|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
CONCLUSION.
In these pages I have shown some of the radical evils for the correction of which the Liberal party in Utah was organized; also the measures originated and supported by its members to accomplish that purpose. The exceptionally stringent acts of Congress were rendered necessary by the pugnacity with which the hierarchy of the Mormon church persisted in maintaining its obnoxious system, and in defeating the execution of the laws framed for punishment of polygamists and perpetrators of a certain class of homicides. Such acts, though seemingly very rigorous, were the only available means by which the evils existing in Utah could be eradicated. The priesthood, therefore, and not the Liberal party, is responsible for any hardships which its adherents may have suffered from those radical measures. The Gentiles in the Territory would have shown themselves unworthy of American citizenship had they failed to organize and make a united effort to Americanize Utah. The purpose in organizing the Liberal party was to free the masses of the Mormon people from the arbitrary control by the priesthood of temporal and political affairs, and not to persecute or injure them.
Through the persistent efforts of that party, the change which occurred upon the issuance of the Woodruff manifesto and the admission of the Territory into the Union as a State, under the pledge given by the authorities of the church, was brought about. This change was an unqualified blessing to the people. Since that time Mormons have ceased to be Ishmaelites, and we no longer hear the proverbial expression, "Those who are not for us are against us." Both social and business relations in the State have been greatly improved. There no longer exists such bitter antagonism as was prevalent in former days, and, if I may be pardoned the personal reference, I will say that my election as a member of the supreme court of the State is conclusive evidence that this is true.
I venture to say that no persons, except extremely fanatical ones, would today favor such a system as was established and maintained for many years in the Territory by the priesthood of the Mormon church. While the political power of the priesthood is not so absolute in the State as it was in the Territory, it still has the power to elect or defeat any party ticket, or candidate for office, except in a few cities in which there is a majority of Gentile electors. In Idaho and in each of the other states where large Mormon settlements exist, there are enough Mormon electors whose votes are sufficient to secure the success of any one of the political parties in favor of which they may be cast at any general election. As those electors are pledged by their oath-bound church covenants to obey the priesthood in all matters, the political power of the first presidency of the Mormon church is as predominant over members of the Mormon church in those states as it is over the members of that church in Utah. That power can only be annulled in Utah as elsewhere by the increasing immigration of Gentiles, and the liberalization of the rising generation of the Mormons. I hope that in future the high officials of the Mormon church will abstain from performing those acts which show the priesthood is still desirous of controlling elections. It was this policy which caused the organization of the American party. If this be done, then the unfortunate local issues existing in several cities of the State will terminate, and thereafter there will be no political party division among the people except on national party lines, "a consummation devoutly to be wished."
Beyond a question many plural marriages have occurred in the State since the promulgation of the manifesto, yet none of the guilty parties have been arrested by the civil authorities and only about six have been disciplined by the church authorities, who are indubitably aware of the guilt of the persons who have contracted such unlawful alliances. The members of the high priesthood could have procured the arrest and punishment of all the guilty parties had they so desired. Their failure to do so, or even to have them disciplined by the church, indicates in no uncertain degree a connivance on their part. In the majority report of the Senate committee on the Smoot case, Vol. IV, page 476, of the published report of the proceedings states:
"A sufficient number of specific instances of the taking of plural wives since the manifesto of 1890, so-called, have been shown by the evidence as having taken place among officers of the Mormon church to demonstrate the fact that the leaders of this church, the first presidency and the twelve apostles, connive at the practice of taking plural wives, and have done so ever since the manifesto was issued, and which purports to put an end to the practice."
The law against polygamy will not be enforced in Utah so long as the priesthood retains its present power, therefore Congress should be authorized by an amendment of the constitution of the United States to legislate upon the subject of polygamy.
While a notable improvement of the conditions in Utah has come about, the tenets of the Mormon church have not been changed. Its financial system is still a menace, and the alleged revelation of polygamy has not been annulled, nor has the practice of polygamy been positively prohibited. The Woodruff manifesto neither abolished that revelation nor forbade the practice of polygamy. In it, Woodruff only advises the Latter-day Saints to refrain from contracting plural marriages, as appears from the following quotation therefrom:
"To Whom It May Concern: * * * Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriage, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws and to use my influence with the members of the church over which I preside to have them do likewise. * * * And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the laws of the land."
President Woodruff, Joseph F. Smith, now the president of the Mormon church, and other high officials of that church, stated under oath, at a hearing had before a master in chancery appointed by the supreme court of Utah, that the manifesto applied to unlawful cohabitation as well as to polygamy. (See Appendix.) Yet Joseph F. Smith, in his testimony before the Senate committee in the Smoot case, testified that he had wilfully violated the law against unlawful cohabitation. The following is a quotation from his testimony, Vol. 1, page 133 of the printed report of the Smoot case:
"I have cohabited with my wives, not openly, that is - not in a manner that I thought would be offensive to my neighbors; they have borne me children since 1890. I have done it knowing I am amenable to the law."
He further stated that he had five wives who had borne him eleven children since 1890, each wife having given birth to one or two of those children. The law against unlawful cohabitation has not been and is not at present being obeyed, and as before shown, a large number of known plural marriages have been formed since the manifesto and the admission of Utah as a State. It is clear from the language of the manifesto that the laws which Woodruff advised the Latter-day Saints to obey were those passed by Congress relative to polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, and which were held by the United States supreme court to be constitutional. Upon the admission of Utah as a State, those laws of Congress ceased to have any force in the new State. Upon such admission there ceased to be any law in Utah to which the manifesto applied, and therefore it became nugatory. In view of that fact, the number of known plural marriages which have occurred since the manifesto and the admission of the Territory into the Union, the failure of the prosecuting officers of the State to apprehend the offenders, and the quiescence of the high priesthood respecting the guilty parties, the Congress of the United States should be authorized to legislate upon the subject of polygamy.
While it is inconsistent with American citizenship for members of the Mormon church to enter into oath-bound obligations to obey the Mormon priesthood in temporal affairs, yet there is no legal remedy for the evil; and it will continue to exist until there arises, among the members of that church, a general sentiment against the practice, or rather, condition of servitude.
Joseph F. Smith, in his examination in the Smoot case (see Vol. I, page 192, of the official report of that proceeding), testified as follows:
"Here is Aunt Bathsheba Smith, who received her endowments in Nauvoo as they are now given in the temples. She is a living witness, and, if necessary, she will tell us that she received those privileges under the direction of Joseph Smith. Opponents say that Brigham Young established the endowments, and also plural marriage, but here is a witness who knows better."
From the, testimony of this person it would appear that the endowment ceremonies have not been changed, and it follows that the oath-bound penal covenants are still being entered into by those who receive their endowments.
In the naturalization case before mentioned, Henry W. Lawrence, at present one of the five Commissioners governing Salt Lake City, and whose standing is as high as that of any man in Utah, testified that those who received their endowment covenant to avenge the blood of the prophets, Joseph and Hyrum Smith (who have scaled their testimony with their blood), were commanded to perpetuate this grewsome horror by teaching this doctrine to their children and their children's children unto the third and fourth generation, and to obey the priesthood in all things.
* * * * * * * * * * * * In conclusion, it is indeed regrettable, and even humiliating, to all who have endeavored to advance the good name of Utah and to place her in a position of equality in the sisterhood of states, to record that the solemn pledges made to the federal government by the Mormon priesthood for the purpose of procuring general amnesty, the restoration of escheated church property and the admission of the Territory as a State, have not been fulfilled.
To the unprejudiced reader, the publication of these Reminiscences will, I trust, appear justifiable for the reasons stated in my preface. It is furthest from my purpose to herein reopen old sores, or to revive the old animosities which are happily fast dying out, but, in the absence of any authentic treatise on the true history of many important events in that "storm and stress" period of our State, I have deemed it my duty to the present as well as to future generations to relate the undeniable facts pertaining to those events, and thus to refute the calumnious slanders cast upon the names of men who, animated by purely disinterested motives, have striven to correct the evils existing when Utah was a Territory, some of which are herein disclosed.
An abridged history of Utah has been written by Whitney which I am informed has been adopted as a text-book in the schools outside of Salt Lake City. The same guile which characterizes Whitney's larger history of Utah is present in his abridgment. The use as a text-book of the latter in the public schools is well calculated to create wrong impressions in the minds of the pupils respecting past occurrences in Utah. The action of Whitney in making false statements, his failure to state facts which were indispensable in a true history, his imputation of improper motives to those who opposed the hierarchy of Utah and strove to correct prevalent abuses, "was as dishonest as it was despicable."
Main Table of
Contents