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 prostitution in this city, as told by the inmates, is a direct disproof of Mr. CANNON'S words; and, hence, his gratuitous insult to Gentiles generally, though it may have been a sort of satisfaction for him to give it, was altogether uncalled for. Except in a few particular cases the assertion of Mormons that, except [499] for their religion's sake, they would not take upon themselves the extra expense of supporting more than one family is directly disproved by the fact that the great majority of them live more upon the earnings of the women than the women upon their earnings. We say these things not for any purpose in the world except to make clear how debased and debasing has been polygamy and its workings in this Territory, and we have hopes that the more sensible among the Mormon people themselves have recoiled more and more against its infamies, until they have forced a sentiment which even the chief priests could no longer resist, and compelled this thing which we were told on Monday was a revelation. If that be a fact, then indeed we all have a right to rejoice, for it is a certain sign that the beginning of the end of the shame and sin has come, and that while those involved may still continue their old practices, while a few others may enter into the relation, the system itself is dead, and that what may be hereafter will be but the lees in the cup, the full draft of which was altogether infamous. If, in fact, it is true that the pronunciamento was forced upon the chiefs as much by the best senment (sic) of the lay members as by the necessities of the case, then it opens a vista of wonderful prosperity and peace to Utah. At the same time, polygamy has been, as we have always said, the lesser evil, the lesser crime of Mormonism. If the intention is to hold these people still in subjection; if the intention is for the chief priests still to be the custodians of the consciences of the people; if the intention is to vote them like cattle, as they have in the past, then their troubles have only just begun after all. They may prosper; they may defeat any further legislation; they may cause Gentiles to divide into political parties; they may at first champion one party and give it the power and give it the offices; but if the purpose behind all is eventually, after perhaps Statehood shall be won for Utah, to assume control and to vote their masses as they please, then there is many a Mormon child in its cradle in Utah which one of these days will be carried home in its coffin; for that kind of work carried out in its [500] offensiveness in this Republic will invariably and every time lead to just what happened in Missouri; to just what happened in Illinois. In the last conference, prior to this, President WOODRUFF declared that the blood of JOSEPH and HYRUM had not yet been avenged, and must be avenged; and if that dream is being nursed; if the purpose is to keep this people welded, and to keep them machines to be started and stopped as the chief priests may move the lever, until they can finally say the blood of JOSEPH and HYRUM has been avenged, then we tell them that before it is over the blood of Mountain Meadows will also be avenged, and the blood spilled in all the infamous crimes which, in the name of the LORD, have been committed in this Territory against man and against woman. If there ever was a time when it became the strong men in Mormonism to assert themselves, and when it became the duty of young Utah to assert itself, it is right now. And if any sentiment within the Church caused this so-called revelation which was proclaimed on Monday, the people who manufactured that sentiment have only begun the work. They must go on until the political rights of the people are segregated forever from the rule of the creed. And if they do not, while it is possible for them to, go on and advance and regain a great deal of ground which they have lost, the end will be more filled with sorrow than anything they ever before saw. Because, as was said in the Tabernacle, it is useless for this band of people to contend against sixty millions; and until they give up that political control; until they cease that claim to a divine right to rule the political opinions of this people, the Church will be a menace to the United States, and will be a perpetual menace to the lives and the peace of its own people. (Salt Lake Tribune, P. 4) Thursday 9 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Herald: THE TRIBUNE ON VISIONS. The Tribune is in a grotesque and dreary muddle about the manifesto. It has been declaring for days that the official declaration of President WOODRUFF was simply the opinion of one man, albeit that man was the head of [501] the church, and therefore had no particular significance. It declared that unless the assembled people of the church should formally ratify that declaration, it would take no stock in it. To its infinite chagrin and rage, the assembled people did that very thing, and now it is at a loss what to say next. It declared first that inasmuch as the manifesto was not given by the president as a revelation to the church, it was of no avail and the people would not be guided by it. But the people did accept it, and the disappointed plotter is biting his fingers in vexation thereat. However, the disgruntled sheet must do something, and it now says that the scenes of Nauvoo will have to be repeated against the Mormons, because, forsooth, it is pleased to allege that the Mormons have given their consciences to the priests. The proof of this final crime of which the Mormons are said to be guilty is that they do not vote Liberals into office--do not vote for men who are trying to disfranchise them! Then the sheet pretends the declaration is a revelation, and proceeds to jest about it on that ground; though it declared two days ago that the declaration was not a revelation; and although no one to-day has heard any one except the lying sheet say it was a revelation. Then it proceeds to discourse on dreams and visions, led by President WOODRUFF'S remeniscence that he had seen JOSEPH SMITH in a vision. By mixing in with the declaration this account of a vision, the sheet manages to insinuate that the manifesto was a revelation, and thence proceeds to ridicule the Mormons for believing in revelation, the final conclusion being that the Mormons ought to be driven from Utah. It is simply the summit of impudence for this Bashibazouk sheet to discuss religious questions. It cannot conceive of such themes; but after such maudlin treatment of a religious theme to conclude, from it, that the Mormons should be driven out because they do not vote the Liberal ticket, is a little too much. We do not pretend to any particular skill in theology, nor do we care to attempt to unravel any of the arcana of religion. We are more especially concerned with [502] people's daily life than with their faith, with their acts rather than their thoughts. Accordingly, we leave each man to decide for himself his obligations to his Creator, and prefer to meddle not at all with his conclusions in this respect, whatever they may be. Least of all, however, would we seek to convey the idea that there are no such obligations. Nevertheless, though theology is not strictly within our field of discussion, we may notice an idea thrown out by a sheet whose chief occupation consists in clumsy, indirect tirades against religion in general by its railing at Mormonism in particular. The Tribune affects to ridicule the idea that President WOODRUFF could have a vision. In the next column it gravely credits that SAUL had one. It remarks that President WOODRUFF is an honest man and is honest in believing he saw a vision of JOSEPH SMITH. Having read the history of St. PAUL it must admit that there is no greater inherent reason why the latter should be favored with a vision than the former. Indeed, on the supposition that visions can be had at all, we know of nothing in the physical constitution of nature, or in the probable dealings of the Almighty with his children, that renders a vision credible that was seen eighteen hundred years ago, and denies credibility to one seen to-day. If visions are in themselves incredible, they were as much so eighteen hundred years ago as they are to-day. Really, the sheet cares nothing for whether the Mormons believe in dreams and visions. Its only care is to keep up the war on the Mormons, that its editor may be the Utah Delegate to Congress, and its friends fill all the offices in Utah. (Salt Lake Herald, p. 4) 9 Oct 1890, Governor Thomas: THE RESULTS OF THE ACTION. By the Hon. Arthur L. Thomas, (Governor of Utah Territory). By Telegraph to the Independent. When Wilford Woodruff, as president of the Mormon Church, issued his manifesto on the 24th of September to the effect that, inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress which have been affirmed to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, it was his intention to obey the [503] laws, and advised the Latter-Day Saints to refrain from contracting polygamous marriages in the future, it was generally believed by the Gentiles that the manifesto was not issued in good faith. The fact that the manifesto only advised against future polygamous marriages, and was silent on the subject of unlawful cohabitation by Mormons now in polygamy, excited suspicion. The further fact that in a general assembly of the Mormons, held October 2d, 1885, they declared celestial or plural marriage to be a vital part of their religion, the decision of the courts to the contrary notwithstanding, which declaration has never been modified, also excited suspicion. The Gentiles, assuming that the Mormons were sincere, knew that nothing less than a new revelation could change their belief. The manifesto of the president of the Church has now been confirmed by the conference. Interpreting it by the address made before and after its adoption, as published in their organ, it comes with the force of a new revelation, and hence supplies the conditions required. And whatever doubts may have existed as to the purpose and effect of the manifesto as first sent out, they now seem to be removed. The Gentiles rejoice that the contest begun so many years ago against polygamy has finally triumphed; for they believe that never again will polygamy flourish on American soil; that it is, practically speaking, finally repressed. If the action taken by the Mormons was not taken in good faith, still the result, so far as polygamy is concerned, is the same, it has been buried, never to be resurrected. It came into the Mormon Church through Joseph Smith; it goes out in response to the demand made by the heart and conscience of mankind. This is the most important event that has occurred in the Mormon Church in years, and, it is believed, it will result in greatly advancing the material interests and prosperity of the Territory. The country is to be congratulated on the triumph of the Christian home in Utah. [504] Now that one of the political objections to Mormonism is removed, the Gentiles hope that the people will be wise enough to correct other evils which exist, the result of their peculiar methods, and place the Territory in complete harmony with other States and Territories. When they do this the Utah problem will be a thing of the past. The Gentiles under the inspiration of their victory over polygamy are firmly united and will work until complete victory is achieved. It would not do for the Federal Government to withdraw its supervision over Utah affairs until all danger is past. A firm, decided policy will do much to reach the solution hoped for. SALT LAKE CITY, Oct 9, 1890. (Salt Lake Tribune, 20 Oct, 1890, p. 8) Thursday 9 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune: THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT. Can the Action of the Mormon Leaders Be Accepted as Sincere? Editor of The Tribune: --What is the real significance of the action of the Mormon conference last Monday, in ratifying by formal vote the manifesto of President Woodruff against polygamy, thereby putting the Mormon Church on record as forbidding polygamy hereafter? Can this action of the Mormon leaders be accepted as sincere? And is there good ground for believing that the practice of polygamy will be abandoned from this time forward by these leaders and their followers? These are two questions of great importance just now, for they have close relation to the political future of this Territory, and hence deserve careful consideration by every good citizen. Some are disposed to answer both of these questions in the affirmative. They are disposed to believe that the Mormon leaders are sincere in their action forbidding polygamy, and that this action will be carried out, in good faith, by all who have defended and practiced polygamy heretofore. While it might well be hoped that this view is correct, there are two or three tremendous [505] obstacles in the way of accepting such a view, two or three obstacles in the way of giving any credit whatever to the sincerity of the leaders in prohibiting polygamy, and in the way of supposing that this prohibition will be observed by those who have continued to defend and practice polygamy up to the present date. The entire course of the Mormon leaders in regard to polygamy, from the alleged revelation to Joseph Smith, in July, 1843, in favor of polygamy, down to the present hour, is a tremendous obstacle in the way of giving them any credit whatever for sincerity now. Why? Simply because their entire course in regard to polygamy for nearly fifty years has been marked by the most persistent and stupendous lying and deception that men can be guilty of. Just look a moment at these undeniable historic facts: In the first place, for more than seven years after Joseph Smith received his pretended revelation, in 1843, establishing polygamy as a doctrine and duty of the Church, the Mormon leaders persistently and solemnly denied that they held any such doctrine, or favored any such practice. This was a most shameless lie, for at the very time these officials were making their denial and trying to deceive and swindle the public in regard to polygamy, they had from two to ten wives each. The highest officials in the Church were guilty of this horrible lying and deception. In February, 1844, months after the pretended revelation in favor of polygamy, had been received, Joseph Smith himself, the alleged "prophet, seer and revelator" of the Church, declared over his own name, in one of the official publications of the Church, that Elder Hiram Brown had "been cut off from the Church for his iniquity," because he had been "preaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines." Although Joseph Smith denounced polygamy as a "false and corrupt" doctrine, yet his own associates and followers tell us that he had in his possession then a "revelation" from God establishing polygamy as a doctrine and duty of the Church, under penalty of everlasting "damnation" as the part of all who refused to accept it, and that this revela-[506]tion had been in his possession since the preceding July. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence, which cannot be impeached, that at the very time Joseph Smith was denouncing polygamy as a "false and corrupt" doctrine, both himself and many of his official associates were practicing the filthy system and had been for many years. (The simple fact is that the pretended "revelation" was simply a shrewd trick on the part of the prophet to put a religious cloak over his iniquity along that line.) Then, as late as 1850, John Taylor, one of the holy (?) apostles of the church, in a public discussion in France, (see "Three Nights Public Discussion" between C.W. Cleeve et al and John Taylor, Liverpool, 1850) positively denied polygamy to be one of the doctrines or practices of the Church, though there is abundant evidence to show that he had as many as ten wives at that very time. These are only specimens of the wicked lying and deception constantly and deliberately practiced by the highest officials in the Mormon Church about polygamy, long years after they had accepted and inculcated it as a "revelation from God." No longer ago than 1874 George Q. Cannon declared before a committee of Congress, in his election contest with General Maxwell: "In response to the tenth allegation I deny that I am living and cohabiting with any wives in defiant or willful violation of the law of Congress of 1862, entitled `An Act to Prohibit Polygamy in the United States.'" Yet it was perfectly notorious all through this community that Mr. Cannon had several wives at that time. This outrageous lying and deception about polygamy on the part of the church officials has been faithfully copied by those members of the church who were determined to practice it. Instead of honestly admitting in court that they practiced polygamy as one of the doctrines of the church, nearly all that have been arrested on this charge have lied about it in the most shameless way, from the Rudger Clawson case down to the latest trial, fathers and brothers and sisters and friends all lying for each other in open court in the most shocking manner--as though lying and deception were necessary conditions of [507] membership in the Mormon Church. Now, since prophets and apostles and the friends of polygamy have persistently lied and deceived about the matter since 1843, what assurance have we that they are not lying and deceiving now, when they tell us they have abandoned polygamy, especially when we know that one of the main objects of this new departure is to retain political power, by heading off the severe legislation now pending in Congress? Surely the wholesale crookedness and swindling and falsehood of the Mormon leaders for nearly fifty years concerning polygamy, form a mightly barrier against giving them credit for sincerity in their action last Monday in prohibiting polygamy. But this is not the only obstacle. For about fifty years the Mormon officials have left nothing undone to make us believe that polygamy was revealed to the Church from God, as a doctrine and a duty. Whenever they have been asked to set it aside, they have replied, in substance, that it was a revelation from God. Only five years last May a committee of twenty-two official representatives of the Church, appointed by the General Conference at Logan the month before, to draw up a "Protest and Declaration of Grievances" to present to the President and people of the United States, unanimously adopted the following statements among others, which were ratified on May 2, 1885, by mass meetings of the Church in the various counties of the Territory: "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 decisions of courts to the contrary notwithstanding. Even the Utah Commission concede this." Now when only five years have passed away, and many of these same officials join with other officials in suspending by formal vote, as they did Monday, an alleged solemn revelation from God, which they tell us is "a vital part" of their religion, with no more hesitancy than the members of a boys' debating club would join in suspending a trivial by-law, what ground is left on which to [508] build the smallest confidence in the honesty of these Mormon officials, especially when it is very clear that the main object in suspending this "revelation" from God is to gain political advantage? How can the young men and women in the Mormon ranks still remain under the government of Church officials who for the sake of political advantage thus play fast and loose with Divine revelation, and are guilty of such wholesale deception, treachery and lying as the past history of the Church, above referred to, clearly show's them to have been guilty of? And how can honest men respect those who still remain connected with such a swindling organization? Imagine the representatives of the Christian religion coming together, and by formal vote, suspending any of the accepted revelations of Christ contained in the four Gospels, either because they are unpopular, or because they stand in the way of receiving political power and political offices! Another obstacle in the way of believing that the practice of polygamy is likely to be generally abandoned is found in the character of the men, with few, exceptions, who have defended and practiced it from the beginning. As a rule, in spite of all denials, they belong to a class who "wear a No. 20 collar and a No. 6 hat." There is every variety of proof to show that, with rare exceptions, the men who have continued to practice polygamy have simply made it a religious cloak under which to lead a life they would not feel quite free to live without such a balm to their consciences. Such men have neither observed the laws of Congress heretofore, nor are they likely to now, except under the vigilance of the Deputy Marshals. Still, whatever the motives of the leaders, the action of the conference on Monday will bring the long desired freedom to those who have been anxiously waiting to be set free from the awful curse and bondage of polygamy. Very clearly has THE TRIBUNE shown that this horrible bondage can never be imposed again upon the unwilling. Let us rejoice in the freedom of all such, and give them our right hand to help them forward to good citizenship, [509] through independence of that more mischievous curse and bondage and menace to civil freedom, namely, the tyrannical and unwarranted assumption of the Divine right of priestly authority in civil affairs. And let us never lay down our warfare as Americans until that other "twin relic" of Utah bondage, namely, priestly government in civil affairs shall be divine, with polygamy, beyond her borders, and beyond the borders of America. Most heartily do I join with others in giving THE TRIBUNE its full meed of praise for the grand way in which it has helped to lead the American column through the long fight to the splendid victory already attained in behalf of the Americanization of this Territory. R.G. McNIECE. SALT LAKE CITY, Oct. 9, 1890. (Salt Lake Tribune, 11 Oct 1890) Friday 10 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune: WAS IT A REVELATION? The Herald yesterday declared that no one except THE TRIBUNE had ever heard any one say that the declaration which was endorsed by the Mormon Church on Monday last was a revelation. If it was not a revelation of course it has no binding effect upon the Mormon people. We mean that if the Saints do not understand it as a revelation, but simply as the words of a weak old man, then it will not count as against the former declaration which all Saints have been taught to understand was a revelation. When it was delivered in the Tabernacle on Monday, GEORGE Q. CANNON in substance said: "I and Brother WOODRUFF have been appealed to many times to do something; why not tell the world that we do not practice polygamy; our enemies say that we practice it in secret, and why not publish a denial? We have waited for the Lord to move. On September 24th the spirit came upon President WOODRUFF. I know this proclamation is right, much as it goes against the grain, but when GOD speaks I obey. WILFORD WOODRUFF is the only man on earth who has the sealing power, for only one man at a time can be its possessor." Further on, President WOODRUFF said: "This step was not [510] taken without a long season of prayer. I have consulted GOD about it and know it is right. I am too old to do anything wrong." Now, if this comes from the Lord as CANNON says; if He sent the spirit upon President WOODRUFF on the 24th of September; if God spoke at that time, did not that make this command a revelation from a Mormon standpoint? If it did not then the whole thing is a swindle. Of course it has been full of kinks all the way through. It is plain enough that the dispatch was sent out because the Struble bill was pending and there was danger in the last days of Congress that it might be picked up and made a law. Then Mr. CANNON was cunning enough to notify the people, even while endorsing the proclamation, that it was because WILFORD WOODRUFF is the only man on earth that holds the sealing power, that for that reason the counselors did not sign. He kept his name from that declaration. This raises the suspicion in many minds that he was thinking that if in the Providence of GOD after a while WILFORD WOODRUFF goes to his fathers, possibly he may attain to the Presidency. Then, in the meantime, if Statehood shall be secured for this Territory, he may notify this people that while this command was given when the church was under great stress, and while he obeyed it in the spirit of a good Mormon, he had never esteemed it a revelation, and that the time of the suspension of the original order had ceased. The whole business is a little crooked. We are not very familiar with the customs of the Mormon Church, but our impression has been that whenever the head of the church assumed to have a revelation before it has always been endorsed by the first counselors. The statement of the Herald that this is no revelation adds to the doubt of the sincerity of the whole business, and raises the suspicion that, possibly, after all it was but a trick played by Mr. CANNON on a poor old man to help the church tide over a serious difficulty. But really it is no matter about that. Neither within nor without State lines will the Mormons ever again in these United States openly profess that polygamy is a tenet of their faith which must be obeyed. In delivering the pronunciamento to the people the Presi-[511]dent of the Church said that it came from the Lord, and, in congratulating himself that the people had sustained it, he declared it was useless to fight 60,000,000 of people, and threw, the responsibility of the whole business upon the American people, and declared that the Lord would hold the Nation responsible for taking away the rights of the Mormon people on account of their religion. All that is an indication that it was only under great pressure that this arrangement was brought, and that WOODRUFF and the rest are still nursing their dreams of vengeance; but they never can openly restore polygamy, no matter how much they may desire to, because there is not only 60,000,000 of people opposed to it, but the lights that the last days of the nineteenth century are flashing into the kingdom itself will make it impossible to bring the people back to it. True, they swallow things when ordered with a great deal of alacrity. Two or three years ago a prominent president of a stake was asked in this city, in case this order should come what he would do, and he boldly announced that such an order would not last a moment, that the Lord would sweep from the earth those who issued it. The order has come; the Lord has done no sweeping, and this president of a stake accepts it, at least he dare not protest against it. That little incident shows that things are moving, and that within the Church itself, while it is a slavish institution, while it obeys orders, it still has a little public sentiment, and that sentiment will not permit the open return to polygamy. In point of fact, Young Utah is ashamed of the polygamous practice--the brutal practices--which were introduced here by BRIGHAM YOUNG, and which have been carried out by the Mormon people for forty years. We know little of what transpires in the back settlements of Utah, but every few days there is an account of some atrocity which it is horrible to contemplate, and Young Utah is growing tired of these things. They are ashamed; they begin to realize the position that polygamous wives and children are in, and they will not have it any more; and while as before they will obey, there will be something which will prevent any President of this Church ever again giving an open order for the [512] carrying on of this infamous practice. * * * (Salt Lake Tribune, p. 4) Saturday 11 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune: LET US STICK TO THE TRUTH. The Saints have majority enough to be safely able to tell the truth in this campaign. The Herald yesterday filed its indictment against the editor of this paper. The burden of it was: First, that he would, if he could, disfranchise all Mormons. That is a true count. That, in our judgment, would be the right thing. It says: "He advocated disfranchisement of those members of the Mormon Church in Utah who had broken no law in the past; who had taken an oath that they would not violate the law in the future, nor to aid, abet or advise anyone else to violate the law." That is all true, and the reason we gave is as good to-day as it was then. There is no good Mormon who has not given his full fealty to another government rather than the Government of the United States; and while he clings to that fealty; while he believes the president of the Church, in political affairs, is his king, and has a right to rule his conscience and his vote, he is not fit to vote in a Republic, not fit to hold office, not fit to help administer the laws. It is simply a question of fealty. It remains as strong to-day as it did at the time quoted by the Herald. Admitting that the statement made by President WOODRUFF to the Church on Monday last was all true; admitting, for argument's sake, that it was a revelation; that it bound the Church on the question of polygamy; it did not change the status of a single Mormon so far as his allegiance is concerned. It did not reverse in the least the ruling that Judge ANDERSON made, an ample evidence, that every Mormon is bound to his kingdom, and therefore cannot be, in any legitimate sense, a citizen of the United States, even though he be born on this soil. The rule that governs the Mormon people was laid down by JOSEPH SMITH in these words: As the "world is governed too much," and as there is not a nation or dynasty now occupying the earth which [513] acknowledges Almighty God as their law-giver, and as crowns won by blood, by blood must be maintained," I go emphatically for a theo-democracy, where God and the people hold the power to conduct the affairs of men. This was amplified upon by ORSON PRATT in these words: The kingdom of God is an order of government established by divine authority. It is the only legal government that can exist in any part of the universe. All other governments are illegal and unauthorized. God having made all beings and all worlds, has the supreme right to govern them by His own laws, and by officers of His own appointment. Any people attempting to govern themselves by laws of their own making and by officers of their own appointment, are in direct rebellion against the kingdom of God. In the same strain, to show the status of the Mormon people toward their chief priests, we copy the following from the lips of S.W. RICHARDS: If you will be like your Master never seek to do your own will, but the will of him who is greater. The priesthood of God recognizes no other principle of government, because it is perfect, and perfect obedience is required of every subject. And when a man assumes the right to differ from his ruler, he assumes the right to betray the government of God. On the same theme Elder J.W. CUMMINGS said: "When a man is appointed to the priesthood the Saints are called upon to sanction that appointment, and everyone has a perfect right to vote for or against it; but if they should all vote against it, it would not invalidate the legality of that appointment. As Elder Spencer observed in the Council last night: `A man is at liberty to vote himself to hell if he choses.'" [514] And, again, a year later, S.W. RICHARDS said: "Thanks be to God, He has called upon His Saints to gather to a place where they will not only be known as a Church, but be recognized as a distinct people, possessing all the rights of a kingdom among the nations of the earth. It is not consistent that the people of God should always be subject to man-made governments. If it were so they never could be perfect." The same man said two years later: "The spirit of revelation is the nominating power. This is the reason why Brigham Young governs by influence; and no matter how many legal Governors are appointed over Utah, his influence will circumscribe them all, and rule in the hearts of the people. The same man two years later said: "There is not a thoroughly faithful Mormon in Utah who is not subject and responsible, religiously, morally, socially, domestically, financially, and in all other conceivable respects to the government and authority of the Church. These facts will, by contrast, show the value of that government which can blend the faith, morals, hopes, interests, and destiny of an entire nation--which can wield the whole body and its resources--which, at the lifting of a finger of one man, will move a kingdom, to the astonishment and terror of the world. In the same line BRIGHAM YOUNG said: Let them send who they will it does not diminish my influence one particle. As I said the first time I spoke upon this stand, my Governorship, and every other ship under my control, are aided and derive direct advantage from my position in the priesthood. That was the doctrine that was openly taught to the Mormon people up to the time of the passage of the Ed-[515]munds law. That is the doctrine which was sworn to before Judge ANDERSON last November as the doctrine that controls the conscience of every Mormon, which makes it impossible for a man to be a Mormon unless he accepts it. We say such a people, so enthralled, have no right to lay their hands on the American ballot, or to take part in the government of the Republic. (Salt Lake Tribune, p. 4) Sunday 12 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune: AN EMPTY PLATITUDE. How little our Mormon friends know of politics is shown by the first paragraph of their Caine platform: "The Constitution is a divinely-inspired instrument, designed to protect the life and liberty of the people," etc. The Constitution was no more divinely inspired than Hamlet, or the Novom Organum, or the laws of the Medes and Persians, or Magna Charter, or the Habeas Corpus Act. No more thoroughly worldly-wise set of men ever assembled to perform a great legislative or constituting act than those who framed the Constitution. It is no better instrument for the purpose than the Swiss Constitution, or the British Constitution, or that of the league of Grecian States. The Constitution was full of faction and jealousy and fight. A large percentage of the members abandoned the task and went home before it was completed. It was only completed by three important compromises, in one of which lurked the seeds of a war which cost the country 300,000 lives and $10,000,000,000 Where the sanction of the African slave trade for twenty or thirty years, or the permission to return the fugitive slave to the man who claimed to own him, or the provision that the slaves should be regarded as absolute property in matters pertaining to their alleged owners--were those "divinely-inspired" provisions? Or were they inspired by the worst of human passions--greed and brutality? Ten amendments were added to the original instrument before it could be adopted by the States. We are not saying that the creation of the instrument as a whole was not a wise and great act; or that those who did it failed to do the best that [516] perhaps could be done under the circumstances. But it was no more "divinely inspired" than a National convention, or the sessions of Congress or of Parliament. Neither was it designed to protect anyone's life and liberty. These were already secure amongst the people who framed the Constitution, and they had been secure at least since the English Revolution which began under CHARLES the First and ended with the expulsion of JAMES the Second. The people were as thoroughly guarded by the law in their personal, civil and political rights, before the Constitution was framed as they are now. The Constitution was framed and adopted to secure a more perfect union of the thirteen independent and jarring colonies than had been experienced during the revolutionary period, to make, in fact, a Nation of these discordant States. By it the Federal Government was created and its powers defined. What there is in it about the rights to life and liberty was put in to bar the new power from trampling upon rights to life and liberty already existent. The Constitution gives no person any rights or defences except as against the power it created. For a thousand years the English race and English law has more or less clearly recognized and guarded by law, institutions and custom, the natural rights of men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to be unrestricted and unharmed in person, to acquire and hold property, to have a good reputation, to freely think and speak and publish, to make and unmake laws and rulers--these, and all other rights of the citizen are not derived from the Constitution. They are inherent in the man. It has been the hard task of the citizen in past ages to compel unscrupulous power to keep hands off these natural rights of man. The English race, of which we are a branch, has on the whole, been successful in maintaining personal rights and guarding them by law. The Constitution was framed by men already in the possession and enjoyment of these rights. And they simply agreed among themselves and for their respective States, that neither the new power they created nor the States themselves should ever trespass upon these right. (Salt Lake Tribune, p. 4) [517] Monday 13 Oct 1890, Salt Lake Tribune: MORMON NATURALIZATION. Already the Mormon renunciation of polygamy and profession of belief in allegiance to "kings, presidents and magistrates" or persons known as the titular heads of governments under protection of which Mormons may reside has borne fruit. By strict construction of the Edmunds law an alien Mormon could not be admitted to naturalization; several applications for naturalization have been rejected by the courts of the Territory. But Chief Justice Zane has decided to admit an alien Mormon to naturalization since the proclamation of President Woodruff and the resolution of the general conference of the Mormon Church have been accepted as binding upon all Mormons. It is all but certain that very many Mormons of alien descent henceforth will present themselves as candidates for citizenship. Will they vote as Americans or as Mormons? Chief Justice Zane seems to believe that they will vote as Americans. After reviewing the proclamation of the President of the Mormon Church and the resolution of its general conference, the Chief Justice says: My confidence in human nature and charity for my fellow men leads me to accept such a solemn declaration, and the expression of such a good purpose, as being honest and sincere. Hereafter I will not make the simple fact that an applicant is a member of the Mormon Church a bar to his naturalization. (Salt Lake Tribune, p. 8) 1 Dec 1890, Abraham H. Cannon: * * * Pres. Harrison's message to Congress today expresses pleasure at the increase of the Gentiles in Utah, and at Pres. Woodruff's manifesto. He says, however, that the doctrine of polygamy is not abolished by this announcement, and while not wishing to see legislation against a mere belief he suggests that the Mormons be given no power whereby they may make this practice lawful. (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon) [518] Wednesday 3 Dec 1890: In the Second District Court, at Beaver, Judge Thomas J. Anderson re-affirmed his former ruling, that alien "Mormons" were not entitled to American citizenship, he having no faith in the Manifesto. For a report of the full text of his decision, see the Deseret Evening News of Thursday 4 Dec 1890. Monday 22 Dec 1890: The U. S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in William E. Bassett's case reversing the decision of the Utah courts, and declaring it illegal for a lawful wife to testify against her husband. For a full report of the text of the decision, see the Deseret Evening News under date of 31 Dec 1890. 1891: The People's Party in Utah was dissolved, and most of its members united with the two great national parties, Democrats and Republicans. Under the Liberal rule, Salt Lake City became a regular rendezvous for foot pads, burglars and thieves. Immorality, wickedness and lawlessness had full sway; taxation was made oppressive and unjust. 19 Jan 1891: The U. S. Supreme Court rendered a decision, that polygamous children born within one year after the passage of the Edmunds law were legitimate and entitled to inherit after their fathers, thus reversing the findings of the Supreme Court of Utah. 13 Feb 1891: The former residence of Geo. Q. Cannon on South Temple Street, and other valuable property in Salt Lake City, were seized by the U.S. Marshal, under the pretence that it was escheated Church property. 25 May 1891: The U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision, that the escheated Church property should still remain in the [519] hands of the Receiver, and the Utah Supreme Court should take further action in the case. 1 Jul 1891: The Utah Supreme Court appointed Judge Charles F. Loofbourow to take testimony in the Church suits as a Master of Chancery. 25 Sep 1891, Report of The Utah Commission: * * * As the time approached for holding the general Territorial election in August, 1891, a new condition of political affairs confronted the people of Utah. The People's party was officially declared disbanded by its Territorial committee and it was announced that for the future an alliance would be sought with the two great national parties. This departure from established methods was hailed by some as the end that had long been looked for, while others looked upon it as a ruse through which the leaders of the Mormon Church were seeking Statehood, well knowing that their large majority would control the State thus formed. * * * This Commission hopes that it is the beginning of a better era. It cares not what the motive underlying the movement may be if its results be for the enfranchisement of this people and the substitution of better ideas and methods for those which have prevailed in the past. It will do no harm to Utah or to the nation to wait a while and see what this sudden conversion--as sudden as that of Saul of Tarsus--will bring about. POLYGAMY. Since the last report of the Commission there has been an important change in the attitude of the Mormon Church toward this important subject. Soon after that report was forwarded, on the 24th of December, (sic) 1890, there was given to the public through the columns of the newspapers the following remarkable manifesto: (See under date of 25 Sep 1890) * * * It is interesting to note the reasons given by those in [520] authority for this declaration. It is also interesting to note that the reasons were not given until the declaration had been sustained by the unanimous vote of the conference. * * * Such is the authoritative position of the Mormon Church. Briefly summarized it may be read in this way: The revelations of God to Joseph Smith, including that of plural marriage, are binding upon the people unless "their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work." They performed their "work" in establishing polygamy until "their enemies came upon them and hindered them," and disobeyed the laws of the land until, through prosecutions and punishments, they were compelled to conclude that "it is not wisdom to make war upon 65,000,000 of people, if nor if to carry out this principle against the laws of the nation and receive the consequences." But it is yet to be reestablished for "all that he has promised in this code of revelations has been fulfilled as fast as time would admit. That which has not yet been fulfilled will be." The manifesto itself is remarkable in many respects. The reasons for its promulgation contained in its text are not the reasons given by its author and his first councilor to the conference. President Wilford Woodruff said to the conference: I want to say to all Israel that the step which I have taken in issuing this manifesto has not been done without earnest prayer before the Lord. His first councilor, George Q. Cannon, said: 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. [521] The document itself attributes the occasion of "the Spirit" coming upon him to "press dispatches having been sent for political purposes from Salt Lake City" in regard to the statement in the Utah Commission in its last report upon the subject of the solemnization of plural marriages; in substance, that forty or more such marriages had been reported to it by its officers during the preceding year. A great part of the manifesto is devoted to a vigorous assertion that the report of the Commission is false, a general and specific denial of the facts stated therein, and but a small space is devoted to President Woodruff's declaration of his personal intention "to submit to the laws," and "to use his influence with the members of the church to have them do likewise." The most important part of the manifesto is contained in the closing words: And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land. How much weight could be given to the declarations of a man who dares to assert that the Spirit of God came upon him and moved him to charge that the Utah Commission was the retailer and peddler of falsehoods, and by reason of that fact he was to declare to the world that the church he commands will now change front completely and abandon the ordinance of God, which has heretofore been so delightful a work for them to perform, can be judged to a degree from the declaration itself. And those curious enough who delve further into the vagaries of such a mind will find light and food for reflection in some marvelous tales of miracles performed by and for him, such as casting out devils, healing those sick unto death and raising them from death to life, his opponents dropping dead at his feet, etc., as related by himself in a little volume entitled-- LEAVES FROM MY JOURNAL. * * * The Commission deems it proper to notice this pro-[522]duction thus far, because, no matter what the motives which led to its promulgation, it is an advance. It marks an era in the great contest between the civilization of America and the forces which have so long tried to ingraft upon it a relic of Oriental lust and barbarism, and is a step which can never be retraced. It is that much wrested from an unwilling, crafty antagonist, and it should be no reproach to the Commission that it bears upon its face the acknowledgment that the work of the Commission has caused its promulgation. The offending clause in the report for 1890, the one which is seized upon as a reason for declaring a new, dispensation, is as follows: The Commission is in receipt of reports from its registration officers which enumerates 41 persons who, it is believed, have entered into the polygamic relations in their several precincts since the June revision of 1889. This the "inspired" manifesto of President Woodruff declares to be false. For answer, the Commission restates the fact, and adds, that three additional cases were reported a few days after the report was formulated, which should be included in it. During the past year, notwithstanding the manifesto, reports have been received by the Commission of 18 male persons who, with an equal number of females, are believed to have entered into polygamous marriages during the year. These reports have been and are at the service of the United States district attorney, but for the obvious reason that persecution might result, the names of the officers reporting such cases are not given to the public. * * * If the new departure should do away with this order of affairs, it will doubtless do more to educate the people and prepare them for the true duties of citizenship than to retain the practice while denying its existence, precisely as the same organization practiced polygamy for years while denying that the practice existed. * * * [523] Utah is exhibiting a grand development. Its mineral output is helping to enrich the world, while its agricultural productions, measured by its irrigable (sic) area, are marvelous. Its great business centers are increasing rapidly in population; a young, virtuous, and vigorous people, imbued with and nurtured in all that pertains to true Americanism, is crowding upon and outnumbering the element which in all its history has been a drag upon the body politic and a blight upon all that came within its influence, and is compelling the adoption of its views, habits, and policy. * * * It would seem that the American people can well afford to continue a policy which has produced such results and await the full fruition of their hopes, while yet guiding and controlling with their hands the movement which promises still better results in the future. This Commission can not recommend that the protecting and fostering hand of the Government be withdrawn, and is most emphatic in expressing its opinion that it would not at this time be safe to intrust to this people the responsibilities and duties of Statehood, as they so much desire. Not only would such a step be a mistake which would retard Utah progress, but the mistake might be productive of the direst results to the people of Utah and of the nation, and would be without a remedy, except the remedy which is always to be deplored, most of all by a people not yet fully recovered from the effects of internecine war. 6 Oct 1891, General Conference: Official Resolutions. Whereas the Utah Commission, with one exception, in their report to the Secretary of the Interior for 1891, have made many untruthful statements concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the attitude of its members in relation to political affairs; and whereas said report is an official document and is likely to greatly prejudice the people of the nation against our church and its members, and it is therefore [524] unwise to allow, its erroneous statements to pass un-noticed: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in general conference assembled, That we deny most emphatically the assertion of the Commission that the church dominates its members in political matters, and that the church and state are united. Whatever appearance there may have been in past times of a union of church and state, because men holding ecclesiastical authority were elected to civil office by popular vote, there is now no foundation or excuse for the statement that church and state are united in Utah, or that the leaders of the church dictate the members in political matters; that no coercion or influence whatever of an ecclesiastical nature has been exercised over us by our church leaders in reference to which political party we shall join, and that we have been and are perfectly free to unite with any or no political party we shall join as we may individually elect; that the People's party has been entirely dissolved, and that our fealty henceforth will be to such national political party as seems to us best suited to the purposes of republican government. Also, be it resolved, That we do not believe there has been any polygamous marriages solemnized among the Latter Day Saints during the period named by the Utah Commission; and we denounce the statements which convey the idea that such marriages have been contracted as false and misleading, and that we protest against the perversions of fact and principle and intent contained in the report of the Commission, and declare that the manifesto of President Woodruff forbidding plural marriages was adopted in all sincerity and good faith, and that we have every reason to believe that it has been carried out in letter and in spirit; and all statements to the contrary are entirely destitute of truth. And be it further resolved, That we appeal to the press and people of this country to accept our united declaration and protest, to give it publicity, and to aid in disseminating the truth, that falsehood may be refuted and justice be done to a people continually maligned and [525] almost universally misunderstood. And may God defend the right. The report of the conference continues: "The preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted by raising the right hand and shouting aye." At the same time the following was read to the conference: Declaration by the First Presidency of the church concerning the official report of the Utah Commission made to the Secretary of the Interior, in which they allege: "During the past year, notwithstanding the `manifesto,' reports have been received by the Commission of eighteen male persons, who, with an equal number of females, are believed to have entered into polygamous marriages during the year." We have to say it is utterly without foundation in truth. We repeat in the most solemn manner the declaration made by President Woodruff at our general conference held last October, that there have been no plural marriages solemnized during the period named. Polygamy or plural marriage has not been taught, neither had there been given permission to anyone to enter into its practice, but on the contrary it has been strictly forbidden. WILFORD WOODRUFF GEORGE Q. CANNON JOSEPH F. SMITH." This was also unanimously received, indorsed, and adopted by the conference. (Utah Commission Report, 15 Sep 1892) 19-20 Oct 1891, Testimony before the Master in Chancery, Deseret News Weekly: PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF, was the next witness. In reply to Attorney Richards he said he was 84 years of age and was born in Farmington, Connecticut. He had resided in this Territory since July 24th, 1847, and had held his present position in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since April, 1889. He issued the manifesto now produced, on Sep-[526]tember 25th, 1890 (The manifesto was filed as Exhibit A), his object in doing so being to announce to the world that plural marriage had been forbidden by the Church, and could not be practiced thereafter. When this manifesto was presented to the Council of the Apostles and accepted by them and was unanimously adopted at the General Conference, about ten thousand officers and members were present. He had never heard any objection expressed to it by individual members of the Church. To the best of his knowledge all of them had willingly approved of it. It would now be contrary to the laws of the Church for any of its members to enter into plural marriage, and any one doing so would be liable to excommunication. To his knowledge no such marriage had been contracted by any member of the Church since the issuance of the manifesto. He had not taught or advised or assented to its practice since then, and knew, of no other officer of the Church who had done so, and he had no hope or expectation that plural marriages would be re-established in the Church. Replying to Mr. Varian, in cross-examination, President Woodruff said he had never issued but this one manifesto on the subject. Mr. Varian--Did you understand by this declaration that a tenet or principle of faith of the Church over which you preside was changed in any degree? Witness--No, sir, I do not know that I did, with regard to the principle of faith. Q. --Does your Church derive its principles of faith and rules of conduct from the Bible, the Book or Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the revelations from Almighty God? A. --Yes, sir. Q. --Was the principle of plural or celestial marriage derived from revelation? A. --Yes, sir, the principle that has been adopted by the Church was. Q. --Has there ever been any principle of faith or tenet of your Church incorporated in its creed through the vote of its people? A. --No, sir, I think not; but I will here say that the [527] of the Church have been presented to principles of faith the members and voted upon by them; the reception of those principles has been by vote. Q. --Has any principle or tenet having its foundation in revelation been submitted to the members of the Church with a view, of their accepting or rejecting it by vote? A. --Yes, I think all revelations that we have received have been accepted by vote. Q. --Has there ever been an instance of one being rejected? A. --Not as a general principle. Q. --Well, has there ever been an instance of its being rejected at all where it purported to come from higher channels--from a higher Power? A. --No, sir. Q. --Is not the principle of plural marriage still a tenet of the faith of your Church? A. --Yes, I believe the Church believes in the principle. Q. --Would it not have to be changed by the same power and authority from which the principle was derived? A. --Yes, but I will remark that a principle may be believed in by the Church--a true principle--and still not be practiced. Q. --You do not understand, then, that the people of your Church indicated by accepting your declaration that their views or belief upon the principle involved were at all changed, but only that they were willing to follow your advice in submitting to the conditions that confronted them? A. --Yes, sir, I view that as being about the ground of it. Q. --Did you state more, or intend to convey more, in this declaration than the fact that you yourself intended to submit to the law referred to, and to use your influence with the members of your Church to have them do likewise? A. --Well, after that declaration, of course, I expected to obey the laws of the land, and requested the [528] Latter-day Saints to do the same, and to carry out that principle whether it was stated or not. That was the point. Q. --Does this declaration anywhere indicate to your people that the failure to follow your advice would become a subject of Church discipline? A. --Well, it would become so, whether so stated or not. Q. --But does it so state? A. --I do not know that I can say it does. Mr. Richards--That is hardly a fair question. Mr. Dickson--The answer speaks for itself. Mr. Varian--I am no fool, gentlemen; I know what I am asking! (To the witness): Did you intend to confine your advice to the Church solely to the forming of new rules, by entering into new marriages, without reference to those already existing? A. --The intention of the proclamation was obedience to the law of the land connected with that subject myself, and I expected all the members of the Church to do the same. Q. --You meant to include the laws, then, forbidding association in plural marriage as well as the forming of plural marriages? A. --Whatever there is in the law of the land with regard to it. Q. --In the concluding portion of your declaration, or statement, you say: "I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Do you understand that that language was to be expanded, and include the further statement of living or associating in plural marriage by those already in the status? A. --I intended the proclamation to cover the whole ground--to obey the laws of the land entirely. Q. --Was the sole reason of this declaration because of these laws that you speak of in it? A. --Well, if I might make an explanation of this matter I would say this: There was no law against this principle--against polygamy, the patriarchal order of marriage practiced by the Latter-day Saints until 1862. The [529] members of this Church did not believe that law was constitutional, and I myself thought there would be very few outside the Church, judges, jurists, and lawyers who were versed in the law and constitution of the country, who believed themselves that that was a constitutional law. It remained on the statute book a dead letter for many years. One of our own people, an Elder in the Church--Brother Reynolds--came forward and furnished testimony himself, as a test case. He believed that he would be dealt with leniently, and until it was proved, or represented, to be a constitutional law there was nothing against the practice, and after that probably a dozen or more leading men of the Church went to prison rather than expose their families, and to prove their faith and feeling with regard to the position they occupied. This was the position we were in: A very small per centage--probably five per cent--of the people would have covered the whole ground who had entered into polygamy, and here was ninety-five per cent of a community who apparently would all suffer. The sentiment of the whole nation as well as the laws, apparently, were against it; and I will say for myself that I became thoroughly convinced that this practice would have to be changed. When I was appointed President of the Church I looked this question over, and for a good while became satisfied in my own mind that plural marriage must stop in this Church. It was not we who had practiced it only who were suffering, but a large porportion of people who had not entered into it. After I became President of the Church I did not advocate the practice of this principle among our people, for that was what I saw before me, and it was upon that ground that I issued the manifesto--I will say by inspiration. I believe it was my duty and the duty of our people to obey the law and leave events in the hands of God. Now, if the gentleman can understand my views upon it that is where I stand. To Mr. Varian. --The manifesto was intended to apply to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints everywhere in every nation and country. We are giving no liberty to enter into polygamous relations anywhere. Mr. Varian--Would it not, of necessity, require a [530] revelation from as high a source as that from which the original came to revoke that law governing plural marriage? A. --Yes, I suppose it would. Q. --Are you willing to say, Mr. Woodruff, that you now consider by reason of this act of yours and your people in Conference assembled that the principle of plural marriage, as originally given and subsequently followed and practiced by your people, is no longer the law of the Church or of God? A. --I have nothing to say with regard to the law of God particularly, but it is, as I have said, against the law of the Church. By the law of God to us we are required to abandon that doctrine or tenet of our faith in our practice. Mr. Dickson--In the event of this Territory being admitted into the union, would you, as the President of the Church under such circumstances--I mean if the Territory came into the Union so that there was no longer any fear of punishment under the civil law for parties who might enter plural marriage--would you, under those conditions advise, encourage or countenance such practices? Judge Marshall--We object to that question as immaterial so far as this controversy is concerned. Mr. Dickson--I desire to show by the answer of this and other witnesses that they have no hope, belief or expectation of returning to this practice, to this principle under any conceivable conditions. That is all. The Master in Chancery, interposing, said he understood that that question had already been substantially answered by President Woodruff. He understood him to state, in reply to one of Mr. Richard's questions, that he had no such expectation. That ground was therefore already covered. Mr. Dickson--Then if you so understand I am satisfied. Mr. Richards (to the witness)--Do you believe that the principle of celestial or plural marriage was revealed to the Church through Joseph Smith, from the Almighty? [531] A. --I do. Q. --Do you believe that the Almighty has revealed to the Church, through you, that that practice should be discontinued, and abandoned? A. --I do. Mr. Varian--If that is the case, why didn't you declare it to your Church as a revelation, and not by way of your personal advice and counsel? A. --Well, men differ with regard to the principle of revelation. Of course my view is that inspiration is revelation; it is from the same source. A man is not always required to say "Thus saith the Lord" in counsel or advice which he gives on certain matters. Q. --Did you indicate, or intend to indicate, in any way to your congregation that what you said in this behalf, in this particular, was a revelation changing the divine law, as it had stood with you for years? A. --As I before said, what I intended was to give counsel stopping the practice of the patriarchal order of marriage in the Church. As many words may not have been used, perhaps, in this matter as some might suppose should have been, but what I said to the people of our Church I said by inspiration, as I view it--by the mind and will of the Lord. I intended to give them to understand that we should stop the practice of plural marriage. Q. --Because of the misery and trouble arising from its practice, owing to the laws of the land against it? Wasn't that it? A. --Well, it was, of course, involving the affliction of hundreds and thousands of people who were not in the same position, who did not obey the same law with us. I considered myself that it was involving many thousands of people who were not accounted as guilty, it might be said, of the same things as we were by the nation. Q. --Is it not true that your people received it in that sense, and that alone, and that the belief, the faith in the truth of that principle, as a divine one, has not departed at all? A. --Well, I would say this: I am satisfied myself the Lord requires, and has required many times, His [532] people to perform a work which they could not carry out where under certain circumstances they were hindred from doing it. It is upon that ground--if I can be understood--that I view the position we are in today. Mr. Richards --At the time this manifesto was presented to the Conference, on the 6th of October, 1890, state whether or not it was then announced by President George Q. Cannon, and perhaps other officials in the Church, that you had been inspired from the Lord to issue it, and that it was the expression of the will of God to the people? A. --Yes, he stated that. Q. --And have you not since, in public congregations of the people, stated the same, in effect? A. --Yes, that is true. It being now 5:15, the court adjourned until Tuesday morning. TUESDAY'S INVESTIGATION. The inquiry was resumed before Examiner Loofbourow at 10 o'clock Tuesday morning; the same counsel appearing on either side as yesterday. PRESIDENT GEORGE Q. CANNON was called and Mr. Richards asked--Are you prepared to state now how many persons are drawing support from the Church? A. --I am; there are 6,818, but the great bulk of them draw only partial support. Answering other questions, he said the entire membership of the Church in the Territory of Utah and surrounding cities and Territories is upwards of 200,000. He approved entirely of the manifesto issued by President Woodruff and he had never heard any one dissent from it. Q. --State what you understand to be the object of President Woodruff in issuing that manifesto? A. --It was that the world should know that the practice of plural marriage had ceased and also that the members of the Church should know it was forbidden. Q. --State whether you believe that manifesto was given by inspiration to President Woodruff? A. --I believed it then and I am still of that opinion [533] that he was inspired to issue it and I so stated to the Conference. Q. --Do you believe it would be pleasing or displeasing in the sight of the Almighty for any member of the Church to enter into polygamous marriage? A. --I think it would be displeasing in His sight. Q. --State whether or not it would be in violation of the Church rules for any of its members to contract a plural marriage? A. --It would, and a member so violating would be in danger of being severed from the Church. To his knowledge no member had entered into plural marriage since the issuance of the manifesto. Since that date he himself had not advised, assented to or encouraged bigamy, polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, and he knew of no other officer of the Council having done so. Q. --State whether or not you have any hope or expectation that the practice of polygamy or plural marriage will be re-established by the Church? A. --I have not. Cross-examined by Mr. Varian; witness said the Church had for years been engaged in proselyting and bringing people from foreign lands. Many of them were in "impoverished" circumstances, and required assistance when they arrived here. They received relief, "but," added President Cannon, "I would not have the impression go out--in fact, it would be a false impression--that the bulk of the emigrants are mainly dependent. The proportion requiring direct assistance on arrival here would not be one out of ten, further than guidance. From the Church funds none received aid to emigrate to Utah; it came out of means provided by friends, and sent out to them. Neither directly nor indirectly did the Church now aid in the emigration of the people, nor had it done so for some years. There was formerly a fund for such purposes under the control of the Church, but what remained of it was now in the hands of the Receiver. By request of Mr. Varian, President Cannon next read from a tabulated statement the number of poor persons residing in the various States and Territories receiving support out of the funds of the [534] Church, and the amounts devoted to each locality. None of these allowances, he said, were for emigration purposes, the construction of canals, dams, etc. , but simply for the relief of the needy. The general fund surrendered by the Church to the Receiver did not belong to the several Stakes, but to the general organization of the Church. Mr. Varian--What became of the surplus money and produce gathered in the local Stakes from the people after meeting the local demands upon it for Church purposes and charitable purposes; did it go into the general fund? A.--Yes. Q. --Is it not true that the charitable purposes of the Church are almost entirely carried out through the medium of these Stake associations from the local funds before any of them have passed into the general fund? A. --Not all; as far as they go of course they are used. Q. --What has been the average annual receipts and contributions of the people from the whole Church, yearly, during the past seven or eight years? Witness replied that it had varied between one half and three quarters of a million. The year 1890 was a hard one and the contributions fell rather short. Their receipts depended upon the prosperity or otherwise of the community. The seizure of the Church property had had a very marked effect upon the income, very many members of the Church fearing to give what they otherwise would lest further seizures might take place. The Church was borrowing money today to meet current expenses. They had expended for the building of meeting houses during the year in this Territory about $20,000; but they had been unable to meet all the requests made in this regard. About $10,000 or $15,000 of the funds, during the past year went to poor Indians. The witness was next questioned as to the establishment of Church schools. The Church, he said, had not yet been able to accomplish what was desired in this direction. He was very much in favor of the Bible being used as a text book in the schools. They had hoped in the establishment of Church schools, that a great many [535] liberal-minded people would bequeath sums of money to endow such schools. There are instances where they have done so. To another question President Cannon answered that he believed the original law of the Church as to polygamy was derived through revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith. Q. --Do you understand that that principle, as announced through that revelation, is no longer a true principle as a tenet of the faith of the Church? A. --I believe I know, as far as a human being can know, from a divine source, that that revelation is from God; but circumstances have arisen of such a character as to compel us to no longer obey it. Q. --To suspend its operation? A. --Not to suspend, but to cease its practice. Q. --To suspend the operation of what is still a divine principle? A. --Yes, the truth is unchangeable. Q. --Then you do not understand that God has changed that principle? A. --Not in the least. Q. --But that He has given permission to cease the practice--is that the idea? A. --Circumstances have been such surrounding us for so many years, that I could not, of course, help seeing in the position I occupied--having had to pass through pretty severe ordeals on this question--that unless there was some wonderful interposition of Providence, the force of public opinion, becoming intensified as the years roll by, would eventually compel us either to cease its practice, or we would be crushed. That seemed to me an inevitable consequence. I hoped for years that there would be some such interposition of God--that the nation would give us credit for our sincerity, and that it would see in this practice that we were animated by the sincerest and best of motives. I believe God inspired President Woodruff to say unto us that we had gone far enough. Q. --This manifesto is the advice of President Woodruff personally? [536] A. --Yes, sir. Q. --It is not a command, is it? A. --President Woodruff is a very modest man. It would have been a command if some men had issued it, and it was a command in his case. He was fully persuaded that the Church at large, like himself, received a testimony that this manifesto was issued by inspiration from God. PRESIDENT JOSEPH F. SMITH was next called. He said, in reply to Mr. Richards, that he had resided here since 1848. Since 1885 he had been absent from the Territory most of the time. He was second Counselor to President Woodruff, which position he had occupied since 1889. The manifesto issued by President Woodruff in September, 1890, was handed to the witness, who said it met with his approval. He had heard of but one person opposed to it as a member of the Church. Mr. Richards--What do you understand to be the intention of President Woodruff in issuing the manifesto? A. --I understand it to be to stop the practice of polygamy in the Church. Q. --Do you believe that President Woodruff was inspired by Almighty God to issue it? A. --(emphatically)--Yes, I do. Q. --Do you believe it would be pleasing or displeasing in the sight of God for any member of the Church to enter into polygamous or plural marriage? A. --Well, I do not know that I am prepared to say; but I believe it would be entirely contrary to the rules of the Church for any one to do so. Q. --What would be the penalty for such violation? A. --Well, I think any person doing such a thing would be called in question as to his fellowship and be liable to be excommunicated from the Church. To his knowledge no such marriage had been consummated since the issuance of the manifesto, neither had he himself counseled or advised such a step. His advice had been quite to the contrary. Q. --Have you any expectation or hope that the practice of bigamy or plural marriage will be re-established in [537] the Church? A. --Well, from my present knowledge I do not see how it could be possible. I think that so long as the circumstances continued to exist which have brought about these results it would be impossible and inconsistent to suppose any such thing could be. Q. --Then you do not expect any such thing will be? A. --No. Mr. Varian--Do you believe that the principle of plural marriage came through a revelation from God, to Joseph Smith to this people? A. (emphatically)--Yes, sir, I do. Q. --Do you believe that God has revoked it--changed it as a true principle? A. --I believe that he has suffered it to be revoked, that is so far as the practice of it is concerned. Q. --I am speaking of the principle of plural marriage? A. --I do not think He has revoked the principle. Q. --Do you understand that the revelation and law concerning it is to be eliminated from the Church books and doctrine? A. --I do not know, that I do. Q. --Do you understand that the manifesto applies to the cohabitation of men and women in plural marriage where it already exists? A. --I cannot say whether it does or not. I think, however, that the effect of it is so. I do not see how it can be otherwise. Q. --Do you understand that this manifesto is the result of direct revelation? A. --I understand it to be the result of divine inspiration. I consider it to be a permanent stopping of the practice of polygamy. The present condition of things having brought this about, I do not see how, it is possible to re-establish the principle. Mr. Dickson--You think that if an attempt were made to re-establish it, though there might be no law on the subject, public sentiment would bring about the same result as now? Witness answered yes. [538] The court adjourned at this stage until 2 p.m. The examination of witnesses in the Church case was resumed Tuesday Oct. 20th, before Master in Chancery Loofbourow. When the court reassembled APPOSTLE LORENZO SNOW was called to the stand. Examined by Mr. F.S. Richards he said he was seventy-seven years of age on the 3rd of April last, he resided in Brigham City, and had been living in this Territory since 1848. He was president of the quorum of the Twelve, which position he had held about two years and a half. Looking at President Woodruff's manifesto, handed to him by counsel, witness said it met with his approval. He was present at the Conference when the manifesto was unanimously adopted. Probably from nine to eleven thousand persons were there as members of the Church, from all parts of the Territory. He had never heard of any opposition to or dissent from the manifesto on the part of any members of the Church. He distinctly understood the object of that manifesto was to stop plural marriage; and certainly he believed that President Woodruff was inspired of God to issue it. He believed it would be very displeasing to God for any member to act contrary thereto. It would be contrary also to the rules of the Church, and the penalty would be excommunication. He knew of no plural marriage having taken place since the issuance of the manifesto. Since then he had not in any way counseled members of the Church to contract plural marriage. Cross-examined by Mr. Varian he stated that the revelation on plural marriage was partly permissive and partly mandatory, and that the manifesto repealed the law in the same way that God gave the law of Moses to Israel in the place of the Gospel which He first revealed to them. Q. --Do you expect that plural marriage will ever be re-established in the Church? A. --As to that matter I could not pretend to know the designs of God; but I will answer the question as you have asked me my opinion. Under the present condition of [539] affairs I do not see how it could ever be changed, so that the practice of polygamy could be again introduced. Q. --Do you believe or expect now that it will ever be re-established? A. --I have no expectation that it will. I believe the revelation communicated to President Woodruff was for the purpose of stopping its practice entirely. Q. --Do you believe that the association in plural marriage of those already in it is forbidden by this manifesto? A. --Well, I cannot say what was in the mind of President Woodruff when he issued the manifesto touching that matter; but I believe from the general scope of that manifesto that it certainly embraces it, because it is clearly the intention as indicated in the manifesto that the law should be observed touching matters in relation to plural marriage. Q. --Does it say anything except as to the future entering into plural marriage--into new relations? A. --It expresses his intention, and then gives his counsel to all the people to follow the direction given--to obey the law touching everything pertaining to the marriage relation. Q. --But does it say so? A. --No. Q. --Then it does not express its full meaning? A. --Perhaps not. Q. --Is there anything else you understand as expressed but not stated in terms in that manifesto? A. --I do not remember particularly. Q. --Do you understand that there is a prohibition against those who have already entered into polygamy as well as the prohibition against the contracting of future plural marriages? A. --I thought I had explained that. The intention of that manifesto, or the intention in President Woodruff's mind in regard to himself and every member of the Church, was, that the law should be observed in relation to plural marriage, embracing the present condition of those who had previously entered into it. Now, isn't that a plain answer? [540] Q. --Do you understand that this manifesto is to take its place in the revelations in your books and creed? A. --I understand that that requisition in the manifesto will be strictly and sacredly observed, by all the members of the Church; but whether that will be incorporated and written and connected with the revelation formerly given to Joseph Smith, of course I do not know. Q. --You do not think there will be any relapse from this manifesto? A. --That is so. I am under the impression that the Lord had a certain design in that manifesto, and one was to have the Latter-day Saints exhibit in their acts and in their sacrifices one of the great principles of the Gospel, that when a man is compelled to go one mile he should go two, and that when a man was asked for his coat he should give his cloak also. It was to show the nation that we were willing to sacrifice to the full extent. I think we have shown that--for hundreds of us have gone to the penitentiary--I among the rest for eleven months. And the Lord through this manifesto was willing to accept their offerings, if the Saints are willing to conform to the principles of the Gospel to the fullest extent, and give up one of our esteemed doctrines--that of plural marriage--this they have done faithfully. Q. --Does not future conformity with this manifesto depend upon whether the Lord should speak again upon the subject; that is to say if the Lord should speak again through President Woodruff, setting aside this manifesto, the obligation would not exist that exists now to conform to it? A. --The Lord gave Joseph Smith revelations in regard to plural marriage; and so He has the right to restore that practice if He thinks proper. But it might be a thousand years, and it might never be. Mr. Varian--And it might be a month. Apostle Snow--And it might be ten hours; but I do not believe for a moment that the practice will ever be restored until the Lord comes Himself and then I do not know that it will be. That is His own business. Q. --You think, then, that any member of the Church who should fail to follow the counsel given in the mani-[541]festo would be subject to discipline by the Church authorities? A. --Most certainly he would. Q. --Even where he believed, as you do, in the revelation from Joseph Smith, and that it was a true principle. In such a case would the Church discipline one of its honest believers? A. --I do not understand. Q. --You have stated that in your opinion any member of the Church who violates this manifesto and refuses to obey it would be "disciplined" by the Church--that possibly his offense would be followed by excommunication. In the light of your answer I now ask you if that would be so--where one of your members honestly believing, like yourself, in the revelation of Joseph Smith in relation to the principle of plural marriage,--that it was mandatory in some instances and permissive in others--entered Into plural marriage; would the Church feel authorized to "discipline" one of its members under such circumstances? A. --I suppose it would. Q. --Is this your best judgment? A. --Yes. Q. --Then the creed of your Church depends upon the revelations or manifestos made sometimes through its Presidents? A. --The President stands in that relationship with the Lord that he sometimes receives revelations in regard to the general interests of the Church. Q. --Has the membership of the Church anything to say about accepting or rejecting revelations? A. --Every member of the Church can do as he pleases--accept or reject a revelation. Q. --Is he at liberty to reject it if he pleases? A. --Most assuredly; a man can go to heaven or the devil, as he pleases. Q. --And still retain his membership in the Church if he rejects the revelation? A. --He might. Q. --Under those circumstances would he be punished by the Church for obeying the law that the Church had [542] taught all these years, but rejecting this later revelation? A. --Yes, sir, perhaps he would. Q. --And yet you say he has a right to use his own judgment about it? A. --Yes, and the Church has the right to excommunicate him. Q. --There never has been an instance where the Conference rejected any statement of that kind made by the President of your Church? A. --Not within my rememberance. Mr. Richards --I understood you to state that you believed the manifesto to be a revelation to President Woodruff? A. --Yes. Q. --State whether or not President Woodruff had the power through that revelation to stop the practice, whether put to the Conference or not? Does not the revelation on plural marriage say that the keys shall be vested in but one man on the earth at a time? A. --Yes. Q. --That being so, has the President of the Church authority or not by revelation to discontinue that practice, without any action on the part of the Church? A. --Certainly. Q. --Speaking of the publication of revelations, are all of those that have been give a to the President of the Church put in the book of revelations, the book of Doctrine and Covenants? Have there not been revelations received by the late President John Taylor and others which have never been incorporated in the book of revelations published by the Church? A. --Some have not. * * * APOSTLE ANTON H. LUND, residing at Ephriam, Sanpete, was next called and questioned upon the manifesto, which he said had his entire approval. He had never heard any remarks of disapproval thereto. He understood the object was to stop plural marriage and believed President Woodruff was inspired of God in issuing [543] the manifesto. He believed it would be displeasing in the Lord's sight to contract such marriages after such inspiration had been given. The disobeying of the command would subject any member of the Church to excommunication. He had not since the adoption of the manifesto counseled or advised any person to enter into plural marriage, and never again expected to see polygamy practiced. To Mr. Varian--If he knew of any member of the Church having disobeyed the manifesto he would report the case to President Woodruff. The law of plural marriage, in his opinion, still remained right as a principle, but was against the law of the land, as they all recognized. Q. --Did you not understand that the reason for this revelation was because of the present condition entailing hardship and misery upon the people? A. --Yes, I believe the Lord saw, the condition of the people, and inspired President Woodruff to issue that manifesto. Q. --For the purpose of relieving the people? A. --Yes. Counsel for defendants, having called all their witnesses, here rested, and testimony was next taken on behalf of the other side. (Deseret News Weekly, 24 Oct 1891, p. 578-582) Sunday Afternoon, 1 Nov 1891, Wilford Woodruff: EXCERPTS FROM REMARKS MADE BY PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF At the Cashe Stake Conference, held at Logan, Sunday Afternoon, November 1, 1891. (Reported by Arthur Winter) The Latter-day Saints should not get the idea that the Lord has forsaken his people, or that he does not reveal his mind and will; because such an idea is not true. The Lord is with us, and has been with us from the beginning. This Church has never been led a day except by revelation. And he will never leave it. It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it all. [544] The Lord will not fail in these last days, and He will fulfill all that he has promised through his prophets and apostles, until Zion arises in its glory, and the Bride, the Lamb's wife, is prepared for the coming of the great Bridegroom. I made some remarks last Sunday at Brigham City upon the same principle, revelation. Read the life of Brigham Young and you can hardly find a revelation that he had wherein he said, `Thus saith the Lord;' but the Holy Ghost was with him; he taught by inspiration and by revelation; but with one exception he did not give those revelations in the form that Joseph did; for they were not written and given as revelations and commandments to the Church in the words and name of the Savior Joseph said; `Thus saith the Lord' almost every day of his life, in laying the foundation of this work. But those who followed him have not deemed it always necessary to say: `Thus saith the Lord;' yet they have led the people by the power of the Holy Ghost; and if you want to know what that is, read the first six verses of the 68th Section of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, where the Lord told Orson Hyde, Luke Johnson, Lyman Johnson, and William E. McLellin to go out and preach the gospel to people as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost: "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." "It is by that power that we have led Israel. By that power President Young presided over and led the Church. By the same power President John Taylor presided over and led the Church. And that is the way I have acted according to the best of my ability, in that capacity. I do not want the Latter-day Saints to understand that the Lord is not with us, and that He is not giving revelations to us; for He is giving us revelation, and will give us revelation until this scene is wound up. "I have had some revelations of late, and very im-[545]portant ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the Manifesto. The Lord has told me by revelation that there are many members of the Church throughout Zion who are sorely tried in their hearts because of that Manifesto. And also because of the testimony of the Presidency of the Church and the Apostles before the Master in Chancery. Since I received that revelation I have heard of many who are tried in these things, though I had not heard of any before that particularly. Now, the Lord has commanded me to do one thing, and I fulfilled that commandment at the conference at Brigham City last Sunday, and I will do the same here today. The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter. The question is this: `Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue--to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the land against it and the opposition of 60,000,000 people and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of all personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice), or after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law and through doing so, to leave the Prophets, Apostles, and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the gospel, both for the living and for the dead? "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it would have had no use for Brother Merrill, for Brother Adlofson, for Brother Roskelley, [546] for Brother Leishman, or for any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we would have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number have already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world, by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. "I know there are a good many men and probably some leading men, in this Church who have been tried and felt as though President Woodruff had lost the spirit of God and was about to apostatize. Now, I want you to understand that he has not lost the Spirit nor is he about to apostatize. The Lord is with him, and with this people. He has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it. I have been called upon by friends outside of the Church and urged to take some steps with regard to this matter. They knew the course which the Government was determined to take. This feeling has also been manifested more or less by the members of the Church. I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself; and let every other man go there; had not the God of Heaven commanded me to do what I did do and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. I laid it before my brethren--such strong men as [547] Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother Joseph F. Smith, and the Twelve Apostles. I might as well undertake to turn an army with banners out of its course as to turn them out of a course that they considered to be right. No. Why? Because they were moved upon the Spirit of God and by the revelations of Jesus Christ to do it. I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. He is doing things here that you do not comprehend. (Deseret Evening News, 7 Nov 1891) 11 Nov 1891: After a lengthy investigation in the Third District Court, Salt Lake City, Judge Charles S. Zane rendered a decree escheating the Tithing Office, the Gardo House, Historian's office, and Church farm to the government. 1 Dec 1891: The Gardo House, Salt Lake City, was vacated by the Church as escheated property. 19 Dec 1891, Contributor: AMNESTY. The following petition for amnesty has been presented to the President of the United States: SALT LAKE, Dec. 19, 1891. "We, the First Presidency and Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beg respectfully to represent to your Excellency the following facts: "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come. "That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890. Our people are devout and sincere, and they accepted the doctrine, and many personally embraced and practiced polygamy. [548] "When the Government sought to stamp the practice out, our people, almost without exception, remained firm, for they, while having no desire to oppose the Government in anything, still felt that their lives and their honor as men were pledged to a vindication of their faith; and that their duty towards those whose lives were a part of their own was a paramount one, to fulfill which they had no right to count anything, not even their own lives, as standing in the way. Following this conviction hundreds endured arrest, trial, fine and imprisonment, and the immeasurable suffering borne by the faithful people, no language can describe. That suffering, in abated form, still continues. "More, the Government added disfranchisement to its other punishments for those who clung to their faith and fulfilled its covenants. "According to our faith the head of our Church receives, from time to time, revelations for the religious guidance of his people. "In September, 1890, the present head of the Church, in anguish and prayer, cried to God for help for his flock, and received permission to advise the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the law commanding polygamy was henceforth suspended. "At the great semi-annual conference which was held a few days later, this was submitted to the people, numbering many thousands and representing every community of the people of Utah, and was by them in the most solemn manner accepted as the future rule of their lives. "They have since been faithful to the covenant made that day. "At the last October conference, after a year had passed by, the matter was once more submitted to the thousands of people gathered together, and they again in the most potential manner, ratified the solemn covenant. "This being the true situation and believing that the object of the government was simply the vindication of its own authority and to compel obedience to its laws, and that it takes no pleasure in persecution, we respectfully pray that full amnesty may be extended to all who are [549] under disabilities because of the operation of the so-called Edmunds and Edmunds-Tucker laws. Our people are scattered; homes are made desolate; many are still imprisoned; others are banished or in hiding. Our hearts bleed for those. In the past they followed our counsels, and while they are thus afflicted our souls are in sackcloth and ashes. "We believe there are nowhere in the Union a more loyal people than the Latter-day Saints. They know no other country except this. They expect to live and die on this soil. "When the men of the South, who were in rebellion against the government, in 1865, threw down their arms and asked for recognition along the old lines of citizenship, the Government hastened to grant their prayer. "To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the government and people, our people have voluntarily put aside something which all their lives they have believed to be a sacred principle. "Have they not the right to ask for such clemency as comes when the claims of both law, and justice have been fully liquidated? "As shepherds of a patient and suffering people, we ask amnesty for them, and pledge our faith and honor for their future. And your petitioners will ever pray. Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Moses Thatcher, Francis M. Lyman, H.J. Grant, John Henry Smith, John W. Taylor, M.W. Merrill, Anthon H. Lund, Abraham H. Cannon. This petition is accompanied by the following en-[550]dorsement by the Governor and Chief Justice of the Territory: SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, December 21, 1891. "To the President: "We have the honor to forward here with a petition signed by the President and most influential members of the Mormon Church. We have no doubt of its sincerity, and no doubt that it is tendered in absolute good faith. The signers include some who were most determined in adhering to their religious faith, while polygamy, either mandatory or permissive, was one of its tenets, and they are men who would not lightly pledge their faith and honor to the Government or subscribe to such a document without having fully resolved to make their words good in letter and spirit. "We warmly recommend a favorable consideration of this petition, and if your Exellency shall find it consistent with your public duties to grant the relief asked, we believe it would be graciously received by the Mormon people and tend to evince to them what has always been asserted, that the government is beneficent in its intentions, only asks obedience to its laws# and desires all law-abiding citizens to enjoy all the benefits and privileges of citizenship. We think it will be better for the future if the Mormon people should now receive this mark of confidence. "As to the form and scope of a reprieve or pardon, granted in the exercise of your constitutional prerogative, We make no suggestions. You and your law advisers will best know how to grant what you may think should be granted. "We are, very respectfully, Arthur L. Thomas, "Governor of Utah. "Charles S. Zane, "Chief Justice of Utah Territory. (Contributor, vol. 13, p. 196-197) [551] Jan 1892: The Gardo House, Salt Lake City, was rented by the Receiver for a Keeley Institute. 2 Jan 1892: In the U.S. District Court, Boise City, Idaho, indictments against nearly a hundred "Mormons," accused of violating the election laws by registering and voting in 1888 were dismissed. 6 Jan 1892: In the Territorial Supreme Court, Salt Lake City, Henry W. Lawrence asked for $300 as a monthly compensation for his services as Receiver of escheated Church property; his attorney asked for $150 per month for his own services. 15 Jan 1892: Master in Chancery, Charles F. Loofbourow filed his report in the Church case, in the Territorial Supreme Court, and recommended that the escheated Church property be devoted to the benefit of public schools. 4 Feb 1892: Territorial Anti-Polygamy Act was approved, making polygamy punishable by fine and imprisonment. Cohabitation is made a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment. (See Appendix) 13 Feb 1892: During the proceedings before the U.S. Senate Committee, in reference to the "Home Rule Bill," an application for amnesty for polygamists signed by the First Presidency and the Apostles and dated Salt Lake City, Dec. 19, 1891 was presented. The application was endorsed by Gov. Arthur L. Thomas and Judge Charles S. Zane. 16 Feb 1892, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune: THE AMNESTY PETITION. We think there are but few Liberals in Utah, who, [552] after reading the Amnesty petition made by the first presidency and the apostles of the Mormon Church, will not say that it ought to receive a favorable response from the President of the United States. Those who glancing through the petition, will say that there ought to have been more to it, we think, on second reading, will admit that the men who signed that petition would not have signed it had they not included all else that the most exacting Liberal might demand, so far as the trouble rests on which the Edmunds law and the Edmunds-Tucker law were based. Then, again, all people familiar with affairs in Utah will recognize the fact that it is the power which the Mormon people have always looked up to that makes this petition in their behalf, and which pledges its honor that the Mormon people, if granted the clemency desired, will be true to the obligations which the petition imposes. Another feature of the petition is that it makes clear that the Mormon leaders, in their anxiety over the condition of their people, who, because of the Edmunds-Tucker law, are under ban, have embodied within the petition such a surrender as they never did before, and which, to have expected five years ago, or even three years ago, would have been an impossibility. No man can judge the human heart of his fellowman, but we take it that when men make all the outward manifestations that we have demanded of them, then, whatever hardships necessary law formerly imposed upon them because of a certain line of action should be stopped, and we should be charitable enough to join in the wish that the restrictions and hardships of that law should be removed. We have never doubted the sincerity of the great masses of the Mormon people; we have never had any warfare except against those who have controlled those masses; and when those in control, on their own volition, come out from behind the wall that for forty years has hedged them around, and, asking nothing for themselves, beg that the people who have followed their advice be absolved from the penalties of following their advice, and pledge their sacred honor that, if the clemency shall be granted, their advice shall never more be given in opposition to the laws, it seems to us that it would be a hard heart [553] that would further seek to hold those environments about the people because of their faith in their leaders and their creed. When they say: "To be at peace with the Government and in harmony with their fellow-citizens who are not of their faith, and to share in the confidence of the Government and the people, our people have voluntarily put aside something which they have all their lives believed to be a sacred principle, If they state something more significant than has ever before come in all the pronunciamentos, in all the protestations, of the Mormon Church. They make clear that a wonderful transition has been made, and in the same breath they bind themselves and their people not to betray any confidence that may be placed in them. We think that Governor THOMAS, the Judges and Commissioners, who recommended that the prayer made in the petition be granted, could not have done any other way. Of course, we keep in mind that there are always fanatics in every country; that there are always determined men who, having adopted something as right under the laws of their God, will not change; these may violate this agreement made for them by the heads of the Church, but if they do they will be just as liable as ever under the law, and the sympathy which now surrounds the poor and confiding who have been caught in those meshes and cannot extricate themselves, will be taken from them. We hail this petition as an advance superior to any that heretofore has been made in this Territory, and we are not going to doubt in advance the sincerity of the men who make this petition, because they are all clear-headed men, and they must realize perfectly what position it would place them in were they to make the pledges involved in this petition and then violate them. When the Edmunds-Tucker law, was passed, though it was received with anathemas and a perfect storm of indignation in this Territory, THE TRIBUNE stated that it was a harbinger of the dawn which could be seen warming the radiant east. We look on this petition as a vindication of that prediction, and we feel certain that the full disc of the coming sun will soon be blazing above the [554] horizon of this Territory, that has been so long in a confused light that people did not know whether that light was the herald of the day or the twilight of a still darker night that was to overshadow this region. 17 Feb 1892, Salt Lake Tribune: THAT PETITION. EDITOR TRIBUNE: --It seems to me that you yield too much in this morning's editorial on the petition for amnesty of Mormon leaders. There is really nothing in that petition further than appeared in the Woodruff manifesto, as endorsed by the October conference of 1890. It is, therefore, no advance. It is true there is reference to the law and to the law-abiding character of the Mormon people. But we have always had that from the Mormon writers and it has never meant anything in particular. Dealings with the Mormons have established some things with reasonable certainty. First, that in a matter of this kind nothing is to be taken for granted; that is, that no appeal to the law, by them is to be construed as meaning that they intend to be governed by the law, but only that they want the full lenity of the law to be extended to them, and that they will do what in them lies to evade and nullify that part of the law which they consider obnoxious. In this petition for amnesty there is lacking, as there is also wanting in the manifesto, any explicit declaration of present obedience to the law, but in both the obedience affirmed is to be of the future; present polygamous relations are nowhere thrown off. It won't do, therefore, to assume anything more than is expressed. Second. It won't do to wander off into sentiment, for of all peoples the Mormons are most lacking in that quality. They construe any expression of that sort as well enough for "the enemy," especially if it keeps the fight down, but for themselves they stick to the letter of the concession, and hold themselves not bound one jot further. And since this idea of complete submission to the law is a sentimental idea not found in the text, they will of course repudiate it at pleasure, being quite willing in the meantime that others shall concede this for them, [555] if by that their case will be helped. Third, add to the above the well-known practice of the Mormons of having mental reservations, as in the case of President Taylor when he swore that he had no information about the endowment house records, and afterwards explained to his wondering people that he meant he had no knowledge "to divulge." These mental reservations have often proved sufficient to utterly kill the effect of what the words used seemed to signify. No one knows now what the mental reservation is in this case, but that there is one may safely be affirmed. If there is any evidence that the habit of the Mormon mind has changed as to any of these points, that evidence has not come to the surface. The brethren are to be judged by the record they have made, and I maintain that to do this is neither to be wanting in magnanimity or mercy. So judged, this appeal for amnesty is simply an effort to make double use of the manifesto of 1890. First it was used to ward off disfranchisement, and now it is offered as the price of amnesty. It got its worth at the time, and there is no more value left in it. Let a word further be said. The appeal in this petition to the precedent, the amnesty granted to the leaders of the Rebellion, is not pertinent, for two reasons. First, it is addressed to the wrong source, being an appeal to the President, whereas the amnesty granted to the Southern leaders was granted by acts of Congress. Second, the cases are not parallel. Polygamy bears the same relation to the Mormon rebellion against the laws that slavery did to the Southern rebellion. When the South gave up, it surrendered not alone as to slavery, but also its pretense to a separate Government. The Mormons surrender but on one point, and that for the future only. Their case is precisely as if the South had said: "We give up as to slavery; provided, that this shall not affect those already in bondage, but apply only to the negroes who shall be born hereafter; and, provided further, that the government we have set up in opposition to the Federal Government be not interfered with." Those who rely on a precedent should put themselves in line with that precedent. [556] No advance is perceptible in this petition. It is simply an effort to get further advantage on an old dodge that the Liberal sentiment of Utah with almost absolute ananimity pronounced insufficient when it was first put forth. Let us not be blinded by pretense that says nothing and that means nothing.X. SALT LAKE CITY, February 16, 1892. We publish the foregoing because where something has kept a community in turmoil for twenty years, every proposed change that may affect that turmoil, either to make it less or to increase it, is entitled to all consideration from all candid men. We think our correspondent takes an extreme view. We think when he says that the petition of the first presidency and the apostles of the Church sounds no advance, that he permits his prejudices to run away with his cool judgment. We think no other such document as that has ever been put forth by the Mormon Church. We think the heads of that Church absolutely bind themselves for all time to come not to engage in polygamy, not to countenance or advise it, and in the most potential way that they can, they bind their people to the same covenant; because, from the very first, the people have been taught to obey their chiefs, and when these chiefs, in a petition to the President of the United States, pledge their honor for their people, they put them under an obligation such as they have never been put under before. And the fact that the petition is made to the President and not to Congress is natural and immaterial. The President has pardoned individual Mormons; what more natural than to appeal directly to him. But it seems by the dispatches from the East that the President does not find that he has power to act upon that petition and that the matter will have to be left to Congress. We do not think that Congress can avoid granting a petition of that kind; neither do we think it is a pertinent point that our correspondent makes, that this pledge binds those who may hereafter be born, but not those who live. The language is most explicit; it says the people have voluntarily put aside something which they all their lives have believed to be a sacred [557] principle. It does not mean they are going to put aside something, but that they have put it aside. We presume there are some that will evade it; we presume there are some that will disregard it, but the penalties of the law, will apply to them then as now. The law is not wiped out; only amnesty is asked for, up to date, to such as will hereafter faithfully live within the law. Again, that law was passed simply because of polygamy. Except for that, it never could have been passed. Its penalties never lay against any except those who have engaged in polygamy; and to say that no grace shall be given until everything that has made clashing and collision here shall be settled is unfair. The only way to treat a man is to treat him in a manly way. If they have in fact given up polygamy, or if 99-100ths or 9-10ths of them have given up polygamy--if, they have ceased to teach it, if they have ceased to practice it, if the younger generation is growing up without the thought that the generation before had, that upon reaching maturity they must endorse and believe in it, and, if possible, engage it--then they should be recognized. We are aware, as we have said a thousand times, that the great evil of Mormonism has not been polygamy but church rule. Whether the church rule has been given up is not a matter to be considered in this category, or, if considered at all, we have to admit that when those chiefs of the church come out and pledge their honor for the good behavior of their people, if there is anything on earth that would make this people come within the law fully, it would be that obligation that these chiefs have taken for them. Doubtless our correspondent is right in entertaining his suspicions in good faith, but THE TRIBUNE, from the first, has said it would meet this people half way. It is more sure than ever in its position, because if these chiefs, making this pledge, were to go back upon it, it would alienate them from the sympathy of everybody; as a matter of self-preservation they cannot afford to go behind this petition. Hence, while not doubting the good faith of our correspondent, the reading of his letter and considering it in the connection in which it comes, only makes us the more certain that when we [558] said that petition ought to be granted, we were talking on the line of justice and of progress in Utah. 25 Mar 1892, Deseret Evening News: IN FAVOR OF AMNESTY. The Chamber of Commerce Asks President Harrison to Grant it. The following resolution has been unanimously adopted by the Chamber of Commerce and forwarded to President Harrison: To His Excellency, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, Washington, D. C. At a meeting of the chamber of commerce held today the following resolution was unanimously adopted: As an act of grace and conciliation, and one that will redound greatly to the industrial and business interests of Utah, the chamber of commerce earnestly urges your Excellency to grant general amnesty to all persons who are under disabilities through the operations of the Edmunds-Tucker act. JOHN W. DONNELLAN, President, S. W. SEARS, Secretary. (Deseret Evening News, p. 5) 29 Mar 1892, John W. Taylor: * * * We continued our meeting. Pres. Snow said he felt that when any question came up among us on which the majority were clear, should there be one who did not see as the others, that one should be willing to yield his views to those of the majority, and leave the responsibility of the course pursued with them. John W. Taylor spoke in relation to the Manifesto: "I do not know that that thing was right, though I voted to sustain it, and will assist to maintain it; but among my father's papers I found a revelation given him of the Lord, and which is now in my possession, in which the Lord told him that the principle of plural marriage would never be overcome. Pres. Taylor desired to have it suspended, but the Lord would not permit it to be done. At the close of John W.'s [559] remarks our meeting adjourned till tomorrow at 10 o'clock. I closed with prayer. (Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 29 Mar 1892) 7 Apr 1892, Abraham H. Cannon: * * * at council meeting * * * "Pres. Woodruff spoke of the spirit which had prompted him to issue the Manifesto, and said it was of God." (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon) 8 July 1892: The Utah Supreme Court made an order directing the Receiver, in the suits of the government against the Church, to turn over to the Secretary of the Interior all Church property declared confiscated. This included the Tithing House property, the Church farm, coal lands, the Historian's office, and the Gardo House. 15 Sep 1892, Annual Report of The Utah Commission: In its report for 1891 the Commission recorded the abandonment of its organization by the People's party, and the proposed division of its voters upon national party lines. But one general election has been held upon that basis, and it may yet be considered in the light of an experiment, although, in the opinion of the Commission, a change is apparent in the political situation in Utah, which, if properly fostered and honestly managed, will be productive of good results. * * * The Commission is glad to note the interest that is manifested generally in political questions, and the growth of sentiment on party lines. * * * The official declaration of the church referred to, if followed out in practice, is a new departure, and can not but prove to be another important step in advance. * * * Denial and denunciations prove nothing. Both have been resorted to by the church authorities for many years. They denied the existence of polygamy when it did exist, and only ceased to deny it when it could no longer be hidden. The Utah Commission has, and can have, nothing to [560] gain by inventing and narrating falsehoods or perverting the truth. It aims to "set naught down in malice, nor aught extenuate." How long was it before the formulation of the offending report that Prof. Talmage, principal of the Latter Day Saints' College, a school where both sexes are taught, testified under oath in the United States district court as Salt Lake as follows? "We teach that we have a right to obey all the revelations of God. I believe that the revelation in regard to plural marriages is from God, and believe that if the Constitution was properly administered the law against plural marriage would never have been passed. I think Congress overstepped its authority in passing that law. * * * We teach pupils that the revelation in regard to celestial marriage is from God, and that it is their duty to obey. All plural marriages are celestial, but all celestial marriages are not plural. The Utah Commission would call attention to the fact, which it esteems no cause for regret but rather something to be gratified with, that in all three of the public and official declarations of the church which marks its change of front as to the heretofore cardinal doctrine of its creed, the acts of the Commission are given as the reason for their promulgation. The Commission considers this fact stronger evidence than it could elsewhere adduce, to prove that the work it was called upon to perform has been well and thoroughly done. The Commission credits the church with all that can reasonably be claimed for it from the official declaration it has promulgated. Much credit has been assumed by the Mormon Church and people for their change of front on the subject of polygamy, and their asserted willing submission and obedience to the laws of the General Government and profound reverence for the rulings of the courts of the country. For thirty-five years polygamy flourished in Utah, and for twenty years of that time in defiance of the penal laws of the land. The Commission was organized, and in eight years time the steady and inflexible enforcement of the laws, aided by the fear of [561] further disfranchisement, compelled the authorities of the church to abandon their cherished doctrine and openly declare their willingness to obey the laws, and the Utah Commission was the only agency referred to as the reason for issuing the "inspired" manifesto. Where before in the history of the world has been recorded any instance of a powerful church, with numerous and devoted followers, giving up an article of faith in their creed, given to them, as they aver and many doubtless believe, by a direct revelation and as a command from God, upon the advice simply of the head of the church, with perfect unanimity, and without a single expression of dissent or even doubt, and without even a manifestation of discontent? Such is the marvelous condition of this important change. It is said by the church organ that the manifesto when read to the conference was adopted by one unanimous uplifting of hands in the tabernacle. So far as can be seen by those living among these people, the only visible manifestation of discontent or of belief or unbelief in the divine inspiration of the manifesto, is seen in the continuation of the practice by members of the church, in defiance of law and of the manifesto, as shown by the frequent arrests, indictments, and convictions for polygamous offenses. * * * That the church has formally spoken against the further solemnization of such marriages; that a large number of its members apparently accept it as final, and profess a willingness to obey the law, is gratifying, and a fact the Commission is glad to record. But that polygamy still exists, and that there are many cases constantly coming to the public knowledge of association between polygamists and the plural wives they had professed to have put away, is a fact that, in the face of the statistics presented, can hardly be controverted. The cases of arrest for unlawful cohabitation have of late been very numerous, and men of prominence in the church are found among the number. Possibly this is due to the weakness common to the majority of mankind, but whatever the cause the fact remains. [562] The Commission has reports of 22 male persons who are believed to have entered into polygamous marriages during the past year, and of more than 300 persons who are known or believed to be now living in polygamous relations. Some of these are stated to be high dignitaries in the church, and none are believed to have lost standing in the church by reason of their polygamous practices. On the 19th of December last, the church authorities petitioned the President for a general amnesty for the Mormon people. In the opinion of the Commission, it is the most important of the documents the church has issued, and contains the most direct and positive statements of its desires and promises for the future which has yet come from that source. It is signed by the first presidency of the church and the twelve apostles, and pledges in the most solemn manner their "faith and honor for the future." * * * Without assenting to all the assertions of this appeal the Commission would be glad if the relief prayed for could be granted, under proper conditions as to the future observance of the pledges so solemnly made. It does so because it believes this people have been led by their leaders and teachers, into the practices and rebellion confessed, and because much of the hardships resulting from the enforcement of the penal laws naturally fall upon those misled, rather than upon the rich and powerful leaders who have misled them, and, more than all, because it believes in mercy and in putting these people upon their honor, giving them an opportunity to prove that the reliance of the Government upon their pledged faith and honor is not misplaced. In so doing it does not recommend, nor does it understand, that such an act of grace to the petitioners would accomplish the turning over at once to the pardoned people the sole and absolute control of the machinery of government in Utah, either through Statehood or so-called home rule. That Utah is advancing on the plane of progress and prosperity should satisfy all who are interested in its welfare. That it is making rapid strides in that direction the Commission freely admits and is glad to report. * * * [563] 26 Oct 1892, Report of Gov. Thomas, Salt Lake Tribune: AMNESTY. On December 18, 1891, there was placed in my hands the following petition for amnesty, signed by the President of the Mormon Church and his two Councilors, and all the Church in this country at the time. It seemed to me it was the most important document which the Government had received from the officers of the Mormon Church. It was a distinct, unqualified pledge that for the future the Mormon Church and people would loyally observe and uphold the law. After consultation with Chief Justice Zane, we agreed to transmit the petition to Washington with the letter that follows the petition. Subsequently Judges Miner, Blackburn and Anderson of the Territorial Supreme Court, Secretary Elijah Sells and Utah Commissioners Godfrey, Saunders and Robertson joined in the recommendation. Here follows amnesty petition and recommendation. POLYGAMY. In my last report referring to the action of the president of the Mormon Church in issuing the so-called manifesto on September 25, 1890, in which he said, "And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from continuing any marriage forbidden by the laws of the land," and the action of the Mormon people in their general conference on October 6, 1890, and again on October 6, 1891, in adopting by a unanimous vote a resolution declaring that "We consider him (Wilford Woodruff) fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the manifesto which has been read in our hearing and which is dated September 6, 1890, and that, as a church, in general conference assembled, we accept the declaration concerning plural marriage as authoritative and binding," I said that I had "no doubt that as they (the Mormon people) have been led to believe it (the manifesto) was put forth by divine sanction, it will be received by the members of the Mormon Church as an authoritative rule of conduct, and that, in effect, the practice of polygamy has been formally renounced by the people." [564] I know of nothing which has transpired during the past year to lead me to qualify the opinions above expressed so far as the Mormon leaders and the Mormon people as a whole are concerned. I do not believe that any polygamous marriages have taken place with the consent or permission of the Mormon leaders, and I also believe that it is the sincere intention of the Mormon people not to approve or sanction polygamous marriages for the future. I also believe that the large majority believe it now to be wrong to live in unlawful cohabitation. There is no doubt, however, for the evidence on this point is conclusive, that many persons who contracted polygamous marriages before the manifesto was issued, have been guilty of unlawful cohabitation. Human nature does not change by the kind of church it enters, and there are Mormons who, because they have the opportunity, are deliberately violating the law prohibiting unlawful cohabitation. It is to be regretted that the sincerity of a whole people in seeking to accomplish a great reform, should be placed under suspicion by the acts of a few, but such is the case. It will probably be some time, it may be years, before the practice of unlawful cohabitation will finally cease. I think, though, that if the majority of the Mormon people could have their way, it would cease now and forever. 12 Nov 1892: At the session of the Territorial Supreme Court, held in Salt Lake City, Chief Justice Charles S. Zane delivered an opinion in the case of the U.S. vs. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, confirming a decision of the lower-court, and authorizing the use of the personal property of the Church under the direction of a trustee, for the building and repairing of houses of worship and the support of the poor. The court appointed Bishop Leonard G. Hardy trustee, and fixed his bonds at $500,000. 4 Jan 1893, Deseret Evening News: AMNESTY. President Harrison issues a Proclamation. [565] WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 4. --President Harrison today issued the following proclamation: WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan. 4, 1893. Whereas, Congress by a statute approved March 22, 1882, and by statutes in furtherance and amendment thereto, defined the crimes of bigamy, polygamy and unlawful cohabitation in the territories and other places within the United States and prescribed a penalty for such crimes, and whereas on or about the 6th day of October, 1890, the Church of Latter-day Saints, (sic) commonly known as the "Mormon Church," through its president issued a manifesto proclaiming the purpose of the said church no longer to sanction the practice of polygamous marriages and calling upon all members and adherents of said church to obey the laws of the United States in reference to said subject matter; and whereas it is represented that since the date of said declaration the members and adherents of said church generally obeyed said laws and abstained from plural marriages and polygamous cohabitation; and whereas, by a petition dated December 19, 1891, the officials of said church, pledging the membership thereof to the faithful obeyance of the laws against plural marriages and unlawful cohabitation, applied to me to grant amnesty for past offenses against said laws, which request a very large number of influential non-Mormons, residents of territories, also strongly urged; and whereas the Utah Commissioners in their report bearing date of September 15th, 1892, recommend that said petition be granted, and said amnesty proclaimed under the proper conditions as to the future observance of the law with a view to the encouragement of those now disposed to become law-abiding citizens; and whereas, during the past two years such amnesty has been granted individual applicants in a very large number of cases, conditional upon the faithful observance of the laws of the United States against unlawful cohabitation, and there are now pending many such applications, now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, by virtue of the powers in me vested, do hereby declare and grant full amnesty [566] and pardon to all persons liable to the penalties of said act, by reason of unlawful cohabitation under the color of polygamous or plural marriage, who since November 1st, 1890, having abstained from such unlawful cohabitation, but upon the express condition that they shall in future faithfully obey the laws of the United States, hereinbefore named, and not otherwise. Those who shall fail to avail themselves of the clemency hereby offered will be vigorously prosecuted. BENJAMIN HARRISON. By the President: John W. Foster, secretary of state. (Deseret Evening News, 5 Jan 1893) 28 Jan 1893: The Beehive house, formerly the property of Pres. Brigham Young, was sold at public auction in Salt Lake City. Apr 1893, Wilford Woodruff: I feel disposed to say something with regard to the Manifesto. To begin with, I will say this work was like a mountain upon me. I saw by the inspiration of Almighty God what lay before this people, and I knew that something had to be done to ward off the blow that I saw impending. But I should have let come to pass what God showed me by revelation and vision; I should have lived in the flesh and permitted these things to come to pass; I should have let this temple go into the hands of our enemies; I should have let every temple be confiscated by the hands of the wicked; I should have permitted all Church property to have been confiscated by our enemies; I should have seen these people--prophets and apostles --driven by our enemies, and our wives and children scattered to the four winds of heaven. I should have seen all this had not Almighty God commanded me to do what I did. Did any of you ever know Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or John Taylor? Did you know of what material they were made? Was there a man on God's footstool that could have moved them to the right or to the left [567] from anything they felt inspired to do? No. Here are George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith and these Twelve Apostles. I want to ask you if Wilford Woodruff could have done anything that these men would not have accepted, in performing the work that was done that pained the hearts of all Israel, except by the spirit and power of God. No. I would just as soon have thought of moving the foundations of this world as to have taken any course to move these men, only by the revelations of God. When that Manifesto was given they accepted it. Why? Because they had the Spirit of God for themselves; they knew for themselves it was right. It was passed, also, before ten thousand Latter-day Saints, and there was not a solitary hand raised against that edict. They, also, had the spirit of revelation for themselves. Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. The Lord has never yet taken from Lucifer, the Son of the Morning, his agency. He still holds it and will hold it until he is bound with the keys of death and hell. The Devil still has power; and the Son of God knew full well if something was not done in order to check this, all these things I have referred to would have come to pass. Yes, I saw by vision and revelation this Temple in the hands of the wicked. I saw every temple in these valleys in the hands of the wicked. I saw great destruction among the people. All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (Fourth Session, Dedicatory Services, Salt Lake Temple) 17 Jul 1893: The Utah Commission, in accordance with Pres. Harrison's amnesty proclamation, ruled that former [568] polygamists, who, since Nov. 1, 1890, had not broken the Edmunds law, were entitled to vote at elections. 31 Aug 1893: The Supreme Court of Utah handed down a decision in the Church suits, to the effect that the government, under the escheat clause of the Edmunds-Tucker law of 1887, was entitled to confiscate the Gardo House, the coal lands, and the Church farm; but that the Historian's Office and the Tithing year were excluded and legally the property of the Church. The case was apealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 5 Oct 1893: A bill providing for the restoration of Church property to the rightful owner was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. * * * 21 Oct 1893: The U. S. Senate passed a bill providing for the restoration of Church property, with certain amendments. 23 Oct 1893: The U.S. House of Representatives concurred in the Senate amendments to the bill providing for the restoration of Church property. 1894: * * * Pres. Cleveland pardoned all polygamists, and restored them to their civil rights. 10 Jan 1894: On report of special Master Bache the Utah Supreme Court ordered certain confiscated Church property valued at $438,174 to be turned over to the First Presidency. 19 Feb 1894: The House branch of the Utah legislature passed a bill to abolish the Utah Commission. 27 April 1894: [569] The New Utah Commission organized * * * 18 Sep 1894: A new oath was framed by the Utah Commission for polygamists. 27 Sep 1894: Pres. Grover Cleveland issued a proclamation granting pardon and restoring civil rights to all persons who were disfranchised by the anti-polygamy laws, excepting those who had not complied with Pres. Harrison's proclamation of Jan. 4, 1893. 4 Mar 1895: Utah's seventh constitutional convention convened in Salt Lake City. (See Appendix for the Enabling Act) 3 Apr 1895: The constitutional convention adopted the preamble and declaration of rights. 6 May 1895: The constitutional convention adopted the constitution as a whole. The delegates were banqueted in the evening. (See Appendix) 27 Aug 1895: By order of the war department, and in accordance with the enactment of Congress that a star should be added to the national flag for each State admitted to the Union, a new star was added for Utah. This increased the number of stars in the national emblem to 45. 31 Aug 1895: The Utah Supreme Court decided that women were not entitled to vote at the November election. 13 Nov 1895, Salt Lake Tribune: EDMUNDS LAW AT WASHINGTON. Will be Rigidly Enforced Against All Offenders. TRIBUNE BUREAU. [570] Post Building, Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D. C., Nov. 13, 1895. The announcement was made today by the courts in Washington that the Edmunds law, which had been decided to be applicable to the District of Columbia, would be strictly enforced against citizens of all classes, and that ignorance of the law would hereafter not be permitted to be given as an excuse. Judge Miller made the announcement from the bench, stating that the enforcement of the law had already accomplished great good, and that it would hereafter be most rigidly applied in all cases where proper evidence or its applicability was brought before the court. Justice Miller held that the law applied as thoroughly to the District of Columbia as it did to Utah, and in his judgment was intended to so apply at the time of its enactment. Mary M. Farnsworth was today commissioned post-master at Lone Tree, Wyo. W.E.A. (Salt Lake Tribune, 14 Nov 1895) 4 Jan 1896: Pres. Grover Cleveland signed the proclamation which admitted Utah into the sisterhood of States. 13 Jan 1896, Deseret Evening News, Editorial: BIERBOWER NOT A PROPHET. The Lamoni Saints' Herald seeks to promote Vic Bierbower, formerly assistant U.S. attorney here and now a prominent Idaho official, to the rank of a prophet. It says that on Jan. 16, 1886, when Mr. Bierbower had asked a jury to convict Elder Lorenzo Snow of unlawful cohabitation upon the ground that if this was done a new revelation would soon follow "changing the divine law of celestial marriage," Elder Snow remarked that "whatever fame Mr. Bierbower may have secured as a lawyer he certainly will fail as a prophet." The Herald then indicates the alleged superiority of Mr. Bierbower's inspiration. Since the conviction was had, however, and the predicted change in the divine law of celestial marriage did not follow it, and has not taken place, Mr. [571] Bierbower's prognostication is yet short of realization; hence his pretensions as prophet have proven baseless thus far. On the other hand, the prediction of his failure to fortell events with even a reasonable degree of accuracy is so notable in its fulfillment that there is no question as to whose was the superior inspiration. It was emphatically not Mr. Bierbower's. 7 Apr 1898, Wilford Woodruff: * * * I want the attention and the prayers of the Saints who have assembled upon this occasion. I have been sick and very weak in my body for a month past, and did not feel that I would be able to attend this Conference till the day before it opened. I have been blessed in this respect to be with you. I desire to say some things to you, and perhaps some strange things, too. I feel disposed to say something about myself, to give you a little of the history of my life, because of what I may want to say before I get through, to the rising generation of Israel. My remarks may be very eccentric to any but Latter-day Saints, and to them also, I expect. * * * I was ordained to dedicate this Salt Lake Temple fifty years before it was dedicated. I knew I should live to dedicate that Temple. I did live to do it. I had great desire in my boyhood to receive the Gospel of Christ, to see a prophet or somebody that could teach me the Gospel of Christ as taught by the ancient Apostles and as I read of in the New Testament. I desired this with every sentiment of my heart, and on the first Gospel sermon I ever heard I was baptized, with my oldest brother. I immediately went to Kirtland. I was in Zion's Camp with the Prophet of God. I saw the dealings of God with him. I saw the power of God with him. I saw that he was a Prophet. What was manifest to him by the power of God upon that mission was of great value to me and to all who received his instructions. I will refer to one instance. A short time before we landed in Missouri Joseph called the camp together. He there prophesied unto us, and told us what lay before us. He gave us the reason why chastisement was before us. He says: "You consider me a boy with the rest of you. You [572] have not realized my position before the Lord. But there is a chastisement before this camp." He told us that this would come upon us because he had not been obeyed in his counsels. In one hour after we landed in Missouri and pitched our tents at Mr. Burkett's, one man began to fall here, another there, and in a few moments we had a dozen of our camp stretched upon blankets with the cholera. The Prophet of God, when he saw this, felt to sympathize with them, and he and Hyrum laid their hands upon Brother Carter, the first man that was taken sick, but as soon as they did it they were seized themselves, and they both had to leave the camp. He said afterwards: "I told you what was coming to pass, and when affliction came I stretched out my hand to stay it, and I came very near falling by it myself." That mission was very interesting to me. I want to say here that in all my life since joining this Church and kingdom, notwithstanding these powers that have been with me to kill me, I have always had the revelations of God with me. That is something I want to talk about to Israel before I get through. The power of God has told me what to do and what not to do. While the devil has had power to afflict my body very seriously, there has been a power with me that has saved me through it all. And, whenever I have had the Holy Spirit with me to tell me what to do, I have had to do that. By that I have been saved. By listening to that still small voice I am here today with you. * * * There is a change coming over the earth; there is a change coming over the Christian world; and it is at our door. You read the revelations in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants appertaining to our day and the generation before the coming of the Son of Man. War! Yes; war is one of the troubles that belong to the generation in which we live. It will come to pass, and no power beneath the heavens can stay it. Who cannot open their eyes and see the change in the things around us? Read these revelations--the revelation just read by Brother Cannon, and the others in these books. The God of heaven has set His hand to carry out these great purposes that you read of. They are as sure [573] to come to pass as that God lives. There is no power on earth, nor beneath the earth, nor anywhere else, that can stay the fulfillment of these things. And they are at our doors. I am anxious that the Latter-day Saints shall round up their shoulders and bear off the kingdom of God. Many in the world have labored to try the (sic) overthrow Mormonism. They have driven our people from their lands. They have persecuted and afflicted us. They have persecuted and driven us. They have put some to death, for the word of God and testimony of Jesus. But they have not thwarted the purposes of God in any of these things. The Lord, in His mercy and wisdom, had led this people to these valleys of the mountains. It is ordained of God that Zion is to be established here. Here is the Tabernacle that the Prophet spoke of as a covering from the storm and the wind, etc. These temples are here in fulfillment of prophecy. We have four of them in this State. President Young was honored of God in the establishment of these things. He lived long enough to dedicate the corner stone of this Temple on this block, into which the Latter-day Saints go and deliver their friends who are in the prison house, and attend to the ordinances of the house of God for them, in fulfillment of the ancient Prophets, who spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost, to the effect that saviors should be raised up on Mount Zion in the latter days while the kingdom is the Lord's. Zion has got to arise. * * * (Conference Report) 7 Apr 1898, George Q. Cannon: * * * As President Woodruff has told us, the Lord has chosen the weak things of the world, that they might not glory in themselves nor in their own strength; and the man that does claim the glory takes steps to destroy his influence and to lose his power and gifts. The Lord will not bless men who seek to take the glory to themselves. These men are fallible, and subject to all the infirmities of human nature; but God has chosen them, and when they do the best they can, seeking to Him for His Spirit, He inspires them; and where they come short He makes [574] it up by His blessing. That which would seem to the natural eye to be a mistaken course or policy He overrules and controls for His glory. That has been the course in this Church from the beginning. The men that have instructed the people, from Joseph himself down through all the ranks of the Priesthood, have been fallible men; their judgment has been imperfect; their conclusions have perhaps not always been as they should have been; but if they have acted according to the light they had and the Spirit that God has given them, and they have sought the Lord for His blessing and guidance, then He takes charge after that and He brings to pass according to His own good will and pleasure, and His power and wisdom are manifested in that which takes place, so that we are perfectly safe. If it were not for this, we would be appalled at the responsibility that rests upon us. Any man who feels the weight of responsibility and thinks of the dreadful consequences that might attend a misstep, could not endure it if there were not something behind him to sustain and buoy him up. President Woodruff could not stand under the pressure of the responsibility upon him, neither could any other man who may be near him or connected with the Apostleship and the Priesthood. But there is this reflection all the time: God can be trusted. God will see to it that His servants are not put to shame; that they do not become a spectacle in the midst of the people--before the Saints or before the world. He has never left His servants at any time. God be thanked this day for this! He has never allowed them to be covered with shame and confusion through failure. But He has sustained them, and He has borne them off victorious, under all circumstances, when they have served Him and appealed to His Holy Spirit to guide them. And He will do it from this time forth until the Lord Himself comes to reign on the earth. This will be the result if we continue to serve Him. Hence it is that the people are required by the Lord--with these evidences before them of what God has done and the predictions that have been fulfilled--to listen to the voice of His servants to accept their counsels, to seek for His [575] word through them, because He has given them power and the authority, standing in His stead in the midst of the people, with the full weight of responsibility upon them. Let me ask this congregation, can you put your finger on a time when the people of this Church have listened to the counsel of the servants of God that they have had reason to repent of it? You all know that no such thing has ever occurred. In every instance, in the deepest peril, under the most trying and dark circumstances, when the people have listened to counsel God has delivered them and brought them through safely. This you all know. Hence it is that God designs and desires that His Saints shall listen to the voice of revelation, to the voice of His Prophet, to the voice of men whom He has called to act in His stead in the midst of the people. And great condemnation will fall upon those who do not do this. * * * (Conference Report, following Wilford Woodruff at 2:00 P.M.) 8 Apr 1898, Wilford Woodruff: In 1833 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was driven out of Jackson County, Mo., for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ. There Bishop Partridge was tarred and feathered by the mob. That was the time of the falling of the stars in that country. Soon afterwards Bishop Partridge called for volunteers to go to Kirtland to see the Prophet. Two men volunteered out of those who had been driven from Jackson County. One was Parley P. Pratt and the other was Lyman Wight. They went to Kirtland and laid before the Prophet the circumstances, and the Prophet called these two men, and others, to go abroad and gather up the strength of the Lord's house and to prepare the camp of Zion. Parley P. Pratt came to my house. I had just been baptized. I was engaged for a year in furnishing lumber by contract. Parley P. Pratt told me it was my duty to lay aside all my temporal matters, go to Kirtland, and join Zion's camp. I obeyed his counsel. I arrived in Kirtland on Saturday and there met with Joseph and Hyrum Smith in the street. I was introduced to Joseph Smith. It was the first time that I had [576] ever seen him in my life. He invited me home to spend the Sabbath with him, and I did so. They had meeting on Sunday. On Sunday night the Prophet called on all who held the Priesthood to gather into the little log school house they had there. It was a small house, perhaps 14 feet square. But it held the whole of the Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were then in the town of Kirtland, and who had gathered together to go off in Zion's camp. That was the first time I ever saw Oliver Cowdery, or heard him speak; the first time I ever saw Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, and the two Pratts, and Orson Hyde and many others. There were no Apostles in the Church then except Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. When we got together the Prophet called upon the Elders of Israel with him to bear testimony of this work. Those that I have named spoke, and a good many that I have not named, bore their testimonies. When they got through the Prophet said, "Brethren I have been very much edified and instructed in your testimonies here tonight, but I want to say to you before the Lord, that you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother's lap. You don't comprehend it." I was rather surprised. He said "it is only a little handfull of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America--it will fill the world." Among other things he said, "it will fill the Rocky Mountains. There will be tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints who will be gathered in the Rocky Mountains and there they will open the door for the establishing of the Gospel among the Lamanites, who will receive the Gospel and their endowments and the blessings of God. This people will go into the Rocky Mountains; they will there build temples to the Most High. They will raise up a posterity there, and the Latter-day Saints who dwell in these mountains will stand in the flesh until the coming of the Son of Man. The Son of Man will come to them while in the Rocky Mountains." I name these things because I want to bear testimony before God, angels and men that mine eyes behold the [577] day, and have beheld for the last fifty years of my life, the fulfillment of that prophecy. I never expected to see the Rocky Mountains when I listened to that man's voice, but I have, and do today. I will say here that I shall not live to see it, you may not live to see it; but these thousands of Latter-day Saint children that belong to the Sabbath schools, I believe many of them will stand in the flesh when the Lord Jesus Christ visits the Zion of God here in the mountains of Israel. And while I bear testimony before God, angels and men, that mine eyes behold the fulfillment of the revelation given that night, I just as much believe the remaining part of it will be fulfilled as I stand here in the flesh. I rejoice at seeing the progress of the work that lies before us. There is a great work before this people in the fulfillment of these prophecies that have been given. Joseph Smith was full of revelation. He foresaw this people, and this work until it was wound up. My prayer to God is that we may pursue such a course that we may enjoy and receive all these blessings, and our posterity after us. Amen. (Conference Report, 2:00 P.M.) 10 Apr 1898, Wilford Woodruff, Closing Remarks: At the close of this Conference I have a desire to bear my testimony before you upon a few principles. I have rejoiced very much during this Conference in listening to the testimony of the Apostles and Elders who have spoken. It has brought to my rememberance a little of my history. In April, 1838, while in the town of Kirtland, in walking across the street I met two men who held the Apostleship. They said to me, "Brother Woodruff, we have something that we want you to join us in." Said I, "What is it?" "We want another Prophet to lead us." "Whom do you want?" "We want Oliver Cowdery. Joseph Smith has apostatized." After listening to them, I said to them: "Unless you repent of your sins you will be damned and go to hell, and you will go through the fulness of eternal damnation, and all your hopes in this life will pass before you like the frost before the rising [578] sun. You are false. Joseph Smith has not apostatized. He holds the keys of the Kingdom of God on earth, and will hold them until the coming of the Son of Man, whether in this world or in the world to come." I am happy to say that those men did repent pretty soon, turned to the Church, and died in it. I feel thankful today that Joseph F. Smith is with us as a son of Hyrum Smith. He bears a true and faithful testimony of his father. I would to God that Joseph Smith had a son in the flesh who would do as Joseph F. Smith does here--bear testimony to the truth of his father. The Prophet Joseph Smith has no son that stands in the midst of the Church of God and bears record of his father. He never has had; possibly never will have. I will give you a testimony here that will show you where I stand with regard to this matter. Joseph Smith never ordained his son Joseph, never blessed him, never set him apart, to lead this Church and kingdom on the face of the earth. When he or any other man says he did, they state that which is false before high heaven. The last speech that Joseph Smith ever made to the quorum of the Apostles was in a building in Nauvoo, and it was such a speech as I never heard from mortal man before or since. He was clothed upon with the Spirit and power of God. His face was clear as amber. The room was filled as with consuming fire. He stood three hours upon his feet. Said he: "You Apostle's of the Lamb of God have been chosen to carry out the purposes of the Lord on the earth. Now, I have received, as the Prophet, seer and revelator, standing at the head of this dispensation, every key, every ordinance, every principle and every Priesthood that belongs to the last dispensation and fulness of times. And I have sealed all these things upon your heads. Now, you Apostles, if you to not rise up and bear off this kingdom, as I have given it to you, you will be damned." I am the only witness left on earth that can bear record of this, and I am thankful that I have lived to see the day in which I stand. I am thankful to see the sons of these Prophets and Apostles holding the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I do not believe the day [579] will ever come--it is too late in the day, in my opinion--when any Elder in this Church will be called to stand before any two of the Apostles with us today and give unto them the declaration that I gave unto the two Apostles I have referred to. I do not think any of the Apostles will occupy that position. I have faith to believe that these men who bear the Apostleship will hold it and live their religion. They have been called and ordained of God for this purpose. I do not think that one of them will apostatize. I believe they will be with you and with this Church while they stand in the flesh, true and faithful to God. Brother Cannon has been laying before you something with regard to the nation in which we live and what has been said concerning it. I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly, if I never do it again in my life, that those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men. General Washington and all the men that labored for the purpose were inspired of the Lord. Another thing I am going to say here, because I have a right to say it. Every one of those men that signed the Declaration of Independence, with General Washington, called upon me, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Temple at St. George, two consecutive nights, and demanded at my hands that I should go forth and attend to the ordinances of the House of God for them. Men are here, I believe, that know of this, Brothers J.D.T. McAllister, David H. Cannon and James G. Bleak. Brother McAllister baptized me for all those men, and then I told those brethren that it was their duty to go into the Temple and labor until they had got endowments for all of them. They did it. Would those spirits have called upon me, as an Elder in Israel, to perform that work if they had not been noble spirits before God? They would not. I bear this testimony, because it is true. The Spirit of God bore record to myself and the brethren while we were laboring in that way. What has been said in regard to this nation and to [580] our position is coming to pass. All the powers of earth and hell will not stay the hand of Almighty God in the fulfillment of those great prophecies that have come to pass to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of Man. You who have gathered here are my witnesses of this. I feel as though the day has come when every Elder and every Latter-day Saint ought to stop and consider the position he is in and the covenants he has entered into. Is there anything on the face of the earth that will pay you to depart from the oracles of God and from the Gospel of Christ? Is there anything that will pay you to lose the principles of salvation, to lose a part in the first resurrection with the privilege of standing in the morning of the resurrection clothed with glory, immortality and eternal life at the head of your father's house? No, there is nothing. I feel sorry many times when I see men who have the Priesthood forget almost that they have any interest in the work of God. I feel to thank God that I have lived as long as I have, and to see as much as I have in fulfillment of the words of the Prophet of God. His days were few. The lives of great men have been strange. The idea of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, only laboring three years and a half in the ministry and then He was put to death! His Apostles, too, were put to death, excepting John the Revelator, and they would have killed him if they could have done so. He lived because God wanted him to live. We live in the last dispensation and in the midst of the great work that all the Patriarchs and Prophets since God made the world have spoken of. Afflictions and tribulations await the world. The destroying angels have got their sharp sickles in their hands, and they are going to reap the earth. Everything that has been spoken by the prophets under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost will come to pass in the generation in which we live. Do not forget it. I thank God we are as well as we are; that we have as many as we have who are united together in the Priesthood. Let us try to live our religion, do our duty, and magnify our calling while we are here. The eyes of all heaven are over us. The eyes of the angels are over us. The Lord has looked [581] upon us and upon the house of Israel to be saviors of the nations. We are here to fulfill these principles. I pray God my Heavenly Father that as Elders of Israel and as Latter-day Saints we may prize these principles, and that we may do our duty what time we spend here in the flesh. These Apostles and all the quorums of the Priesthood have a great work upon them. Every father and mother has a great responsibility resting upon them, to redeem their dead. Do not neglect it. You will have sorrow if you do. Any man will who neglects the redempting of his dead that he has power to officiate for here. When you get to the other side of the veil, if you have entered into these Temples and redeemed your progenitors by the ordinances of the House of God, you will hold the keys of their redemption from eternity to eternity. Do not neglect this! God bless you. Amen. (Conference Report) 2 Sep 1898: Pres. Wilford Woodruff died at the house of Col. Isaac Trumbo, San Francisco, Cal. after an illness of only a few hours. [582]blank [583] APPENDIX The Appendix contains the following items: 1. Virginia Act for establishing religious freedom. 2. Virginia Statute of 1788. 3. Articles of Faith. 4. Laws of 1892. 5. Enabling Act. 6. Constitution of the State of Utah: a. Article III, Ordinance b. Article XXIV, Schedule 7. Laws of 1896. [584]blank [585] VIRGINIA ACT 1786: An Act for extablishing Religious Freedom (1779), passed in the Assembly of Virginia in the beginning of the year 1786. Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coersions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind, that our civil rights have no dependency on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidency by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those [586] privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he had a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its offices to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do [587] declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow, its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. [588] VIRGINIA STATUTE OCTOBER 1788--13th of COMMONWEALTH. CHAP. XXXIV. An Act for the Punishment of the Crime of Bigamy (Passed the 8th of December, 1788). WHEREAS it hath been doubted, whether bigamy or poligamy (sic) be punishable by the laws of this commonwealth; Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that if any person or persons within this commonwealth, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time after the first day of February, which shall be in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife, being alive, that then every such offense shall be felony, and the person or persons, so offending, shall suffer death as in cases of felony: And the party and parties so offending, shall receive such and like proceeding, trial and execution, within this commonwealth, as if the offense had been committed in the county where such person or persons shall be taken or apprehended. Provided, that nothing herein contained shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other, by the space of seven years together, in any part within the United States of America or elsewhere, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time. Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall extend to any person, or persons, that are, or shall be, at the time of such marriage, divorced by lawful authority; or to any person, or persons, where the former marriage hath been, or hereafter shall be by lawful authority, declared to be void, and of no effect; nor to any person, or persons, for or by reason of any marriage had or made, or hereafter to be had or made, within age of consent: Provided also, that no attainder for the offense made felony by this act, shall make, or work any corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate whatsoever. (Commonwealth law of Virginia) [589] THE ARTICLES OF FAITH Of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. 2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. 3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. 4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; forth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. 5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. 6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, viz: apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc. 7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, etc. 8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. 9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now, reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of Gid. 10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion will be built upon this (the American) continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. 11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. 12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, [590] rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. 13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. JOSEPH SMITH [591] LAWS OF 1892 CHAPTER VII. POLYGAMY. AN ACT to Punish Polygamy and Other Kindred Offences. Be it enacted by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah: Polygamy. SECTION 1. Every person who has a husband or wife living, who, hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man who hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; but this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years, and is not known to such person to be living, and is believed by such person to be dead, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by a valid decree of a competent court, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been pronounced void by a valid decree of a competent court, on the ground of nullity of the marriage contract. Cohabitation. SEC. 2. That if any male person, hereafter cohabits with more than one woman, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Adultery. SEC. 3. That whoever commits adultery shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years; and when the act is committed between a married woman and a man who is unmarried, both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery; and when such act is committed between a married man and a woman who is unmarried, the man shall be deemed guilty of adultery. Incest. SEC. 4. That if any person related to another person within and not including the fourth degree of consanguinity computed according to the rules of the civil law, shall marry or cohabit with, or have sexual intercourse with such other so related person, knowing her or him to be within said degree of relationship, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of incest, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than three years and not more than fifteen years. [592] Fornication SEC. 5. That if an unmarried man or woman commits fornication each of them shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars. Counts may be joined. SEC. 6. That counts for any or all offences named in be sections 1 and 2 of this act, may be joined in the same information or indictment. SEC. 7. That counts for any or all offences named in sections 3 and 5 of this act may be joined in the same information or indictment. Shall operate as a bar. SEC. 8. That in all cases where there has been a prosecution, acquittal or conviction under any of the laws of the United States, for any of the crimes defined in this act, that such prosecution, acquittal or conviction shall operate as a bar for any prosecution for the same offences under the provisions of this act. Jurisdiction. SEC. 9. In all prosecutions under this act the district court shall have elusive original jurisdiction. SEC. 10. This act shall take effect from and after its approval. Approved February 4, 1892. [593] ENABLING ACT 4 Mar 1895, The Enabling Act: The Constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except as to Indians not taxed, and not to be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And said Convention shall provide, by ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said State-- First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship: Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited. (Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of Utah, Vol. 1, p. 4) CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF UTAH 8 May 1895: ARTICLE III. Ordinance. The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State: First:--Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship: but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited. (Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, Vol. 2:1857) 8 May 1895: ARTICLE XXIV. Schedule. SECTION 1. In order that no inconvenience may arise, by reason of the change from a Territorial to a State government, it is hereby declared that all writs, actions, prosecutions, judgments, claims and contracts, as well of individuals as of bodies corporate, both public [594] and private, shall continue as if no change had taken place; and all process which may issue, under the authority of the Territory of Utah, previous to its admission into the Union, shall be as valid as if issued in the name of the State of Utah. SEC. 2. All laws of the Territory of Utah now in force, not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations, or are altered or repealed by the Legislature. The act of the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah, entitled, "An Act to punish polygamy and other kindred offenses," approved February 4th, A.D., 1892, in so far as the same defines and imposes penalties for polygamy, is hereby declared to be in force in the State of Utah. SEC. 3. Any person, who, at the time of the admission of the State into the Union, may be confined under lawful commitments, or otherwise lawfully held to answer for alleged violations of any of the criminal laws of the Territory of Utah, shall continue to be so held or confined, until discharged therefrom by the proper courts of the State. (Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, Vol. 2:1880) [595] LAWS OF 1896 CHAPTER 24. POLYGAMY, ETC. 4208. Polygamy defined. Exceptions. Every person who has a husband or wife living, who hereafter marries another, whether married or single, and any man who hereafter simultaneously, or on the same day, marries more than one woman, is guilty of polygamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not more than five years; but this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years, and is not known to such person to be living, and is believed by such person to be dead, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by a valid decree of a competent court, nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been pronounced void by a valid decree of a competent court, on the ground of nullity of the marriage contract. ['92, pp. 5, 6. Polygamous or plural marriages to be forever prohibited, Enabling Act, sec. 3. Polygamous or plural marriages forever prohibited, Con. art. 3, see. 1. This chapter declared in force by the constitution, Con. art. 24, sec. 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW. The constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was not intended to prohibit legislation in respect to polygamy. Religious belief cannot be accepted as a justification of an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145; same case, 1 U. 319. Miles v. U.S., 103 U.S. 304; same case, 2 U. 19. PROOF OF MARRIAGE. On an indictment for bigamy, the first marriage may be proved by the admissions of the prisoner. Miles v. U.S., 103 U.S. 304; same case, 2 U. 19. Or by facts from which it may be inferred. Id. See also U.S. v. Simpson, 7 P. 257. In a prosecution for polygamy, the polygamous marriage may be proven by the confessions of the defendant and by circumstances tending to corroborate the confessions. U.S. v. Basset, 5 U. 131; 13 P. 237. See U.S. v. Miles, 2 U. 19; 103 U.S. 304. U.S. v. Harris, 5 U. 621; 19 P. 197. It was not error in the court in its charge to the jury to call their attention to the evil consequences of bigamy or to remind them of the duty they had to perform. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145; same case, 1 U. 319. 4209. Unlawful cohabitation. If any male person hereafter cohabits with more than one woman, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. ['92, p. 6. See. 5014 as to competency of wife as witness; 4862 as to testimony of accomplice; 4734 as to joinder of offenses in same indictment; also, "Habeas Corpus." UNLAWFUL COHABITATION DEFINED. The offense of cohabiting with more than one woman, when a man to all outward appearances lives and associates with two or more women as wives in the habit and repute of marriage, and sexual intercourse is not a necessary ingredient of this offense. U.S. v. Snow, 4 U. 280; 9 P. 501; see 118 U.S. 346. U.S. v. Musser, 4 U. 153; 7 P. 389. U.S. v. Cannon, 4 U. 122; 7 P. 369; affirmed, 116 U.S. 55; but see Cannon v. U.S., 118 U.S. 355. See U.S. v. Harris, 5. U. 436; 17 P. 75. U.S. v. Smith. 5. U. 232; 14 P. 291. U.S. v. Peay, 5 U. 263; 14 P. 342. A man is guilty of unlawful cohabitation even though he deserts the lawful wife and cohabits exclusively with the plural wife. U.S. v. Clark, 6 U. 120; 21 P. 463. "SEGREGATION" UNLAWFUL. A continuing offense such as that of cohabiting with more than one woman, in the sense of section three of the Edmunds-Tucker act, can be committed but once for the purposes of the indictment or prosecution prior to the time the prosecution is instituted. Overruling U.S. v. Snow, 4 U. 295: 9 P. 686. In re Lorenzo Snow, 120 U.S. 274. PRESUMPTION OF COHABITATION. If a man has a legal wife living, the presumption of fact is that he cohabits with her, but this is a disputable presumption, which may be rebutted. But if a man having a legal wife living makes habitual visits to her at her house, the presumption of law is that be makes the visits as a husband, and be should not be permitted to say that the visits were made by him in any character other than as a husband. U.S. v. Clark, 5 U. 226; 14 P. 288. U.S. v. Clark, 6 U. 120; 21 P. 463. U.S. v. Snow, 4 U. 295; 9 P. 686. 118 U.S. 346. U.S. v. Smith, 5 U. 273; 15 P. 1. U.S. v. Harris, 5 U. 436; 17 P. 75. EVIDENCE OF PRIOR RELATIONSHIP. Where defendant is charged with unlawfully cohabiting with two women between two stated dates, evidence of his conduct and relationship to the women prior to the first date is admissible. U.S. v. Musser, 4 U. 153: 7 P. 389. U.S. v. Groesbeck, 4 U. 487; 11 P. 542. U.S. v. Smith. 5 U. 273; 15 P. 1. U.S. v. Peay. a U. 263; 14 P. 342. If a relationship is formed, which in its inception is unlawful, it is not presumed to cease on the enacting of a law providing for its punishment: otherwise, if the relationship be lawful when formed. U.S. v. Musser, 4 U. 153; 7 P. 389. CONFESSION. The deliberate confessions of defendant that he committed the offense, which confession was proven by two witnesses, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. U.S. v. Schow, 6 U. 381; 24 P. 30. INDICTMENT. An indictment for unlawful cohabitation need not state that the defendant is a male person. U.S. v. Cannon, 4 U. 122; 7 P. 369; affirmed. 116 U.S. 55. U.S. v. Eldredge, 5 U. 161; 13 P. 673. [596] Cal. Civ. C. 1387: 2833. illegitimate children to inherit, when. Every illegitimate child is an heir of the person who acknowledges himself to be the father of such child; and in all cases is in heir of his, mother; and inherits his or her estate, in whole or in part, as the case may be, in the same manner as if he had been born in lawful wedlock. The issue of all marriages null in law, or dissolved by divorce, are legitimate. [C. L.  2742. Legitimation by acknowledgment, 10. Effect of failure to provide for child, 2760-2763. Inheritance of polygamous children, 2848-2850. Act Utah, 1852, 25, permitting illegitimate children to inherit from the father was valid under the organic act, and was not abrogated by act of congress, July 1, 1862, annulling all acts passed by the legislature of Utah "which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy." Cope v. Cope, 137 U.S. 682, reversing same case, 7 U. 63; 24 P. 677. See also Chapman v. Handley, 7 U. 49; 24 P. 673, and In re Pratt estate, 7 U. 278; 26 P. 567. Cal. Civ. C. 1404. Foreign wills, 2744, 2822, 3806. 2848. Inheritance by issue of polygamous marriages. Section twenty-eight hundred and thirty-three included when first enacted and effectually operated at all times thereafter and now operates to include the issue of bigamous and polygamous marriages, and entitles all such issue to inherit, as in said section provided, except such as are not included in the proviso of section eleven of the act of congress called the "Edmunds-Tucker 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 reference to bigamy and for other purposes." ['96, pp. 128-9. 2850. Polygamous issue born on or prior to January 4, 1896, legitimated. The issue of bigamous and polygamous marriages, heretofore contracted between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, born on or prior to the fourth day of January. A. D., eighteen hundred ninety-six, are hereby legitimated; and such issue are entitled to inherit from both parents, and to have and enjoy all rights and privileges to the same extent and in the same manner as though born in lawful wedlock. ['96. pp. 271-2. Legitimation by acknowledgment, 10, 2833. Succession of illegitimate child. 10, 2833.