Part SixRecent Development
Chapter 49The Second Period of Apostolic Presidency1877–1879The Apostles Again PresideAt the death of President Brigham Young, there was rejoicing among the enemies of the Church, who thought it was due to his strong personality and force of character that “Mormonism” endured. They did not, and could not, comprehend that the Church had been restored for the last time, and was destined to endure forever with the stamp of divine approval upon it, for the Power by which it was upheld was higher and greater than the personality of any man. The Lord Jesus Christ was its founder, and he had promised to protect and watch over it unto the end.The death of President Young again made the council of Twelve Apostles the presiding quorum of the Church, and as such they were unanimously sustained at the October conference in 1877, with President John Taylor at their head. President John Taylor was born at Milnthorpe, Westmoreland, England, November 1, 1808. About the year 1828 he left his native land and came to Canada, where he received the Gospel in 1836, through the preaching of Elder Parley P. Pratt. He was called to the apostleship in December, 1838, and was actively engaged in the ministry from that time forth. He filled numerous missions and opened the door for the preaching of the Gospel in France in 1850. He superintended the translation of the Book of Mormon in French and German, and was engaged in literary work at home and abroad covering a period of many years. President Taylor was a man of high integrity and strong conviction. He was painfully wounded in Carthage jail—four balls entered his body— at the time of the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph and Patriarch Hyrum Smith. Under his administration the Church grew and expanded notwithstanding the fierce and cruel persecution through which it was forced to go, when the government of the United States, without mercy, was arrayed against it.The Twelve Apostles continued to act as the Presidency of the Church until October, 1880, a little more than three years, when the First Presidency again was organized.The Decision in the Reynolds CaseThe case of Elder George Reynolds, which had been appealed to the supreme court of the United States in 1875, was argued before that body in November 1878. January 6, 1879, that court handed down a decision unanimously confirming the sentence of the courts of Utah, and also declaring the anti-bigamy law of 1862 to be constitutional. This decision was of the utmost concern to the Latter-day Saints, who were confident that the supreme court, in justice, could not give confirmation to a law which they sincerely believed to be an infringement of their religion.President Taylor’s CommentPresident John Taylor, convinced that this decision was an assault on the exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, stated in an interview and in answer to questions from O. J. Hollister, United States internal revenue collector in Utah, the following:“When the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted, those high contracting parties did positively agree that they would not interfere with religious affairs. Now, if our marital relations are not religious, what is? This ordinance of marriage was a direct revelation to us through Joseph Smith, the Prophet. You may not know it, but I know that this is a revelation from God and a command to his people, and therefore it is my religion. I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States has any right to interfere with my religious views, and in doing it they are violating their most sacred obligations. . . .“We acknowledge our children; we acknowledge our wives; we have no mistresses. We had no prostitution until it was introduced by monogamy, and I am now told that these other diabolical deeds are following in its train. The courts have protected these people in their wicked practices. We repudiate all such things, and hence I consider that a system that will enable a man to carry out his professions, and that will enable him to acknowledge his wife or wives and acknowledge and provide for his children and wives, is much more honorable than that principle which violates its marital relations and, whilst hypocritically professing to be true to its pledges, recklessly violates the same and tramples upon every principle of honor, which sits down and coolly and deliberately decides how many children shall be murdered and how many shall live.”An Unjust SentenceThe sentence including “hard labor” pronounced against Elder Reynolds was in excess of the law. On that ground the attempt was made to have the case reopened and the proceedings quashed, but the supreme court of the United States refused to issue such an order. It did, however, remand the case to the supreme court of Utah, with instructions “to cause the sentence of the district court to be set aside, and a new one entered on the verdict in all respects like that before imposed, except so far as it requires the imprisonment to be at hard labor.” A petition from over thirty thousand citizens of the territory, asking for the pardon of the defendant was forwarded to President Rutherford B. Hayes, who ignored it.The Defendant ImprisonedThe defendant, George Reynolds, was re-sentenced June 14, 1879, and two days later he left Salt Lake City, for Lincoln, Nebraska, in charge of George A. Black and William T. Shaughnessy, deputy marshals, to serve his sentence in the Nebraska penitentiary. He served less than a month in that prison when he was brought back to Utah and placed in the local penitentiary where he was confined until he had served out his sentence, from June 1879 to January 1881, receiving the remission of his fine and the reduction for good behavior of one hundred and forty-four days. While confined he taught school, his pupils being the inmates of the prison. So successful was he that the warden remarked of him: “Reynolds is worth more than all the guards in keeping order among the prisoners.”Bitter Threats Against the ChurchThe bitterness of the anti-“Mormon” press of Salt Lake City, and the broadcast circulation of falsehoods by the enemies of the Church commenced an agitation throughout the nation that was to result in special legislation against the “Mormon” people intended to encompass their destruction. Ministers of the Protestant churches in the United States took up the hue and cry. Many bitter expressions were heard in condemnation of the Latter-day Saints, and threats were made against their peace and safety. A sample of the bloodthirsty utterances is that given by Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage in the Brooklyn Tabernacle, shortly after the death of President Young, as follows: “Now my friends—now, at the death of the Mormon Chieftain, is the time for the United States government to strike. They are less organized than they have been, and less than they will be. If these Mormons will not submit to authority, let so much of their rich lands be confiscated for the wants of the government as will be sufficient for their subjugation. If the government of the United States cannot stand the expense, let Salt Lake City pay for it. (Applause.) Turn their vast temple into an arsenal. Set Phil Sheridan after them. (Immense applause.) Give them enough troops and he will teach all Utah that forty wives is thirty-nine too many. I call upon the Church of Jesus Christ to pray for the overthrow of this iniquity.”Address of Anti-“Mormon” WomenIn November, 1878, the Gentile women in Salt Lake City met in the Congregational Church, to the number of about two hundred, and drew up an address to the wife of the President of the United States, denouncing plural marriage and its practice in the name of religion. They called upon the “Christian women of the United States” to aid them in the arrest of “the progress of evil,” and to delay the admission of Utah into statehood until this was accomplished. Congress was also memorialized and circular letters were forwarded to the clergy with the request that they be presented to their congregations for signatures and then sent to the congressmen of their respective districts.“Mormon” Women ReplyA counter mass meeting of the women of the Church was held November 16, 1878, in which they declared they had been misjudged and misrepresented to the nation in regard to their most sacred rights. They invited the government to make an impartial investigation of their cause.Falsehoods of the PressNearly every paper in the United States devoted space to the “Mormon” question, and almost without exception, with bitter denunciation and suggestions to Congress of the most drastic nature. The Salt LakeTribunedid not hesitate to circulate the most contemptible falsehoods that these fires of hate might be kept burning.The Miles CaseAnother cause of agitation, and one that went a long way towards congressional action of the severest nature against the practice of plural marriage, was the case of John H. Miles. This case ran a course of about three years, having been carried before the supreme court of the United States. Miles was arrested in October, 1878, on complaint of Carrie Owen Miles, his wife. She accused Miles of having married Emily Spencer of St. George, on the same day, and a little before her own ceremony was performed. She was not present at the ceremony, but testified that during a reception held that evening Emily Spencer was referred to as Mrs. Miles. The case was taken before Judge Emerson, in the Third district court, in April, 1879, where it was conceded that the ceremony had been performed between John H. Miles and Carrie Owen, and the defense objected to the testimony of the complainant on the ground that a wife could not testify against her husband. The marriage of Miss Spencer was not admitted. However, the evidence was taken and Miles was “found guilty” and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and serve a term of five years in the penitentiary. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of Utah which affirmed the decision, and the case was then taken to the supreme court of the United States. The end of the matter came in 1881, when the supreme court handed down a decision stating that an error had been committed in the trial court by permitting Caroline Owen Miles to give evidence against Miles, since the law in Utah provided that a wife could not legally testify against her husband, or a husband against his wife. The marriage with Emily Spencer not having been admitted, and not having been proved, was the only issue in the trial. The decision was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial. The case was dropped, as the United States attorney felt that there could be no conviction. However, this case helped to stir the country to such a pitch that legislation was enacted repealing the Utah law.Daniel H. Wells Before the CourtWhile the trial of John H. Miles was before the court, Caroline Owen Miles gave a purported description of the apparel worn by those who passed through the endowment house.1The prosecution attempted to show that such apparel was worn by those who went there to be married. Daniel H. Wells, who had performed the ceremony for Miles and Carrie Owen, was called to the stand and questioned by Attorney Van Zile, who asked him to describe the dress worn in that building. This he declined to do. Judge Emerson decided that the question was proper, and as the witness still refused, he was placed in the custody of the marshal, with instructions that he should appear in the court the next day, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court.Imprisonment of Daniel H. WellsThe next day, May 3, 1879, President Wells, with his attorney, appeared before Judge Emerson and stated his willingness to answer the questions, if they should be put in a proper way. The questions were put to him again, but purposely in such a way that he felt it his duty not to answer them. He declared that he was under sacred obligation to preserve secret what he was asked to reveal. The court insisted that he should answer, and the witness replied: “I consider a person who reveals the sacred ceremonies of the endowment house a falsifier and a perjurer; and it has been and is a principle of my life never to betray a friend, my religion, my country, or my God. It seems to me that this is sufficient reason why I should not be held in contempt.”The judge held that the witness was in contempt for not answering, and sentenced him to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and to be imprisoned for two days. President Wells was immediately placed in the hands of the United States marshal and taken to the penitentiary where he served his brief term of confinement.A Public ProtestationThe action of Judge Emerson caused great indignation, and the Latter-day Saints were aroused. A public demonstration in protest of the action was planned, and many people gathered from the surrounding counties as far north as Bear Lake and south as far as Juab. A procession of ten thousand formed and met President Wells at the Burton Farm, three miles south of the city, and marched through the streets to the tabernacle, which was thronged with people. The presence of the released prisoner was a signal for prolonged applause. Speeches were made, interspersed with music from several bands. As the procession marched through the city they carried banners with inscriptions among which were the following:“If courts compel men to dishonor and forswear themselves, how can they expect perjurers to give truth in evidence?”“We honor the law and its just administration, but we despise petty tyranny.”“We will teach our children to be true to their country and their God; but to perjure themselves never! no never!”“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit; we are answerable for them to our God.” —Thomas Jefferson.“If ever the laws of God and men are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.” —Blackstone.“God’s Law: Thou shalt not forswear Thyself; but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”“Modern Law: Thou shalt forswear thyself, or go to prison.”“When Free Masons, Odd Fellows and others are compelled to make their secrets public, it will be time enough to practice on Mormons; try the others first.”“We venerate the Constitution, we honor the law, we respect the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary; we bow to the righteous mandates of the law, but we despise bigots, we execrate tyranny, and protest against intolerance from any source.”Litigation over President Young’s EstateIn June, 1879, a few of the heirs of President Brigham Young, in opposition to all the rest, entered suit against the executors of the estate, claiming property held in the name of the late president as trustee-in-trust for the Church, as his personal property. The sum in litigation amounted to nearly one million dollars. Application was made for an injunction restraining the executors from further performance of their duties, and enjoining President John Taylor from disposing of any property received by him as trustee-in-trust. Judge Emerson granted the injunction and appointed William S. McCornick and United States Marshal Shaughnessy, non-“Mormons,” to take charge of all the property. President Taylor asked that the injunction be dissolved, and the order appointing the receivers be revoked, on the ground that the claims against the estate were “a bona fide existing indebtedness,” so recognized by the late president, who authorized in his will the settling of such claims by his executors.Imprisonment of the ExecutorsA warrant was issued by Judge Boreman, who was most bitter against the Church, for the arrest of President Taylor and the executors, George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young, Jr., and Albert Carrington. Showing that he had complied with the order of the court, President Taylor was discharged, but the executors were committed to the penitentiary, for refusing to furnish additional security, which was considered by them as nothing more or less than an attempt to levy blackmail. Their imprisonment extended from August 4 to 28, when they were released through the reversal of Judge Boreman’s decision by the supreme court of the territory— Judge Boreman dissenting.Counter Suit and SettlementA counter suit was brought against the heirs by the Church for the recovery of its property, The case came before Judge John A. Hunter, who had arrived in the territory the previous summer. The case was dismissed in October (1879), without coming to judgment, as the parties to the suit came to a mutual agreement. The litigant heirs, according to the agreement, were paid the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars and all charges were withdrawn. The receivers were dismissed. President Taylor presented the terms of the settlement before the general conference of the Church which convened two days after the decision was made, and it was endorsed by unanimous vote.Secretary Evarts’ Circular LetterWilliam M. Evarts, secretary of state, in the cabinet of President Hayes, sent out a circular letter in October 1879, to the diplomatic officers of the United States in foreign countries, advising them that large numbers of persons from various lands were coming to the United States for the purpose of joining the “Mormons” in Utah; also that the marriage system of the “Mormons” was pronounced by the laws of the United States to be a crime against the statutes of the country. These immigrants, he said, came “to swell the numbers of the law-defying Mormons of Utah,” who were endeavoring to bring persons to the United States with the intent of violating laws punishable by fine and penitentiary imprisonment. The representatives of the government abroad were instructed to “check the organization of these criminal enterprises,” by calling the attention of the several governments to the situation. This was to be in the interest “not merely of a faithful execution of the laws of the United States, but of the peace, good order and morality which are cultivated and sought to be promoted by all civilized countries.”Condemnation of Evarts’ CourseIt was a time when condemnation of the “Mormons” was a popular amusement in the world, but this letter of Secretary Evarts brought down on his head a storm of ridicule, even from those unfriendly to the Latter-day Saints, in this country and also in foreign lands. The LondonTimeswas very caustic in its treatment of the letter, and the New YorkSunstated: “Now let Mr. Evarts instruct his diplomatic agents abroad to ask the foreign powers—as a favor and a friendly act towards the United States— to hang any of their subjects who may become murderers after their arrival in this country. The foreign powers are said to have been astonished by Mr. Evarts’ circular. They had reason to be amazed.”The Murder of Joseph StandingThe continued publication of unfavorable articles in the press of the country concerning the Latter-day Saints, and the constant repetition of falsehoods emanating from the enemies of the Church at Salt Lake City—where most all the agitation originated—caused much bitterness throughout the country. The missionaries of the Church were sorely abused, especially in the Southern States, where many of them were stripped, tied to trees and brutally beaten by mobs, until the blood ran from their wounded bodies, and when released they were ordered from that part of the country on pain of death if they remained.On the 21st of July, 1878, Elders Joseph Standing, twenty-five years of age, and Rudger Clawson, a youth of twenty-two, were surrounded by a mob at Varnal Station, Whitefield County, Georgia, and were taken to the woods apparently for the purpose of receiving a thrashing. Elder Standing at this juncture made some show of resistance when one of the mobbers fired at him. The ball passed through his left eye and ranging upward came out of the forehead. Immediately following this deed one of the gang, pointing at Elder Clawson, said, “Shoot that man!” It was a critical moment for the young elder, who turned and coolly faced the mob with folded arms and exclaimed, “Shoot!” His coolness seemed to unnerve the mob who lowered their guns. It was then suggested by one of the mobbers that Elder Standing had shot himself, although he was unarmed. Elder Clawson at his earnest solicitation was permitted to go after help, and while he was gone the fiends shot about twenty bullets into the body of the prostrate man, mostly into his face and neck, and so close that the wounds were powder burned.The Coroner’s VerdictAn inquest was held and a verdict found in which David D. Nations, Jasper N. Nations, A. S. Smith, David Smith, Benj. Clark, William Nations, Andrew Bradley, James Fawcett, Hugh Blair, Joseph Nations, Jefferson Hunter and Mack McClure, who were seen by witnesses in the mob at the time of the killing, were accused of the crime.“Not Guilty”The guilty parties fled from Georgia. Three of them were captured and returned to the state, but were released on furnishing bail in the sum of five thousand dollars each. The grand jury found indictments against Jasper Nations for murder, against Bradley for manslaughter, and against Blair for riot. In October, 1879, their trial was held. Elder Clawson attended as a witness, and notwithstanding the positive nature of his testimony, and that of the other eye witnesses, all three defendants were acquitted. Elder John Morgan, who was presiding in the Southern States and who was present at the proceedings, sent a telegram to theDeseret Newsat the close of the trial of Jasper Nations, stating: “The old, old story. Verdict, not guilty!”Notes1.The Endowment House was a comparatively small temple, erected in the northwest corner of the Temple Block to serve temporarily as a house of the Lord. It was torn down in 1889 by the order of President Wilford Woodruff.
The Second Period of Apostolic Presidency
1877–1879
At the death of President Brigham Young, there was rejoicing among the enemies of the Church, who thought it was due to his strong personality and force of character that “Mormonism” endured. They did not, and could not, comprehend that the Church had been restored for the last time, and was destined to endure forever with the stamp of divine approval upon it, for the Power by which it was upheld was higher and greater than the personality of any man. The Lord Jesus Christ was its founder, and he had promised to protect and watch over it unto the end.
The death of President Young again made the council of Twelve Apostles the presiding quorum of the Church, and as such they were unanimously sustained at the October conference in 1877, with President John Taylor at their head. President John Taylor was born at Milnthorpe, Westmoreland, England, November 1, 1808. About the year 1828 he left his native land and came to Canada, where he received the Gospel in 1836, through the preaching of Elder Parley P. Pratt. He was called to the apostleship in December, 1838, and was actively engaged in the ministry from that time forth. He filled numerous missions and opened the door for the preaching of the Gospel in France in 1850. He superintended the translation of the Book of Mormon in French and German, and was engaged in literary work at home and abroad covering a period of many years. President Taylor was a man of high integrity and strong conviction. He was painfully wounded in Carthage jail—four balls entered his body— at the time of the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph and Patriarch Hyrum Smith. Under his administration the Church grew and expanded notwithstanding the fierce and cruel persecution through which it was forced to go, when the government of the United States, without mercy, was arrayed against it.
The Twelve Apostles continued to act as the Presidency of the Church until October, 1880, a little more than three years, when the First Presidency again was organized.
The case of Elder George Reynolds, which had been appealed to the supreme court of the United States in 1875, was argued before that body in November 1878. January 6, 1879, that court handed down a decision unanimously confirming the sentence of the courts of Utah, and also declaring the anti-bigamy law of 1862 to be constitutional. This decision was of the utmost concern to the Latter-day Saints, who were confident that the supreme court, in justice, could not give confirmation to a law which they sincerely believed to be an infringement of their religion.
President John Taylor, convinced that this decision was an assault on the exercise of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, stated in an interview and in answer to questions from O. J. Hollister, United States internal revenue collector in Utah, the following:
“When the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted, those high contracting parties did positively agree that they would not interfere with religious affairs. Now, if our marital relations are not religious, what is? This ordinance of marriage was a direct revelation to us through Joseph Smith, the Prophet. You may not know it, but I know that this is a revelation from God and a command to his people, and therefore it is my religion. I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States has any right to interfere with my religious views, and in doing it they are violating their most sacred obligations. . . .“We acknowledge our children; we acknowledge our wives; we have no mistresses. We had no prostitution until it was introduced by monogamy, and I am now told that these other diabolical deeds are following in its train. The courts have protected these people in their wicked practices. We repudiate all such things, and hence I consider that a system that will enable a man to carry out his professions, and that will enable him to acknowledge his wife or wives and acknowledge and provide for his children and wives, is much more honorable than that principle which violates its marital relations and, whilst hypocritically professing to be true to its pledges, recklessly violates the same and tramples upon every principle of honor, which sits down and coolly and deliberately decides how many children shall be murdered and how many shall live.”
“When the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted, those high contracting parties did positively agree that they would not interfere with religious affairs. Now, if our marital relations are not religious, what is? This ordinance of marriage was a direct revelation to us through Joseph Smith, the Prophet. You may not know it, but I know that this is a revelation from God and a command to his people, and therefore it is my religion. I do not believe that the Supreme Court of the United States has any right to interfere with my religious views, and in doing it they are violating their most sacred obligations. . . .
“We acknowledge our children; we acknowledge our wives; we have no mistresses. We had no prostitution until it was introduced by monogamy, and I am now told that these other diabolical deeds are following in its train. The courts have protected these people in their wicked practices. We repudiate all such things, and hence I consider that a system that will enable a man to carry out his professions, and that will enable him to acknowledge his wife or wives and acknowledge and provide for his children and wives, is much more honorable than that principle which violates its marital relations and, whilst hypocritically professing to be true to its pledges, recklessly violates the same and tramples upon every principle of honor, which sits down and coolly and deliberately decides how many children shall be murdered and how many shall live.”
The sentence including “hard labor” pronounced against Elder Reynolds was in excess of the law. On that ground the attempt was made to have the case reopened and the proceedings quashed, but the supreme court of the United States refused to issue such an order. It did, however, remand the case to the supreme court of Utah, with instructions “to cause the sentence of the district court to be set aside, and a new one entered on the verdict in all respects like that before imposed, except so far as it requires the imprisonment to be at hard labor.” A petition from over thirty thousand citizens of the territory, asking for the pardon of the defendant was forwarded to President Rutherford B. Hayes, who ignored it.
The defendant, George Reynolds, was re-sentenced June 14, 1879, and two days later he left Salt Lake City, for Lincoln, Nebraska, in charge of George A. Black and William T. Shaughnessy, deputy marshals, to serve his sentence in the Nebraska penitentiary. He served less than a month in that prison when he was brought back to Utah and placed in the local penitentiary where he was confined until he had served out his sentence, from June 1879 to January 1881, receiving the remission of his fine and the reduction for good behavior of one hundred and forty-four days. While confined he taught school, his pupils being the inmates of the prison. So successful was he that the warden remarked of him: “Reynolds is worth more than all the guards in keeping order among the prisoners.”
The bitterness of the anti-“Mormon” press of Salt Lake City, and the broadcast circulation of falsehoods by the enemies of the Church commenced an agitation throughout the nation that was to result in special legislation against the “Mormon” people intended to encompass their destruction. Ministers of the Protestant churches in the United States took up the hue and cry. Many bitter expressions were heard in condemnation of the Latter-day Saints, and threats were made against their peace and safety. A sample of the bloodthirsty utterances is that given by Rev. T. DeWitt Talmage in the Brooklyn Tabernacle, shortly after the death of President Young, as follows: “Now my friends—now, at the death of the Mormon Chieftain, is the time for the United States government to strike. They are less organized than they have been, and less than they will be. If these Mormons will not submit to authority, let so much of their rich lands be confiscated for the wants of the government as will be sufficient for their subjugation. If the government of the United States cannot stand the expense, let Salt Lake City pay for it. (Applause.) Turn their vast temple into an arsenal. Set Phil Sheridan after them. (Immense applause.) Give them enough troops and he will teach all Utah that forty wives is thirty-nine too many. I call upon the Church of Jesus Christ to pray for the overthrow of this iniquity.”
In November, 1878, the Gentile women in Salt Lake City met in the Congregational Church, to the number of about two hundred, and drew up an address to the wife of the President of the United States, denouncing plural marriage and its practice in the name of religion. They called upon the “Christian women of the United States” to aid them in the arrest of “the progress of evil,” and to delay the admission of Utah into statehood until this was accomplished. Congress was also memorialized and circular letters were forwarded to the clergy with the request that they be presented to their congregations for signatures and then sent to the congressmen of their respective districts.
A counter mass meeting of the women of the Church was held November 16, 1878, in which they declared they had been misjudged and misrepresented to the nation in regard to their most sacred rights. They invited the government to make an impartial investigation of their cause.
Nearly every paper in the United States devoted space to the “Mormon” question, and almost without exception, with bitter denunciation and suggestions to Congress of the most drastic nature. The Salt LakeTribunedid not hesitate to circulate the most contemptible falsehoods that these fires of hate might be kept burning.
Another cause of agitation, and one that went a long way towards congressional action of the severest nature against the practice of plural marriage, was the case of John H. Miles. This case ran a course of about three years, having been carried before the supreme court of the United States. Miles was arrested in October, 1878, on complaint of Carrie Owen Miles, his wife. She accused Miles of having married Emily Spencer of St. George, on the same day, and a little before her own ceremony was performed. She was not present at the ceremony, but testified that during a reception held that evening Emily Spencer was referred to as Mrs. Miles. The case was taken before Judge Emerson, in the Third district court, in April, 1879, where it was conceded that the ceremony had been performed between John H. Miles and Carrie Owen, and the defense objected to the testimony of the complainant on the ground that a wife could not testify against her husband. The marriage of Miss Spencer was not admitted. However, the evidence was taken and Miles was “found guilty” and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and serve a term of five years in the penitentiary. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of Utah which affirmed the decision, and the case was then taken to the supreme court of the United States. The end of the matter came in 1881, when the supreme court handed down a decision stating that an error had been committed in the trial court by permitting Caroline Owen Miles to give evidence against Miles, since the law in Utah provided that a wife could not legally testify against her husband, or a husband against his wife. The marriage with Emily Spencer not having been admitted, and not having been proved, was the only issue in the trial. The decision was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial. The case was dropped, as the United States attorney felt that there could be no conviction. However, this case helped to stir the country to such a pitch that legislation was enacted repealing the Utah law.
While the trial of John H. Miles was before the court, Caroline Owen Miles gave a purported description of the apparel worn by those who passed through the endowment house.1The prosecution attempted to show that such apparel was worn by those who went there to be married. Daniel H. Wells, who had performed the ceremony for Miles and Carrie Owen, was called to the stand and questioned by Attorney Van Zile, who asked him to describe the dress worn in that building. This he declined to do. Judge Emerson decided that the question was proper, and as the witness still refused, he was placed in the custody of the marshal, with instructions that he should appear in the court the next day, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court.
The next day, May 3, 1879, President Wells, with his attorney, appeared before Judge Emerson and stated his willingness to answer the questions, if they should be put in a proper way. The questions were put to him again, but purposely in such a way that he felt it his duty not to answer them. He declared that he was under sacred obligation to preserve secret what he was asked to reveal. The court insisted that he should answer, and the witness replied: “I consider a person who reveals the sacred ceremonies of the endowment house a falsifier and a perjurer; and it has been and is a principle of my life never to betray a friend, my religion, my country, or my God. It seems to me that this is sufficient reason why I should not be held in contempt.”
The judge held that the witness was in contempt for not answering, and sentenced him to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and to be imprisoned for two days. President Wells was immediately placed in the hands of the United States marshal and taken to the penitentiary where he served his brief term of confinement.
The action of Judge Emerson caused great indignation, and the Latter-day Saints were aroused. A public demonstration in protest of the action was planned, and many people gathered from the surrounding counties as far north as Bear Lake and south as far as Juab. A procession of ten thousand formed and met President Wells at the Burton Farm, three miles south of the city, and marched through the streets to the tabernacle, which was thronged with people. The presence of the released prisoner was a signal for prolonged applause. Speeches were made, interspersed with music from several bands. As the procession marched through the city they carried banners with inscriptions among which were the following:
“If courts compel men to dishonor and forswear themselves, how can they expect perjurers to give truth in evidence?”“We honor the law and its just administration, but we despise petty tyranny.”“We will teach our children to be true to their country and their God; but to perjure themselves never! no never!”“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit; we are answerable for them to our God.” —Thomas Jefferson.“If ever the laws of God and men are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.” —Blackstone.“God’s Law: Thou shalt not forswear Thyself; but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”“Modern Law: Thou shalt forswear thyself, or go to prison.”“When Free Masons, Odd Fellows and others are compelled to make their secrets public, it will be time enough to practice on Mormons; try the others first.”“We venerate the Constitution, we honor the law, we respect the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary; we bow to the righteous mandates of the law, but we despise bigots, we execrate tyranny, and protest against intolerance from any source.”
“If courts compel men to dishonor and forswear themselves, how can they expect perjurers to give truth in evidence?”
“We honor the law and its just administration, but we despise petty tyranny.”
“We will teach our children to be true to their country and their God; but to perjure themselves never! no never!”
“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit; we are answerable for them to our God.” —Thomas Jefferson.
“If ever the laws of God and men are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.” —Blackstone.
“God’s Law: Thou shalt not forswear Thyself; but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”
“Modern Law: Thou shalt forswear thyself, or go to prison.”
“When Free Masons, Odd Fellows and others are compelled to make their secrets public, it will be time enough to practice on Mormons; try the others first.”
“We venerate the Constitution, we honor the law, we respect the Executive, Congress and the Judiciary; we bow to the righteous mandates of the law, but we despise bigots, we execrate tyranny, and protest against intolerance from any source.”
In June, 1879, a few of the heirs of President Brigham Young, in opposition to all the rest, entered suit against the executors of the estate, claiming property held in the name of the late president as trustee-in-trust for the Church, as his personal property. The sum in litigation amounted to nearly one million dollars. Application was made for an injunction restraining the executors from further performance of their duties, and enjoining President John Taylor from disposing of any property received by him as trustee-in-trust. Judge Emerson granted the injunction and appointed William S. McCornick and United States Marshal Shaughnessy, non-“Mormons,” to take charge of all the property. President Taylor asked that the injunction be dissolved, and the order appointing the receivers be revoked, on the ground that the claims against the estate were “a bona fide existing indebtedness,” so recognized by the late president, who authorized in his will the settling of such claims by his executors.
A warrant was issued by Judge Boreman, who was most bitter against the Church, for the arrest of President Taylor and the executors, George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young, Jr., and Albert Carrington. Showing that he had complied with the order of the court, President Taylor was discharged, but the executors were committed to the penitentiary, for refusing to furnish additional security, which was considered by them as nothing more or less than an attempt to levy blackmail. Their imprisonment extended from August 4 to 28, when they were released through the reversal of Judge Boreman’s decision by the supreme court of the territory— Judge Boreman dissenting.
A counter suit was brought against the heirs by the Church for the recovery of its property, The case came before Judge John A. Hunter, who had arrived in the territory the previous summer. The case was dismissed in October (1879), without coming to judgment, as the parties to the suit came to a mutual agreement. The litigant heirs, according to the agreement, were paid the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars and all charges were withdrawn. The receivers were dismissed. President Taylor presented the terms of the settlement before the general conference of the Church which convened two days after the decision was made, and it was endorsed by unanimous vote.
William M. Evarts, secretary of state, in the cabinet of President Hayes, sent out a circular letter in October 1879, to the diplomatic officers of the United States in foreign countries, advising them that large numbers of persons from various lands were coming to the United States for the purpose of joining the “Mormons” in Utah; also that the marriage system of the “Mormons” was pronounced by the laws of the United States to be a crime against the statutes of the country. These immigrants, he said, came “to swell the numbers of the law-defying Mormons of Utah,” who were endeavoring to bring persons to the United States with the intent of violating laws punishable by fine and penitentiary imprisonment. The representatives of the government abroad were instructed to “check the organization of these criminal enterprises,” by calling the attention of the several governments to the situation. This was to be in the interest “not merely of a faithful execution of the laws of the United States, but of the peace, good order and morality which are cultivated and sought to be promoted by all civilized countries.”
It was a time when condemnation of the “Mormons” was a popular amusement in the world, but this letter of Secretary Evarts brought down on his head a storm of ridicule, even from those unfriendly to the Latter-day Saints, in this country and also in foreign lands. The LondonTimeswas very caustic in its treatment of the letter, and the New YorkSunstated: “Now let Mr. Evarts instruct his diplomatic agents abroad to ask the foreign powers—as a favor and a friendly act towards the United States— to hang any of their subjects who may become murderers after their arrival in this country. The foreign powers are said to have been astonished by Mr. Evarts’ circular. They had reason to be amazed.”
The continued publication of unfavorable articles in the press of the country concerning the Latter-day Saints, and the constant repetition of falsehoods emanating from the enemies of the Church at Salt Lake City—where most all the agitation originated—caused much bitterness throughout the country. The missionaries of the Church were sorely abused, especially in the Southern States, where many of them were stripped, tied to trees and brutally beaten by mobs, until the blood ran from their wounded bodies, and when released they were ordered from that part of the country on pain of death if they remained.
On the 21st of July, 1878, Elders Joseph Standing, twenty-five years of age, and Rudger Clawson, a youth of twenty-two, were surrounded by a mob at Varnal Station, Whitefield County, Georgia, and were taken to the woods apparently for the purpose of receiving a thrashing. Elder Standing at this juncture made some show of resistance when one of the mobbers fired at him. The ball passed through his left eye and ranging upward came out of the forehead. Immediately following this deed one of the gang, pointing at Elder Clawson, said, “Shoot that man!” It was a critical moment for the young elder, who turned and coolly faced the mob with folded arms and exclaimed, “Shoot!” His coolness seemed to unnerve the mob who lowered their guns. It was then suggested by one of the mobbers that Elder Standing had shot himself, although he was unarmed. Elder Clawson at his earnest solicitation was permitted to go after help, and while he was gone the fiends shot about twenty bullets into the body of the prostrate man, mostly into his face and neck, and so close that the wounds were powder burned.
An inquest was held and a verdict found in which David D. Nations, Jasper N. Nations, A. S. Smith, David Smith, Benj. Clark, William Nations, Andrew Bradley, James Fawcett, Hugh Blair, Joseph Nations, Jefferson Hunter and Mack McClure, who were seen by witnesses in the mob at the time of the killing, were accused of the crime.
The guilty parties fled from Georgia. Three of them were captured and returned to the state, but were released on furnishing bail in the sum of five thousand dollars each. The grand jury found indictments against Jasper Nations for murder, against Bradley for manslaughter, and against Blair for riot. In October, 1879, their trial was held. Elder Clawson attended as a witness, and notwithstanding the positive nature of his testimony, and that of the other eye witnesses, all three defendants were acquitted. Elder John Morgan, who was presiding in the Southern States and who was present at the proceedings, sent a telegram to theDeseret Newsat the close of the trial of Jasper Nations, stating: “The old, old story. Verdict, not guilty!”
1.The Endowment House was a comparatively small temple, erected in the northwest corner of the Temple Block to serve temporarily as a house of the Lord. It was torn down in 1889 by the order of President Wilford Woodruff.
Chapter 50The Administration of President John Taylor1880–1887The Year of JubileeApril 6, 1880, was just fifty years from the day of the organization of the Church. On this date and the three succeeding days, the fiftieth annual conference of the Church was held in the tabernacle, Salt Lake City. Preliminary meetings were also held on the 4th and 5th. All the members of the council of the apostles were present, excepting George Q. Cannon, who was in Washington representing Utah as delegate in Congress. President John Taylor drew attention to the fact that this was the jubilee year of the Church, and referred to the custom which prevailed in old Israel, as set forth in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus. It was proposed that it be made a year of jubilee and forgiveness in the Church. The Church set the example by striking off one half the indebtedness held by the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, against individuals classed as worthy poor, amounting to the sum of $802,000. One thousand cows and five thousand sheep were also distributed among the needy. The Saints were advised to be charitable and liberal in their dealing with one another. The sum of $75,899, in unpaid tithing, one half the amount due, was remitted against the Saints who were unable to meet their obligation. It was proposed that the Relief Society lend to the farmers, who had suffered loss because of drouth the year before, 34,761 bushels of wheat which they had on hand. This was to be repaid by the farmers, without interest, at the close of the next harvest. “If you find people owing you who are distressed, if you will go to work and try to relieve them as much as you can, under the circumstances, God will relieve you when you get into difficulties,” said President Taylor. “I will tell you that,” he added, “in the name of the Lord. Let us act on a kind, generous, brotherly principle, doing good one to another and carrying out the principles of the everlasting Gospel in our lives.”The Pioneer Day CelebrationThe spirit of the jubilee was carried through the year, and was again made manifest in a marked manner at the celebration on pioneer day, July 24, 1880. There was a long pageant, which paraded through the streets of Salt Lake City, and on three of the floats were natives from twenty-five countries, representing the people who had been gathered through the preaching of the Gospel. A banner was also carried upon which the inscription was written: “I will gather you out from all nations.” Exercises were held in the tabernacle and patriotic speeches were made. Utah had a population at that time of 143,690, showing an increase of nearly 60,000 in the past decade. The great majority of these were members of the Church.President Taylor’s PredictionAt this celebration President Taylor gave utterance to the following prediction: “There are events in the future, and not very far ahead, that will require all our faith, all our energy, all our confidence, all our trust in God, to enable us to withstand the influences that will be brought to bear against us. . . . We cannot trust in our intelligence; we cannot trust in our wealth; we cannot trust to any surrounding circumstances with which we are enveloped; we must trust alone in the living God to guide us, to direct us, to lead us, to teach us and to instruct us. And there never was a time when we needed to be more humble and more prayerful; there never was a time when we needed more fidelity, self-denial, and adherence to the principles of truth, than we do this day.”Re-organization of the First PresidencyAt the general semi-annual conference held in October, 1880, reports were made of the distribution of the cattle, sheep and other substance, which was voted on at the April conference. A time of great rejoicing was had and on the last day (10th) the First Presidency was again re-organized with John Taylor as President of the Church, and George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith as his first and second counselor, respectively. Elders Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smith were called to the apostleship, leaving one vacancy unfilled. The voting was done by quorums, as it was at the sustaining of President Young, beginning with the apostles; second, the patriarchs, presidents of stakes and counselors, and high councils; third, the high priests; fourth, the seventies; fifth, the elders; sixth, the bishops and their counselors; seventh, the lesser priesthood—priests, teachers, deacons; eighth, the presidents of various quorums, and last the whole congregation.Death of Orson Pratt—Calling of Elders Teasdale and GrantOrson Pratt, the last surviving member of the original council of apostles, died in Salt Lake City, October 3, 1881. Elder Pratt possessed a remarkable analytical mind, and was one of the world’s great mathematicians. His discourses and writings on the Gospel are clear and convincing. With all his learning he was humble and unassuming, having perfect assurance in the divinity of the mission of Joseph Smith.In October, 1882, Elders George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant were called to the apostleship by revelation given through President John Taylor. Elder Seymour B. Young was also called to be one of the seven presidents of the seventies.1This revelation was given October 13, 1882, and the brethren were ordained three days later. The Lord, in this revelation, called upon the various quorums of the Priesthood to arise and purify themselves, and for the members to magnify their callings. The Saints were commanded to set their houses in order that they might be purged from sin. The prediction was made that eventually Zion should be established and the nations shall yet acknowledge the Lord.Dedication of the Logan TempleThe Logan Temple—the second structure of the kind built in Utah—was dedicated May 17, 1884, under the direction of President John Taylor, who offered the dedicatory prayer. The site for the temple was dedicated May 17, 1877, by Orson Pratt. The work of excavation was begun May 28, and the laying of rock in July following. September 19, 1877, the corner stones were laid, the order of temple-building being followed. The dedicatory services in 1884, which lasted three days, were very solemn and impressive, and the Saints rejoiced that another house of the Lord had been built, where work for the salvation of the living and the dead could be performed.Anti-“Mormon” Legislation AgitatedDuring the eighties there appeared to be a united effort on the part of the press and the denominational ministers to force legislation against the Latter-day Saints. The chief instigators of this campaign were anti-“Mormon” residents of Utah, with the aid of their organ, the Salt LakeTribune. President Rutherford B. Hayes, who was imposed upon by this agitation, in a message to Congress in December, 1879, and again in 1880, referred to the “Mormon” question and plural marriage. President Garfield made similar reference in his inaugural address, and after the assassination of Garfield, President Arthur took the matter up in his first message to Congress.Bitterness of “Christian” MinistersThe bitterness of the times was expressed by the ChicagoInterior, a Presbyterian paper in the summer of 1881, as follows:“Let the lands and tenements of the Mormons be thrown open to original entry by civilized settlers. . . . Let it be understood that the army will keep out of the way in Utah for four years, and that the use and occupation of Mormon property for one year is to give a preemption title. There are enough young men in the West and South, who are seeking homes, to finish up the pest, fumigate the Territory, and to establish themselves in ninety days after the word ‘go’ is given.”In consonance with this “Christian” spirit, the Rev. J. H. Peters, at Dayton, in October, 1881, said to his congregation: “I would that the guns of Fort Douglas were turned upon them [the “Mormons”] and they made loyal by this means if by no other.” Falsehoods of the deepest hue were also uttered. The notorious T. De Witt Talmage, for instance, circulated the false report that the assassin of President Garfield was a “Mormon,” and the Latter-day Saints were wickedly accused by this reverend, and others, of holding meetings and rejoicing because of the President’s death.The Edmunds BillThe result of all this agitation was the passing of a law in March, 1882, by Congress, amending the law of 1862. It was known as the Edmunds Law, because it was introduced into the senate by George F. Edmunds of Vermont. This measure not only made punishable the contracting of plural marriage, but also polygamous living, which was designated as “unlawful cohabitation.” The punishment for contracting a plural marriage remained the same as in the law of 1862—a fine of five hundred dollars or imprisonment for five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.The President of the United States was authorized to grant amnesty to those who had entered into plural marriage before the passage of this bill, under certain conditions and limitations, and their children born before January 1, 1883, were legitimated.“No polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid . . . shall be entitled to vote at any election . . . 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,” was declared in this bill. Of course this was not intended to apply to “Gentiles” who “cohabited” with more than one woman, outside of the marriage relation, and such—and Utah had them—were shielded by the officers of the law. Moreover, the mere belief in the doctrine of plural marriage was sufficient to bar a person from jury service.All registration and election offices were declared vacant, and provision was made for a commission of five persons to be appointed by the President, and with the consent of the senate, to attend to the duty of registration of voters, canvassing the returns of elections for members of the territorial legislature, and issue certificates, or other evidence of election, until otherwise provided by law. They were to be paid three thousand dollars a year, and to continue in office until the legislature, elected and qualified under the Edmunds Law, should provide for filling the offices as authorized by the statute.Self Government DeniedBy this law, local self-government was annihilated in Utah, contrary to all the guarantees granted to free people since the days of the framing of the government of the United States, if not since the days of King John. Following in the wake of this legislation there was conducted a crusade against the “Mormon” people without a parallel in the history of the United States.The Utah CommissionThe five commissioners appointed through the Edmunds Law, arrived in Utah, August 18, 1882. They were: Alexander Ramsy, of Minnesota, chairman; Algernon S. Paddock, of Nebraska; George L. Godfrey, of Iowa; Ambrose B. Carlton, of Indiana; and James R. Pettigrew, of Arkansas; with Arthur L. Thomas, secretary. They immediately set to work on the duties assigned them, and appointed registrars for the November election, in a manner most unjust to the “Mormon” people. Eight of the registrars, out of twenty-four, were members of the Church, yet the “Mormon” population was in excess of 120,000, and the “Gentile” population —including apostates and others classed as “doubtful” was approximately 23,000. The commissioners also published rules for the guidance of the registrars and the government of election judges, which were manifestly unfair and beyond the scope of the law, which was done to disfranchise a large portion of the “Mormon” population.The Test OathPerhaps the most abominable and shameful thing they did was to prepare the following “test oath:”County of Territory of Utah, } ss.I ……………, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), depose and say that I am over twenty-one years of age, and have resided in the Territory of Utah for six months, and in the precinct of ……………… one month immediately preceding the date hereof, and (if a male) am a native born or naturalized (as the case may be) citizen of the United States and a taxpayer in this Territory, or (if a female), I am native born, or naturalized, or the wife, widow or daughter (as the case may be) of a native born or naturalized citizen of the United States; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a bigamist or a polygamist; that I am not a violator of the laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; that I do not live or cohabit with more than one woman in the marriage relation, nor does any relation exist between me and any woman which has been entered into or continued in violation of the said laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; and (if a woman) that I am not the wife of a polygamist, nor have I entered into any relation with any man in violation of the laws of the United States concerning polygamy or bigamy.Subscribed and sworn before me this …….. day of …………, 1882.……………………………….Registration Officer …… Precinct.Careful Wording of the OathThe expression “I do not live or cohabit with more than one woman IN THE MARRIAGE RELATION,” was so placed as were other clauses to apply against the “Mormons” only. The “Mormon” press and preachers drew attention to this feature of the oath which denied to the “Mormon polygamist,” but permitted the “Gentile libertine,” the right to vote. The admission was commonly made that the Edmunds Law was prepared solely against the “Mormons” and not to apply to the immoralities of the “Gentiles.” This led the First Presidency in an address to the Saints in August, 1882, to say that they regretted that men of high positions would take that view of the law; but they perceived “with unmixed satisfaction” the sharp distinction the oath drew between marriage and licentiousness.The Law made RetroactiveAnother infamous ruling was that any person who had lived in the plural marriage state, but was then not living in that relation, was denied the right of franchise; and this was interpreted to apply to those who had thus married even before the law of 1862. For instance, if a man had married two wives in 1850, before any law against plural marriage was enacted, and both wives had died before the law was passed; the commission ruled that he was a “polygamist” notwithstanding he had no wife living, and denied him the right to vote. “Once a polygamist always a polygamist,” was the common expression. Other rulings and actions, contrary to the law, but intended to annoy and disfranchise the members of the Church, that the minority might rule, were attempted, among them denial to the women of their suffrage.A Campaign of PersecutionFrom this time forth until the close of President John Taylor’s administration, and beyond, the government of the United States carried on a campaign of prosecution, that was relentless and even cruel, against all members of the Church who had married plural wives. Men were punished, not for contracting plural marriage since the passage of the law, but for “unlawful cohabitation;” federal officers hunted men and women and dragged them before selected grand juries, where they were shamefully insulted. Even small children did not escape, but were forced to testify and answer improper and indecent questions, with the object in view of obtaining evidence against their parents; and this was done with threats of dire punishment and contempt of court, if they refused. Such actions partook too much of the days of the Spanish inquisition. Paid spies —men of debased character—were employed to gather evidence. Among those who sat on juries to judge the “morals” of the “Mormon” people, were those who were recreant to every law of decency. The petty officers and the judges of the courts carried on a reign of terror in their determination to stamp out the practice of plural marriage, and it appeared that the greatest crime in the world was for a man to acknowledge honestly that he was the husband of more than one wife, and that he diligently and faithfully supported them and their children; while for the libertine and the harlot there was protection by officers of the law.President Taylor’s StatementAt the general conference of the Church in April, 1882, President John Taylor spoke of the approaching storm. “While the excitement lasts,” said he, “it is useless to reason with the world; when it subsides we can talk to them.” He also expressed the views of the Latter-day Saints when he said: “We do not wish to place ourselves in a state of antagonism, nor act defiantly, toward this government. We will fulfil the letter, so far as practicable, of that unjust, inhuman, oppressive, and unconstitutional law. . . . But we cannot sacrifice every principle of human right. . . . While we are God-fearing and law-abiding, and respect all honorable men and officers, we are no craven serfs, and have not learned to lick the feet of oppressors, nor to bow in base submission to unreasonable clamor. We will contend, inch by inch, legally and constitutionally, for our rights as American citizens.” So sore became the persecution that hundreds of homes were broken up and husbands and fathers were sent to the penitentiary for the offense of “unlawful cohabitation.”A Tribune CanardTo add to the evil of the times the circulation of false and malicious reports increased, and the Latter-day Saints were portrayed as the vilest of the vile. The result of this was continued persecution of the elders in the mission fields.One of these abusive and lying canards appeared in the Salt LakeTribune, March 16, 1884. It purported to be the disloyal utterances of “Bishop West, of Juab.” There was no Bishop West, and the falsehood was exposed. When theTribunewas caught red handed in its lying, it very reluctantly admitted the falsehood, but added that the report sounded like what was going on all the time. Articles of this kind were constantly appearing, and the members of the Church were repeatedly insulted and abused with the hope that some overt act might be committed through unendurable provocation, and thus occasion be made against the Church for its destruction. However, the persecuted people bore the insults without giving cause for such diabolical action.The Canard the Cause of MurderThe “Bishop West” hoax might have been forgotten if the falsehood had ended with the exposure of theTribunestory, but, unfortunately, it was circulated in Tennessee by a Reverend Vandevere, of Lewis County, who made it an occasion to attack the Saints in the South, and arouse the populace against them. He had been duly advised of the nature of the falsehood, but that made no difference; he continued to repeat the story. The result of this circulation of theTribune’sfalsehood, was the enacting of a tragedy, at Cane Creek, Lewis County, Tennessee, of a most shocking character.The Tennessee MassacreIt happened Sunday, August 10, 1884. That morning a number of elders and Saints met at the home of James Condor for religious worship. While the small congregation was assembling, a mob of masked ruffians invaded the premises and shot and killed Elders John H. Gibbs, of Paradise, and William S. Berry, of Kanarra, and also two young men, Martin Condor and John Riley Hudson, who were not members of the Church, but who attempted to protect the elders. Young Hudson, securing his gun, shot and killed the leader of the mob, one David Hinson, but Hinson’s followers returned the fire, mortally wounding the young man who died about one hour later. Because of this retaliation the mob returned and poured a fire into the house through the windows, seriously wounding Mrs. Condor, and riddling the body of Elder Berry. They then secured the body of their leader and made off. Two other missionaries, Elders William H. Jones and Henry Thompson, escaped.Elder Roberts Secures the Bodies of the SlainElder B. H. Roberts was at Chattanooga, in charge of the mission in the absence of President John Morgan, who was in Salt Lake City. At the peril of his own life he went forth and secured the bodies of the missionaries and had them forwarded to Utah, where the “Mormon” people were in mourning. The bodies of the slain elders were interred at their home towns, but public funeral services were also held in Salt Lake City, August 24, 1884.Governor Murray to Governor BateGovernor Eli H. Murray, of Utah, was so filled with animus against the Latter-day Saints that it was impossible for him to communicate with Governor W. B. Bate, of Tennessee, regarding the massacre, without abuse of the Latter-day Saints. Governor Bate offered a reward for the detection and arrest of the murderers. Evidently fearing that they might be caught and punished, Governor Murray, without any reason or excuse, sent a dispatch to the governor of Tennessee in which he said: “Lawlessness in Tennessee and Utah are alike reprehensible, but the murdered Mormon agents in Tennessee were sent from here as they have been for years by the representatives of organized crime, and I submit that as long as Tennessee representatives in Congress are, to say the least, indifferent to the punishment of offenders against the national law in Utah, such cowardly outrages by their constituents as the killing of emigration agents sent there from here will continue.”The Trial of Rudger ClawsonCharles S. Zane became chief justice of Utah in 1884. He came to the territory, August 23, of that year. He was a man whose moral life was above reproach, but he was possessed of an intolerant spirit, and was determined to conduct a strict enforcement of the Edmunds Law. The first case to be tried under that law came before his court October 15, 1884. It was the case of Rudger Clawson, who was found guilty, and when asked by the court if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced he replied:“Your honor, I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do, I shall invariably choose the latter. If I did not so express myself, I should feel unworthy of the cause I represent. The constitution of the United States expressly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (It cannot be denied I think, that marriage, when attended and sanctioned by religious rites and ceremonies, is an establishment of religion.) The law of 1862 and the Edmunds Law were expressly designed to operate against marriage as practiced and believed in by the Latter-day Saints. They are therefore unconstitutional, and of course cannot command the respect that a constitutional law would. That is all I have to say, your honor.”The speech was characteristic of the man. It was bold, sincere, but not defiant. It struck the judge with amazement and he determined on a heavy penalty. It was the third day of November when Elder Clawson was before the court. He was sentenced to pay a fine of eight hundred dollars and imprisonment for four years. Elder Clawson remained in prison until December 12, 1887—three years, one month and ten days —when he received a pardon from President Grover Cleveland.The Segregation RulingFollowing this trial there was inaugurated a cruel and determined persecution. Women were sent to prison for contempt because they would not testify against their husbands. The courts ruled that indictments might be found against a man guilty of cohabitation “for every day.” To be seen at the home of a plural wife, or to support his plural family, was sufficient to create an offense against a man. Each “distinct and separate violation of the law,” as interpreted by the judges, was a separate offense and was liable for punishment.This order of segregation, as it was called, drove many of the leading brethren into exile, for it was virtually an announcement that the violation of the Edmunds Law could be punished by life imprisonment. Later, however, while the supreme court of the United States upheld the Edmunds Law, it condemned the action of the judges in Utah in establishing the “segregation” policy. This came in the habeas corpus case of Elder Lorenzo Snow in February, 1887. While, however, this ruling was being enforced, the First Presidency were in retirement and communicated with the Saints from time to time in general epistles.Sincerity of the “Mormon” PeopleWith all the severity practiced against the “Mormon” people under the Edmunds Law, yet it did not satisfy the enemies of the Church. Without question many of the law makers had imputed to the Latter-day Saints impure motives in the practice of plural marriage. They now discovered through the prosecutions, which fell into the category of persecutions, that it was a matter of the most sincere and sacred character. Nevertheless they were determined to put an end to the practice. Heavier penalties did not seem to avail, for the members of the Church accepted plural marriage as a sacred religious rite, commanded by the Lord, and they would rather die than break their covenants. The actions of the government they looked upon as unconstitutional and an attack upon their religious duties, and while they desired to be, and were, loyal to the country, at the same time they desired to be loyal to their God.The Edmunds-Tucker LawIn March, 1887, Congress passed a supplemental act known as the Edmunds-Tucker Law. President Grover Cleveland neither approved nor disapproved of the act, so it became a law without his signature. Among the many features of this measure were the disincorporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the dissolving of the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, the property of which was escheated to the government of the United States for the benefit of the common schools of Utah. Female suffrage was abolished. It was made the duty of the attorney general of the United States to proceed against the Church and wind up its affairs and the title to all property—except that “no building or grounds appurtenant thereto held and occupied exclusively for the purpose of the worship of God, or parsonage, or burial ground shall be forfeited” —be transferred and escheated to the United States.Proceedings in EscheatmentAt the instance of the attorney general of the United States, suits were filed July 30, 1887, against the Church, and the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, and their property was confiscated. November 5, 1887, United States Marshal Dyer was appointed receiver, and took charge of the real and personal property of the Church to control it.While this infamous measure was before Congress there were many brave men who stood up in the face of the popular clamor and almost united vindictiveness and hatred of the Church, and denounced the high-handed proceedings. Such also had been the case when previous legislation was enacted.The government very graciously permitted the Church to occupy the tithing office and historian’s office, at a yearly rental of $2,400; and the Gardo house at $450 a month. The Temple Block was also retained by the payment of a stipulated rent. All this happened in the United States in the year 1887, not in Spain or Holland in the dark ages or the days of the Inquisition.Death of President John TaylorEarly in the year 1887, because of persecution, President John Taylor and his counselors were forced into exile. The trials and difficulties through which the Church was passing weighed heavily upon the venerable President. He did not live to see the final delivery of the Church property into the hands of a receiver. He died in exile July 25, 1887, at the home of Thomas F. Roueche, at Kaysville, Davis County, Utah, a martyr to the cause of truth which he espoused. At the time of his passing his counselors were with him. His life had been one of trial and suffering. He was a heroic character, strong in his convictions, just in his dealings, uncompromising with evil. It is proper here to quote the words of his counselors at the time of his death:“President John Taylor has been killed by the cruelty of officials who have, in this territory, misrepresented the government of the United States. There is no room to doubt that if he had been permitted to enjoy the comforts of home, the ministrations of his family, the exercise to which he had been accustomed, but of which he was deprived, he might have lived for many years yet. His blood stains the clothes of men, who with insensate hate have offered rewards for his arrest and have hounded him to the grave. History will yet call their deeds by their right names” (Life of John Taylor—Roberts, p. 414).Notes1.For a complete list giving information regarding the apostles and other presiding brethren, seeappendix.
The Administration of President John Taylor
1880–1887
April 6, 1880, was just fifty years from the day of the organization of the Church. On this date and the three succeeding days, the fiftieth annual conference of the Church was held in the tabernacle, Salt Lake City. Preliminary meetings were also held on the 4th and 5th. All the members of the council of the apostles were present, excepting George Q. Cannon, who was in Washington representing Utah as delegate in Congress. President John Taylor drew attention to the fact that this was the jubilee year of the Church, and referred to the custom which prevailed in old Israel, as set forth in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus. It was proposed that it be made a year of jubilee and forgiveness in the Church. The Church set the example by striking off one half the indebtedness held by the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, against individuals classed as worthy poor, amounting to the sum of $802,000. One thousand cows and five thousand sheep were also distributed among the needy. The Saints were advised to be charitable and liberal in their dealing with one another. The sum of $75,899, in unpaid tithing, one half the amount due, was remitted against the Saints who were unable to meet their obligation. It was proposed that the Relief Society lend to the farmers, who had suffered loss because of drouth the year before, 34,761 bushels of wheat which they had on hand. This was to be repaid by the farmers, without interest, at the close of the next harvest. “If you find people owing you who are distressed, if you will go to work and try to relieve them as much as you can, under the circumstances, God will relieve you when you get into difficulties,” said President Taylor. “I will tell you that,” he added, “in the name of the Lord. Let us act on a kind, generous, brotherly principle, doing good one to another and carrying out the principles of the everlasting Gospel in our lives.”
The spirit of the jubilee was carried through the year, and was again made manifest in a marked manner at the celebration on pioneer day, July 24, 1880. There was a long pageant, which paraded through the streets of Salt Lake City, and on three of the floats were natives from twenty-five countries, representing the people who had been gathered through the preaching of the Gospel. A banner was also carried upon which the inscription was written: “I will gather you out from all nations.” Exercises were held in the tabernacle and patriotic speeches were made. Utah had a population at that time of 143,690, showing an increase of nearly 60,000 in the past decade. The great majority of these were members of the Church.
At this celebration President Taylor gave utterance to the following prediction: “There are events in the future, and not very far ahead, that will require all our faith, all our energy, all our confidence, all our trust in God, to enable us to withstand the influences that will be brought to bear against us. . . . We cannot trust in our intelligence; we cannot trust in our wealth; we cannot trust to any surrounding circumstances with which we are enveloped; we must trust alone in the living God to guide us, to direct us, to lead us, to teach us and to instruct us. And there never was a time when we needed to be more humble and more prayerful; there never was a time when we needed more fidelity, self-denial, and adherence to the principles of truth, than we do this day.”
At the general semi-annual conference held in October, 1880, reports were made of the distribution of the cattle, sheep and other substance, which was voted on at the April conference. A time of great rejoicing was had and on the last day (10th) the First Presidency was again re-organized with John Taylor as President of the Church, and George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith as his first and second counselor, respectively. Elders Francis M. Lyman and John Henry Smith were called to the apostleship, leaving one vacancy unfilled. The voting was done by quorums, as it was at the sustaining of President Young, beginning with the apostles; second, the patriarchs, presidents of stakes and counselors, and high councils; third, the high priests; fourth, the seventies; fifth, the elders; sixth, the bishops and their counselors; seventh, the lesser priesthood—priests, teachers, deacons; eighth, the presidents of various quorums, and last the whole congregation.
Orson Pratt, the last surviving member of the original council of apostles, died in Salt Lake City, October 3, 1881. Elder Pratt possessed a remarkable analytical mind, and was one of the world’s great mathematicians. His discourses and writings on the Gospel are clear and convincing. With all his learning he was humble and unassuming, having perfect assurance in the divinity of the mission of Joseph Smith.
In October, 1882, Elders George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant were called to the apostleship by revelation given through President John Taylor. Elder Seymour B. Young was also called to be one of the seven presidents of the seventies.1This revelation was given October 13, 1882, and the brethren were ordained three days later. The Lord, in this revelation, called upon the various quorums of the Priesthood to arise and purify themselves, and for the members to magnify their callings. The Saints were commanded to set their houses in order that they might be purged from sin. The prediction was made that eventually Zion should be established and the nations shall yet acknowledge the Lord.
The Logan Temple—the second structure of the kind built in Utah—was dedicated May 17, 1884, under the direction of President John Taylor, who offered the dedicatory prayer. The site for the temple was dedicated May 17, 1877, by Orson Pratt. The work of excavation was begun May 28, and the laying of rock in July following. September 19, 1877, the corner stones were laid, the order of temple-building being followed. The dedicatory services in 1884, which lasted three days, were very solemn and impressive, and the Saints rejoiced that another house of the Lord had been built, where work for the salvation of the living and the dead could be performed.
During the eighties there appeared to be a united effort on the part of the press and the denominational ministers to force legislation against the Latter-day Saints. The chief instigators of this campaign were anti-“Mormon” residents of Utah, with the aid of their organ, the Salt LakeTribune. President Rutherford B. Hayes, who was imposed upon by this agitation, in a message to Congress in December, 1879, and again in 1880, referred to the “Mormon” question and plural marriage. President Garfield made similar reference in his inaugural address, and after the assassination of Garfield, President Arthur took the matter up in his first message to Congress.
The bitterness of the times was expressed by the ChicagoInterior, a Presbyterian paper in the summer of 1881, as follows:
“Let the lands and tenements of the Mormons be thrown open to original entry by civilized settlers. . . . Let it be understood that the army will keep out of the way in Utah for four years, and that the use and occupation of Mormon property for one year is to give a preemption title. There are enough young men in the West and South, who are seeking homes, to finish up the pest, fumigate the Territory, and to establish themselves in ninety days after the word ‘go’ is given.”
“Let the lands and tenements of the Mormons be thrown open to original entry by civilized settlers. . . . Let it be understood that the army will keep out of the way in Utah for four years, and that the use and occupation of Mormon property for one year is to give a preemption title. There are enough young men in the West and South, who are seeking homes, to finish up the pest, fumigate the Territory, and to establish themselves in ninety days after the word ‘go’ is given.”
In consonance with this “Christian” spirit, the Rev. J. H. Peters, at Dayton, in October, 1881, said to his congregation: “I would that the guns of Fort Douglas were turned upon them [the “Mormons”] and they made loyal by this means if by no other.” Falsehoods of the deepest hue were also uttered. The notorious T. De Witt Talmage, for instance, circulated the false report that the assassin of President Garfield was a “Mormon,” and the Latter-day Saints were wickedly accused by this reverend, and others, of holding meetings and rejoicing because of the President’s death.
The result of all this agitation was the passing of a law in March, 1882, by Congress, amending the law of 1862. It was known as the Edmunds Law, because it was introduced into the senate by George F. Edmunds of Vermont. This measure not only made punishable the contracting of plural marriage, but also polygamous living, which was designated as “unlawful cohabitation.” The punishment for contracting a plural marriage remained the same as in the law of 1862—a fine of five hundred dollars or imprisonment for five years, or both, in the discretion of the court.
The President of the United States was authorized to grant amnesty to those who had entered into plural marriage before the passage of this bill, under certain conditions and limitations, and their children born before January 1, 1883, were legitimated.
“No polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, and no woman cohabiting with any of the persons described as aforesaid . . . shall be entitled to vote at any election . . . 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,” was declared in this bill. Of course this was not intended to apply to “Gentiles” who “cohabited” with more than one woman, outside of the marriage relation, and such—and Utah had them—were shielded by the officers of the law. Moreover, the mere belief in the doctrine of plural marriage was sufficient to bar a person from jury service.
All registration and election offices were declared vacant, and provision was made for a commission of five persons to be appointed by the President, and with the consent of the senate, to attend to the duty of registration of voters, canvassing the returns of elections for members of the territorial legislature, and issue certificates, or other evidence of election, until otherwise provided by law. They were to be paid three thousand dollars a year, and to continue in office until the legislature, elected and qualified under the Edmunds Law, should provide for filling the offices as authorized by the statute.
By this law, local self-government was annihilated in Utah, contrary to all the guarantees granted to free people since the days of the framing of the government of the United States, if not since the days of King John. Following in the wake of this legislation there was conducted a crusade against the “Mormon” people without a parallel in the history of the United States.
The five commissioners appointed through the Edmunds Law, arrived in Utah, August 18, 1882. They were: Alexander Ramsy, of Minnesota, chairman; Algernon S. Paddock, of Nebraska; George L. Godfrey, of Iowa; Ambrose B. Carlton, of Indiana; and James R. Pettigrew, of Arkansas; with Arthur L. Thomas, secretary. They immediately set to work on the duties assigned them, and appointed registrars for the November election, in a manner most unjust to the “Mormon” people. Eight of the registrars, out of twenty-four, were members of the Church, yet the “Mormon” population was in excess of 120,000, and the “Gentile” population —including apostates and others classed as “doubtful” was approximately 23,000. The commissioners also published rules for the guidance of the registrars and the government of election judges, which were manifestly unfair and beyond the scope of the law, which was done to disfranchise a large portion of the “Mormon” population.
Perhaps the most abominable and shameful thing they did was to prepare the following “test oath:”
County of Territory of Utah, } ss.I ……………, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), depose and say that I am over twenty-one years of age, and have resided in the Territory of Utah for six months, and in the precinct of ……………… one month immediately preceding the date hereof, and (if a male) am a native born or naturalized (as the case may be) citizen of the United States and a taxpayer in this Territory, or (if a female), I am native born, or naturalized, or the wife, widow or daughter (as the case may be) of a native born or naturalized citizen of the United States; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a bigamist or a polygamist; that I am not a violator of the laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; that I do not live or cohabit with more than one woman in the marriage relation, nor does any relation exist between me and any woman which has been entered into or continued in violation of the said laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; and (if a woman) that I am not the wife of a polygamist, nor have I entered into any relation with any man in violation of the laws of the United States concerning polygamy or bigamy.Subscribed and sworn before me this …….. day of …………, 1882.……………………………….Registration Officer …… Precinct.
County of Territory of Utah, } ss.
I ……………, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), depose and say that I am over twenty-one years of age, and have resided in the Territory of Utah for six months, and in the precinct of ……………… one month immediately preceding the date hereof, and (if a male) am a native born or naturalized (as the case may be) citizen of the United States and a taxpayer in this Territory, or (if a female), I am native born, or naturalized, or the wife, widow or daughter (as the case may be) of a native born or naturalized citizen of the United States; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a bigamist or a polygamist; that I am not a violator of the laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; that I do not live or cohabit with more than one woman in the marriage relation, nor does any relation exist between me and any woman which has been entered into or continued in violation of the said laws of the United States prohibiting bigamy or polygamy; and (if a woman) that I am not the wife of a polygamist, nor have I entered into any relation with any man in violation of the laws of the United States concerning polygamy or bigamy.
Subscribed and sworn before me this …….. day of …………, 1882.
……………………………….
Registration Officer …… Precinct.
The expression “I do not live or cohabit with more than one woman IN THE MARRIAGE RELATION,” was so placed as were other clauses to apply against the “Mormons” only. The “Mormon” press and preachers drew attention to this feature of the oath which denied to the “Mormon polygamist,” but permitted the “Gentile libertine,” the right to vote. The admission was commonly made that the Edmunds Law was prepared solely against the “Mormons” and not to apply to the immoralities of the “Gentiles.” This led the First Presidency in an address to the Saints in August, 1882, to say that they regretted that men of high positions would take that view of the law; but they perceived “with unmixed satisfaction” the sharp distinction the oath drew between marriage and licentiousness.
Another infamous ruling was that any person who had lived in the plural marriage state, but was then not living in that relation, was denied the right of franchise; and this was interpreted to apply to those who had thus married even before the law of 1862. For instance, if a man had married two wives in 1850, before any law against plural marriage was enacted, and both wives had died before the law was passed; the commission ruled that he was a “polygamist” notwithstanding he had no wife living, and denied him the right to vote. “Once a polygamist always a polygamist,” was the common expression. Other rulings and actions, contrary to the law, but intended to annoy and disfranchise the members of the Church, that the minority might rule, were attempted, among them denial to the women of their suffrage.
From this time forth until the close of President John Taylor’s administration, and beyond, the government of the United States carried on a campaign of prosecution, that was relentless and even cruel, against all members of the Church who had married plural wives. Men were punished, not for contracting plural marriage since the passage of the law, but for “unlawful cohabitation;” federal officers hunted men and women and dragged them before selected grand juries, where they were shamefully insulted. Even small children did not escape, but were forced to testify and answer improper and indecent questions, with the object in view of obtaining evidence against their parents; and this was done with threats of dire punishment and contempt of court, if they refused. Such actions partook too much of the days of the Spanish inquisition. Paid spies —men of debased character—were employed to gather evidence. Among those who sat on juries to judge the “morals” of the “Mormon” people, were those who were recreant to every law of decency. The petty officers and the judges of the courts carried on a reign of terror in their determination to stamp out the practice of plural marriage, and it appeared that the greatest crime in the world was for a man to acknowledge honestly that he was the husband of more than one wife, and that he diligently and faithfully supported them and their children; while for the libertine and the harlot there was protection by officers of the law.
At the general conference of the Church in April, 1882, President John Taylor spoke of the approaching storm. “While the excitement lasts,” said he, “it is useless to reason with the world; when it subsides we can talk to them.” He also expressed the views of the Latter-day Saints when he said: “We do not wish to place ourselves in a state of antagonism, nor act defiantly, toward this government. We will fulfil the letter, so far as practicable, of that unjust, inhuman, oppressive, and unconstitutional law. . . . But we cannot sacrifice every principle of human right. . . . While we are God-fearing and law-abiding, and respect all honorable men and officers, we are no craven serfs, and have not learned to lick the feet of oppressors, nor to bow in base submission to unreasonable clamor. We will contend, inch by inch, legally and constitutionally, for our rights as American citizens.” So sore became the persecution that hundreds of homes were broken up and husbands and fathers were sent to the penitentiary for the offense of “unlawful cohabitation.”
To add to the evil of the times the circulation of false and malicious reports increased, and the Latter-day Saints were portrayed as the vilest of the vile. The result of this was continued persecution of the elders in the mission fields.
One of these abusive and lying canards appeared in the Salt LakeTribune, March 16, 1884. It purported to be the disloyal utterances of “Bishop West, of Juab.” There was no Bishop West, and the falsehood was exposed. When theTribunewas caught red handed in its lying, it very reluctantly admitted the falsehood, but added that the report sounded like what was going on all the time. Articles of this kind were constantly appearing, and the members of the Church were repeatedly insulted and abused with the hope that some overt act might be committed through unendurable provocation, and thus occasion be made against the Church for its destruction. However, the persecuted people bore the insults without giving cause for such diabolical action.
The “Bishop West” hoax might have been forgotten if the falsehood had ended with the exposure of theTribunestory, but, unfortunately, it was circulated in Tennessee by a Reverend Vandevere, of Lewis County, who made it an occasion to attack the Saints in the South, and arouse the populace against them. He had been duly advised of the nature of the falsehood, but that made no difference; he continued to repeat the story. The result of this circulation of theTribune’sfalsehood, was the enacting of a tragedy, at Cane Creek, Lewis County, Tennessee, of a most shocking character.
It happened Sunday, August 10, 1884. That morning a number of elders and Saints met at the home of James Condor for religious worship. While the small congregation was assembling, a mob of masked ruffians invaded the premises and shot and killed Elders John H. Gibbs, of Paradise, and William S. Berry, of Kanarra, and also two young men, Martin Condor and John Riley Hudson, who were not members of the Church, but who attempted to protect the elders. Young Hudson, securing his gun, shot and killed the leader of the mob, one David Hinson, but Hinson’s followers returned the fire, mortally wounding the young man who died about one hour later. Because of this retaliation the mob returned and poured a fire into the house through the windows, seriously wounding Mrs. Condor, and riddling the body of Elder Berry. They then secured the body of their leader and made off. Two other missionaries, Elders William H. Jones and Henry Thompson, escaped.
Elder B. H. Roberts was at Chattanooga, in charge of the mission in the absence of President John Morgan, who was in Salt Lake City. At the peril of his own life he went forth and secured the bodies of the missionaries and had them forwarded to Utah, where the “Mormon” people were in mourning. The bodies of the slain elders were interred at their home towns, but public funeral services were also held in Salt Lake City, August 24, 1884.
Governor Eli H. Murray, of Utah, was so filled with animus against the Latter-day Saints that it was impossible for him to communicate with Governor W. B. Bate, of Tennessee, regarding the massacre, without abuse of the Latter-day Saints. Governor Bate offered a reward for the detection and arrest of the murderers. Evidently fearing that they might be caught and punished, Governor Murray, without any reason or excuse, sent a dispatch to the governor of Tennessee in which he said: “Lawlessness in Tennessee and Utah are alike reprehensible, but the murdered Mormon agents in Tennessee were sent from here as they have been for years by the representatives of organized crime, and I submit that as long as Tennessee representatives in Congress are, to say the least, indifferent to the punishment of offenders against the national law in Utah, such cowardly outrages by their constituents as the killing of emigration agents sent there from here will continue.”
Charles S. Zane became chief justice of Utah in 1884. He came to the territory, August 23, of that year. He was a man whose moral life was above reproach, but he was possessed of an intolerant spirit, and was determined to conduct a strict enforcement of the Edmunds Law. The first case to be tried under that law came before his court October 15, 1884. It was the case of Rudger Clawson, who was found guilty, and when asked by the court if he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced he replied:
“Your honor, I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do, I shall invariably choose the latter. If I did not so express myself, I should feel unworthy of the cause I represent. The constitution of the United States expressly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (It cannot be denied I think, that marriage, when attended and sanctioned by religious rites and ceremonies, is an establishment of religion.) The law of 1862 and the Edmunds Law were expressly designed to operate against marriage as practiced and believed in by the Latter-day Saints. They are therefore unconstitutional, and of course cannot command the respect that a constitutional law would. That is all I have to say, your honor.”
“Your honor, I very much regret that the laws of my country should come in conflict with the laws of God; but whenever they do, I shall invariably choose the latter. If I did not so express myself, I should feel unworthy of the cause I represent. The constitution of the United States expressly says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (It cannot be denied I think, that marriage, when attended and sanctioned by religious rites and ceremonies, is an establishment of religion.) The law of 1862 and the Edmunds Law were expressly designed to operate against marriage as practiced and believed in by the Latter-day Saints. They are therefore unconstitutional, and of course cannot command the respect that a constitutional law would. That is all I have to say, your honor.”
The speech was characteristic of the man. It was bold, sincere, but not defiant. It struck the judge with amazement and he determined on a heavy penalty. It was the third day of November when Elder Clawson was before the court. He was sentenced to pay a fine of eight hundred dollars and imprisonment for four years. Elder Clawson remained in prison until December 12, 1887—three years, one month and ten days —when he received a pardon from President Grover Cleveland.
Following this trial there was inaugurated a cruel and determined persecution. Women were sent to prison for contempt because they would not testify against their husbands. The courts ruled that indictments might be found against a man guilty of cohabitation “for every day.” To be seen at the home of a plural wife, or to support his plural family, was sufficient to create an offense against a man. Each “distinct and separate violation of the law,” as interpreted by the judges, was a separate offense and was liable for punishment.
This order of segregation, as it was called, drove many of the leading brethren into exile, for it was virtually an announcement that the violation of the Edmunds Law could be punished by life imprisonment. Later, however, while the supreme court of the United States upheld the Edmunds Law, it condemned the action of the judges in Utah in establishing the “segregation” policy. This came in the habeas corpus case of Elder Lorenzo Snow in February, 1887. While, however, this ruling was being enforced, the First Presidency were in retirement and communicated with the Saints from time to time in general epistles.
With all the severity practiced against the “Mormon” people under the Edmunds Law, yet it did not satisfy the enemies of the Church. Without question many of the law makers had imputed to the Latter-day Saints impure motives in the practice of plural marriage. They now discovered through the prosecutions, which fell into the category of persecutions, that it was a matter of the most sincere and sacred character. Nevertheless they were determined to put an end to the practice. Heavier penalties did not seem to avail, for the members of the Church accepted plural marriage as a sacred religious rite, commanded by the Lord, and they would rather die than break their covenants. The actions of the government they looked upon as unconstitutional and an attack upon their religious duties, and while they desired to be, and were, loyal to the country, at the same time they desired to be loyal to their God.
In March, 1887, Congress passed a supplemental act known as the Edmunds-Tucker Law. President Grover Cleveland neither approved nor disapproved of the act, so it became a law without his signature. Among the many features of this measure were the disincorporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the dissolving of the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, the property of which was escheated to the government of the United States for the benefit of the common schools of Utah. Female suffrage was abolished. It was made the duty of the attorney general of the United States to proceed against the Church and wind up its affairs and the title to all property—except that “no building or grounds appurtenant thereto held and occupied exclusively for the purpose of the worship of God, or parsonage, or burial ground shall be forfeited” —be transferred and escheated to the United States.
At the instance of the attorney general of the United States, suits were filed July 30, 1887, against the Church, and the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company, and their property was confiscated. November 5, 1887, United States Marshal Dyer was appointed receiver, and took charge of the real and personal property of the Church to control it.
While this infamous measure was before Congress there were many brave men who stood up in the face of the popular clamor and almost united vindictiveness and hatred of the Church, and denounced the high-handed proceedings. Such also had been the case when previous legislation was enacted.
The government very graciously permitted the Church to occupy the tithing office and historian’s office, at a yearly rental of $2,400; and the Gardo house at $450 a month. The Temple Block was also retained by the payment of a stipulated rent. All this happened in the United States in the year 1887, not in Spain or Holland in the dark ages or the days of the Inquisition.
Early in the year 1887, because of persecution, President John Taylor and his counselors were forced into exile. The trials and difficulties through which the Church was passing weighed heavily upon the venerable President. He did not live to see the final delivery of the Church property into the hands of a receiver. He died in exile July 25, 1887, at the home of Thomas F. Roueche, at Kaysville, Davis County, Utah, a martyr to the cause of truth which he espoused. At the time of his passing his counselors were with him. His life had been one of trial and suffering. He was a heroic character, strong in his convictions, just in his dealings, uncompromising with evil. It is proper here to quote the words of his counselors at the time of his death:
“President John Taylor has been killed by the cruelty of officials who have, in this territory, misrepresented the government of the United States. There is no room to doubt that if he had been permitted to enjoy the comforts of home, the ministrations of his family, the exercise to which he had been accustomed, but of which he was deprived, he might have lived for many years yet. His blood stains the clothes of men, who with insensate hate have offered rewards for his arrest and have hounded him to the grave. History will yet call their deeds by their right names” (Life of John Taylor—Roberts, p. 414).
“President John Taylor has been killed by the cruelty of officials who have, in this territory, misrepresented the government of the United States. There is no room to doubt that if he had been permitted to enjoy the comforts of home, the ministrations of his family, the exercise to which he had been accustomed, but of which he was deprived, he might have lived for many years yet. His blood stains the clothes of men, who with insensate hate have offered rewards for his arrest and have hounded him to the grave. History will yet call their deeds by their right names” (Life of John Taylor—Roberts, p. 414).
1.For a complete list giving information regarding the apostles and other presiding brethren, seeappendix.