Chapter 6

[Footnote A: Constitutional Convention Proceedings, vol. ii, p. 1748.]

Mr. Varian's resolution was adopted and became part of the Constitution, so that in the matter of compact between Utah and the United States on the subject of polygamy [i. e., polygamous marrying] our response went even beyond the demand of the people of the United States as voiced in the Enabling act authorizing us to establish a state government, in that we not only adopted the very language of the enabling act, but accepted the definition of polygamy and provided the punishment, prescribed for that offense by Congress; but no demand was made and no action was taken respecting unlawful cohabitation; nor did it in any manner enter into Utah's compact with the United States.[B]

[Footnote B: Mr. Varian held views in harmony with what he said in the discussion on the floor of the Constitutional Convention even before that Convention assembled in the spring of 1895, for at the Territorial Bar Association of Utah, in January of that year, Mr. Varian, then a member-elect of the Constitutional Convention, said, on referring to statehood for Utah:

"In accordance with the general convictions of civilized men and the spirit of free institutions, religious liberty will be fully secured by the organic law and a prohibition against plural or polygamous marriages adopted in deference to the suggestion by Congress. Whether it shall ever be stricken from the Constitution will depend solely upon the future temper and will of the people. It will be observed that the actual polygamous status, or living with two or more women as wives, known in Utah as a criminal offense termed "unlawful cohabitation," is not referred to in the proviso of the Enabling Act. Whether the Constitution builders will content themselves with prohibiting polygamous marriages, or will go further and prescribe the polygamous association also will be developed in time."

And time developed the fact that the Constitutional Convention took no action whatsoever in relation to polygamous living, nor was any attempt made to deal with that phase of the question since the convention conceived that it had done its full duty, all that was required of it, by the Enabling Act, by "Forever prohibiting plural or polygamous marriages."]

Now, understand me, I am not taking the ground that unlawful cohabitation—"polygamous living"—as it has come to be called—is not now contrary to the law in Utah. That it is under the ban of the law is known to every one. But it became so because our state Legislature, after the constitutional convention had settled this vexed question upon the terms here pointed out—our state Legislature (and why I have never yet understood) proceeded to unsettle what had been settled in that convention, picked up the part of the old territorial law that had been discarded by the convention and enacted it with the rest of the code prepared by the special code commission.

Hence unlawful cohabitation is under the ban by our state enactment; and I am not arguing that polygamous living is not against the law, and am not attempting to justify any one in the violation of that law. I am now merely pointing out the fact that in our compact with the government of the United States disruption of marital relations coming down to us out of the past constituted no part of that compact. The terms of the compact are here in the Enabling act and in the Constitution, and may be read and known of all men.

That compact was not made between the Mormon Church leaders, as claimed by Mr. Kearns' adopted speech, and the United States government, but between the people of the United States acting through Congress and the chief executive of the nation, and the people of Utah, acting through their representatives in the Constitutional convention. Utah's Constitutional convention sought earnestly to meet the demands made upon our people by the nation. The chief executive of the nation by accepting the Constitution we had formed and proclaiming Utah's admission into the Union, said we had succeeded in meeting those demands. To undertake now to read into that compact something that was not demanded by the Enabling act, and not conceded by the convention, that is not expressly found in its terms, and not fairly to be implied from them, is infamous. Yet that is what is constantly sought to be done, and we have all sorts of extravagant claims made as to what the Mormon Church leaders pledged in order to obtain statehood—the compact they made with the nation, and how the Mormon Church has broken it, but never a word do we hear as to the compact itself. The Mormon Church leaders made no pledges to obtain statehood, except as in common with all the people of the state they accepted and ratified the compact implied in the Enabling act and the provision in the Utah Constitution forever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages and providing penalties for that offense. The Mormon Church officials pleaded for amnesty for their people, it is true, but amelioration of the hard conditions which a cruel enforcement of the law imposed, not statehood, was the object of their petition.

The foregoing, then, was the compact between the State of Utah and the United States. The question now is, Has it been violated by the State of Utah or by the United States. Certainly not by the latter; and I affirm, with absolute confidence that the affirmation cannot be successfully contradicted, that the compact has not been violated by the State, or the people of Utah. On the contrary, I hold that the compact, such as it was, has been absolutely fulfilled. In this opinion I am sustained by the views of a very distinguished member of the House of Representatives, who discussed the subject somewhat at length on the floor of the House when the Roberts case was considered by that body. It was urged in the report of the special committee which investigated the right of the Representative from Utah to his seat in the House, that "his election as a Representative is an explicit and offensive violation of the 'understanding' by which Utah was admitted as a state."

This "understanding" and the "compact" were discussed on the floor of the House by Representative Littlefield (of Maine) in the following language:

"I would like to enquire of the majority where they find the authority for the proposition that the United States government can go into the question of an 'understanding' that existed before a State was admitted into this Union, and then, having found it, exercise this domiciliary, supervisory, disciplinary power over the State. Where does it exist? What is it indicated by? Is it oral? They do not undertake to suggest it is in the Enabling act, although they refer to it. But is it an oral 'understanding' that exists between the States and the general government by reason of this 'general welfare' power? I assume that they invoke it under this 'general welfare' proposition. Think of it! an 'understanding' which is based on—what? A compact or a contract? I had supposed it was too late at this stage of the history of the republic, in these times of peace, to invoke the proposition of a contract existing between the States and the general government. I knew that the theory of a contract was the parent of the infamous heresy, and I have believed that it was wiped out in blood from 1861 to 1865. More than five hundred thousand of the best, truest, most heroic and bravest men that ever met on the field of battle—the blue and the grey, brethren all—rendered up their lives that that infamous proposition should be blotted out, and blotted out forever. Let the dead past bury its dead. I submit that under these circumstances it ill becomes this House to undertake, in the interest if you please of civilization, to invoke anew the proposition of a contract existing between a State and the United States."

Discussing the question of "compact" further, Mr. Littlefield said:

"Compact is synonymous with contract. The idea of a compact or contract is not predicable upon the relations that exist between the State and the general government. They do not stand in the position of contracting parties. The condition upon which Utah was to become a State was fully performed when she became a State. The Enabling act authorized the President to determine when the condition was performed. He discharged that duty, found that the condition was complied with, and that condition no longer exists."What did Congress require by the Enabling act? Simply that 'said convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable,' etc., and the convention did in terms what it was required to do. It was a condition upon the performance of which by the convention the admission of Utah depended. Its purpose accomplished, its office is gone, and as a condition it ceases to exist. No power was reserved in the Enabling act, nor can any be found in the Constitution of the United States, authorizing Congress, not to say the House of Representatives alone, to discipline the people in or the State of Utah, because the crime of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has not been exterminated in Utah. Where is the warrant to be found for the exercise of this disciplinary, supervisory power. This theory is apparently evolved for the purposes of this case, is entirely without precedent, and has not even the conjecture or dream of any writer to stand upon."

"What did Congress require by the Enabling act? Simply that 'said convention shall provide by ordinance irrevocable,' etc., and the convention did in terms what it was required to do. It was a condition upon the performance of which by the convention the admission of Utah depended. Its purpose accomplished, its office is gone, and as a condition it ceases to exist. No power was reserved in the Enabling act, nor can any be found in the Constitution of the United States, authorizing Congress, not to say the House of Representatives alone, to discipline the people in or the State of Utah, because the crime of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation has not been exterminated in Utah. Where is the warrant to be found for the exercise of this disciplinary, supervisory power. This theory is apparently evolved for the purposes of this case, is entirely without precedent, and has not even the conjecture or dream of any writer to stand upon."

With Mr. Littlefield, then, I say, that so far from the compact between Utah and the United States having been violated, it has been fulfilled. Utah has made no effort to repeal the Constitutional provision forever prohibiting polygamous or plural marriages. On the contrary, her State Legislature has even re-enacted the part of the old Congressional and Territorial law that had been ignored by the Constitutional convention, defining and punishing polygamous living—that is, "unlawful cohabitation."

Passing from the matter of the compact which the speech to which I am replying falsely charges over and over again that we have violated, I come to the accusation and false charges made against the Mormon Church.

Whoever constructed this speech made the central idea of it, the existence of a "monarchy" and a "monarch" in the State of Utah. The "monarchy" is the Mormon Church; the "monarch" is the President of that Church. In order that you may know I am not mistaken, I shall read to you a quotation from the speech on this point:

"Under these several men (the Church Presidents) the social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time it is probably at as high a point as it ever reached under the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. * * * I want you to know that this religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality of men immediately established and has maintained for the mass of its adherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its rulers to regal authority and splendor * * * the chief among them has the dignity of a monarch. * * * In all this social system each Apostle has his great part. He is inseparable from it. He wields now, as does the minister at court, such part of power as the monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his hope and expectation that he will outlive those who are his seniors in rank in order that he may become the ruler."

There is much more to the same effect, but this is enough to show you that the existence of both a "monarchy" and a "monarch" are charged as existing in the Church organization and in its president.

I wish to call your attention to the fact that this is mere assumption. There is no "monarchy" and there is no "monarch" in the Mormon Church. It is a fundamental, constitutional, and I might say institutional principle in the Church that all things in the Church shall be done by common consent of the Church; (Doc. & Cov. sec. xxvi) and so long as that remains the great underlying principle of the government—and largely even of administrative functions,—of the Church of Jesus Christ, I ask you where the principle of monarchy can come in? Furthermore it is expressly provided that no officer of the Church can occupy a place in any of the general or local quorums of the Church, only as he is sustained and accepted by the members of the several divisions of the Church named. (Doc. & Cov. xx: 65.) Moreover, elections, which give the opportunity to get rid of undesirable officers, are more frequent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, than in any other system of ecclesiastical government known to men. Will you tell me how a monarchy can exist in the face of these fundamental truths? I would like to see some explanation of that.

Again, the President of the Church is no "monarch." Yet let me read to you how he is described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech:

"Under these several men [successive Presidents of the Church] the social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time it is probably at as high a point as it every reached under the original Joseph or under Brigham Young. The President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, affects a regal state. His home consists of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and surrounded by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness. In addition to this he has an official residence of historic character near to the office which he occupies as President. When he travels he is usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really servitors. When he attends social functions he appears like a ruler among his subjects."

Can any of you recognize President Joseph F. Smith in that description? I cannot boast of an extremely intimate acquaintance with President Smith's domestic life, or his financial status; but it has been my good fortune to know him personally some 30 years. I know something of the severe economy and frugality which he practices. I know his homes are but cottages, without the grandeur here given them. I know that his family lives in economy and frugality, and that every tree, evergreen, shrub, or flowering plant, or plat of grass about any one of his cottage homes was planted by his own hands or the labor of his sons and wives. I do know that. And though he does now occupy an historic building, owned, not by Joseph F. Smith, but by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is more for the convenience of the people and those who have business with him that he dwells there than because of any "regal" or extravagant tastes that he himself possesses, and in that "official residence" he lives the simplest of lives. I know at least seven of his sons who have arrived at manhood's estate, and I know that they live by daily toil, as my sons and your sons do, as the sons of all the common people do, and occupying no very exalted positions in the industrial or business world, although they are capable, honest and hard working young men. One of them has assisted me in my office work as stenographer for three years. Don't you think if President Smith really affected this "regal state," "lorded" it over the people as he is here represented as doing, and lived in this "series of villas of sufficient exclusiveness" that he would undertake to elevate these sons of his and all his family above this toil in which they are engaged?

The description presents a false picture. I brand it as such. It represents rather the style and state in which the writer of Mr. Kearns' speech would live if he possessed the opportunities he believes President Smith possesses, rather than the manner of President Smith's living. Especially as to the villas of "sufficient exclusiveness."

Again, while President Smith, as we believe, has received a divine appointment to the station he holds, he is dependent for his continuance in that office, as he was dependent for his elevation to it, upon the votes of the people. He is subject to the laws of the Church, as much so as you or I; and a special provision is made in the laws of God for a tribunal before which, for acts of irregularity and unrighteousness, he can be called to account, testimony taken against him, and if his offenses are of sufficiently serious a nature he may be dismissed from his high office, and excommunicated from the Church; and the revelation which provides these arrangements concerning him says that the decision of the court in question is the end of controversy in his case. I know that some men, in their over-zeal to exalt the office of President of the Church have advanced extravagant ideas upon the subject such as saying that no complaint must be made of those occupying that position; that the people must go on performing their daily duties without question, and then if the President should do wrong, God would look after him. Such teachings have now and then been heard; but I call your attention to the fact that the Church Of God is greater than any one man within that Church, however exalted his station may be; that the Lord has provided means by which the Church can correct every man within it, and can-dismiss the unworthy from power. That right is resident in the Church of Christ; and the Church don't have to wait till God kills off unworthy servants before a wrong can be righted. The power exists within the Church to correct any evil, of whatever name or nature, that may arise within it, and that without disrupting the Church, or creating anarchy, but all things are to be done in order, and as God has appointed them. I could give you references to the Doctrine and Covenants covering all these points, but it is a matter of such common knowledge among you that it is not necessary.

Again, the decisions of the First Presidency of the Church are not final in relation to matters of administration and government in the Church, if such decisions are made in unrighteousness, but from such decisions of the First Presidency appeals lie to the general assembly of all the quorums of the Priesthood, which constitute the highest spiritual authority in the Church, that is, all the quorums of the Priesthood are greater than any one quorum, even though it should be the First Presidency. (Doc. and Cov. sec. 107). Neither "monarchy" nor "monarch" can exist where these principles are recognized, as they are recognized in the Church.

The Church government rests purely and solely upon moral authority. Let me explain. Authority is represented in government as of two kinds. Our writers on government tell us that one is "effective authority" and the other is "moral authority." You see effective authority operative in the various governments of man, in kingdoms, empires and republics; their authority rests on force, on compulsion. But moral authority rests on persuasion, not upon compulsion or force. "The action of God," says one, "upon man is moral and moral only. By constituting man free, he has refused to exercise effective authority over him, and an ecclesiastic or politic society claiming divine authority must exercise moral authority only; for the moment it exercises compulsion it ceases to represent God and resolves itself into effective authority which is human, all human, and not at all divine," (Baring-Gold). The government of the Church of Latter-day Saints is such a moral government as is here described. It rests on moral authority only. I read to you from one of the revelations:

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned;"By kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile."

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness, and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

"By kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile."

This is the spirit of the authority underlying this ecclesiastical institution that is described as a "monarchy!"

Having laid the foundation for his argument in this assumption of the existence of a "monarchy" and a "monarch," the author of Mr. Kearns' speech weaves around it all sorts of fallacies, a few of which I shall examine. It is charged that the Church is a business corporation rather than a Church, and is establishing a monopoly in business, and threatens, as some gigantic trust might threaten, the industries of this intermountain region. This is not true. It is true that the Church has invested some of its means in various corporations and enterprises. In so doing it has manifested, as I think, profound wisdom. It has long been regarded as a wise policy in establishing endowments for charitable purposes to invest the original donations given by the generously inclined, and use only the interest upon them for the charitable purpose, and thus place the charity upon a basis sure to prolong its life of usefulness. I say that is a policy of good sense, and good judgment; and that is what is done and no more than that when the Trustee-in-Trust of the Mormon Church invests Mormon Church tithes in business enterprises. But the Church holdings in the various corporations where the investments are made are not sufficient to dominate those institutions or to establish them as trusts in the industrial affairs of the state. Charitable, educational and missionary work are the purposes to which the revenue of the Church is directly devoted. In proof of this let me call your attention to the work in which the Church is engaged, and in which our tithes are consumed.

We teach, as you all know, the principle of gathering to our people. Wherever the gospel is preached the cry goes with it, "Come out of Babylon, oh ye, my people, that ye partake not of her sins and receive not of her plagues." And inasmuch as there is a gathering, must there not also be made some provision to care for the people who come to us? Must we not provide some way for them to gain a foothold in the land if they are to become inhabitants of Zion? Most assuredly; and so part of our tithe funds go into colonizing enterprises that provide a means of obtaining homes for the people. This is done not only in the interests of those who come to us from afar, but in the interests also of those who grow up in our own old centers of population and find the need of enlarged opportunities.

The Church has to sustain publication houses in various parts of the world, and they are maintained, in part, by the general funds of the Church.

We have churches to build in all the wards and stakes of Zion; and while I know, as you know, that part of that expense is met by the people, outside of their tithing, part of it is also met by appropriation from the general funds of the Church.

Temples have been built, and not only built, but maintained. We have four of these magnificent structures now in the State of Utah, and others are in contemplation in other lands where our people are settled.

We have a missionary system to support; and while it is true the missionary meets his own expenses largely, yet the Church from its general funds provides for his return to his home and here and there assistance is rendered where it becomes absolutely necessary.

The Church has its employees to pay; while there is no organization in the world where so much of free labor is given to it—especially in the matter of its preaching ministry—as in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Church does of course require all the time and talent of some of its servants, and when that is the case it necessarily has to remunerate them for their services.

A Church school system has been founded and must be maintained; and this is a much larger enterprise than many suppose it to be. We sustain, and chiefly from the general funds of the Church, the Brigham Young university, Provo, Utah; the Latter-day Saints' University, Salt Lake City, Utah; the Brigham Young college, Logan, Utah; the Weber Stake academy, Ogden, Utah; the Juarez Stake academy, Juarez, Mexico; the Snow academy, Ephraim, Utah; the Ricks academy, Rexburg, Ida.; The Thatcher academy, Thatcher, Ariz.; the Fielding academy, Paris, Idaho; the Cassia Stake Academy, Oakley, Idaho; the Emery Stake academy, Castle Dale, Utah; the St. Johns Stake academy, St. Johns, Arizona; the Snowflake Stake academy, Snowflake, Arizona; the Uintah Stake academy, Vernal, Utah; the Beaver Branch B. Y. University, Beaver, Utah.

If you suppose that this school system does not make large drafts upon the general funds of the Church paid in by you and all of us, you are very much mistaken.

Again, the Church has erected a magnificent hospital in Salt Lake City, the best in the west, and that chiefly from the general funds of the Church, and it will have to be maintained and doubtless enlarged in the same way.

In addition to all this there is the maintenance of the poor, who are always with us, and who are always welcomed into the Church of Christ, though the maintenance and care of them always has been and is now a heavy draft upon the resources of the Church, but it is borne cheerfully since the love and care of the Church for the poor is one of the evidences of her divinity. When men came to the Son of God anciently and demanded to know "Art thou the Messiah, or must we look for another?" Jesus said, "Go and tell those who sent you that the sick are healed, that the blind see, that the lame walk;" and then, I think most glorious of all, he said, "And to the poor the Gospel is preached." And so in this dispensation of the fulness of times, one of the signs of the work's divinity is that it has preached the gospel to the poor, has gathered them from the nations of the earth, has tried to teach them how to sustain themselves, but where that has been out of their power the Church has nourished and supported them from its tithes and its free-will fast offerings, so that the cry of the poor does not reach the ears of the God of Sabbaoth from the midst of the saints.

After the author of this Kearns' adopted speech had recalled the fact that Mormons looked upon this part of their work with pride, he says that in some of the institutions established by the state for the maintenance of the poor, notwithstanding Mormon pride in care of their poor, there are some Mormon poor in those institutions. Well, what of it? Have not the Mormons as well as other citizens a right to such assistance? It is conceded even in the speech under consideration that the Mormons pay half the taxes (and they pay much more than half) out of which the infirmaries with other state institutions are sustained. But notwithstanding there may be some few Mormons in these state institutions, it still remains true that the Mormon Church does much for the poor, and that this charitable work is a heavy draft upon her revenues.

It is falsely represented in this speech that the tithes of the Church are the personal income of the Trustee-in-Trust of the Church.

I know there are many here who, when I make that announcement, will doubtless think, surely Mr. Roberts must be mistaken; a charge so absurd as that would certainly not be made on the floor of the United States senate. But I will read you the charge:

"Independent of these business concerns, he [President Smith] is in receipt of an income like unto that which a royal family derives from a national treasury. One-tenth of all the annual earnings of all the Mormons in the world flows to him. These funds amount to the sum of $1,600,000 annually, or 5 per cent upon $32,000,000, which is one-quarter of the entire taxable wealth of the State of Utah. It is the same as if he owned, individually, in addition to all his visible enterprises, one-quarter of the wealth of the state, and derived from it 5 per cent of income without taxation and without discount. * * * With an income of 5 per cent upon one-quarter of the entire assessed valuation of the State of Utah today, how long will it take this monarch, with his constantly increasing demands for revenue, to absorb the productive power so their he shall be receiving an income of 5 per cent upon one-half the property, and then upon all of the property of the state? This is worse than the farming taxes under the old French kings. Will Congress allow this awful calamity to continue?"

I say that a meaner falsehood could not be uttered than is uttered in those sentences. And it was not done in ignorance. It was done with the intent to deceive the people of the United States, to awaken their bitterness against the great majority of the people in this state, and to represent the Mormons as subservient to a monarch, to a tyrant living in grandeur and upon the profits of their earnings, and was intended to work mischief towards the people of this state. I need not deny the falsehood—you all know the charge to be untrue—that the funds which flow into the hands of the Trustee-in-Trust are but trust funds. Not one dollar belongs to him personally. These funds are used for the various purposes that we have just been considering.

Again, this speech falsely represents that the "government money" is tithed. I shall have to read the passage from the speech in which the charge occurs in order to get you to believe that, I know. So here it is:

"It will astound you to know that every dollar of United States money paid to any servant of the government who is a Mormon is tithed for the benefit of this monarch. Out of every $1,000 thus paid he gets $100 to swell his grandeur. This is also true of money paid out of the public treasury of the State of Utah to Mormon officials."

Nor is the end yet:

"But what is worst of all, the monarch dips into the sacred public school fund and extracts from every Mormon teacher one-tenth of his or her earnings and uses it for his unaccounted purposes; and, by means of these purposes and the power which they constitute, he defies the laws of his state, the sentiment of his country, and is waging war of nullification on the public school system, so dear to the American people."

And that is not all:

"In all this there is no thought on my part of opposition to voluntary gifts by individuals for religious purposes or matters connected legitimately with religion. My comment and criticism are against the tyranny which misuses a sacred name to extract from individuals the moneys which they ought not to spare from family needs, and which they do not wish to spare."

Then tell me why they spare it? That is my question. The tithes that are paid by Mormons are voluntary donations to carry on the work of the Church, and the Church possesses no power by which it can coerce man, woman or child to the payment of tithes. Will you tell me when a man was ever excommunicated solely because he did not pay his tithes. Is there any such case?

But to proceed with the proof that this speech charges that government money is tithed:

"My comment and criticism relate to the power of a monarch whose tyranny is so effective as that not even the moneys paid by the government are considered the property of the government's servant until after this monarch shall have seized his arbitrary tribute, with or without the willing assent of the victim, so that the monarch may engage the more extensively in commercial affairs, which are not a part of either religion or charity."

Can straight-out lying or any other description of lying whatsoever beat this? Not from the regions of the lowest hell can come a spirit more damned in falsehood than the author of this speech, and a senator of the United States sank lower than the author of the falsehood by repeating it from his place in the senate chamber.

One man works for the government; another teaches school. When such employees receive money for the Compensation of their services that money, of course, belongs to them. They own it. It is not government money. The farmer who digs and delves in the earth for his compensation, and who by virtue of his toil and going into partnership with nature—with the soil and the rain and the sunshine—produces his crop and sells it in the market, and holds the cash in his hand—I say that money is no more completely the farmer's than is the money earned by the government employee and the school teacher, theirs. It will go without saying that the school teacher and the government employee have just as much right to devote a portion of their income in the work of the church of their choice as has the farmer to contribute from his income to a like purpose. This part of the speech is an infamous appeal to the prejudices of the people of the United States, and is based on falsehood absolutely.

I might, if it would not take too long, enter into those paragraphs of the speech which by wonderful twisting and turning undertake to make it appear that the Gentiles also are made to bear the burden of this tithing system—this alleged "ecclesiastical tax, levied upon the people of the state," but it would require too long a discussion, and so I shall pass it. Besides it is a proposition too absurd for serious consideration.

[Footnote A: In the paragraphs under this heading are described the character and lightening like political changes of a certain politician, whom Senator Kearns employed upon his personal anti-Mormon newspaper, published in Salt Lake City; and who, it is quite generally conceded, wrote the Kearns Senate Speech.]

These several clauses of the speech just considered indicate better than any others that I have found, the probable authorship of the speech; and I want to talk about that just five minutes.

The man who can utter such bald-faced falsehoods as these is the kind of man who could believe with the Republicans at one time that the foreign importer of goods paid our tariff taxes, and then later could join with the Democrats and conclude, after all, that it must be the consumer who pays the tax.

Such a person as wrote that speech could be one who, sent from a Democratic convention, held in one of the states, to the national Democratic convention, could enthusiastically wire back from the far east that he was well pleased with the Democratic platform and nominee, that the thing for Democrats to do was to "get together and stay together," and then could come home and, hearing the chink of silver, interpret it as a call to him to assist in the organization of a new party that should work for the defeat of the Democratic nominee and the Democratic policies.

The kind of man who wrote that speech could perform any inconsistency in the most consistent manner. I warrant you that he is one who could eat his cake and yet have it; who could let go and hold on at the same time; he could run with the hare and yet bark with the hounds; if he were only a physical, equestrian acrobat, as he is a mental acrobat, he could perform a feat up to the present time regarded as impossible—that is, he could ride at the same time two horses going in opposite directions, whereas it has been quite universally held that if a man rides more than one horse at a time the horses must go in the same direction.

The author of that speech is like one of old, who, however, shall be nameless, because his name is never mentioned in polite society, he can, I warrant you, "quote Scripture to his purpose, aye, and clothe his naked villainy with old odd ends stolen out of holy writ, and seem a saint when most he plays the devil."

The author of that speech might be one who in the hour of his greatest need when on trial, in a way, before the people of the community where he dwelt, would solicit—or have solicited for him—and receive the assistance of a powerful friend in whom the people had confidence; a friend who hoped for his future, and who believed at the time, this possible author of the speech in question was being unfairly dealt with, and hence gave him a certificate which rehabilitated his reputation, and saved him from condemnation by the people; and after receiving such magnanimous treatment, dealt out to him in a spirit of mercy and generosity, this possible author could turn and smite the hand that blessed him, and bark, cur-like, at the heels of the one who did him the greatest kindness? Such an one as this might have written the speech which Senator Kearns adopted and took to the senate chamber of the United States for its christening.

It is falsely alleged in this Kearns adopted speech that the Mormon Church is a menace to Gentile industries in the state excepting mining and smelting, and even these, it charges, are threatened with extermination on certain conditions:

"Let it be sufficient on this point for me to say that all the property of Utah is made to contribute to the grandeur of the president of the Church, and that at his instance any industry, any institution within the state, could be destroyed, except the mining and smelting industry. Even this industry his personal and Church organ has attacked with a threat of extermination by the courts, or by additional legislation, if the smelters do not meet the view expressed by the Church organ."

The charge that the smelters are threatened with extermination by the courts is refuted by the very article from the Deseret News the senator quotes in support of this supposed threat. The facts briefly stated are these: In the south end of Salt Lake valley, near to Salt Lake City, are a number of smelters that daily belch out volumes of smoke and deadly fumes which are injuring the interests of the farmers in that locality, and threaten in time to desolate the southern suburbs of Salt Lake City. The demand is that this evil shall be remedied, or else, of course, that the cause of the difficulty be removed, and now the proposition in theNewswhich is not at all what Senator Kearns' adopted speech makes it out to be:

"TheDeseret Newshas counseled peace, consideration for the smelter people in the difficulties that they have to meet, favor toward a valuable industry that should be encouraged on proper lines, and arbitration instead of litigation. But it really seems now as though an aggressive policy will have to be pursued, or ruin will come to the agricultural pursuits of Salt Lake county, while the city will not escape from the ravages of the smelter fiend. If the companies that control those works will not or can not dispose of the poisonous metallic fumes that pour out of their smokestacks, the fires will have to be banked and the nuisance suppressed. We do not believe the latter is the necessary alternative. We are of opinion that the evil can be disposed of, and we are sure that efforts ought to be made to effect it without further delay."

The other part of the senator's assertion on this point of the Mormon Church being a menace to Gentile industry I really would not consider were it not for the fact that others are taking up the refrain and publishing such pipe dreams as this:

"But if this is the purpose [i. e. to drive out the Gentiles], several things ought to be kept in mind. The first one is that most of the wealth of Utah has been created by Gentiles. The Saints were not opulent when the Gentiles came in force to Utah. Except for the money that the Gentiles have paid the Saints for labor and supplies, the Saints would not be very opulent now; again, if something like a holy war is meditated against Gentiles, they will neither lay down now nor run away. It would not take much of a crusade to cause the Gentiles of Salt Lake to light their homes with coal oil, to walk rather than ride on the street cars, to trade only with Gentile merchants, to employ only Gentile help—in short to closely imitate what the Saints are doing by them now. Do the chiefs of the Church desire to precipitate this state of affairs?"

I should think not. We may have had our differences with our Gentile neighbors and friends, but we should be exceedingly sorry to part with them. No, indeed; we would rather see them increase than diminish; ride in street-cars than see them walk; and burn electric lights rather than tallow dips, or coal oil.

But to be serious, isolation for Mormonism is neither possible nor desirable. Here in Utah and the intermountain west our faith must teach its doctrines, and here our people so exemplify its principles that those who come in contact with them shall yet respect both the religion and those who accept it, and practice it. Mormons have no disposition at all to be unfriendly to Gentiles; and in refutation of the charge that Mormons are unfriendly towards Gentile industries and business, I call your attention to the fact that in the great and varied mercantile business of our state, in our commerce, in the banking business, in mining and smelting, our Gentile friends have become wonderfully prosperous, a condition that could not have been realized under circumstances described in Mr. Kearns' adopted speech. There has been formed no opposition against Gentiles looking to their injury; and I feel safe in saying there will be none.

Now I come to the most interesting part of the speech, that which most becomes the now ex-senator to make. It is more worthy of himself. You observe I said the "ex-senator;" thank the Lord for the "ex!"

It is charged in the speech that the Mormon Church is in politics. I read you the passage:

"Through these channels of social and business relations they [the Mormon leaders] can spread the knowledge of their political desires without appearing obtrusively in politics. When the end of their desire is accomplished they affect to wash their hands of all responsibility by denying that they engaged in political activities. Superficial persons, and those desiring to accept this argument, are convinced by it. But never, in the palmy days of Brigham Young, was there a more complete political tyranny than is exercised by the present president of the Mormon Church and his apostles. * * * Parties are nothing to these men except as parties may be used by them. So long as there is a Republican administration and Congress, they will lead their followers to support Republican tickets; but if by any chance the Democratic party should control this government with a prospect of continuance in power, you would see a gradual veering around under the direction of the Mormon leaders. When Republicans are in power the Republican leaders of the Mormon people are in evidence and the Democratic leaders are in retirement."

I plead not guilty to the charge of Mormon Democrats being in retirement—speaking for one Democrat, at least; and I know my own case is paralleled by many other cases of leading Mormon Democrats; we are never in retirement. We are always in evidence, much to the disgust, perhaps, of some people; nevertheless, when the drum sounds the war spirit is on, and we are in the fight; and expect to be in the fights of the future. I shall leave our Republican friends to plead their own case, knowing very well their ability to do so.

The ex-senator very courageously declared that he would not pass by his own case; and I am glad he did not, because there are some very interesting items in it that I shall be pleased to consider, and it constitutes him a very picturesque figure for at least one brief moment. First of all, I want to call your attention to the fact that this man admits that he was elected to the senate by Church influence.

He claims a sort of a "far off" kind of friendship with President Snow. It certainly must have been very "far off," I can't make out the affinities on which it was based. It certainly did not arise out of any similarity of tastes, or anything in the compatibility of temperament between the two men, for the poles are not farther apart than the natures of these men. This is what the ex-senator says concerning his election:

"For some reason he [President Snow] did not oppose my election to the senate. Every other candidate for the place had sought his favor; it came to me without price or solicitation on my part. The friends and mouthpieces of some of the present leaders have been mean enough to charge that I bought the senatorship from Lorenzo Snow, President of their own Church. Here and now I denounce the calumny against that old man, whose unsought and unbought favor came to me in that contest. * * * I was elected. After all their trickery my opponents were defeated, and to some extent by the very means which they had basely invoked."

There is more of it, but this is enough, I think, to constitute the admission that Mr. Kearns was elected, according to his view of it, by Church influence. Either to affirm or deny this claim is not my purpose. But mark further what Mr. Kearns says:

"No man can retain his seat from Utah and retain his self respect after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured and the object which the Church monarchy intends to achieve."

Then I put to him this question: "Why did you for four long years in dishonor retain the seat that came to you by these—according to your description—dishonorable methods?" The gentleman's speech comes four years too late to have any grace in it. If the next day after his election, knowing then as thoroughly as he knows now, the means and methods by which he secured that election—if at that time he had published to the people of Utah and to the people of the United States something like this:

"I discover that I have been elected by the influence of the Mormon Church leaders. That influence was unsought by me, but I cannot afford to accept a seat in the senate of the United States procured by methods so injurious to the state, so disturbing to our peace. I therefore lay down the honor that this Legislature would put upon me; for if I go to the senate of the United States I must go unfettered by such obligations as would be implied by my accepting this position given me under such circumstances." If, I say, the gentleman four years ago had taken a position of that kind all men would have had some respect for him, and for his denunciation of the exercise of Church influence in political affairs. But after sitting in the high place of honor for four long years, enjoying the benefits of Church influence, then in the last days of his senatorial term to stand up and repudiate the means by which he says he was helped into that high station—it all comes with very poor grace from him, and places his wrath against the exercise of Church influence in politics under strong suspicion of hypocrisy. He stands as one who has received stolen goods, and with great generosity to himself appropriated these goods to his own use; they directly or indirectly clothed him, perhaps, and fed him, or ministered to his vanity; then after thoroughly exhausting the stolen goods and the proceeds from them, he arises in a spirit of lofty morality and denounces the means—if not the thieves—by which they were brought to him. What would be your thought of such an one?

What excuse does the now ex-senator make for thus appropriating the high honors of a senatorship that came to him by reason of his election by Church influence? This is what he offers as his excuse:

"I have served with you four years, and have sought in a modest way to make a credible record here. I have learned something of the grandeur and dignity of the senate, something of its ideals, which I could not know before coming here. I say to you, my fellow senators, that this place of power is infinitely more magnificent than I dreamed when I first thought of occupying a seat here. But were it thrice as great as I now know it to be, and were I back in that old time of struggle in Utah, when I was seeking for this honor, I would not permit the volunteered friendship of President Snow to bestow upon me, even as an innocent recipient, one atom of the Church monarch's favor."

A little later in the speech he also says:

"My ideals have grown with my term of service in this body, and I believe that the man who would render here the highest service to his country must be careful to attain to this place by the purest civic path that mortal feet can tread."

I am happy to learn that this gentleman's ideals have grown. There was much need of such a growth, surely. But what a lofty morality breathes through these sentences! It is very impressive in view of what I am going to call your attention to presently. I want to reveal to you the character of this man. I will read again:

"No man can retain his seat from Utah and retain his self-respect, after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured and the objects which the Church monarch intends to achieve."

Mark that! And yet Mr. Kearns managed to retain his seat for four long years, after he had learned by what means it had come to him; and allowed his self-respect, meantime, to take care of itself. I suggest also that had his term of office extended four years longer—notwithstanding what he has learned about the honor and dignity of a United States senatorship, he would doubtless have continued to hold on to his "honors," through those four long, troubled years of "dishonor." I would like to know what development of ideas between the time of his election and the expiration of his term of office was possible concerning the mischief of Church interference in politics that could so wonderfully open the eyes of this ex-senator to the iniquity of the methods by which his election was procured? Why, from away back in territorial days, for forty-five years, this question of the relation of Church and state has been debated in Utah, and we have learned every lesson it seems to me there is to learn on the subject; and yet, after the long controversy, it took four years in the senate of the United States for this man to discover the wondrous iniquity of receiving Church influence in an election to the senate of the United States! But I have observed in several other of our experiences in the State of Utah that for some mysterious reason politicians never can see the mischief there is in the use of Church influence unless they can't get it, Or they suspect it is being used for the interests of "the other fellow."

But to return to our ex-senator. He says:

"No man can retain this seat from Utah and retain his self-respect after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured and the objects which the Church monarchy intends to achieve. Some of my critics will say that I relinquish that which I could not hold. I will not pause to discuss that point further than to say that if I had chosen to adopt the policy with the present monarch of the Church which his friends and mouthpieces say I did adopt with the king who is dead, it might have been possible to retain this place of honor with dishonor."

You have seen Mr. Kearns—this semblance of a man that in nothing resembles a senator—rise in his place and attitudinize to fit the phrases of his adopted speech before the gaze of this great nation while he denounced the use of Church influence in politics; and now you hear him say that if he had only adopted the methods charged against him in obtaining his first election with the present "Church monarch," he might have retained this honorable seat in the senate "with dishonor." Would he solicit Church influence? the influence of the President of the Church, for his re-election? Certainly not! Such a thing never entered his politically pious mind!Yet, knowing full well the seriousness of the charge I make, I say to this great audience and would say it to the people of the United States if my voice could reach them, and that upon my word of honor, that this man, ex-Senator Kearns, notwithstanding all his lofty utterances, both directly and indirectly, too, sought that very influence for re-election which now he affects to scorn. He, by personal application to President Joseph F. Smith, sought it in the City of Washington, when President Smith was there to testify before the Senate committee on privileges and elections. He sought for that influence in Salt Lake City, sought it personally of the President of the Church, and received the grand reply, "We are not in politics." He sought Church influence indirectly, through what was intended to be the good offices of a fellow senator, whose influence rests upon the same basis as his own, the influence of wealth. Not only once did he thus seek it, but on several occasions. Yet he stands in his place in the Senate and declares that "No man can retain this seat from Utah and retain his self-respect after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured and the objects which the Church monarch intends to achieve!" Still, while in possession of all the knowledge he has now as to the methods and objects of the Mormon Church leaders, Mr. Kearns sought that influence which he says even to be the innocent recipient of would be dishonor!

In what light does this man now stand before the people of this state and of the United States? To say that his course was one of lying and hypocrisy would but faintly describe it; but these terms, weak as they are, may be thrust into the very throat of him, "as deep as to the lungs." Let him pluck them out if he can!

Not only did Mr. Kearns seek Church influence in order to encompass his own re-election, but the Tribune war made upon the Mormon Church was begun and carried forward in his interests; in the hope that the present leaders of the Church could be frightened into supporting him for re-dec-lion. I thank God that he found those whom he could not frighten; whatever else comes of it, I thank the Lord for that.

In concluding his adopted speech the ex-senator suggests a remedy for all our Utah ills; and of course there is none of us who would question his ability to tell the senate just what ought to be done to a state that will no longer have Mr. Kearns for its senator.

The recommendation in substance is this:

Notice must be served upon the Church leaders that they must live within the law. That notice was received a long time ago; and the Mormon Church leaders not only received the notice, but acquiesced in it, too. Prest. Wilford Woodruff received an inspired word that relieved the Church of the burden of maintaining in practice a principle which before then had been regarded as a duty to maintain, in practice as well as in faith. Thus the way was opened for the Mormon leaders to make a concession to the sentiment of the people of the United States, and to the laws of Congress. It is realized by the Mormon leaders also that even if they could they cannot with profit nor to the advantage of the community treat with defiance those laws of the state which prohibit polygamous living. But while that is the case, those involved in that system of marriage which was taught as a divine institution for more than a generation in Utah, have the common rights that belong to those who enjoy the privileges of our free institutions, including home rule, and the administration of the law according to the sentiments of the people where they reside, just as they have the right to be tried by juries of the vicinage where it is alleged the laws are broken. If that local, popular sentiment shall decide that it would be against public policy and the welfare of a large class of the community to rigidly enforce those laws, then I say they are entitled to that clemency. It is for that very reason that home rule in government is so precious a boon, and so necessary to the preservation of the liberties of the people. It is not just that those involved in the Mormon marriage system shall be put in jeopardy of fines and imprisonment by a contemptible spotter and spy, merely an employee of the lowest sensational paper in the United States, the very worst of yellow journals. They have a right to be free from that kind of oppression, and to be subject to the law as administered in harmony with the American spirit of law administration.

Some one will say, however, that there are violators of the law in Utah; and that, too, in relation to new marriages since the issuance of the Manifesto, and since the admission of the state into the Union. If that be true, if all that is claimed in relation to it be true, (but that is not admitted,) then why not execute the law against those who have violated it, and who have broken, so far as they are concerned, the pledge that was given by the state on this subject? Why not prosecute them, and not attempt to do what Edmund Burke a long time ago declared he knew not the method of, namely, to draw an indictment against, an entire people? In other states are not the laws violated? And who is held responsible for that violation? The whole community who are not parties to the violation 'of the law? No; the absurdity of that appears upon the face of it. Why should the people of Utah be judged by a standard different from that by which would be judged the people of Ohio, or the people of Pennsylvania, or the people of Montana? From the first Utah has suffered from this kind of treatment. Every murder that was committed in the community in early days was charged to the "Mormon" Church. When there was a hanging in Montana, or a throat cutting in Nevada, or a lynching bee in Wyoming, the parties concerned were the ones indicted and compelled to bear the burden of their awful crime; but if such a thing happened in Utah, the "Mormon" Church must be involved. And so now in these alleged violations of the law concerning polygamous marriages, the Church is made a party to the transgressions of individuals.

I say that the State of Utah has kept the compact that she made with the people of the United States. When she said as she did say in her Constitution that polygamous or plural marriages shall forever be prohibited and provided for the punishment of such crimes, the State of Utah could not guarantee that every one would obey the law, any more than the inhabitants of Arizona, when they say through the law that horse thieves shall be imprisoned, can engage that a horse shall never again be stolen in that territory, and no horse thief ever escape. What they do mean to say is that if such a crime is committed, and the parties are arraigned under the processes of the law, they shall meet the just penalty of their acts under the law. That is alt they are pledged to do. And so I say concerning those in Utah who may violate the laws, they are amenable to the laws of the state, and if brought before the courts, and the evidence is sufficient, there can be no doubt but they will be punished. But those who are accused of crime have a right to the protection of the forms and processes of the law; and they can not be hailed before a judge and cast into prison merely because sensational charges are made against them in sensational anti-Mormon newspapers; or because Madames Rumor and Neighborhood Gossip say they are guilty as charged. Let the men guilty of violation of the law bear their own burdens.

The people of Utah have neither lot nor part in their offense; and it is an infamy, the like of which is not matched elsewhere in our nation, to attempt to throw the responsibility of their wrong doing upon the great mass of the citizens of Utah, upon the state, or upon the Mormon Church, when they are not parties to their crimes. So long as there is no attempt to change or annul the compact that the people of Utah entered into with the people of the United States, which compact is found consummated in the Constitution of our state, as demanded by the terms of the Enabling act, and so long as no effort is made to shield those who violate the law, so long the people of Utah are keeping their pledges.

Now a few words in conclusion. We find ourselves a very cosmopolitan community in Utah, gathered from all parts of the world, of all sects and persuasions in religion, of all parties in politics, engaged in all of the common avocations of life, from cultivating the soil to delving in the bowels of the earth for its precious ores, its coals and its oils. We inhabit a state the industries of which are varied and profitable; and if it were not for this apparently irrepressible conflict concerning social and religious matters, we might by united effort make of this old "Dead Sea State" a very live and splendid commonwealth, where hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens besides those now on the ground, could find homes where they would enjoy more cloudless days during a year than in any other state of the Union; homes where they might cultivate soil the most fruitful in our great country; homes where they might enjoy an atmosphere that thrills the human system like glorious wine, giving life, health and vitality to men. We might rear here a splendid manhood and womanhood, and have peace and contentment, and show the world how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. All this is possible, notwithstanding our varied religious faiths and our various political convictions. And it does seem to me that the time has come when the wise and conservative citizens of our state of all religions and of all political parties should take counsel together and see if this glorious result to which I have pointed cannot be attained; for when knaves conspire, wise men should counsel together.

A while ago I told you that isolation for the Mormon people is both impossible and undesirable. The idea of the withdrawal of our Gentile population is nonsense, and not upon the program. It is equally true that the Latter-day Saints, come what may, will not surrender their religious faith. That cannot be done. Our Gentile friends must learn to tolerate us, notwithstanding what they may regard as the absurdity of our religious belief. On the other hand, Mormons recognize their amenability to the laws of the state, and we say to them—at least I utter it as my personal conviction—that Mormons hold themselves amenable to the laws of the state, and if their friends and neighbors in the vicinity where they respectively reside are offended at their conduct, taking generously into account the past from which some of our obligations (I will not say troubles) come, why then there is nothing for it but submission to the law as interpreted by the courts and by the people in the vicinity where we reside. I say, under these conditions, our Gentile friends must learn to tolerate us, as we are willing to tolerate them. The great bulk of our Gentile friends came to these mountain valleys because of the financial prospects they saw here spread out before them. They came here to establish homes, to enjoy the climate, to regain health, in some instances, and to possess with their fellow citizens, though Mormons, a goodly land. They are not interested in Mormon polemics. They care not a fig, in the main, for the Mormon religion. Then why not say to those who are a disturbing element and making false charges not only against the Mormons but against the state false charges which we have been considering here tonight, in the speech of the man who was, unhappily, a United States senator from Utah, and whose personal newspaper day after day vomits the bitterness Of hate against the greater part of the community—why not say to these disturbing elements, as God says to the sea, "Hither to shalt thou come, but no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?"

If Mormons and Gentiles in their treatment of each other will adopt this spirit, and such a course as is here suggested is pursued, there is a glorious future for Utah; and I am not at all despondent. It is my faith that as a commonwealth we shall attain to the high destiny that we have held in our hopes for our beloved Utah. I believe that wise counsels will at last prevail. I believe the time will come when our citizens will dwell together in peace and unity. That is my fixed faith, and what little I may be able to do I intend shall be done for the accomplishment of so desirable an object.

With all my heart I thank you for this splendid hearing.[A]

[Footnote A: Throughout the speaker was frequently and loudly applauded by his great audience.]

Back to Index Next