. Yet such is the position in which the courts
place the Latter-day Saints in the present prosecutions. They demand that
a covenant of renunciation be entered into with them. This is speaking
from the standpoint of the Saints, opposed to an infallible principle
recognized of jurisprudence, that no agreement entered into under
direction supervision of a higher tribunal can be disturbed or nulified by
one of a lower order. If this be the case in ordinary legal affairs, how
much more force is given to it when applied to matters which God himself
has instituted for the benefit of those of His children who seek to obey
His laws. One point advanced by Bishop Clawson was evidently cruelly taken
advantage of by the court, who dwelt upon it as if animated by a desire to
make it appear the main basis for his position. The religious and
conscientious principles involved were what influenced the conduct of the
defendant. The sentiment of the community being against him had he
recanted, would not have influenced him one way or the other. Recantation
was opposed to his principles and convictions, and would have blasted his
hopes for eternal salvation. These considerations, founded the basis of
his attitude in accepting imprisonment and honor in place of liberty and
dishonor. Yet the sentiment of the community in which a man lives is
entitled to respect when it is correct. The court, however, caught at this
straw, in order to accuse Mr. Clawson of cowardice, when that gentleman
was exhibiting an act of the truest heroism. Perhaps we may here suggest
that when a judge or any other person, [258] official or other wise, takes
advantage of his position to inflict an insult upon a person in his power,
he cannot be classed among those who possess courage of the highest order,
which is inseparably connected with magnanimity. But the gratuitous
insults of his honor were not confined to his immediate victims. They were
distributed among and poured upon the heads of innocent women and children
who were not before him. Before the learned judge can consistently talk of
cowardice, let him take some lessons in courage and temperance, under
ordeals from some of the Mormons who are brought into his court. This
morning he was confronted by a courageous man, who dared, in the face of
threatened fine and imprisonment, decline to recant his religious
principles, and discard his family, while he snatched at the opportunity
to inflict upon them a gross and unwarrantable insult. Bishop Clawson has
gone to prison, but he has been rendered a prisoner merely by prohibition,
the offense for which he was punished being in no sense malum in se. He
goes with the best wishes of a host of friends, including the whole of his
co-religionists. It is with sadness that one turns from the noble and
manly picture presented by the conduct of Brother Clawson to its reverse,
as exhibited in the craven course of T.O. Angel, Jr. It is a
transformation from sunshine to gloom, from the heroic to the
contemptible. Had the gentleman climbed to any heights in the walks of
religion and other departments of life, he might have been designated a
fallen angel. As it is, he probably but carries out the highest ideas he
has of greatness, and may not be open to censure as severe as would be the
just due of minds of greater advancement. It does not appear that Mr.
Angel can possess anything like a correct conception of the grandeur of
being consistent. Let him pass."
"LIBERTY AND DISHONOR."
"This afternoon Mr. Septimus W. Sears, as will be seen by a statement
elsewhere went before the court with the same alternative as Bishop
Clawson. He chose liberty and dishonor. There is but little need for
comment on the case. Let the reader pursue what we have [259] said in
relation to Mr. Clawson, and he has but to imagine its opposite in order
to understand our estimate of the position." (DESERET NEWS, September
28th, 1885.)
As further showing how the Mormon Church honors those who violate the
laws of the United States, it is only necessary to look at the cases of
some of its leaders. John Taylor, lately one of the presidents of the
Church, was indicted for unlawful cohabitation, and died while in hiding
to avoid arrets, still retaining his position as president.
George Q. Cannon, who is now one of the presidents of the Church, was
indicted for the same offence, and was convicted and served a term in the
penitentiary. Apostle John Henry Smith, a witness in this case, testified
that he is a polygamist, and that he married his plural wife since the law
of 1862 was passed prohibiting polygamy. Chas. W. Penrose, who was a
witness in this case, and who was indicted for unlawful cohabitation, and
was pardoned by the president of the United States, is today the Editor of
the newspaper organ of the Church. Joseph F. Smith, who is also one of the
presidents of the Church, is and has been for several years, under
indictment for unlawful cohabitation, and had been hiding from the
officers in order to avoid arrest.
It is claimed by counsel for applicants, and some evidence was
introduced tending to show that in the Doctrine and Covenants and other
Church publications, obedience to the laws of the land is taught, and also
that the Constitution of the United States in an inspired instrument; but
the evidence discloses that the reason the Constitution of the United
States is considered an inspired instrument is that it is construed by
Mormons to prohibit the passing of any law against polygamy, and all such
laws are considered by them as in violation of the Constitution. As to
their teaching obedience to laws of the land, it is only taught in general
terms. During the ten days this investigation lasted, not a word of
evidence was introduced or offered showing that any preacher or teacher of
the Church ever, in a single instance, advised obedience to the laws
against polygamy. On the contrary, the evidence [260] in this case, and
the whole history of the Mormon Church in Utah show that it has
persistently refused obedience to at least a portion of the laws of the
government, has insulted and driven United States officers from the
Territory, has denied the authority of the United States to pass law's
prohibiting polygamy as unwarranted interference with their religion, and
generally has antagonized and denounced the government in almost every
possible way. Undoubtedly there are many members of this Church who feel
friendly to the government, and would gladly break the shackles that bind
them to the Mormon priesthood if they felt that they dared do so; but with
an organization, the most thorough that can be imagined, which can be
wielded against them, they remain in the Church rather than take the risk
of financial ruin and social ostracism.
The Mormon Church teaches, First: That it is the actual and veritable
kingdom of God on earth, not in its fulness, because Christ has not yet
come to rule in person, but for the present he rules through the
priesthood of the Church, who are his vice-gerents on earth.
Second: That this kingdom is both a temporal and spiritual kingdom,
and should rightfully control and is entitled to the highest allegiance of
men in all their affairs.
Third: That this kingdom will overthrow the United States and all
other governments, after which Christ will reign in person.
Fourth: That the doctrine of "blood atonement" is of God, and that
under it certain sins which the blood of Christ cannot atone for, may be
remitted by shedding the blood of the transgressor.
Fifth: That polygamy is a command of God which if a member obeys he
will be exalted in the future life above those who do not.
Sixth: That the Congress of the United States has no right under the
Constitution to pass any law in any manner interfering with the practices
of the Mormon religion, and that the acts of Congress against polygamy,
and disfranchising those who practice it, are unwarranted interference
with their religion.
[261] Can men be made true and loyal citizens by such teachings, or are
they likely to remain surrounded by such influences? Will men become
attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States when
they hear the government constantly denounced as tyranical and oppressive?
It would be as unreasonable to expect such a result as it would be to
expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles.
It has always been and still is the policy of this government to
encourage aliens who in good faith come to reside in this country, to
become citizens, but when a man of foreign birth comes here and joins an
organization, although professedly religious, which requires of him an
allegiance paramount to his allegiance to the government, an organization
that impiously and blasphemously claims to be the kingdom of God, to
control its members under his immediate direction, and yet teaches and
practices a system of morals shocking to Christian people everywhere, and
under which the marriage of a man to two or more sisters, or to a mother
and daughter is sanctioned, an organization that sanctions blood atonement
as a means of grace, and murder as a penalty for revealing the secrets of
its ceremonies, and which for nearly half a century has refused to
acknowledge the supremacy of the United States or render obedience to its
laws, it is time for the courts to pause and inquire whether such an
applicant should be admitted to citizenship.
The evidence in this case establishes unquestionably that the
teachings, practices and aims of the Mormon church are antagonistic to the
government of the United States, utterly subversive of good morals and the
well being of society, and that its members are animated by a feeling of
hostility towards the government and its laws, and therefore an alien who
is a member of said church is not a fit person to be made a citizen of the
United States.
The applications of Fred W. Miller, Henry J. Owen John Berg, Charles
E. Clissold, Nils Anderson, Cari P. Larsen, Thomas M. Mumford, John
Garbett and Arthur Townsend, to become citizens are therefore denied.
(Signed.)
THOMAS J. ANDERSON,
Associate Justice Supreme Court, and Acting Judge
[262] Third Judicial District. (Deseret Evening News)
Saturday 30 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
At the risk of being considered "treasonable," in having the
termerity to differ in opinion with a Federal offical, we will briefly
review some points in this peculiar judicial decision. Treason is clearly
defined in the Constitution of the United States, and dissent from
official views is not included in the definition. Yet men here who claim
to represent the Government, or who have at any time represented it
officially, seem to take the ground that anything uttered by a "Mormon" in
criticism of the "servants of the people," is treasonable in its character
and seditious in its spirit. All the "treason" that either Judge Anderson
or the attorneys whose reasonings he appears to have adopted can charge
against the "Mormon" Church, consists simply in the denounciation of the
conduct of individuals charged with official duties under the Government.
This is not in any sense "treasonable" unless the term has acquired a new
signification.
Judge Anderson falls into several errors in his review of the
testimony. He says that among the eleven witnesses for the objectors
"several had held the position of Bishop in the Church." This was true of
only one of these witnesses. In speaking of the garment worn by persons
who have received the endowment, he wrongly describes it and also states
that "near the throat, and over the heart, and in the region of the
abdomen are certain marks or designs intended to remind the wearer of the
penalties that will be inflicted, etc." No such evidence was given, and it
is not true. The marks are not as the Judge states, nor are those signs
which exist made for any such object. Everybody who knows anything about
the matter will recognize the error and so will any Mason who has seen the
marks.
The Judge says in regard to the testimony of the witnesses for the
applicant, that their refusal to state specifically what oaths,
obligations or covenants are taken or entered into in these ceremonies
renders the testimony of but little value, and tends to confirm rather
than contradict the evidence on this point offered by the objectors. [263]
Is this fair and conformable to the rules relating to evidence? We think
not. The Judge in the opening of the investigation declared emphatically
that it should go no farther than to determine whether there was anything
in the endowment in the nature of an oath against the Government of the
United States. (How well he kept his promise the report of the proceedings
shows.) These witnesses swore there was not and that there was no mention
of or allusion to the Government of the United States. In this they were
corroborated by all the reputable witnesses for the objectors. There was
positively no proof offered to the contrary. The evident fabricators of
too willing supporters of the objecting attorneys, or inferences draws
from half forgotten reminisances, were entirely swamped by the positive
testimony on both sides that no such obligation was taken. As to an oath,
it was shown that no oath of any kind is administered in these ceremonies.
Now, then, suppose a case: If a Mason were placed on the stand and
asked, "Is there anything in the Masonic rites which is hostile to the
Government of the United States?", He would answer in the negative. If
then questioned in regard to obligations which he had agreed to keep
secret, he would reply, "I decline to answer." And if he were true to his
agreements he would suffer imprisonment, and even greater penalties,
rather than reveal his secret covenants. The "Mormon" witnesses were on
similar ground. Would it then be fair to infer, because a Mason would
refuse to "state specifically what oaths, obligations or covenants were
taken" in Masonic ceremonies, that his objection would tend to confirm any
vicious accusation that might be made against him?
The Judge says: "The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable
doubt" that the endowment ceremonies "are incompatible with the
obligations and duties of citizens of the United States. We say the
evidence establishes nothing of the kind nor even any approach to it. The
Judge has not cited any evidence which goes to establish that conclusion.
The preponderance of evidence actually establishes the contrary. The
witnesses for the objectors mainly corroborated the testimony for the
applicants on [264] this pivotal point. And as a matter of fact, we know
and every man and woman who has received the endowment knows that there is
nothing of that character in the ceremony, but on the contrary, every
covenant taken therein and every instruction imparted, is calculated to
make the recipients better citizens and better members of society in every
sense of the terms.
In denying the application of the men seeking citizenship on the
ground that they had gone through the endowment ceremonies, Judge
Anderson, in our opinion, goes directly against the testimony, and in his
written decision has not offered any solid ground to support his position.
In the case of the applicants who have not received their endowments he
is, if possible, on still more untenable soil.
Take all the picked and partial extracts he has presented from old
sermons, and the paragraphs selected without giving the explanatory
context, and what do they amount to? Simply that every half a century ago,
under circumstances not related by the Judge, the Prophet Joseph Smith
received revelation to individuals as to the disposition of their
property, they having sought for this divine direction as men did in times
of old as related in the Bible. That in Nauvoo over forty-five years ago a
building was erected under church auspices for the comfort of visiting
strangers and a revelation was received in relation to it. That in
Bishop's courts Church members have been tried ecclesiastically for
unchristainlike conduct in their business relations with their brethren.
That Elders have preached the doctrine that this Church is the Kingdom of
God, not fully established and with no king till Christ comes. From this
the Judge draws the inference that the Church claims and exercises the
right to control its members in temporal as well as spiritual things, but
he fails to show where, in the least degree, this infringes on the liberty
of the citizen.
He also announces the extraordinary decision that "one of the
doctrines of the Church" is that "for certain offenses the offender shall
suffer death, as the only means of atoning for his transgressions, and
that any member of the Church has the right to shed his blood." The truth
is, [265] the evidence shows to the exact contrary. We unhesitatingly
brand as a wicked falsehood the statement that the Church teaches, or
holds, or has ever taught or held such an abominable doctrine. All the one
sided utterances of individual opinion which the Judge has selected, fail
to bear out his assertion. In an unfair and clearly partial manner, he
injects remarks as to the meaning of those speakers, into his comments,
conveying ideas that they did not express or entertain.
For instance, speaking of Jedediah M. Grant's sayings in regard to
covenant breakers, he says: "That is, those who leave the Mormon Church."
Also: "Referring to the right of the Church to shed the blood of those who
apostatized, Brigham Young used the following language."
These are the Judge's own fabrications and are not the sense of the
quotations he makes, but are gratuitous misrepresentations of both the
language and the intention of the speakers. Quoting from a discourse by
the Editor of the Deseret News he gives three isolated paragraphs and
carefully suppresses the explanatory context, and thus conveys the meaning
contrary to that actually proclaimed and expounded by the lecturer. The
plain declaration and proofs that "blood atonement" only relates to
murderers and adulterers who have made special covenants not to commit
such sins, and that no one except a legal, civil officer has the right to
execute the death penalty Judge Anderson omits and thus leaves a false
impression the very opposite of that which the discourse conveys. Comment
on this is needless.
Judge Anderson says: "Brigham Young for years resisted all attempts
of the authorities to install the proper officers for carrying on the
Territorial government." He claimed the right to say who the officers of
the Territory should be," etc. We denounce this as utterly and entirely
false. History is against the Judge in this particular, as published
matter is against his erroneous assertions on "Mormon" doctrine. The
repetition of the stale falsehood that the United States flag was trailed
in the dust when Brother Wells was released from prison, and of the stupid
notion that half-masting the flag, which has ever been viewed as a token
of grief, was intended as an insult to the [266] Government, shows the
bias of the Judge and his eagerness to father and sanction the vain
imaginations and bald absurdities of anti-"Mormon" fanatics.
The editorial opinions of the Deseret News, for which this paper
alone is responsible, he distorts into it pressure brought to bear by the
Mormon leaders to prevent members when convicted of violating the laws
from promising obedience." They had nothing to do with the utterances of
this journal, and what we have said on this matter related not to obeying
the law, but agreeing to be governed by the lawless and conflicting
constructions of the law by the courts, which involved promises
dishonorable to any man placed in the position referred to.
Judge Anderson has suppressed from his opinion the documentary
evidence of the patriotic sentiments entertained by the leaders of the
"Mormon" Church which was introduced in profusion. He has done the same
with the proofs of devotion to the institutions of this Republic on the
part of the "Mormon" people, presented by counsel for the applicants. He
has drawn conclusions utterly unwarranted by the premises. He has done all
that the conspirators to capture this city desired he should do so. He has
denied citizenship to men proven to be of good moral character, sober,
industrious, honest, peaceable, and thoroughly desirious of the perpetuity
of American republicanism, and this because they are "Mormons," while
Liberals whose very faces and manners proclaim their vices and who have
had to confess their unchastity, can be welcomed as citizens and viewed as
of good moral character.
We do not know what further steps can or will be taken in this
matter, but we do not propose to let it rest here. The opinion of Judge
Anderson is not an exposition of "Mormon" doctrine but an echo of the
misrepresentations of its unscrupulous adversaries. The truth may have a
hard struggle against the errors official and unofficial, which are massed
against it, but, thank God, it will ultimately prevail. And there is a day
appointed when all things and all men shall be tried, and to the Supreme
Judge on high we appeal for final arbitrament and eternal justice.
(Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, [267] Editor)
2 Dec 1889, L. John Nuttall:
The Presidency at the office Bro. C.W. Penrose called and submitted
the propriety of the First Presidency taking some action or making a
manifesto with regard to refuting the false assertions made by Judge
Anderson in his decision on Saturday. (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
Monday 2 Dec 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
JUDGE ANDERSON AND "BLOOD ATONEMENT."
Our review of Judge Anderson's decision in the naturalization cases
on Saturday was necessarily hurried, having been written after the
rendering of the decision and its setting in type. Therefore, while it
covered the ground taken by the Judge, touching all the principal points
of his argument(?), it could not elaborate upon any particular question in
the limited space at our command. We shall therefore take up the different
topics dwelt upon by the Judge, as occasion shall offer, and show how much
truth there is in his conclusions.
The following extract from the decision is one of the most remarkable
inferences ever drawn from testimony presented in any court outside of
Hades. Judge Anderson says: "The evidence also shows that blood atonement
is one of the doctrines of the Church under which, for certain offenses,
the offender shall suffer death as the only means of atoning for his
transgressions and that any member of the Church has a right to shed his
blood."
Judge Anderson follows this statement with some extracts from
discourses delivered more than thirty-seven years ago, containing the
opinions of Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others on the dreadful
consequences of commiting a "sin unto death," such as referred to by the
Apostle John, 1st Epistle, 5th chapter, 16th verse. But those parts of the
discourses which explain the meaning of the speakers, the Judge carefully
omits. He also excludes from his summing up, those passages from the [268]
Doctrine and Covenants that were offered in evidence which would have
rendered his conclusion impossible or at least absurd.
Here are the passages pointed out to the Court, the whole volume
having been offered in evidence by counsel for the objectors.
"And now behold, I speak unto the Church. Thou shalt not kill, and he
that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to
come."
"And again I say thou shalt not kill, but he that killeth shall
die."--Doc. & Cov. , See. xiii, v. 18, 19.
And it shall come to pass, that if any person among you shall kill
they shall be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the
land; for remember he hath no forgiveness, and it shall be proven
according to the law's of the land."--Ibid, v. 79.
It was in evidence that the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants
are viewed by the Church as divine and authoritative, and that the
opinions of any person in the Church, whatever position he may occupy, are
only to be considered as opinions. Also that any teaching contrary to the
revelations of God is not received by the Church as its doctrine. Why did
Judge Anderson suppress this evidence, and color the quotations he gave
with his own unwarranted inference as to their meaning? Is this conduct
worthy of a judicial mind? Would it be considered fair, even in a debate
or controversy, oral or on paper, upon any subject of civilized
discussion?
In order to still further excuse his conclusion, the Judge makes
three isolated and disconnected quotations from an address by C.W.
Penrose, delivered in the Twelfth Ward Assembly Hall, October 12, 1884.
They have been cunningly selected and the context excised, so that they
will appear to the reader as endorsing the idea expressed by the Judge.
But if as many other extracts from the same discourse had been given, to
show what the speaker was really establishing, they would have been fatal
to the Judge's false and outrageous deduction. This is Judge Anderson's
first quotation from this [269] address, page 18:
"Now, according to the doctrine of President Brigham Young, the blood
of Jesus Christ, as I have shown you, atoned for the original sin, and for
sins that men commit, and yet there are sins which men commit for which
they cannot receive any benefit through the shedding of Christ's blood. Is
that a true doctrine? It is true, if the Bible is true. That is Bible
doctrine."
But this is only part of the paragraph. Here is the rest of it, which
the Judge took pains to omit:
"I will direct your attention to one or two passages of scripture
which bear on this subject. In the first place I will refer you to the
words of the Lord Jesus Christ, which you will find in the 12th chapter of
the Gospel according to St. Mathew, and the 81st and 82nd verses, namely:
"Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be
forgiven unto men.
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be
forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost, it
shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world neither in the world to
come."
This is further explained in the same connection, and then the text
is quoted from the epistle to the Hebrews 10th chapter, 26th verse:
"For if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of
the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."
Also from the same Epistle, 6th chap. 4th verse, as follows:
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.
[270] "And have tasted the good work of God and the powers of the world to
come.
"If they shall fall away, to renew them again into repentance; seeing
they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame.
After commenting on the fact that the early Christian Church held the
doctrine that there were sins for which the blood of Christ would not
atone, if committed by persons who had once been cleansed from sin and had
received the Holy Ghost, the annexed text, was cited in this address, from
1 Cor. v:5-6, concerning a gross sexual sin:
"For I verily, as absent in body but present in spirit, have judged
already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed.
"To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh
that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
Let it be remembered that the pamphlet containing the address in full
was presented in evidence. We quote further, from page 23:
"Now what kind of sins are those for which men cannot get
forgiveness. The Apostle John says in the same Epistle I read from just
on--the 3rd chapter of the First Epistle of John:
"No murder hath eternal life abiding in him."
The man who commits murder, who imbrues his hands in the blood of
innocence, cannot receive eternal life, because he cannot get forgiveness
of that sin. What can he do? The only way to atone is to shed his blood,
hanging is not the proper method. I refer you now to the 9th chapter of
the Book of Genesis, 6th verse:
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
[271] On the 26th page, the subject is carried further and the annexed
passage occurs:
"Well, is there any other sin that a man may commit which is worthy
of death? I think there is. I will refer you to one in the Book of
Leviticus 20th chapter and 10th verse:
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even
he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and
the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
"That was the law of God in the days of Moses. It was the law, of God
previous to the days' of Moses, as you will find by reference to the Book
of Genesis. It has been the law of God from the beginning."
The address then deals with the question as to the execution of the
death penalty, and shows most emphatically that while murderers should be
put to death, and that if the law of God was fully carried out, adulterers
who commited this deadly sin after enlightment by the Holy Ghost and
having made special covenants with God to abstain from such
transgressions, would also suffer the same punishment--as the only
atonement possible for their crimes--it can only be inflicted by the
officers of the law. Page 31 says:
"If a man commits a crime he is to be delivered over to be dealt with
according to the laws of the land. The Church can withdraw fellowship from
him, but the Church has no authority to execute the death penalty. A man
may be deserving of death; but it is not in the providence of the Church
to kill; he must be delivered over to be dealt with according to the laws
of the land."
It was not to be expected that Judge Anderson would quote extensively
from this address. But having picked out part of a paragraph which
appeared to suit his purpose from page 18, then jumped to page 43, common
fairness would have suggested that he should make at [272] least one
quotation to show, the gist, and object, and whole tendency of the
address. But no, not a word does he give as to this. For instance, he
might have cited this from pages 35-6:
"The law, of the land says that if a man kills he shall suffer death.
But the laws of the land don't say that the adulterer shall be put to
death. Therefore the penalty however deserved cannot be inflicted."
Also in regard to the opinions of leading men in the Church, he might
have made this selection from the address:
"The law of God is paramount. When men give their views upon any
doctrine, the value of those views is as the value of the man. If he is a
wise man, a man of understanding, of experience and authority, such views
are of great weight with the community; but they are not paramount, nor
equal to the revealed law of God.
The revealed law of God, as shown in this address, is that if any man
commit crime he shall be delivered up to the law of the land, that members
of the Church shall not kill, and that if they do they shall not have
forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come. And the sentiments of
the leaders and the people on this subject are emphatically expressed. Why
did not Judge Anderson cite this passage from the address:
"All this shows that the Lord does not delight in the shedding of
blood, neither do His servants. We are told that we shall not be blood
shedders. We are to be temple builders. David of old was not allowed to
build the temple because he was not clean from the blood of his
generation. And the people called Latter-day Saints, from the head of the
Church down to the humblest member, have a horror of the shedding of human
blood. They are not a bloody-minded people. They are a forbearing people,
as our cowardly persecutors are well aware."
[273] Judge Anderson, in his partial and biased opinion, made no mention
of utterances of the leaders of the Church which were presented in
evidence and were utterly at variance with his sanguinary conclusion. He
dismisses all this class of testimony with the words:
"An effort was made to show that the blood atonement as preached by
Brigham Young and Jedediah Grant is not now the doctrine of the Church."
This is a misrepresentation of the facts. No such effort was made.
The proof offered went to show that no such doctrine as that alleged by
the objectors was ever entertained by the Church. It is true that it
appeared in evidence that there had been no teaching for a great many
years in regard to the ideas advanced by the preachers named, and that the
address on blood atonement quoted from was delivered in answer to the
erroneous ideas concerning it set forth by anti-"Mormons." But no such
semi-admission as the Judge insinuates was made during the examination. It
was denied then, and is denied now, that any Church authority ever
declared the doctrine that men should be killed for apostacy.
And we challenge Judge Anderson, or whoever prepared the one-sided
document that bears his name, to produce from the evidence presented in
this case any proof whatever that the "Mormon" Church holds or ever did
hold the monstrous doctrine asserted by the Judge and which we have quoted
at the beginning of this article. As to its practice, the best answer we
can give to the accusation that men have been "blood atoned" for apostacy,
is that offered in the address which the Judge has so honorably (?) cited:
"Has there ever been a case of bloodshedding by the authorities of
the Church or by the sanction of the Church, outside of the regular
operations of the criminal law? I say there has not, and let those who say
there have been such instances bring forth their proofs. The burden of
proof is upon them." p. 33.
[274] "Well the best answer to all these stories is, that they cannot
produce a single case of `blood atonement'--cannot produce one individual
case of a man or a woman in this Territory who has suffered at the hands
of the Church, this penalty which President Young said ought to be
inflicted upon persons guilty of capital crimes. p. 42.
Even Judge Anderson was ashamed to mention the only attempt made to
prove a case of this kind, which failed so signally as to cover the
authors of it with contempt and expose them to the ridicule of all classes
of the community. We do not care to express our feelings in view of the
gross misrepresentation of our faith and principles contained in the
paragraph we have taken from the Judge's decision. We only present the
truth. And let those who pervert the doctrines we hold, whether for
political or other purposes, remain in the hands of Him who shall deal out
justice to all in His own due time. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W.
Penrose, Editor)
Wednesday 4 Dec 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
* * * The experience of the past two years in the matter of registration,
the conduct of elections, and in the courts, has shown that the pretended
acceptance of the registration oath by the Mormon people has not of itself
been sufficient to restrain violations of the law, nor has it compelled
any change in the attitude or in the purposes of these people. It has long
been evident that the false construction placed upon the oath, and which
was universally accepted by the Mormon people, amounted to nothing more
nor less than a determined attempt to retain the right to vote without
regard to the requirement of the oath. Can it therefore be expected that
they feel any respect for the law which prescribed the oath, or take any
interest in its inforcement? Congress and the country may as well
understand now as at any time the plain fact that so long as a large
majority of the people of Utah believe polygamy is right, the law wrong,
unconstitutional, and opposed to revelation to which the higher allegiance
is duty, they can perform but a small part of the duty of [275] good
citizens. No instance is known of any Mormon who has taken the
registration oath and voted, exposing a violation of the laws, giving
voluntary information or aid to the officers, declaring or admitting the
law, is right or worthy of observance and enforcement. On the contrary,
the entire population perform the duties of sentinels in guarding
offenders from the vigilance of the officers. Thus, if we look to conduct
as an interperter, any mere profession in words, which is all the "test
oath," under the present construction amounts to, is insufficient to show,
a decided change. Violations of the law are still concealed, arrests
obstructed, excuses made and sympathy expressed for the guilty, and it is
not even claimed that a change in belief has taken place. The Mormon voter
stops with the negative assertion that he will not violate or abet the
violation of the law. He does not promise to assume the affirmative duties
of citizenship, and he knows no civil law can force him to perform them.
It will thus be seen that the enforcement of the "test oath" has not
accomplished the purpose so fondly hoped for by those who framed it, and
that it has not exercised a restraining influence with respect to polygamy
and its practice. Has not the time then arrived when Congress should take
some decisive action which will compel the Mormon people to show, not by
evasive language, but by conduct far in advance of their former position,
that they have really effected a change for the better, and will it not be
inconsistent for Congress to allow a people to exercise the franchise who
have been judicially decided to be unworthy of citizenship? These are
considerations which should receive prompt consideration at the hands of
Congressmen. If we may judge by the expressions in the public press, the
country will welcome any legislation in the line we have indicated. In
further illustration of our position, we ask how a candidate for public
office would be regarded in New York, Pennsylvania or in any State, who
would declare that he did not believe the law which was to govern him in
the performance of his duties, was right or just, and that he would refuse
to be bound by the law'? This is exactly the position of a majority of the
people in Utah today. * * *
[276]
Wednesday 4 Dec 1889, Deseret Evening News:
JUDGE ZANE'S POSITION.
* * * There has been a decision of this court, Judge Anderson sitting, in
which it has been held after quite a protracted and thorough
investigation, consuming nearly two weeks, that a member of the Mormon
Church in good standing is not a fit and suitable person to be
naturalized; that the obligations of a member of that organization to the
Church are inconsistent with the obligations of an American citizen.
The court found and adjudged that the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints is an unpatriotic organization, that to become a member
of it and to retain that fellowship obligations must be assumed and
beliefs and professions made, and conduct required in conflict with and
opposed to that devotion and attachment and to those duties exacted of a
citizen of the government of the United States. The government of the
United States will not divide its allegiance with any other government or
any other organization and unless the court is satisfied by the evidence
offered that the applicant has resided the required time in the United
States, that he is a man of good moral charactor, attached to the
principles of the Constitution of the United States, well disposed to the
good order and happiness of the same, it will not admit him, but on the
other hand, if the court is satisfied that any applicant having the other
qualifications, and residence, is of sufficient intelligence to understand
the principles of the government, is well disposed towards it, is of good
moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, it will
admit him.
But this Court having held that the Mormon Church is an organization
of such a character that membership and fellowship in it disqualifies an
alien for citizenship, for the present, at least, the Court will respect
that opinion. The purposes and character of the Church taint and
characterize all of its members and disqualifies them for citizenship,
according to the judgment of the Court; its members must be regarded as
precluded for the present, by the trial in which it was condemned. The
Church was not condemned by Judge Anderson on account of re-[277]ligious
faith, doctrine or worship, but because of its moral, social and political
doctrines and the unlawful practices and conduct that it enjoins.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the effect of the decision is to
interfere with religious beliefs or the free exercise of religion.
In this I do not wish to say that this organization, like every other
human institution, may not change, but so recently after the decision, and
after the thorough investigation, the Court will be governed by the
opinion. In this I do not wish to say that the Court will exclude a man
because he has been a member of that Church, if he is not at present a
member in good standing and in full fellowship.
I wish it distinctly understood that every man, whether a Mormon or
Gentile, that appears before this court, shall be treated with
respect--his rights will be regarded and he will be treated impartially
and fairly. I make these statements because I do not wish to be
misunderstood.
Wednesday 4 Dec 1889, Deseret Evening News:
JUDGE ZANE'S LATEST RULING.
As announced in Tuesday evening's DESERET NEWS, Judge Zane has
decided to hear applications for naturalization each day from 10 to half
past 10 o 'clock in the morning, and from half past 4 to 5 o'clock in the
afternoon. Also to permit only the District Attorney or his assistant to
take part in the examinations. Suggestions of other attorneys may be made
to the District Attorney. This ruling, the full text of which is given in
another column, was in consequence of a request made in behalf of the
District Attorney, who desired to be represented in all applications for
citizenship, and to have time fixed when they should be heard.
The order of the court will have the effect of securing more order in
the court. Every jackanapes will not now be allowed to obstruct
proceedings and air his immoral views of morality, as was permitted during
examinations before Judge Anderson. But does it not look a little peculiar
that no sooner has it been ruled by the Court that no "Mormons" need apply
for naturalization, that a rule [278] is established which prevents any
awkward questions as to "the good moral character" of "Liberal"
applicants? While "Mormon" applications were heard, any objector was
permitted to interfere; now that they are excluded, no one but the
"Liberal" officials may take part in the examination. Of course that is
all fair and just, and there is no purpose in this but the facilitation of
business.
Judge Zane announces that "for the present, at least, the court will
respect" the decision of Judge Anderson, and therefore any person who is
"at present a member in good standing and in full fellowship of the Mormon
Church" will not be admitted to citizenship.
At the same time His Honor wishes it to be understood that "every
man, whether a Mormon or Gentile, that appears before his court, shall be
treated with respect--his rights will be regarded and he will be treated
impartially and fairly. "How this will be done when all that is necessary
in order to exclude a man from naturalization is to show, that he is a
"Mormon," is rather difficult to comprehend.
A man of such "good moral character" that not a speck or a flaw can
be found in his moral record, who believes the Constitution to be an
inspired instrument and that all laws made in pursuance thereof are
supreme, who is ready to make oath of allegiance to the government and to
obey the laws of Congress in regard to polygamy and other offences therein
defined, who has resided in this country five years, and in this district
one year or more, and who is known to be sober, industrious, peaceable and
law-abiding in every particular, cannot be admitted to citizenship, solely
on the ground of his religion, namely, that he is a member of the "Mormon"
Church. But a "Gentile" who has committed sexual sins which are classed as
crimes in the statutes of the United States as well as in the moral code
of Christendom, who occasionally gets drunk, who is sometimes quarrelsome
and disorderly, who has no religion at all, may be admitted to citizenship
as it a man of good moral character attached to the principles of the
Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and
happiness of the same." Does not this look as if the momentous question
[279] to be decided was, is he a member of the "Liberal" party or not, if
so admit him, if not exclude him?
Judge Zane says of the decision of Judge Anderson, "it cannot be said
that the effect of the decision is to interfere with religious beliefs or
the free exercise of religion." Indeed! Well, suppose the decision was
that no person who is a member of the Catholic Church shall be admitted to
citizenship, would not that be an interferance with the free exercise of
the Catholic religion. Or substitute the word Methodist for Catholic or
"Morman, it would not that be interfering with the free exercise of the
Methodist religion? It can be said, it will be said, and in fact it most
certainly is true, that the exclusion of an alien solely on the ground
that he is a member of the "Mormon" Church, is an interference with the
free exercise of religion, and is therefore lawless, being in flaggrant
violation of the supreme law of the land.
But, says Judge Zane: "The Church was not condemned by Judge Anderson
on account of religious faith, doctrine or worship, but because of its
moral, social and political doctrines and the unlawful practices and
conduct that it enjoins." Yet Judge Anderson did not and could not cite
any unlawful practice enjoined by the Church, nor any political doctrine
enunciated by the Church which is contrary to the principles of American
republicanism. Further, it has not been shown, and cannot be shown, that
any member of the "Mormon" Church is compelled or required, by virtue of
his membership, to do any act whatsoever that is in violation of any law,
or any social, political or moral principle as held, in theory, by the
majority of the American people. Judge Anderson did not do this. Judge
Zane cannot do it. The judicial fiat is: "No member of the Mormon Church
can be admitted to citizenship." That is nothing more nor less than
discriminating against a man's religious faith, doctrine and worship, and
all denials of this are the thinnest kind of vain pretense.
Judge Zane intimates that a seceder from "Mormonism" may be readily
admitted to citizenship. That is a premium on apostacy. If a man has been
a member of the "Mormon" Church, the Court will not exclude him, [280] "If
he is not at present a member in good standing and in full fellowship."
Does Judge Zane know, what is implied by this? Men of "good moral
character," who refrain from those "Liberal" vices which "Liberal"
advocates claimed in the Third District Court were committed by nine
hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand men--"Liberal" men of
course--who do not wrong their neighbors, who do not deny their God, who
are peaceable, orderly members of society, are usually held in good
standing and fellowship in the "Mormon" Church.
But it seems Judge Zane considers the class that are excommunicated
are the proper kind to receive into the fold of American citizenship. They
are usually persons found guilty of offenses which render them unfit for
membership in any church. This is not always the case, because some few
individuals retire at their own request for various reasons. But, as a
rule, no person is excommunicated except for violation of morality,
honesty, truth, sobriety or other rule of life considered essential to
Christian character. If such persons are better to be esteemed as fitted
for citizenship than "Mormons" in full faith and fellowship, we do not
envy Judge Zane his peculiar choice.
The general good qualities of the "Mormon" people, Their freedom from
anything that produces social disorder, their compliance with the
regulations that are needful to the well being of society, are recognized
throughout the civilized world. Therdfore to exclude such men from
citizenship on the ground that they are "Mormons," when they are
monogamists in practice and ready to swear allegiance to this government
and foreswear allegiance to all other governments, is an outrage upon
religious liberty, is contrary to the spirit and letter of the
naturalization laws, and bears the appearance of unjust discrimination, in
favor of a political party seeking to obtain power by destroying that
freedom which this government was created to establish and maintain.
(Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Thursday 5 Dec 1889, Deseret Evening News:
ANDERSONIAN LOGIC.
[281] It is alleged that some persons, many years ago, in receiving a
secret religious ceremony, entered into some kind of an obligation to
"avenge the blood of the Prophets" Joseph and Hyrum Smith on this nation.
The preponderance of the testimony, however, on both sides of the case,
was that no such obligation was taken and that it certainly is not exacted
now. Therefore, John Moore and Walter J. Edgar, who did not enter into
such obligation and against whom not a particle of proof was offered
showing that they had done so, are denied admission as citizens. These
gentlemen were shown by competent witnesses to be men "of good, moral
character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United
States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same," but
it was inferred that having passed through the Endowment House, they had
joined in a prayer taken from Revelations, 6th chapter, 9th and 10th
verses. Therefore they were not fit to be citizens of the United States.
Some apostates, who flatly contradicted each other, tried to tell
what oaths were taken many years ago in the Endowment. The evidence proved
that no oath of any kind is taken there. And therefore these gentlemen are
not allowed to be naturalized because of a mythical oath which they never
subscribed to.
Witnesses who emphatically denied the conflicting apostate stories
and thus gave overwhelming negative testimony, declined, "on a point of
honor," to disclose those secret religious ceremonies which had no
relation whatever to the subject before the court. Therefore John Moore
and Walter J. Edgar, who were not called to testify, were not entitled to
take the oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States.
It was proved that the Endowment of today is the same as that
administered during the lifetime of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Therefore it
is concluded that part of it is an obligation to avenge their death on
this nation. And consequently these gentlemen, who never took and could
not have taken any such obligation, must be excluded from citizenship on
the hypothesis that they did.
A "Liberal" alien who, it is admitted has been guilty [282] "several
times" of fornication or adultery is a man of "good moral character" and
fit to be a citizen. But a "Mormon" who has never been unchaste and has
taken and kept vows of chastity is, because of those covenants, not of
"good moral character" and not fit to be a citizen.
In 1841, that is forty-eight years ago, Joseph Smith had a revelation
concerning the building in Nauvoo of a house for the entertainment of
strangers. Therefore Charles E. Clissold, Carl P. Anderson and other
"Mormons" who never saw Joseph Smith and were never in Nauvoo, are not
eligible to naturalization.
In 1831, Joseph Smith received a revelation directing Sidney Gilbert,
"the keeper of the Lord's storehouse," a Church establishment, in regard
to his temporal duties. Therefore, no "Mormon" is today, after the lapse
of fifty-eight years, a free agent, and therefore is not to be admitted to
citizenship.
Brigahm Young, in a public discourse in 1857, claimed the right to
give directions to the people in temporal affairs, but said, it it is your
privilege to do as you please." Therefore, "Mormon" applicants for
citizenship who never saw Brigham Young, "cannot be made true and loyal
citizens under such teachings," and must therefore be excluded from
citizenship.
Several sermons preached years ago argued that this Church has in it
the germ of the Kingdom of God, which will not be fully set up till Christ
comes, who is to be its first King. Therefore the "Mormon" Church "Is an
organization that infamously and blasphemously claims to be the Kingdom of
God," and no member of it can be admitted as a citizen of the United
States.
In the "Mormon" Church, Bishops are authorized to hold ecclesiastical
courts to try offenders against Church discipline, but can only punish the
unrelentant by suspending or excommunicating them from Church fellowship.
Therefore no member of the "Mormon" Church can be admitted as a citizen of
the United States.
Charges of unchristianlike conduct have been presented in certain
Bishop's courts against Church members for sharp practice against their
brethren in business affairs, and decisions rendered to the effect that
the [283] offenders would not be held in Church fellowship unless they
showed repentance by dealing justly and honestly. Therefore aliens of the
same Church who were not parties to these transactions and had nothing to
do with them in any manner whatever, are to be denied the benefits of the
naturalization laws.
More than thirty years ago "Mormon" preachers argued that murderers
and adulterers who had previously been enlightened of God and had received
the Holy Ghost, could not gain forgiveness of their sins like ordinary
offenders, and that when the law, of God should be executed on the earth
they would atone for their crimes by death, as in Biblical times. But that
no one could execute such penalty except after trial under the laws of the
land and by a civil officer. Therefore, according to Andersonian logic,
"the offender shall suffer death for his transgression" and "any member of
the Church has the right to shed his blood!" And consequently no member,
even if he never heard this doctrine or this gross perversion of it, may
be admitted to the privileges of citizenship.
Brigham Young denounced the sending of an army here in 1867, which
was officered by men who afterwards took up arms against the United
States. Therefore "Mormons" who were not here at that time and had nothing
to do with what was said or done, are to be excluded from naturalization.
Daniel H. Wells was welcomed from prison by the "Mormon" populace
here ten years ago, because he would rather suffer than disclose matters
which he had agreed to keep secret and with which the courts had nothing
legally to do, and somebody started the story that at that time the United
States flag--whether by accident or not was not determined--was dropped to
the ground. Therefore aliens who have come to this country since that time
must not be naturalized if they are "Mormons."
Four years ago, half-a-dozen of the United States flags which were
flung to the breeze in this city on Independence Day were placed at half
mast, as an emblem of mourning, because the leading men of the community
were in exile through the outrageous and illegal exe-[284]cution of harsh
laws. Never before in the history of nations was the half-masting of a
flag considered anything else than a sign of mourning. But for
anti-"Mormon" purposes, frothy fanatics pretended to construe this token
of grief into an insult to the flag, though in a week after they
half-masted it themselves. No connection of the "Mormon" Church or its
leaders, who were all absent, was ever traced to this act. Therefore no
alien member of the "Mormon" Church, whether he endorsed or knew anything
of this business or not, is fit to be a citizen of the United States.
Several prominent "Mormon" leaders have been indicted for polygamy.
Therefore, monogamous "Mormons," applicants for naturalization, some of
whom do not believe in polygamy, and all of whom are ready to take an oath
not to violate the anti-polygamy acts, are not to be permitted to swear
allegiance to the Government and obey the laws.
The DESERET NEWS has commended men who refused to make a promise
which no court had the right to exact, and criticized the conduct of
others who have made agreements which appeared to be dishonorable.
Therefore alien "Mormons," seeking citizenship must be denied the
privilege, whether they ever read the DESERET NEWS or not.
"It has always been and still is the policy of this government to
encourage aliens who in good faith come to reside in this country to
become citizens." Therefore all such persons, provided they are "Mormons,"
must be excluded from citizenship.
The "Mormon Church teaches that the Constitution of the United States
is inspired of God and that all laws made in pursuance thereof must be
obeyed. Therefore, the members of the "Mormon" Church "are animated by a
feeling of hostility to the Government and its laws, and, therefore, an
alien who is a member of said Church is not a fit person to be made a
citizen of the United States."
These premises and deductions are of course extremely logical, and
must strike readers of Judge Anderson's decision, in the naturalization
cases, with wonder and admiration at the acumen, and profound reason, and
[285] judicial equity displayed therein. The document should be preserved
in the archives of the Church and in private collections of legal
curiosities, for the astonishment if not the praise of future generations.
(Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
6 Dec 1889, L. John Nuttall:
* * * I met with the Presidency and Twelve, presiding Bishops Preston and
Winder and member of the Central Committee of The People's Party at the
Gardo House at 2 p.m. This meeting was called to consider what action
shall be taken to get an expression of the people, so as to come to some
conclusion as to what course to take to refute the assertions made in the
decision of Judge Anderson in the John Moore naturalization case. The
Presidency and Twelve considered the matter when it was decided as the
mind of the council that the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles get
up a manifesto on this subject, such a one as all can sign. * * * Diary of
L. John Nuttall)
Tuesday 10 Dec 1889, Deseret Evening News:
THE IDAHO TEST OATH.
Closing Arguments in the Case Before the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 10, 1880. (sic) (Special correspondence of the
DESERET NEWS.)--As telegraphed you this afternoon, the arguments in the
Idaho test oath case were closed today, Mr. Richards making the final
speech. Yesterday Jere Wilson--known as one of the best criminal lawyers
in the country--appeared in behalf of Davis, who is imprisoned in the
Territory of Idaho for taking the test oath and voting while a member of
the "Mormon" Church, which seems to be regarded by the Territorial courts
as a crime, especially when the offender votes the wrong ticket. Judge
Wilson showed the unconstitutionality of the statute in question, and
appeared to arouse the members of the bench from their former quietude
into a fervor of inquiry. Some of the judges seemed inclined to postpone
the case; others to question their jurisdiction; and others again to
interrogate and raise points, as the advocate declared that the
Con-[286]stitution not only guaranteed the right to opinion and belief,
but to the "free exercise" of religion. The lawyer had to disclaim any
attempt to thrust practical polygamy upon the attention of the court, as a
religious obligation to be included in such "free exercise." He showed
that it was not the commission of any overt act, which was involved in
this case, but membership in a church which teaches polygamy as a tenet
and deprived the citizen of the elective franchise under the territorial
statute. He claimed that Congress itself had no right to enact such a law,
and said that certainly a territorial legislature could not do so. He read
from the discussion in the Senate at the time the Edmunds law was enacted
in order to show that senators halted at the punishing of opinion, and
drew the line at fettering the faith of any church. He also claimed that
Congress, having legislated on the subject of polygamy, the Territory of
Idaho could not enter that field--it being covered by the congressional
act.
Ransford Smith followed the judge, and, considering his cause--that
of the enchaining the mind and binding the soul of his fellow men--his
speech was an able one. He took the ground that the law declared
membership in any organization which taught what the law had declared to
be a crime should not vote; and the fact that the "Mormon" Church was
found by the Idaho courts to be such an organization did not figure in the
case, as facts were not what the Court was to decide upon, but whether the
legislature had the power to enact such a law or not. The statue did not
name any church, or come under the constitutional intent as regards
religion. He then drew attention to the policy of Congress in crushing
polygamy, and urged that this law was in line with that policy by
depriving polygamists and those who aided or assisted them of political
power. He did not state, however, that this action, if sustained, would
throw the political power into the hands of the party now in the minority,
and whose days would be numbered in office if the franchise were regained
by those now deprived of it by the law, in question. He failed to show
that the whole business was a political trick, but masked the real purpose
of his cheats under the guise of moral reform, ard shrewdly held [287]
before the eye of the court what he termed "The appaling condition of the
`Mormons' in Utah." In reply to a statement of Judge Wilson, that,
according to official reports, but ten cases of polygamy had reached
conviction in four or five years, with all the force of the federal
government to aid in their prosecution. Ransford declared that 291 cases
had been tried, of unlawful cohabitation, which, were due to polygamy as a
condition precedent to this class of cases.
Mr. Richards, in replying to the willy logic of counsel for Idaho, or
rather for the party now in power there, showed very clearly how these
cases originated--that they were prosecuted and convictions obtained by
technical constructions as to cohabitation, and the trials were in a large
number of instances of persons whose polygamous relationship had commenced
many years ago, and were not, as inferred, for new violations of the
Edmunds law. Mr. Richards presented some telling illustrations of the
effect of such a statute upon other classes of religionists, showing that
believers and teachers of celibacy might be deprived of the franchise as
legally as those religionists now sought to be enslaved politically. He
pointed out that this law attacked the opinions of men; that it even
disfranchised persons who belonged to the Church, who might not themselves
believe in the tenet of polygamy; and cited the well-known fact that many
people belong to religious denominations, and, yet do not always endorse
every tenet of the church. This was very ably illustrated. A person might
go to the Tabernacle and hear the principles of faith, repentance and
baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost; he
might believe all this and ask to become a member. The instant he received
these ordinances, he was disfranchised, although he might not have even
heard of polygamy, or ever believed, aided or abetted the practice of it.
This law does not stop at individual acts, but punishes men for the acts
of others, by disfranchising them for simply belonging to the same Church.
He read the articles of "Mormon" faith, and made quite a point in doing
so. Many visitors present had never heard "Mormon" theology before. Of
course I have not attempted to recount these points [288] in anything like
the language used by the eloquent speakers, as I have done it entirely
from memory, and without memoranda of any kind, but I think I have given
the substance of the arguments of counsel on both sides of this great
constitutional question, which now, faces the highest tribunal in the
land.
It is the opinion among some members of the bar that the court cannot
sustain this law; that the authorities cited in the briefs are too clear
and pointed to be set aside, and that religious freedom is too precious a
boon, as well as the liberty to express thought, to be sacrificed by
judicial action out of regard to any policy. The Supreme Court of the
United States is so great a tribunal, and composed of such legal and
learned minds, that it will give this subject, as well as all others, due
and careful consideration; for the liberty of this man is not the only
thing involved, though that is sufficient, but the great principles which
underlie all liberty in religion and in life are at stake in this
question. If Idaho can legally do what it is now doing; then where shall
the judiciary draw the line? C.W. STAYNER. (Deseret Evening News, 17 Dec
1889)
12 Dec 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
OFFICIAL DECLARATION.
Salt Lake City, December 12th, 1889.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
In consequence of gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims and
practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly
called the "Mormon" Church, which have been promulgated for years, and
have recently been revived for political purposes and to prevent all
aliens, otherwise qualified, who are members of the "Mormon" Church from
acquiring citizenship, we deem it proper on behalf of said Church to
publicly deny these calumnies and enter our protest against them.
We solemnly make the following declarations, viz:
That this Church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost
abhorrance. That we regard the killing of a human being, except in
conformity with the civil [289] law, as a capital crime which should be
punished by shedding the blood of the criminal, after a public trial
before a legally constituted court of the land.
Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates,
no case of this kind has ever occured, and of course has never been
established against the Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the
Church have continuously resided and now live in this Territory, many of
whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly hostile to the
"Mormon" faith and people. Even those who have made it their business to
fabricate the vilest falsehoods, and to render them plausible by culling
isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, and
have suffered no opportunity to escape them of vilifying and blackening
the characters of the people, have remained among those whom they have
thus persistently caluminated until the present day, without receiving the
slightest personal injury.
We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made,
that our Church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the
Church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of
this character for such an act with the utmost horror, it is abhorrent to
us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed.
The revelations of God to this Church make death the penalty for
capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall
be delivered up to and tried by the laws of the land.
We declare that no Bishop's or other court in this Church claims or
exercises civil or judicial functions, or the right to supersede, annul or
modify a judgment of any civil court. Such courts, while, extablished to
regulate Christian conduct, are purely ecclesiastical, and their punituive
powers go no further than the suspension or excommunication of members
from Church fellowship.
That this Church, while offering advice for the welfare of its
members in all conditions of life, does not claim or exercise the right to
interfere with citizens in the free exercise of social or political rights
and priv-[290]ileges. The ballot in this Territory is absolutely
untrammeled and secret. No man's business or other secular affairs are
invaded by the Church or any of its officers. Free agency and direct
individual accountability to God are among the essentials of our Church
doctrine. All things in the Church must be done by common consent, and no
officer is appointed without the vote of the body. We declare that there
is nothing in the ceremony of the Endowment, or in any doctrine, tenet,
obligation or injunction of this Church, either private or public, which
is hostile or intended to be hostile to the Government of the United
States. On the contrary, its members are under divine commandment to
revere the Constitution as a heaven-inspired instrument and obey as
supreme all laws made in pursuance of its provisions.
Utterances of prominent men in the Church at a time of great
excitement have been selected and grouped, to convey the impression that
present members are seditious. These expressions were made more than
thirty years ago, when through the falsehoods of recerant officials,
afterwards demonstrated to be baseless, troops were sent to this Territory
and were viewed by the people, in their isolated condition, fifteen
hundred miles from railroads, as an armed mob coming to renew the bloody
persecutions of years before.
At that time excitement prevailed and strong language was used; but
no words of disloyalty against the Government or its institutions were
uttered; public speakers confined their remark's to denouncing traitorous
officials who were prostituting the powers of their positions to
accomplish nefarious ends. Criticism of the acts of United States
officials was not considered then, neither is it now, as treason against
the nation nor as hostility to the Government. In this connection we may
say that the members of our Church have never offered or intended to
offer, any insult to the flag of our country; but have always honored it
as the ensign of laws and liberty.
We also declare that this Church does not claim to be an independent,
temporal kingdom of God, or to be an imperium in imperio aiming to
overthrow the United States or any other civil government. It has been
or-[291]ganized by divine revelation preparatory to the second advent of
the Redeemer. It proclaims that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Its
members are commanded of God to be subject unto the powers that be until
Christ comes, whose right it is to reign.
Church government and civil government are distinct and separate in
our theory and practice, and we regard it as part of our destiny to aid in
the maintenance and perpetuity of the institutions of our country.
We claim no religious liberty that we are unwilling to accord to
others.
We ask for no civil or political rights which are not granted and
guaranteed to citizens in general.
We desire to be in harmony with the Government and people of the
United States as an integral part of the nation.
We regard all attempts to exclude aliens from naturalization, and
citizens from the exercise of the elective franchise, solely because they
are members of the "Mormon" Church, as impolitic, unrepublican, and
dangerous encroachments upon civil and religious liberty.
Not withstanding the wrongs we consider we have suffered through the
improper execution of national laws, we regard those wrongs as the acts of
men and not of the Government; and we intend, by the help of Omnipotence,
to remain firm in our fealty and steadfast in the maintenance of
constitutional principles and the integrity of this Republic.
We earnestly appeal to the American press and people not to condemn
the Latter-day Saints unheard. Must we always be judged by the
misrepresentations of our enemies, and never be accorded a fair
opportunity of representing ourselves?
In the name of justice, reason and humanity, we ask for a suspension
of national and popular judgment until a full investigation can be had and
all the facts connected with what is called the "Mormon" question can be
known. And we appeal to the Eternal Judge of all men and nations to aid us
in the vindication of our righteous cause.
WILFORD WOODRUFF,
GEORGE Q. CANNON,
[292] JOSEPH F. SMITH,
Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
LORENZO SNOW,
FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS,
BRIGHAM YOUNG,
MOSES THATCHER,
FRANCIS M. LYMAN,
JOHN HENRY SMITH,
GEORGE TEASDALE,
HEBER J. GRANT,
JOHN W. TAYLOR,
M.W. MERRILL,
A.H. LUND,
ABRAHAM H. CANNON,
Members of the council of the Apostles.
JOHN W. YOUNG,
DANIEL H. WELLS,
Counselors.
(Deseret Evening News, 14 Dec 1889)
Friday 13 Dec 1889, Deseret Evening News:
By Telegraph to the NEWS.
THE "MORMON" CHURCH.
Issue of Another Manifesto Denying the Recent Allegations
SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 13, --Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and
Joseph F. Smith, Apostles of Mormon Church, have issued another manifesto
unqualifiedly denying all the charges made against the Church in the
recent hearing before Judge Anderson. So far from any doctrine or teaching
of the Church being hostile to the United States government, the members
of the Church are under a divine command to revere the Constitution as a
heaven-inspired instrument, and to obey as supreme all laws made in
pursuance of its provisions. The signers of the manifesto regard the
attempt to exclude aliens from naturalization and citizens from the
elective franchise on account of membership in the Mormon Church as
impolitic and a dangerous encroachment upon civil and religious liberty.
They earnestly appeal to the American press and people not to condemn the
Latter-day [293] Saints unheard. (Deseret Evening News, 14 Dec 1889)
14 Dec 1889:
* * * It was ordered that the Manifesto of the First Presidency and
Twelve be published in this evening's Deseret News and tomorrow morning's
Salt Lake Herald, (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
Tuesday 17 Dec 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
THAT OFFICIAL DECLARATION.
The Apostles of the Mormon Church declare that the doctrines, aims
and practices of their church have been greatly misrepresented for years
for political purposes. That charge, if true, would be an impeachment of
both the intelligence and sense of justice of the American people. Such a
charge was never before made against this Nation. And this charge is not
true. There has never been a day since the Mormons settled Utah that they
could not have put themselves in perfect accord with the American people
by accepting as sovereign the laws that all other Americans accept.
The second paragrpah declares that the church views with the utmost
abhorrence the shedding of human blood, a capital crime, except in
conformity with the civil law. The answer to that is, first, that every
one of the high Mormon officials who signed the declaration believe that
the following is a command of God:
"And if any man or woman shall commit adultery, he or she shall be
tried before three elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be
established against him or her by two witnesses of the church, not of the
enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better.
But if he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses,
and the elders shall lay the case before the church, the church shall lift
up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according
to the law of God."
The law, of the Mormon God prescribed death for the offense, and
without debating the feelings of as intangible [294] a something as is the
use of the word church in that connection, it is enough to say that the
church has kept a police force in this city from the beginning that has
had no such abhorrence of blood as the paragraph portrays, and while it is
true that many apostates and many Gentiles, who have insisted upon the
enforcement of the laws, have lived here undisturbed, that tenet of the
Mormon faith has never been surrendered, and the number of men that have
been put out of the way will never be known. While the signers of this
declaration are so pronounced in their assertion that to kill a man for
apostacy would be a horror to them, it is nevertheless true that the
Morrisites were killed; that at a meeting of the School of the Prophets
after the expulsion of GORDE, HARRISON and LAWRENCE, it was declared that
those men richly merited death, but that it was not expedient to have them
killed, and four years ago in this city the direct attempt was made to
kill COLLIN by an Elder of the Mormon Church, assisted by three other
assassins. As for garbiling sermons, there has been no occasion to do any
such thing. The sermons in their entirety show for themselves.
The "revelation" referred to, as to the treatment of offenders, is
like the laws of Moses to the Israelites, and does not apply when Mormons
are dealing with what the revelation calls "the enemy," which means all
who are not Mormons.
The next paragraph declares that no court of the church claims or
exercises judicial functions or the right to supersede, annul or modify a
judgment on any civil court. In answer we say that very thing was done by
the church within the last three or four years. A brother who had obtained
a judgment for $1200 was forced to withdraw and settle as a Bishop's or
some other church court ordered.
The next paragraph is terrible, when we reflect upon what has been
done here through all the years past. It says if the church does not claim
or exercise the right to interfere with citizens in the free exercise of
social or political rights and privileges. The ballot in this Territory is
absolutely untrammeled and secret. No man's business or other secular
affairs are invaded by the [295] church or any of its officers.
That is simply awful, as going forth from a body of church men. In
the first place absolute obedience to priestly dictation is inculcated
from the cradle, and welded and clinched at maturity with horrible oaths.
The whole system rests on the theory that the Mormon Church is the
Government of God through His Priesthood. Take that away and the creed
would fall to the ground. That has been thundered from every Mormon pulpit
through all the years. To see that it is enforced, there is a direct line
of priests from the head of the church down to the ward teachers, and the
record of every man is perpetually on file. To carry out the government
the heads of the church have nominated every civil officer since the
organization of the Territory, and all the scratched votes have not
numbered a thousand in forty years. Impress a man with the belief and
surround him with the fear that by disobeying another man's command he
disobeys God, and what more complete servitude can be desired?
The next paragraph denies hostility to the Government and affects
reverence for the Constitution. The Endowment House oath omits the word
"Government," also the word "Nation." It is a cunning jugglery of
words--like most Mormon phraseology--that exerts its force by implication.
As to the Constitution, it is revered by Mormons as Mormons construe it,
but not as the Supreme Court does. It is revered because, as construed by
the Mormon Church, it would prevent the courts from executing justice to
the violators of the laws of the United States and of civilization.
The next paragraph complains that utterances of prominent men in the
Church, made more than thirty years ago, at a time of great excitement
when recerant officials by falsehoods caused the bringing of troops here,
have been selected and grouped for mischief, but that even then no words
of disloyalty against the Government or its institutions were uttered.
The answer is that the paragraph is untrue from beginning to end. The
officers were not recreant; they asked for nothing out of the way, the
court records were carried away as they reported and some were destroyed
[296] and there was never a more rebellious mob on earth than the Mormons
then here.
In this same paragraph it is asserted that the members of the Mormon
Church have never offered or intended to offer any insult to the flag.
The answer is that if they have not, then their object must have been
to use it in a way to precipitate a riot in this city, for they placed it
at half mast on a day when it was calculated that native Americans would
try to avenge the insult.
The next denial--that the church does not claim to be a temporal
kingdom--is a shameful falsehood and a direct contradicition of the
teachings here for forty years. The next assertion that "Church government
and civil government are distinct and separate in our theory and practice,
is but another play upon words. There are separate organizations, but one
head directs both. The church is the son of the old man, the State is but
his bound apprentice and does not come up to the dignity of a hired man.
The balance of the Declaration is composed of mere platitudes except
in the assertion that the denying of naturalization to Mormons is
impolitic, unrepublican and a dangerous encroachment upon civil and
religious liberty." That is pertinent if a Republic has no inherent power
to protect itself against those who are willing to take the oath of
citizenship while bound in mind and soul to a higher allegiance to another
power, and not otherwise.
The appeal for a suspension of public opinion is merely a confession
that the expenditure of millions of money; the patronage of a great
people, the retaining of great attorneys and wholesale lying and perjury
through the years have not been sufficient to cause the American people to
see any good reason why a band of desperate priests in Utah should, under
the cloak of religion, assume the right to defy the laws, to enslave a
people, degrade the American home and outrage civilization.
[297]
19 Dec 1889, Abraham H. Cannon:
* * * During our meeting a revelation was read which Pres. Woodruff
received Sunday November 24th. Propositions had been made for the Church
to make some concessions to the Courts in regard to its principles. Both
of Pres. Woodruff's counselors refused to advise him as to the course he
should persue, and he therefore laid the matter before the Lord. The
answer came quick and strong. The word of the Lord was for us not to yield
one particle of that which He had revealed and established. He had done
and would continue to care for his work and those of the Saints who were
faithful, and we need have no fear of our enemies when we were in the line
of our duty. We are promised redemption and deliverance if we will trust
in God, and to pray often. The whole revelation was filled with words of
the greatest encouragement and comfort, and my heart was filled with joy
and peace during the entire reading. It sets all doubts at rest concerning
the course to persue. (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon)
19 Dec 1889:
REPORT OF THE UTAH COMMISSION As To The Management Of The Industrial
Christian Home Of Utah Territory.
Hon. LEVI P. MORTON
President of the United States Senate, in Congress Assembled:
The Utah Commission, which by act of Congress, approved 19th of
October, 1888, was created a "Board of Management and Control of the
Industrial Christian Home Association for the Territory of Utah," and
required to report to Congress, beg leave to report:
Under the provisions of the act of Congress, above referred to, the
Commission assumed a quasi control of the Industrial Home about the 1st of
November, 1888, and so soon as they were advised of the trust imposed upon
them. But they did not assume an actual and supervising control until
about the 15th of November, 1888, the delay being caused by the
limitations imposed by the act requiring the appointment of a disbursing
agent [298] and the conveyance of the grounds upon which the Home is
located to the Government of the United States in fee-simple. Col. Henry
Page having been appointed the disbursing agent, and the president of the
Industrial Christian Home Association having given satisfactory assurance
that the grounds should be conveyed, as required by the act of Congress,
on the 15th of November, 1888, they entered upon the active discharge of
their duties.
The Home is under the immediate management of a board of ladies and
gentlemen of broad and philantropic views, who, without the hope of other
reward than the answer of a good conscience, are laboring for the rescue
and to promote the interest of the women who have been deluded into and
wish to flee from polygamy and polygamous influences and seek a home in
this house of refuge and asylum so bounteously provided by the Government
for their relief. These ladies and gentlemen are courageously working to
break down the prejudices of the Mormon church against the institution,
and as far as possible to win the confidence of those for whom this
shelter is erected. They are working to accomplish a great reform among a
people who cling, with religious fanaticism to this relic of Asiatic
barbarism. It is to be hoped that they may be successful in an eminent
degree.
As to the ultimate success of the Home, the Commission express no
opinion. It is an experiment which time only can solve. Whether the
deluded woman of polygamous marriages will, afterawhile, as the coils of
the law, slowly circle them about, avail themselves of the munificence
which the Government offers them in the Home remains to be seen. As yet
but few have done so, and as it appears by the report of Mrs. Jeannette H.
Ferry, president of the Industrial Christian Home Association, hereto
appended, the number seems to be lessening.
The occupants at this time are three women and six children, who are
abundantly cared for and apparently happy. It is understood that the
priesthood of the Mormon Church are inimical to the institution, and
through the controlling influence which they exercise the entire church is
arrayed against it. They are charged with using every art to prevent women
from entering the home, [299] and to entice them away when they have been
admitted there.
1890:
Salt Lake City passed from the hands of the People's Party to those
of the Liberals, or anti-Mormon element. Nearly all the civil rights left
to the Saints were threatened by proposed anti-Mormon legislation.
President Woodruff issued his manifesto, suspending plural marriage.
4 Jan 1890, Deseret Evening News:
THE IDAHO TEST OATH CASE.
The case before the Supreme Court of the United States on which a
decision is anxiously expected promises to be one of the most important
ever presented to that tribunal. It involves the question of the
constitutional scope of religious liberty and the limit of legislative
powers as to the free exercise of religion.
The case on behalf of the appellant was ably argued by Hon. F.S.
Richards of this city and Judge Jeremiah M. Wilson of Washington, D.C. No
stenographic report was taken of the oral arguments, but the brief
presented to the Court has been received, as printed, and we give the
following synopsis, so that whatever may be the result, the friends of
constitutional freedom may know that their cause was fully, clearly and
ably advocated before the highest court of our country.
Before the Supreme Court of the United States for the October term,
an appeal was made from a final order and judgment of the District Court
of the Third Judicial District of Idaho Territory, upon a writ of habeas
corpus duty issued out of said court for the production of the body of
Samuel D. Davis, by which order the petitioner was remanded to the custody
of the sheriff of Oneida County, Idaho Territory, and is still held in
custody by him. The appellant, by his petition and exhibits thereto
annexed, prayed to be discharged from custody on the judgment and sentence
rendered and imposed by the District Court for the Third Judicial District
of Idaho Territory on the 12th day of September, 1889. He had been
convicted of con-[300]spiracy in unlawfully procuring himself to be
registered as an elector, contrary to the following provisions of the
Revised Statutes of Idaho:
"Sec. 501. No person under guardianship, non compos mentis, or
insane, nor any person convicted of treason, felony, or bribery in the
Territory, or in any other State or Territory in the Union, unless
restored to civil rights, nor any person who is a bigamist, polygamist, or
who teaches, advises, counsels or encourages any person or persons to
become bigamists or polygamists or to commit any other crime defined by
law, or to enter into what is known as plural or celestial marriage, or
who is a member of any order, organization, or association which teaches,
advises, counsels or encourages its members or devotees, or any other
persons, to commit the crime of bigamy, polygamy, or any other crime
defined by law, either as a rite or ceremony of such order, organization,
or association, or otherwise, is permitted to vote at any election, or to
hold any position or office of honor, trust, or profit within this
Territory."
Section 504 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho requires an elector to
swear, among other things, that he is not.
"A member of any order, organization, or association which teaches,
advises, counsels or encourages its members, devotees, or any other person
to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by
law, as a duty arising or resulting from membership in such order,
organization, or association, or which practices bigamy or polygamy or
plural or celestial marriage as a doctrinal rite of such organization."
The appellant had taken the oath prescribed by the Idaho Statute and
had sworn that he possessed all the qualifications of an elector and was
not under any of the disabilities named in these sections. The indictment
averred that he was at the time
"A member of an order, organization, and associ-[301]ation, namely,
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then and there otherwise
and commonly known as the Mormon Church which taught, advised, counselled,
and encouraged its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and
polygamy as duties arising and resulting from membership in said order,
organization, and association, and which said order, organization, and
association, as they each and all then and there well knew, practiced
bigamy and polygamy and plural and celestial marriage as doctrinal rites
of said organization and therefore guilty."
It is not denied, and consequently is admitted, that he had the
qualifications of citizenship, age, and residence; he was not under the
disability of any conviction for treason, felony or bribery; he was not
registered or entitled to vote at any other place; he was not a bigamist
or polygamist; he did not and would not, publicly or privately, or in any
manner whatever, teach, advise, counsel or encourage any person to commit
bigamy or polygamy, nor any other crime, and he regarded the Constitution
and laws, as interpreted by the courts, as the supreme law of the land,
any teachings of the Church to the contrary notwithstanding.
It is only claimed that he belonged to the Mormon Church, which, the
indictment charges, taught, advised, counselled and encouraged its members
and devotees to commit bigamy and polygamy, as duties arising and
resulting from membership in such Church.
This raises the only question in the case:
Could the appellant be disfranchised and disqualified from holding
office because of membership in the Mormon Church?
His Counsel answer, No. Such legislation is forbidden by the
Constitution of the United States. It is claimed in the brief for the
appellant:
The Idaho Statute Disfranchising and Disqualifying Citizens from Holding
office Because of Membership in the Mormon Church is Unconstitutional and
Void, Because it Prohibits "The Free Excercise of Religion."
[302] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.--Constitution, Art. 1,
Amendments.
The provisions of the statute of Idaho, which provide, as quoted
above, are in violation of this article of the Constitution, and therefore
void.
The court has held that "religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere
throughout the United States so far as Congressional interference is
concerned," (98 U.S., 162,) and that "Congress cannot pass a law for the
government of Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of
religion." (Ibid, 162.) It necessarily follow's that a Territorial
legislature cannot pass such a law. In the language of this court,
"Congress could confer no power on any local government established by its
authority to violate the provisions of the Constitution." (19 How. 450.)
Section 1891 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that:
"The Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not
locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within all the
organized Territories and in every Territory hereafter organized, as
elsewhere within the United States."
This inhibition against prohibiting the free exercise of religion
brings the inquiry whether prohibition of membership in a church, or
disfranchisement because of such membership, is a prohibition of the "free
exercise of religion."
The Constitutional guarantee involves more than mere opinion and
belief. It not only protects a man in the enjoyment of his religious
opinions, but also in the free exercise of religion. This free exercise of
religion must, embrace his right to enjoy the benefits of a church, to
worship according to its forms and ceremonies, to participate in its
ordinances and partake of its sacraments, and this he could not do without
being a member of the church organization. It does not necessarily follow
from such membership that he must believe all the dogmas or [303]
doctrines of the church. He may disbelieve any or even all of them, but
its ceremonies, forms, and associations may be of such a character as
comport with his ideas of worship and duty to his Creator. No matter what
his belief is, if he violates no law, he may freely exercise his religion
according to such forms and ceremonies. If he cannot, he is deprived of
the free exercise of religion. This must be so, otherwise the words of the
Constitution, "or prohibition the free exercise thereof" are surplusage
and without meaning. It requires no such declaration a this to secure only
freedom of opinion and belief.
The appellant violated no law. He did not practice bigamy or
polygamy, nor did he advise any one else to do so. It does not appear that
he even believed in these practices, and certainly he repudiated them by
his oath. He simply belonged to the Mormon Church and claimed his right to
worship in that Church. This act undertakes to say that he shall not do
this without forfeiting his franchise, one of the most sacred rights of
citizenship.
This is equivalent to saying he shall not belong to that particular
Church nor worship within it, because of its doctrines on certain
subjects, although he is not bound to and may not believe them. He may
join any other church, may have the same religion and exercise it in any
other church, but not in this one. Thus far we have proceeded upon the
hypothesis that, since there is nothing in the record to show what the
appellant really did believe, he may have become a member of the Church
and worshipped in it according to its methods without believing in these
doctrines, and for such worship he could not be constitutionally deprived
of his franchise.
But suppose he did believe in bigamy and polygamy, and associated and
worshipped with others who believed with him, or he with them, in a church
organization. Can he be disfranchised because of this belief?
It will not do to say that he is disfranchised, not because of his
belief, but because of his membership in the church. That would be
sticking in the bark, because some reason must be found for saying that he
shall not belong to such a Church, and that reason, as cannot be [304]
disguised, is belief in its doctrines as to bigamy and polygamy. Therefore
this is disfranchisement on account of belief. "Laws are made for the
government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious
belief and opinions, they may with practices." (98 United States, 164)
This court held that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over
mere opinion," that is "was left free to reach actions which were in
violation of social duties or subversive of good order, "but that it could
not "prohibit the free exercise of religion." (Ibid, 162.) The question
before the court in that case was, whether a man who had entered into a
plural marriage could claim exemption from punishment because he had done
so from a sense of religious duty. The court held that, while he was
protected in his belief, he was liable to punishment for the practice, and
it endorsed the declaration, "that it is time enough for the rightful
purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles
break out into overt acts against peace and good order." (98 United
States, 163.)
The appellant might safely rest his case on this definition, for, as
we have already shown, he has been guilty of no "overt act against peace
and order," because mere membership in the Church is not an overt act
against peace and good order. But the importance of the subject demands a
more extended inquiry into the meaning of the terms "religion" and "the
free exercise thereof." The Constitution has not defined these terms, Nor
have they been fully expounded by this court. We therefore invite the
attention of the court to some popular definitions that may throw light on
this subject:
RELIGION.
"Religion means the conscious relation between man and God, and the
expression of that religion in human conduct,"--Religions Encyclopaedia or
Dictionary, Schaff-Herzog.
"Religion in Christian countries is generally understood as the
feeling of reverence toward the Creator and ruler of the world, together
with all those acts of worship and service to which that feeling leads.
The root of this [305] sentiment lies in the very constitution of
man."--The New People's Cyclopaedia of Universal Knowledge, vol. 8.
"In all forms of religion there is one part which may be called the
doctrine of dogma, which is to be received by faith; and the cultus or
worship, which is the outward expression of the religious sentiment. By
religion is also meant that homage to the Deity in all the forms which
pertain to the spiritual life, in contrast with theology, the theory of
the divine nature and government."--McClintock & Strong's Cyclopaedia of
Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 8.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
"Entire freedom of creed, thought, and worship, perfect equality of
all religious associations, and a protection of each from the domination
of the other is what is meant by religious liberty. In the United States
religious liberty is a personal right, the principle being fundamental
that what is religious is of necessity beyond the reach of
Government."--The New People's Cyclopaedia of Universal Knowledge, vol. 2.
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship
may be considered as one of the absolute rights of individuals, recognized
in our American Constitutions and secured to them by law. Civil and
religious liberty generally go hand in hand, and the suppression of either
of them, for any length of time, will determine the existence of the
other."--2 Kent's Comentaries, 35.
A number of other citations are made to similar effect.
It is evident from the foregoing standard authorities that religious
liberty is a right embracing more than opinion, sentiment, faith, or
belief. It includes all "Human conduct" that gives expression to the
relation between man and God; it includes "all frames of feeling, all
forms of faith, and acts of worship it to which man is impelled by his
hopes or fears; it includes the "cultus" or "outward expression of the
religious sentiment;" it means "entire freedom of creed, thought, and
worship," with a [306] restriction upon the Government that it "cannot go
behind the overt act;" in other words, it includes all acts of manifested
or exercise of religion which are not in violation of "peace and good
order." (98 United States, 163.)
That the term "free exercise of religion" was intended by the
promoters of the first article of amendment to the Constitution to have
this broad and comprehensive signification is apparent from an examination
of the history of that period, to which this court said we should look for
the meaning of the term, and, in the Reylolds case, supra, it gave an
epitome thereof.
Here is given the full text of that epitome, and after quoting in
full the Virginia "Act for establishing religious freedom," (see Appendix)
referred to by the Supreme Court, the belief cites the language of Thomas
Jefferson concerning that act, and also of George Washington.
The provisions from the Constitutions of the original States and from
the charters of several of the colonies declaring the "natural and
inalienable right of every individual to worship God according to the
dictates of his own conscience," and securing "the free exercise of
religion," so long as it did not disturb "the peace and safety of the
State," are quoted at length, also Mr. Madison's definition of religious
freedom, the amendments on this subject proposed by the States at the time
of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and ohter valuable historical
facts, after which the document continues:
It is evident from the foregoing that the colonial idea of religious
freedom did not consist in the preservation of the right to entertain
opinion or belief merely, but in securing the right to a "free exercise of
religion, according to the dictates of conscience," and this included
"practices" as well as faith and worship, so long as they did not if
actually disturb the civil peace of the colony." There can be no doubt
that this is the "free exercise of religion" which our patriot fathers
intended to secure to their posterity, and it is what we are contending
for in this case.
[307] The comments of St. George Tucker on the First Amendment to the
Constitution are quoted at length and the brief continues:
Here we have the thrilling words of one who was nurtured in the very
cradle of liberty, telling us that this constitutional guaranty is no idle
pledge, but that it secures "the absolute and unrestrained exercise of our
religious opinions and duties, in that mode which our own reason and
conviction dictate, without the control or intervention of any human power
or authority what ever," and that "all men of all religions" are "equally
entitled to protection, as far as they demean themselves honestly and
peaceably." What language could be plainer than this? And who better
qualified to speak upon this important subject than one who was at the
time an eminent expounder of constitutional law, in the new republic.
Leaving the musty annals of the last century, we come now to the
testimony of the great commentator on the Constitution and find that he
does not differ from the others in his interpretation of the guaranty of
religious liberty. He says:
"The rights of conscience are indeed, beyond the just reach of any
human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human
authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as
well as of revealed religion."--2 Story on the Constitution, Sec. 1876.
Further extracts from Story are given and also from Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, and the brief says:
It will be seen from the foregoing that all the authorities agree in
sustaining the view, that "The free exercise of religion" means more than
mere opinion or belief, and that it may include "acts" and "practices" not
prohibited by law. The constitutional inhibitions cited by Mr. Cooley
apply as well to the legislative power of a Territory as to that of
Congress, and they are both restrained within the limits of the
Constitution. This Court has said:
[308] "No one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law, in
a Territory respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise
thereof" (19 How., 450.)
It will hardly be pretended that Congress could say a man should not
vote in a Territory if he worshipped according to the forms and ceremonies
of the Methodist Church, or those of any other church, nor because he was
a member of any particular church that entertained a certain belief, nor
because he held any particular opinion on religious subjects. Surely
Congress could not do this without violating the provisions guaranteeing
the right to the free exercise of religion. It has often been decided that
Congress cannot do by indirection what it is not permitted to do directly.
This court has held the "deprivation of civil or political rights may
be punishment," and if Congress should enact that a man otherwise
qualified should not vote if he entertained a particular religious belief,
or if he belonged to a church that entertained that belief, it would be
punishment prescribed for the purpose of coercing his action in respect of
that as to which the Constitution guarantees him absolute freedom.
It is no answer to this to say that the creed or doctrine of this
Church teach polygamy as a duty. It may never be practiced,
notwithstanding the teachings, and if not practiced, the exclusion is only
because of expressed opinion--expressed in speech or through the
press--freedom as to both of which is guaranteed by the Constitution. He
has a right to believe that polygamy is divinely ordained, that it was
right in the patriarchal days and is no less right now; but this court
says that he enjoys this right of opinion, subject to the right of the
government to punish him if he puts that belief into practice. This is the
extent to which you have said Congress can go and no further: If a man
believes in polygamy and teaches it, or belongs to a church that teaches
it, he is not to be punished or deprived of any privilege accorded to
others because of that belief or teaching; he is only amenable to the law
and liable to its penalties when he becomes guilty of the offense of
bigamy or polygamy. [309] To disfranchise him when he has not committed
any offense, simply because he belongs to a church that teaches bigamy and
polygamy, and some of whose members practice it, is to punish him for the
overt acts of other persons, over whom he could exercise no control. No
one can be thus made responsible for the conduct of his associates, and to
attempt it is an unwarranted exercise of arbitrary power.
We have already shown that if Congress cannot do this a Territorial
legislature is equally restricted. But the Idaho act has said that a
citizen who has not committed polygamy, or any other offence, and has done
nothing more than to belong to the Mormon Church, which Church, as an
organization, is alleged by this indictment to not only teach but
"practice" Polygamy, shall not vote or hold office. An illustration will
serve to show, the vice of this enactment. It is a fact so well known that
the Court may take judicial notice of it, that the vast majority of the
members of this Church never were in the polygamous relation. A man who
belongs to the Church and has exhibited every quality of good citizenship
through a long and honorable life, finds himself disfranchised by this
act, not because he has ever lived in polygamy, nor because he has
committed any other offence, but solely because he belongs to this
particular Church organization.
Children of monogamic parents are born in the Church and become
members at an early age. A young man who has broken no law and who never
had even one wife reaches the age of 21 years and presents himself for
registration as a voter. This act denies him that right on the sole ground
that he is a member of that Church. He was baptized at the age of eight
years. If he continues to partake of the sacrament of the Lord's supper on
the Sabbath day with his Mormon brethren he forfeits the elective
franchise. Another example: A native born American citizen, who possesses
all the qualifications of an elector, happens into a Mormon place of
worship in Idaho. He hears a sermon on the first principles of the Gospel
as taught by the evangelists, faith, repentance, [310] baptism for the
remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy
Ghost, but no mention is made of polygamy. He believes the principles
taught and asks the Mormon Elder to baptize him. It is done. The man
becomes a member of the Mormon church and thereby loses his franchise.
In these cases the "overt acts" which produce disfrachisement are the
ordinance of baptism and partaking of the sacrament of the Lord's supper.
To state the proposition is to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim that
this legislation does not require a religious test or prohibit the free
exercise of religion. Congress has never ventured so far in its
legislation. The able men who have been dealing with the "vexed question"
for years have not felt that such enactments could be justified. They are
too arbitrary and too nearly akin to the persecutive measures of the dark
ages to find advocates in the national legislature of a free country.
The brief then quotes from the debates in Congress on the Edmunds
Tucker bill and shows that Senator Edmunds and others deprecated the idea
of interfering with "opinions, beliefs, faith, doctrine or worship," and
counsel insist that because Congress only disfranchised actual polygamists
is persuasive that it was as far as Congress deemed it had the power to
go. This branch of the brief concludes as follows:
From the foregoing it conclusively appears that a man may entertain
any religious opinion, belief, faith, or sentiment he chooses, and there
is no civil power or authority that can in any way, directly or
indirectly, restrain or interfere with that opinion, nor deprive him of
any of the rights or priveleges of citizenship because thereof.
It is equally clear that he may, in "the free exercise of his
religion," worship "according to the dictates of his conscience," and
perform such "acts," and engage in such "practices" as he may deem "most
acceptable to his Creator," provided he commits no criminal offense. It is
only when he has done an act in violation of peace and good order, which
the law, has declared to be criminal, [311] that he can be punished, or
deprived of any right common to his fellow-citizens, and then he is not
punished, or thus deprived, because of his opinion, but because of the
commission of the act which has been forbidden by law.
It is not a crime, and in this country cannot be made a crime, to
belong to any particular church, and this, as we shall hereafter see, even
though it teach bigamy and polygamy. No legislative authority in the
United States has ever attempted to make such a law. The full extent to
which a statute might go would be to punish the act of bigamy or polygamy
when committed.
The appellant, in "the free exercise of religion," was entitled to
his membership in the Mormon church. He had committed no act forbidden by
law. Therefore the provisions of the Idaho statute disfranchising and
debarring him from office are unconstitutional and void.
II.
This Idaho Statute violates the XIVth Article of Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.--Constitution, Article XIV, Amendments.
As this article is, in terms, an inhibition against the States, it
may be contended that it does not apply to enactments by a Territorial
legislature or by Congress. On this point our contention is that when that
provision was placed in the Constitution it became a fundamental principle
of government and from that time forward there could be no legislation
from any source, or by any legislative body within the jurisdiction of the
United States, the effect of which would be to abridge the privileges or
immunities of any citizen, or to deprive him of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, or to deprive him of the equal protection
[312] of the laws. That provision was enacted to secure to every citizen
in the United States the same rights that all other citizens enjoy, and
what we are now contending for rests upon the same principle that was
announced by this Court in the Sinking Fund cases (99 U.S., 718), and has
been announced in other cases, to-wit: that although the Constitution only
prohibited the States from enacting laws imparing the obligation of
contracts, yet that principle was fundamental, and the power to make laws
impairing the obligation of contracts no more existed in contracts than in
the States. And so here; while the language of this constitutional
provision is that no State shall make any law, to abridge the privileges
of any citizen, or deprive him of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law, or deny him the equal protection of the laws, such
legislation being fundamentally wrong. Congress cannot pass such a law,
neither can the legislature of any Territory, which derives all its power
to legislate from Congress.
Passing now from this preliminary consideration, we are brought to
the question whether or not these portions of the Idaho statute which are
under consideration are an abridgment of the privileges of the citizen, or
deny to him the equal protection of the laws. In other words, is it
competent for the legislature of Idaho to enact that a man shall not vote
or hold office who belongs to the Mormon Church, which, it is averred in
this indictment, teaches, as a duty resulting from membership, the
doctrine of bigamy and polygamy? It is important to keep in mind, in this
connection, that there is no statute in Idaho that makes, or attempts to
make it an offense to belong to the Mormon Church, or to any church that
teaches such doctrines; and we have, therefore, here presented a case
where the party was required to make oath that he did not belong to such a
church, and, upon failure to take such oath, he was prohibited from
holding office or voting at an election. If he has not committed bigamy or
polygamy, no matter to what church he belongs, or whether he belongs to
any church, of course he cannot be punished for that offense. If he
belongs to a church, the Mormon Church, he has not thereby com-[313]mitted
any offense, because membership in such church has not been made an
offense. So that, in no aspect of the case, can he be regarded as having
committed any offense for which he can in any way be punished. But the
deprivation of the right to vote or hold office is, under these
circumstances, a punishment, because it deprives a man of one of the most
important rights recognized as appertaining to a citizen in a government
by the people, and because it casts an odium, and places a brand upon him
by stigmatizing him as being unworthy to participate in the government to
which he must render obedience, and therefore it comes within the
declaration of this Court in the Cummings case (4 Wall., 320), where the
Court says: "The deprivation of any rights, civil or political, previously
enjoyed, may be punishment, the circumstances attending and the causes of
the deprivation determining this fact." Without his having committed any
offense against the law, this legislation singles him out and refuses him
a high privilege because of membership in a particular church; such
discrimination is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.
Congress recognized this principle in the so-called Edmunds Act, 22
Statutes, 30, and after disfranchising all bigamists and polygamists,
provided in the ninth section of the act that no person otherwise eligible
to vote should be excluded from the polls "on account of any opinion such
person may entertain on the subject of bigamy or polygamy."
So we say that the act of Idaho is an illegal discrimination against
a certain class of citizens and in violation of the fourteenth article of
amendments, as that article has been construed by this court.
Numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are here
cited and quotations given from them showing, in the language of the
court, that the object of this amendment was "to secure equal rights to
all persons" and "to leave no room for the play and action of purely
personal and arbitrary power." The brief continues:
These extracts show, how far reaching is this 14th [314] article of
amendment. It prohibits discrimination on account of color, on account of
race. It strikes down all attempts to exercise purely personal and
arbitrary power. It secures equal rights to all persons. It will not
permit the State or any agency of the State to do any thing which
discriminates in favor of one citizen, or class of citizens, as against
another citizen or class of citizens. And it inevitably follows as a
result of this that it equally prohibits any discrimination by the State
in favor of one religions sect against another. It is broad enough and
comprehensive enough to protect every right of the citizen, civil,
political and religious, against any assault thereon by the State, and to
secure to every citizen immunity from restraints not placed upon all
others, and this having become a fundamental principle of the government,
it is a prohibition not merely upon a State, but equally in prohibition
upon Congress and upon the Territorial legislatures.
But in addition to this, and as bearing more directly upon another
clause of this amendment, we cite the language of this court:
"The right of suffrage, when granted, will be protected. He who has
it can only be deprived of it by due process of law."
Miner v. Happersett, 21 Wall., 176.
On this subject, Judge Jeremiah S. Black said:
"The right of suffrage is part of a voter's property. Its value is
inestimable, because it is the right preservative of all other rights. You
cannot deprive him of it without due process of law."
Quotations are then made from the writings of Daniel Webster and
Alexander Hamilton to show that disfranchisement, disqualification and
punishment by acts of the legislature are dangerous and contradictory to
the principles of true liberty.
THE RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS FOR [315] VOTERS.
But it may be said that a State or a Territory has a right to
prescribe the qualifications of voters and, as a general proposition this
is not controverted by us, but that right is not an unlimited one. It must
be exercised within the provisions of the Constitution. It must be a
reasonable exercise of power and not such legislation as will deprive the
citizen of any rights or privileges that are guaranteed to him by the
Constitution of the United States.
No precedent can be found that is precisely applicable to this case,
since it is the first time, in the history of the government, that an act
of the character now being considered has been enacted by the legislature
of a Territory.
As to a State, it may be conceded, as a general proposition, that it
has the right to fix such qualifications, but, while it is not necessary
to this case to settle or determine how far a State may go in this
direction, as the power of the State is this regard may be claimed to have
some bearing on the case, we do not concede, but deny, that a State has
unlimited power to prescribe the qualifications of its voters.
Religious liberty, as we have already seen, is now, classed among the
"absolute rights of individuals" (2 Kent Com., 34), or "among the first of
civil rights" (Cooley on Torts, 33), and, since a citizen of the United
States, although he may be, and of necessity is, a citizen also of a
State, the latter, in the exercise of its rights to fix the qualifications
of voters, cannot prescribe a religious test without striking down this
right, which, by the Constitution, is guaranteed to the citizen.
The State could not make as a test for holding office that a man
should or should not be a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or
that he should not believe in baptism by immersion or sprinkling, or be a
member of a particular church because of its doctrines, for the reason
that the Constitution, which was made for all the people of all the
nation, was intended to secure to them all the free exercise of religion;
and, therefore, it cannot be permitted to a State or abridge or impair
this [316] constitutional right of the free exercise of religion, by
admonishing the citizen that if he does exercise it he shall not enjoy the
privileges of voting or holding office.
To permit this would be to permit the States to reduce our boasted
religious liberty to a mere idea--a shadow without substance--for the
citizens, while citizens of the United States, are, at the same time,
citizens of the States, and if the latter may thus prevent the free
exercise of religion, the Constitutional guaranty exists only in name.
And this, we submit, is so, especially since the adoption of the
XIVth Article of Amendment to the Constitution.
But whatever may be the right of State is this regard, the same right
does not attach to the legislature of a Territory, and for the reason,
that the powers of a Territorial legislature are derived from Congress,
and it can exercise no power that Congress could not itself exercise.
III.
The Idaho Statue Violates Article VI of the Constitution of the United
States.
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States--Constitution, Article VI.
This constitutional provision was designed to exclude all
consideration of religion, or religious opinion, in fixing the political
rights of the citizen. Whatever else may be done or considered in fixing
his political status, or in according or withholding political rights, his
religious opinion cannot be considered.
That this is so cannot be more clearly expressed than in this
provision, by which a religious test to hold office is, with such
emphasis, forbidden.
This being forbidden everything incident to it is forbidden. It would
be a strange anomaly, when the Constitution so prohibits a religious test
as a qualification to an office, and thereby makes a man of any religious
[317] faith, or of no religious faith, eligible to hold the office of
President, if it could be enacted by any legislative body that he must be
of some particular faith, or must not be of some specified faith, or he
should not vote at an election for the office which the Constitution says
he is eligible to hold. Such an inconsistancy would be hostile to the
spirit of our government and the constitutional provision; the one is the
concomitant of the other, and no religious test can be applied to the one
that does not directly or indirectly affect the other, and what cannot be
done directly cannot be done indirectly (4 Wall., 125). There must be
harmony and consistancy in such a matter as this, and the application of
the principle must extend to the Territories of the United States.
Holding office and selecting persons to hold office are inseparable
parts of our system. They are associated together, and when a religious
test is forbidden to be applied to one, it is equally forbidden to be
applied to the other.
That this statute requires a religious test is apparent upon its
face. The ground of disfranchisement is membership in an organization
which encourages its members to commit bigamy or polygamy "as a duty
resulting from membership," or which practices bigamy or polygamy, or
celestial marriage, "as a doctrinal rite of such order." Simple
encouragement to commit crime by an organization of which the citizen is a
member does not disqualify him from voting, because, by the language of
the act, the encouragement must be offered upon the ground of duty, or
religious obligation arising from membership in the organization, or the
latter must teach the commission of these acts from religious motives,
otherwise the exclusion does not operate. And so also the practice must be
"as a doctrinal rite," or the member is not excluded. In other words, the
practice must be as a tenet of faith, sanctified by a religious ceremony;
and the language of the statute does not admit of such an interpretation
as will disfranchise the members of an organization existing solely for
the promotion of crime, however henious their acts may be, even though the
primary and sole object of the organization be to [318] commit murder,
theft, arson, rape, and other crimes which are malum in se, unless their
acts are the promptings of duty, or are performed "as doctrinal rites" or
religious ceremonies, the members are not disqualified by this statute
from voting or holding office. Mr. Webster defines a "rite" as:
"The act of performing divine or solemn service, as established by
law, precept, or custom, formal act of religion, or other solemn duty; a
religious ceremony of usage."
The object of this legislation was not only to deprive citizens of
the elective franchise because of their membership in a religious
organization, the Mormon Church, but to confine the exclusion provided for
to members of that religious organization.
IV.
The Idaho Statute is Void Because Congress has Exercised its Power on the
same Subject.
While denying the right of both Congress and the legislative assembly
of Idaho to prescribe the test it has, as a qualification for Voting and
holding office, if in error as to the power of Congress in this regard, we
still maintain that the Territorial legislature could not prescribe it,
for the reason that Congress had already legislated upon the subject, and
its action is "the supreme law of the land."
Undoubtedly Congress has the right to legislate for the Territories,
and the most that can be said for the Territorial legislature is that it
may legislate upon the same subjects if Congress has not already
legislated thereon, and in that respect it stands in the same attitude
towards Congress as a State, which may legislate if Congress does not, but
if Congress does legislate a State cannot, or if the State has legislated
and Congress afterwards does so, the State legislation is superseded.
The authorities on this subject are numerous and familiar.
[319] It is now settled that when powers are exercised by Congress, the
concurrent power in the inferior legislature ceases or is in abeyance;
that the two legislative wills cannot be exercised at the same time upon
the same subject-matter, and that of Congress, within its sphere, is "the
supreme law of the land."
After citing numerous authorities on this point, including several
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and quoting Section 8 of the Edmunds
Act, the brief says:
Congress provided that no bigamist or polygamist shall be entitled to
vote. This was legislation upon the subject of disfranchisement, as
connected with the offenses of bigamy and polygamy. This is as far as
Congress ventured to go; but the Idaho legislature undertakes to add to
what Congress has not seen fit to do, another disqualification, namely,
membership in the Mormon Church. Such additional legislation is
unconstitutional and void.
THE MORMON CHURCH NOT A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION.
We have already anticipated that the attempted answer to what we have
been discussing will be that the exclusion which we resist is not because
of religious opinion or belief, but only because of membership in a church
which inculcates as a doctrine bigamy and polygamy, and if there is any
answer to our contention it must be found in what we have just stated. We
have already partially considered this point, and now offer the following
additional suggestions in support of our contention that it is no answer
to our propositions. If it is an answer to every other objection that we
have made, it is no answer to the one which rests upon the proposition
that Congress, having legislated upon the subject of disfranchisement, the
Territorial legislature could not legislate further on that subject; but
we submit that it is not an answer to any of the other propositions we
have presented, because it rests entirely upon the mere fact of membership
in such a church. It involves of necessity an inquiry into the doctrines
of this Church and the religious belief of its members. It of necessity
involves a condemnation [320] of opinion and undertakes to control
individual association because of opinion or belief. It virtually says
that men who entertain the opinion that polygamy is sanctioned by divine
law, shall not associate themselves together as a church and exercise
religion, so that this attempted answer is bottomed in, and rests upon
exclusion from the elective franchise because of opinion.
The reply to this position, that it is exclusion because of
membership, and not because of opinion, must be looked for in a careful
consideration and application of those general principles of
constitutional law which lie at the foundation of all elective
governments.
That a citizen, who is entitled to vote according to the general
principles and the fundamental scheme of his government, cannot be
deprived of that right by the mere caprice or arbitrary act of the
legislature--such act not being founded upon some recognized principle of
reason looking to the welfare of the State--is one of those general and
well settled maxims of constitutional law which are of universal
recognition. According to this constitutional principle, a statute which
attempted to disfranchise a citizen because he was a cripple, or because
physically deformed, or because he had red hair, would be void in every
free country.
Or, coming somewhat nearer to the case at bar, a statue which
disfranchised a member of the "Society of Friends" merely because he was a
member of that society, and because such society holds and teaches that
all resorts to war are wrong, would be held, by the universal judgment of
free countries, to be void. It would be so held, not merely because of its
invasion of that religious liberty which is secured by the constitutions
and bills of rights of all free and elective governments, but also because
such a law is so grossly unequal, so arbitrary and unjust as to put it
outside of the province of legislation.
Apply, now, these general principles of law to the case at bar, and
in so doing, keep carefully in mind those other accepted principles of
constitutional law to which we have already pointed, to wit:
[321] One, that disfranchisement cannot be based on mere beliefs,
religious or otherwise, as distinguished from acts.
Another, that such disfranchisement cannot be based on the observance
of the practices of one's religion, when these do not involve crime
against the State.
Still another, that in the case at bar, the act which the statute of
Idaho makes a cause of disfranchisement is not that the appellant's church
was not a "religious" society within the sense of the word "religion," as
found in the first article of the amendment to the Constitution; nor that
the appellant either believed in or practiced, or inculcated the practice
of, any offense against the State, unless, indeed, his said membership
constituted, per se, such inculcation.
These indisputable points being carefully remembered, it results,
that if this statute is to be sustained as a valid one, then it must be
because it is competent for the legislature to disfranchise a citizen for
the mere fact that some of his church associates believe in a practice
made criminal by law.
If such a companionship, or such a membership, can be made the sole
ground for disfranchisement, then, manifestly, the legislature can just as
well make any other mere companionship, or association, with persons who
believe or who teach doctrines, some of which are forbidden by law, to be
the sole ground of disfranchisement.
This becomes self-evident, because this indictment does not allege
that the appellant was guilty of any crime--that he believed in any
criminal practice, or that a person could not belong to said Church
without believing in or practicing or inculcating such forbidden
practices. On the contrary, the indictment only shows that he was a member
of a Church where the practice of polygamy was held as a duty.
Hence, as already remarked, if this law can be sustained, it must be
because that it is competent for the legislature to ordain that any
citizen, although in all respects innocent and pure and intelligent, and
qualified to exercise the elective franchise equally with the most [322]
eminent in the State, be disfranchised merely because he belongs to a
society or a club, or a traveling party, or a church, wherein are admitted
those who hold or teach certain practices regarded by the law as criminal.
If the legislature may ordain that no man shall vote who has for his
companions in the Church those holding such principles, then, surely it is
equally competent for the Legislature to prohibit a man from voting who
has for his associates, in any other form of organization, or any other
companionship, people holding the same principles.
It seems to us, and we therefore submit, that if such act of
companionship can be seized upon by the legislature and made the ground
for disfranchising the citizen, then there is nothing that cannot be made
the ground of such disfranchisement, and the citizen is left, in this
regard, subject to the mere caprice of the legislative will, and liable to
its exeucise of arbitrary and despotic power.
Could it be that one man, if he taught polygamy as a Christian duty,
could be disfranchised because of such teaching? Hardly. If one man could
not, neither could a dozen, nor a hundred, nor any other number. Could an
association composed of such men, associated for the purpose of
promulgating such a doctrine, be declared an unlawful or criminal
association? That could not be. If it could, than an association of liquor
sellers could be made a criminal organization for teaching that laws
forbidding the sale of liquors are wrong, and should be repealed.
If such things as these can be declared criminal, then any
association of citizens for the purpose of opposing legislation which
declares anything an offense not malum in se could be dissolved as being
hostile to good government, and its members punished by disfranchisement.
The logical consequences of such a doctrine must condemn it. But
suppose another case; that there is an ecclesiastical association, a
church, that has for its creed the following:
Here follow the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. (See Appendix) This is the religious creed of the
Church of Jesus [323] Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon Church, and
is introduced here for the purpose of showing that this Church is not an
organization or association for the mere purpose of or devoted to teaching
polygamy, but is a teacher of principles and doctrines that must commend
themselves to all Christian people, and therefore it clearly comes within
the provisions of the first article of amendment to the Constitution, and
is entitled to its protection.
But returning to our supposed case, let us assume that, in addition
to the creed, there is taught the doctrine that polygamy is a duty, as
averred in the indictment, could such a church be declared to be a
criminal organization, and could a member of that church be disfranchised
because of his membership in it? If a man can be legally disfranchised for
membership in that church that door is wide open for the destruction of
religious freedom.
To say that a man shall be disfranchised, because of the fact that he
belongs to the Church, is only evading the real reason, and attempting by
an artifice to escape from and to set at naught principles that are of the
very essence of our system of government. It goes much deeper than mere
membership, and reaches to and attempts coercion in the matter of opinion.
Against such assualt we most earnestly protest. It is an insidious method
of invading the sacred domain of conscience and stricking down the
safeguards of religious liberty.
The great jurist, Jeremiah S. Black, in relation to religious tests
for holding office, used this expressive language:
"There shall be no religious test as a qualification for holding
office. Make what other test you please. Exclude a man, if you like, for
his political sentiments, or his moral conduct, for his wealth or his
poverty, for his youth or his age; make war on him for the color of his
hair, the length of his legs, or the shape of his nose, but let him alone
about his religion; that is consecrated ground; that is a point on which
the Constitution has refused to trust you with one particle of power; and
wisely, too; for mortal men are not fit to be trusted with such [324]
power; they have never had it without abusing it.--(Black's Essays and
Speaches, 54.)
The brief concludes as follows:
These words may be aptly applied to making religious opinions or
church membership a cause of test of qualification as a voter, and their
truth is abundantly attested by the history of religious persecution, from
the fiery ordeal of Abraham to the hanging of the Quakers in Boston. (Sec.
4 Blackstone's Commentaries, and "Chandler's History of Persecution.")
With these suggestions, we leave the case and this most important
question, involving the liberties of thousands of American citizens, in
the keeping of the Court.
FRANKLIN S. RICHARDS,
JEREMIAH M. WILSON,
SAMUEL SHELLABARGER,
For Appellant.
(Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Monday 13 Jan 1890, Deseret Evening News:
By Telegraph to the NEWS!
THE MORMONS.
A Bill for Their Disfranchisement.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 13. * * *
Stewart, of Vermont, today introduced in the House a bill declaring
no Mormon eligible to vote at any election or to hold any civil office in
the Territories of the United States, or to be naturalized as a citizen of
the United States, or to settle upon any public lands. Voters are required
to make oath they do not belong to the Mormon church as preliminary to
exercising the right of suffrage. (Deseret Evening News, 14 Jan 1890)
Tuesday 14 Jan 1890, Deseret Evening News:
By Telegraph to the NEWS!
CHURCH TEACHINGS.
Mormon Church Representatives Before the Senate Committee.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14. * * *
[325]
THE MORMONS.
The senate committee on Territories this afternoon listened to
statements of representatives of the Mormon church, declarative of the
teachings of the church in support of their argument that the constitution
adopted by the people of Idaho for a new State should not be accepted by
Congress. Bishop Budge, of the Mormon church in Idaho said he has always
been taught to obey the laws of the land and in forty-two years experience
with the Mormons he never knew any teachings to the contrary. The Mormons,
he said, were taught to believe in the divine inspiration of the
Constitution of the United States, and thus believing, he said the Mormons
had a higher reverence for it than other citizens. The practice of
polygamy was a thing of the past.
On the subject of blood atonement, Budge said there was no such
principle held or taught by the Mormon Church.
The delegate then presented the declaration of the officials of the
Church sent out from Salt Lake City, December 12th, 1889, of the teachings
and doctrines of the Church.
Ex-Governor Stevenson said if the Mormon Church did not teach
publicly or privately the principles of plural marriage, an official
declaration to that effect from the Church authorities in Salt Lake City
will settle the question of citizenship in Idaho. Under the proposed
constitution they have, he said, a remedy for the evils complained of in
their own hands. * * *
WASHINGTON, Jan. 14. --(Special to The Herald.) --The adjourned
hearing before the Senate committee on Territories on the admission of
Idaho was continued this afternoon. Delegate Dubois having yesterday made
some personal allusion to Mr. Budge, of Idaho, who is here in the interest
of the Mormons of that Territory, that gentleman was granted an
opportunity to reply, which he did. He explained his marital relations and
said he had never been indicted for polygamy as alleged. He had been
indicted for unlawful cohabitation, upon which charge he was tried and a
jury of non-Mormons acquitted him without leaving their seats. He showed
wherein [326] Mr. Dubois had made erroneous statements calculated to
mislead the committee, relative to the Mormons in Idaho. He was asked many
questions by members of the committee relative to the organization of the
Mormon Church, and as to the nature of his duties as president of a stake,
which he answered readily. His answers and explanations appeared to be
satisfactory.
Governor Shoup and ex-Governor Stephenson, of Idaho, who were
present, made some explanations relative to the charge of extravagant
salaries and other expenses contemplated by the proposed constitution.
Judge Jerry Wilson answered some of the remarks of Dubois made on
Monday. He commented upon the extraordinary decision recently made at Salt
Lake City by Judge Anderson, and read some extracts from that decision
showing that men who possessed all the qualifications for citizenship,
were denied that boon, solely because they were connected with a church
some members of which, it was alleged, had thirty years ago spoken or
written against the government of the United States. Just such rulings as
this might be expected from the Idaho judges under this constitution, if
Congress approved it. Indeed, he frankly stated before the committee that
the object of the so-called test-oath clause was to disqualify all
Mormons. He warned the committee not to permit such a dangerous power to
be given; it was impolitic, unwise, and un-American.
Delegate Caine, of Utah, was the last speaker. He said that the
statements made by Delegate Dubois relative to the Mormons of Utah were
quite as untrue as those concerning those people in Idaho. He said that he
had been for nearly forty-three years a member of that Church. He had
lived in Utah over thirty-seven years and claimed to know something about
Mormonism and the Mormons. The trouble with Delegate Dubois was that he
accepted as gospel truth all the stale slanders which had emanated from
apostates and other enemies of the Mormon people, and had never
investigated for himself. He said the best answer to these stories and to
the political harangue of Judge Cradlebaugh of thirty years ago and of
Judge Anderson of a few weeks ago, was the [327] work which the Mormon
people had accomplished in Utah and the adjoining Territories. He said he
had the honor to place in the hands of each member of the committee the
history of Utah by Hubert Howe Bancroft, of San Francisco. This was not
written by a Mormon, but by a man who for himself had investigated the
whole question. In those pages they would learn what the Mormons of Utah
had accomplished under the most trying circumstances. He said many of the
Senators before him had been in Utah and seen for themselves what had been
done. The men who build cities and towns, who open farms, plant orchards
and vineyards, are not thieves, murderers and cut throats, as the Mormons
were accused of being by Delegate Dubois. Referring to Judge Anderson's
late decision, he related the circumstances under which it was given and
characterized it as a political decision. He said he presumed that the
committee had heard of such decisions before. One senator answered that he
had. In conclusion, Mr. Caine read the official declaration issued by the
leading authorities of the Mormon church, which was listened to with
marked attention by all present. (Deseret Evening News, 15 Jan 1890)
Saturday 25 Jan 1890, Deseret Evening News:
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
A few weeks since Representative Taylor, of Ohio, introduced, in the
House, a joint resolution "for the amendment of the Constitution of the
United States in regard to polygamy and polygamous association or
cohabitation between the sexes." The article embodied in the resolution is
numbered 16. As a matter of historical interest, we insert it:
Section 1. The marriage relation, by contract or in fact, between one
person of either sex and more than one person of the other sex shall be
deemed polygamy. Neither polygamy nor any polygamous association or
cohabitation between the sexes shall exist or be lawful in any place
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State.
[328] Sec. (sic) 2. The United States shall not, nor shall any State, make
or enforce any law which shall allow polygamy or polygamous association or
cohabitation between the sexes, but the United States and every State
shall prohibit the same by law within their respective jurisdictions.
Sec. 3. The judicial power of the United States shall extend to the
prosecution of the crimes of polygamy and of polygamous association or
cohabitation between the sexes under this article; and Congress shall have
power to declare by law the punishment therefor.
Sec. 4. Nothing in the constitution or in this article shall be
construed to deny to any State the exclusive power, subject to the
provisions of this article, to make and enforce all laws concerning
marriage and divorce within its jurisdiction, or to vest in the United
States any power respecting the same within any State.
There is scarcely even a remote possibility of the ratification of
such amendment, as it is an invasion of State rights. (Deseret Evening
News)
Monday 3 Feb 1890, Deseret Evening News:
THE IDAHO LAW
Declared Constitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court
The following dispatch was received this afternoon:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3. --The Supreme Court of the United States today
rendered an opinion affirming the constitutionality of the Idaho test
oath, which is intended to prevent the "Mormons" from voting. The case
came up on an application for a writ of habeas corpus made by Samuel D.
Davis, who is in jail in Idaho, having been sentenced for unlawfully
taking the prescribed test oath when he was a member of the "Mormon"
Church. The court denies the application for a writ of habeas corpus,
holding that polygamy is a crime, and that the constitutional provision
guaranteeing freedom of religion is not intended to prevent the punishment
of any person who, in the name of religion, commits a crime in the eyes of
the law. Davis was not a polygamist, but simply a mem-[329]ber of the
"Mormon" Church. (Deseret Evening News)
3 Feb 1890, Deseret Evening News:
IDAHO TEST OATH.
Supreme Court of the United States. No. 1261. --October term, 1889.
Samuel D. Davis, appellant, vs. H.G. Beason, Sheriff of Oneida
County, Idaho Territory. Appeal from the Third Judicial District of the
Territory of Idaho.
DELINEATION.
In April, 1889, the appellant, Samual D. Davis, was indicted in the
District Court of the Third Judicial District of the Territory of Idaho,
in the county of Oneida, in connection with divers persons named, and
divers other persons whose names are unknown to the grand jury, for a
conspiracy to unlawfully pervert and obstruct the due administration of
the laws of the Territory, in this that they would unlawfully procure
themselves to be admitted to registration as electors of said county of
Oneida for the general election then next to occur in that county, when
they were not entitled to be admitted to such registration, by appearing
before the respective registrars of the election precincts in which they
resided, and taking the test oath presented by the statute of the State,
in substance, as follows: "I do swear (or afirm) that I am a male citizen
of the United States of the age of twenty-one years (or will be on the 6th
day of November, 1888); that I have (or will have) actually resided in
this Territory four months and in this county for thirty days next
preceding the day of the next ensuing election; that I have never been
convicted of treason, felony or bribery; that I am not registered or
entitled to vote at any other place in this Territory; and I do further
swear that I am not a bigamist or polygamist; that I am not a member of
any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels or
encourages its members, devotees, or any other person to commit the crime
of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law as a duty arising
or resulting from membership in such order, organization, or association,
or which [330] practices bigamy, or polygamy, or plural or celestial
marriage as a doctrinal rite of such organization; that I do not, and will
not, publicly or privately, or in any manner whatever, teach, advise,
counsel, or encourage any person to commit the crime of bigamy or
polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a religious duty or
otherwise; that I do regard the constitution of the United States and the
laws thereof and the laws of this Territory, as interpeted by the courts,
as the supreme laws of the land, the teachings of any order, organization,
or association to the contrary notwithstanding, so help me God, "when, in
truth, each of the defendants was a member of an order, organization and
association, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
commonly known as the Mormon Church, which they knew taught, advised,
counseled and encouraged its members and devotees to commit the crimes of
bigamy and polygamy as duties arising and resulting from membership in
said order, organization and association, and which order, organization
and association, as they all knew, practiced bigamy and polygamy and
plural and celestial marriage as doctrinal rites of said organization; and
that in pursuance of said conspiracy the said defendants went before the
registrars of different precincts of the county (which are designated) and
took and had administered to them respectively the oath aforesaid.
The defendants demurred to the indictment, and the demurrer being
overruled, they plead separtely not guilty. On the trial which followed on
the 12th of September, 1889, the jury found the defendant Samuel D. Davis
guilty as charged in the indictment. The defendant was thereupon sentenced
to pay a fine of $500, and in default of its payment to be confined in the
county jail of Oneida county for a term not exceeding 250 days, and was
remanded to the custody of the sheriff until the judgment should be
satisfied.
Soon afterwards, on the same day, the defendant applied to the court
before which the trial was had, and obtained a writ of habeas corpus,
alleging that he was imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the
sheriff of the county; that his imprisonment was by virtue of [331] his
conviction and the judgment mentioned and the warrant issued thereon; that
such imprisonment was illegal, and that such illegality consisted in this:
1, that the facts in the indictment and record did not constitute a public
offense, and the acts charged were not criminal or punishable under any
statute or law of the Territory; and 2, that so much of the statute of the
Territory which provides that no person is entitled to register or vote at
any election who is "a member of any order, organization or association
which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members, devotees or
any other person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy or any other
crime defined by law, as a duty arising or resulting from membership in
such order, organization or association, or which practices bigamy or
polygamy or plural or celestial marriage as a doctrinal rite of such
organization" is a "law respecting an establishment of religion," in
violation of the first amendment of the Constitution and void.
The court ordered the writ to issue, directed to the sheriff,
returnable before it, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of that day,
commanding the sheriff to have the body of the defendant before the court
at the hour designated, with the time and cause of his imprisonment, and
to do and receive what should then be considered concerning him. On the
return of the writ the sheriff produced the body of the defendant and also
the warrant of commitment under which he was held, and the record of the
case showing his conviction for the conspiracy mentioned and the judgment
thereon. To this return, the defendant, admitting the facts stated
therein, excepted to their deficiency to justify his detention. The court,
holding that sufficient cause was not shown for the discharge of the
defendant, ordered him to be remanded to the custody of the sheriff. From
this judgment the defendant appealed to this Court. (R.S. Sec. 1909.
THE DECISION.
February 3, 1890, Mr. Justice Field, after stating the case,
delivered the opinion of the Court: On this appeal our only inquiry is
whether the District Court of [332] the Territory had jurisdiction, of the
offense charged in the indictment of which the defendant was found guilty.
If it had jurisdiction, we can go no further. We cannot look into any
alleged errors in its rulings on the trial of the defendant. The writ of
habeas corpus cannot be turned into a writ of error to review the action
of that court. Nor can we inquire whether the evidence established the
fact alleged, that the defendant was a member of an order or organization
known as the Mormon Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, or the fact that the order or organization taught and
counseled its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and
polygamy as duties arising from membership therein. On this hearing we can
only consider whether these allegations being taken as true, an offense
was committed of which the Territorial court had jurisdiction to try the
defendant. And on this point there can be no serious discussion or
difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all
civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the
United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to
destroy the pruity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of
families, to degrade woman and to debase man. Few crimes are more
pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or
more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such
crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community, to call
their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of
mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise and counsel their
practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling
are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and
abetting crime are in all other cases.
The Term "Religion" has reference to one's views of his relations to
his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence of His being
and character, and of obedience to His will. It is often confounded with
the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but is distinguishable
from the latter. The first amendment to the Constitution, in declaring
that Congress shall [333] make no law respecting the establishment of
religion, or for bidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow,
every one under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such
notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose
as may be approved by his judgment and conscience, and to exhibit his
sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not injurious
to the equal rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the support
of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect. The
oppressive measures adopted, and the cruelties and punishments inflicted
by the governments of Europe for many ages, to compel parties to conform,
in their religious beliefs and modes of worship, to the views of the most
numerous sect, and the folly of attempting in that way to control the
mental operations of persons, and enforce an outward conformity to a
prescribed standard, led to the adoption of the amendment in question. It
was never intended or supposed that the amendment could be invoked as a
protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the
peace, good order and morals of society. With man's relation to his Maker
and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an
expression shall be made by him of his belief of those subjects, no
interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society,
designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people,
are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it
must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country passed with
reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects
of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of
their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and
advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes as prompted by the passions
of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human
sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a
sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift
punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no
heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious [334] beliefs,
their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the Constitution
of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country
has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the
government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian
world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must
be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging
crime may be carried out without hindrance.
On this subject the observations of this court through the late Chief
Justice Waite, in Reynolds v. United States, are pertinent. (98 U.S. 145,
165, 166.) In that case the defendant was indicted and convicted under
section 5352 of the Revised Statutes, which declared that it every person
having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or
single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have
exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a
fine of not more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term
not more than five years." The case being brought here, the court, after
referring to a law passed in December, 1789, by the State of Virginia,
punishing bigamy and polygamy with death, said that from that day there
never had been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy had not been
an offense against society cognizable by the civil courts and punished
with more or less severity; and added: "Marriage, while from its very
nature a sacred obligation, is, nevertheless, in most civilized nations a
civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said
to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social
obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to
deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are
allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people,
to a greater or less extent, rests." And, referring to the statute cited,
he said: "It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action
for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the
United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question
which remains [335] is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their
religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then
those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be
found guilty and punished, while those who do must be acquitted and go
free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are
made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with
mere religious belief or opinions, they may with practices. Suppose that
one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious
worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under
which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife
religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile
of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government
to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? So here, as a law of the
organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States,
it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man
excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To
permit this would be to make the expressed doctrines of religious belief
superior to the law of the land and in effect, to permit every citizen to
become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such
circumstances." And in Murphy v. Ramsey (114 U.S. 15, 45.) referring to
the act of Congress excluding polygamists and bigamists from voting or
holding office, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice Mathews, said:
"Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in
the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as
one of the co-ordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to
establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and
springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy
state of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in
our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverant morality which is the
source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And
to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those
provided in this act, which endeavors to with-[336]draw all political
influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment."
It is assumed by counsel of the petitioner that because no mode of
worship can be established or religious tenets enforced in this country,
therefore any form of worship may be followed and any tenets, however
destructive of society, may be held and advocated, if asserted to be a
part of the religious doctrines of those advocating and practising them.
But nothing is further from the truth. Whilst legislation for the
establishment of a religion is forbidden, and its free exercise permitted,
it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be
tolerated. Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any
particular sect may designate as religion.
It only remains to refer to the laws which authorized the legislature
of the Territory of Idaho to prescribe the qualifications of voters and
the oath they were required to take. The Revised Statutes provide that the
legislative power of every Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects
of legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the
United States. But no law shall be passed interfering with the primary
disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the
United States; nor shall the lands or the other property of nonresidents
be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. (R.S. sec.
1851.)
Under this general authority it would seem that the Territorial
legislature was authorized to prescribe any qualifications for voters
calculated to secure obedience to its laws. But, in addition to the above
law, Section 1859 of the Revised Statutes provides that "every male
citizen above the age of twenty-one, including persons who have legally
declared their intention to become citizens in any Territory hereafter
organized, and who are actual residents of such Territory at the time of
the organization thereof, shall be entitled to vote at the first election
in such Territory, and to hold any office therein, subject, nevertheless,
to the limitations specified in the next section," namely that in all
elections in any Territory subsequently organized by Congress, as well as
at [337] all elections in Territories already organized, the
qualifications of voters and for holding office shall be such as may be
prescribed by the Legislative Assembly of each Territory, subject,
nevertheless, to the following restrictions:
First. That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be
exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of
twenty-one or persons above that age who have declared their intention to
become such citizens;
Second. That the elective franchise or the right of holding office
shall not be denied to any citizen on account of race, color or previous
condition of servitude;
Third. That no soldier or sailor or other person in the army or navy,
or attached to troops in the service of the United States, shall be
allowed to vote until he has made his permanent domicile in the Territory
for six months; and,
Fourth. That no person belonging to the army or navy shall be elected
to or hold a civil office or appointment in the Territory.
These limitations are the only ones placed upon the authority of
Territorial Legislatures against granting the right of suffrage or of
holding office.
They have the power, therefore, to prescribe any reasonable
qualification of voters and for holding office not inconsistant with the
above limitations. In our judgment section 501 of the Revised Statutes of
Idaho Territory, which provides that "no person under guardianship, non
compos mentis or insane, nor any person convicted of treason, felony, or
bribery in this Territory, or in any other State or Territory in the
Union, unless restored to civil rights; nor any person who is a bigamist,
or polygamist or who teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages any person
or persons to become bigamists or polygamists, or to commit any other
crime defined by law, or to enter into what is known as plural or
celestial marriage, or who is a member of any organization or association
which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members or devotees or
any other persons to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or [338] any
other crime defined by law, either as a rite or ceremony of such order,
organization, or association or otherwise, is permitted to vote at any
election, or to hold any position or office of honor, trust or profit
within this Territory," is not open to any constitutional or legal
objection. With the exception of persons under guardianship or of unsound
mind it simply excludes from the privilege of voting or of holding any
office of honor, trust or profit, those who have been convicted of certain
offenses, and those who advocate a practical resistance to the laws of the
Territory and justify and approve the commission of crimes forbidden by
it. The second subdivision of Section 504 of the revised statutes of
Idaho, requiring every person desiring to have his name registered as a
voter to take an oath that he does not belong to an order that advises a
disregard of the criminal law of the Territory, is not open to any valid
legal objection to which our attention has been called.
The position that Congress has, by its statute, covered the whole
subject of positive legislation against bigamy and polygamy, leaving
nothing for Territorial action on the subject, does not impress us as
entitled to much weight. The statute of Congress of March 22, 1882,
amending a previous section of the Revised Statutes in reference to
bigamy, declares "that no polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting
with more than one woman and no woman cohabitating with any of the persons
described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place
over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be
entitled to vote at and election held in any such Territory or other
place, or appointment to or be entitled to hold any office or place of
public trust, honor, or emolument, in, under, or for any such Territory or
place, or under the United States." (22 Stat. 31.)
This is a general law applicable to all Territories and other places
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It does not purport
to restrict the legislation of the Territories over kindred offenses or
over the means for their ascertainment and prevention. The cases in which
the legislation of Congress will supersede the [339] legislation of a
State or Territory, without specific provisions to that effect, are those
in which the same matter is the subject of legislation by both. There the
action of Congress may well be considered as covering the entire ground.
But here there is nothing of this kind. The act of Congress does not touch
upon teaching, advising and counseling the practice of bigamy and
polygamy, that is, upon aiding and abetting in the commission of those
crimes, nor upon the mode adopted, by means of the oath required for
registration, to prevent persons from being enabled by their votes to
defeat the criminal laws of the country.
The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.
NOTE. --The constitution of several States, in providing for
religious freedom, have declared expressly that such freedom shall not be
constured to excuse acts of licentiouness, or to justify practices
inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State. Thus, the
constitution of New York of 1777 provided the following: "The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed within
this State to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience,
hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety
of this state." (Art. XXXVIII.) The same declaration is repeated in the
constitution of 1821 (Art. VII., Sec. 3.) and in that of 1846 (Art. 1.,
Sec. 3.) except that for the words "hereby granted," the words "hereby
secured" are substituted. The constitutions of California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nevada and Sough Carolina contain a similar declaration.
(Deseret Evening News, 24 Feb 1890)
Thursday 6 Feb 1890, Deseret Evening News:
Anti-Mormon Legislation.
OTTAWA, Feb. 6. --Senator Macdonald, of British Columbia, last night
gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to amend the act
respecting offenses relating to the laws of marriage. It is designed more
particularly [340] to prevent the practice of polygamy by the Mormons of
Cardston and other places in the Territory. The penalty provided for
polygamy or for assisting in a polygamous marriage, is imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years and a fine not exceeding $500, or both. The
bill also proposes to disqualify any person guilty of an offense under the
act for voting at any election in the Northeast Territories or for being a
candidate for any public position. (Deseret Evening News, 7 Feb 1890)
Sunday 9 Feb 1890, Deseret Evening News:
Religious services were held in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City,
Sunday, Feb. 9th, 1890, commencing at 2 p.m., President Angus M. Cannon
presiding.
The choir and congregation sang:
Do what is right, the day dawn is breaking,
Hailing a future of freedom and light.
Angels above us are silent notes taking,
Of every action; do what is right.
Prayer was offered by Elder Elias Morris.
The choir sang:
Gently raise the sacred strain,
For the Sabbath's come again.
The Priesthood of the Seventh ward officiated in the administration
of the Sacrament.
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF said he was thankful for the
privilege of meeting with so many of the Latter-day Saints upon that
occasion. He had not been able during the last four or five months to
speak in public, having been afflicted with a cold on his lungs.
One very peculiar fact was that God the Creator of heaven and earth
and the inhabitants thereof had always been an unpopular Being with the
world. The Gospel of Jesus Christ whenever taught by inspired men, in any
age, had met with a great deal of opposition. Such had been the case in
the whole history of the world, from the [341] time of father Adam down to
the present. Having shown from Bible history how nations as well as
individuals had been punished for disobedience to God and His
commandments. President Woodruff continued: I say to all Israel and the
whole world today that the God of heaven has set His hand to perform this
work in which we are engaged. He had raised up a Prophet who organized
this Church in fulfillment of the records of divine truth. Joseph Smith
was no more popular in the generation in which he lived, neither are the
Apostles nor the Latter-day Saints as a body now, than was Christ and His
Apostles in their day. But the God of heaven has decreed certain things,
and those decrees He will carry out, whether men believe or disbelieve. He
will establish His Church. He will establish His Zion, He will bring
together His people. The people have to be gathered from all nations under
heaven or the Bible will be unfulfilled.
We are passing through a very peculiar kind of history. We have had a
peculiar history all the days of our lives--ever since we have been
members of this Church at least; we shall probably continue to have until
the coming of the Son of Man. No man can be godly, true, and a faithful
witness of the Lord Jesus Christ without suffering persecution and meeting
with opposition. This has been the history of the world in every age. Be
faithful, do what is right, and let the consequences follow. Trust in the
God of heaven. He is watching over you; the eyes of all the heavenly host
are watching over you as a people, and also over all the world. This
nation and all nations under heaven will be held accountable for the deeds
done in the body. We likewise shall be held accountable for our acts and
the course which we pursue. We have a long future before us--a long
eternity. We are here upon a mission, but it is short compared with what
lies before us on the other side of the veil. Let not your hearts be
troubled; believe in God, keep His commandments, and all will be well. The
Lord will neither forsake you nor His kingdom, but He will carry out all
He has promised in the day and generation in which we live. Have faith in
Him and in His promise. Your strength lies in the God of heaven. Whatever
you [342] want go to Him for it. Our prayers should ascend unto the ears
of the Lord day and night to sustain His Church and work among this
people.
There may be some strangers here today. I will repeat to all such
what Joseph Smith has taught us. He said, "If I was emperor of the world
and had control over all the human family, I would sustain every man,
woman and child in the enjoyment of their religion, let it be what it
may." Those have been our sentiments all the way through. No man, not even
emperor or king, no republic, no government has a right to take away from
any individual his agency in the enjoyment of his religion. Why? Because
men beget only their own children; they do not beget their subjects. They
are responsible to God and not to men. Every man, woman, and child, all
parties, sects, and denominations under heaven have a right to their
religion whatever it may be. We claim that same privilege as Latter-day
Saints, we have done so all the way through, and expect to do so as long
as we live. We have a right to believe in God, to believe in Prophets, in
Apostles, in the Gospel which they taught, in the revelations of God and
their fulfillment.
I suppose we shall have an election tomorrow. Of course you know it
is treason for an Apostle, for an Elder, or a Prophet to refer to
politics. That is the way it is looked upon by the world; but I would say
to the Latter-day Saints--those of you who go to the polls--labor for
peace; do not create any disturbances; and should any disturbance occur in
this city, let it be with somebody else; do not let it be with the
Latter-day Saints. We do not wish to take the rights of any man away,
spiritually, temporally, politically, or in any other capacity. Every man
has a right to vote as he pleases, to pray as he pleases, to believe in
God if he pleases, to renounce religion or to obey it; because he is
responsible to God and not to his fellow-men with regard to his act any
further than he trespasses upon those around him. I say, God bless you.
Let us be true and faithful. Zion will arise, the glory of God will rest
upon her, the Kingdom of God will be established upon earth.
We expect to obey the laws of our country until He [343] comes whose
right it is to reign. We do not expect to get up any kingdom nor to turn
aside from those law's at all. We profess to belong to the spiritual
Kingdom of God which will be built up, and when Christ comes He will be
the King, and will reign not only over America, but over all the earth.
Great and mighty judgments await this generation and will overtake the
people "as a thief in the night." Where are the governors, the judges, and
the mobs that put to death Joseph Smith and others? They are in the Spirit
world. Where are the governors who have taken part in the matters of
"Mormonism?" A great measure of them are in the Spirit world. We shall all
follow them and meet with others who have also gone before on the other
side of the veil. When we come to judgment we shall be in another sphere.
We shall be where the laws of the land wherein we dwell today do not have
jurisdiction, and presidents, rulers, governors, with ourselves, will then
have to give an account of the deeds done in the body. Let us be faithful
to our country, to our God, to our religion, and to those principles which
we have received, and which we know to be true.
APOSTLE LORENZO SNOW said that fifty-four years had elasped since he
became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He
embraced the principles of the Gospel when a boy, and from that time until
the present, he had endeavored to be faithful in in carrying out those
principles which God had clearly revealed unto him. Although he had passed
through some singular scenes, and been placed in positions requiring
supernatural aid, he had never had occasion to regret the course which he
had taken as marked out to him by the Spirit of the Most High.
As has been remarked by President Woodruff, God has always been
unpopular with the world. His dispensations have been sparsely received;
but it has always been the case that those who have observed faithfully
the commandments of God and those principles which He has revealed for the
salvation and glory of men have come out successfully. So it has been in
the past, and [344] so it will be in the future with those Latter-day
Saints who faithfully follow the dictates of the Holy Spirit and keeps
God's commandments. It matters not what obstacles may be placed in our
path as a Church, as a body of people, or as individuals, if we do our
duty honestly and conscientiously we will succeed.
At the present time some of the people here in Salt Lake City seem to
be considerably excited and burdened with great anxieties. It is not the
first time that the Latter-day Saints have been placed in circumstances of
this nature. At different periods since our history began these things
have arisen. We have found ourselves in the most critical condition, the
same as were the children of Israel, and naught but the power of the
Almighty could have opened a door of escape.
We talk sometimes of going back into Jackson County and building that
city. But who will go there? It will not be those who follow the example
of the rebelious of whom we read in the camps of Israel, but those who are
faithful and preserve a pure record before Israel's God. We need not be
concerned. It all lies within our individual selves. All the difficulties
that can be placed in our way today or tomorrow, either as a Church or as
individuals, will not make the word of God of no effect. It will not
prevent the Latter-day Saints who are faithful in carrying out the
purposes of the Almighty from receiving those blessings which have been
pointed out in the revelations given to us in the past. We should not be
guided, directed, or influenced by any individual around us, whatever his
position may be, against doing what our own conscience tells us is right.
We should be calm and cool in all our transactions and in all the scenes
through which we may be called to pass. All the obstacles which now
present themselves will be removed from our path if we but continue true
to God. We can afford to be calm and deliberate in the midst of our most
severe persecutions, trials and afflictions, because we well know what
will be the outcome of our faithfulness and perserverance. The Latter-day
Saints, from the experience they have gained in the past, ought to know
how to exercise patience. Do not become over excited; at the same time we
should [345] be ambitious in the performance of our duties.
There is a vast amount of anxiety in the minds of the people as to
what will be the results of tomorrow's election. It is something very
important to us. It concerns our interests very materially; but what is
all this in comparison to having the knowledge that after these things
shall have passed away there remains for us such glorious prospects behind
the veil--the advantage of enjoying those beautiful associations which we
have formed here on earth and dwelling in the presence of the holy and
righteous, where all tears shall be dried, and where there shall be no
more affliction or pain, but where our bodies shall be glorified and we
shall enjoy all those blessings which have been so clearly pointed out to
us in the revelations of God? If we have this it does not matter so much
what may occur tomorrow, even though it may interest us. We cannot always
tell what will be the results of our actions today, but this we can always
tell--that whatsoever those results may be, if we do right and act
conscientiously it will be well with us.
I would like to avoid persecution; it would be pleasing to us not to
be deprived of our rights, of every vestige of our liberty. But when I
embraced the gospel I saw clearly that it was a gospel of sacrifice, as it
was with the ancients who received it, and therefore I made up my mind to
sacrifice everything for it, even my life if needs be. God bless you, and
let me again say that in every circumstance of persecution, whenever our
enemies seek to bring us into trouble, be calm and act conscientiously,
and inwardly feel, as you ought, that all will yet be well. * * * (Deseret
Evening News, 10 Feb 1890)
Monday 10 Feb 1890:
The municiple election in Salt Lake City resulted in victory for the
Liberals, who, through the grossest frauds, managed to obtain possession
of the city government.
Monday 10 Feb 1890, Deseret Evening News:
REGARDING THE TEST OATH DECISION.
Mr. George Q. Cannon, First Counselor to the Presi-[346]dent, and one
of the highest dignitaries of the Mormon Church, talked freely and
interestingly today about the decision.
"It is very sweeping in its conclusions," he said, "and gives the
framers of the Idaho test oath all they ask for in their proposition to
disfranchise our people. There is one point, however, which the Court
ignored. Evidence was presented when the case was tried to show that this
man who took the oath and voted was not a polygamist. It was further set
forth by testimony that the Mormon Church is not at the present time
teaching or encouraging polygamy. Bishop Budge, of Idaho, testified
clearly on that. But his evidence was not given any consideration in the
lower court. The fact that the Church had in the past taught and abetted
polygamy was taken as sufficient. In the Supreme Court's decision the
present attitude of the Church upon the subject is ignored, although
counsel were careful to emphasize it in the arguments. The Supreme Court,
in its decision, assumes it as established that Mormonism today means
polygamy, and on that wrong premise declared that Mormons can be
disfranchised."
"What will your people do about it?"
"I don't know what we can do.
"Why doesn't the head of your Church--the First Presidency and the
Twelve Apostles--issue an official declaration upon the subject. Why don't
you say, as a Church, that polygamy is no longer taught and is not
encouraged by the Church? Wouldn't that meet the decision of the Supreme
Court and enable your people to take the test oath?"
"Some think it would and advise such a step be taken. But a
declaration of that kind is open to objections. We have already declared
and shown our intention to obey the laws. We are trying to live in
conformity with the legislation enacted on the subject of polygamy.
Suppose the principal officers of the Church put forth the official
assertion. It has been repeatedly charged that our people blindly follow a
few leaders. Will not such a declaration be an admission of our part that
the charge is true; that the few men control the lives and consciences of
the mass [347] of believers? It seems to me we are in danger of
stultifying ourselves if we go further than we have. We bow to the law. We
obey it outwardly. Surely we ought not to be obliged to declare what we
believe or do not believe as the price of suffrage. Our consciences are at
least our own. You must remember that the doctrine of polygamy was
accepted many years ago as a revelation from God. That revelation stands.
We cannot wipe it out by a declaration of man. We can submit to the laws
of our country and that we are doing. It seems to me that is as much as
can be asked."
"Do you think, Mr. Cannon, that Mormons can take the test oath
honestly without committing perjury?" "Most of them can do it without
violation of conscience. Only the small minority of our people have lived
in polygamy. Those who have plural wives living are disfranchised. The
others, in the present attitude of the Church, can truthfully subscribe to
the oath."
"And say that they do not belong to an organization which teaches or
advises polygamy?"
"Yes. There is no question in my mind that we can take this test oath
honestly. I say `we,' I mean our people. I do not include myself, for I am
one of the ultras. There are two views of this question of polygamy taken
by our people. Some of us believe that the revelation is a command from
God to take plural wives. I so consider it. I went into the Church when I
was very young. It has always been my belief that the revelation commanded
polygamy. Others, and they are in the majority, do not regard the
revelation as making polygamy obligatory. They consider it as permissive.
I obey the law, but I do not acknowledge that I did any wrong in entering
into polygamy before the law was passed. I provide for all of my children,
and treat them precisely alike. Since I came out of prison I have provided
for my wives, but I have not lived with any of them. I am living the life
of a bachelor, and sometimes it is pretty hard on an old man like me, for
I have had a good deal of sickness, and there are times when I need home
care and attention."
"What will the Idaho Mormons do? Will they take the [348] oath and
try to vote ? Can they get this question of the present position of the
Church before the Supreme Court?"
"I don't know what they will do. They can take the oath
conscientiously, but they will probably be prosecuted for perjury if they
do. Whether the Idaho courts will continue to stand on the position taken
in the Davis case I can't tell. If it is assumed by the courts that to be
a Mormon is to belong to an organization that encourages polygamy, then
all of our people who take the oath will render themselves liable to
punishment by the Territorial courts on the charge of perjury. I don't
know what our people in Idaho will do, but I don't think they will give up
the fight. They will keep trying for their rights. It is not
characteristic of the Mormons to give up. They will fight on--in the
courts, of course.
"How about Utah? Don't you think the idea of a test oath may be
applied there?"
"Well, that would have to be done by act of Congress for Utah. Our
people are very largely in the majority there, and control the Territorial
Legislature. The test oath could not be introduced as it was in Idaho,
where Republicans and Democrats united and put it through the Legislature.
Congress could pass a law applying the test oath to Utah that would put
the entire control of affairs in the hands of the non-Mormons. There are
in Utah about 40,000 or 50,000 non-Mormons, while our people number
160,000 or more. Congress could order that the 50,000 should do the voting
and hold the offices, and that the 160,000 should have no voice in the
Government but pay the taxes. This is possible, but it is not probable. I
think I can see a disposition in both branches of Congress not to
legislate further in regard to the Mormons. There seems to be a feeling
among leading men that the matter is working out gradually, and that it
had best be left alone. So far as polygamy is concerned there is no call
for any legislation. Plural marriages have ceased. Those of us, men and
women, who went into polygamy years ago are dying off. A few years will
end that issue.
"And end the Mormon Church, too?"
[349] The old man shook his head and replied:
"No. The Church is stronger today than it ever was. We were talking
about the effects of the decision yesterday, shortly after we had heard of
it. I remarked that I had never seen our meetings so well attended as they
are now. Our people are firmer in their faith than they were before the
adverse legislation began. We have had no schisms and no seccessions since
the persecutions began." * * * (Deseret Evening News, 21 Feb 1890)
Tuesday 11 Feb 1890, Deseret Evening News:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11. -- The bill introduced by Senator Edmunds today
to provide a public system for Utah is a most elaborate and comprehensive
measure, and with great minuteness provides about all the legislation
necessary for the conduct of the school affairs of the Territory. One of
the objects of the bill is to diminish Mormon influence. In brief, the
bill provides for the appointment of a commissioner of schools at an
annual salary of $2000, whose duty it shall be to supervise the conduct of
the public schools in the various counties, and apportion the money of the
counties on the basis of the number of children between the ages of six
and eighteen years. The governor, commissioner of schools and probate
judge in each county in which the appointment is to be made shall appoint
a Superintendent of Schools for each county in the territory. Instruction
is to be given in temperance, manners and morals in addition to the usual
public school studies. No sectarian or denominational books shall be used
or sectarian doctrines taught. A tax of three mills upon each dollar of
taxable property shall be levied as a special fund for school purposes, to
be deposited in the State's treasury. The apportionment shall be made to
the various counties from the fund, and there shall also be levied in each
county a school tax not exceeding six mills upon the dollar to be
distributed to the different school districts in the county, upon the
basis of the number of school children in each district. Whenever the
money received for the Territorial and County fund is not sufficient to
provide suitable buildings and maintain school for three terms in [350]
each year, an additional tax shall be levied in the school district in
which the fund is insufficient. (Deseret Evening News 12 Feb 1890)
Thursday 13 Feb 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
* * * The bare introduction into Congress of this bill is an outrage upon
American principles and doctrines. The school stands next to the home, and
to take from the people the control of the schools in which their children
are educated is closely akin to taking from them the control of the
domiciles in which their children are born. When centralization seizes the
schools of the people, it can take only one step more, to seize their
homes.
Full expressions of the American doctrine upon this subject have been
called forth by Senator Blair's bill, which aims to take money from the
United States treasury and distribute it among the common schools of the
various States, without, in any manner, interfering with the management of
the schools. This bill has been denounced by hundreds of newspapers and
public men as an outrageous attack upon the right of the people to
maintain and manage their own schools, and other social institutions and
affairs; and notwithstanding the great amount of good it aims to do in
facilitating the education of the children of the masses, it has met with
the most determinded opposition in Congress and throughout the country on
account of its covert attack upon fixed American principles.
But this bill, compared with the Edmunds Utah school bill is a gnat
to a camel. The latter, instead of providing the schools of this Territory
with financial aid from the general government, provides for burdens of an
oppressive character to be laid upon the people on pretense of their
support. The taxation provided for in this bill is immense. There is a
three mill Territorial tax, a six mill county tax, and a district tax for
school buildings the limit of which is not stated. Probably it has none.
The worst feature of the whole measure is the fact that the Territorial
and county officers to supervise schools and school affairs are made
appointive instead of elective by the people who pay the monies to be
dis-[351]bursed by the minions of centralization. * * * (Deseret Evening
News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
4 Mar 1890:
The Utah Supreme Court made an order terminating the lease of the
Gardo House and hereafter renting it to the highest bidder. The following
day the lease of the Tithing Office grounds was terminated the same way.
Wednesday 5 Mar 1890, In the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah:
The United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. the Late Corporation,
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et al., Defendants.
ZANE, C.J. -- I dissent from the order of the court allowing the
renting of the Tithing Yard to the highest bidder, because the order does
not forbid the leasing of the premises for tithing purposes. The premises
have been leased ever since November 15, 1887, to Bishop W.B. Preston,
Bishop R.T. Burton and John R. Winder. These men are merely the agents,
simply an artifice of the Mormon Church, for obtaining the use of these
premises for tithing purposes. The Church is now and has been ever since
Nov. 15th, 1887, using these premises under the lease made at that time by
Mr. Dyer, the Receiver to these men nominally, without the authority of
this Court so far as I am advised. The Church has now been using this
property for tithing purposes for many years, and will, I have no doubt,
obtain another lease under this order. The Act of Congress depriving the
Mormon Church of such of its real estate as was not used as houses of
worship parsonages and burial grounds, was intended to deprive it of the
power to that extent, to maintain, propagate and perpetuate polygamy. The
principal source of the pecuniary power of the Church has been and now is
the money and property obtained through tithing. The government of the
United States through the instrumentality of this Court or otherwise
cannot justify itself before the civilization of the age in taking
property from the Mormon Church because it is using and may use it to
maintain and perpetuate polygamy [352] or any other unlawful and immoral
practice, and then turn around and give the same Church the use of it for
the same purposes upon the payment of $200 per month or any other sum,
however great. The Government cannot become a party to such a transaction;
it cannot in that way, or any other, sanction the collection of tithing by
the Mormon Church in return for a pitiable revenue. The object of the
government in taking any portion of the Church's property from it was not
to obtain money for the benefit of the schools of Utah, or to obtain money
for any other purpose. No such sordid and unworthy motive as that actuated
the law-makers. The motive was to protect society from the evil effects of
polygamy, by stripping the Church of the power that to a great extent
maintained and propogated the immoral practice. There are some purposes
for which the Government of the United States, through a receiver or
otherwise, cannot rent property with any credit to itself, and among them
are tithing purposes; especially so when the purpose, as in this case, is
contrary to the sole reason of the law under which the authority is
obtained. And the court is authorized to assume from the fact that the
Church has been using the tithing yards since November 15th, 1887, under
the lease to these men as it had been for many years before, and from the
statements of the receiver and his counsel, that this property will be
leased again to Bishops Preston and Burton and Mr. Winder, and that
through this subterfuge it will continue to be used for the purpose of
collecting tithing. (Deseret Evening News, 5 Mar 1890)
Wednesday 12 Mar 1890, Deseret Evening News:
ISAAC JACKSON'S CASE
This morning Isaac Jackson was brought in from the penitentiary,
where he had been held in default of bail, to plead to two indictments,
one for bigamy and the other for adultery. The latter charge was the one
on which he was first arraigned, and he entered a plea of guilty. The time
of the offense was stated as December 30, 1889, and the woman Mary Neal.
Mr. Jackson informed the court that he was ready for sentence, as he was
in the peni-[353]tentiary any way.
Judge Zane asked for the particulars of the case, and assistant
United States Attorney McKay stepped forward and stated that Jackson came
from England last year; he was a market gardener, and while in England
Mary Neal had been in his employ. He had a wife and five children. He was
not a member of the "Mormon" Church. Last fall he went back to England and
returned in a few weeks, Mary Neal traveling on the same vessel across the
ocean. After being here a short time he married her. She said he told her
he was divorced from his first wife, but he denied making that statement.
Mr. McKay said Jackson was a very ignorant man, and probably did not
realize what crime he was committing.
In reply to Judge Zane, Mr. Jackson said he had left his wife and
family about $250 and in the possession of a good house. The eldest child
was 18. He and his wife could not get along together.
Judge Zane sentenced him to six months in the penitentiary.
On motion of Judge McKay, the indictment for bigamy was dismissed.
(Deseret Evening News)
Saturday 22 Mar 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
ASSERTED CATHOLIC SUPREMACY.
The principal charge now laid against the "Mormons" is that they are
seeking to amalgamate Church and State, with the former dominating the
latter.
While this political war-cry is shouted without evidence to support
it, some very significant facts of current history with which the Saints
are in no way connected, are being passed with discreet silence. Note, as
an instance, the invitation extended to the head of the Roman Church to
take part, by representation, in the International Labor Conference at
Berlin.
The Pope, who is a religious and political stalwart in the full
strength that the term implies, expresses his acceptance on one
condition--that his delegate "take precedence of all others."
The ground of this position is that Christianity is the panacea for
all social ills, and that he, being, in his [354] view, the earthly head
centre of that curative system, occupies a seat elevated above all human
sovereignties.
While we are not willing to admit that the venerable head of the
Roman Catholic Church is the chief representative of genuine Christianity,
there is an element of grandeur in his unvarying, unswerving determination
to maintain his foothold on the summit of the pedestal upon which
catholicism places him.
A remarkable feature of this incident is that while the potentates at
whom the Pope's dictum is directed do not concede his demand to be
consistent by yielding to it, no stated protest is made against his
unqualified claim that the church should legitimately dominate the state.
No retaliatory protest is uttered to the effect that religion is a mere
matter of belief, and that when it seeks to dictate in secular affairs it
operates outside its sphere.
This phenomenal spectacle in the nineteenth century would not be so
conspicious if it were confined to the worn-out political fabrics of the
old world. It is just as strikingly manifested in this Republic. At the
Catholic conference held at Baltimore several months ago, a strong
doctrine in relation to the supremacy of that church over the affairs of
the State "in all the world" was asserted. It was held that no secular
government had the right to enact any law that had any relation to the
Pope unless it should first be submitted to and receive the sanction of
that high ecclesiastical functionary. Not a word was uttered by statesman
or politician against this remarkable assumption. On the contrary when a
Roman Catholic college was dedicated a short time subsequent, two of the
highest officials of the nation were present at the ceremonies.
Although the "Mormon" Church is but a numerical speck compared with
the great Catholic Church, whose branches permeate all the nations of the
earth, if one of its communicants is excommunicated for breach of its
discipline, a howl is raised about its usurpation of power over its
members. The fact is telegraphed over the country, and is cited in the
course of examinations before judges, sitting on the bench, as evidence of
the domination of the Church over secular matters. The aid of [355]
general government is invoked, on such bases, to deprive the "Mormon"
people of political rights and priviledges and rob them of their property.
This is a latter-day phenomenon. Here is the spectacle of a great and
powerful church which sets up, asserts and exercises control and supremacy
in secular affairs, making no hesitation to clearly define and declare the
fact, and no word of retaliation is heard from the powers that be. It
suggests the propability (sic) that the Roman Catholic Church has become
so potential in this nation that it could crush any official, however
high, on whom it might choose to fall.
On the other hand there is a small body of people who have exhibited
many conspicuous virtues, whose leaders are said, by their enemies, to
direct them in secular matters, interference with many of which would be a
practical impossibility. Because this accusation is laid against them they
are declared to be enemies of the government, and ought to be deprived of
their rights. They are small in number, and therefore presumed to be
helpless, and consequently considered legitimate prey for the politician.
There are other causes whose operations are not generally understood,
which contribute toward the production of these extraordinary
manifestations. They are spiritual in character, and only discernible from
that standpoint. We expect the world in course of time to wake up to the
fact that the chief reason for the opposition to "Mormonism" is that it is
simply Christianity under a title given it by those who do not believe in
the authenticity of its claim.
Tuesday 25 Mar 1890, Editorial:
THE BIBLE EXCLUDED FROM THE SCHOOLS.
A few days ago the Supreme Court of Wisconsin rendered a decision the
effect of which is to prohibit the reading of the Bible in the public
Schools of that State. * * * (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose,
Editor)
[356]
Monday 31 Mar 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
POPULAR WILL vs. THE CONSTITUTION.
Veneration for the Federal Constitution is rapidly fading in the
country. A corresponding sentiment in favor of tampering with it, is
spreading. The conditions which will exhibit the fact that the Latter-day
Saints are more tenacious in adherence to its principles than any other
class of citizens are developing. The provisions of the instrument are
harmonious with the requirements of justice, and the Saints hold that its
framers were inspired when they formulated it. Joseph Smith prophesied
that the principles it embraces would, in course of time, be ignored and
trampled upon, and the nation consequently driven into the direst
distress. From the resultant chaotic condition it would become the high
privilege of the "Mormons" to redeem the country, by summoning the good,
intelligent and true, to flock around the standard of liberty to assist in
the re-establishment of the government on a constitutional basis.
Every invasion of a natural right is necessarily at variance with the
Constitution, all citizens alike being entitled to the protection of life,
liberty and property. All law's that treat these subjects differently as
they relate to one class of citizens, to the treatment accorded to all
others, are essentially unconstitutional, the theory of our institutions
being that all men are equal before the law. This theoretical equality
enters into the administration of the law as well as the intrinsic quality
of measures.
A sentiment is gradually gaining ground among leading men of the
government that threatens the very existence of the Constitution. Carried
to its legitimate result it would wipe out the instrument heretofore
regarded as the great bulwark of the people's liberty. It was expressed a
few days ago in the United States Senate, by a gentleman no less
distinguished than Senator Ingalls, who, during the discussion on the
anti-trust bill, is reported to have expressed himself thus:
"The people of the United States have a reasonable degree of respect
for the Constitution, but they are not [357] afraid of it. The
Constitution was a growth and not a manufacture, and the Constitution of
1890, by reason of the operation of the will of the people who made it,
was a vastly different instrument from the Constitution of 1789. Its
authors would not know it. They made it for a specific purpose, not for
the object of enabling country lawyers to devise definitions, or to put
obstacles and barriers to the will of the people."
Senator Edmunds not long since took similar ground, which means that
a constitution places no restriction upon the people when they will ignore
it.
What is meant by the will of the people? Simply the will of the
majority. One of the chief objects of a constitution is to protect
minorities from the encroachment of majorities. If it has not the salutary
effect of restraint, the weak will be at the mercy of those who outnumber
them. The popular will is directed by the public conscience, consequently
when there is a decadance of rectitude in the majority, good bye to the
rights of minorities.
The Constitution embodies a declaration of principles which, if lived
up to, would prevent innovations of natural rights. If it is not binding
on the popular will, which means the will of the greater number, it
becomes incompetent for its duties and goes to pieces. The tendency to set
aside the fixed principles which the constitution inculcates is fraught
with great danger to the country. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W.
Penrose, Editor)
Thursday 3 April 1890, Deseret Evening News:
Speech of Hon. John T. Caine, of Utah, in the House of
Representatives, Thursday, April 3rd, 1890.
On the bill (H.R. 4562) to provide for the admission of the State of
Idaho into the Union.
The same spirit which has denied statehood to Utah proposes now, to
disfranchise the members of the Mormon Church in the future State of
Idaho. Because they are polygamists? Not at all; for it was shown in
evidence before the committees on the Territories, both [358] of the
Senate and the House, that not more than one hundred and twenty-five men
out of the twenty or twenty-five thousand Mormons living in Idaho had ever
been in any polygamous relation. At the present time those men, while
supporting their families, are not living with them in violation of law.
What, then, are the reasons for this wholesale disfranchisement? There are
two: one religious--they are members of the Mormon Church; the other
political--it is supposed that they will vote the Democratic ticket.
The Mormon citizens of Idaho are counted to obtain the necessary
population for statehood, and they will be heavily taxed to support the
State government. Taxation without representation is just as odious now as
it was in the days before the Revolution. Its enforcement by an alleged
free and sovereign State will be no less detestable than it was by King
George the Third. I fear we are gradually departing from those great
principles of free government founded by the fathers, which gave birth to
the Declaration of Independence. * * *
The gentleman from Idaho and others on the republican side of the
House have, either by direct allegation or artful inuendo, charged the
Mormon people with disloyalty to the government. I deny the charge, and I
assert that few people of any age or country have been more patient,
peaceable, and submissive than the Mormons--often under such circumstances
of palpable wrong and oppression as have incited resistance and
insurrection in other communities.
Reference has been made to certain expressions of individuals among
the Mormons, under circumstances of excitement and exasperation, as
evidence of disloyalty of the whole Mormon people. We are also arraigned
for disloyalty because we have sometimes protested against laws and
decisions which we deemed to be oppressive and unjustly discriminative
against our people. Our belief in God as the supreme ruler of the universe
and His overruling providence and authority has been distorted by our
enemies into treason against the government. How would gentlemen who are
citizens of the States like to have their loyalty tried by such standards
[359] as these? The constituents of the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Baker) may freely denounce the governor and the legislature, criticise the
decisions of the judiciary, or denounce their sheriffs, and even send them
to the penitentiary.
The constituents of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Struble) may meet in
State convention and denounce the prohibition laws and demand their
repeal. The farmers of Kansas, the constituents of the gentleman from that
State (Mr. Perkins), may meet in convention, arraign United States
Senators, and protest against laws which they deem wrongful and
oppressive. Again, good and loyal Christians all over this country may
demand such a change as would recognize "God in the Constitution as the
supreme ruler of the universe." All these things may be done by
non-Mormons with impunity; but if Mormons criticise and protest against
cruel law's and wicked officials their acts are brought forward here and
elsewhere as evidence of disloyalty and treason.
In this free country there can be no criterion of loyalty except
obedience to the constitution and laws. The Medes and Persians were the
only people within my knowledge of history with whom the laws were thought
to be so sacred, perfect, and infalible that they were held to be
perpetual and irrepealable. The protest against these laws was treason
punishable in the fiery furnace and the lion's den.
The right of the people of a republican government to protest against
a law, or demand its repeal, or agitate for reform is not to be limited to
cases where the people are clearly in the right--that is begging the
question. But it is hard and cruel, as was the case with the Mormons in
Utah, to be charged with disloyalty for denouncing and criticising acts
and decisions of Federal officers that were clearly wrongful and
oppressive. * * * (Deseret Evening News, 15 Apr 1890)
Saturday 5 Apr 1890, Deseret Evening News:
PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF said: Before the close of the meeting I
have a request I want to make of these Apostles, these High Priests,
Seventies and El-[360]ders, and the Lesser Priesthood and all the
Latter-day Saints who have any communion with God or with the Holy Ghost.
Brother Merrill has been talking of revelation. If there was ever a time
since God made the world that the inhabitants of the earth needed
revelation, it is today. Now, the Lord has given us the stick of
Judah--the law, of God to the Jews--which reaches down to our day and
generation, and which shows us their history and has told us what would
come to pass with them and what will come to pass in the future. So has
the Lord given us the stick of Ephraim--the stick of Joseph in the hands
of Ephraim--giving the history of the inhabitants of this continent and
what shall take place in the last days. I held in my hands a code of
revelation (the Book of Doctrine and Covenants) given to Joseph Smith, the
Prophet. There are some of the most sublime revelations in that book God
ever gave to any generation, or to any prophet or people under heaven.
This book of revelations, like other records, will go down to the end of
time and into eternity. These revelations give you the whole history of
the celestial kingdom, of the terrestrial kingdom and of the telestial
kingdom of our God. But we want revelation every day. Well, you say, the
President of the Church should give revelation. Yes, it is true, the
President holds the keys of giving revelation to the Latter-day Saints.
But is he alone to give revelations? No, verily, no! There is not an
Apostle in this Church, there is not an Elder in this Church that stands
up in this congregation to teach this people, but should be full of
revelation. There is where your revelation should come--from those who
teach you day by day.
How many revelations did Brigham Young give that were written to the
people? Very few. How many has John Taylor given that were written to the
people? How many has Wilford Woodruff given? Very few. We have had some,
though not revealed to the people, perhaps, or published.
But we want revelation every day. And I want these Apostles and these
Saints to go before the Lord in your secret places and ask Him to pour out
revelations upon [361] this people, that we may give you the word of the
Lord while we are with you, and that these Apostles, when they speak, may
speak by the power of God, by the Holy Ghost. Then that will be the word
of the Lord, it will be scripture, it will be the power of God unto
salvation unto every one that believes. God bless you. Amen. * * *
(Deseret Evening News, 6 Apr 1890)
Sunday 6 Apr 1890, Wilford Woodruff:
* * * There has been a great deal said at this conference. We have
had strong testimonies borne by the Elders of Israel who have addressed
us. I remarked at the commencement of this conference (there were
comparatively few people here then) concerning our position and
revelation. I remarked that Moses gave revelations to Israel. We have the
Bible--the stick of Judah--containing the law of God through Moses and
through the ancient prophets and patriarchs. It has been handed down to us
through the thousands of years that are past and gone. While libraries,
like the library of Alexandria (which was destroyed by an Arab chief and
took days and days to burn, being one of the largest ever gathered
together in the world) have perished, the Bible has been preserved unto
us, and we have it to read. It gives unto us the law of God given to the
ancients. But there has been no change in that law, so far as the gospel
is concerned, from that day until this. The Bible--the Old and New
Testament--gives unto us the law whereby we may be exalted and go back
again into the presence of God and dwell with Him for ever and ever. It
gives unto us the course we should persue in order to receive a part in
the first resurrection, that we may come forth clothed with glory,
immortality and eternal life. It also gives us the history, not only of
what is passed with the Jews, but of what is to come to pass. Then we have
the Book of Mormon--the stick of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim--that was
written upon this continent by apostles and prophets. It contains, among
other things, the teachings of Jesus Christ when he appeared, after his
resurrection, in his immortal and glorious body, and taught the gospel
here. Those revelations contain a [362] great many principles. They show
unto us the final winding up scene, the situation of great Babylon and the
judgments that were to come to pass in the last days before the coming of
the Son of Man. We have also the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which you
have in your houses and which you can read. This code of revelation was
given through the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by the Urim and
Thummim and otherwise. That book contains some of the most glorious and
most sublime revelations God ever gave to man. It shows unto us what lies
before us, what awaits this nation and the nations of the earth, and what
is at the door of the inhabitants of the earth. These things are clear,
they are pointed, they are strong, and they are the revelations of God,
and they will be fulfilled, whether men believe it or not.
Now, with regard to present revelation. President Young led us a
great many years. He led us to these valleys. He was a man of God, filled
with revelation. His teachings were attended by the inspirations of
Almighty God. He laid the foundation of the building of this whole
Territory. He governed and controlled this Tabernacle we are in, the
Temple we are building, and other Temples that we have built in this
Territory; and in all his counsels the word of the Lord was with him. He
had but few, revelations that were written and published to the world. But
we had the word of the Lord through him day by day. The same with
President Taylor. We have already got, as I said before, this code of
revelation, which we can read every day, and which is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, to guide us in the
way of life from day to day and from year to year while we dwell in the
flesh. When the Apostles and Elders of Israel are called to teach you,
when they are called to go abroad and to teach the inhabitants of the
earth, they are commanded of the Lord to speak as they are moved upon by
the Holy Ghost; and when a man speaks as He is moved upon by the Holy
Ghost, it is the word of the Lord, it is the mind of the Lord, it is the
will of the Lord, it is Scripture, it is the power of God unto salvation
unto every one that believes. [363] If we do not have the Holy Ghost we
have no business to teach. But when the Elders of Israel do teach you by
the Holy Ghost, you have the revelations of God to you. We have these
revelations lying before us for our guidance day by day, as well as the
living oracles.
I would say to the President of the United States, to the Congress of
the United States, to the Cabinet, and to all the inhabitants of the land,
as well as to all the nations of the earth--kings, emperors, princes and
people--do not worry about these Latter-day Saints. I would say to all
nations under heaven, if these people are not the people of God, if this
work has not been established by God Almighty, they will fail of
themselves, they will be swept from the face of the earth by the judgments
of God, when Great Babylon falls. But if they are of God, what can you do
about it? What can the nations of the earth do about it? Have the nations
forgotten that there is a God in Israel? Have they forgotten that there is
a God who created the heavens and the earth, and that He governs and
controls all these things? If He has set His hand to perform this work,
there is no power on the face of the earth, or in hell, that can destroy
it, because Jehovah holds it in His own hands. He holds our destiny and
the destiny of all the world in His hands. But the great difficulty with
this nation and all nations is, as it has been in every age, they do not
acknowledge the hand of God in any of these things. We have been called to
go forth without purse or scrip. We have had to travel abroad, swim
rivers, wade swamps, travel on foot, and visit the nations of the earth in
various ways, to preach the Gospel unto them. We have been obliged to do
this, for we have been called to do it, whether we were popular or
unpopular. If we had not done this, we would have been condenmed; the Lord
would have cut us off and raised up a people that would perform His work.
These thousands of Elders, gathered out from the nations of the earth,
upon whose shoulders rests this Priesthood, are the instruments in the
hands of Almighty God, and are called to go forth to warn this generation;
and their testimony will rise up in judgment against this generation and
condemn them, and I declare [364] it in the name of Jesus Christ, as an
Apostle of the Lamb of God in this day and age of the world. I say there
is not a nation under heaven, there is not a king, a prince or a
president, or any other man who has power over the sons of men, but should
give unto their subjects the privilege of worshiping God according to the
dictates of their own consciences. These subjects are the creatures of
God, they are the children of God. They are placed here on the earth and
are responsible to God Himself for their religion, for their faith and for
their worship. They are not responsible to the emperors, or kings, or
presidents, or governors who rule over them. Every man is responsible for
the course he pursues before the Lord. And God will bless no king, no
emperor and no president who will not give unto his subjects the rights
and privileges in their relationship to God which the Father Himself has
given unto them. Whenever these subjects are deprived of their rights,
those who preside over them are held responsible.
We are here upon a mission. This is not our home. This is not the
place where we expect to dwell forever. We are going into the spirit
world. I have been associated with the Church for 57 years. I was intimate
with the Prophet Joseph Smith and those that laid the foundation of this
Church, who were martyred for the word of God and testimony of Jesus. They
today are in the spirit world, mingling with the Gods, where they can
plead for their brethren. So too shall we go in our day and time. In view
of this can I afford to reject the gospel, or to turn away from that which
the Lord has required at my hands, because it does not suit the world? I
cannot. I have got to meet my acts before the throne of God, and so have
this nation and all the inhabitants of the earth. They will understand
then that there is a power above them, and that is the God of heaven. All
men have got to appear at the judgment seat of Christ. And when men shed
the blood of the righteous because they follow the words of the Lord, they
have to pay for it. No man can shed the blood of the righteous without it
costing him something. * * *
This is the work of God, and we are called upon to [365] labor, no
matter what may appear around us, or what persecutions we may be called
upon to pass through. This is the great last Kingdom of our God that
Daniel saw. It is the Zion of God that Isaiah saw. It is the Church of
Jesus Christ that the Revelator John saw. The angel of God has come and
delivered his message, in fulfillment of the commandments of God, and the
cry has been, Prepare ye for the coming of the Son of man; behold the day
of God's judgment is come. This is the proclamation to the whole world
today--Jew and Gentile. And this is why we are here. We have been led here
by the inspiration and power of God, and we have come here to fulfill the
volume of the book of the revelations of God to the inhabitants of the
earth. Therefore, I say, let not your hearts be troubled. It is your
Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. These Latter-day Saints
are where they should be--where the Lord has called them; and if we do our
duty, if we unite together and keep the commandments of God all will be
well in Zion. The Lord has said: "Verily I say unto you, that I, the Lord,
will contend with Zion, and plead with her strong ones, and chasten her
until she overcomes and is clean before me; for she shall not be removed
out of her place. I, the Lord, have spoken it." We have got to do right
and keep the commandments of God. If we don't we shall be chastened, there
is no doubt about that. But while the world are looking for the
destruction of this Church, they will look in vain. They do not realize
that the judgments of God are being proclaimed by sword and by fire, and
that the Lord is pleading with all flesh. The sword is bathed in heaven;
it will fall upon Idumea and the world, and who is able to stand the
judgments of the Almighty? Those who are striving for our overthrow; if
they have not faith today in this and in God, they will have faith
whenever they come to judgment; for the whole of them have got to go to
judgment and they will be judged according to their deeds done in the
body. * * * (Deseret Evening News, 21 Apr 1890)
10 Apr 1890:
* * * Even Secretary of State Blaine is desirous of [366] Utah's
admission; while Stephen B. Elkins says he is in favor of admitting the
Territory "polygamy or no polygamy." * * * The resolution of the First
Presidency of June 30/90 (sic) in regard to plural marriages was read. It
is to the effect that none shall be permitted to occur even in Mexico
unless the contracting parties, or at least the female, has resolved to
remain in that country. (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon)
Wednesday 10 Apr 1890:
By Telegraph to the NEWS.
WASHINGTON, April 10. --Cullom today introduced a bill amending the
Revised Statutes in reference to bigamy. The bill provides that no person
living in what is known as plural or celestial marriage, or who teaches,
advises or encourages any person to enter into polygamy, or who is a
member of any organization which encourages bigamy, or any person who
assists in solemnizing the ceremony of any such marriage, shall vote,
serve as a juror, or be elected to, or hold any office in the Territory of
Utah. (Deseret Evening News, 11 Apr 1890)
11 Apr 1890, Deseret Evening News:
THE DISFRANCHISEMENT BILLS
As a matter of current and historical interest we publish herewith
the full text of the anti-"Mormon" disfranchisement bill, the product of
R.N. Baskin's narrow gauge mind, introduced into the House of
Representatives by Congressman Struble, April 11th, 1890.
A BILL, to amend the act of Congress of March third, eighteen hundred
and eighty-seven, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled `An act to
amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of
the United States in reference to bigamy and for other purposes, approved
March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eight-two.'"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress as-[367]sembled, That no person who
is living in what is known as patriarchal, plural, or celestial marriage,
or in violation of any law of the United States forbidding any such crime,
or who in any manner teaches, advises, counsels, aids, or encourages any
person to enter into bigamy, polygamy, or such patriarchal, plural, or
celestial marriage, or to live in violation of any such law, or to commit
any such crime, or who is a member of, or contributes to the support, aid,
or encouragement of, any order, organization, association, or society
which teaches, advises, counsels, encourages, or aids any person to enter
into bigamy, polygamy, or such patriarchal or plural celestial marriage,
or which teaches or advises that any such law as aforesaid is not supreme,
or that any alleged revelation on the subject of such marriage is
paramount to any such law or any of the doctrines, tenets, teachings, or
instructions of which, or any alleged revelations to which, require,
encourage, advise, authorize, or instruct any person, under any
circumstances, to enter into or practice the relations of bigamy,
polygamy, or plural, patriarchal or celestial marriage, or in which the
solemnization or ceremonies of bigamous polygamous, plural, patriarchal,
or celestial marriage is authorized, performed, or provided for, or in
which any person in any way is assisted, aided, or abetted in the
solemnization or ceremonies of any such marriage, or in which any party
participating in the solemnization or ceremonies of any marriage is bound
to secrecy regarding the same, under any oath, obligation, covenant,
penalty, or promise, shall either vote, serve as juror, or be elected to,
or hold any civil office in the Territory of Utah.
Sec. 2. This instead of the oath prescribed in such cases by the act
of which this is amendatory, the following oath shall be taken and
subscribed, to wit:
I, __________, being duly sworn (or affirmed), depose and say that I
am over twenty-one years of age; that I have resided in the Territory of
Utah for six months last past, and in this precinct for one month
preceeding the date here of; that I am a native-born (or naturalized as
the case may be) citizen of the United States; that [368] my full name is
____________; that I am ______ years of age; that my place of business is
______________; that I am a married (or single) man; that the name of my
lawful wife is ______________; that I will support the Constitution of the
United States, and will faithfully obey the laws thereof; that I will
especially obey the acts of Congress prohibiting polygamy, bigamy,
unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery and fornication; that I will not
hereafter at any time, within any Territory of the United States, while
said acts of Congress remain in force, in obedience of any alleged
revelation, or to any counsel, advice or command from any persons or
source whatever, or under any circumstances, enter into plural or
polygamous marriage, or have or take more wives than one, or cohabit with
more than one woman; that I will not at any time hereafter, in violation
of said acts of Congress, directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel or
advise any person to take or have more wives than one, or to cohabit with
more than one woman, or to commit incest, adultery, or fornication; that I
am not a bigamist or polygamist; that I do not cohabit polygamously with
persons of the other sex, and that I have not been convicted of any of the
offenses above mentioned; that I am not a member of and do not contribute
to the support, aid or encouragement of any order, organization,
association or society which teaches, advises, counsels, encourages or
aids any person to enter into bigamy, polygamy or said patriarchal or
plural celestial marriage, or which teaches or advises that any such law
as aforesaid is not supreme, or that any alleged revelation on the subject
of such marriage is paramount to any such law or any of the doctrines,
tenets, teachings or instructions of which, or any alleged revelations to
which require, encourage, advise authorize or instruct any person, under
any circumstances, to enter into or practice the relations of bigamy,
polygamy, or plural, patriarchal or celestial marriage, or in which the
solemnization or ceremonies of bigamous, polygamous, plural, patriarchal
or celestial marriage is authorized, performed, or provided for or in
which any person in any way is assisted, aided, or abetted in the
solemnization of ceremonies of any [369] such marriage, or in which any
party participating in the solemnization or ceremonies of any marriage is
bound to secrecy regarding the same, under any oath, obligation, covenant,
penalty, or promise.
Sec. 3. That this act shall take effect and be in force from and
after the date of its approval.
The Committee on Territories, to which the bill was referred, have
had the measure under consideration and have attached an amendment, making
the enactment applicable to all the Territories.
The bill introduced on April 10th by Senator Cullom is similar in
every particular to that published above, consequently it is unnecessary
to give it space here. (Deseret Evening News, 19 Apr 1890)
Wednesday 16 Apr 1890:
Washington, April 16. --In the House Committee on Territories today
the new bill to disfranchise the Mormons in Utah was discussed for a short
time. An amendment making the disfranchisement applicable to all the
Territories was adopted by a strict party vote. The Democrats opposed the
measure all through, but the Republicans seemed determined to push it to a
vote at once without giving further hearing to the opponents of the bill,
claiming that the test oath proposition had been so recently argued before
them on the Idaho admission bill that the committee was in possession of
all the facts. * * * (Deseret Evening News, 17 Apr 1890)
19 May 1890:
The U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision declaring those sections
of the Edmunds-Tucker Bill escheating Mormon Church property valid and
constitutional. The Cullom bill providing for the disfranchisement of all
"Mormons" was agreed to in the U.S. Senate Committee on Territories, where
delegate John T. Caine and Frank J. Cannon opposed the bill.
19 May 1890:
Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States:
The full text of the decision of the court of last resort [370] in
the case against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints to forfeit
and escheat its property, real and personal, to the United States, has
been received and we are able to lay it before our readers. A large part
of the document is devoted to a history of the case with citations from
the anti-polygamy laws and the findings of facts and decision of the lower
court. As all of these have been published before in the DESERET NEWS we
only copy the text of the decision, which is as follows:
The principal questions raised are, first, as to the power of
Congress to repeal the charter of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints; and, secondly, as to the power of Congress and the courts to seize
the property of said corporation and to hold the same for the purposes
mentioned in the decree.
The power of Congress over the Territories of the United States is
general and plenary, arising from and incidental to the right to acquire
the Territory itself, and from the power given by the Constitution to make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other
property belonging to the United States. It would be absurd to hold that
the United States has power to acquire Territory, and no power to govern
it when acquired. The power to acquire territory, other than the territory
northwest of Ohio River (which belonged to the United States at the
adoption of the constitution,) is derived from the treaty-making power and
the power to declare and carry on war. The incidents of these powers are
those of national sovereignty, and belong to all independent governments.
The power to make acquisitions of territory by conquest, by treaty and by
cession is an incident of national sovereignty. The Territory of
Louisiana, when acquired from France, and the Territories west of the
Rocky Mountains, when acquired from Mexico, became the absolute property
and domain of the United States, subject to such conditions as the
government in its diplomatic negotiations, had seen fit to accept relating
to the rights of the people then inhabiting those Territories. Having
rightfully acquired said Territories, the United States government was the
only one which could impose law's upon them, and its [371] sovereignty
over them was complete. No State of the union had any such right of
sovereignty over them; no other country or government had any such right.
These propositions are so elementary, and so necessarily follow from the
condition of things arising upon the acquisition of new territory, that
they need no argument to support them. They are self-evident. Chief
Justice Marshall, in the case of the American Insurance Company et al. vs.
Canter (I Peters, 511, 512) well said: "Perhaps the power of governing a
territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a
State, acquired the means of self-government, may result necessarily from
the facts, that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular State,
and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right
to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire
territory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the
possession is unquestioned." And Mr. Justice Nelson, delivering the
opinion of the court in Bennet et al. vs. Porter (9 How., 235, 242),
speaking of the territorial governments established by Congress, says:
"They are legislative governments, and their courts, legislative courts,
Congress, in the exercise of its powers in the organization and government
of the territories, combining the powers of both the federal and State
authorities." Chief Justice Waite, in the case of National Bank vs. County
of Yankton (101 U.S. 129, 133), said: "In the organic act of Dakota there
was not an express reservation of power in Congress to amend the acts of
the territorial legislature, nor was it necessary. Such a power is an
incident of sovereignty, and continues until granted away. Congress may
not only abrogate laws of the territorial legislatures, but it may itself
legislate directly for the local government. It may make a void act of the
territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In other words, it
has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the
territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may
do for the territories what the people, under the Constitution of the
United States, may do for the states." In a still more recent case, and
one relating to the legis-[372]lation of Congress over the Territory of
Utah itself, Murphy v (sic) Ramsey, (114 U.S. 15, 44,) Mr. Justice
Matthews said: "The counsel for the appellants in argument seem to
question the constitutional power of Congress to pass the act of March 22,
1882, so far as it abridges the rights of electors in the Territory under
previous laws. But that question is, we think, no longer open to
discussion. It has passed beyond the stage of controversy into final
judgment. The people of the United States, as sovereign owners of the
National Territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants.
In the exercise of this sovereign dominion, they are represented by the
government of the United States, to whom all the powers of government over
that subject have been delegated, subject only to such restrictions as are
expressed in the Constitution, or are necessarily implied in its terms."
Doubtless Congress, in legislating for the Territories, would be subject
to those fundamental limitations in personal rights which are formulated
in the Constitution and its amendments; but these limitations would exist
rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution from which
Congress derives all its powers, than by any express and direct
application of its provisions.
The supreme power of Congress over the Territories and over the acts
of the territorial legislatures established therein, is generally
expressly reserved in the organic acts establishing governments in said
Territories. This is true of the Territory of Utah. In the 6th section of
the act establishing a territorial government in Utah, approved September
9, 1850, it is declared "that the legislative powers of said Territory
shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistant with the
Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act. * * *
All the laws passed by the Legislative Assembly and Governor shall be
submitted to the Congress of the United States, and if disapproved shall
be null and of no effect." (9 Stat. 454.)
This brings us directly to the question of the power of Congress to
revoke the charter of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day (sic)
Saints. That corporation, [373] when the Territory of Utah was organized,
was a corporation de facto, existing under an ordinance of the so called
State of Deseret, approved February 8, 1851. This ordinance had no
validity except the voluntary acquiescence of the people of Utah then
residing there. Deseret, or Utah, had ceased to belong to the Mexican
government by the treaty of Gaudalope Hidalgo, and in 1851 it belonged to
the United States, and no government without authority from the United
States, express or implied, had any legal right to exist there. The
Assembly of Deseret had no power to make any valid law. Congress had
already passed the law for organizing the Territory of Utah into a
government, and no other government was lawful within the bounds of that
Territory. But after the organization of the territorial government of
Utah under the act of Congress, the Legislative Assembly of the Territory
passed the following resolution: "Resolved, by the Legislative Territory
of Utah, that the laws heretofore passed by the provisional government of
the State of Deseret, and which do not conflict with the organic act of
said Territory, be and the same are hereby declared to be legal and in
full force and virtue, and shall so remain until superceded by the action
of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah." This resolution was
approved October 4, 1851. The confirmation was repeated on the 18th of
January, 1855, by the act of the Legislative Assembly entitled "An act in
relation to the compilation and revision of the law's and resolutions in
force in Utah Territory, their publication and distribution." From the
time of these confirmatory acts, therefore, the said corporation had a
legal existence under its charter. But it is too plain for argument that
this charter, or enactment, was subject to revocation and repeal by
Congress whenever it should see fit to exercise its power for that
purpose. Like any other act of the territorial legislature, it was subject
to this condition. Not only so, but the power of Congress could be
exercised in modifying or limiting the powers and privileges granted by
such charter, for if it could repeal, it could modify; the greater
includes the less. Hence there can be no question that the act of July 1,
[374] 1862, already recited, was a valid exercise of congressional power.
Whatever may be the effect or true construction of this act, we have no
doubt of its validity. As far as it went it was effective. If it did not
absolutely repeal the charter of the corporation, it certainly took away
all right of power which may have been claimed under it to establish,
protect, or foster the practice of polygamy, under whatever disguise it
might be carried on; and it also limited the amount of property which
might be acquired by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; not
interfering, however, with vested rights in real estate existing at that
time. If the act of July 1, 1862, had but a partial effect, Congress had
still the power to make the abrogation of its charter absolute and
complete. This was done by the act of 1887. By the 17th section of that
act it is expressly declared that "the acts of the Legislative Assembly of
the Territory of Utah, incorporating, continuing, or providing for the
corporation known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and
the ordinance of the so-called General Assembly of the State of Deseret,
incorporating the said church, so far as the same may now have legal force
and validity, are hereby disapproved and annulled, and the said
corporation, so far as it may now have or pretend to have any legal
existence, is hereby dissolved. "This absolute annulment of the laws which
gave the said corporation a legal existance has dissipated all doubt on
the subject, and the said corporation has ceased to have and existence as
a civil body, whether for the purpose of holding property or of doing any
other corporate act. It was not necessary to resort to the condition
imposed by the act of 1862, limiting the amount of real estate which any
corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes was
authorized to acquire or hold; although it is apparent from the findings
of the court that this condition was violated by the corporation before
the passage of the act of 1887. Congress, for good and sufficient reasons
of its own, independent of that limitation and of any violation of it, had
a full and perfect right to repeal its charter and abrogate its corporate
existence, which of course depended upon its [375] charter.
The next question is, whether Congress or the court had the power to
cause the property of the said corporation to be seized and taken
possession, as was done in this case.
When a business corporation, instituted for the purposes of gain, or
private interest, is dissolved, the modern doctrine is, that its property,
after payment of its debts, equitably belongs to its stockholders. But
this doctrine has never been extended to public or charitable
corporations. As to these, the ancient and established rule prevails,
namely, that when a corporation is dissolved, its personal property, like
that of a man dying eithout heirs, ceases to be the subject of private
ownership, and becomes subject to the disposal of the sovereign authority;
while its real estate reverts or escheats to the grantor or donor, unless
some other course of devolution has been directed by positive law, though
still subject, as we shall hereafter see, to the charitable use. To this
rule, the corporation in question was undoubtedly subject. But the grantor
of all, or the principal part, of the real estate of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints was really the United States, from whom the
property was derived by the church, or its trustees, through the operation
of the town site act. Besides, as we have seen, the act of 1862 expressly
declared that all real estate acquired or held by any of the corporations
or associations therein mentioned (of which the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints was one), contrary to the provisions of that act, should
be forfeited and escheat to the United States, with a saving of existing
vested rights. The act prohibited the acquiring or holding of real estate
of greater value than $50,000 in a Territory, and no legal title had
vested in any of the lands in Salt Lake City at that time, as the town
site act was not passed until March 2, 1867. There can be no doubt,
therefore, that the real estate of the corporation in question could not,
on its dissolution, revert or pass into any other person or persons than
the United States.
If it be urged that the real estate did not stand in the [376] name
of the corporation, but in the name of a trustee or trustees, and
therefore was not subject to the rules relating to corporate property, the
subject of the difficulty still remains. It cannot be contended that the
prohibition of the act of 1862 could have been so easily evaded as by
putting the property of the corporation into the hands of trustees. The
equitable or trust estate was vested in the corporation. The trustee held
it for no other purpose; and the corporation being dissolved, that purpose
was at an end. The trust estate devolved to the United States in the same
manner as the legal estate would have done had it been in the hands of the
corporation. The trustee became trustee for the United States instead of
trustee for the corporation. We do not now speak of the religious and
charitable uses for which the corporation, through its trustee, held and
managed the property. That aspect of the subject is one which places the
power of the government and of the court over the property on a distinct
ground.
Where a charitable corporation is dissolved, and no private donor, or
founder, appears to be intitled to its real estate (its personal property
not being subject to such reclamation), the government, or sovereign
authority, as the chief and common guardian of the state, either through
its judicial tribunals or otherwise, necessarily has the disposition of
the funds of such corporation, to be exercised, however, with due regard
to the objects and purposes of the charitable uses to which the property
was originally devoted, so far as they are lawful and not repugnant to
public policy. This is the general principle, which will be more fully
discussed further on. In this direction it will be pertinent, in the
meantime, to examine into the character of the corporation of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the objects which, by its
constitution and principles, it promoted and had in view.
It is distinctly stated in the pleadings and findings of fact, that
the property of the said corporation was held for religious and charitable
uses. But it is also stated in the findings of fact, and is a matter of
public notoriety, that the religious and charitable uses intended to [377]
be subserved and promoted are the inculcation and spread of the doctrines
and usages of the Mormon Church, or Church of Latter-day Saints, (sic),
one of the distinguishing features of which is the practice of polygamy a
crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of
the civilized world. Notwithstanding the stringent laws which have been
passed by Congress, --notwithstanding all the efforts made to suppress
this barbarous practice--the sect or community composing the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints perseveres, in defiance of law, in
preaching, upholding, promoting and defending it. It is a matter of public
notoriety that its emissaries are engaged in many countries in propagating
this nefarious doctrine, and urging its converts to join the community in
Utah. The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization.
The organization of a community for the spread and practice of
polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the
spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has
produced in the Western world. The question, therefore, is whether the
promotion of such a nefarious system and practice, so repugnant to our
laws and to the principles of our civilization, is to be allowed to
continue by the sanction of the government itself; and whether the funds
accumulated for that purpose shall be restored to the same unlawful uses
as heretofore, to the detriment of the true interests of civil society.
It is unnecessary here to refer to the past history of the sect, to
their defiance of the government authorities, to their attempt to
establish an independent community, to their efforts to drive from the
Territory all who were not connected with them in communion and sympathy.
The tale is one of patience on the part of the American government and
people, and of contempt of authority and resistance to law on the part of
the Mormons. Whatever persecutions they may have suffered in the early
part of their history, in Missouri and Illinois, they have no excuse for
their persistent defiance of law under the government of the United
States.
One pretence for this obstinate course is, that their [378] belief in
the practice of polygamy, or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious
belief, and, therefore, under the protection of the constitutional
guaranty of religious freedom. This is altogether a sophistical plea. No
doubt the Thugs of India imagined that their belief in the right of
assassination was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make
it so. The practice of suttee by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a
supposed religious conviction. The offering of human sacrifices by our own
ancestors in Britain was no doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious
impulse. But no one, on that account, would hesitate to brand these
practices, now, as crimes against society, and obnoxious to condemnation
and punishment by the civil authority.
The State has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy, and all other
open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind,
notwithstanding the pretence of religious conviction by which they may be
advocated and practiced. (Davis vs. Beason, 133 U.S. 333.) And since
polygamy has been forbidden by the laws of the United States, under severe
penalties, and since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has
persistently used and claimed the right to use, and the unincorporated
community still claims the same right to use, the funds with which the
late corporation was endowed for the purpose of promoting and propagating
the unlawful practice as an integral part of their religious usages, the
question arises whether the government, finding these funds without legal
ownership, has or has not the right, through its courts, and in due course
of administration, to cause them to be seized and devoted to objects of
undoubted charity and usefulness--such for example as the maintenance of
schools--for the benefit of the community whose leaders are now misusing
them in the unlawful manner above described; setting apart, however, for
the exclusive possession and use of the Church, sufficient and suitable
portions of the property for the purposes of public worship, parsonage
buildings, and burying grounds, as provided in the law.
The property in question has been dedicated to public and charitable
uses. It matters not whether it is the pro-[379]duct of private
contributions, made during the course of half a century, or of taxes
imposed upon the people, or of gains arising from fortunate operations in
business or appreciation in values, the charitable uses for which it was
held are stamped upon it by charter, by ordinance, by regulation and by
usage, in such an indelible manner that there can be no mistake as to
their character, purpose, or object.
The law, respecting property held for charitable uses of course
depends upon the legislation and jurisprudence of the country in which the
property is situated and the uses are carried out; and when the positive
law, affords no specific provision for actual cases that arise, the
subject must necessarily be governed by those principles of reason and
public policy which prevail in all civilized and enlightened communities.
The principles of the law of charities are not confined to a
particular people or nation, but prevail in all civillized countries
pervaded by the spirit of Christianity. They are found imbeded in the
civil law of Rome, in the laws of European nations, and especially in the
laws of that nation from which our institutions are derived. A leading and
prominent principle prevailing in them all is, that property devoted to a
charitable and worthy object, promotive of the public good, shall be
applied to the purposes of its dedication, and protected from spoliation
and from diversion to other objects. Though devoted to a particular use,
it is considered as given to the public, and is, therefore, taken under
the guardianship of the laws. If it cannot be applied to the particular
use for which it was intended, either because the objects to be subserved
have failed, or because they have become unlawful and repugnant to the
public policy of the State, it will be applied to some object of kindred
character so as to fulfil in substance, if not in manner and form, the
purposes of its consecration.
The manner in which the due administration and application of
charitable estates is secured depends upon the judicial institutions and
machinery of the particular govermnent to which they are subject. In
England, the court of chancery is the ordinary tribunal to which this
class of [380] cases is delegated, and there are comparatively few which
it is not competent to administer. Where there is failure of trustees, it
can appoint new ones; and where modification of uses is necessary in order
to avoid a violation of the laws, it has power to make the change. There
are some cases, however, which are beyond its jurisdiction; as where, by
statute, a gift to certain uses is declared void and the property goes to
the king; and in some other cases of failure of the charity. In such cases
the king as parens patriae, under his sign manual, disposes of the fund to
such uses, analogous to those intended, as seems to him expedient and
wise.
These general principles are laid down in all the principal treatises
on the subject, and are the result of numerous cases and authorities. (See
Duke on Char. Uses, e. X, sects, 4, 5, 6; Boyle on Charities, c. III, IV;
2 Story's Eq. Jur. sec. 1167 et seq; Atty. Gen. v. Guise, 2 Vern. 266;
Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 Ves. 36,17; DeThemmings v. DeBonneval, 5 Russ.
289; Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292, 335, 336; Beatty v. Kurtz, 2
Pet. 566; Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127; Jackson v. Phillips, 14
Allen, 539; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303; Jones v. Habersham,
107 U. S. 174.)
The individual cases cited are but indicia of the general principle
underlying them. As such they are authoritative, though often in
themselves of minor importance. Bearing this in mind, it is interesting to
see how, far back the principle is recognized. In the Pandects of Justinia
we find cases to the same effect as those referred to, antedating the
adoption of Christianity as the religion of the Empire. Amongst others, in
the Digest, lib. 33, tit. 2, law 16, a case is reported which occured in
the early part of the third century, in which a legacy was left to a city
in order that from the yearly revenues games might be celebrated for the
purpose of preserving the memory of the deceased. It was not lawful at
that time to celebrate these games. The question was, what was to be done
with this legacy. Modestinus, a celebrated jurist of authority, replied,
"Since the testator wished games to be celebrated which were [381] not
permitted, it would be unjust that the amount which he had destined to
that end should go back to the heirs. Therefore let the heirs and magnates
of the city be cited, and let an examination be made to ascertain how the
trust may be employed so that the memory of the deceased may be preserved
in some other and lawful manner." Here is the doctrine of charitable uses
in a nutshell.
Domat, the French Jurist, writing on the civil law, after explaining
the nature of pious and charitable uses, and the favor with which they are
treated in the law, says, "If a pious legacy were destined to some use
which could not have its effect, as if a testator had left a legacy for
building a church for a parish, or an apartment in a hospital, and it
happened, either that before his death the said church, or the said
apartment had been built out of some other fund, or that it was noways
necessary or useful, the legacy would not for all that remain without any
use; but it would be laid out on other works of peity for that parish, or
for that hospital, according to the directions that should be given in
this matter by the persons to whom this function should belong." And for
this principle he cites a passage from the Pendects. (Domat's Civil Law,
book 4, title 2, section 6, par. 6.)
By the Spanish law, whatever was given to the service of God became
incapable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or
trustees; and any part not required for their own support, and the
repairs, books and furniture of the church, was devoted to works of piety,
such as feeding and clothing the poor, supporting orphans, marrying poor
virgins, redeeming captives and the like. (Partida III, tit. 28, 11.
12-15.) When property was given for a particular object, as a church, a
hospital, a convent, or a community, etc., and the object failed, the
property did not revert to the donor, or his heirs, but devolved to the
crown, the church or other convent or community, unless the donation
contained an express condition in writing to the contrary. (Tapla, Gebrero
Novisimo, lib. 2, tit. 4, cap. 22, sec. 24-26.)
A case came before Lord Bacon in 1619, Bloomfield vs. Stowe Market,
(Duke, 624,) in which lands had been [382] given before the Reformation to
be sold, and the proceeds applied, one-half to the making of a highway
from the town in which the lands were, one-fourth to the repair of a
church in that town, and the other fourth to the priest of the church to
say prayers for the souls of the donor and others. The Lord Keeper decreed
the establishment of the use for making the highway and repairing the
church, and directed the remaining fourth (which could not, by reason of
the change in religion, be applied as directed by the donor) to be divided
between the poor of the same town and the poor of the town where the donor
inhabited.
In the case of Baliol College, which came before the Court of
Chancery from time to time for over a century and a half, the same
principle was asserted, of directing a charity fund to a different, though
analogous use, where the use originally declared had become contrary to
the policy of the law. There, a testator in 1679, when episcopacy was
established by law in Scotland, gave lands in trust to apply the income to
the education of Scotchmen at Oxford, with a view to their taking
Episcopal orders and settling in Scotland. Presbyterianism being
re-established in Scotland after the revolution of 1688, the object of the
bequest could not be carried into effect; and the Court of Chancery, by
successive decrees of Lord Somers and Lord Hardwicke, directed the income
of the estate to be applied to the education of a certain number of Scotch
students at Baliol College, without the condition of taking orders; and,
in consideration of this privilege, directed the surplus of the income to
be applied to the college library. (See the cases of Atty. Gen. v. Guise,
2 Vern. 166; Atty. Gen. v. Baliol College, 9 mod. 407; Atty. Gen. v.
Glasgow College, 2 Collyer, 665; S.C. 1 H.L. Cas. 800. And see abridgment
of the above cases in 14 Allen, 581, 582.)
Lord Chief Justice Wilmot, in his opinion in Atty. Gen. v. Lady
Downing (Wilmot's Notes and op. 1, 32), looking at the case on the
supposition that the trusts of the will (which were for instituting a
college) were illegal and void, or of such a nature as not fit to be
carried into execution, said: "This court has long made a
dis-[383]tinction between superstitious uses and mistaken charitable uses.
By mistaken, I mean such as are repugnant to that sound constitutional
policy which controls the interest, wills, and wishes of individuals, when
they clash with the interest and safety of the whole community. Property,
destined to superstitious uses, is given by law of parliament to the king,
to dispose of as he pleases; and it falls properly under the cognizance of
a court of revenue. But where property is given to mistaken charitable
uses, this court distinguishes between the charity and the use; and seeing
the charitable bequest in the intention of the testator, they execute the
intention, varying the use, as the king, who is the curator of all
charities, and the constitutional trustee for the performance of them,
pleases to direct and appoint." "This doctrine is now, so fully settled
that it cannot be departed from." (Ib.)
In Moggridge vs. Thackwell (7 Ves. 36, 69), Lord Eldon said: "I have
no doubt that cases much older than I shall cite may be found; all of
which appear to prove that if the testator has manifested a general
intention to give to charity, the failure of the particular mode in which
the charity is to be effectuated shall not destroy the charity, but, if
the substantial intention is charity, the law will substitute another mode
of devoting the property to charitable purposes, though the formal
intention as to the mode cannot be accomplished." In Hill on Trustees,
page 450, after citing this observation of Lord Eldon, it is added; "In
accordance with these principles, it has frequently been decided that
where a testator has sufficiently expressed his intention to dispose of
his estate in trust for charitable purposes generally, the general purpose
will be enforced by the court to the exclusion of any claim of the next of
kin to take under a resulting trust; although the particular purpose or
mode of application is not declared at all by the testator. And the same
rule prevails although the testator refers to some past or intended
declaration of the particular charity, which declaration is not made or
cannot be discovered; and although the selection of the objects of the
charity and the mode of application are left to the discretion of the
trustees. And it is immaterial that the [384] trustees refuse the gift, or
die, or that their appointment is revoked in the lifetime of the testator,
causing a lapse of the bequest at law. The same construction will also be
adopted where a particular charitable purpose is declared by the testator
which does not exhaust the whole value of the estate; or where the
particular trust cannot be carried into effect, either for its uncertainty
or its illegality, or for want of proper objects. And in all these cases
the general intention of the testator in favor of charity will be
effectuated by the court through a cy-pres application of the fund." The
same propositions are laid down by Mr. Justice Story in his Equity
Jurisprudence, sections 1107 et seq. But it is unnecessary to make further
quotations.
These authorities are cited (and many more might be adduced) for the
purpose of showing that where property has been devoted to a public or
charitable use which cannot be carried out on account of some illegality
in, or failure of the object, it does not, according to the general law of
charities, revert to the donor or his heirs, or other representatives, but
is applied under the direction of the courts, or of the supreme power in
the State, to other charitable objects, lawful in their character, but
corresponding, as near as may be, to the original intention of the donor.
They also show that the authority thus exercised arises, in part,
from the ordinary power of the court of chancery over trusts, and, in
part, from the right of the government, or sovereign, as parens patriae,
to supervise the acts of public and charitable institutions in the
interest of those to be benefited by their establishment; and, if their
funds become bona vacantia, or left without lawful charge, or appropriated
to illegal purposes, to cause them to be applied in such lawful manner as
justice and equity may require.
If it should be conceded that a case like the present transcends the
ordinary jurisdiction of the court of chancery, and requires for its
determination the interposition of the parens patriae of the State, it may
then be contended that, in this country, there is no royal person to act
as parens patriae, and to give direction [385] for the application of
charities which cannot be administered by the court. It is true we have no
such chief magistrate. But, here, the legislature is the parens patriae,
and, unless restrained by constitutional limitations, possesses all the
powers in this regard which the sovereign possesses in England. Chief
Justice Marshall, in the Dartmouth College case, said: "By the revolution,
the duties, as well as the powers, of government devolved on the
people....It is admitted that among the latter was comprehended the
transcendent power of parliament, as well as that of the executive
department." (4 Wheat, 651.) And Mr. Justice Baldwin, in McGill vs. Brown
(Brightley's Rep. 346, 373), a case arising on Sarah Zane's will,
referring to this declaration of Chief Justice Marshall, said; "The
revolution devolved on the State all the transcendant power of parliament,
and the prerogative of the crown, and gave their acts the same force and
effect."
Chancellor Kent says: "In this country, the legislature or government
of the State, as parens patriae, has the right to enforce all charities of
a public nature, by virtue of its general superintending authority over
the public interests, where no other person is intrusted with it." (4 Kent
Com. 508, note.)
In Fontain vs. Ravenel, (17 How. 369, 584,) Mr. Justice McLean,
delivering the opinion of this court in a charity case, said: "When this
country achieved its independence, the prerogatives of the crown devolved
upon the people of the States. And this power still remains with them
except so far as they have delegated a portion of it to the federal
government. The sovereign will is made known to us by legislative
enactment. The State, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae."
This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power
of every State, whether that power is loged in a royal person or in the
legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers which are
sometimes exerted by irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the
people and the destruction of their liberties. On the contrary, it is a
most beneficent function, and often necessary to be exercised in the
interest of humanity, [386] and for the prevention of injury to those who
cannot protect themselves. Lord Chancellor Somers, in Cary vs. Bertie, (2
Vern. 333, 342,) said: "It is true infants are always favored. In this
court there are several things which belong to the king as parens patriae,
and fall under the care and direction of this court, as charities,
infants, idiots, lunatics, etc."
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts well said, in Sohier v.
Mass. Gen Hospital, (3 Cush. 482, 497): "It is deemed indispensable that
there should be a power in the legislature to authorize the sale of the
estates of infants, idiots, insane persons, and persons not known, or not
in being, who cannot act for themselves. The best interest of these
persons, and justice to other persons, often require that such sales
should be made. It would be attended with incalculable mischiefs,
injuries, and losses, if estates, in which persons are interested who have
not capacity to act for themselves, or who cannot be certainly
ascertained, or are not in being, could, under no circumstances, be sold,
and perfect titles effected. But, in such cases, the legislature, as
parens patriae, can disentangle and unfetter the estates, by authorising a
sale, taking precaution that the substantial rights of all parties are
protected and secured."
These remarks in reference to infants, insane persons and persons not
known, or not in being, apply to the beneficiaries of charities, who are
often incapable of vindicating their rights, and justly look for
protection to the sovereign authority, acting as parens patriae. They show
that this beneficent function has not ceased to exist under the change of
government from a monarchy to a republic; but that it now resides in the
legislative department, ready to be called into exercise whenever required
for the purpose of justice and right, and is as clearly capable of being
exercised in cases of charities as in any other cases whatever.
It is true that in some of the States of the Union in which charities
are not favored, gifts to unlawful or impracticable objects, and even
gifts affected by merely technical difficulties, are held to be valid, and
the property is allowed to revert to the donor or his heirs or [387] other
representatives. But this is in cases where such heirs or representatives
are at hand to claim the property, and are ascertainable. It is difficult
to see how this could be done in a case where it would be impossible for
any such claim to be made--as where the property has been the resulting
accumulation of ten thousand petty contributions, extending through a long
period of time, as is the case with all ecclesiastical and community
funds. In such a case the only course that could be satisfactorily pursued
would be that pointed out by the general law of charities, namely, for the
government, or the court of chancery, to assume the control of the fund
and devote it to the lawful objects of charity most nearly corresponding
to those to which it was originally destined. It could not be returned to
the donors, nor distributed among the beneficiaries.
The impracticability of pursuing a different course, however, is not
the true ground of this rule of charity law. The true ground is that the
property given to a charity becomes in a measure public property, only
applicable as far as may be, it is true, to the specific purposes to which
it is devoted, but within those limits consecrated to the public use, and
become part of the public resources for promoting the happiness and
well-being of the people of the state. Hence, when such property ceases to
have any other owner, by the failure of the trustees, by forfeiture for
illegal application, or for any other cause, the ownership naturally and
necessarily falls upon the sovereign power of the state; and thereupon the
court of chancery, in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction, will
appoint a new, trustee to take the place of the trustees that have failed
or that have been set aside, and will give directions for the further
management and administration of the property; or if the case is beyond
the ordinary jurisdiction of the court, the legislature may interpose and
make such disposition of the matter as will accord with the purposes of
justice and right. The funds are not lost to the public as charity funds,
they are not lost to the general objects or class of objects which they
were intended to subserve or effect. The state, by its legislature or its
judiciary, interposes [388] to preserve them from dissipation and
destruction, and to set them up on a new, basis of usefulness, directed to
lawful ends, coincident, as far as may be, with the objects originally
proposed.
The interposition of the legislature in such cases is exemplified by
the case of The Town of Pawlet v. Clark & al., (9 Cranch, 262), which
arose in Vermont. In the town charter, granted in the name of the king in
1761, one entire share of the town lands was granted "as a glebe for the
Church of England as by law, established." There was no Episcopal church
in the town until 1802. In that year one was organized, and its parson
laid claim to the glebe lands, and leased them to Clark and others. Of
course, this church had never been connected with the "Church of England
as by law established," and the institution of such a church in 1802 was
impossible, and would have been contrary to the public policy of the
state. Meantime, in 1794, the legislature had granted the glebe lands to
the several towns to be rented by the selectmen for the sole use and
support of public worship, without restriction as to sect or denomination.
This law, was subsequently repealed, and in 1805 the legislature passed
another act, granting the glebe lands to the respective towns, to apply
the rents to the use of schools therein. This was held to be a valid
disposition. Mr. Justice Story, in the course of an elaborate opinion,
amongst other things showed that a mere voluntary society of Episcopalians
within a town could no more entitle themselves, on account of their
religious tenets, to the glebe, than any other society worshiping therein.
"The glebe." he said, "remained as an haereditas jasens, and the state,
which succeeded to the rights of the crown, might, with the assent of the
town, alien or encumber it, or might erect an Episcopal church therein."
etc. "By the revolution the State of Vermont succeeded to all the rights
of the crown as to the unappropriated as well as the appropriated glebes."
(pp. 334, 335. ) Again: "Without the authority of the state, however, they
(the towns) could not apply the lands to other uses than public worship;
and in this respect the statute of 1805 conferred a new right which the
towns might or might not exercise [389] at their own pleasure." (p. 336.)
Coming to the case before us, we have no doubt that the general law
of charities which we have described is applicable thereto. It is true, no
formal declaration has been made by Congress or the territorial
legislature as to what system of laws shall prevail there. But it is
apparent from the language of the organic act, which was passed September
9, 1850, (9 stat. 453.) that it was the intention of Congress that the
system of common law and equity which generally prevails in this country
should be operative in the Territory of Utah, except as it might be
altered by legislation. In the 9th section of the act it is declared that
the Supreme and District Courts of the Territory "shall possess chancery
as well as common law jurisdiction," and the whole phraseology of the act
implies the same thing. The territorial legislature, in like manner, in
the first section of the act regulating procedure, approved December 80,
(sic) 1852, declared that all the courts of the Territory should have "law
and equity jurisdiction in civil cases." In view of these significant
provisions we infer that the general system of common law and equity, as
it prevails in this country, is the basis of the laws of the Territory of
Utah. We may, therefore, assume that the doctrine of charities is
applicable to the Territory, and that Congress, in the exercise of its
plenary legislative power over it, was entitled to carry out that law and
put it in force, in its application to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
Indeed, it is impliedly admitted by the corporation itself, in its
answer to the bill in this case, that the law of charities exists in Utah,
for it expressly says: "That it was, at the time of its creation, ever
since has been, and still is, a corporation or association for religious
or charitable uses." And again it says:
"That prior to February 28, 1887, it had, as such corporation, as it
lawfully might by the powers granted to it by its acts of incorporation,
acquired and held from time to time certain personal property, goods, and
chattels, all of which it had acquired, held and used [390] solely and
only for charitable and religious purposes; that on the 28th day of
February, A.D. 1888, it still held and owned certain personal property,
goods, and chattels donated to it by the members of said church and
friends thereof solely and only for use and distribution for charitable
and religious purpose;" and "that on February 28, 1887, John Taylor, who
then held all the personal property, moneys, stocks, and bonds belonging
to said defendant corporation as trustee in trust for said defendant, by
and with the consent and approval of defendant, donated, transferred, and
conveyed all of said personal property, moneys, stocks, and bonds held by
him belonging to said defendant corporation, after setting apart and
reserving certain moneys and stocks then held by him, sufficient in amount
and necessary for the then existing indebtedness of said defendant
corporation, to certain ecclesiastical corporations created and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the Territory of Utah, to be devoted by
said ecclesiastical corporations solely and only to charitable and
religious uses and purposes."
And the interveners, Romney and others, who claim to represent the
hundred thousand and move individuals of the Mormon Church, in their
petition say:
"That the said Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is and for
many years last past has been a voluntary religious society or
association, organized and existing in the Territory of Utah for religious
and charitable purposes.
"That said petitioners and others, for whose benefit they file this
petition, are members of said church, residing in said Territory; that
said church became possessed of all the above described property, in
accordance with its established rules and customs, by the voluntary
contributions, donations, and dedications of its said members, to be held,
managed and applied to the use and benefit of said church and for the
maintenance of its religion and charities by trustees appointed by said
members semi-annually at the general conference or [391] meeting of said
members.
The foregoing considerations place it beyond doubt that the general
law of charities, as understood and administered in our Anglo-American
system of laws, was and is applicable to the case now under consideration.
Then looking at the case as the finding of facts presents it, we have
before us--Congress had before it--a contumacious organization, wielding
by its resources an emmense power in the Territory of Utah, and employing
those resources and that power in constantly attempting to oppose, thwart,
and subvert the legislation of Congress and the will of the government of
the United States. Under these circumstances we have no doubt of the power
of Congress to do as it did.
It is not our province to pass judgment upon the necessity or
expediency of the act of February 19, 1887, under which this proceeding
was taken. The only question we have to consider in this regard is as to
the constitutional power of Congress to pass it. Nor are we now called
upon to declare what disposition ought to be made of the property of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This suit is, in some
respects, an ancillary one, instituted for the purpose of taking
possession of and holding for final disposition the property of the
defunct corporation in the hands of a receiver, and winding up its
affairs. To that extent, and to that only, the decree of the Circuit Court
has gone. In the proceedings which have been instituted in the District
Court of the Territory, it will be determined whether the real estate of
the corporation which has been seized (excepting the portions exempted by
the act) has, or has not, escheated or become forfeited to the United
States. If it should be decided in the affirmative, then, pursuant to the
terms of the act, the property so forfeited and escheated will be disposed
of by the Secretary of the interior, and the proceeds applied to the use
and benefit of common schools in the Territory.
It is obvious that any property of the corporation which may be
adjudged to be forfeited and escheated will be subject to a more absolute
control and disposition [392] by the government than that which is not so
forfeited. The non-forfeited property will be subject to such disposition
only as may be required by the law of charitable uses; whilst the
forfeited and escheated property, being subject to a more absolute control
of the government, will admit of a greater latitude of discretion in
regard to its disposition. As we have seen, however, Congress has
signified its will in this regard, having declared that the proceeds shall
be applied to the use and benefit of common schools in the Territory.
Whether that will be a proper destination for the non-forfeited property
will be a matter for future consideration in view of all the circumstances
of the case.
As to the constitutional question, we see nothing in the act which,
in our judgment, transcends the power of Congress over the subject. We
have already considered the question of its power to repeal the charter of
the corporation. It certainly also had power to direct proceedings to be
instituted for the forfeiture and escheat of the real estate of the
corporation; and, if a judgment should be rendered in favor of the
government in these proceedings, the power to dispose of the proceeds of
the lands thus forfeited and escheated, for the use and benefit of common
schools in the Territory, is beyond dispute. It would probably have power
to make such a disposition of the proceeds if the question were merely one
of charitable uses, and not forfeiture. Schools and education were
regarded by the Congress of the Confederation as the most natural and
obvious appliances for the promotion of religion and morality. In the
ordinance of 1787, passed for the government of the Territory Northwest of
the Ohio, it is declared, art. 3: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
means of education shall forever be encouraged." Mr. Dane, who is reputed
to have drafted the said ordinance, speaking of some of the statutory
provisions of the English law regarding charities as inapplicable to
America, says: "But in construing these laws, rules have been laid down
which are valuable in every State; as that the erection of schools and the
relief of the poor are always right, and [393] the law will deny the
application of private property only as to uses the nation deems
superstitious." (4 Dane's Abridg. 239.)
The only remaining constitutional question arises upon the part of
the 17th section of the act, under which the present proceedings were
instituted. We do not well see how the constitutionality of this provision
can be seriously disputed, if it be conceded or established that the
corporation ceased to exist, and that its property thereupon ceased to
have a lawful owner, and reverted to the care and protection of the
government as parens patriae. This point has already been fully discussed.
We have no doubt that the state of things referred to existed, and that
the right of the government to take possession of the property followed
thereupon.
The application of Romney and others, representing the unincorporated
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is fully
disposed of by the considerations already adduced. The principal question
discussed has been, whether the property of the Church was in such a
condition as to authorize the government and the court to take possession
of it and hold it until it shall be seen what final disposition of it
should be made; and we think it was in such a condition, and that it is
properly held in the custody of the receiver. The rights of the Church
members will necessarily be taken into consideration in the final
disposition of the case. There is no ground for granting their present
application. The property is in the custody of the law, awaiting the
judgment of the court as to its final disposition in view of the illegal
uses to which it, is subject in the hands of the Church of Latter-day
Saints, whether incorporated or unincorporated. The conditions for
claiming possession of it by the members of the sect or community under
the act do not at present exist.
The attempt made, after the passage of the act on February 19th,
1887, and whilst it was in the President's hands for his approval or
rejection, to transfer the property from the trustees then holding it to
other persons, and for the benefit of different associations, was so
evidently intended as an evasion of the law, that the court [394] below
justly regarded it as void and without force or effect.
We have carefully examined the decree, and do not find anything in it
that calls for a reversal. It may perhaps require modification in some
matters of detail, and for that purpose only the case is reserved for
further consideration.
True copy.
Test:
JAMES H. McKENNEY,
Clerk of the Supreme Court U.S.
(Deseret Evening News, 10 Jun 1890)
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Field and Mr.
Justice Lamar, dissenting:
I am constrained to dissent from the opinion and judgment just
announced. Congress possesses such authority over the Territories as the
Constitution expressly or by clear implication delegates. Doubtless
territory may be acquired by the direct action of Congress, as in the
annexation of Texas; by treaty, as in the case of Louisiana; or, as in the
case of California, by conquest and afterwards by treaty; but the power of
Congress to legislate over the Territories is granted in so many words by
the Constitution. Art. 4, see. 3, clause 2.
And it is further therein provided that "Congress shall have power to
make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department
or officer thereof."
In my opinion, Congress is restrained, not merely by the limitations
expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of
power, express or implied, in that instrument. And no such power as that
involved in the Act of Congress under consideration is conferred by the
Constitution, nor is any clause pointed out as its legitimate source. I
regard it of vital consequence that absolute power should never be
conceded as belonging under our system of government to any one [395] of
its departments. The legislative power of Congress is delegated and not
inherent, and is therefore limited. I agree that the power to make needful
rules and regulations for the Territories necessarily comprehends the
power to suppress crime; and it is immaterial even though that crime
assumes the form of a religious belief or creed. Congress has the power to
extirpate polygamy in any of the Territories, by the enactment of a
criminal code directed to that end; but it is not authorized under the
cover of that power to seize and confiscate the property of persons,
individuals or corporations, without office found, because they may have
been guilty of criminal practices.
The doctrine of cy pre's is one of construction, and not of
administration. By it a fund devoted to a particular charity is applied to
a cognate purpose, and if the purpose for which this property was
accumulated was such as has been depicted, it cannot be brought within the
rule of application to a purpose as nearly as possible resembling that
denounced. Nor is there here any counterpart in congressional power to the
exercise of the royal prerogative in the disposition of a charity. If this
property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not
justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation. In my judgment,
its diversion under this Act of Congress is in contravention of specific
limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication
by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle
that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the
agents of the people of this Republic, is delegated and not inherent.
(For the full text of the decision, including the history, citations,
findings of fact and decisions of the lower court, see Book 136, U.S.
Reports, pp 478-499, at 1-68.)
10 Jun 1890, Deseret Evening News:
By Telegraph to the NEWS.
Senator Edmunds Introduces Another Bill.
WASHINGTON, June 10--Senator Edmunds today [396] introduced a bill
(see under Tuesday 12 Aug 1890) in the Senate providing that all funds or
other property lately belonging to or in the possession of, or claimed by
the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shall
be devoted to the benefit of public common schools in Utah, the money to
be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior in such manner as shall
seem to him most expedient. The Supreme Court of Utah is to be invested
with authority to make all necessary and proper orders and decrees for the
purpose.
After the United States Supreme Court rendered the decree annulling
the charter and escheating to the United States the property of the Mormon
Church, it withheld the decree in the case, through a desire to find the
best method of disposing of the confiscated property or finding private
owners to whom it might be reverted. The object of Senator Edmunds' bill
is to declare by congressional enactment to what use the money and
property may be devoted, and to relieve the court of its embarrassment.
Tuesday 1 Jun 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.
The full text of the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the suit to confiscate the property of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints will be found in another part of this paper,
with the exception of the statement of the case, which it is unnecessary
to reproduce, because all the particulars have been previously published.
The disquisition as to the powers of Congress over the Territories is
a summary of opinions previously enunciated by the court, and an
affirmation of the doctrine that in these acquired parcels of the public
domain the authority of the national Government is absolute, "subject only
to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution or are
necessarily implied in its terms." This is an important limitation to
which we call the attention of those advocates of imperialism who contend
that Congress is not bound by the Constitution in its supreme sway over
the Territories.
[397] The general power of Congress to annul an act of a Territorial
Legislature, when submitted for its consideration, has not in this case
been questioned. The contention on the part of Church counsel was, that
the act of incorporation of the Church was in the nature of a contract
between the Legislature and, by the tacit consent of Congress, between the
Government and the corporation; and that the obligations of that contract
could not be constitutionally impaired. This important point the court
appears not to have considered.
But the corporation being dissolved by congressional legislative act,
the question of succession to or legal possession of its property becomes
the great question. The court explains at great length the doctrine of the
administration and application of charitable estates. And reliance is
chiefly placed by the court upon the English law and procedure. In the
cases cited in American practice there is no parallel to the present
issue. Indeed, when the whole argument of the court upon charitable uses
and the powers of courts and the sovereign in relation to them is simmered
down, it will be found to have no direct application to the case under
adjudication, because it is essentially different to all the precedents
cited in a very important particular.
If it be conceded that where property of a charitable corporation has
been the result of "ten thousand petty contributions extending through a
long period of time, it the government or the court of chancery may, in
the dissolution of the corporation, assume control of the fund because it
could not be returned to the donors, it must, so the court admits, be
devoted to "the lawful objects of charity most nearly corresponding to
those to which it was originally destined."
Now then, the charities referred to throughout the argument are those
charities which were originally intended for the benefit of the general
public, or certain classes thereof, irrespective of any particular
denomination. In this case the charitable uses of the property were for
the purposes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The
donations given were not for any other purpose. The lower court so found
and the [398] higher court sustained the finding. The corporation is
declared to have been "a religious and charitable corporation for the
purpose of promulgating, spreading and upholding the principles, practice,
teachings and tenets of said Church, and for the purpose of dispensing
charity subject and according to said principles, practices, teachings and
tenets.
The proposition, then, to devote the property of the dissolved
corporation to the general public use of common schools, would be foreign
to "the objects of charity for which it was originally destined." They
were, so the court finds, for the purpose of "dispensing charity, subject
and according to the principles, practices and teachings of the Church."
To devote them to secular schools for the benefit of people outside of and
hostile to the Church and its tenets, and who never donated a cent to the
fund, would not only be unjust but contrary to the principle which, the
court says, must govern both the judicial and sovereign power in the
distribution of such accumulated properties.
Supposing that one of the uses to which such funds has in the past
been applied was the upholding or promulgation or practice of polygamy. It
does not appear, nor it is so stated, that this was the exclusive purpose
of these funds. Polygamy is only alleged to be one of the tenets for the
promulgation of which the funds were used or intended to be used. That
practice being declared unlawful, there are scores of other uses within
the Church to which the property may be put which would have no relation
to polygamy, its practice or promulgation.
And granting all that is alleged concerning the present attitude of
the ministers of the Church on that question, and further that the
property may be legally devoted to the cause of education, would it not be
contrary to the doctrine of charities advocated by the court, to devote
that property to the general public use, which was "destined" for the
benefit of the particular denomination for which and in which it was
originally bestowed?
According to the principles laid down by the court, and the position
it has taken on this question, even if this [399] property, donated by the
Latter-day Saints for religious as well as charitable uses, may be legally
used for scholastic purposes, then the children of the Latter-day Saints
should alone receive the benefit of that diversion, subject to the tenets
and teachings of their Church to the exclusion of everything favoring
polygamy.
The decision of the lower court is fully sustained as to its general
features and findings of law. Its statement of facts is, of course,
accepted without question. In addition to these the court of last resort
makes assertions concerning matters outside of the record. At the same
time it omits some things contained in the record, which if considered
might have important bearings upon the equities of the case.
The remarks of the court about the "Mormon" propaganda are extraneous
and incorrect. It is not true that the "Emissaries" of the Church are
"engaged in many countries in propagating polygamy." And this does not
appear in the record of the case. The court has judicially accepted common
rumor, which, as is frequently the case, is very unreliable. It is also
untrue that the Latter-day Saints have "Attempted to establish an
independent community," and to "drive from the Territory all who were not
connected with them in communion and sympathy." This is not in the record,
and the facts prove the contrary. The court has no right to incorporate
the slander of anti-"Mormons" in a judicial decree on a matter of law and
equity.
The court is also unfair in excluding parts of the findings of fact
which modify other and immediately connected parts. For instance: The
court cites the language of the lower court in regard to the teaching and
practice of polygamy or plurality of wives, as one of the tenets of the
late Church incorporation, but omits the qualifying portion of the very
sentence quoted, which is as follows: "but only a portion of the members
of said corporation, not exceeding 20 per cent of the marriageable
members, male and female, were engaged in the actual practice of polygamy.
Let us figure on this a little. We do not admit it as a correct
estimate. But the court so stated it. The [400] usual ratio is placed at
five persons to the family. That is, two-fifths or 40 percent of the
population are adults. One-fifth or 20 per cent of two fifths would make
eight per cent of the "Mormon" population, including male and female, who
were engaged in the practice of polygamy, according to the estimate of the
court.
Well, is it right to conclude that a Church in which eight per cent
of the population are polygamists, is an organization for the purpose of
the establishment of polygamy? And is it fair or judicial to rule that
because eight per cent of a Church population are engaged in the practice
of something declared unlawful, therefore the ninety-two per cent who are
law abiding, shall be deprived of the property donated by them for
religious and charitable uses?
We regard the polygamy pretence as a very thin pretext for stripping
an unpopular Church of its property. And we are sure that it will have no
effect on the exaggerated polygamy question, nor will it induce anyone who
is a Latter-day Saint at heart to forsake the Church which he believes to
be divine.
Such injustice only serves to increase the faith of the devout, and
render more determined the steadfast and true. This is proven by history
and will be demonstrated again in the near future.
The question of the final disposition of the personal property is not
yet settled. And the question as to which pieces of reality will become
forfeit and escheat to the United States is still open. Suits will have to
be carried on in the District Courts, and will no doubt be taken up to the
court of last resort, in regard to each piece of property claimed by the
Government.
Meanwhile, the Latter-day Saints will look calmly on, knowing that
the property part of this great controversy is but a small thing, in view
of the violation of justice which is being perpetrated in the Government
under which they live, and of the glorious principles of truth which they
live and labor to maintain.
Senator Edmunds, as will be seen in our press dispatches, has come to
the help of the Supreme Court, and proposes to effect by legislation what
the court hesi-[401]tates to do by judicial authority. The principle
involved is just the same, and no excuse will justify wrestling from the
Latter-day Saints that which rightfully belongs to them, and giving it to
persons who never owned it or had, or pretended to have, any claim upon
it. Will Congress and the country sanction this renewed attempt at
robbery? (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
Monday 30 Jun 1890, Deseret Evening News:
A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BASKIN-CULLOM BILL. --THE OATH PRESCRIBED.
The following is the text of the bill reported by Senator Platt on
Saturday. It is the substitute adopted by the Senate Committee on
Territories, for the Baskin-Cullom disfranchisement measure, and was
placed on the calendar and ordered to be printed:
Be it enacted, etc., That no person who is a bigamist or polygamist,
or is living in what is known as patriarchal, plural or celestial
marriage, or in violation of any law of the Territory of Utah or the
United States forbidding such crime; or who in any manner teaches,
advises, counsels or encourages any person to enter into bigamy, polygamy
or such patriarchal, plural or celestial marriage or to live in violation
of any such law or commit any such crimes, or who is a member of or
contributes to the support, aid or encouragement of any order,
organization, association or society which teaches, advises, counsels,
encourages or aids any person to enter into bigamy, polygamy or such
patriarchal or plural marriage, or which teaches or advises that the laws
of the Territory of Utah prescribing the rules of civil conduct are not
the supreme laws of said Territory, shall neither vote, serve as juror nor
hold any civil office in the Territory of Utah.
Section 2 --That in addition to the ground of challenge now allowed
by law any person offering to vote may be orally challenged by any elector
of the county upon the ground that he is not eligible to vote on account
of his coming within the proscription of the preceding section.
[402] Section 3 --That if such person shall still insist that he is
entitled to vote and this challenge shall not be withdrawn, the board of
judges of elections shall administer the following oath or affirmation to
the voter: "You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will support the
Constitution of the United States and the laws of the Territory of Utah;
that you are not a member of, nor do you contribute to the support, aid or
encouragement of any order, organization, association, corporation or
society which teaches, advises, counsels, encourages or aids any person to
enter bigamy, polygamy or such patriarchal or plural marriage, or which
teaches or advises that the laws of the Territory of Utah prescribing
rules of civil conduct are not the supreme law of said Territory; that you
regard the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof, and the
laws of the Territory of Utah, as interpreted by the courts as the supreme
law of the land, and that you will support and uphold the same, the
teachings of any order, sect or organization to the contrary
notwithstanding, so help you God."
Section 4-- That if any person thus challenged shall take the oath or
affirmation as tendered him by the board of judges he shall be admitted to
vote; and it shall not be lawful after he has taken such oath or
affirmation for said board to examine any witnesses touching his want of
qualification; but if he shall refuse to take the oath or affirmation as
tendered to him, his vote shall be rejected.
Section 5--That every person who, having taken such oath or
affirmation, wilfully and contrary to such oath or affirmation, states as
true any material matter which he knows to be false, shall be deemed
guilty of perjury and shall be punished by imprisonment in the territorial
prison for not less than one nor more than fourteen years.
Thursday 3 Jul 1890, Deseret Evening News:
THE IDAHO BILL.
Washington, July 3. --The bill declares the present territory a State
and ratifies the constitution framed by the convention of July 4, 1889,
and accepted at the following election. The new State is declared entitled
[403] to one Representative in Congress until after the census. * * * The
constitution, which is ratified by the act, contains a special provision
prohibiting polygamy and declaring that no person shall be entitled to
vote, hold office or serve as a juror who is a bigamist or polygamist, or
who practices or encourages plural marriage or is a member of or
countenances any organization which teaches such doctrines.
The State has a Mormon test oath, which is required of voters, and it
was not until the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality that the bill
was considered by the Senate Territorial committee. In the House the
democrats refrained from voting and asserted an intention of making a test
on this bill of the Speaker's right to count a quorum. (Deseret Evening
News, 5 Jul 1890)
7 Jul 1890:
Receiver Dyer made a report on Church property for Examiner
Rosborough. For the text of the report see Deseret Evening News under date
of 7 Jul 1890.
14 Jul 1890:
Frank H. Dyer resigned his office as receiver of the confiscated
Church property. For the text of the resignation see Deseret Evening News
under date of 15 Jul 1890.
16 Jul 1890:
The Utah Supreme Court appointed Henry W. Lawrence Receiver of the
escheated Church property, in place of Frank H. Dyer, resigned.
Wednesday 16 Jul 1890, Deseret Evening News:
AN OBNOXIOUS APPOINTMENT.
The appointment as Receiver of an apostate "Mormon," known in the
community chiefly for his bitterness of spirit and acidity of expression
concerning all that relates to the Church of which he was formerly a
prominent supporter, cannot be regarded by the Utah public in any other
light than another exhibition of the unfairness which has characterized
the whole proceedings [404] to despoil the "Mormon" Church of its
property. If any position requires a just and unpartizan incumbent, it is
that of Receiver in this important case. It does not add to the dignity of
the court, and will not inspire respect for its judgment, to select such a
person to receive and hold the property wrestled from its rightful
possessors. There are surely impartial men enough to occupy this post,
without exhibiting undue animus, in selecting an individual who cannot but
be obnoxious to the Church and people against whom he has manifested such
extreme and acrid feelings. The court seems to have gone out of its way to
give another thrust at a religion with which he differs and at a people
whom it seems to delight to humiliate.
Sunday 3 Aug 1890, Wilford Woodruff:
At Logan (Cache Stake Conference), Sunday Morning, August 3rd, 1890.
* * * When men have died or apostatized, others have been called to fill
their places. When the Prophet Joseph was taken away, President Young
occupied his place. He held the keys of the Kingdom of God. It was for him
to have association with God the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, and
to lead Israel. You know what he has done. It is before you. He has filled
these mountains of Israel with cities and towns and villages. He performed
a great work. God was with him. He was true and faithful. He was one of
the first Quorum of Apostles. He never varied; he never shrank from duty.
He stood by the Prophet Joseph while he lived. He stood by the Kingdom of
God and by the Lord as long as he lived himself. After his death, Brother
Taylor took his place; and when he passed away it fell upon me, for a
little while. It is my duty to have fellowship with God, as weak an
instrument as I am in the hands of God. It is my duty to have power with
God. And when I have this, then my counselors should stand by me and with
me. We should be of one heart and mind in all matters, temporal and
spiritual, that come before us in the labor of the Church and Kingdom of
God. * * *
Now, brethren and sisters, We should all be united. [405] Unless we
are one, we are not the Lord's. I wish to exhort the Latter-day Saints to
observe this principle. Our aim is high. What is that aim? It is the
Celestial Kingdom of our God. We have been called out of the world, from
almost all nations under heaven, in fulfilment of the revelations of God.
We have been called unto these mountains of Israel. We are fulfilling
revelations that were given thousands of years ago. The eyes of Jeremiah,
of Ezekiel, of Daniel, of Isaiah and of the ancient Patriarchs and
Prophets beheld our day. They saw our Zion. They saw our temples and our
tabernacle, built "for a shadow in the daytime from the heat and for a
place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain."
Brethren and sisters, let us look at these things as they are. What
is this world? Our lives here are temporary; they are of short duration.
We are here upon a mission. This people have been called together from
almost every nation under heaven. They have gathered here--a little
handful out of fourteen hundred millions of the human family. Do you
suppose the eyes of the Lord have been withdrawn from this people? Have
the eyes of the heavenly host been withdrawn? No; they are watching over
us with feelings of the deepest interest. They know where we stand. Why do
we have this warfare that we are passing through? Because it is the Church
and Kingdom of God; because we are the people of God. No man can live
godly in Christ Jesus without suffering persecution. This is your legacy.
It is the legacy of all the Saints of God in every age of the world.
Therefore, I say to the Latter-day Saints, let your hearts be comforted.
All is right in israel, as far as we make it right, and as far as we do
our duty.
I listened yesterday to the reports made by the Bishops and others.
No doubt there is room for improvement in Logan. There is room for a great
deal of improvement in Salt Lake City. There is room for improvement
throughout these mountains. These Elders of Israel who bear the Holy
Priesthood should prize their standing enough to never permit themselves
to go to these saloons and drink with the drunken, or to pursue a course
where-[406]by they lose the Spirit of God. Brethren, if you do this, you
will be sorry for it; and you will have to repent of these sins and turn
from them, in order to get forgiveness before the Lord. I know that this
is the kingdom of God. I know this is the people whom He has raised up.
They have been kept, as I have often said, in the Spirit world the last
six thousand years, to come forth and stand in the flesh in this day and
build up this Church and kingdom and warn this generation of the judgments
which await them. We occupy this position before the Lord. Then let us not
betray our trust. As the Lord said to the Prophet Joseph, in answer to his
prayer while in Liberty jail:
"Behold there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they
not chosen?
"Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world
and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson-"That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the
powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor
handled only upon the principles of righteousness."
There is not a man that breathes the breath of life today on the
earth, who holds and honors that Priesthood, but has power with the
heavens, and he can go before the Lord and have his prayers heard and
answered. This is what the Latter-day Saints should do. We should live in
that way and manner that we can go before the Lord and ask for those
blessings, in faith and in power, that we need to sustain us to carry out
the purposes of God here in the mountains of Israel. This is necessary for
our advancement. We live in a fast age. Events are hastening on, and the
Lord is going to cut His work short in righteousness, lest no flesh should
be saved. No matter about our persecutions; no matter about the advantages
our enemies may have from a political or temporal point of view. God holds
your destinies, He holds the destinies of this nation and of all men in
His own hands. He governs and controls them. And His angels [407] are
ready and waiting to go forth and reap down the earth. But the Lord will
fulfil His promises. Do not be discouraged, therefore, with regard to
these things. But we have got to be humble. We have got to be prayerful.
We have got to have faith in God, and to be united, and carry out those
principles which the Lord requires at our hands. All the organizations of
the Priesthood have power. The Deacon has power, through the Priesthood
which he holds. So has the Teacher. They have power to go before the Lord
and have their prayers heard and answered, as well as the Prophet, the
Seer, or the Revelator has. It is by this Priesthood that the work of God
has been accomplished. It is by this Priesthood that men have ordinances
confered upon them, that their sins are forgiven, and that they are
redeemed. For this purpose it has been revealed and sealed upon our heads.
Brethren and sisters, these are a few of the thoughts I have upon my
mind. There is a union that God requires of every quorum in this Church,
from the Presidency down; and when we set up our will and our views
against those of our brethren, we want to be careful what we are doing. We
should all do the will of God, laboring for light for truth and for those
things that we stand in need of. Speaking of the love of the Saints of
God, no man knows the love that men bear one another who hold the Holy
Priesthood. It is above the love of women. Why, when I traveled abroad
alone, on my early missions, I would have done almost anything to have met
a Mormon Elder. It was worth more than gold to me to meet anybody that was
in the Church. Our brethren here--Brothers Cannon and Snow and
others--were called in early days, before they received the Apostleship,
to go upon missions. They went forth and proved themselves before heaven
and earth. The Lord knows these men. They have been called by revelation.
We should all be careful not to hurt the tender vine, nor to hurt one
another. Love one another, sustain one another; and while we do live in
the flesh let us do our duty. (Deseret Evening News, 16 Aug 1890)
[408]
Tuesday 12 Aug 1890, Deseret Evening News:
CHURCH PROPERTY
Following is the full text of the argument made by Hon. James O.
Broadhead against the Edmunds supplemental bill and in favor of leaving
the disposition of the personal property of the Church, now in the hands
of the receiver, to the Supreme Court of the United States:
The committee met, pursuant to call of chairman, at 10;30 a.m.
The committee having under consideration Senate bill 4047, entitled
"An act supplemental to the act of Congress passed in March, 1887,
entitled `An act to amend an act, entitled "An act to ammend section 5352
of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in reference to bigamy, and
for other purposes."' approved March 22, 1882," this day heard argument of
Judge James O. Broadhead, of St. Louis.
Mr. Broadhead said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, by
your leave and courtesy I appear before you this morning to give some
reasons why the bill which I hold in my hand, which passed the Senate,
ought not to become a law. I will read the bill as it has only one section
and as I do not believe the committee has directed its attention to it.
The bill is as follows:
AN ACT supplemental to the act of Congress passed in March, eighteen
hundred and eighty-seven. "An act to amend an act entitled `An act to
amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of
the United States, in reference to bigimy and for other purposes,'
approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two."
Be it enacted, etc., That any and all funds or other property lately
belonging to or in the possession of or claimed by the corporation
mentioned in section seventeen of the act entitled "An act to amend an act
entitled `An act to amend section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the
Revised Statutes of the United States, in ref-[409]erence to bigamy, and
for other purposes, I approved March twenty-second, eighteen hundred and
eighty-two." at, before, or since the taking effect of said act, except so
far as it shall appear in respect thereto that there is a lawful private
right to the contrary shall be devoted to the use and benefit of public
common schools in the Territory of Utah; and the Secretary of the Interior
shall take and receive the same and dispose thereof to the uses aforesaid
in such manner as shall seem to him, with the approval of the President,
to be most expedient. And the supreme court of said Territory is hereby
invested with power and authority to make all necessary and proper orders
and decrees for the purpose herein-before mentioned.
Believing it will be necessary to give a brief history of what took
place before the introduction of this bill into the Senate, I will state I
was engaged as counsel in the case which was argued and submitted and
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving some of the
questions to which I shall direct your attention. But I will say
this--that I do not ask that any action that may-be (sic) taken by this
committee shall contravene any doctrine or any decision made by the
Supreme Court of the United States with reference to this matter, but what
I ask is strictly in accordance with the doctrine laid down by Judge
Bradley in his opinion in that case.
In 1862 the Congress of the United States passed the first
anti-polygamy bill. I have a copy of the third section of that act in my
brief before the Supreme Court. The third section of that act provided:
That it shall not be lawful for any corporation or association for
religious or charitable purposes to acquire or hold real estate in any
Territory of the United States during the existance of the Territorial
government of a greater value than fifty thousand dollars, and all real
estate acquired or held by any such corporation or association contrary to
the provisions of this act shall be forfeited and escheat to the United
States: Provided, [410] That existing vested rights in real estate shall
not be impaired by the provisions of this section. That is the first
statute of mortmain ever passed by the Congress of the United States. I
read that for the purpose of referring to the provisions of the act of
1887, under which the proceedings were instituted before the supreme court
of the Territory of Utah for the purpose of dissolving the corporation
called the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
which had been incorporated as early as 1850 and maintained its corporate
existence about thirty-five years or more, and this act purports to
dissolve that corporation, and that the supreme court of the Territory of
Utah shall take charge of the property belonging to the corporation and
dispose of it according to law. Under that act proceedings were instituted
by the attorney-general and judgment finally rendered by the supreme court
of the Territory of Utah by which they decreed the personal property,
which is now the matter in controversy here, should escheat to the United
States.
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on that
question overruled the decision of the Territorial court, taking the
ground that it was not a subject of escheat; that the property did not
escheat to the Government, but the property was held for charitable uses,
and it was devoted and given originally for religious and charitable uses,
and inasmuch as the religious uses to which part of the property was
devoted was for the spread of the doctrines of the Mormon Church,
including the doctrine of polygamy, that that was unlawful, but the
Supreme Court held to the doctrine of charitable uses, which is prevalent
in this country and in England and everywhere else where civilization has
prevailed, that where property is given for charitable uses the charity
never dies, but the property remains to be disposed of according to the
objects for which it was given. If any of these objects are impossible or
illegal, then there are two doctrines which the court of chancery will
invoke; that is, if there is no indication of any other use to which the
charitable funds shall be appropriated, then they [411] invoke the
doctrine of approximation or the doctrine of cy-pres--and perhaps you are
all familiar with it--which says the chancellor should appropriate the
property to some charitable use as nearly approximating the object of the
donor as possible.
If, however, there are several charities embraced in the use, or
rather several uses are embraced in the same charity, the charity never
dies, and if several of the uses of the same charity are legal and others
illegal, then the court of chancery--and the books are full of authority
upon that subject--the court of chancery will devote the fund to the
legitimate use for which it was given; it will destroy or ignore the
illegal use, but will devote the object of the charity to the legal uses.
If the trustee dies, then the State becomes the trustee, and acting
through the chancellor, it disposes of the fund according to the intention
of the donor. The death of the trustee, as you all know, never defeats a
charity; it is perpetual, and it is the only thing which is perpetual.
Charities are perpetual because they are not devoted to any particular
individual, but they are devoted to the purposes which are for the use of
all individuals, either in the public community to which use is granted or
to a particular church, denomination or sect, or whatever it may be to
which use is granted, so the charity itself never dies. The court of
chancery never permits a charity to die.
Now my objection to this bill, if you please, is this: It is an
attempt on the part of the Congress of the United States to divert a
charitable use to other than that to which the use was intended. Now the
subject of education, and the relief of the poor, and the subject of
hospitals, and the relief of the disabled and sick, infirm or aged--all
these are legitimate subjects of charity we all know. Where a particular
fund has been donated by the members of a particular church, or a
particular class of persons to support the poor, and relieve the
distressed, and educate the children, and build churches, and build
school-houses, it cannot be diverted to some other use, or for the benefit
of some other person. A charity given to the inhabitants of the city of
Washington [412] to support the poor of the city of Washington cannot be
used to support the poor of the city of Washington and the poor of the
city of Philadelphia. The object of the donor must be carried out;
property intended for one purpose cannot be diverted to another. In other
words, the object sought to be established by the Senate bill is the same
in principle as if the legislative department would undertake to give the
property of A to B for some good reason as they suppose, or to make a will
after the death of the testator, which has been undertaken as you know by
some legislatures of some States, and all such cases have been pronounced
unconstitutional and void. The property was given to a corporation which
has been in existence for thirty-odd years, and it was given to them for
religious and charitable uses. The religious uses have been pronounced
illegal and void. The corporation is abolished, but the charitable uses
remain.
The Chairman--Are the charities specified?
Mr. Broadhead--No, sir; there is the difficulty here. The question
was not raised before the Supreme Court; if the charities or uses had been
specified in the case which is before the Supreme Court, then the Supreme
Court would doubtless have made some provision in regard to them, because
judge Bradley's opinion justifies this conclusion, and I will read from
his opinion.
The Chairman--Do I understand you to concede that legal education is
a matter of charity?
Mr. Broadhead--Yes, sir, unquestionably; I presume that there is no
question about that; but the object of the donor's intention has to be
taken into consideration.
The Chairman--One thing more. Is there any evidence of that donation
in writing?
Mr. Broadhead--Oh, no sir; not at all.
Mr. Wilson--These were simply given to the Mormon Church as a
corporation.
Mr. Broadhead--These were given from time to time and year to year,
according to the findings of the court in this case, and the question was
whether the court had the power to dissolve the corporation and whether it
had power to divert its funds from the charitable uses intended. I may
mention, in this case, brought by the [413] Government of the United
States against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for the
purpose of dissolving this corporation, there was an intervening petition
filed by a large number of the members of the Mormon Church, praying that
if the corporation should be dissolved the fund should be devoted to the
members of the Mormon Church for the charitable uses for which it had been
donated. They come in and pay tithes; for example, some pay in money, some
in wheat, some in corn, some in stock, sheep, cattle, etc., so much every
year, which goes into the common fund. This is sold and dispensed to the
poor from time to time, and that is the way this charity originated, and
it is held for the purpose for which it was originally intended.
Mr. Rogers--I am entirely in the dark about this, except as you go
along, and, if you will pardon me, I would like to ask you a few questions
now and then for the sake of information. Did this intervening petition to
which you have just alluded, and applying in this case, show or prove
whether or not this fund, which became a common fund, was devoted from
year to year to these specific purposes to which you have alluded--to the
schools and charities, etc.?
Mr. Broadhead--It did not, because these questions were not
necessarily involved in the issues then before the court.
The Chairman--What is the fact in regard to that?
Mr. Broadhead--Here is the fact in regard to it. I requested them to
send me a statement of the disposition of the fund during the last year,
1889, and here I have it under oath and seal:
Statement of disbursements made by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints during the year 1889, to following accounts, viz:
Poor (whites and Indians) . . . . . . . . . . . $129,000
Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,000
Meeting-houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,000
Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,000
-----$320,000
[414]
TERRITORY OF UTAH,
County of Salt Lake, ss.
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a notary public in
and for the county of Salt Lake, Utah Territory, James Jack, chief clerk
for the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, and being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says: The foregoing
statement of disbursements of funds for the year 1889 to the several
accounts therein named by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
is true and correct, as shown by the books in my possession.
JAMES JACK,
Chief Clerk.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this eighth day of July, A.D. 1889.
(SEAL)
L. MOTH IVERSEN,
Notary Public.
Mr. Rogers--Then under that statement all things are declared illegal
except disbursements for poor whites and Indians?
Mr. Broadhead--No, sir.
Mr. Rogers--Would not the churches, temples, and what are the
others-Mr. Broadhead--I will read the act and show the basis of the suit
brought by the Government of the United States; it is found in sections
13, 17, and 26 of the act of March 3, 1887, which I have printed in the
brief I had before the Supreme Court and which will explain it. (Section
13 was then read, see Appendix, Vol. I)
Now, that refers to real estate alone and it provides for the
forfeiture of real estate for any violation of the provisions of the act
of 1862. Proceedings have already been instituted before the Territorial
courts to forfeit that real estate on the ground they held more than
authorized under that act of 1862.
Now, I want to call your attention to the distinction between
personal and real property in this particular case. If there is
forfeiture, of course the property belongs to the government; all
forfeited property goes to the government; but if there is charitable use
and [415] part of it is illegal and part legal, the property, whether it
be legal or illegal, does not go to the government except as trustee. The
government then holds the property as trustee for the charitable use,
which is legal; it is not forfeited. It is perfectly legitimate for the
Congress of the United States to decide that when this property was
forfeited to the government it should be used for common school purposes,
because it is then forfeited property; but this property had never been
forfeited at all. They declared simply in this decision that part of the
uses were illegal, but the other charitable uses were not touched because
the facts were not before the court at that time. (Sections 17 and 26 were
then read, see Appendix, Vol. 1)
In answer to the question asked me, I say in accordance with the
provisions of these two sections the Supreme Court of the Territory of
Utah decreed that what is called the Temple Block, upon which is situated
the Mormon Temple (which has cost them already several million dollars)
and the Assembly Hall and Tabernacle--that block is No. 87, I believe--in
the City of Salt Lake, was set apart to the trustees for the benefit of
the unincorporated members of the Mormon Church. This corporation having
been dissolved by act of Congress, the decree of the court, in accordance
with the provisions of this section, so far recognized the existance of
this Mormon association, if you please so to call it, because it was not
then a corporation, and a decree was rendered setting apart to the
trustees for their use this block of the city, so that the court and the
act of Congress recognizes the right of this Mormon Church association to
build churches and temples and to hold property through trustees for that
purpose.
Mr. Rogers--Who were appointed trustees in that matter --Mormons?
Mr. Broadhead--Oh, yes, sir; of course they would not appoint
trustees hostile to members of the Church.
The Chairman--I had not learned that fact, and I am very glad to
learn it.
Mr. Broadhead--That was done in pursuance of this section. They set
apart block 87, which embraced some [416] five or six acres.
Mr. Caine--It contains ten acres, judge.
Mr. Broadhead--It is a very valuable piece of property, upon which is
situated the Temple, Tabernacle, and Assembly Hall, which are the largest
buildings in Salt Lake City.
Now I wish to call your attention, for I wish to be as brief as
possible, to what the Supreme Court has said in this case.
Mr. Rogers--Before going further, is that all the property they have
now decreed to the whole Church?
Mr. Broadhead--That is all.
Mr. Rogers--What has become of the tabernacles in the various
counties and church property?
Mr. Broadhead--They were not in the corporation; they were owned by
separate organizations in the different counties.
Mr. Rogers--That is not disposed of; that is left in the hands of
those churches, etc.
Mr. Broadhead--They did not belong to the corporation at all.
The Chairman--So under this law there has been no forfeiture of real
estate?
Mr. Broadhead--No, sir, not yet; but proceedings have been instituted
and they have been waiting decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in this case to see if it would throw some light upon the subject
before trying the cases. Informations in rem have been instituted in the
Territorial court on all property which is claimed to be over the $50,000.
The Chairman--You will pardon me for interrupting you, but we are
anxious to know what the facts are in some regards and we are quite sure
you both know and will tell us as they are, and we are more liberal in
asking you questions than most people, because we know, you so well. Now,
is there anything about this accumulated personal property in a way to
trace the original donation except simply it was donated to the Church?
Mr. Broadhead--That is all, sir.
The Chairman --Now, then, in regard to the uses-Mr. Broadhead--I may say this, further in answer to [417] that, the
Church has been found and decreed by the Supreme Court of the Territory
and of the United States to be an organization for religious and
charitable purposes.
The Chairman--Without specifying-Mr. Broadhead--Without specifying what the charities are.
The Chairman--Can you give any information as to the custom of the
Church in disposing of this fund heretofore, not only this one year but
other years, in the way of charity outside of the religious feature of it?
Mr. Broadhead--I can only tell you what I heard from individuals. One
of the most prominent men in Salt Lake, and a leader in the Mormon Church,
when I was there a year ago, said that that year the Church had paid
$100,000 to the support of the poor in Salt Lake City. I may say in regard
to the Mormon people that they do not permit a person to suffer from
poverty; that is one of the chief virtues of that organization. They
provide for the disabled, sick, aged, and infirm as fully and freely as
any people on this earth. How that is done I cannot go into details.
The Chairman--I do not ask that.
Mr. Broadhead--They have a place for the receipt of all property that
is brought in. It is a large establishment and is called the "Tithing
office." I am told the donations are voluntary; I do not know anything
about that except from what I am told. They are brought into this very
large building there which is a receptacle for the property. There are
places for the storage of hay, grain, and other produce, and a corral for
sheep, cattle or horses that may be given, or anything else they may send
in. For meat they may send in they have a market there. If there is anyone
suffering from poverty in the city who needs food, he goes to the house
and gets a supply of food and the fund is credited with the amount. This
is one way, and there are other means of providing for the wants of the
poor. That has been the custom of the Church, as far as I have been
informed, from time immemorial. There are persons appointed to inquire
into the wants of the poor and provide them with what is necessary.
[418] Mr. Stewart--May I ask you a question?
Mr. Broadhead--Yes, sir.
Mr. Stewart--If I understand you, the gifts or donations of this
corporation were general, that is, nobody gave to any particular use?
Mr. Broadhead--No, sir.
Mr. Stewart--The corporation itself, then, divided this between the
religious and charitable uses?
Mr. Broadhead--Yes, sir.
Mr. Stewart--Now, then, how can you ascertain what porportion of the
donations which have gone in to swell this accumulated fund should be
devoted to charitable uses?
Mr. Broadhead--I do not think it is necessary to inquire. If no part
of the fund can be devoted to illegal purposes, the fund remaining is to
be devoted to legal purposes, education, the poor, school houses, etc.; if
the illegal purposes cannot be carried out, it goes then to the legal
purposes; if the fund had been divided before it was given--that is, so
much to the Church for religious purposes and so much to other
purposes--the rule probably might be different; but there is no room for
such an inquiry in this case.
The Chairman--One question more, not because I regard it as material,
but for information. I suppose that this fund donated to the Church and
expended in charities is limited, as far as the object of the charities
are concerned, to members of the Church?
Mr. Broadhead--I suppose that is so. But how that is managed is a
matter of detail on which I am not informed at all. This is a copy of
Judge Bradley's opinion. It is, very lengthy, and I have only marked one
or two portions of it.
The Chairman--Have you an extra copy of that opinion?
Mr. Broadhead--No, sir, this is the only copy, but you can have this
after I get through; but, however, it will not be very long before it is
published.
The Chairman--I had a copy, but I mislaid it.
Mr. Broadhead--This is the United States against the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, numbers [419] 1031 and 1054, October term,
1889. This is a very learned dissertation upon the subject of charitable
uses.
Judge Bradley says:
The property in question has been dedicated to public and charitable
uses. It matters not whether it is the product of private contributions,
made during the course of half a century, or of taxes imposed upon the
people, or of gains arising from fortunate operations in business, or
appreciation in value, the charitable uses for which it is held are
stamped upon it by charter, by ordinance, by regulation and by usage, in
such a indelible manner that there can be no mistake as to their
character, purpose, or object.
He says further:
The principles of the law of charities are not confined to a
particular people or nation, but prevail in all civilized countries
pervaded by the spirit of Christianity. They are found imbedded in the
civil law of Rome, in the law's of European nations, and especially in the
laws of that nation, from which our institutions are derived. a leading
and prominent principle prevailing in them all is, that property devoted
to a charitable and worthy object, promotive of the public good, shall be
applied to the purposes of its dedication, and protected from spoliation
and from diversion to other objects. Though devoted to a particular use,
it is considered as given to the public, and is, therefore, taken under
the guardianship of the laws. If it can not be applied to the particular
use for which it was intended, either because the objects to be subserved
have failed, or because they have become unlawful or repugnant to the
public policy of the State, it will be applied to some object of kindred
character so as to fulfill in substance, if not in manner and from, the
purpose of its consecration.
Of course where there is no purpose shown--for example, in the
celebrated case of Jackson against Phillips, in which there is a most
learned opinion on the subject [420] of charitable uses by Judge Gray, of
the Supreme Court, then judge of the supreme court of Massachusetts
--there were two objects in the will. One was to provide for the
maintenance and support of fugitive slaves and the other was for the
promotion of the cause of female suffrage, The court held that the cause
of female suffrage was not a charitable use. It decided against it. It
decided against it, but held that the other was a charitable use, and
instructed the master to find a scheme by which any portion of the fund
not provided for and devoted to the other object might be devoted to some
other object of charity, by way of approximation to that for which it was
given. In that case there was no other provision; but here is a provision,
as I undertake to show, by facts--in other words, that there are other
charitable uses than that of promoting the progress of the Mormon
religion, and that is, the support of the poor, education of children,
etc.
Mr. Rogers--What case was that to which you alluded?
Mr. Broadhead--It is the case of Jackson against Phillips (14 Allen,
Massachusetts), and it is a very learned opinion and a very able opinion.
Further on Judge Bradley says:
Property, destined to superstitious uses, is given by law of
Parliament to the King, to dispose of as he pleases; and it falls properly
under the cognizance of a court of revenue. But where property is given to
mistaken charitable uses, this court distinguishes between the charity and
the use; and seeing the charitable bequest in the intention of the
testator, they execute the intention, varying the use, as the King, who is
the curator of all charities and the constitutional trustee for the
performance of them, pleases to direct and appoint.
Further on he says:
And in all these cases the general intention of the testator in favor
of charity will be effectuated by the court through a cy-pres application
of the fund. The [421] same propositions are laid down by Mr. Justice
Story in his equity jurisprudence, sections 1167 et seq., but it is
unnecessary to make further quotations.
These authorities are cited (and many more might be adduced) for the
purpose of showing that where property has been devoted to a public or
charitable use which cannot be carried out on account of some illegality
in or failure of the object, it does not, according to the general law or
charities, revert to the donor or his heirs, or other representatives, but
is applied under the direction of the courts, or of the supreme power in
the State, to other charitable objects, lawful in their character, but
corresponding, as near as may be, to the original intention of the donor.
He says further:
It is not our province to pass judgment upon the necessity or
expediency of the act of February 19, 1887-That is a mistake in the date; it ought to be the 29th. There was a
conflict about the time it went into effect; the government claimed it was
the 29th of February and the other side stated it was 3d (sic) of March.
It is not our province to pass judgment upon the necessity or
expediency of the act of February 19th, 1887, under which this proceeding
was taken. The only question we have to consider in this regard is as to
the constitutional power of Congress to pass it. Nor are we now called
upon to declare what disposition ought to be made of the property of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This suit is in some
respects, an ancillary one, instituted for the purpose of taking
possession of and holding for final disposition the property of the
defunct corporation in the hands of a receiver, and winding up its
affairs. To that extent, and to that only, the decree of the circuit court
has gone. In the proceedings which have been instituted in the district
court of the Territory, it will be determined whether the real estate of
the corporation which has been seized (ex-[422]cepting the portions
exempted by the act) has, or has not, escheated or become forfeited to the
United States. If it should be decided in the affirmative, then, pursuant
to the terms of the act, the property so forfeited and excheated will be
disposed of by the Secretary of the interior, and the proceeds applied to
the use and benefit of common schools in the Territory.
It is obvious that any property of the corporation which may be
adjudged to be forfeited and escheated will be subject to a more absolute
control and disposition by the government than that which is not so
forfeited.
Of course if it is forfeited and escheated it becomes the property of
the government, and the government may do what it pleases with it.
The non-forfeited property will be subject to such disposition only
as may be required by the law of charitable uses; whilst the forfeited and
escheated property, being subject to a more absolute control of the
government will admit of a greater latitude of discretion in regard to its
disposition.
Then in the winding up of his opinion he says this, in regard to the
intervening petition, to which I have made reference:
The application of Romney and others-and it is for them I speak now in this case-representing the unincorporated members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, is fully disposed of by the considerations already
adduced. The principal question discussed has been, whether the property
of the Church was in such a condition as to authorize the government and
the court to take possession of it and hold it until it shall be seen what
final disposition of it should be made; and we think it was in such a
condition, and that it is property held in the custody of the receiver.
The rights of the Church members will necessarily be taken [423] into
consideration in the final disposition of the case. There is no ground for
granting their present application. The property is in the custody of the
law, awaiting the judgment of the court as to its final disposition in
view of the illegal use to which it is subject in the hands of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whether incorporated or
unincorporated. The conditions for claiming possession of it by the
members of the sect or community under the act do not at present exist.
We do not set out any of these objects of charity in that
application. We ask that the property might be turned over to them for
charitable uses without specifying them, and perhaps they should have
specified them in this petition, and we did not claim in the argument
before the court, as Judge Bradley says, that the members of the Church
were entitled individually or collectively to the Church property in their
own right; not at all. We claim that they were entitled to hold it in
trust for the purpose for which it was given, and one assignment of erroa
(sic) was in these words:
Because if it finally shall be held that said act is valid in so far
as it repeats the charter of said. corporation, and if said corporation
shall finally be adjudged dissolved, still upon such dissolution the real
estate and property belonging to said corporation ought in law and equity
to be adjudged to be and become the property of the individual members of
said corporation at the date of its dissolution, charged with the same
trust, uses, and purposes under which it was acquired and held by said
corporation.
And that is where we say it ought to go, and that is where Judge
Bradley says it ought to go; but these facts were not before him. And if
there has been no other charity pointed out, if they were unable to point
out any charity than the support and maintenance of the Church, then this
might as well be devoted to general educational purposes as not, except
that the donor's wishes and intentions ought to be respected; although
some part may [424] be an illegal use, whatever use is legal it should be
devoted to, or carry out the intention for which it was originally given.
I must hurry on for I do not wish to detain you, but I want to refer to
one or two authorities. I do not intend to read books, but I made extracts
in order to direct the attention of the committee, if they feel disposed
to investigate this subject, and give some prominent authorities, for the
books are full of them, although this is a question that does not often
come up.
In the case of Jackson against Phillips, 14 Allen, 574, Judge Gray
says:
By the law of the commonwealth and by the law of England gifts to
charitable uses were highly favored and will be most liberally construed
in order to accomplish the intent which can not be upheld in ordinary
cases for various reasons will be established and carried into effect when
created to support a gift to a charitable use.
He says further:
You can make them inalienable and perpetual, which cannot be done by
means of a private trust without regard to the rule against perpetuities.
Judge Story, in his work on Equity Jurisprudence, says, section 1178:
But this sensible distraction now prevails that the courts will not
decree the execution of the trusts of a charity in a manner different from
that intended, except so far as it is seen that the intention cannot be
literally executed. In that case another mode will be adopted consistent
with the general intention to execute it, although not in the mode yet in
substance.
In the case of the Attorney-General against Bulbee, 3 Vesey, Jr., the
master of the Rolls said, quoting with approval a former decision of the
court:
A testator directed bread to be distributed to the poor [425] persons
attending divine service and chanting his version of the psalms.
These psalms were unauthorized by law, so this part of the bequest
must fail, but the distribution of bread was decreed to be carried out.
The general object is not to be effected if it can in any way be
attained.
In the case of Jackson against Phillips, to which I have referred,
the court says, referring to a number of authorities on this point:
The court of equity in the exercise of its jurisdiction applies the
trust as near to the testator Is particular directions as possible to
carry out his general charitable intent.
There is one of the cases of St. Louis. Under the Mullanphy will
there was a bequest for the benefit of poor immigrants. The Supreme Court
held it was a trust fund, that it was a charitable use, and that the court
should find out who were the poor immigrants to which this fund must be
devoted.
And in regard to the doctrine of parens patria, which has been
invoked here, "the power of the king as parens patria to dispose of
property by his sign manual when the objects are illegal or indefinite."
Judge Gray says:
It is difficult to see how it could be held to exist in a republic in
which charitable bequests have never been forfeited to the use or
submitted to disposition by the Government because they are superstituous
or illegal.
Because they are illegal they do not belong to the Government, but
the Government takes possession of them as trustee for some other
charitable purpose which is legal.
In the case of Howard against the Peace Society 49 [426] Maine, page
288, the court says:
The general provisions of the statutes of 43d (sic) Elizabeth are in
force in this State and incorporated into our chancery jurisprudence.
Extrinsic evidence is admissible to aid in giving construction to devices
or bequests and, to show what property was intended to be devised and what
person was intended to take. (Page 303.)
Now that is what we see here. There was no evidence before the
Supreme Court in regard to these other charities; all that was before the
court was that the property was devoted to some charitable uses. It was
given to the Church and was disposed of in that way. The Church
organization as a corporation has been dissolved and it cannot hold it
under that decision of the court. The Government takes possession of it as
trustee; then it is the duty of the Government, we say, to devote it to
the charitable purposes for which it was intended, and we may introduce
outside testimony for the purpose of showing what that was. It was not
done in this case, but I will say to the court what I propose to do. This
question is left open with the Supreme Court. I propose to apply to the
Supreme Court at the next session for an order upon the supreme court of
the Territory of Utah to permit these persons to file a bill of review by
which they can set out the facts and have them adjudicated.
Now, I take it, the Supreme Court would not entertain a bill of
review, and in fact it has been decided that the Supreme Court will not
entertain a bill of review. It will order an inferior court, if it thinks
proper, if a proper showing is made before the Supreme Court, to entertain
a bill of review for the purpose of taking testimony. A bill of review
does not raise any question of law at all; it is something like a motion
for a new trial in an action of law, except it raises no question of law.
It does not attack the validity of the judgment made by the court upon a
question of law, but for some equitable reason, or upon the discovery of
new, testimony, it will authorize a bill of review to permit the party to
come in [427] and show what he avers to be true. I have no idea the
Supreme Court will entertain a bill of review, but I do not doubt for a
moment that they would entertain an application for an order, and would
make an order upon the supreme court of the Territory of Utah, which has
original jurisdiction in this case, and permit these parties to file a
bill of review, and set out these facts so as to show, the charitable
objects to which this fund was intended to be devoted. It has been
practically devoted for years and years to these purposes, and it will
therefore be carrying out the charitable purposes for which these gifts
were made, irrespective of the Church, for them to be put into the hands
of trustees to be appointed by the court, but trustees who are not hostile
trustees, to be managed for the charitable purposes for which it was
intended, by persons friendly to the association and to the object and
purposes of the donation.
Now it cannot be supposed for a moment that members of the Mormon
Church, when they paid their tithes from time to time, that they intended
that the proceeds of these tithes should be devoted to the general
purposes of education all over the Territory.
The Chairman--Were these tithes paid according to the law of the
Territory; did the law, provide for the payment of these tithes?
Mr. Broadhead--No, sir; there was no law on the subject.
Mr. Culberson--I had an idea these tithes were paid under a law,
requiring them.
Mr. Broadhead--On the part of the Territory? I know of no such law.
Mr. Stewart--What do you consider the effect of this exception:
"except so far as it shall appear in respect thereto that there is a
lawful private right to the contrary"?
Mr. Broadhead--That does not amount to anything. If this fund had
been in fact devoted to charitable uses, no private right can intervene;
it belongs to the public, not to private individuals. It may be that some
man's property may have been taken; a horse may be claimed by one man
which belongs to another, and it might have [428] been taken and given as
a tithe to the Church, and the man goes home and brings suit for his
horse. It does not need any act of Congress to authorize a man to sue for
his property if someone else has it. The common law prevails in the
Territory, so the court says in this case. No, sir; the clause in the bill
to which you refer about "private rights" looks plausible, but there is
nothing in it, and it is only calculated to mislead, though doubtless not
so intended.
Mr. Stewart--I suppose that you will admit that the devotion of this
fund to the general purpose of education would be perhaps on the whole
beneficial to the people of the Territory?
Mr. Broadhead--It would be; so it would be beneficial if any one
should give my property to a poor man. That would be very beneficial to
the poor man.
Mr. Stewart--That would be a mere private matter, but this, you see,
would be a public matter. However, I understand your point.
Mr. Broadhead--The poor Indians and the poor Mexicans, and the poor
"Mormons," and the poor "Gentiles" (although I do not know they are poor),
so far as the worthy poor are concerned, have an interest in this fund,
and charity is personated in that respect.
Mr. Stewart--I did not understand that you claimed, so far as
anything whatever is applied to educational purposes, that it should be
confined in that one sect of Mormons, did you?
Mr. Broadhead--Yes, sir; oh, yes, certainly. The intention of the
donor is to be carried out; that is what I claim. I do not deny that
education is a charitable purpose, but this was intended for the education
of th Mormon children and not the other children in the Territory of Utah,
and providing for the wants of such poor persons as the members of the
Mormon Church through proper trustees might direct.
Mr. Stewart--Suppose it should appear in a general way, for it does
not stand on the same footing as a will, where the intention of the
testator is distinctly and expressly expressed, there can be no question;
here is where there is a general sort of contribution all around [429] to
a corporation that has certain powers; now, do you say this intention is
to be established and to show what the usage is? Of course you can not
show the intention of all these persons.
Mr. Broadhead--I think that is the best way in the world of showing
it, by showing that these donations were given year after year, time after
time, to the leaders of the Church as trustees to constitute a fund which
was used for the relief of the poor, for education, and other purposes,
and they still continue to give it, and that it is still used in the same
way.
Mr. Stewart--Do you understand so far as this is applied to the
purpose of education that the Gentiles were excluded from enjoying any
benefits or instruction from the schools under this; that their children
were excluded from sharing the benefits of the appropriation to the
educational fund?
Mr. Broadhead--By whom, the Mormons?
Mr. Stewart--Yes, sir.
Mr. Broadhead--I do not know who that is. What I meant to say is they
could exclude them if they chose, for it was intended for that particular
sect and not for the world at large.
When a person makes a donation of what is his own, what has been
acquired as the product of his own toil, he has the right to say how it
shall be used, provided it is not for an illegal purpose; and it matters
not in principle whether the mode of giving is by will or by donation
inter vivos. If the intention can be ascertained, that intention must
govern.
If the property in this case was given to the Mormon Church to be
devoted to charitable uses, then the Church must determine how it shall be
used to carry out those purposes according to the intention of the donor;
if the Church as a corporation has been dissolved, as it has been in this
case, then the court as the representative of the Government according to
the rules laid down in this case must either manage the fund as it was
intended to be managed, or must appoint a trustee or trustees to so manage
it.
The statute of charitable use, 43d Elizabeth, followed [430] in
detail the objects of charity which had been organized and systematized in
the Roman Empire under the reign of Constantine; the revenues provided for
charitable uses under that statute were tithes, legacies, and donations of
movables and immovables, and the intention of the donor was always carried
out. The courts of this country tell us that the principles embodied in
the statute of 43d Elizabeth have uniformly been adopted and carried out
by our courts of equity, although the statute itself has not been adopted,
for the plain reason that the statute provides for the collection of the
revenues for charitable uses, and appoints officers for that purpose; our
political system tolerates no enforced methods of collecting revenues,
such as tithes for charitable uses. Charity with us is voluntary and comes
from the individual--no part of it from the State.
History tells us that in the year of the Norman Conquest, Baldwin,
Count of Flanders, died, leaving a will, in which he said, remembering the
words of our Lord,
"I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was
hungry, and ye gave me food:"
I have given a vila to a church for the support and refreshment of
the poor.
We are told that the Jewish husbandman, when his harvest was over,
left a sheaf of wheat upon the field for the benefit of the unknown
stranger.
These are illustrations of general charities not confind to any
individual or particular class of individuals, and the rule is that the
purpose of the benefit must be general, or to a general class, for it is
the uncertanity of the person upon whom the benefit may fall that gives
merit to the action. A legacy to a friend is no charity. True charity must
spring from a love of humanity and a desire to relieve the sufferings and
necessities of our fellow-men.
Horace Birney, in the celebrated Girard will case, in his argument
before the courts in the land said:
[431] Whatever is given for the love of God, or for the love of our
neighbor, in the catholic and universal sense--given from these motives
and to these ends, free from the stain of everything that is personal,
private, or selfish--is a gift for charitable uses.
But these gifts may be limited to a certain class (3 Sharswood &
Budd, Leading Cases on Real Estate, p. 333)--the requirement of generality
being satisfied by a comprehension of persons or designated communities,
as the students of a certain religious faith, the suffering poor of a
certain place, or the poor emigrants of a certain city. All such gifts for
special charitable uses have been sustained by the courts, and I know of
no better or more reliable book in which to find the authorities upon this
subject than in the 3d volume of Sharswood & Budd, Leading Cases of Real
Estate, Notes to the Report of the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Girad will case.
And so I say in answer to the inquiry of the gentleman from Vermont
as to whether the Gentiles were excluded from the benefit of this fund or
not I do not know, but it was unquestionably intended for the benefit of
the members of the Mormon sect and their families, the same sect to which
has been decreed by the court the Temple Block in Salt Lake City, for the
erection and use by them of houses of worship, for their use and
convenience in the lawful exercise of worship, according to the tenets of
said sect and body. This property, the court says, is set apart to the
voluntary religious worshippers and unincorporated sect and body known as
"the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." It is thus that the
Mormon Church is organized as a sect, a body of religious
worshippers--capable of holding real property through trustees, and why
should not the personal property given from time to time by members of
that sect for the benefit of the poor, the aged, the infirm, the
afflicted, and the ignorant of this generation and of generations yet
unborn belonging to that sect be turned over to trustees and devoted to
the objects for which they were intended?
[432] A devise to an unincorporated society for religious purposes is a
good devise (6, Watts and Sergeant, 218).
A gift to the poor generally, or to the poor of a particular town,
parish, age, sex, race, or condition is a good charitable gift (Jackson
vs. Phillips, p. 551).
Now it was known to these parties when gifts were made that they were
used for this purpose, and I mentioned this because it did not appear in
the trial of the case before the court, and I believe if they had been
brought before the court Judge Bradley would have made an order
accordingly.
I ask, then, that the legislative department of the government shall
keep its hands off this question until the court has settled it, because
the court has ample jurisdiction without any action of Congress which
would undertake to interfere with the jurisdiction of the court. It is
true there is no statement as to what disposition should be made of this
fund, amounting to four or five hundred thousand dollars, but I say it is
a wrong against the principles of common justice to take it away from this
common object to which it was evidently intended to be devoted and give it
to the general objects of education. It is true that such a disposition as
is contemplated will benefit the cause of education very much, but these
people have not the control of the political machinery in Utah; the
management of the schools has been taken away from them and the right of
suffrage has been taken from them to a great extent and here is a fund
which should be left in the hands of the court to determine whether it
shall be put to the purposes to which it was originally intended or
whether it shall be given to the Jew, Gentile, Mormon, and all the others
alike in that Territory. I say it is not right that it should be so, and
not according to the principles of justice and not in accordance with the
adjudications of the courts.
Mr. Stewart--The court has power under the Edmunds-Tucker act to make
final disposition of that fund?
Mr. Broadhead--It says "according to the law."
Mr. Stewart--I remember that, as I had something to do with that. But
it did not point out what law.
Mr. Reed--They hesitated about finding any law.
[433] The Chairman--I should think there would not be much divergence of
opinion in the committee with reference to the general doctrine which you
have expressed.
Mr. Oates--This fund is derived from the sale of personal property?
Mr. Broadhead--Yes, sir, from personal property entirely.
Mr. Stewart--How much is there of that?
Mr. Broadhead--Three or four hundred thousand dollars. Some of it is
deposited in banks there, bearing interest, and some of it is in the
original form; there are about twenty-five or thirty thousand sheep, I
think, which are still in the hands of the receiver. Part of this fund is
in railroad stock, street railroad stock, telegraphic stock, and in the
stock of the Salt Lake City gas company, I think, which pays dividends
annually. These stocks have been taken possession of and are held by the
receiver and he is getting the dividends upon them from time to time. They
are very valuable stocks, because the city is increasing in population
rapidly, and there is some rent from real estate, a farm which is rented
for $250 a month, and the property is considered very valuable in that
Territory at this particular time.
Mr. Culberson--I sympathize very much with your position and I do not
want to lumber up your remarks with what I say, but I would like to ask
this: Would not this school fund go alone to the education of the Mormons?
Mr. Broadhead--It is for the purpose of educating the Mormons, and
for the purpose of educating the poor.
Mr. Culberson--I understand that point, but if this fund is donated
for the purpose of educating the Mormon children and instilling in them
the doctrines of the Mormon Church, including polygamy, would not that
fund be tainted with that kind of illegality which the court would not
sustain?
Mr. Broadhead--I will say this in reference to polygamy, that it is
pretty much extinguished in Utah.
Mr. Culberson--I do not doubt that.
Mr. Broadhead--And it is going down and growing less every day.
[434] Mr. Culberson--I understand it and I think it is so, too, and I
think Congress will hold a donation to charitable purposes perpetual,
providing the charity is legal.
Mr. Broadhead--The decree of the court may cover the whole ground. It
might require the trustee to report on that from time to time.
Mr. Culberson--l would like to ask whether you do not think that
donation would be tainted with illegality if that fund or any part of it
was donated for the purpose of educating Mormon children, and if being so
donated to the Mormon Church it shall educate them in the tenets of that
Church, that being part of their education, now is not that donation and
fund tainted with illegality, and therefore should you claim that the fund
should still be kept for that purpose?
Mr. Broadhead--I should not claim it should be devoted to any purpose
that has been pronounced in the law and judgment of the court illegal;
unquestionably not.
Mr. Oates--I understand you to draw a distinction and cite what I do,
that where a bequest was for two purposes, one of which was legal and the
other was illegal, the court should apply it to the legal one and refuse
to apply to the illegal one; now the question put by brother Culberson
was, if the court should distinguish in the education that which was of
the Church and that which was not of the Church, the one being legal and
the other illegal, how would you do about that?
Mr. Rogers--In other words, could not the decree be so shaped as to
apply the fund to education to the exclusion of religion?
Mr. Broadhead--There is no question about that at all; the whole
matter is in the power of the court.
Mr. Rogers--Applying it to the children of Mormon parents and not
permitting education in the tenets of their Church.
Mr. Broadhead--Most unquestionably so, because the Supreme Court has
decided that the doctrines of equity jurisprudence prevail in that
Territory. They say the chancery court has control of this matter, and
having once got possession of it, it will [435] disburse it according to
the principles of equity; and if a court of equity can not control it, I
know of no earthly power that can.
Mr. Wilson--I understand your argument to mean this, in regard to the
purposes for which this fund was from time to time given--there was no
express dedication, yet it can be learned from ascertaining the mode in
which it was heretofore disposed of.
Mr. Broadhead--Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilson--And if a part of the dedication heretofore has been
lawful and a part unlawful, the court will see that it goes hereafter to
the lawful purposes?
Mr. Broadhead--Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilson--And no law of Congress is necessary.
Mr. Broadhead--There is no law of Congress necessary. The court can
manage it, and I say that a law of Congress to divert the fund from the
intention of the donor is just as illegal as to take one man's property
and give it to another.
I thank you, gentlemen, for the attention you have given me in the
discussion of this question.
Thereupon the committee adjourned.
22 Aug 1890, Report of the Utah Commission:
* * * During the year there have been frequent expressions of the hope
that the church would, in some authoritative and explicit manner declare
in favor of the abandonment of polygamy or plural marriage as one of the
saving doctrines or teachings of the church; but no such declaration has
been made. There is little reason for doubting, so complete is the control
of the church over its people, that if such a declaration were made by
those in authority it would be accepted and followed by a large majority
of the membership of the so-called "Mormon Church," and a settlement of
the much-discussed "Mormon question would soon be reached.
On the contrary, in all the teachings in the Tabernacle and the
church organs every effort of the Government to suppress this crime is
still denominated as a persecution, and those charged with ferretting out
and prosecuting the guilty are denominated persecutors of the [436]
saints.
The church seems to grow, more united from day to day under these
teachings. At the general conference of the church, held in Salt Lake City
in April last, Wilford Woodruff, a disfranchised polygamist, was chosen
"as prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints in all the world," the first time since the
death of John Taylor, in 1887, that that office has been filled.
At the same time George Q. Cannon was chosen as first counselor, in
the first presidency, and Lorenzo Snow as president of the twelve
apostles, all of them being disfranchised polygamists.
The council of the twelve apostles was completed by filling all
vacancies. A large porportion of the twelve apostles and the high
dignitaries of the church are polygamists, and all are reputed to be open
believers in the doctrine. Indeed, it is believed that no one can be
promoted to office in the church unless he professes a belief in it as a
fundamental doctrine. * * *
The day he was elevated to the presidency, Wilford Woodruff,
addressing the conference in the tabernacle, used the following language:
We have also the book of doctrines and covenants. This code of
revelation was given through the mouth of the prophet, Joseph Smith, by
the urim and thummim and otherwise. That book contains some of the most
glorious and most sublime revelations God ever gave to man. * * * These
things are clear, they are pointed, they are strong, and they are the
revelations of God, and they will be fulfilled whether men believe it or
not. * * * I say there is not a nation under heaven, there is not a king,
a prince, or a president, or any other man who has power over the sons of
man but should give unto their subjects the privilege of worshiping God
according to the dictates of their own consciences. * * * They are not
responsible to the emperors, or kings, or presidents, or governors who
rule over them. * * * In view of this, can I afford to reject the gospel
or to turn away from that which the Lord has required at my hands because
it does [437] not suit the world? I can not. * * *
The Commission is in receipt of reports from its registration
officers, which enumerate forty-one male persons, who, it is believed,
have entered into the polygamic relation, in their several precincts,
since the June revision of 1889. Crediting them with one plural wife each
would give eighty-two persons thus reported as entering into the relation
forbidden by law, and said to be forbidden by the church authorities.
When it is remembered that there are a large number of communities
and precincts where there are no anti-Mormons to act as registrars, and
the commission is compelled to appoint them from the membership of the
Mormon Church; that these reports come only from precincts where there are
watchful opponents of the crime; that Mormon registrars never report the
cases occurring in the precincts in which they serve, and in which plural
marriages are probably most frequently entered into, and that the greatest
care is observed to keep such marriages secret, so secret that the birth
of a child is generally the first cause to suspect the fact of unlawful
marriage, it is more than probable that only a small proportion of the
polygamous marriages really contracted are reported, and a still smaller
proportion where convictions could be had even for unlawful cohabitation.
***
The Commission in its last report, in view of the fact that the
constitutionality of the law, known as the Idaho test oath law was then
before the Supreme Court, suggested the propriety of enacting a similar
law for Utah in case the decision of the court should be in the
affirmative. The Supreme Court having so decided, the Commission now
recommends such an enactment, believing that it would do more to put an
end to the teaching and practice of polygamy than has yet been
accomplished by the partial enforcement of existing laws.
It believes suffrage is a privilege that would become so prized by
those disfranchised under such a law that in time it would be sought for
by young men who, either from better education and more enlightened views,
or [438] from motives of worldly ambition, would begin to question in
their own minds whether it be profitable to adhere to superstition and
false doctrines at the cost of citizenship, and many, after doubt and
reflection, would finally embrace the right and become good and loyal
citizens. That priestcraft and superstitution can long prevail against
liberty and the civilization of the age, especially when ambitious desire
for social and political standing are added to the example and teaching of
the American element which now presses closely upon them, is difficult to
believe. * * *
9 Sep 1890, Report of Governor Thomas:
THE MORMON PEOPLE:
Referring to the characteristics of the Mormon people, in my last
report I said: "The early Mormons were mainly native Americans and
religious enthusiasts; that under a vigorous system of proselyting they
had been largely recruited from all parts of the world; that either by
chance or from policy these recruits had been gathered from the parts of
the country where the average rate of intelligence is the lowest; that for
a long time the bulk of these converts have come from the lower classes of
Great Britain and Schandinavian countries; that they were picked up by a
process of `Natural Selection;' that the doctrine as expounded by the
missionaries fits the mental condition of the convert; that as a rule they
are law abiding, especially as far as the law is confirmed by the
Priesthood; that they have accepted the doctrines of plural marriage in
all sincerity and as a radical and necessary part of their religion; that
while the Mormon masses are too sincere to voluntarily make false
pretenses, they could be induced to accept and adopt any form of words,
however contradictory, if advised to do so by the Priesthood, for
obedience to the priesthood is diligently inculcated as a first duty; that
the orthodox Mormon in every political and business act puts the Church
first, the country afterward," etc.
Referring to political and official Mormonism I said: "It was
probably sincere but that when it had any point to attain in behalf of
Mormonism it deals in evasions, [439] meaningless words, or words of
double meaning, hypocritical pretenses, false assertions, and every
helpful evasion of word or act. In attitude in regard to polygamy, is
delusive to the last degree. It knows there has been no change on the
subject but it seeks to convey the impression there has been." etc.
I further said that it was a very poor tribute to pay to the Mormon
people to say they have abandoned the doctrine of polygamy as a part of
their faith. These views I still entertain. Nothing has transpired during
the past year which would lead me to change them. Statements have been
made by prominent Church leaders that the Church does not sanction
violations of law. Two years ago the President of the Salt Lake Stake
before a United States Commissioner, in his examination in proceedings by
the Receiver to reach Church property, in the suit of the United States
against the Church and other parties, testified that since the death of
John Taylor, (the former head of the Church, the present head of the
Church had refused to grant permission to persons desiring to enter
polygamy. Since then the present head of the Church (Wilford Woodruff) has
stated in a private conversation that polygamous marriages are not now
allowed to take place. When his attention was called to a notorious case
which had been discovered in the First District Court, he disclaimed any
knowledge of the fact. In proceedings before an examiner appointed by the
Supreme Court to investigate the accounts and proceedings of the Receiver
of the Mormon Church property escheated under the provisions of the
Edmunds-Tucker Law, a prominent Mormon testified that the Church does not
now sanction polygamous marriages. This is the only evidence which has
been produced, or which has been offered that the church does not now
sanction violations of the law prohibiting polygamy. The testimony of the
two Church officials, unsatisfactory as it is, is subject to the suspicion
that it was colored by a desire to show that Church property is not now
used for unlawful purposes. The statement of the head of the Church is
answered by his statement that he knew nothing of the polygamous case
developed in the First District Court. But [440] admitting the statements
and testimony to be literally true, it does not prove that the Church has
met the public sentiment of the Nation as expressed in its laws, and has
abandoned polygamy. Nor does it prove what is more essential to know, that
the Church is loyal to the law. In recent years important gatherings have
been held under the auspices of the Mormon Church, and resolutions have
been adopted by which they have vigorously declared their intention to
remain true to the old faith with all its teachings and practices. These
have gone to the world with the sanction and approval of the leaders and
the great body of the people. Are these solemn declarations to be brushed
aside by the declarations of men who are interested in the determination
of a legal proceeding, or by the unofficial, unsupported statements of the
head of the Church made in a private conversation, or by statements which
are made in language intended to convey a definite meaning to others, but
under mental reservations and careful wording explainable so as to mean
nothing? The non-Mormons believe that polygamous marriages are being
entered into, and that the effective enforcement of the law prohibiting
them has driven the Church to more secret methods.
Under its system of government the Church has but one way of defining
its position, and that is by a public declaration either from the head of
the Church addressed to the people, or by the action of the people in
conference assembled. No such declaration has been made, nor action taken,
and probably never will be. There is no reason to believe that any earthly
power can extort from the Church any such declaration.
It may be truthfully said that the Church has determined that, if
polygamy is to be uprooted, the government must perform that task, as it
will never do on its own part any action that will indicate an abandonment
of polygamy. * * *
FUTURE LEGISLATION:
The bill now pending before Congress, called the Collom or Struble
bill, has renewed the discussion which attended the passage of the bill
providing for the admission of the State of Idaho, which, by its terms,
made [441] what is known as the "Idaho Test Oath," a part of the election
law of the new State. It is contended by the Mormons that the measure is
an encroachment upon the liberty of conscience, the freedom of religious
belief, and notwithstanding its constitutionality, has been affirmed by
the highest court in the land, that it is unjust and unconstitutional. It
is denied that the Mormon Church is political in character or exercises
any political influence, or that membership involves any hostility to the
laws of the land or the political principles of the Government. For those
who believe there can be no valid or just law, or any correct political
principle, which is in conflict with their revelations, doctrines or
discipline, such assertions are not difficult.
The non-Mormon of Utah cannot be convinced that the Mormon Church,
both in its doctrines and practices, is not palpably a political body. To
his mind a belief in polygamy, based on revelation, brings the Church and
all its members who believe in the revelation in direct conflict with the
law's and political principles of the country, and this hostile political
attitude cannot be removed except by an abandonment of a fundamental
principle of the organization. To his view, the Church does not hesitate
to dictate in political affairs when it can obtain some benefit; but when
political action or legislation is likely to be disadvantageous it wholly
renounces politics. It is willing to become a politician when benefits may
follow, but refuses to accept the fate of a politician.
The non-Mormons do not understand the Cullom or Struble. bill
deprives anyone of entire freedom of religious belief. They are willing to
let anyone who disbelieves in the law, of the land, or who joins an
association which refuses allegiance to the laws, keep his conscience and
his belief intact as his conduct is not unlawful, but they urge he is not
entitled to the reward of the elective franchise or a voice in the
Government to which he will not give an unqualified allegiance. A contrary
course puts the loyal and the disloyal on the same basis. They also urge
the passage of the law as a duty, to the whole people. It is over
twenty-eight years since Congress condemned polygamy in Utah. The laws of
Con-[442]gress have been ridiculed and treated with contempt so long as
such a course was safe, and then evaded and resisted as far as possible,
and during all this time no change has taken place in the counsels or aims
of Mormonism, and the conflict today is as clearly defined as ever. The
enactment of such a law would hasten the end and be better for all
parties; even for the Mormons, than temporizing methods which only serve
to prolong the strife. (Salt Lake Tribune, 5 Oct 1890, p. 11)
20 Sep 1890, New York Sun:
THE "MORMONS" IN CANADA.
The following appears in the New York Sun as a dispatch from Ottawa,
Canada, September 20, and gives the true inwardness of the attempt to
create a furore against the quiet little colony of Latter-day Saints in
Alberta:
"A gentleman who has been visiting recently the Mormon colony at
Lee's Creek in the Canadian northwest says the Mormons there do not
practice polygamy and are thrifty and enterprising settlers. One of the
main charges preferred against them by the leaders of Gentile society is
that `they never spend a cent over a bar'. Another is that `they have
reduced the price of hay to $20 a ton, butter from 40 cents to 20 cents a
pound, and potatoes from 6 cents a pound to 75 cents a bushel.
Furthermore, `when they come to town they bring crackers and cheese with
them, I instead of buying a meal at the hotels. He is very positive
polygamy does not exist among them. They themselves say that while they
regard polygamy as scriptural, they do not practice it in this country and
do not intend to do so. (Deseret Evening News, 29 Sep 1890)
Wednesday 24 Sep 1890:
The Church Personal Property.
An associated Press dispatch from Washington says: By a vote of 5 to
4 the House committee on judiciary has ordered a favorable report on the
Senate bill providing for the disposition of the personal property of
[443] the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah. (Deseret
Evening News, 29 Sep 1890)
24 Sep 1890:
A manifesto was issued, signed by Pres. Wilford Woodruff, in which
the Saints were advised "to refrain from contracting any marriage
forbidden by the laws of the land."
Thursday, 25 Sep 1890, Washington, D.C.:
* * * We received a telegram from Prest. Woodruff containing a
declaration or manifesto from him in regard to recent report of the Utah
Commission on the subject of polygamous marriages and of the preaching of
that doctrine by the Church authorities, in which he denies their
statements and declares himself as willing to obey the laws of the nation
on that subject and to advise the members of the Church to do likewise
etc. Bro. Caine made arrangements to have the declaration or manifesto
published in the "Evening Star" and "Critic," and to have it printed in a
circular letter or pamphlet for distribution to the President, Cabinet,
Senate and House of Reps. and other leading men. (Diary of L. John
Nuttall)
Thursday 25 Sep 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
OFFICIAL DECLARATION.
To Whom it May Concern:
Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt
Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah
Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior,
allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or
more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during
the past year; also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church
have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of
polygamy;
I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that
these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy, or plural marriage,
nor [444] permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny
that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that
period been solemnized in our temples or in any other place in the
Territory.
One case has been reported, in which the parties alleged that the
marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the
spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the
ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In
consequence of this alleged occurance the Endowment House was, by my
instructions, taken down without delay.
Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural
marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of
last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to
use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to
have them do likewise.
There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my
associates, during the time specified, which can reasonably be construed
to inculcate or encourage polygamy, and when any Elder of the Church has
used language which appeared to convey such teaching he has been promptly
reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advise to the Latter-day
Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of
the land.
WILFORD WOODRUFF,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The foregoing was sent to the Associated Press for publication, but
has only appeared here in a condensed form, which poorly conveys the
sentiments of the writer. This is the full document as prepared and signed
officially by President Wilford Woodruff. (Deseret Evening News, Charles
W. Penrose, Editor)
Friday 26 Sep 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
THAT MANIFESTO.
It seems that President Woodruff of the Mormon [445] Church has
caused a dispatch to be sent through the Associated Press to the
newspapers of the United States, giving his advice to the Latter-Day
Saints to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of
the land. It is unnecessary to say that that is not the usual way by which
the President of the Mormon Church makes his decrees known. In private
conversation, President WOODRUFF has more than once in the last year and a
half stated that if plural marriages were being celebrated they were,
without his knowledge. It seems this dispatch was called out probably
because of the statement of the Utah Commission that they had evidence
which convinced them that the practice is being indulged in more or less
throughout the Territory. But there is something about this dispatch
itself which causes people familiar with Mormon ways to be suspicious. It
does not come in the authoritative manner in which the orders of the
Church are generally clothed. President WOODRUFF says: "My advice to the
Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by
the laws of the land." He speaks merely as an individual. He does not
speak as though that advice had come authoritatively by revelation, but as
a poor human being in perplexity he gives to his; flock the advice of a
patriarch. The question is, how they will understand it? It is not at all
as JOHN TAYLOR announced to a convention of the priesthood that in his
bath-room (sic) he had received a revelation that Mr. YOUNG was to have
one office, and Mr. Somebody else another office. It is not at all in the
same tone that President WOODRUFF at the last conference announced to the
people that the blood of the prophets HYRUM and JOSEPH were yet to be
avenged; that so far, they had not beep avenged. We cannot resist the
thought that this was riot prompted by President WOODRUFF at all, but that
it was prompted by shrewd men in the Church, and that the object is purely
political. Of course it is all right to Eastern people. There, it is the
advice of the President of the Mormon Church. But it seems to us if it had
been genuine, the president himself in the Tabernacle, backed by more than
one apostle, would have said to his people. "There is a new [446] deal.
You are not to involve yourselves in plural marriages any more, so long as
the laws of the United States forbid. While ours is a distinct creed, it
is subject to the laws, and you will not disobey the laws in the matter of
taking more wives." That would have been the usual way. That would not
only have been sounded in the Tabernacle, but it would have been echoed in
every ward meeting-house in the city and Territory. If we had to make a
diagnosis of this case we should say it came about like this: Mr. CANNON
said to President WOODRUFF, "The Nation is greatly exercised about our
affairs. A good many of our brethren in Idaho are in trouble; they want to
vote. Legislation is pending which threatens to disfranchise us, and the
ground is that we still adhere to and persist in plural or celestial
Marriage as a sacrament which we are bound to respect and comply with.
Now, it would be a good thing to send to the country something which would
give the country an idea that we had abandoned polygamy because of our
respect for the laws. We will not put it in the usual way of an edict from
the Church, but you, as the president of the church can sign this dispatch
to go to the country, which merely gives your personal, individual, human
advice to the Saints, and which, of course, does not count any more than
the advice of any other man, it not pretending to be in the nature of an
authoritative mandate to the people."
President WOODRUFF is an easy going, quiet old gentleman, but down
deep he is a genuine fanatic. He has never said a word yet that indicated
that he thinks he went too far in that dedicatory prayer at St. George;
indeed, his words in the last conference were a fair supplement to that
prayer, considering the changed conditions here, and, hence, it is natural
for even a man like him to think that a little trick is not out of the way
when by it he is serving the Lord. So we take it that he subscribed to the
opinion of Mr. CANNON, and it was for that his dispatch was sent out. And
we believe that yesterday, being Thursday, there was more than one plural
marriage celebrated in one or other of the Temples of this Territory, and
that, while President WOOD-[447]RUFF himself knew nothing of it, the
parties engaged in it knew that if President WOODRUFF ever heard of it,
not withstanding his advice, he would look upon it as an act of grace on
the part of the parties engaged in it. The best review, of President
WOODRUFF'S "advice" to the people was made by a newsboy last evening. He
was selling the paper, and as an inducement to purchasers was crying: "All
about President WOODRUFF abandoning polygamy." A by-stander said: "So he
has come to it at last, has He?" "Yes," said the boy, "and I wish my
father would, but he never will." And that, we take it, is about the fact
of the case. The President advises, but the people know that the old man
would not state it that way if he wanted the people to follow the advice,
and so will continue to do business at the old stand. (Salt Lake Tribune,
p. 4)
Friday, 26 Sep 1890, Washington, D.C.:
A fine day, busy in sending circular letters to members of Congress
etc., 1000 letters having been printed. (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
26 Sep 1890, Deseret Evening News:
* * * "Salt Lake City, September 26.--Governor Thomas was interviewed
today in relation to President Wilford Woodruff's proclamation. The
Governor said that it was impossible to give a definite opinion of the
purpose or effect of the proclamation. `If it is put forth and hereafter
observed in good faith it is an important step, and will do much to remove
one of the political objections to Mormonism,' he said.
"The general sentiment is a hope it is in good faith. Many things
lead to doubt, among which may be named the present political situation,
the fact that it does not come in the usual channel and its studious and
indefinite language. The last general proclamation on the subject in 1885
came from the general conference ratified by the States, and asserted that
the Mormons could not yield the doctrine of plural marriage to
legislatures or judicial decisions. The whole proclamation is based on the
clause that because certain laws have been passed and [448] decided
constitutional, therefore submission is advised.
"Attention has been called to the fact that it only advises
submission, and for many years the Mormons have submitted, but refused to
ever promise to obey. That there is no injunction to obey the laws; that
it is twelve years since the decision affirming the constitutionality was
made; that nothing is said of the law, against unlawful cohabitation,
which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States,
and under which most of the convictions are made; that it in no way
asserts that polygamy is wrong or the law right, and as it is understood
that temples have been opened elsewhere for the ceremonies which formerly
took place in the old Endowment House, the statement of the summary
punishment of the building is rather dramatic.
"Referring to the last clause of the proclamation, there are
inquiries as to what the author considers the law of the land, and whether
any opinion or proclamation will be effective so long as the Mormons
believe polygamy is enjoined by divine law. The semi-annual conference of
the Church will soon be held, which has the power to place the Church on
record in unambiguous language. For myself I propose to await
developments, and in the mean time hope it is a step taken in good faith."
* * * (Deseret Evening News, 30 Sep 1890)
Saturday 27 Sep 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
THAT MANIFESTO.
It is only eight or ten days until the regular semiannual Mormon
conference, and a great many people are wondering why President WOODRUFF
put out his manifesto in advance of that conference. We think it is plain
enough why it was done. One reason is supplied by the report of the Utah
Commission; the other reason is that there will be an election in Idaho,
before the Conference meets, and from what we know of the Mormon people
there will be an attempt on their part to vote on the ground that they do
not belong to any organization that teaches or practices polygamy. Mr.
CAINE writes to the Evening Star in Washington that the object of the
dispatches, giving the substance of the report of the [449] Utah
Commission, is to crowd through certain legislation now pending before
Congress, which if enacted into a law, would disfranchise every member of
the Mormon Church by prescribing a test oath which no Mormon could well
subscribe to. He goes on to explain that this proposed legislation would
not affect the polygamist Mormon, already disfranchised, but that it would
apply to the non-polygamists, the young men of Utah, who have never
violated the anti-polygamy law, and have taken oaths that they will not do
so in the future; and that the object in disfranchising them is because
they will not vote to suit the redical anti-Mormon ring at Salt Lake City.
He further states that this ring wishes to obtain political control of the
Territory; to manipulate its affairs in their interest; to collect and
expend the people's money, and to shape its destiny. And he winds up by
declaring that he knows that the charges lately made against the Mormons
of Utah are false, and that such statements are injurious to them and
dangerous to the best interests of Utah.
Now, about the non-Mormons here wishing to obtain control of this
Territory, it is just as well to state the absolute fact, which is, not
that they would obtain control of this Territory because they want to
collect its taxes or to hold its offices; but they do want to break
forever in this Territory the political power of the Mormon Church. That
has been their public aim for many years. They have never deviated from
it, and they are quite as conscientious and not nearly so much given to
telling untruths as Mr. CAINE himself. Mr. CAINE has made many a statement
in Washington not substantiated by the facts. And the reason why these
Gentiles desire the disfranchisement of Mormons, whether they have been in
polygamy or not, is because they are not free agents; they are not
citizens of the United States in any legitimate sense. They are hereditary
aliens, and if Utah was a State to-day, (sic) without any restraining
clauses in its Constitution, the government of the State within six months
would be just such a government as the President of the Mormon Church
might dictate; the first presidency would nominate every officer, the
people would [450] vote solidly for the nominees. The Legislature would
pass no law until it was first submitted to the first presidency for
approval. It would be the same in the government of the cities. The
government of the State would be that of a perfect theocracy. The Mormon
chiefs have been plotting and planning for this for fifty years; and it is
to make any such thing as that impossible that the Gentiles have been
working and will continue to until that terror shall have been taken away
from this Territory.
There is nothing, when we come to examine it closely, in this
manifesto of President WOODRUFF. He merely says that he advises his people
not to engage in polygamy, since the law against it has been declared
Constitutional. That law, was declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court
years ago, and since then the predecessor of President WOODRUFF, in a
manifesto very much more imposing than this, declared that for the Saints
to abandon polygamy would be damnation. In this manifesto, President
WOODRUFF cautiously advises the people. That is not the style in which
manifestos are given to the Mormon people by their chiefs. That law was
the last time declared Constitutional prior to the meeting of last April's
Conference, and yet at that Conference the same old exactions were
insisted upon, the same discipline, the same rules; and there was not one
breath of anything that looked like giving up polygamy or of relaxing in
the slightest one tenet of their faith.
Hence, we believe, and it is with a feeling which is conclusive
evidence on our part, that this manifesto was not intended to be accepted
as a command by the President of the Church, but as a little bit of
harmless dodging to deceive the people of the East, and especially the men
in Congress. Hence, we say that the Republicans in Congress, on the
strength of that proclamation alone, ought to pick up the Struble bill and
make it the law, at once. It is not a hardship to deny aliens the right of
casting a ballot, or of holding office. And it will be just as easy after
that bill shall have been passed for Mormons to set themselves right, to
become citizens of the United States, as it is for any other set of aliens
whose homes are in this country. (Salt Lake Tribune, [451] p. 4)
Saturday 27 Sep 1890, Washington, D. C.:
* * * called at "National Democrat" office and got some of their
papers and handed them lists of Members of Congress to send the paper to.
Folded and addressed 50 papers and sent off a large number of the
Manifestos. (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
Monday 29 Sep 1890, Washington, D.C.:
Busy in the office addressing and sending off Manifestos. * * *
(Diary of L. John Nuttall)
29 Sep 1890, Deseret Evening News:
THE POLYGAMY QUESTION.
* * * This morning I called upon Mr. Caine and had an interesting
conversation with him. Among other questions suggested by the latter I
asked him if it was true that the Congressional enactments prohibiting
polygamy were being accepted and obeyed by the Mormons in good faith.
"Absolutely so," said Mr. Caine. "The practice of polygamy has
entirely ceased in Utah, and I believe it is safe to say that it will
never be revived. I do not personally know of a single case in which a man
is now living with more than one wife. I have no doubt that it will take a
long time to make the people of the country believe this. We all know that
there is an almost universal and deep-seated feeling against the Mormons,
which to my mind is largely prejudice. We feel that it is unjust, but we
recognize the fact that it must take years to overcome it. All the
prosecutions now being had are for polygamous living with and supporting
plural wives married years ago, before the passage of the Edmunds law. * *
*
"The impression is very general that the Mormon religion not only
authorized but enjoined plural marriage. This is a mistake. Polygamy was
simply permitted under certain conditions and restrictions. No man was
allowed to contract a plural marriage unless he had a high religious
character and had the ability to support two or more wives and the
children that might be born to [452] them. Unless these requirements were
fulfilled plural marriages were absolutely forbidden and were UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES SOLEMNIZED. * * *
"Aside from polygamy, is there anything in the principles and
teachings of the Mormon religion which can be considered as inimical to
the social and political welfare of a people? In other words, in your
opinion has the prejudice, if you please, that exists through the country
at large against Mormonism any good and reasonable foundation other than
the practice of plural marriage?"
"Emphatically it has not. There is nothing in the Mormon religion,
leaving out its permission of polygamy, to which any objection can be
made. Of course there are some points in our belief with which many
persons would not agree, but the same can be said of Baptists, Methodists,
Unitarians, Catholics, Spiritualists, and all other religious
denominations. What I mean is that there is nothing in our belief or
teachings which we have not a perfect and unquestionable right to believe
and teach, or that is in the slightest degree hostile to the spirit of our
government and its institutions. We have a right to claim the same
religious liberty that is guaranteed to others by the Constitution of the
United States. Nowthere are in our country a great many good people who
believe, sincerely no doubt, that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic
Church is unfriendly to the principles of our government, but in the
legislation of Congress, or of any State, there is not, to my knowledge,
any discrimination against Catholics. Why should there be against Mormons,
now that this one point of objection is removed. We concede that THE
POPULAR VERDICT condemns polygamy and we accept this as final. So far as
our religion is concerned I need only point to the morality, industry and
prosperity of our people. A tree is known by its fruits, men do not
`gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles." I may confidently challenge
the civilized world to show more sober, orderly, thrifty and law-abiding
communities than those of the Mormons in Utah. Now that every man cleaves
only to one wife, surely none can say that our people are not good
citizens. (Deseret Evening News, 15 Oct 1890)
[453]
Tuesday 30 Sep 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
MORE RUBBISH CONCERNING POLYGAMY.
Salt Lake Tribune Bureau.
517 Fourteenth Street,
WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 30, 1890.
The Mormon literary bureau is in its glory. Wilford Woodruff's letter
has furnished the cue and the Eastern papers are being filled at the usual
column rates with interviews with Judge Carlton of Utah, Gentiles, young
Liberals from Ogden and the usual serenely-innocent and impartial Jack
Mormon statements about the condition of the Saints and their readiness to
obey the laws; each and all have been regularly submitted to John T. Caine
and have passed muster. The New York Sun today has a long letter from
Washington, dealing with the subject, extracts from which are as follows:
"With all allowance for possible duplicity in language or intent, the
announcement recently made by Wilford Woodruff, as president of the Church
of Latter-Day Saints, is the most important that has come from Mormonism
during many years. It is a renunciation, not only of the practice of
plural marriage, but of the teachable doctrine in the most explicit way.
This Mormon leader declares that: `We are not teaching polygamy or plural
marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice.' He
specially combats the statement in the annual report just made to
Secretary Noble by the Utah commission that `Forty-one male persons are
believed to have entered into the polygamous relations since the June
revision in 1889, and, admitting the report that one case occurred of a
marriage in a so-called Endowment house the last few days, that on
learning of the report he had the house taken down. `Inasmuch as laws,' he
says, `have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which
laws have been pronounced Constitutional by the court of last resort, I do
hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws and use all my
influence with the members of the church over which I preside to have them
do likewise.'
"We cannot suppose that after such an official utterance polygamy can
long endure. If this declaration is [454] hypocritical, the followers will
be disgusted with their leaders; if sincere, it pronounces the doom of
polygamy, since at the General Conference already spoken of, Taylor and
Cannon announced that there were only 12,000 polygamists in a total
population of 200,000. Next week the autumn conference of the Church will
be held, and probably a definite sanction will be given to the recent
proclamation. Should it be republished, which is quite out of the range of
belief, there would be a rent in the Mormon establishment. The great
majority of Mormons may be willing to give up a doctrine which they do not
personally put in practice, and which has caused them to be looked upon as
outcasts, when, no longer isolated, but brought into contact with the
varied industries and interests of the Union, they find polygamy their
only obstacle to a noble career in the sisterhood of States.
"If President Wilford Woodruff would only, in his character of
prophet and revelator, obtain and promulgate a new revelation that the
polygamic dispensation is ended, he would complete the work began by his
proclamation." (Salt Lake Tribune, 1 Oct 1890)
Tuesday, 30 Sep 1890, Washington, D.C.:
* * * Busy all day in the office addressing and mailing "Manifestos."
* * * (Diary of L. John Nuttall)
Wednesday 1 Oct 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
A UTAH COMMISSIONER IS PERVERSIONS.
A dispatch from Fort Wayne, Indiana, to the St. Louis Globe-Democrat,
conveys what purports to be an interview with Col. R.S. Robertson, of the
Utah Commission. The Newspaper "interview" is so often deceptive and
misleading that little confidence can be placed in it. Prominent persons
are alleged to have said things which they never thought of, sometimes
they have not been seen at all by the varacious reporter, and at others
their views are so incorrectly stated that the public are deluded when
they place and dependance upon the report.
However, in this "interview" there are some remarks which were
evidently made by the Commissioner, and we will therefore treat them as
genuine. He endeavors to [455] throw cold water on the declaration
published by President Wilford Woodruff, and in a roundabout way attempts
to meet the emphatic denial in that document of the assertion in the
Commissioners, report as to recent plural marriages. Much of the
interview, as reported, is wide of the mark, and amounts to a very
ungentlemanly and course insinuation concerning President Woodruff's
veracity. As to that we are perfectly willing to have the reputation of
the two individuals for truth and honesty compared, and have no fears for
the result, so far as President Woodruff is concerned. We do not believe
there is an anti-"Mormon" of any prominance in Utah who believes that he
would publish anything he believed to be untrue.
Passing this by, with the simple comment that such low reflections
indicate the sort of person who cast them, we reproduce some of the
closing remarks of the Commissioner as reported in the Globe Democrat:
"It has been shrewdly suggested `to President Woodruff,' concluded
Commissioner Robertson, `that it would be exceedingly profitable for him
to have another revelation, declaring that the doctrine of polygamy should
be no longer adhered to by the Saints. Such a revelation would greatly
assist his case and put him in the light of one willing to abide by the
law that seeks the extinction of the horrid crime of which he is the chief
apologist. But no revelation has as yet been forthcoming, probably because
without the institution of polygamy the Mormon leaders might lose the
power which make abject subjects out of thousands of ignorant and bigoted
persons, and the vast revenues of the Church might then be expended in
directions not calculated to upbuild the monstrous institution of which
Woodruff is the `inspired' head. Plural marriages are yet entered into
beyond a doubt, and the Mormons continue to hold their conferences and
hurl defiance at the government and its agents."
The suggestion which the Commissioner thinks is "shrewd" is neither
original nor sensible. It has been offered many times for several years.
It is an evidence of the thoughtless and flippant manner in which
anti-"Mormons" attempt to regulate the creed of the Latter-[456]day
Saints. A quotation here from the New Testament ought not to be considered
out of place, especially by persons who profess respect for Christianity.
It is this:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Revelation, whether it relates to the past, present or future, is not
at the command of men. If Col. Robertson knows of any means whereby the
Almighty can be compelled to reveal something that will suit him and other
persons who make this demand, we would like him to use them without delay.
Disbelievers have the right to reject anything purporting to be revelation
that does not appeal to their reason or their faith. But they have not the
right to expect a revelation to order nor to find fault because such an
absurdity is not forthcoming. On the other hand, believers have the right
to their convictions and to believe that which commends itself to their
judgment or evokes their faith. They should be protected in that right,
and not be subjected to the sneers and ribaldry comprehended in Col.
Robertson's stale wit and cheap plagiarism.
When President Woodruff receives anything from a Divine source for
the Church over which he presides, he will be sure to deliver the message.
And there is no power on earth that can compel him to make a counterfeit,
or pretend to anything which to him is not as genuine as the pure light of
heaven. As to what would be "profitable," in the sense which seems to
appeal to the soul of Col. Robertson, we know, and so do the whole body of
Latter-day Saints, that such considerations have not the slightest weight
with our venerable President. His whole life is proof of his disinterested
and unselfish nature and motives. And before he would put his name to
anything untrue, or descend to such misrepresentations as appear to be
indulged in by some of the Utah Commission, he would endure the bitterest
pangs of poverty and drain the cup of adversity to the dregs. Five
thousand or five [457] hundred thousand dollars a year would not tempt him
to malign any people or person, and to retain a "profitable" position he
would never pander for an instant to the prejudices of the times.
The `abject subjects' which exist in the mind's eye of Colonel
Robertson, or rather in the words of his lips, are not to be found
elsewhere. We will not accuse him of uttering anything original. The words
are but an echo. But they embody a falsehood. It is one that suits his
purpose and is likely to find favor. But it is utterly without foundation
in fact, whether he knows it or not. The Commissioner is not acquainted
with the people of Utah or with their faith or condition. He has been
here, he has been told the usual tales, he has drawn his salary, but he
knows no more of the "Mormons" than if he had never seen a "Mormon," and
is no more competent to discourse concerning them than of the dwellers in
the antipodes.
The closing sentence of the remarks we have quoted, contains two
positive falsehoods, from the obloquy of uttering which we challenge Col.
Robertson to free himself. If there are any plural marriages of recent
date of which he is cognizant, let him furnish the evidence. Marshals,
grand juries, prosecuting attorneys and district courts are watching and
waiting for such information. If defiances of the Government are being
hurled, at conferences, they can be quoted and thus proof can be produced.
If he does not bring forward some cases of polygamy, and some citations of
defiance of the Government, he will stand accused of wilful falsehood. We
charge him with it, here and now. We say nothing of his motives. We merely
deny his words and demand that he produce his proofs.
It is by just such means as this "interview," that the country is
deceived in regard to the "Mormon "question. There are no words too strong
that can be uttered in condemnation of such a course. Only politicians,
using the term in its lowest signification, hirelings of the pulpit and
harpies of the press would be guilty of such proceedings. When the tone of
society is raised they will very soon disappear or be utterly condemned.
[458] Against the interested utterances of the Utah Commissioner we append
the following. This is from the Sacramento Record Union:
"President Woodruff of the Mormon Church has issued an address in
which he advises the Church membership to obey the law and cease from
plural marriage. He denies warmly that since the affirmation of the
constitutionality of the anti-polygamy law by the Supreme Court he and his
church have advocated plural marriage, or defiance of the law. We believe
Woodruff to be sincere in the advice he gives his followers. He is wise
enough to understand that it is useless to attempt to defy the United
States of America, and that submission only is left to the Mormons. He
prefers that it come with peace rather than with force and arms.
And this from the Denver News:
"President Woodruff in the most solemn manner declares that the
charges of the Utah Commission that forty plural marriages have been
contracted since June last, and that in public discourse the leaders of
the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of polygamy,
is false. `We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage,' he says, `nor
permitting any person to enter into its practice.' If they were, and if
such marriages were solemnized, the law makes it the duty of the officers
of the United States to arrest and bring such parties to trial, and if
found guilty to punish them. A declaration of innocence on the part of the
President of the Church is sufficient until the contrary is established.
The burden of proof is on the government. If the latter cannot establish
its charges they must fall to the ground. No party can be adjudged guilty
until after a fair and impartial trial." (Deseret Evening News, Charles W.
Penrose, Editor)
T hursday 2 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE MANIFESTO.
Referring to the guarded communication which Pres-[459]ident WOODRUFF
had telegraphed East last week and which a good many Eastern papers accept
as genuine, no Gentile in Utah believes it to be what it purports to be,
or what the outside world believes it to be. We do not believe it for
several reasons. It is not promulgated in a way that the commands of the
Church go to the people. It was not promulgated here at all; but it was
sent East in a dispatch, a dispatch which carries every evidence on its
face of having been prepared and sent by GEORGE Q. CANNON. Some of it we
know does not contain the truth. The statement for instance, that the
Endowment house was torn down because there were to be no more plural
marriages, no one here believes at all; because, in point of fact, the
Endowment house had been raided by United States Marshals and was
considered contaminated. It was on dangerous ground and was liable to be
seized by the receiver in the escheat cases. It was so public that it was
impossible to carry on the usual business without danger of discovery, and
in the meantime, the Logan Temple had been completed. Finally, as was
testified to in the cases before Judge ANDERSON last autumn, such a place
was not necessary for the celebration of plural marriages.
Conference will meet the last of this week. We shall see when that
meets whether what was telegraphed will be formally endorsed by the
President and the heads of the church or not. At present we have a right
to consider that the only object in putting out that dispatch was to
defeat imminent legislation in Congress. A year and a half ago GEORGE Q.
CANNON gave instructions to promise, in case Statehood should be given
Utah, that polygamy should be abolished. And yet at three conferences
since there has been no breath of that whispered to the Mormon people. In
the meantime, we believe we could name more than one of the elders of the
Mormon Church who have entered into polygamy right in this city. At least
it is thought that they have, but if the high priests of the Church were
to be called upon and asked about it they would declare that they knew
nothing of it. When President WOODRUFF says if such marriages have been
solemnized they have been without [460] his knowledge, that merely means
that he did not give personal consent to it; but it does not mean that the
practice has been foregone; it does not give license to a single man who
is now suffering imprisonment in the penitentiary to come out and say
henceforth he will obey the laws. * * * (Salt Lake Tribune, p. 4)
Friday 3 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE GREAT WHICH IS IT.
The New's for a couple of days has been. devoting its attention to
Governor THOMAS and Commissioner ROBERTSON, publishes an interview with
Governor THOMAS sent from this city to the San Francisco Chronicle, and on
that bases a most cowardly and vindictive attack. Fortunately, the
interview itself is a good answer to all the malice of the News. If it is
not a fair and straight-forward statement of the case, as understood by
the Gentiles of this Territory, then it is almost impossible to put in
language the expression of their opinion. In commenting the News says:
"Any one who calls the language in President Woodruff's declaration
indefinite must be exceedingly dense or determined to find fault. It is so
definite that its meaning cannot be mistaken by any one who understands
simple English. The statement that it does not come in the usual channel
is a direct falsehood, and proclaims either the Governor's deplorable
ignorance or his woeful disregard of truth."
Governor THOMAS had a right to say that the language of the manifesto
was indefinite, because it was. If the editor of the News was put under
oath to explain that language, he would be forced to say that it was
simply the advice of President WOODRUFF as a man. Still it is clear enough
that the intention was to carry the idea to the people of the United
States that it was an edict by the head of the Church, pronounced in the
usual way as by authority of Almighty GOD. So is the Governor right in
saying that "it does not come in the usual channel." Of course the News
knew, what Governor THOMAS meant. [461] He did not mean to say that the
dispatch was not signed by WILFORD WOODRUFF. He meant to say that, to be
binding on the Mormon people, it would have to be signed by President
WOODRUFF and his counselors, as a new dispensation of the church. We do
not believe the News itself accepts it as such. And the News goes on to
say:
"There is never but one man on the earth at a time who holds the keys
of the sealing power. That power is vested in the president of the church.
He alone can give an authoritative utterance to the church for the
regulating of the marriage ordinance under the `everlasting covenant.' The
official declaration of President Woodruff is the only one that could
properly have been made on this matter, and that the Latter-Day Saints
would receive as ecclesiastical authority in reference to it."
Admitting all that, and that same authority, if we remember rightly,
tells how those utterances shall be made. We do not believe the New's
looks upon what was telegraphed East in the name of WILFORD WOODRUFF as an
authoritative declaration of the church, but simply the advice of one man.
We believe the matter was put out to deceive the Congress of the United
States. We believe if it had not been so, that had a real change of front
been decided upon, notice would have been served upon the courts that the
Mormon people now in the penitentiary would be ready to hereafter obey the
laws, so long as they should be within this jurisdiction. If that advice
was meant as a command that there shall be no more breaking of the laws,
there is no possible reason or sense in keeping those men in the
penitentiary. Nine out of every ten who are there, are there not because
they did not want to make that promise, but because they did not dare make
it, lest they be ostracised in business and disgraced among the people
with whom they have lived since childhood. But the News goes on and
declares:
The Governor's attempt to contrast with this official declaration the
expression of the "Mormon" people five [462] years ago, that they could
not yield their religious faith or doctrines to Legislatures or other
secular powers, is characteristic of his shifting and disingenuous
methods."
The News misstates Governor THOMAS. What he said was that the last
official declaration on this subject came five years ago. There has been
conference after conference since. The reason given by President WOODRUFF
in his dispatch for giving this advice is a stale and flat and
unprofitable one; because, when he says if since the law has been declared
constitutional." The law was declared constitutional ten years before he
was president of the Church. The News shuffles in regular Mormon style
when it says: "There is nothing in President WOODRUFF'S declaration in
regard to faith, or doctrine, or tenets. But it contains a volume in few
words as to practice." That is mere quibbling. What has made the sudden
change in the practice? We take it that it is nothing but the introduction
of the Cullom and Struble bills in Congress, and the fear that one of them
would be passed. We do not believe there has been any change in the
practices--not a bit--except that this business has been carried on more
secretly. The News mistakes President WOODRUFF when it says:
He also denies the statement that there have been any such marriages
in any place in the Territory during the time in which dispatches from
this city falsely declare that forty or more have been solemnized.
Our recollection is that he says he knows nothing of such marriages.
That is, he personally has not given his written consent to them. He was
not present at the marriages. No one has told him of them since. Hence, he
knows nothing of them. It is the double dealing of the old original knave
of the News that perverts English to make out the pettifogger's case. The
News further says: "The truth is, this declaration is a little too
definite for the Governor. It interferes with his schemes and those of his
confederates." The News does not know the fact, but it gives its whole
case away in that statement. Its [463] own words twisted around, as it is
in the habit of twisting words, would say: "There is a dangerous emergency
before us. Certain people here, including Governor THOMAS, are determined
that unless we cease to disobey the laws we shall be disfranchised. We
will interfere with this scheme by a declaration which will seem binding
to the Gentiles, but which will not be binding upon us at all." It is
nothing for any member of the Mormon Church to make a denial in regard to
anything affecting the church. That has been proven over and over and over
in court. It is not considered a crime by any member of the Mormon Church
to commit perjury in behalf of what he thinks is the best interest of the
church. Hence, the ranting of the News about denials does not count. In
point of fact, there was in the interview published with Governor THOMAS
nothing that was not fair and square. He merely expressed the opinion that
he did not believe that this dispatch of President WOODRUFF was intended
to be an authoritative statement of the church, but that he hoped it was,
and would wait until Conference to see. No breath of any such thing was
whispered in the last Conference. We shall all see what will be done when
the Conference meets to-morrow. (sic) The little flings at Governor THOMAS
do not count. Every man has his own status, and the sneer of a scrub has
no weight.
Referring to Governor ROBERTSON the News says that "Much of the
interview, as reported, is wide of the mark, and amounts to a very
ungentlemanly and coarse insinuation concerning President WOODRUFF'S
veracity." There is nothing of the kind in Governor ROBERTSON'S interview.
He treats the Woodruff dispatch precisely as all other Gentiles do who
understand the situation here. He doubts about its being the official
declaration in the sense which Mormons consider official. He does not
doubt that President WOODRUFF put out the dispatch. He does not doubt that
he personally, as an individual, advises the people to refrain from going
into polygamy; but he doubts about the Mormon people accepting that as an
inspired declaration which they are bound to obey.
[464] The News winces under the statement by the Commissioner that "it has
been shrewdly suggested to President WOODRUFF that it would be exceedingly
profitable to him to have another revelation, declaring that the doctrine
of polygamy should be no longer adhered to by the Saints," and says:
"Disbelievers have the right to reject anything purporting to be a
revelation which does not appeal to their reason or their faith, but they
have not the right to expect a revelation to order, in order to find
fault, because such an absurdity is not forthcoming."
That would be true of any other church except the Mormon Church.
Disbelievers believe that JOSEPH SMITH received originally the revelation
commanding plural marriage, because he himself was in a critical position,
and it was necessary for the peace of his own home and for his reputation
in the community where he lived. That was the opinion of the best men in
the Mormon Church at the time, and a great many of them left the church,
because they believed the revelation was a thing gotten up to order to
tide over a close place and to make the gratification of lust a sacrament
of the bogus religion. The News continues:
When President Woodruff receives anything from a divine source for
the church over which he presides he will be sure to deliver the message,
and there is no power on earth that can compel him to make a counterfeit
or pretend to anything which to him is not as genuine as the pure light of
heaven.
There it is. There is the whole question in a nutshell. Has President
WOODRUFF received anything from a divine source which compelled him to
send out that "advice; which was telegraphed East instead of being
promulgated here? If he has not then his dispatch was a fraud on the
country; because it was intended to be received abroad as an authoritative
statement from the head of the church, authoritative in the sense of being
from the one man who, holding the divine keys, had a right to have his
advice considered as a command by his followers. Did the message go as
from GOD, or as only [465] from the poor old man bowed down with the
infirmities of poor humanity? That is the only point in the case. And if
this message to the people had been received from a divine source for the
church over which President WOODRUFF presides, would the notice have gone
forth to the world in a private dispatch to the East; or would it have
been promulgated here in the usual solemn way? The more the News tries to
extricate itself and to assail others the more it gives its case away.
There is no need for the News to defend the personal character of
President WOODRUFF. That has not been attacked in the least, beyond the
fact that the belief has been expressed that, he has put forth a
telegraphic dispatch which he intended to have one meaning to the people
of the United States and another to his own people. It is an old trick of
the Church that has been played by every high officer of the Mormon Church
from JOE SMITH down. It is a part of the creed. The News descends to the
petty old fling that if Colonel ROBERTSON knows of any plural marriages of
recent date he should furnish the evidence. We will suppose the editor of
the News, within the last two years, has taken to himself a plural wife.
We will suppose that that fact was generally understood to be true; that
Mormons, when questioned, admited their belief that it was true; that the
actions of the editor and the woman involved confirmed that suspicion. And
suppose that suspicion were so strong that the editor should be arrested
and brought into the court and made to plead. Of course he would plead not
guilty. If the lady in question were to be brought in she would deny it.
So would every friend of both parties throughout this Territory; so would
the exalted priest who tied the knot. There would be no record of it. The
case would stand unproved, just as a thousand others have stood. We will
cite a case, for instance. It is that of ANGUS CANNON and Dr. MATTIE
HUGHES. It was charged that they had been united in plural marriage. This
paper published a statement of a man in whose house they had roomed
together but a few weeks before. It was all ferociously denied. The man
himself was compelled to make a public denial of it. And yet everybody
know's that [466] a few months after Dr. MATTIE HUGHES-CANNON became a
mother, and it is just as well understood in this community that she is a
plural wife of ANGUS CANNON as any other fact. The case of RUDGER CLAWSON
was another. We all remember the furious denials of the News in regard to
it up to the very evening of the day before he was forced to go into court
and plead guilty. And when the News says that "If Governor ROBERTSON does
not bring forth some cases of polygamy, and some citations of defiance of
the Government, he will stand accused of wilful falsehood," every one in
this community knows what all that is. Since the Edmunds law was passed,
there is scarcely a high official in the Mormon Church, from JOHN TAYLOR
and GEORGE Q. CANNON down, who has not taken one or two or three plural
wives; and still the News stands out and demands the proof. It is baby
talk, and is intended for other regions than Utah.
We shall all see next week whether there is really a change of front
in the Mormon Church or not. If the Mormon president and his counselors,
backed by his apostles, proclaim to the people that they must no longer
enter into polygamy while the laws of the land forbid it, that will be one
thing. If in a roundabout way it shall be told the Conference that the
advice of the chief priests is that they no longer enter into polygamy, we
will all know how much that is worth, and how desperate the emergency is
which causes it. It is possible to fix up a declaration which will mean
one thing to the country outside and one to the Mormon people. The history
of the Mormon Church is filled with those things. It will be very possible
by such a declaration to fool the country, but it will not deceive anybody
here. We can afford to wait and see what will be. (Salt Lake Tribune, p.
4)
3 Oct 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
BOTH DEFINITE AND AUTHORITATIVE.
For a long time the press of the country and many influential persons
have repeatedly stated, that if in some authoritative way it should be
announced that the solemnization of plural marriages by the "Mormon"
Church should be discontinued, there would be no further [467] issue
between the Government and the Latter-day Saints. In this announcement the
"Liberal" organ in this city has been the most prominent and pronounced,
repeating the statement over and over again for years.
Compliance with the laws was said to be the object to be effected.
Federal officials, great and small, echoed this cry, and while many of
them showed but little reverence for such laws as came in contact with
their appetites or ambitions, they strutted as the champions and
embodiment of national authority, and--in word, were the most devout
adorers of the letter of United States statutes. They placed this above
the commands of Deity and maintained that the edicts of the Government
were superior to the fiat of the Most High.
But their desire for this demanded submission has been, all along, a
deception and a pretence. What has been sought for is the complete
destruction of the "Mormon" Church and the entire disfranchisement of the
"Mormon" people so that this Territory might be controlled by persons of
their own kind.
The declaration made by President Woodruff has proven this beyond
question. They never wanted any such announcement as he has made, and all
their pretended pleas for its publication were made for show and were mere
sham. Nothing could be more direct and unambiguous than the language of
President Woodruff, nor could anything be more authoritative. But it does
not satisfy those who have been the loudest to clamor for it. They now say
it is "indefinite", but cannot show in it a single indefinite sentence.
They object that it does not come in the usual manner, but fail to explain
wherein it is unusual.
There is not the slightest need for any explanation of that language.
It is definite enough for any person that can read. And he who on reading
it declares that it is it "simply the advice of President Woodruff as a
man," proclaims his own inability to understand ordinary words, or his
utter disregard of honor and truth. The language of the declaration is "I,
therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints." It is in his official position as President of the Church, the
one [468] man who can speak with authority to and for the Church on such a
matter as this, that President Woodruff makes five definite announcements.
They are these:
First, he says the statement, telegraphed as being the Commissioners'
report, that forty or more plural marriages have been contracted in Utah
within a certain period, is false.
Second, he declares that the leaders of the Church are not teaching
plural marriage or permitting any person to enter into its practice.
Third, he denies that any number of plural marriages have been
solemnized
in the period mentioned, either in our Temples or in any other place in
the Territory.
Fourth, he declares his intention to submit to the laws forbidding
plural marriage and to use his influence to have the members of the Church
over which he presides do likewise.
Fifth, he publicly promulges his advice to the Latter-day Saints to
refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
The document is signed by Wilford Woodruff as "President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
With any person who cannot understand this language and its purport
it is useless to dispute. And the dishonesty of one who declares this to
be only the advice of Wilford Woodruff "as a man" there is no need to
denounce. * * *
The objection is made that this is "not an edict by the head of the
Church pronounced in the usual way." Who can produce any edict by the head
of the Church? The President does not issue "edicts." The First
Presidency, in matters that require their concurrent action, do not utter
"edicts." There are no such things in the Church. The power of the
Priesthood is exercised by persuasion, by counsel, by instruction, by
enlightenment, and not by force, command or constraint.
President Woodruff's declaration comes with all the authority that
attaches to any epistle or other document of a similar character that has
been issued by the President of the Church.
Another assertion of this utterly unscrupulous sheet [469] (The Salt
Lake Tribune) is that:
"It is not considered a crime by any member of the "Mormon" Church to
commit perjury in behalf of what he thinks is the best interest of the
Church.
To this we can only point to the doctrines of the Church as contained
in its standards and to the character and reputation of its members. There
is no person in the Church, so far as we are aware, that entertains such
an abominable sentiment and if there is, his conceptions of "Mormonism"
are the very opposite of all the letter and spirit of his creed.
The writer of the vile libel is but reflecting upon others the image
of his own character, exhibited through a series of years in almost daily
wilful falsehoods and misrepresentations, until doubt overshadows
everything he writes no matter what may be the subject. And we will
dismiss further notice of his latest disgraceful effort with two lines
from the article we have briefly reviewed, and which contains his favorite
epithet and his sterotyped and most powerful argument:
"Every man has his own status and the sneer of a scrub has no
weight." (Deseret Evening News, Editorial)
4 Oct 1890, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THEY WILL NEVER BE SATISFIED.
It has been telegraphed through the country that the Utah Commission
complained because the leaders of the "Mormon" Church in some
authoritative and explicit manner had not declared against plural
marriages, and also that those leaders had continued, in the Tabernacle
and elsewhere, to teach the people the doctrine of polygamy. These, it was
made to appear, constituted two of the great objections against the
"Mormons."
The declaration of President Woodruff forms a complete answer to this
and ought to be "Authoritative and explicit" enough to satisfy anybody.
But it is not, either to some members of the Utah Commission or some
portions of the American press. [470] The thing they have asked for is not
the thing they want, and if the whole Church were to arise and repudiate
the doctrine of plural marriage, declare their disbelief in it, and if
every man who has a plural wife were to utterly discard, forsake and cast
her off, for time and eternity, it would make little or no difference to
the hostility against the "Mormon" Church and people.
The history of the Latter-day Satins has demonstrated, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that it is useless for them to attempt to please the
world or satisfy the demands made upon them by their enemies. No matter
what they may say, it would not remove their opposition to the Church and
their hatred of the Saints, their encroachments will never be stopped by
submitting to their clamors, every point yielded will only encourage them
in their oppressions and increase their determination to destroy. If the
Saints were to give up one tenet alleged to be the great object of
aversion, another would be objected to with equal dislike and similar
demands, and so on with every point receded from, until the creed of the
Church would be entirely obliterated and the Saints themselves be trodden
under foot as they would deserve to be.
Some of the most impertinent and unprincipled of the haters of the
"Mormons" may flatter themselves that the action of President Woodruff, in
announcing certain facts and giving counsel on a very important matter,
was taken to meet their demands and quiet their outcries. If so they are
much mistaken. And their continued noise and dissatisfaction prove the
point we have here advanced. What they have pretended to want affords them
no content. It does not appease their wrath. It does not still their
tongues. It does not decrease their venom.
The declaration of President Woodruff was published because he wished
to make known his position on the matter that he explained, the course he
had pursued, his firm intention, and his counsel to the Church over which
he presides. It was not done with a view to placate the agitaitors or
quiet the disturbers. It was done because he considered it right and
timely.
Whatever is done by the Church, or its leaders, or its members,
should always be done in this spirit. "Be [471] sure you are right, then
go ahead." Never mind what the world may say or do. Never think to gain
their favor by yielding to their requirements. When a thing is right, do
it. When it is wrong, or unwise, refrain from it. Let the heathen imagine
vain things. But be not swerved to the right or the left by what they may
howl for, nor think for a moment that they will ever be satisfied.
(Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)
4 Oct 1890, Charles Ellis:
CONCERNING REVELATION.
A Few Pertinent Thoughts From an Able Pen.
I have read what has been said pro and con of late touching this
topic and ask permission to say something about it as a disinterested
party.
The controversy has grown out of President Woodruff's recent
"manifesto," and the assumption of his critics is that he should have
issued instead a "revelation." That is, the anti-Mormon writers and
talkers insist that the declaration should have come from God instead of
from Mr. Woodruff. Let us see where this leads.
If God can be dictated to and compelled to furnish revelations to
suit the requirements of any persons who desire to back their schemes with
divine authority, he ceases to be God and becomes the tool, so to speak,
of designing men. If, now, these men who insist that President Woodruff
should have demanded a revelation instead of issuing his own manifesto are
honest in their position, they either have a most degrading conception of
God, or they do not believe in God. That is, they are atheists in either
case, a degrading conception of God being equivalent to a disbelief in
God. Now, as the men who are fighting the "Mormons" are as a rule,
professing Christians, it follows that their professions are only a sham
and that, as a matter of fact they do not believe in either God or the
possibility of "revelation." Such being the case, their claim that
President Woodruff should have obtained a revelation is only bombastic
pretense. For, not believing in God, they believe it would be impossible
to obtain a revelation, and consequently, they [472] believe that the only
communication possible from the head of the Church to the Church must
emanate from the President. Thus their criticisms are seen to be only the
harping of harpies. Believing that the President of the Church is the
highest authority that can speak for and to the Church, they demand a
communication from God, in whom they do not believe.
This is a sorry exhibition for Christians to make, and shows only to
what extent the evil of hypocrisy has honeycombed the Christian church.
But should President Woodruff's critics insist that they do believe
in God, in the only true God, as their claim has been so long, they they
must concede that "revelation" can only come, not when man wills, but when
and how God wills. Such being the case, they must admit, if they are
honest in their claims, that in the absence of revelation, President
Woodruff's manifesto is all that they have any right to ask. That
gentleman's critics insist that he did not say what he meant, and did not
mean what he said. It is certain they would say the same of anything that
might come from "the only true God" in whom they profess to believe, if it
would convey precisely what they want. That is to say, they assume that if
God does not take the prevalent hatred and bigotry manifested towards the
Mormon people as the basis of any revelation He might make to the leaders
of the Mormon Church, they would undoubtedly denounce Him as "A hired
Mormon liar," a "triator" and a "sneak." If God should speak I believe He
would demand a cessation of the persecution and oppression that have been
forced upon the Mormon people. If He should speak I believe He would say:
"Your outcry against this people is lying and abomination; I cannot
receive it." If He should speak I believe He would say: "Cease your
oppressions: My freedom is for all. Yet if such a revelation should be
given; if only an angel brought it and proclaimed it in our midst, it
would be denounced by the anti-"Mormons" just as President Woodruff's
manifesto has been.
The anti-"Mormons" are governed, not by judgment, but by hate, and
therefore their criticisms are not reliable. So far as they attempt to
argue the issue, they do [473] not seek to state the truth, but to create
a semblance of truth in what is not true. Wilford Woodruff is an old man.
His long life is known to men. He has never been charged with crime. He
has been a good citizen. He has the confidence and respect of many
thousands of people who are as good as his critics. It is, to say the
least, most unjust to charge such a man with fraud, as is covertly done.
The law of the world is supposed to consider a man innocent until he is
proven guilty. The manly course would be to accept President Woodruff's
manifesto as true and sincere until it is proven something else. For my
own part, I see in it a "revelation." That is, I believe every truth,
every act of justice, every good for humanity is the coming of God, the
presence and activity of God among men. To my mind President Woodruff has
done much in issuing this manifesto. If he has not done all, the way to
get more is not to denounce him as a fruad for what he has done, but to
hail the rising day and instead of shunting the clouds of bigotry and hate
across it, welcome its coming and help to make its noontide one of
gladness. CHARLES ELLIS. (Deseret Evening News)
Sunday 5 Oct 1890:
President GEORGE Q. CANNON:
God did not forget the sacrifices of this people. When he thought of the
hundreds who had gone to prison willingly to show to the world that they
were conscientious, true and faithful men and not cowards, covenant
breakers and recreants, he felt thankful to God that he lived among such a
people. However much the world might think the Latter-day Saints had been
mistaken in their views, the time would come when their conduct during the
last five years would stand out as the brightest pase in the history of
humanity, in modern times at least. He believed that this people were
capable of undergoing any sacrifices that they may be called upon to make.
They could bow with submission when it was necessary and right as easily
as they could stand erect and resist that which they esteemed to be wrong.
They would yet show mankind more abundantly that the Latter-day Saints
were a [474] people of truth and uprightness, who were loyal to God, to
the country of which they were citizens or ought to be citizens, to the
institutions which He had permitted in His providence to be established;
loyal in all the relations of life; strong in their fidelity, and, above
all things, pure and virtuous. The Latter-day Saint who indulged in sexual
sin would be damned if he did not repent. There was no greater cause of
apostacy and there never had been in this Church than the want of virtue.
God would have a virtuous people, for His Spirit would not dwell in unholy
tabernacles. They must be pure not only in deed but in thought, in order
to retain the Spirit of God.
The Elders, when they went abroad, wondered why the people did not
gather as numerously as was the case formerly from the various nations of
the earth. It was due to the abominable wickedness which prevailed. Luxury
was indulged in to such an extent that young men found themselves unable
to marry, and, consequently, some of the oldest blood in America was
disappearing. Those who practiced unblushingly one of the besetting sins
of the age, foeticide, would stand before the bar God as murderers and
murderesses and would damned. Here it, all ye Latter-day Saints! This was
the curse which was coming upon our race today in portions of this
country. In Southern States it did not prevail to so great an extent as in
the north, but it would creep in there after a time if care be not taken.
The speaker regretted to learn that that sin had made its appearance,
somewhat among the Latter-day Saints. The curse of God would rest upon
those guilty of such abominations.
God has chosen the Saints to institute a new condition of things on
earth, to arrest the tide of evil. He had selected men and women who had
the courage to carry out what he told them and they tried to do it. But
the nation interposed and said stop, and they would bow in submission,
leaving the consequences with God. They would do the best they could; but
when their actions came in conflict with the constituted authorities, and
the highest tribunal in the land cried "stop," there was no other [475]
course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue, than to be in accordance with
the revelations which God had given to them, telling them to respect
constituted authority and yield submissively thereto. Nevertheless they
could stand as a living protest against the evils of the age, cry out
against them and by their lives proclaim that they were determined with
the help of God to effect a change in affairs and redeem the world from
its wickedness as far as possible. * * *
President WILFORD WOODRUFF:
This opposition to the Church will continue until He comes to reign whose
right it is to reign and cast Satan into the place prepared for him, where
he can no more deceive the nations. Jesus is with His father and His
apostles are mingling with just and holy beings in the heavens where they
can plead for their brethren. There are different degrees of glory to
which men will attain. The number of men who will reach the highest is
few, for there are not many who are willing to make in the flesh the
sacrifice necessary to entitle them to it.
The Prophet Joseph Smith lived some fourteen years after he organized
this Church and then he laid down his life for it. But did his death
disorganize the Church? No. It continued to grow, and flourish. Need we
think we can please the world? No. We cannot please the wicked. In order
to do so, every Latter-day Saint would have to deny every principle God
has revealed to us. I have been with this Church more than fifty years. I
can testify that whatever the world may say, Joseph Smith was one of the
greatest prophets that God ever raised up, save Jesus only. * * *
If you are curtailed in any of your privileges you may know that God
will hold responsible those who cause the curtailment. Joseph Smith said
if he had power he would sustain every man and woman on earth in their
religious liberty. All are responsible to God alone for the exercise of
their religious rights. God is in earnest in His labors and work. I know
this is the Gospel of Christ, the Zion spoken of by the prophets, and God
will sustain it to the end of time. The world will find before the Lord
[476] gets through with them that He has all power in heaven and on earth.
I have never seen any reason since I became identified with the work of
God to desert it. I bear my testimony to the Latter-day Satins concerning
these things. I pray that you all may be faithful. If you are you will be
satisfied when you get behind the vail. There are many today who would lay
down their lives for the work of God, if it were necessary.
All classes of men will have to go into the spirit world, and will
finally learn whether or not "Mormonism" is true. I testify that it is.
Apostle JOHN HENRY SMITH:
It is probable that if three-fourths of those here today were asked
"Have you received the witness of the Son of God to the truth of this
work?" the answer would be: "Yes; hundreds of evidences of its truth have
been given to me."
And yet with this testimony from God, we discover that the weaknesses
of the flesh, and the false traditions under which we were reared,
frequently bar us from living up to the obligations and requirements that
we feel resting upon our shoulders. It is not to be wondered at that we
make many failures when we sense the conditions that exist; the
immorality, and lack of faith that prevail so widely among men, many of
whom profess belief in Christ. Skepticism on the right hand and on the
left exists, because men have departed from the truth, and have violated
the law of God. I have discovered that when a man schools himself in a
disbelief in a Supreme Being, or in the truths of revealed religion, such
a course is often due to the wrong acts of the individual himself, in
violating some law of virtue or right. One of the prophets speaking of the
time when the world should be in an apostate condition, pointed out those
states that would exist among men in regard to those relations that
concern the perpetuation of life. The prediction that men would be
adulterous and cease to multiply is being fulfilled, as well as that
prediction which foretold a restoration of the Gospel of repentance that
would tend to lead man back to the presence of his [477] Maker.
The world is in the condition foretold by the prophets in respect to
chastity. Men seek to gratify their animal passions, and are drifting
further and further away from the true plan of life. Our mode of dress and
living tend to increase in men and women animal desires. Their natures are
preverted and they destroy themselves, walking in the path of crime and
evil. I have seen in New England hundreds of women who are invalids
because of their sins in this regard. They claim that childbearing
deprives them of social and other pleasurers, and hence seek to avoid the
cares of maternity. As certain as the sun shines the curse of God will
follow the people who will commit these crimes, for their hands are
stained in blood. (Deseret Evening News, 6 Oct 1890)
Monday 6 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE VISION OF WOODRUFF.
Think of an old man, bowed with the infirmities of more than four
score years, standing up before a great audience and declaring that a few
nights ago he was in the spirit land; that he talked with JOSEPH SMITH,
with JOHN TAYLOR, with BRIGHAM YOUNG, and that JOSEPH was in too much of a
hurry to give him any time, being so busy making arrangements for the
descent of the Bridegroom to the earth; and think of gaping listeners by
the thousands, late in this nineteenth century listening to such rubbish
as that and believing it. Think of a man who is called an Apostle, who
expects in regular succession, after a while, to become the leader and
chief of a great people, expressing his full belief in the truth of the
crazy dream of this old man, and of the crowd believing as though it were
truth. It only proves how anxious poor deluded humanity is to chase
delusions. It probably is the outcome of that thought which is expressed
by the great Frenchman when he said: "It is nothing to die; it is terrible
not to live." It tempts one to think sometimes, when he sees this people
following blindly the bidding of their chiefs, believing implicitly every
story told by them, no matter how wild and im-[478]probable, it tempts one
to think almost that it would be a mercy to go through the whole crowd,
select the worst fanatics, put them out on a reservation, give them
wholesome food and compel them, like children, to learn a lesson on exact
mathematics every day. The burden of the talk in the Tabernacle on
Saturday was the great things to be next year, 1891, and the inference of
it all was that behind the guarded expressions there was a fixed belief
that during that year the MESSIAH would come to the earth and rule in
person; and this is all founded on some wild statement of JOSEPH SMITH
when he, in his place, was doing what these chiefs are, in their places,
deluding the people. If we remember correctly, with just as much
solemnity, JOE SMITH informed the people that after a certain number of
years he would be the President of the United States. Is not this story
about the coming of the Bridegroom just as imporbable as the other story
has proven to be? By this, we are not denying the supernatural. We are not
denying the performance of miracles, because they are performed before us
every day. A miracle, we take it, is the performance of something against
all natural laws. If we do not know, the natural law's we can very easily
be deluded into the belief that a miracle has been performed. It was
possible for a priest three or four hundred years ago to point to a comet
with its flaming hair and to tell people as ignorant as he himself was
that it is really a frown of God because of their wickedness, and that the
angry God must be propitiated by gifts. Of course the knowledge that has
come since through science, that the comet was but one of the regular
express trains of the upper ether, that it has its stations and follows
its own track, takes away the mystery of the miracle. But it is a miracle
all the same, for men can no more comprehend the intelligence that caused
the birth of that comet, and that caused it to be set upon its course in
space, than they could in the old and more ignorant days comprehend why
the infinite God should manifest His displeasure in a menace of that kind.
The Spring itself is a miracle, it is a resurrection from the dead. The
summer is a miracle, because, [479] while we know the natural laws through
which the harvest matures, who can comprehend the chemistry which brings
it about?
But that an old man, trembling himself on the verge of the grave,
should dare to stand up before an audience and tell that audience that he
himself had seen, in the spirit form, the spirits of certain notorious
dead; that they are as much rushed about business as when they were here;
that they have not time to speak to him, to the president of a great
Church and king of a great people, and tell it as an absolute reality and
be believed, is marvelous beyond all comprehension. Probably there is no
person who is sometimes vexed by indigestion who has not dreamed of seeing
men who long since were dead, and talking with them. Probably there is no
man who has not dreamed enough to convince himself that, of all the
vagrants in the world, dreams are the vagabonds of the universe. And there
is no man who has stopped to think who has not been able, as a rule, to
ascribe the dream to some external cause. For instance, we presume a
thousand men last winter dreamed that they were soldiers; that they stood
in array in battle; that the battle was about to begin or had begun, and,
waking with a start, discovered that the whole business had started
because Major STANTON'S drum corps was going by and filling the nights
with marches. Sometimes where the affections are greatly involved, or
where the human soul is under extreme anxiety, some vision of the night
will come with such striking force that it will look like a prophecy, or
like a fulfillment of a fact. Then, again, there are certain human beings
who have, to an extreme extent, the possession of that thing which we call
the sixth sense. So it is hard to understand where the real and the
unreal, join hands; but it is not hard to decide that an old man like
President WOODRUFF, who for years has been brooding over this thing which
he foundly hopes is a religion, who has succeeded to the place occupied
first by JOSEPH SMITH, then by BRIGHAM YOUNG, and then by JOHN TAYLOR, to
have his mind so intently fixed upon the heavenly place and its beauties,
to wonder so much whether he is performing his own [480] duties as well as
his predecessors, that when he sinks into sleep at night, he dreams of
what his thoughts were filled with day by day, and actually in those
dreams imagine that he sees and talks with JOSEPH and BRIGHAM and JOHN.
But for him to tell his people that for the time being his soul was
disembodied, that it floated away and was in close communion with the
souls of JOSEPH and BRIGHAM and JOHN, is simply the mumbling of old age
loaded down with old age's infirmities. And that a people can year after
year be deluded by such vagaries as this is one of the marvels of human
nature; and it puts the same thought in every mind that was in the mind of
a great master of thought when he said: "What shadows we are, what shadows
we persue! (Salt Lake Tribune)
Monday Forenoon, 6 Oct 1890, Conference Report:
PROCEEDINGS AT THE SEMI-ANNUAL GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE CHURCH OF
JESUS
CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
President GEORGE Q. CANNON:
President Woodruff, as doubtless the members of the Conference are
aware, has felt himself called upon to issue a manifesto concerning
certain things connected with our affairs in this Territory, and he is
desirous to have this submitted to this Conference; to have their views of
their expressions concerning it, and Bishop Whitney will read this
document now in your hearing.
Following is the manifesto as read:
OFFICIAL DECLARATION.
To Whom it May Concern: (See under date of Thursday 25 Sep 1890)
President LORENZO SNOW:
"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth
at the present [481] time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we
consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the
manifesto which has been read in our hearing and which is dated September
24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we
accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and
binding."
The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.
President GEORGE Q. CANNON:
On the 19th of January, 1841, the Lord gave His servant Joseph Smith
a revelation, the 49th paragraph of which I will read:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to
any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men
go with all their might, and with all they have, to perform that work, and
cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them, and hinder
them from performing that work; behold, it behoveth me to require that
work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their
offerings.
The Lord says other things connected with this, which I do not think
it necessary to read, but the whole revelation is profitable, and can be
read by those who desire to do so.
It is on this basis that President Woodruff has felt himself
justified in issuing this manifesto.
I suppose it would not be justice to this Conference not to say
something upon this subject; and yet everyone knows how delicate a subject
it is, and how difficult it is to approach it without saying something
that may offend somebody. So far as I am concerned, I can say that of the
men in this Church who have endeavored to maintain this principle of
plural marriage, I am one. In public and in private I have avowed my
belief in it. I have [482] defended it everywhere and under all
circumstances, and when it was necessary have said that I considered the
command was binding and imperative upon me.
But a change has taken place. We have, in the first place, endeavored
to show that the law which affected this feature of our religion was
unconstitutional. We believed for years that the law, of July 1, 1862, was
in direct conflict with the first amendment of the Constitution, which
says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We rested upon this,
and for years continued the practice of plural marriage, believing the law
against it to be an unconstitutional one, and that we had the right, under
the Constitution, to carry out this principle practically in our lives. So
confident was I in relation to this view that in conversations with
President Grant, and with his Attorney General, ex-Senator Williams, of
Oregon, I said to them that if my case were not barred by the statute of
limitations I would be willing to have it made a test case, in order that
the law might be tested. We were sustained in this view not only by our
own interpretation of the amendment to the Constitution, but also by some
of the best legal minds in the country, who took exactly the same view
that we did--that this law was an interference with religious rights, and
that so long as our practices did not interfere with the happiness and
peace of society, or of others, we had the right to carry out this
principle. In fact, it is within six or eight months that, in conversation
with two United States Senators, each conversation being separate from the
other, both of them expressed themselves, though not in the same language,
to this effect: "Mr. Cannon, if this feature that you practice had not
been associated with religion, it might have been tolerated; but you have
associated it with religion and it has aroused the religious sentiment of
the nation, and that sentiment cannot be resisted. So far as the practice
itself is concerned, if you had not made it a part of your faith and an
institution sanctioned by religion, it might have gone along unnoticed." I
do not give the exact language; but those are the ideas that they [483]
conveyed to me. Now, we were very confident that this law, was an
unconstitutional one. President Daniel H. Wells will remember how he and I
tried to get a case to test the constitutionality of the law during the
life time of President Brigham Young. We wanted to get Brother Erastus
Snow. It is the last thing that we should have thought of to put a man
like he was in the gap if we had not been firmly convinced that the law,
was unconstitutional and would be declared so by the United States Supreme
Court. We telegraphed to Brother Erastus in the south, thinking that his
case would not be barred by the statute of limitations. He replied to us
concerning it, and we found that it was barred. Brother A. M. Musser
proposed himself, if I remember aright, to be a test case; but there was a
defect in his case. We wanted this case, whenever it was presented, to be
presented fairly, that there should be no evasion about it, but that it
should be a case that could be tested fairly before the courts of the
country. Finally, Brother George Reynolds was selected. I said to myself,
when I learned the result, "It is the last time that I will ever have
anything to do with a test case again which will involve the liberty of
anybody." I was promised when he was sentenced, by one high in authority
and who had the right to make the promise, that he should be released,
when the circumstances were told to him; for they were laid fairly before
him, and he was told that the evidence had been furnished by Brother
Reynolds himself, and that everything had been done to make it a test
case; the government had been aided in the securing of witnesses, and no
difficulty thrown in the way. Afterwards, on the second trial, I believe
Brother Reynolds' lawyers got frightened, and there was something occurred
then that gave it a different appearance. But when the facts were related,
as I stated, to one high in authority, he promised me that George Reynolds
should be pardoned. There were those, however, in this city who were
determined that he should not escape imprisonment, and the prosecuting
attorney wrote a letter which changed the mind of this high official, as
he afterward told me, and he declined to carry out that which I had
received as a [484] promise. But even then there were circumstances
connected with this decision that made us reluctant to accept it.
Since the time the history of proceedings is before you and before
the world. We have felt as though this command of God was of such
importance to us, involving so many serious consequences, that we should
do all in our power to have the world know the position that we occupied.
There may be men among us who believed they would be damned if they did
not obey this, accepting it as a direct command of God. Therefore, you can
understand how tenaciously we have protested, and how, vigorously we have
endeavored, as far as we could, to make public our views upon this
subject.
I suppose there are two classes here today in this congregation--one
class who feel to sorrow to the bottom of their hearts because of the
necessity of this action that we have now taken; another class who will
say: "Did I not tell you so?" "Did I not tell you it would come to this?"
"Did I not say to you that you ought to take advantage of and comply with
this years ago, instead of enduring that which you have suffered since
that time?" There may be men here today who pride themselves in their
foresight, and who take credit to themselves because they foresaw, as they
allege, that which we have done today, and would lead others to believe
that if their counsel had been adopted, if the views that they presented
had been accepted by the people, it might have saved very serious
consequences to us all and left us in a better position than that which we
occupy today. But I, for one, differ entirely with this view. I believe
that it was necessary that we should witness unto God, the Eternal Father,
unto the heavens and unto the earth, that this was really a principle dear
to us--dearer, it might be said, in some respects, than life itself. We
could not have done this had we submitted at the time that those of whom I
speak suggested submission. We could not have left our own nation without
excuse. It might have said, "Had we known all that you tell us now
concerning this, we should have had very different views about this
feature of your religion than we did have." But now, after the [485]
occurrences of the past six years have been witnessed by this entire
nation and by the world, and by God the Eternal Father and the heavenly
hosts, no one can plead as an excuse that they have been ignorant of our
belief and the dearness of this principle to us. Upwards of thirteen
hundred men have been incarcerated in prison, going there for various
terms from one or three months up to years. They have gone there
willingly, as martyrs to this principle, making a protest that the heavens
and the earth should bear record of, that they were conscientious in
espousing that principle, and that it was not for sensual indulgence,
because if sensual indulgence had been the object we could have obtained
it without such sacrifices as were involved in the obedience to this
law--without going to prison, without sustaining wives and children,
without the obliquy that has been heaped upon us because of this action of
ours. If licentious motives had prompted us, we could have secured the
results in a cheaper way and in a way more in consonancy with universal
custom throughout our own land and all Christendom. But the sacrifices
that we have made in this respect bear testimony to the heavens and to the
earth that we have been sincere and conscientious in all that we have
done, and that we have not been prompted by a desire to use women for
lustful purposes, but to save them, to make them honorable, and to leave
no margin of women in our society to become a prey to lust, so that every
woman in our land should have the opportunity of becoming a virtuous wife
and an honored mother, loved and respected by her offspring and by all her
associates.
If no other result has attended what may be termed our obstinacy,
these results are, at least, upon record, and they never can be blotted
out. The imprisonment of these men, the suffereing--the untold, unwritten,
yea, the unmentionable, it may be said, sufferings--of wives and children,
they are recorded in heaven and are known to men upon the earth, and they
form a chapter that will never be blotted out.
Latter-day Saints, there has been nothing lost in the five years that
have just passed. We have lost no credit. [486] There has been no honor
sacrificed. We can look God in the face--that is, if we are permitted to
do so, so far as this is concerned, we can; we can look the holy angels in
the face; without a blush, or without feeling that we have done anything
unworthy of our manhood or of our professions and the faith that God has
given unto us. This all of us can do; and if no other result has followed
what may be called our obstinacy, than these which I now describe, they
are grand enough to pay us for all that we have gone through.
But the time has come when, in the providence of God it seemed
necessary that something should be done to meet the requirements of the
country, to meet the demands that have been appealed to hundreds of times,
I might say;--I can say for myself, that I have been appealed to many
scores of times to get out something and to announce something. Some of
our leading brethren have said: "Inasmuch as we have ceased to give
permission for plural marriages to be solemnized, why cannot we have the
benefit of that? Why cannot we tell the world it, so as to have the
benefit of it? Our enemies are alleging constantly that we still practice
this in secret, and that we are dishonest and guilty of evasion. Now, if
we have really put a stop to granting permissions to men to take more
wives than one, why should not the world know it and we have the advantage
of it?" These remarks have been made to us repeatedly. But at no time has
the Spirit seemed to indicate that this should be done. We have waited for
the Lord to move in the matter; and on the 24th of September, President
Woodruff made up his mind that he would write something, and he had the
spirit of it. He had prayed about it and had besought God repeatedly to
show him what to do. At that time the Spirit came upon him, and the
document that has been read in your hearing was the result. I know that it
was right, much as it has gone against the grain with me in many respects,
because many of you know the contest we have had upon this point. But when
God speaks, and when God makes known His mind and will, I hope that I and
all Latter-day Saints will bow in submission to it. When that document was
prepared it [487] was submitted. But, as is said in this motion that has
been made, President Woodruff is the only man upon the earth who holds the
keys of the seating power. These Apostles all around me have all the same
authority that he has. We are all ordained with the same ordination. We
all have had the same keys and the same powers bestowed upon us. But there
is an order in the Church of God, and that order is that there is only one
man at a time on the earth who holds the keys of sealing, and that man is
the President of the Church, now Wilford Woodruff. Therefore, he signed
that document himself. Some have wondered and said, "Why didn't his
Counselors sign? Why didn't others sign?" Well, I give you the
reason--because he is the only man on the earth that has this right, and
he exercised it, and he did this with the approval of all of us to whom
the matter was submitted, after he had made up his mind, and we sustained
it; for we had made it a subject of prayer also, that God would direct us.
There never was a time in this Church when I believe the leading men
of this Church have endeavored to live nearer to God, because they have
seen the path in which we walked environed with difficulties, beset with
all manner of snares, and we have had the responsibility resting upon us
of your salvation, to a certain extent. God has chosen us, not we
ourselves, to be the shepherds of His flock. We have not sought this
responsibility. You know Wilford Woodruff too well to believe that he
would seek such an office as he now fills. I trust you know the rest of us
sufficiently to believe the same concerning us. I have shrunk from the
Apostleship. I have shrunk from being a member of the First Presidency. I
felt that if I could get my salvation in any other way, I prayed God that
He would give it to me, after He revealed to me that I would be an
Apostle, when I was comparatively a child; and I have had that feeling
ever since. These Apostles, all of them, feel the responsibility which
rests upon them as leaders of the people, God having made us, in His
provicence, your shepherds. We feel that the flock is in our charge, and
if any harm befell this flock through us, we will have to [488] answer for
it in the day of the Lord Jesus; we shall have to stand and render an
account of that which has been entrusted to us; and if we are faithless,
and careless, and do not live so as to have the word of God continually
with us and know His mind and will, then our condemnation will be sure and
certain, and we cannot excape it. But you are our witnesses as to whether
God is with us or not, as well as the Holy Ghost. You have received, and
it is your privilege to receive, the testimony of Jesus Christ as to
whether these men who stand at your head are the servants of God, whom God
has chosen, and through whom God gives instructions to His people. You
know it, because the testimony of the Spirit is with you, and the Spirit
of God burns in your bosoms when you hear the word of God declared by
these servants, and there is a testimony living in your hearts concerning
it.
Now, realizing the full responsibility of this, this action has been
taken. Will it try many of the Saints? Perhaps it will; and perhaps it
will try those who have not obeyed this law as much as any others in the
Church. But all that we can say to you is that which we repeatedly say to
you--go unto God yourselves, if you are tried over this and cannot see its
purpose; go to your secret chambers and ask God and plead with Him, in the
name of Jesus, to give you a testimony as He has given it to us, and I
promise you that you will not come away empty, nor dissatisfied; you will
have a testimony, and light will be poured out upon you, and you will see
things that perhaps you cannot see and understand at the present time.
I pray God to bless all of you, my brethren and sisters; to fill you
with His Holy Spirit; to keep you in the path of exaltation which He has
marked out for us; to be with us on the right hand and on the left in our
future as He has been in the past.
Before I sit down I wish to call attention to one remarkable thing,
and it may be an evidence to you that the devil is not pleased with what
we have done. It is seldom I have seen many lies, and such flagrant,
outrageous lies told about the Latter-day Saints as I have quite
re-[489]cently. I have not time to read the papers, but I have happened to
pick up two or three papers and glanced at them, and the most infernal
(Pardon me for using that expression) lies ever framed are told. It seems
as though the devil is mad every way. "Now," says he, "They are going to
take advantage of this, and I am determined they shall have no benefit of
it; I will fill the earth with lies concerning them, and neutralize this
declaration of President Woodruff's." And you will see in all the papers
everything that can be said to neutralize the effect of this. To me it is
pretty good evidence that the devil is not pleased with what we are doing.
When we kept silence concerning this, then we were a very mean and bad
people, and now that we have broken the silence and made public our
position, why, we are wicked in other directions, and no credence can be
attached to anything that we say. You men know by this that his satanic
majesty is not pleased with our action. I hope he never will be.
President WILFORD WOODRUFF:
I want to say to all Isreal that the step which I have taken in issuing
this manifesto has not been done without earnest prayer before the Lord. I
am about to go into the spirit world, like other men of my age. I expect
to meet the face of my Heavenly Father--the Father of my spirit; I expect
to meet the face of Joseph Smith, of Brigham Young, of John Taylor, and of
the Apostles, and for me to have taken a stand in anything which is not
pleasing in the sight of God, or before the heavens, I would rather have
gone out and been shot. My life is no better than other men's. I am not
ignorant of the feelings that have been engendered through the course I
have pursued. But I have done my duty, and the nation of which we form a
part must be responsible for that which has been done in relation to this
principle.
The Lord has required at our hands many things that we were prevented
from doing. The Lord required us to build a Temple in Jackson County. We
were prevented by violence from doing it. He required us to build a [490]
Temple in Far West, which we have not been able to do. A great many things
have been required of us, and we have not been able to do them, because of
those that surrounded us in the world. This people are in the hands of
God. This work is in the hands of God, and He will take care of it.
Brother George Q. Cannon told us about the lies that are abroad. It is a
time when there have been more lies told about Mormonism than almost any
other subject ever presented to the human family. I often think of what
Lorenzo Dow said with regard to the doctrine of election. Says he: "It is
like this: You can, and you can't: you will, and you won't; you shall, and
you shan't; you'll be damned if you do, and you'll be damned if you
don't." That is about the condition we as Latter day Saints are in. If we
were to undertake to please the world, and that was our object, we might
as well give up the ship; we might have given it up in the beginning. But
the Lord has called us to labor in the vineyard; and when our nation
passes laws, as they have done, in regard to this principle which we have
presented to the Conference, it is not wisdom for us to make war upon
sixty-five millions of people. It is not wisdom for us to go forth and
carry out this principle against the laws of the nation and receive the
consequences. That is in the hands of God, and He will govern and control
it. The Church of Christ is here; the Zion of God is here, in fulfillment
of these revelations of God that are contained in these holy records in
which the whole Christian world profess to believe. The Bible could never
have been fulfilled had it not been for the raising up of a prophet in the
last days. The revelations of St. John would never have been fulfilled if
the angel of God had not flown through the midst of heaven, "having the
everlasting Gospel to preach to them that dwell on the earth, and to every
nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice,
Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come."
Was that angel going to visit New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and the
world, and call the people together and preach to them? Not at all. But
the Lord raised up a Prophet. The angel of God delivered that Gospel to
that Prophet. That Pro-[491]phet organized a Church; and all that He has
promised in this code of revelations (the Book of Doctrine and Covenants)
has been fulfilled as fast as time would admit. That which is not yet
fulfilled will be.
Brethern and sisters, it is our duty to be true to God and to be
faithful. Make your prayers known unto the Lord. The Lord has told us what
He will do concerning many things. He will fulfill His word. Let us be
careful and wise, and let us be satisfied with the dealings of God with
us. If we do our duty to one another, to our country and to the Church of
Christ, we will be justified when we go into the spirit world. It is not
the first time that the world has sought to hinder the fulfillment of
revelation and prophecy. The Jewish nation and other nations rose up and
slew the Son of God and every Apostle but one that bore the Priesthood in
that day and generation. They could not establish the kingdom; the world
was against them. When the Apostles asked Jesus whether He would at that
time restore again the kingdom of Israel, He replied: "It is not for you
to know, the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own
power." He did not say it would be established then; but He taught them to
pray: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." It is a long time
since that prayer was offered, and it has not been fulfilled until the
present generation. The Lord is preparing a people to receive His kingdom
and His Church, and to build up His work. That, brethren and sisters, is
our labor.
I want the prayers of the Latter-day Saints. I thank God that I have
seen with my eyes this day that this people have been ready to vote to
sustain me in an action that I know, in one sense, has pained their
hearts. Brother George Q. Cannon has laid before you our position. The
Lord has given us commandments concerning many things, and we have carried
them out as far as we could; but when we cannot do it, we are justified.
The Lord does not require at our hands things that we cannot do.
This is all I want to say to the Latter-day Saints upon this subject.
But go before the Lord and ask Him for [492] light and truth, and to give
us such blessings as we stand in need of. Let your prayers ascend into the
ears of the God of Sabaoth, and they will be heard and answered upon your
heads, and upon the heads of the world. Our nation is in the hands of God.
He holds their destiny. He holds the destinies of all men. I will say to
the Latter-day Saints, as an Elder in Israel and as an Apostle of the Lord
Jesus Christ, we are approaching some of the most tremendous judgments God
ever poured out upon the world. You watch the signs of the times, the
signs of the coming of the Son of Man. They are beginning to be made
manifest both in heaven and on earth. As has been told you by the
Apostles, Christ will not come until these things come to pass. Jerusalem
has got to be rebuilt. The Temple has got to be built. Judah has got to be
gathered, and the House of Israel. And the gentiles will go forth to
battle against Judah and Jerusalem before the coming of the Son of Man.
These things have been revealed by the prophets; they will have their
fulfilment. We are approaching these things. All that the Latter-day
Saints have to do is to be quiet, careful and wise before the Lord, watch
the signs of the times, and be true and faithful; and when you get through
you will understand many things that you do not today. This work has been
raised up by the power of Almighty God. These Elders of Israel were called
from the various occupations of life to preach as they were moved upon by
the Holy Ghost. They were not learned men; they were the weak things of
this world, whom God chose to confound the wise, "and things which are
not, to bring to nought things that are." We are here on that principle.
Others will be gathered on that principle. Zion will be redeemed, Zion
will arise, and the glory of God will rest upon her, and all that Isaiah
and the other prophets have spoken concerning her will come to pass. We
are in the last dispensation and fulness of time. It is a great day, and
the eyes of all the heavens are over us and the eyes of God Himself and
all the patriarchs and prophets. They are watching over you with feelings
of deep interest, for your welfare; and our prophets who w,ere slain and
sealed their testimony with their blood, [493] are mingling with the Gods,
pleading for their brethren. Therefore, let us be faithful, and leave
events in the hands of God, and He will take care of us if we do our duty.
I pray God that He will bless these Apostles, Prophets and
Patriarchs, these Seventies, High Priests and Elders of Israel, and these
Latter-day Saints, who have entered into covenant with our God. You have a
great future before you. You have kept the commandments of God, so far as
you have had the opportunity, and by receiving the Gospel of Christ and
being faithful your reward is before you. Your history is written and is
before you. I will say that this nation, and all nations, together with
presidents, kings, emperors, judges, and all men, righteous and wicked,
have got to go into the spirit world and stand before the bar of God. They
have got to give an account of the deeds done in the body. Therefore, we
are safe as long as we do our duty. No matter what trials or tribulations
we may be called to pass through, the hand of God will be with us and will
sustain us. I ask my Heavenly Father to pour out His Spirit upon me, as
His servant, that in my advanced age, and during the few days I have to
spend here in the flesh, I may be led by inspiration of the Almighty. I
say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me nor any other man who stands
as the President of this Church, to lead you astray. It is not in the
programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the
Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who
attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and
from their duty. God bless you. Amen. (Conference Report, "Correct Copy,
John Nicholson, Clerk of Conference.")
6 Oct 1890, John M. Whitaker:
The great interest still continued and there was no room for hundreds
of saints who stood outside and after filling the Assembly Hall. Some of
the leading brethren are opposed to what President Woodruff did in
issueing (sic) the Manifesto on the 25th September to the world, and today
during the Conference sessions each of the [494] Leading brethren tried to
bring about harmony, and develop a spirit of willing obedience to what the
First Presidency had done. * * * But there was great sadness and sorrow in
the hearts of many, and outside of the conference afterwards I heard some
say they were not prepared to sustain his action, and that they have great
reasons for not doing so. And so a great crisis has come, and it will mean
that great changes in social, economic and business relations and in
family ties and responsibilities is sure to follow. I feel sorry for some
of the brethren who have so strong convictions, it will be a great trial
to many. And we all pray for wisdom and strength and courage to go forward
with the action of the church and leave consequences in the hands of the
Father of us all... So far as I am concerned, I will follow the majority
of the Authorities of the church in all their actions. I reported all the
addresses at the General Conference of the Church. (John M. Whitaker
Journal)
Tuesday 7 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE ADDRESS IS ENDORSED.
The fiat has gone forth, the ukase issued, and polygamy has been
declared by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a thing of
the past, and no more in the future will women be made prostitutes and
children illegitimates. God has spoken to his children through his servant
Wilford, and that settles it. This is how it happened:
About 5000 Saints assembled in the Tabernacle yesterday morning and
prepared to hear the worst. That something was coming everybody could see
that for the unusually round face of Apostle George Q. was long enough to
eat soup from a churn. Wilford didn't look happy either, for his
countenance also bore a look of despair. Elder Penrose was as solemn as an
owl, while a drop of sorrow from Heber J. Grant's nose trickled down over
his tan-colored razpetaz. * * *
George Q. Cannon stated that the Prophet had, on September 24th,
issued a manifesto concerning certain affairs in the church. He desired to
have it read, and [495] Bishop Whitney's elocutionary powers were again
called in use, and the document sent to the Associated Press at regular
telegraph rates was read.
A large gob of gloom settled down over the people when this was
completed, and there was a long piece of silence exhibited. This was
broken by President Snow, who moved that whereas Wilford Woodruff, the
prophet, seer, revelator and President of the church is the only man who
holds the keys to the sealing ordinance and that he had decided to take
this step; therefore, he moved the Conference accept the document as
authoritative and binding.
But some one in the gallery called for a second reading and it was
had. And then George Q. came forward and put the question. It was the
toughest thing George ever undertook, and his voice trembled as he made
the announcement that the vote was carried.
Tuesday 7 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
WASHINGTON OFFICIAL GRATIFIED.
Noble and Miller Hope the Mormons Are Sincere.
They Prefer to Wait Further Developments.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 7.--Most of the Senators and Congressmen have left
Washington, but the news from the Mormon conference was heard with
profound satisfaction by the officials here who have mainly to deal with
the church in Utah. "This is indeed important news," said General Noble,
Secretary of the Interior, when informed of the action of the general
Mormon conference. "I am glad to hear of it and hope the action of the
Mormons was taken in all sincerity. If the action of the Mormon conference
brings forth proper fruits, naturally it will tend to relax the vigor of
the law. It is polygamy that it is desired to exterminate. I confess the
recent landing of a large number of female immigrants at New York does
not, to my mind, tally very well with this official action of the Mormon
Church, nor does it indicate a reform. However, let us accept it in a
spirit of sincerity and trust that they really propose to conform to the
law of the land. It is much preferable to have them relinquish polygamy
voluntarily than to be compelled to crush it [496] out by the strong arm
of the law.
Attorney-General Miller, upon whom devolves the duty of prosecuting
those charged with polygamous practices, said: "The significance of this
proceeding on the part of the general Mormon council will have to be
developed by circumstances. Whether a set of men, who, in the past, have
been as wise as serpents, are suddenly going to become as harmless as
doves, is a problem which the future alone can solve. Probably they begin
to realize that they cannot resist the power of this Government." (Salt
Lake Tribune, 8 Oct 1890, p. 1)
Wednesday 8 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE PRONUNCIAMENTO.
Outsiders will watch the developments of the next few months with
unusual interest. Of course, Gentiles take the words of WILFORD WOODRUFF
for what they are worth; that what he said on Monday was a revelation, for
what it is worth. Apostle CANNON said that this revelation came on the
24th day of September. Before that day Apostle CANNON told a man that they
must make the surrender, carrying the idea that the tolls were about them
so closely that they could no longer resist. Hence, to the Saints, who are
stupid and who believe what their chiefs tell them, this passes for a
revelation. To all sensible people it is thoroughly understood that
WILFORD WOODRUFF has been so feeble for a long time, so feeble and so
flighty, that his condition has been the solicitude of his friends, and he
has been perpetually watched. And so, while Apostle CANNON on Monday
affected to look upon this movement as a mighty disappointment, no one but
the credulous believe that he himself did not bring it about. That is, to
speak plain English, if it had not been for the pending legislation in
Congress and the condition of the escheat cases, the LORD would not have
made this revelation. That is not all. Despite the denials, there have
been many polygamous marriages entered into during the last twelve months
in this Territory, and some of these include the educated and, so to
speak, the high-born of the Church; while among the lower grades the
marriages [497] have been more frequent. So when WILFORD WOODRUFF says
there have been no such marriages he is mistaken. When his announcement
first came out, another servant girl, having her attention called to it,
simply said: "President WOODRUFF doesn't know. I know two young women who
have gone into polygamy within the last few months." And it has not been
confined to servant girls, as we said above. Some of the so-called elect,
how many nobody but themselves know, have been engaged in the same
business. Whether this will be continued through some sleight of hand or
not, only time will determine; but we are bound to say that it is the duty
of Gentiles to accept this announcement of the Mormon chiefs to have been
made in good faith, until the contrary shall have been established. But
the question which most interests Gentiles is to know whether within the
Mormon organization itself there was any pressure to bring around this
change of front. If there is a large faction in the church who have
insisted upon it, then the prospect ahead is much more hopeful than it
would be without it. Whether such a faction exists of course cannot be
ascertained except by the actions of the people. We think the sentiment of
the Gentiles generally is a sincere hope that this business is sincere,
and that the halting way in which it was pronounced was only the means
adoped (sic) to let the authorities of the Church down easy after all the
violent protestations they have made in the past. Of course no one but the
veriest dupes believe at all in the revelation business. We have seen
enough of the Mormon Church and its ways to understand that it is simply a
shrewd business machine, gotten up in the first place for political and
business agrandizement, and when the chiefs announce a revelation, unless
they are old and decrepit, like old man WOODRUFF, it simply means that
their business sense has decided that a certain thing is to be done, or is
not to be done.
But no matter what motives prompted, whether it was cupidity; whether
it was a desire to regain lost political power, or what it may have been,
it is a step which, under any condition, no matter how things may develope
in the future, cannot be successfully retracted on United [498] States
soil. The sentiment of the Nation is to accept this pronunciamento as
sincere, and we predict that it will never be publicly recalled. It is
possible, if by political manipulation the Saints could eventually obtain
control of this Territory, and in the meantime having it surrounded by
State lines, it is quite possible, we say, that then in secret the
practice might be renewed. It is quite possible that the practice will
secretly be kept up even now. But, nevertheless, the backbone of polygamy
in the United States has been broken forever.
In this connection it may be worth while to note what Apostle CANNON
said regarding the motives which impelled men to enter into polygamy;
"that there was nothing sensual in their thoughts; that if it was sensual
desire that prompted them it was not necessary for them to take upon
themselves the responsibility of a family," they could do as the Gentiles
do. It might be just as well to state the fact about that, which is, that
when a man decides in the Mormon Church to take a second wife, while it is
possible that the thoughts of the woman are all pure and that she thinks
she is serving God, the underlying motive in the man is altogether base,
no matter how loudly he may shout his religion. He becomes, in fact, a
male prostitute, and we beg to say to Mr. CANNON, and all men who assume
his position, that human nature is simply what it is educated to be; and,
hence, when a man is taught animalism from the cradle up; when he is
taught that through animalism he is to attain the highest glories of the
world to come, he does not happen to be constituted in a way to make him a
safe judge of his own motives. No sensible person in the world believes,
no matter how firmly and vehemently it may be asserted, that any Mormon on
earth ever brought the sorrow upon his legal wife which comes when he
takes another woman as a wife for purely his religion's sake. The history
of the houses of prosti