THE MOST HOLY PRINCIPLE

                                 Volume 2

                    THE HORN MADE WAR WITH THE SAINTS
                              AND PREVAILED

                        3 Mar. 1887 - 2 Sep. 1898


being a compilation of official decisions of the Supreme and lower courts
together with other items concerning the action of the United States
Government against the Mormon Church in relation to its teachings and
doctrines concerning Plural Marriage and other doctrines and policies.


                                   GEMS


                              Copyright 1970
                         Gems Publishing Company
                                 Box 7434
                            Murray, Utah 84107

2.	And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the
Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall
be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3.	And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach
us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4.	And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war no more.
5.	O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.
				Isaiah 2:2-5



                             EXPLANATORY NOTE

	This three-volume work was compiled and is being published in an
attempt to present the plural marriage question as it relates particularly
to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly called the
"Mormon" Church, and the Territory and State of Utah, in a chronological
and historical manner. Heretofore, it has in various ways been presented
in relation to its doctrinal and moral content. This work presents the
doctrinal considerations in their historical setting and is primarily
documentary in nature and includes the laws directly applicable to the
subject and the times and places directly involved in the history of the
Mormon people.

								The Publisher



                                 PREFACE

- - - This was the first time the Prophet Joseph talked with me on the
subject of plural marriage. He informed me that the doctrine and principle
was right in the sight of our Heavenly Father, and that it was a doctrine
which pertained to celestial order and glory. ---From him I learned that
the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and
important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without
obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of
exaltation in celestial glory.
								Sig: William Clayton

	I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of
plural marriages since I have been president. I know that President
Taylor, my predecessor, also refused. Since the Edmunds-Tucker law we have
refused to recommend plural marriages, and have instructed that they
should not he solemnized. * * * I told the Bishop that it would not do at
all. There must be no more plural marriages. I am confident that there
have been no more plural marriages since I have been in this position.
								Wilford Woodruff
								13 Oct 1889



[i]                            INTRODUCTION

	There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless,
governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were
created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible,
whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or
throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son - the
Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all
perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a
personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the
form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and
in his image; he is also the express image and likeness of the personage
of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same
fullness with the Father; being begotten of him, and ordained from before
the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those
who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the
flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer; or in
other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful
contradictions than any man can be. But, notwithstanding all this, he kept
the law of God, and remained without sin, showing thereby that it is in
the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin: and also,
that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all
who walk not in the law of God may justly be condemned by the law, and
have no excuse for their sins. * * *
	Having treated in the preceding lectures of the ideas, of the
character, perfections, and attributes of God, we next proceed to treat of
the knowledge which persons must have, that the course of life which they
pursue is according to the will of God, in order that they may be enabled
to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation.
	This knowledge supplies an important place in revealed religion; for
it was by reason of it that the an-[ii]cients were enabled to endure as
seeing him who is invisible. An actual knowledge to any person, that the
course of life which he pursues is according to the will of God, is
essentially necessary to enable him to have that confidence in God without
which no person can obtain eternal life. It was this that enabled the
ancient saints to endure all their afflictions and persecutions, and to
take joyfully the spoiling of their, goods, knowing (not believing merely)
that they had a more enduring substance. Hebrews x. 34.
	Having the assurance that they were pursuing a course which was
agreeable to the will of God, they were enabled to take, not only the
spoiling of their goods, and the wasting of their substance, joyfully, but
also to suffer death in its most horrid forms; knowing (not merely
believing) that when this earthly house of their tabernacle was dissolved,
they had a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens. 2 Corinthians v. 1.
	Such was, and always will be, the situation of the saints of God,
that unless they have an actual knowledge that the course they are
pursuing is according to the will of God they will grow weary in their
minds, and faint; for such has been, and always will be, the opposition in
the hearts of unbelievers and those that know not God against the pure and
unadulterated religion of heaven (the only thing which insures eternal
life), that they will persecute to the uttermost all that worship God
according to his revelations, receive the truth in the love of it, and
submit themselves to be guided and directed by his will; and drive them to
such extremities that nothing short of an actual knowledge of their being
the favorites of heaven, and of their having embraced the order of things
which God has established for the redemption of man, will enable them to
exercise that confidence in him, necessary for them to overcome the world,
and obtain that crown of glory which is laid up for them that fear God.
	For a man to lay down his all, his character and reputation, his
honor, and applause, his good name among [iii] men, his houses, his lands,
his brother and sisters, his wife and children, and even his own life also
- counting all things but filth and dross for the excellency of the
knowledge of Jesus Christ - requires more than mere belief or supposition
that he is doing the will of God; but actual knowledge, realizing that,
when these sufferings are ended, he will enter into eternal rest, and be a
partaker of the glory of God.
	For unless a person does know that he is walking according to the
will of God, it would be offering an insult to the dignity of the Creator
were he to say that he would be a partaker of his glory when he should be
done with the things of this life. But when he has this knowledge, and
most assuredly knows that he is doing the will of God, his confidence can
be equally strong that he will be a partaker of the glory of God.
	Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the
sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith
necessary unto life and salvation; for, from the first existence of man,
the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could
be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It was through
this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy
eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly
things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are
well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all
that he has for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and
believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice
because he seeks to do his will, he does know, most assuredly, that God
does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not, nor
will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can
obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.
	It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs
with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in
sacrifice, and by this means obtain faith in God and favor with him so as
to obtain [iv] eternal life, unless they, in like manner, offer unto him
the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that
they are accepted of him.
	It was in offering sacrifices that Abel, the first martyr, obtained
knowledge that he was accepted of God. And from the days of righteous Abel
to the present time, the knowledge that men have that they are accepted in
the sight of God is obtained by offering sacrifice. And in the last days,
before the Lord comes, he is to gather together his saints who have made a
covenant with him by sacrifice. Psalm 1:3, 4, 5: "Our God shall come, and
shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be
very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the heavens from above,
and to the earth, that He may judge his people. Gather my saints together
unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice."
	Those, then, who make the sacrifice, will have the testimony that
their course is pleasing in the sight of God; and those who have this
testimony will have faith to lay hold on eternal life, and will be
enabled, through faith, to endure unto the end, and receive the crown that
is laid up for them that love the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. But
those who do not make the sacrifice cannot enjoy this faith, because men
are dependent upon this sacrifice in order to obtain this faith:
therefore, they cannot lay hold upon eternal life, because the revelations
of God do not guarantee unto them the authority so to do, and without this
guarantee faith could not exist.
	All the saints of whom we have account, in all the revelations of God
which are extant, obtained the knowledge which they had of their
acceptance in his sight through the sacrifice which they offered unto him;
and through the knowledge thus obtained their faith became sufficiently
strong to lay hold upon the promise of eternal life, and to endure as
seeing him who is invisible; and were enabled, through faith, to combat
the powers of darkness, contend against the wiles of the adversary,
overcome the world, and obtain the end of their faith, even the salvation
of their souls.
[v]	But those who do not know that the course which they pursue is well
pleasing in his sight; for whatever maybe their belief or their opinion,
it is a matter of doubt and uncertainty in their mind; and where doubt and
uncertainty are there faith is not, nor can it be. For doubt and faith do
not exist in the same person at the same time; so that persons whose minds
are under doubts and fears cannot have unshaken confidence; and where
unshaken confidence is not there faith is weak; and where faith is weak
the persons will not be able to contend against all the opposition,
tribulations, and afflictions which they will have to encounter in order
to be heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ Jesus; and they will grow,
weary in their minds, and the adversary will have power over them and
destroy them. (Lectures on Faith; V, VI)

[1]
3 Mar 1887:
	The Edmunds-Tucker law took effect without the signature of President
Cleveland.

15 Mar 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	"WHY DON'T YOU PROMISE TO OBEY THE LAW?"
	"Whenever the harshness and cruelty with which the Edmunds law is
enforced has been pointed out by the press, the cry has been raised by the
supporters of that Act and the agitators for more anti-`Mormon'
legislation, `Why don't you promise to obey the law?'
	"To every complaint about strained and unprecedented interpretations,
injustice to defendants, packed juries, insults heaped upon accused
persons by ribald and abusive attorneys, unlawful multiplication of
penalties, vindictive harangues from the bench, merciless infliction of
the extreme term of imprisonment upon aged persons, needless sufferings of
dependant families, the compelling of legal wives to testify against their
husbands, the shameful imprisonment of women for unwillingness to
criminate the fathers of their children, and other proceedings that have
disgraced the judicial crusade against the `Mormons,' the response has
been invariably, `Why don't you promise to obey the law?'
	"Because this promise has not been forthcoming, the `Mormon' people
have been denounced officially and through the public prints, as rebels
against the Government, defiant violators of the law, nullifiers,
fanatics, stiff-necked traitors and generally incorrigible. Attempts have
been made to increase the penalty for merely associating in a friendly way
with a plural wife, from six months' to five years' imprisonment, for the
purpose of forcing `Mormon' defendants to make the desired promise.
	"And now, that men who have not broken any law, and who are free from
the relationships which forbid making the promise, come forward when
required and agree to observe the law and refrain from helping others to
break it, the very creatures who made the country mog with their anathemas
against men who could not honorably make the promise, are white with
excitement and fiendish [2] in their curses against those who are able to
do what the law requires. And those inconsistent agitators pretend to be
scandalized at what they term the lack of `Mormon' consistency!
	"If the promise to obey the law which was demanded by the courts was
the great desideratum, the one thing needful, why should not the
disposition now manifested by monogamous `Mormons' to make it, be a
subject of great congratulation among those who required it of
`polygamists?' Instead of rejoicing over this manifestation of `loyalty,'
as they professed to regard it when it was not complied with, they are in
a perfect ferment of disappointment and disgust. After crying out, `Why
don't you promise to obey the laws?' until it was like the continual
ringing of a chestnut bell, they are as mad as hornets because a large
number of `Mormon' citizens are ready to make that promise, and no
language is too violent and undignified to express their anger because the
request is complied with.
	"It is true the promise does not come from the plural-wived
`Mormons,' and does not have the effect desired by the plotting and
promise-demanding anti-`Mormons.' The `Mormon' with more wives than one
could not honorably make the promise demanded by the courts. But the
`Mormon' with but one wife or no wife at all, providing he has no present
intention of entering into plural marriage or advising or helping others
to do so, can make the promise required by the law as a condition to
voting, both honorably and consistently. Why, then, the denunciation of
the former for not making a promise which they could not give, and still
worse denunciation of the latter for promising something which they can
agree to?
	"The answer is, the taking of the test oath, though a much simpler
and less comprehensive matter than making the promise required in court,
affects the main object in view of the anti-`Mormon' schemers, while the
promise did not, except as it could be used against the `Mormons' by way
of deceiving and prejudicing the public. Every `Mormon' who subscribes to
the oath counts one against the rule of an unprincipled minority, a clique
of [3] political black-legs gambling to pluck a Territory. Every `Mormon'
vote is a nail in their political coffin. The sound of its rapping is a
death-knell to their hopes. It says `good bye' to their scheme for
plunder. No wonder that they are unhappy. It is not surprising that they
are raving and inconsistent.
	"It has often been said that the abandonment of polygamy by the
`Mormons' would be the worst misfortune that could happen to their
maligners. Nothing would be so disastrous to the adventurers and their
scribes, the F.O.H's and L.L's, the ambitious wirepullers and their pious
and profane toadies and tools, than the abolition of the theory and
practice which they pretend to be anxious to suppress. Everybody who
understands the situation knows that the local plotters care nothing
whatever for polygamy, except as a popular cry in their interest.
	"What they want and all they are after is possession of the
Territory, its offices and its treasury. This is now, demonstrated to all
who have not seen it before and who will take the trouble to look at the
fact. The rage of those rascals at the spectacle of `Mormons' agreeing to
obey the laws of the United States and especially those against polygamy
and polygamous association, should be sufficient to show every sane person
what they want and where they stand. Morality, religion, monogamy, social
order! Faugh! they care nothing for anything of the kind. They are a few,
and they want to govern, coerce and tax the many. They are despised by the
majority so that they cannot hope to gain their ends by fair means, and
they have resorted to foul. They have crawled and lied and then leaped to
grasp their coveted prize, and have fallen short and landed in the mud.
And now they wallow and wait, and curse the very thing that they asked
for.
	"Let the press and the legislators of the country look at this. The
professed object was to force the `Mormons' to agree to obey the laws. Now
that the majority, who are able to do this in the manner provided by law,
are responding to the demand, those who demanded it accuse the `Mormons'
of `monstrous depravity' for complying with the requisition. Congress
provides a condition as a qualification for voters, and the people for
whom it was [4] made accept that condition. If they had refused it the
would have been denounced as rebels and disloyal ingrates for spurning the
offer of political salvation. And now, that they submit their compliance
is proclaimed as `moral rottenness.'" (Deseret Evening News, Charles W.
Penrose, Editor)

8 May 1887, Salt Lake Stake Conference:
	ELDER ABRAHAM H. CANNON next addressed the congregation. He had been
caused by the remarks he had heard, to reflect on the position the Saints
occupied in relation to the government. If they had done their duty they
had an absolute knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, and were not
dependent on the opinion of any man. God had promised them the spirit of
revelation for their guidance, and it was of this spirit that every true
Saint had partaken. It taught that obedience to the Gospel Would bring
life eternal, and disobedience bring death eternal. Whom shall they obey,
God or man! Blackstone had said that when the two laws came in conflict,
the law of God should be obeyed in derogation to that of man because it
was superior. The speaker had been born and reared in this city, and had
never heard his parents or the Saints say anything in derogation of the
Constitution of the laws, except such as infringed on their religious
rights, and which were unconstitutional. The Lord had told the Saints that
He had inspired the Constitution, and that all laws which sustain the
rights of man were constitutional. The Saints would be justified in
sustaining all such. When these revelations were given there was no law of
the country against the doctrines of the Gospel. Because enactments had
been made since then, should God retract what He had said? The principle
of plurality of wives was known to the Prophet in 1832, though the
revelation was not written until ten years after. In 1852 it was publicly
proclaimed as a doctrine. In 1862 a law was passed against it, but so
little faith had its framers in the constitutionality of the act that for
ten years no effort was made to enforce it. Since then other laws had been
made against it, but, as God lives the principle will not be driven from
the earth. It [5] was no new thing for the Saints of God to be legislated
against. Even Jesus Christ was murdered under a form of law perverted by
wicked men. It was under the forms of law that the Huguenots, Waldenses
and others were persecuted and driven for their religion. And it would so
continue till Christ should come to reign. * * *
	"What the Almighty says is true, for His words cannot fail, and, my
brethren and sisters, His blessings will follow you if you are faithful,
if you are true, if you sin not against God, if you maintain your
integrity, if you obey His commands and hearken unto His words. But if you
do not keep His commandments curses far worse than those that fell upon
the Jews will come upon you, and upon your children and children's
children: for unto you is committed the greatest dispensation that ever
came upon the earth, even the dispensation of the fullness of times. His
work will progress until the Gospel is proclaimed in all the world, until
every soul has had the privilege of receiving the plan of salvation or
rejecting it to his own condemnation. Now, the Lord says to Israel, choose
this day whom ye will serve--God the Ruler of this earth, or whether you
will bow the neck and receive the yoke of the oppressor, and become
subject to the rule and power of the unbeliever. If you serve God all will
be well with you. Dark clouds may appear for a time and persecution and
trouble be heaped upon you by the wicked and those who do not know God,
but He will put upon you His Holy Spirit. It will whisper consolation to
your souls, and His power will be made manifest in the midst of his
people.
	"It would not be long before Zion will be free and Israel be redeemed
from the hand of the wicked. I do not believe that God is going to desert
His people in the hour of trial. Those who keep His commandments will be
brought up out of their tribulation and trials, while the wicked will be
overthrown. Remember the words of God given to the Prophet Joseph Smith on
August 6th, 1833: `Verily, I say unto you, my friends, fear not,' let your
hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore and in everything give thanks,
waiting patiently on the Lord, for your prayers have entered into the ears
of the Lord [6] of Sabaoth, and are recorded with this seal and testament,
the Lord hath sworn and declared that they shall be granted; therefore He
giveth this promise unto you, with an immutable covenant that they shall
be fulfilled, and all things wherewith you have been afflicted shall work
together for your good, and to my name's glory, saith the Lord. And again
I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord,
will turn away all wrath and indignation from you and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against you.'
	"PRESIDENT ANGUS M. CANNON said the authorities of the Church, now in
enforced exile, were anxious to again meet with the Saints and give to
them the word of the Lord. The speaker rejoiced in listening to the
precious truths enunciated at this conference. Repentance was necessary in
some respects among the Saints. Their hearts were now being turned more
fully to the truth through repentance, and he felt that there was hope
that the servants of the Lord will yet come forth in liberty to administer
the word of God. Will the Saints turn from all iniquity, and cleave only
to righteousness? If they did their leaders would be liberated to again
meet with them. President Taylor's heart went out to the people to have
them live in purity and observe the laws of God in all things. The houses
of those in authority among the Saints should be set in order. The
revelation on celestial marriage had been embraced by a considerable
portion of the Saints. They had been put through an ordeal, and few of
them had swerved from their integrity. They had not been cast into a fiery
furnace, but they were thrown into dungeons. They preferred prison rather
than accept liberty at the price of renouncing their sacred covenants. A
law had been passed requiring all who desired to register to take an oath
provided for them. Many were unable to take this oath because of having
entered into the relationship of celestial marriage. Abraham, to secure
God's friendship, had been willing to undergo all things and had been
rewarded. To-day men who had entered into celestial marriage were not in a
position to take the oath, but those who had not were. Men who take the
oath should do it to honor God, and [7] stand as a bulwark to protect the
people from a horde of plunderers who would crush them into abject
slavery. The Saints should obey God in all things and be faithful to their
covenants with Him. They would receive the recompense of their actions.
The present condition was only history repeating itself. The
responsibility was with the Congress who made such an infamous law. If men
took the oath and intended to keep it, their motives in that regard were
pure. The manner in which many professing Saints had neglected the law of
celestial marriage showed that they could keep the other. He hoped they
would be true to God and to their country. If they would do this they
would defend the liberties of the people. The Lord would justify them in
what they did honestly. If you take the oath, keep it, but do not promise
that you will not obey God. If the oath required that, the Saints could
not take it. It did not, however, do this, but only required that they
continue to live in obedience to the law. The speaker exhorted the Saints
to live lives of righteousness.
	"ELDER JOHN T. CAINE stated that the Saints expected the laws to be
enforced, but they objected to the unconstitutional manner in which they
were enforced. President Cleveland expressed himself as wishing the law
enforced as all as others were, with equality. In reference to the
searching of a man's belief and conscience, it had been thought proper
that the people make some expression, and he therefore presented the
following:

	"PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION.
	"WHEREAS, Congress has passed a law prescribing an oath to be taken
by the citizens of Utah Territory, as a condition precedent to
registering, voting, holding office, or serving as jurors; and
	"WHEREAS, the discussions in Congress while the said law was pending,
showed plainly that the intention of the law-makers was that the said oath
should not interfere with the rights of conscience or religious belief;
and
	"WHEREAS, some of the courts of this Territory, in the election of
jurors, have departed from both the letter [8] and spirit of the law' and
have required to be taken a form of oath that is not authorized by said
law, because of its infringement upon the domain of conscience and
religious belief; and
	"WHEREAS, on application to a court of this Territory, of certain
persons or naturalization, the applicants were questioned, by the
presiding judge, as to their membership in a particular Church, their
belief in certain of its doctrines aid what would be their course of
action should they receive a revelation from God in regard to the same,
and having declared their belief in Divine revelation, they were
arbitrarily denied the privilege of citizenship, solely on account of
their religious belief, although they declared their intention to support
the Constitution of the United States and obey the laws and signified
their willingness to take all the oaths required by law; and,
	"WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides that no
religious test shall ever be imposed; therefore, be it
	"RESOLVED, that we, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, residents of Salt Lake County, Utah Territory, in conference
assembled, do enter our solemn protest against such inexcusable and
unwarrantable infringements upon the rights and liberties of the people.
We hold that if these outrageous abuses of power are permitted to go
unchecked, they will endanger the most sacred institutions of our country,
and we appeal to all lovers of freedom to discountenance these
unconstitutional proceedings as antagonistic to the fundamental principles
of our government, and violative of the rights of American citizens, in
their enjoyment of freedom of conscience and religious liberty.
	"The foregoing was unanimously adopted by the vast congregation."
(Deseret Evening News, 9 May 1887)

9 May 1887, Deseret Evening News:
THE PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION

	"The preamble and resolution adopted by a large body of Latter-day
Saints assembled in Conference, in this city, yesterday, May 8, will be
heartily endorsed by an [9] overwhelming majority of the people of Utah.
They will also receive a harmonious response in the breast of, every lover
of freedom whose attention may be called to them in every other part of
the country. It would certainly be the case to an extensive degree were
information as wide as it should be in relation to the outrages that are
being perpetrated in the sacred name of liberty upon the majority of the
people of this Territory. The laws that have been enacted against them
during the last few years are bad enough in all conscience, but when they
are stretched outside their purpose and intention the wrong is intensified
beyond endurance.
	"The Edmunds law has been held by some of the best jurists of the
nineteenth century to be ex post facto and therefore unconstitutional. The
successor or father twin brother to that infamous measure--the Edmunds
Tucker act--is, however, made by the courts in this Territory, to do
service--by unwarrantable construction--in the other direction as well. If
the punishment of people for conduct prior to the passage of the act
inflicting it is only fit to be denounced as unconstitutional and
subversive of the rights of the people, what can be said of the action of
courts that give the statutes a forward operation, depriving the people of
privileges to which they are entitled both by their past and present
obedience to the law? Take, for instance, the deprival of a certain class
of citizens of the right to serve as jurors because they declined to
subscribe to an oath said by Mr. Bennett to have been formulated by local
`political authorities.' That oath hypothecates a fictitious future
contingency--something that has not and never had existence--and because
the citizen declines to state what he would do in case it should arise he
is deprived of a privilege which is plainly guaranteed to him under the
law. Thus is the domain of conscience entered and a requirement placed
upon the individual that no person can correctly answer in any other way
than by conjecture.
	"When laws are made to apply to other than actions they are foolish,
as it is beyond the province of human enactment to control the conscience.
That is a domain [10] which may not be entered. What the law properly
deals with are the manifestations--in the form of deeds--of the mind or
conscience. When it is interpreted to apply to suppositional acts whose
future existence is a mere matter of presumption, devoid of the slightest
basis in fact, the height of human folly and tyranny are exhibited.
	"The extreme phase of this judicial anomaly was reached by Judge
Henderson in his examination of applicants for naturalization. The
interrogatories stretched into the matter of the membership of the
applicant in the particular Church to which he belonged and gradually
reached the culminating point--his belief in revelation from God. It
appeared that the applicant did believe that he might receive a revelation
from God. From what could be learned from the account of the proceeding it
appeared that the sole ground for the application being denied was that,
believing that a revelation from God might come to him individually, he
did not know how he would act in case the divine communication was given.
He did not know whether he would be prepared to reject a divine behest,
and for that reason--notwithstanding that his past conduct allowed him to
be well disposed toward the Constitution of the United States and the laws
thereof, and his intention was to obey the laws--he was denied
naturalization. This is the case as we understand it, and if there be no
misapprehension of it, it exhibits, in our opinion one of the most
striking instances of intolerance, bigotry and extra judicial interference
with the rights of conscience that the nineteenth century has produced.
	"We esteem the preamble and resolution adopted by the people in
conference assembled yesterday afternoon, as fitting and proper. More than
this, when the institutions of our country are imperiled, the principles
and safeguards of the Constitution disregarded and defied and the people
robbed of their dearest rights and privileges, no occasion for protesting
against such outrages should be allowed to slip past unused. It should
also be remembered that the right of petition and to represent facts where
true statements will do the most good, are still within the grasp of a
wronged and abused people, of [11] whom a nest of conspirators are anxious
to make a prey for the sake of spoilation. All these conditions and the
legitimate actions of the people in reference to them, strengthen the
latter in the attitude of supporters of the Constitution and sturdy and
unyielding advocates of human liberty. Eventually the truly patriotic, as
the lines become more sharply defined, will come to their aid. Truth and
right will triumph in the end." (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose,
Editor)

30 Jun 1887:
	A constitutional convention, consisting entirely of Mormons, met to
frame a constitution preparatory to an application to Congress for
admission to Statehood. The proposed constitution which was adopted by the
convention contained the following provisions:
	"Section 3 (of Article I). There shall be no union of Church and
State, nor shall any church dominate the state."
	"Section 12 (of Article XV). Bigamy and polygamy being considered
incompatible with a `republican form of government,' each of them is
hereby declared a misdemeanor.
	"Any person who shall violate this section shall, on conviction
thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and
imprisoned for a term of not less than six months nor more than three
years, in the discretion of the court. This section shall be construed as
operative without the aid of legislation, and the offenses prohibited by
this section shall not be barred by any statute of limitation within three
years after the commission of the offense; nor shall the power of pardon
extend thereto until such pardon shall be approved by the President of the
United States."
	Section 1 (of Article XVI, Amendments). Provided, That Section 12 of
Article XV shall not be amended, revised, or in any way changed, until any
amendment, revision, or change as proposed therein shall, in addition to
the requirements of the provisions of this article, be reported to the
Congress of the United States and shall be by Congress approved and
ratified, and such approval [12] and ratification be proclaimed by the
President of the United States, and if not so ratified and proclaimed said
section shall remain perpetual.

6 July 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	"THE BIGAMY AND POLYGAMY PROVISIONS.
	"The provisions in relation to bigamy and polygamy which were
reported to the Convention on Tuesday, are something novel to State
Constitutions. The idea is not new, neither did it originate among the
Delegates chosen by the people to formulate an instrument for the
establishment of fundamental laws. It has been urged upon Utah for many
years. It has come to be a matter of certainty in the popular mind, that
Utah cannot be admitted into the Union as a State, without some
constitutional provisions against practices about which the country has
been much misinformed and unduly excited. Former efforts for Statehood
without such provisions have been treated with the coldness that arises
from reference to a committee which usually freezes over with silence on
the subject.
	"The committee to which an application of Montana for admission into
the Union was referred at the last Congress, made a report requiring
Montana to insert a plank on the polygamy question forbidding its practice
in the new State. It has been proposed in Congress that an amendment to
the National Constitution shall be made forbidding polygamy in every part
of the Union.
	"Thus the question is not new, the idea is not novel, it has merely
been taken up and practically treated by the Utah Constitutional
Convention. But no State has heretofore embodied it in the fundamental
law, because there has never been such an occasion requiring it as now
exists. Everybody, friend and foe, has declared emphatically that without
some provision of this character it would be perfectly useless for Utah to
attempt to get into the Federal Union. Friends have advised such a step
for many years; foes have jeered about it and urged it sneering, believing
that it would never be done.
	"Under the former condition of affairs in this Territory, it is
probable that no such action as that of the [13] present Convention would
have been taken. The most active men in movements of this character could
not consistently take such a step because they were engaged in the
practice of something which they were asked to prohibit. The members of
the present Convention are free from those conditions. They have taken the
oath required by Congress in regard to the practice condemned by national
statute, and their course now is in line with the oath and the condition
understood to be imperative on the part of the authorities and the great
masses of the people of this nation. They have acted, as we have
heretofore explained, entirely in a political capacity. They have entered
into no compacts, formulated no agreements, made no compromises of a
religious or any other nature.
	"As American citizens representing American citizens, they have
recognized a political exigency and a popular demand in relation to a
political question. The provisions they have inserted in the Constitution
are in the nature of civil law on a matter relating to civil government,
without reference to religion in any shape or form. The State cannot
legislate for or against any religion, neither can the Nation as a whole.
The acts of either, to be valid and in harmony with the principles of this
republic, must be entirely devoid of enmity or favor to any religious
creed or ecclesiastical body; they must be civil, political, secular,
entirely and integrally.
	"The provisions in regard to bigamy and polygamy, which are unusual
for State Constitutions, have been inserted as a political necessity
arising from a peculiar condition of affairs requiring political
settlement. So in regard to the relinquishment of certain rights or
privileges common to State governments in reference to pardons and
amendments. The objections have been raised that if Utah should frame and
adopt a constitution forbidding polygamy, the Legislature would not make
it practical by appropriate legislation; that if the penalties were
embodied in the fundamental law it would soon be amended after Statehood
was achieved; and that if not, the State Governor could pardon the
offenders and thus [14] render the law, and the constitution nugatory.
	"To meet these objections it is provided that no amendment shall be
made on this one question without the consent of Congress and the
President, and that the endorsement of the National Executive shall be
required to make a pardon effective. This is also unusual. But the
situation is unusual. Utah has been served with repeated notices, voiced
by Congress, in demonstrative acclamations, that without certain
provisions Utah will never be admitted as a State into the Union; and now
these conditions are met frankly and fully. And because the action is not
an imitation of some former methods, shall that be considered a tangible
objection? We think not, in the mind of any rational person.
	"The provisions in relation to Congress and the President do not
pretend to confer any powers on them or to require any duty on their part.
They can act or decline to act. It is merely stated that until such action
is taken, the amendment proposed or the pardon granted shall not take
effect. The State does not presume to say what either Congress or the
President shall do or shall not do. It does not ask any action on the part
of either. It does not step outside of its own domain in any way. It
simply relinquishes a common right or privilege, for a special contingency
and to meet one of the objections considered insuperable to its existence.
	"The objectors to these provisions on such grounds as are being here
treated of, will be found to be those who have helped to raise the
obstacles and are now, completely chagrined and exasperated at the removal
of their barriers. Objections to the provisions on other grounds may be
raised by those who have not studied them or who cannot divest them of
some religious import, but one fact stands out clear and unmistakable as a
sign to the wise, and that is, the worst enemies of the people of Utah
will fight this movement and find fault with these provisions to the very
utmost of their strength and ability to falsify and misrepresent.
	"We simply advise our readers to take time to think, examine the work
of the Convention, try to view the matter in all its bearings, be slow to
jump at conclusions [15] until all the ground is surveyed, and to keep
calm, and clear headed, and silent-tongued until they comprehend the
situation and the reasons for the course of the Convention, and then they
can speak and act intelligently, being wise as serpents and harmless as
doves." (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

13 Jul 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	"INCOMPATIBLE WITH A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT."
	"The opponents of Statehood for Utah exhibit the weakness of their
cause by carping criticisms of simple phrases in the Constitution, and
endeavors to attach to them a meaning foreign to their import and intent.
For instance, much has been made of the opening sentence of the section in
reference to the practice which has been proclaimed the great barrier to
Utah's admission into the Union. It says:
	"`Bigamy and polygamy being considered incompatible with a republican
form of government, each of them is hereby forbidden and declared a
misdemeanor.'
	"It is asked, why are these practices any more incompatible with a
republican than a monarchial form of government, and why should the
`Mormon' members of the Convention formulate such a prohibition? It is
very difficult to satisfy persons who are determined to be dissatisfied,
and impossible to make those whose living and pleasure depend upon
determined hostility to Utah's political advancement agree to anything
fair and rational relating to the movement. Objections are to be expected,
and some of them foolish and fallacious, but these are so silly as to be
beyond anticipation.
	"The State of Utah and the National Government have nothing to do
with monarchical antipathies or affinities The United States have to
guarantee to each state a republican form of government. This is provided
in the national Constitution. It has been claimed, as an objection to
Utah's Statehood, that bigamy and polygamy are incompatible with a
republican form of government. Whether this objection is reasonable or
foolish has nothing to do with the fact. The objection has been [16]
raised. It has been quite common. The only constitutional objection that
could be interposed to Utah's admission into the Union is one founded on
that constitutional provision.
	"All that Congress is really required to do in the matter of
admitting new, States into the Union is to see that they have a republican
form of government. Religious questions may not be interposed. They are
outside of the purview of the government. Whether citizens are `Mormons'
or Methodists, Catholics or Protestants, Puritans or Infidels, has nothing
to do with their political status. The government of each State must be
republican in form and spirit, and anything in it that appears to be
antagonistic to this requirement may be considered as an objection.
	"We have not stated that polygamy is either incompatible or out of
harmony with a republican form of government. The convention did not pass
upon the truth or falsity of the theory. That body made no affirmation or
negation of its correctness. The convention recognized the fact that such
an objection had been raised, and to meet that objection the prohibitory
provisions were inserted in the Constitution. The object was to frame an
unexceptionable instrument as the fundamental law of the new State, one
that could not be reasonably assailed by the strictest sticklers for
Utah's conformity with the laws and institutions of the several partners
in the Federal compact. We believe the Convention succeeded. And it cannot
be urged that its work was not thorough, direct, comprehensive and
complete.
	"If bigamy and polygamy are not incompatible with a republican form
of government, the objections to Utah's admission into the Union are
responsible for the declaration that they are incompatible, and not the
members of the Constitutional Convention. If they are incompatible, then
no objection can reasonably be raised against the sentence complained of.
In either case, the Convention is not to be blamed and the criticism is
groundless.
	"As to the religious status of the members of the Convention, that
should cut no figure in the argument. It was a political body. It was not
in any sense ecclesiasti-[17]cal. It had to do with political questions,
and all its acts had relation to civil matters. It was not providing for
or against a Church. It formally declared that the state should have no
union with or domination from any religious organization. The members were
not polygamists. They were all registered voters. They had taken the oath
provided in the special legislation for Utah. They proceeded in the line
of that legislation. They were differently situated from many of the
members of preceding conventions. They were consistent in the position
they took, and in good faith sought to remove the barriers raised by the
opponents of Utah's Statehood.
	"It is a significant fact that the papers and persons who have made
the most clamor and the strongest demands that the younger and monogamic
men of this Territory should take hold of affairs, and remove the alleged
obstacle to Utah's political advancement, are now the bitterest denouncers
of the members of the Convention for doing what was demanded. It proves
that the requirement was a sham, and that nothing which gives the faintest
hopes for fairness and justice to Utah will suit her malignant enemies.
The only thing that will satisfy them is the turning over of this
Territory, its offices, its treasury and the lives and fortunes of its
founders and builders and thrifty population, into the hands of a very few
and comparatively recent in comers, who lay claim to a monopoly of all the
loyalty, intelligence, education and right to control, but many of whom
have not a stake in the country and no qualities to recommend them but
invincible impudence and some knowledge of political wire-pulling and
intrigue.
	"The situation is this: Utah has many times sought admission into the
Union as a State. The cry has been raised, `Polygamy exists in Utah; it is
incompatable with a republican form of government; no State can be
admitted with any recognition of the practice; provide against it and
there is no reason why Utah should not come in.' The fact of the objection
has been recognized, the provision demanded has been made as thoroughly
and unchangeably as is possible in any Constitution, and now the opposers
find fault with the removal of the ob-[18]stacle which they pretended to
want taken out of the way. Is anything consistent to be expected of the
enemies of the honest and peaceable citizens of the United States who have
built up a great commonwealth in the deserts of these mountains?" (Deseret
Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

Friday 15 Jul 1887, St. George, U.T.:
	* * * Apostle H. J. Grant addressed us on Statehood for Utah. "The
First Presidency and Twelve indorsed the Constitution formulated and
adopted by the Convention at Salt Lake City on the 7th of July 1887, and
of the independence of the United States the 111th. * * * (Journal of J.
D. T. McAllister)

16 Jul 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	"THE CHURCH AND THE CONSTITUTION."
	"The enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are
making strenuous exertions to identify it with the political movement now
in progress having Statehood for Utah as the object. Also to fasten upon
the plurally married members of the Church the responsibility attached to
the measures adopted to reach that end. This is very unfair and
inconsistent. For a long time it has been claimed that the polygamists
ruled in politics and that the Church dominated the state. By special
legislation all polygamists were deprived of political power and this
alleged difficulty was then removed.
	"The younger portion of the community were urged to take a stand and
adopt measures to put Utah into harmony with the rest of the country. The
Constitutional Convention was composed of monogamic members. The
Constitution they framed will be submitted to the registered voters, who
have all taken the oath to obey the laws of the United States and
particularly those specially relating to Utah. This renders the clauses in
the Constitution on the polygamy question consistent, and the objections
raised against them by anti-`Mormons' inconsistent. As we have many times
affirmed, the movement is purely political. And it is made by monogamic
voting citizens and not by polygamists or any ecclesiastical body or
authorities.
	"When journals attempt to cast obloquy upon the men [19] who have
suffered imprisonment for a principle, alleging that they are now
sacrificing principle, they must know they are doing those gentlemen great
injustice. The polygamists are not in this movement, for they are barred
out of all participation in active politics. Why try to mix them up with
matters placed beyond their reach, and endeavor to put them on ground that
they are prevented from occupying? Why blame them for doing something that
is made impossible for them to do? And further, even if they were able to
take any part in the measures adopted by legal voters, why should those
who have demanded that the polygamists take steps to conform to the will
of the nation, now abuse them on the ground that they are trying to do the
very thing which was declared absolutely necessary for them to do?
	"The fact is, their defamers have placed it beyond their power to
take any political action whatever. And now that they are outside of
politics, they are held up to the world as the prime movers in a political
project in which they cannot take part, and are abused for something which
in the very nature of things they cannot accomplish, would be just what
they have been asked to do and berated for not doing.
	"The fact is well known that the monogamic population of Utah is very
largely in the majority. And yet this fact is ignored by many papers
taking part in the discussion of the Statehood question. It is also known
that recent legislation has placed all political power in the hands of the
monogamous citizens. Why, then, assume that polygamists have `gone back'
on their principles and sacrificed their religious convictions, when they
have taken no action for the potent reason already given? And why attack
the `Mormon' Church for a movement that is not in any sense
ecclesiastical, but is entirely secular and political?
	"The pretended union of Church and State has never really existed
under our national and locally stems of government. The cry was set up in
lieu of the polygamy clamor, when that was found to be losing effect. If a
prominent `Mormon' takes part in politics or occupies an office under the
laws, that is no more than if he were a Methodist or a Catholic. It is
considered quite proper [20] for a Methodist minister to do all this. And
yet he is a professional preacher, making his living to his calling, which
the `Mormon' Elder is not. Ministers of various denominations take an
active part in politics, and run for office, and get elected and no one
complains. But when a `Mormon' Elder does the same things, the senseless
exclamation is heard, `A union of Church and State!'
	"But it is alleged that these `Mormons' ask and receive counsel from
leading Church men in all their political movements. We will not take the
trouble to dispute this. Let us assume, for the present, that this is
absolutely correct. What then? Have not `Mormon' citizens the same right
to choose their advisers as their opponents have? Must they go to the
leaders of their enemies for counsel? Is this the kind of liberty that the
fanatics who are howling about Church and State want to thrust upon the
people of Utah? We claim the right to take advice from any person whom we
choose to consult, and to reject the efforts of our adversaries when they
want us to listen to and be regulated by their suggestions. And a wise,
experienced, sober and honest Bishop or Apostle is a far safer counselor
than a crafty, intemperate, whisky-soaked, profane and wire-pulling
politician or place-hunter, who wants to pull somebody down to hoist
himself up.
	"In a movement for Statehood or any other political measure, the
people must be viewed and treated within a political capacity and not as
Church members. It is of no use to talk about the `Mormon' Church in
connection with this subject, for it is entirely outside of the question.
Congress cannot make terms with the `Mormon' Church more than with any
other Church. What the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints thinks
of this step and the provisions of the State Constitution, can cut no
figure in the movement in its relations to the government or the country.
It is not to be confounded with the State, or with the Territory, or with
the registered voters taking action in their political capacity. As an
establishment of religion it occupies its own sphere and the attempt to
drag it within the lines of this political question is wrong and
impertinent.
	"The new Utah Constitution says: `There shall be no [21] union of
Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State.' This will be
agreed to by every rational American citizen. On the other hand the State
must not interfere with any Church as a religious body. And this is also
in harmony with our national institutions. Let the political body, then,
which is responsible for this political movement, stand where it belongs
and do not try to confound it with an ecclesiastical organization that
occupies another position entirely.
	"Let the press and the country view the facts as they are: The
majority of the voting citizens, who are not polygamists, in their civil
capacity by their representatives have formed a State Constitution which
will be submitted to all of the same class who choose to vote on it at the
general election. The `Mormon' Church is not its author. The polygamous
`Mormons' are barred by special law from taking part in the measure. Let
it stand on its merits and let extraneous questions be kept outside the
discussion. If the Constitution is bad, or the voting citizens of Utah
have no political rights, demonstrate these points, but do not abuse men
who are barred out of politics nor a Church which has no part in the
matter, for things that are beyond their action. In other words, for once
try and be consistent. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

25 Jul 1887:
President John Taylor died in exile * * *.

30 Jul 1887:
	In the Supreme Court of Utah, suit was commenced against the Church
and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, according to the provisions of
the Edmunds-Tucker Law.

1 Sep 1887, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	THE ADMISSION OF UTAH.
	To the Editor of the Sun: (New York)
	Sir: There is no necessity whatever for the people and Government of
the United States to trouble themselves about the religious doctrine of
the Mormon Church on the subject of marriage when the admission of Utah as
a State under the proposed Constitution comes to be acted on in Congress,
nor is it of any consequence that this [22] Constitution was framed by a
convention composed exclusively or chiefly of Mormons, or that it was a
voluntary assembly, not called together by any authority of law, Federal
or Territorial. The people of any community have an inalienable right to
assemble and lay their wishes before the ruling powers; and if the Mormons
of Utah have framed a Constitution that ought to be satisfactory to the
country in the matter of polygamy, it is not of the slightest consequence
whether they were asked or authorized to do so by any legislative
authority.
	In one aspect it is fortunate that this Constitution was framed by a
Mormon body, because it is to be judged upon its merits and because its
provisions show what the Mormons are willing and anxious to do. Moreover
the Constitution has been submitted to a preliminary popular vote, at the
last general election in the Territory, and it was approved by an almost
unanimous Mormon vote.
	The charge that its framers and supporters are seeking to play a
trick, and that when the Territory has been admitted as a State the
anti-polygamy section will be repealed, is nothing but a ridiculous
attempt to awaken popular prejudice and distrust. This transparent
nonsense will be appreciated by every intelligent person who reads the
provisions of this Constitution, which renders it wholly unnecessary to
inquire into the Mormon religious belief about marriage or to consider
whether the Mormons of Utah, in what they propose to make the fundamental
law of their new state, are consistent or inconsistent with their
professed religious beliefs.
	Permit me to touch briefly one other topic. Whatever may have been
the uncertainty caused by the action of the Supreme Court of the United
States thirty years ago in the Dred Scott case, I suppose every well
informed constitutional lawyer of the United States will now admit that
the doctrine for which I contended in that case, and which was adopted by
the minority of the judges, was correct. It is that the source of the
power of Congress to establish and govern those peculiar dependencies
called Territories is in the third section of Article IV, of The
Constitution of the United States; that this section imposes upon Congress
a trust, the proper dis-[23]charge of which requires that every Territory
shall be brought into the Union as a State as soon as its inhabitants
desire it, and they have the requisite numbers and resources to sustain a
State government. It is not a proper discharge of the trust to keep any
Territory indefinitely in the condition of a Territory, thereby keeping
open a field for the exercise of Federal patronage and power. What shall
be deemed a sufficient population has varied in different cases, and will
always vary. But in the case of Utah there can be no question of a
sufficient population and resources. Utah is the oldest Territory that the
United States possesses, and it has a larger population than any other
dependency of the United States, excepting the District of Columbia.
	I have lately read, in the Deseret Evening News, published in Salt
Lake City, an excellent exposition in which I entirely concur--that no
Territory has or can have, so long as it remains a Territory, a
"republican form of government," in the proper sense of those descriptive
terms. A Territorial government is not self-government or home rule. In
Utah, although there is a Legislature elected by the people, no bill can
become a law without the Governor's approval, and he is not obliged to
veto a bill or to render any reason for not signing it. He has simply to
pocket it, and it drops. The Governor and the Judges and the executive
officers are not elected by the people; they are appointed at Washington.
This is not republican government; it is Territorial government.
	It is because the Mormon people of Utah wish to live under a
republican government that they have framed this Constitution, and there
is no good reason why they should not be allowed to become a State, under
a Constitution which will put at rest forever the unpleasant subject of
polygamy by making it an offense against the State itself, and by
rendering it impossible to be legalized without the consent of Congress.
	George Ticknor Curtis.
Richfield Springs, Sept. 1st. (Deseret Evening New 10 Sep 1887)

[24]
29 Sep 1887, Report of the Utah Commission:
	The church leaders have been very much disturbed by the sale of
property to non-Mormons, and have from the pulpit urged upon the people
not to sell their inheritance in Zion, that has been entrusted to them to
carry out the purposes of the Lord, and not for the purposes of gain.
	The people are very tenacious of what they claim to be their rights,
and have never yielded a point. They stand to-day where they stood when
they first entered the Territory. They persistently claim that they have
been persecuted. * * *
	Undoubtedly in Missouri and Illinois they were the victims of many
unlawful attacks; but there has always been something in their methods
which have excited the opposition and the distrust of every people among
whom they have lived. They have been invited and had it in their power
while in Utah to settle honorably the contest which has been waged between
the Government and them. All that has been asked of them is to acknowledge
the supremacy of the law. * * *
	The majority of the Mormons are a kindly and hospitable people. They
possess many traits of character which are well worthy of emulation by
others. In their local affairs they strive to suppress the vices which are
common to settled communities. In matters of religion they are intensely
devotional, rendering a cheerful obedience to their church rules and
requirements. They possess many of the elements which under wise
leadership would make them useful and prosperous people. * * *
	The great body of the Gentiles are equal in intellect, courage, and
energy to those of any other community. When they went to Utah they found
all the agricultural and that had water convenient already appropriated.
Both the land and the water had been secured, and land without water is
practically worthless for agriculture in that Territory. There was nothing
left for them but he mines. These they searched for and, as found, opened.
This is work that none but superior men can carry through. It takes
capital, courage, faith, sagacity, [25] endurance, and ceaseless work. Of
all the mines found some have brought rich returns. But of these a vast
proportion goes for labor, for supplies, for machinery, and to make roads.
Silver mines are generally found among almost inaccessible mountain tops,
and every movement connected with them is costly. These mines have
yielded, up to the present time, $96,000,000. Quite half the sum has been
paid to Mormons for labor and supplies, and through this, from a very poor
people, they have become very prosperous. They possessed the land when the
Gentiles went among them, but they were so poor that some whole families
did not secure $10 in money throughout the year.
	What the Gentiles have been able to accomplish has been in spite of
the Mormon combined competition and opposition. They wrenched from the
rugged and barren mountain tops the gold and silver until they owned of
the assessed property of the Territory nearly one third, exclusive of
railroad property. * * *
	The non-Mormons have always been regarded as intruders in Utah, and
are referred to as "outsiders." Within the past five years one of the
first presidency of the Mormon Church in an address delivered in the
Tabernacle, in substance said, "We ought never to have let them secure a
foothold here;" and this expresses the sentiments of the great majority of
the Mormon people. They attribute the troubles which have come to their
leaders to the presence of these "outsiders," and not to the awakened
public sentiment of the nation. The non-Mormons who have played a
conspicuous part in the work of reforming the Territory are referred to as
it aggressive persons, blatant assailants of the religion and politics of
the majority of the business men and people of the Territory,
"conspirators and adventurers." * * *
	The political history of the Territory of Utah and the system of
plural marriage are so closely interwoven that the one cannot be
considered separate and apart from the other. In fact, since July 24,
1847, polygamy has given tone to the political policy of the Mormon
people. Under the provisional government of the [26] State of Deseret, and
the Territorial government which followed after, every act of the
legislative assembly had, even remotely, a political bearing, was voted up
or down solely upon the question of its relation to the overshadowing
interest. Every effort has been made to strengthen polygamy which the
strength of forty years could suggest, and every chord has been struck
which it was supposed might send back a responsive and friendly note.
	The result has been that nearly every man of prominence in the church
became a polygamist; the controlling intellect of Utah became involved in
the practice. They filled nearly every office of importance in the church,
and in the Territorial and county governments, and had a large majority of
every legislative assembly down to the year 1882, when the "Edmunds law"
disqualified them. Utah was governed by men who seemed determined to build
up in the heart of the American continent a polygamous empire. * * *
	The statistics for 1880 will give an idea of how far they had
progressed.
	The census found a population of 143,962, of which 60,576 were over
twenty-one years of age; about 10,000 of these are estimated to be
non-Mormons. The number of persons then living in polygamy was found,
after careful inquiry, to be about 12,000, and there were at least 3,000
who had lived in polygamy, but a separation had been effected by death or
otherwise, making a total of 15,000, or 30 per cent, of the adult Mormon
population, or one out of every 3 1/3, who had entered into polygamy.
While all did not enter into polygamy, all believed it right as a divine
revelation and upheld it in those who chose to enter into the relation.
The system was united by ties of kindred with nearly every Mormon family
in the Territory. * * *
	In 1851 (sic) polygamy was publicly proclaimed as a tenet of the
church by alleged "Divine revelation," by Brigham Young, president of the
Mormon church and governor of the Territory.
	At a special conference of the Mormon church, held at Salt Lake City
during the same year, was begun the [27] controversy between the Mormon
people and the representatives of the Federal Government, which has
continued till the present time. Judge Brocchus, of the Territorial
supreme court, who was present, rebuked the people for their polygamous
practices. His speech was, as he said, "the result of deliberation and
care." It gave great offense to Brigham Young and the Mormon people, who
charged him with falsifying "the eternal principles of truth," and with
insulting the Mormon women.
	From 1851 to 1862 polygamy flourished unchecked and uncontrolled. The
Mormon people claim that plural marriage during this period was not
unlawful. Certainly there was no statute law against the practice of
polygamy, and if the common law did not come into the Territory at the
time the United States acquired possession they are right, but it is an
indisputable fact that the common law was in full force during these
years. The act of 1862 provides that--
	"Every person having a husband or wife living who marries another,
whether married or single, in a Territory or other place over which the
United States has exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of polygamy, and shall
be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a
term of not more than five years."
	The Mormon people claimed the law was not constitutional. At the
first session of the legislative assembly following, Governor Harding, in
his message, said:
	"I respectfully call your attention to an act of Congress passed the
first day of July, 1862, entitled `An act to punish and prevent the
practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States and in other
places, and disapproving and annulling certain acts of the Territorial
legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah.' I am aware that there is a
prevailing opinion here that said act is unconstitutional, and therefore
it is recommended by those in high authority that no regard be paid to the
same, and still more be regretted, if I am rightly informed, in some
instances it has been recommended that it be openly disregarded and defied
merely to defy the same. I take this occasion to warn the people of this
[28] Territory against such dangerous and disloyal courses. Whether such
acts are unconstitutional or not, it is not necessary for me either to
affirm or deny. The individual citizen, under no circumstances whatever,
has the right to defy any law or statute of the United States with
impunity. In so doing he takes upon himself the risk of the penalties of
that statute, whatever they may be, in case his judgement should be in
error. The Constitution has amply provided how and where all such
questions of doubt are to be submitted and settled, viz, in the courts
constituted for that purpose. To forcibly resist the execution of this act
would be, to say the least, a high misdemeanor, and if the whole community
should be come involved in such resistance would call down upon it the
consequences of insurrection and rebellion. I hope and trust that no such
rash counsel will prevail. If, unhappily, I am mistaken in this, I choose
to shut my eyes to the consequences."
	The timely advice contained in the recommendations of Governor
Harding was not heeded. The people continued to violate the law, with
impunity. The courts and the officials were powerless, under the
Territorial statutes, to enforce and execute the punitory provisions of
the law. The anomalous condition of affairs was presented of the will of
the nation being ignored by a few men who claimed the sanction of Divine
authority for their acts. It is reported that the Mormons make the claim
that they were led to believe by national authority that the law of 1862
was not to be enforced, but was to remain a dead letter on the statute
books. Certainly this was an error, and nothing but the fact that the time
of Congress was occupied with matters involving the life of the nations,
and, after the war, with other matters of importance, prevented prompt and
energetic action on the subject. Congress has at every opportunity taken
occasion in the most signal manner to express its abhorrence of the
practice of polygamy. On June 23, 1874, the "Poland act" became law. It
was the first law by which Congress had struck at the judicial system
under the cover of which the Mormons had so long rendered the district
courts powerless. The jury panel was now, to [29] be selected by the
clerks of the district courts and the probate judge of the county in which
the terms of court were held. Two hundred names were to be selected
annually, 100 by each. The experiment of mixed juries proved a failure.
The grand juries were about equally divided, which rendered abortive all
attempts to indict polygamists. In 1878 a partial relief came from an
unexpected source. The legislative assembly passed an act regulating the
mode of procedure in criminal cases, which provided for challenges for
actual bias to be tried by triers appointed by the court. When the case of
Miles, indicted for polygamy, was reached for trial, the district attorney
challenged the Mormon jurors for actual bias. The court appointed triers
and the challenge was sustained. The Mormon legislature had practically
adopted the California code, which contained this provision, probably not
anticipating such a construction by the court. The act popularly known as
the "Edmunds Act" was approved March 22, 1882. A penalty for polygamy was
made the same as that fixed by the laws of 1862. A penalty was also
provided "against any man who simultaneously, or on the same day, married
more than one woman." "Simultaneous" nuptials was an expedient adopted to
protect those who chose to violate the laws. The law further provided a
penalty for unlawful cohabitation. Theretofore the law made the marriage a
crime. Now, the living together, the holding out of two or more women to
the world as wives, was made a misdemeanor. The great necessity for this
amendment arose from the difficulty of securing the conviction of
polygamists.
	The entire Mormon community conspired to conceal the evidence of such
marriages until the statute of limitations would prove a bar to
prosecution; then the polygamous relation would be openly acknowledged.
Before the passage of this act the Mormon leaders were frequently seen on
the streets, in the theaters, and other public places with their
polygamous wives. The law, also provided for amnesty to such offenders as
would in good faith renounce polygamy. Eighty-one persons have thus far
been amnestied by the President. The issue of [30] polygamous marriages
before January 1, 1883, were legitimated.
	The vital importance of making the continuance of the polygamic
relation a misdemeanor is seen in the incipient contest which it has
produced in the Mormon Church. At first, several of the persons thus
arraigned promised in open court to obey the laws thereafter, and this in
the face of strenuous opposition. The DESERET NEWS, the Church organ,
editorially proclaimed that no Mormon could consistently make such a
promise without violating obligations which bound him for time and
eternity. Those who did so were referred to in a manner calculated to make
their neighbors feel that they had incurred disgrace. In the case of John
Sharp decisive action was taken. He was a prominent man in the Territory,
a gentleman of high character, who had secured the respect of the people.
He had the courage and patriotism to appear in court and announce his
intention to obey the laws. He was promptly removed from the office of
bishop of the twentieth ward of Salt Lake City, in which office he had
become endeared to the people by associations extending beyond a period of
twenty years. It was thought that his patriotic force would have an
influence upon others and encourage them to respect the law. Hence the
summary treatment he received. * * *
	In the enforcement of the law the present officers of the Federal
courts in Utah are entitled to special commendation, and this should also
include the late able and efficient prosecuting attorney.
	While but a small proportion of the offenders have been convicted,
the tension produced by these prosecutions cannot be overestimated.
Actuated by a determination not to recognize the supremacy of national
laws where they forbid crimes sanctioned by a religious creed, it is not
surprising that the leaders have resorted to unusual methods to defeat the
law, and so great is their influence and so compact their organization,
that the entire membership have been a unit in aiding and abetting the
offenders in their obstructive course and in escaping the penalty of their
crimes. The law of 1882 invites the Mormon people, through their
legislative assembly, to [31] bring Utah into harmony with the expressed
will of the nation; to recognize the fact that every interest must remain
subordinate to the general welfare and be subjected to the Constitution
and the laws; to cease the wretched policy of evasion and resistance to
law, which, if persisted in, will destroy the public pride and result in
moral decay; and to correct the wrongs which have so long held Utah up to
the public gaze in deplorable pre-eminence.
	Governor Murray, in his message to the legislative assembly of 1884,
the first after the passage of the Edmunds act of 1882, and again in 1886,
called attention to the invitation to the Mormon people contained in the
law, and expressed his willingness to cooperate with them in the adoption
of proper measures.
	The national laws relating to bigamy and polygamy have been in
effective operation for about three years.
	Standing face to face with the law, the leaders and their obedient
followers have made no concession to its supremacy, and the issue is
squarely maintained between assumed revelations of the laws of the land.
As late as August 23, 1887, and seven weeks after the adoption of the
proposed State constitution at Provo City, Utah, a public reception was
tendered by the Mormon people at their meeting house to several persons,
polygamists, who had just been released from the penitentiary. Among the
speakers were two of the stake presidency, two bishops and elders of the
church, nearly all of whom were polygamists, and who proclaimed their
intention to live in the future as they had in the past.
	The first annual election since the act of Congress prescribing a
registration oath for voters was held on August 1, of this year, and was
preceded by a registration under that act, made in the months of May and
June last. The Commission, after careful consideration, to aid in securing
uniformity of action by the registration officers, formulated and
submitted to them for their use, as an advisory act of the part of the
Commission, a form of registration oath, substantially in the words of the
act, as follows:

[32]
	TERRITORY OF UTAH,
	County of________________________, ss.
	I, _______________________, being duly sworn (or affirmed),depose and
say that I am over twenty-one years of age, that I have resided in the
Territory of Utah for six months last past, and in this precinct for one
month immediately preceding the date hereof; and that I am a native born
(or naturalized, as the case may be) citizen of the United States; that my
full name is ____________; that I am_______years of age; that my place of
business is ____________; that I am a (single or) married man; that the
name of my lawful wife is __________________; and that I will support the
Constitution of the United States, and will faith fully obey the laws
thereof, and especially will obey the act of Congress approved March 22,
1882, entitled "An act to amend section 5352 of the Revised Statutes of
the United States in reference to bigamy and for other purposes, approved
March 22, 1882," in respect of the crimes in said act defined and
forbidden, and that I will not, directly or indirectly, aid or abet,
counsel or advise any other person to commit any of said crimes defined by
acts of Congress as polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest,
adultery, and fornication.
 	Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of _______,
188___.

Deputy Registration Officer for _______________ Precinct, ________
County.

 	Although the person applying to have his name registered as a voter
may have made the foregoing oath, yet if the registrar shall, for
reasonably or probable cause, believe that the applicant is then, in fact,
a bigamist, polygamist, or living in unlawful cohabitation, incest,
adultery, or fornication, in our opinion the registrar may require the
applicant to make the following additional affidavit:

[33]
	TERRITORY OF UTAH,
	County of _______________, ss.
	I, _____________________________, further swear (or affirm) that I am
not a bigamist, polygamist, or living in unlawful cohabitation, or
associating or cohabiting polygamously with persons of the other sex, and
that I have not been convicted of the crime of bigamy, polygamy, unlawful
cohabitation, incest, adultery, or fornication.
						____________________.
	Subscribed and sworn to before me on this _____________ day
of __________, 188___.

Deputy Registration Officer for ______ Precinct, _________
County. * * *

	Members of the Liberal party, in view of the evasive interpretation
given by the central committee of the "People's" party, were not satisfied
with the form of oath formulated by the Commission, and asked the
Commission to recommend a form of oath which they claimed was necessary to
bring the true intent and meaning of the law within reach of the
conscience of the voter, as follows:

	TERRITORY OF UTAH,
	County of ________________, ss.
	I, __________________________, being duly sworn (or affirmed), depose
and say that I am over twenty-one years of age; that I have resided in the
Territory of Utah for six months last past, and in this precinct for one
month preceding the date hereof; that I am a native born (or naturalized
as the case may be) citizen of the United States; that my full name is
_______________________________; that I am ______ years of age; that my
place of business is ________________; that I am a married (or single)
man; that the name of my lawful wife is ____________________________; that
I will support the constitution of the United States, and will faithfully
obey the laws thereof; that I will especially obey the acts of Congress
prohibiting polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery, and
fornication. that I will not hereafter [34] at any time, within any
Territory of the United States, while said acts of Congress remain in
force, in obedience of any alleged revelation, or to any counsel, advice,
or command, from any persons or source whatever, or under any
circumstances, enter into plural or polygamous marriage, or have to take
more wives than one, or cohabit with more than one woman; that I will not
at any time hereafter in violation of said acts of Congress, directly or
indirectly, aid or abet, counsel or advise, any person to take, have, or
to take more wives than one, or to cohabit with more than one woman, or to
commit incest, adultery, or fornication; that I am not a bigamist or
polygamist; that I do not cohabit polygamously with persons of the other
sex, and that I have not been convicted of any of the offenses above
mentioned.
						______________________.
	Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of
____________, 18___.
						___________________.
Deputy Registration Officer for ________ Precinct, _________
county.

	In all of the election districts the form recommended by the
Commission was used by the registration officers, * * *.
	The form of oath suggested by members of the Liberal party was first
used in the third district court, presided over by Chief Justice Zane, and
is now used in the district courts of the Territory for the qualification
of jurors.
	The present year has been marked by proceedings to form a
constitution on which to demand admission to the Union of States, the
fourth attempt for that purpose in the history of the Territory.
	Before the election, and on June 16, 1887, a call appeared signed by
the chairman and the secretary of the People's party (Mormon), calling
upon the people of Utah, irrespective of party, creed, or class, to
assemble in mass conventions in their respective counties on June 25,
1887, at 12 m., for the purpose of appoint-[35]ing delegates to a
convention to be held at Salt Lake City on the 30th day of June, 1887, to
frame a constitution preparatory to an application to Congress for
admission to statehood. * * *
	The convention met and with surprising unanimity, adopted a proposed
constitution, which declares bigamy and polygamy to be misdemeanors, and
affixes punishment. It also provides that no further legislation shall be
required to make or define these offenses; that the provision is not
amendable without the consent of Congress, and proclaims the separation of
church and State. The instrument is silent as to the offense of unlawful
cohabitation. * * *
	The action of the convention and the result of its labors did not
tend to allay, but rather to increase, the apprehensions and opposition of
the non-Mormons. They make many objections to the admission of Utah as a
State at present, and unanimously declined to vote upon the subject or in
any way recognize the move. The following is a summary of some of their
objections:
	1. that the action taken is without authority from the proper source
and not entitled to any recognition, and is accompanied by many and strong
evidences of evasion and bad faith in professing an abandonment of
polygamy and the accompanying social evils, with the intent to acquire
statehood, and without any intent to restrain and punish such offenses,
but merely to entrench them behind statehood;
	2. that the historical attitude of the great body of the people
towards the laws on this subject had not changed down to the eve of
calling the convention, and that until then the Mormons, their press and
pulpits, had not ceased to declare the laws of Congress unconstitutional
and their enforcement persecution;
	3. that though the press and pulpits suddenly became silent with
indications in a few places of a muzzled silence, there was still no sign
or intimation of any change of sentiment in words or acts, and the
hostility to the enforcement of existing laws and Federal authority was
still as active and general as before;
	4. that scarcely any Mormon in good standing would [36] even promise
to obey the laws in the future to escape punishment after conviction in
court;
	5. that they were unable to understand how the great body of the
people could undergo an overnight conversion on the subject of these
offenses, when the day before their consciences were so strong that
nothing could induce them to promise obedience to the laws;
	6. that the Deseret Evening News, their leading and uncompromising
organ had, after the framing of the proposed constitution, and before the
election, printed an editorial leaving the question to the voters with the
most judicial fairness, but ending with the advice to be "as wise as
serpents and harmless as doves;"
 	7. that in view of their past history the first evidence of a bona
fide intent to obey and execute laws making these offenses punishable
should be a cessation of hostility to present laws and the announcement of
obedience to them;
	8. that notwithstanding the great unanimity in the convention and in
the subsequent vote of the people, no member of the convention or voter
has, in the constitution or elsewhere, declared he considered or believed
either of the offenses named is or should be a misdemeanor or punishable,
but the provision in the constitution is introduced by the remarkable
whereas, for the reason that somebody, perhaps some wicked persons at
Washington, deem those crimes incompatible with a republican form of
government, they are made misdemeanors and punishable;
	9. that it is not easy to conceive why the incompatibility should be
limited to a republican form of government, or why it should not extend to
every form of civilized government, unless full force is given to the
dogma taught by the dominant sect, that the only true and rightful
government is a theocracy in which the powers of government are derived
from God and delegated to ministers, who govern by divine right;
	10. that no constitutional provision can execute itself, but requires
prosecutors, jurors, and judges, all of whom, under statehood, would be
Mormons, and if a whole people can be suddenly converted one way in one
[37] night, they might be susceptible to a reconversion equally sudden,
and all the prosecuting powers become hostile to the law;
	11. that the rules of evidence and the laws of marriage under
statehood are proper subjects of State legislation, and while a marriage
without witnesses may be good a rule of evidence that it requires one or
more witnesses to the direct fact of marriage to commit polygamy would
leave the constitutional provision worthless, and should the courts adopt
the rule, still existing in some States, that on a charge of bigamy
cohabitation and the repute of marriage are insufficient to prove the
marriage, no new law or rule of evidence would be needed;
	12. that it is historical there are many polygamists in Utah, and as
such marriages are conceded the number is unknown, and so far as the
constitution is concerned all these could live openly with their numerous
families as soon as the Federal law ceased, and point to their relations
as the reward of those who had lived up to the privileges of their
religion;
	13. that there is no grant of power in the constitution authorizing
Congress to sanction or refuse an amendment to the constitution of a
sovereign State;
	14. that the people of a State cannot deprive themselves of the power
to amend a constitution the creation of their will, nor can they legislate
to bind those that come after them;
	15. that the Mormons have hitherto justified their opposition to the
Federal laws under plea of conscience in respect to religious matters, but
they have apparently made their consciences marketable commodity and
statehood the exchangeable value if they offer in good faith to suppress
these offenses, unless their religious view's have suddenly changed, of
which there is no evidence or pretense;
	16. that the claim that this constitution emanates from and is the
work of non-polygamous Mormons is no argument in its favor;
	17. that good citizenship does not involve only the question who in
fact practices polygamy, but also who believes in it as a moral and
religious right, superior to [38] all human laws, and hence will be
influenced in his conduct by such belief;
	18. that the non-polygamists have always been a large majority, but
have in every way upheld the polygamists, have been equally active and
bitter in their opposition to the laws, and without their aid and support
the polygamists could not so long have defied the laws;
	19. that there has been no evidence of any struggle or contest
between the polygamists and monogamists, but all have acted with the
greatest possible harmony and vied with each other in attaining the wisdom
of serpents and harmlessness of doves.
	That the church leaders, who control in such matters have never
manifested in any manner their intention to cease to enforce the practice
of polygamy by their people, but that their silence indicates that the
converse of the proposition is true; that the Mormon church has never
abandoned its purpose of ultimately becoming a controlling political
power, and adopts this method of promoting it; and further, that if the
non-polygamists have reached this conclusion, that the law in respect to
these offenses is superior, and that it is the first duty of citizens to
obey the laws of Congress prescribing rules of conduct, it is an easy
matter for them to announce it and give some evidence of their good faith.
	In accordance with these views the non-Mormons abstained from voting
on the subject at the polls, desiring not to recognize the movement in any
manner whatever.
	The monogamous Mormons cast 13,195 votes in favor of the
constitution, 500 votes being cast against it.
	The action of the Mormon people in adopting a constitution which
forbids polygamy and bigamy, in view of their past history, is an anomaly
which demands some explanation. In all its Territorial history, Utah,
under the control of the dominant sect, which is in reality a political
organization, with aims and methods which are political, has stood arrayed
in opposition to laws of Congress on these subjects and still maintains
united efforts to nullify them.* * *
	The call for the assembling of mass-meetings to [39] appoint
delegates to meet in convention and frame a constitution was evidently the
result of a very sudden inspiration, so much so that the Deseret News
editorially said: "It would occasion some surprise." There had been no
previous discussion in the press, nor among the people, in relation to
such a movement, which was conceived and carried through with the utmost
haste.
	The provision in the constitution with reference to polygamy and
bigamy is as follows:
	"Sec. 12. Bigamy and polygamy being considered incompatible with `a
republican form of government,' each of them is hereby forbidden and
declared a misdemeanor.
	"Any person who shall violate this section shall, on conviction
thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment
for a term of not less than six months nor more than three years, in the
discretion of the court. This section shall be construed as operative
without the aid of legislation, and the offenses prohibited by this
section shall not be barred by any statute of limitation within three
years after the commission of the offense; nor shall the power of pardon
extend thereto until such pardon shall be approved by the President of the
United States."
	The crime of polygamy is to be a misdemeanor (in every other State it
is a felony), and is punishable by a term of not more than three years,
whereas, under the federal law the fine is fixed at a sum not exceeding
$500 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
	Under the Federal law polygamists are denied the right to vote and to
hold office, but under this proposed constitution persons who have
committed, or who shall hereafter commit, the crime of polygamy, and all
such as continue to live in that crime, will be invested with the full
rights of citizenship. Under the Federal law, unlawful cohabitation is
punished by a fine not exceeding $300 and by imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months: under the proposed State this offense, which
perpetuated the evils of polygamy against society and posterity, is to go
unpunished.
[40]	The legislature of the proposed State is shorn of its power to raise
the grade of the crime to that of felony, or to annex any disqualification
on conviction while it is left free to promote polygamy by providing
through inheritance and by means of the wills for the maintenance of
polygamous households, and to deny the legal wife the right of dower, or
other rights, as heretofore.
	The provisions for amendments to the proposed constitution only by
the consent of Congress, and for pardon of convicted polygamists only by
approval of the President, are incongruous and futile and need not be
considered. It is sufficient to say they are open to the criticism that if
a community can not be trusted to amend a constitution it can hardly be
said to be fit to be trusted with the powers of a State under any form of
constitution. And if it can not be trusted to deal with those who have
violated its laws, it should not have the control of the administration of
the laws.
	If Utah should be admitted into the Union as a State, the following
results would follow, viz: There would be an immediate cessation of all
further prosecutions for polygamy and unlawful cohabitation under laws of
Congress. No prosecution for polygamy would ever take place in the State
until the ruling power in the State chose to do what they now arraign the
Government for "Persecute" for a crime which is "an essential part of
their religion." This claim has been set forth in a formal way, which has
made it a solemn declaration of the whole Mormon population of Utah. At a
general conference held at Logan April 6, 1885, a resolution was adopted
and a committee appointed to draft a protest and address to the President
and people of the United States. Such address was adopted at a
mass-meeting held May 2, 1885, at which the Hon. John T. Caine, Delegate
from the Territory, presided, and who was deputed as the agent to present
the same. In that document is formally proclaimed:
	"As to religious faith, it is based upon evidence which to our minds
is conclusive; convictions not to be destroyed by legislative enactments
or judicial decisions; force may enslave the body, but it can not convince
the mind. [41] To yield at the demand of the legislator or judge the
rights of conscience would prove us recreant to every duty we owe to God
and man. Among the principles of our religion is that of immediate
revelation from God; one of the doctrines so revealed is celestial or
plural marriage, for which ostensibly we are stigmatized and hated. This
is a vital part of our religion, the decision of courts to the contrary
notwithstanding. * * *
	The Mormon people cannot be called hypocrites. They boldly proclaim
their religious belief to all the world. Until that belief shall be
changed, if they be true to their creed, polygamy with its kindred evils
will be fostered by every means in their power. The leaders of the church
will probably do in the future what they have done in the past. They do
not recognize the authority of the Government to call upon them for
purpose, and determination of the church in this respect has been fully
developed. * * *
	For these reasons the Commission has been led to fear that the
provision in the proposed constitution making polygamy a misdemeanor was
not adopted, nor the action taken with any purpose to suppress polygamy;
that it does not indicate an abandonment by the people of Utah in the
manner which is demanded by the will of the American people, as expressed
in their national law; that the late movement for statehood was the
offspring of necessity, inspired with the hope of escaping from the toils
which the firm attitude of the Government and the energetic course of the
Federal officers had wound around them. Realizing that they could expect
no aid nor comfort from the national administration, and actuated by a
determination not to recognize the supremacy of national laws where they
forbid crimes licensed by their creed, it is not surprising that the
majority in Utah should resort to some expedient to get relief from their
dilemma. In the light of these facts it is evident that the relief sought
for is expected in statehood, and that this expedient is, in the case of
Utah, inspired by more than the usual motives operating in other
communities, which are composed of homogeneous American population in
accord with the [42] laws and institutions of the country.
	The presentation of the proposed application for statehood will
demand the consideration of the question by Congress whether the course of
the dominant majority in Utah, in the use of delegated powers in a
Territorial condition, has been such as to induce Congress to withdraw
certain of these powers until the perpetuated evils should be corrected
(which has not been done).
	If Utah, as a Territory, has refused to recognize the force and
validity of national laws, and decisions of the supreme court, can it be
reasonably expected as a State it will do so? Can it be reasonably
expected that crimes and evils which the Government has failed to suppress
with its supervision over a Territorial government will be suppressed in a
State ruled by the majority which now maintains and propagates these
crimes and evils as "an essential part of their religion?"
	It is submitted if it would not be wise to continue a Territorial
government in which the National Government could continue to deal
directly with these evils until they should be eradicated, even if it
should be necessary, as suggested in former reports (1884-'85), to take
all political power from those who have not sufficient allegiance to
recognize the validity of national laws and the decisions of courts, and
that no harmony in the Union could be maintained with a State ruled by a
creed which claims all governments but its own to be illegal, and claims a
"separate political destiny and ultimate temporal dominion by divine
right."
	The Commission is of the opinion that Utah should not be admitted to
the Union until such time as the Mormon people shall manifest by their
future acts that they have abandoned polygamy in good faint, and not then
until an amendment shall have been made to the Constitution of the United
States prohibiting the practice of polygamy. * * *
	The names of sixty-seven men have been reported to the Commission who
have entered into polygamy during the year ending June, 1887. This
information has been requested of all registrars. The number given has
been reported by non-Mormons, there being no in-[43]stance in which has a
name been reported by a Mormon registrar. The law imposes upon the
Commission the duty of registering voters, and it has been the uniform
policy of the Commission in filling these offices to select men, whenever
they could be found, who were in open and avowed sympathy with the law
under which they were acting. The necessity for this is apparent. * * *

MINORITY REPORT:
	In former official reports the Commission several times expressed the
opinion that the laws of Congress, in connection with other influences,
were "setting strongly in the direction of reform" in Utah; and that at no
distant day "this relic of Asiatic barbarism (polygamy) would be swept
from the land." We have predicted from the beginning that the legal
discrimination in favor of the monogamous Mormons against the polygamists
would sooner or later be attended with good results. Early in the present
year we thought we discerned a disposition among the Mormons to give up
the practice of polygamy; and we wish to add that we have used our
official and personal influence to induce the Mormons to take such a step.
	Early in June of the present year we were gratified to learn that a
general movement for the abrogation of polygamy was taking an organized
form. The central committee of the "People's (Mormon) party" published a
call in the newspapers for mass meetings of the legal voters to be held in
all the counties of the Territory, to select delegates to a convention to
be held in Salt Lake City, June 30, 1887, for the purpose of adopting a
State constitution, and inviting all parties in the Territory to
participate in those meetings. The other political parties in the
Territory declined to participate in the movement. * * *
	The convention concluded not to furnish the separate ballot-boxes,
but to rely on the judges of election, or some of them, to count the votes
and make return of the election on the adoption or rejection of the
proposed constitution. This was done in nearly all the voting precincts,
and the result was:
[44]
	For the constitution . . . . . . . . . 13,195
	Against the constitution . . . . . . . . . 504
	But few of the Gentiles voted on this proposition, and of the 504
negative votes probably about one-half were cast by Mormons. The total
vote for members of the legislative assembly was about 16,500, of which
the Gentiles cast about 3,500; so it appears that about 95% of the Mormon
voters cast their ballots for the constitution. * * *
	Many of the Gentiles in Utah claim that this anti-polygamy movement
among the Mormons is "all a sham." But we do not think so. After careful
and impartial investigation and consideration, our conclusion is that,
whatever may be their motives, and whether they are influenced by choice
or necessity, the generality of the monogamous Mormons (who are more than
three-fourths of the Mormon population) have deliberately and wisely
resolved that their highest earthly interests, the prosperity and
happiness of themselves and their posterity, and the avoidance of the
odium which attaches to them throughout the civilized world, demand that
polygamy shall be abolished.
	The Mormons have been led to believe that if the practice of polygamy
shall actually and in good faith be abolished, Congress will not further
pursue them with hostile legislation, and that their religious faith will
not be the subject of legal animadversion or discrimination. If the
premises are granted (namely, the bona fide abrogation of polygamy), their
conclusion is impregnable upon well settled principles and precedents. * *
*
	After such assurances have been held out to the Mormon people by the
Supreme Court of the United States, by those eminent statesmen who
championed the anti-polygamy legislation in Congress, and by the
Commission, representing no party or faction, but the Government of the
United States; now, while the great mass of the Mormon people are making
an effort for the abandonment of the practice of polygamy, we are asked to
recommend further legislation of a hostile and aggressive character,
almost, if not entirely, destructive [45] of local self-government,
thereby inflicting punishment on the innocent as well as the guilty. Our
answer is, we cannot do so; we decline to advise Congress to inflict
punishment by disfranchising any portion of the people of Utah on account
of their religious or irreligious opinions. * * *
	Churches and creeds are subject to the laws of evolution, and
Mormonism must yield to the inexorable logic of civilization. Polygamy
must go, and its abrogation will, sooner or later, be an accomplished
fact. Other objectionable features are gradually giving way; and we are
thoroughly satisfied that whatever the Federal authorities can rightfully
accomplish in the way of reform can be done without resorting to the total
overthrow of local self government.
	Polygamous marriages in Utah are becoming less frequent, as will
hereinafter be shown. No polygamist votes, holds office, or sits on a
jury. The mass of the Mormons have taken the test oath and voted against
polygamy. The conclusion is that the present laws of Congress are working
successfully; that there is no necessity of resorting to un-American plans
of government; and that if, as we apprehend, the object of the Government
is to reform and not to destroy the Mormon people, they should be
encouraged and not spurned in their efforts for the abrogation of polygamy
and for reform.
	During the last two years and a half there has been no relaxation in
the enforcement of the laws for the suppression of polygamy. During that
period there have been about three hundred convictions to the penitentiary
for offenses against those laws, which, notwithstanding the signs of
reform, should continue to be enforced against all persons violating them;
no step backward should be tolerated; at the same time the innocent should
be scrupulously protected.
	In a larger view polygamy is adjudged by the most enlightened nations
to be a manifold evil. It is the parent of caprice, cruelty, and license.
It enervates the male and degrades the female. Socially, politically, and
physically it is corrupting and deteriorating. Despotic [46] in the
family, it is the prototype of despotism in the government. It largely
accounts for the differing characteristic of the Asiatic and European; for
the indolence and feebleness of the one, and the energy and enterprise of
the other. Inferiority is its badge. In the armed contests of rival
civilizations, alike in ancient Greece and modern India, it succumbed to
the superiority of monogamy. It is at variance with the divine economy in
that originally God created but one man and one woman, Adam and Eve, each
as the only partner in wedlock of the other. Logically, and as a
consequence, it is irreconcilable to the idea of the marriage covenant as
practiced and revered by the masterful Teuton, Celt, and Anglo-Saxon. * *
*
	The vigorous enforcement of these laws has resulted in a sense of
disquietude and insecurity in the mass of the Mormon population, and, as
we have before said, the indications of an important change are apparent.
* * *
	For ourselves we may repeat, that the practice of polygamy appears to
be declining and in the course of ultimate abandonment, and that our
observation leads us to believe that the present intention of the
ascendent numbers of the monogamous Mormons is to compass and hasten that
end. * * *
	Considering these facts, and the importance of continuing the power
of Congress over the subject of polygamy and of relieving the power from
any question, we venture respectfully to recommend the adoption of an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, prohibiting the
institution of practice of polygamy in any form in the States and in the
Territories of other places over which the United States have exclusive
jurisdiction, supplemented with appropriate power of legislation to carry
it into full effect. This recommendation is in accordance with
propositions which have already been submitted, respectively, in the
Senate and House of Representatives, of which that in the House was
supported by an able and elaborate report from its Judiciary Committee.
	Such an amendment would put an end to special and [47] provisional
legislation upon a disturbing question, which legislation, under the
present Constitution, must cease to operate with the cessation of the
territorial status. it would raise an implied and incidental power,
primarily drawn from the power of Congress "to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States," to the dignity of an express power
embedded in that instrument itself.
	Other considerations favor it. It would insure us a solemn and
deliberate verdict of the American people against the practice of
polygamy, either as a social institution or religious rite. It would serve
as a rampart for the protection of monogamy, the bed-rock of American and
European civilization, against the inroads of an Asiatic vice. It would be
an authoritative notice to immigrants from all lands that the United
States are dedicated to the virtues of monogamy, and, passing as a lesson
into the common schools of the country, would form the minds of rising
generations in harmony with its ideas and object.

25 Oct 1887, Deseret Evening News:
	The New York WORLD of October 18th has an editorial on "The Utah
Problem." It was prompted by the recommendation of J. Randolph Tucker,
that a Constitutional amendment be passed providing against polygamy, then
that Utah be admitted into the Union as a State. The WORLD drops into the
comparatively new groove of opposing journals, marked out since the
polygamy objection began to lose force. It is that polygamy is not after
all, the great factor in this so-called problem.
	Only a little while ago the chorus of the press was: "Let the
`Mormons' provide against polygamy and no one will object to their
Statehood." Now that the provision is made, and placed too beyond cavil as
to its thoroughness, it is suddenly discovered that polygamy is not the
great bugbear. What is the matter now? The WORLD says:
	"The radical objection to it is its essentially un-[48] American and
un-democratic character. It is in direct opposition to the fundamental
principles of our government in that it means the rule of a church or
hierarchy, and not of the people. It places the temporal authority of the
church above that of the national government and authorizes its members to
perjure themselves in the national courts. The admission of Utah under
present circumstances will throw the state government wholly into the
hands of this church. There is a much larger nut to crack here than
polygamy."
	The truth is that the WORLD is entirely in the wrong. Every assertion
in the above paragraph is positively untrue. A little inquiry on the part
of the writer, from authentic sources of information, would demonstrate
this. "Mormon" words and "Mormon" expositors would show, the exact
contrary to all the extract contains. "Mormonism" is of American origin,
so far as this world is concerned, and is essentially identified with
American ideas, interests and destinies. It is also democratic in theory
and practice. The vote of the people is made paramount in all its
proceedings. No matter if the voice of revelation speaks, until it is
endorsed by the will of the people it does not become part of the Church
policy.
	It may be asked, can the body of the Church repudiate a divine
command or counsel? The answer is, certainly. Just as much as Adam and Eve
acted on their agency, so can all their posterity. And in this Church it
is provided that common consent is necessary to establish its doctrine and
policy. The consequences of persisting in a human instead of a divine
course must be with those who follow it, and only very wicked and
rebellious people would reject that which they believed to be divine. But
the freedom of choice and action is not denied or abridged by anything in
"Mormon" teaching or discipline. * * *
	"The temporal authority of the Church" is not placed above the
National authority, and the WORLD can not establish its assertion with a
scintilla of evidence. And the calumny that the Church authorizes its
members to commit perjury is simply contemptible. It is one of those
unsupported charges that anti-"Mormons" make [49] without care as to its
recklessness and its refutation by a thousand well known facts. The rest
of the paragraph is in the same vein. It is all in the style of an
advocate who has nothing to offer but abuse in opposition to the solid
grounds of an adversary.
	All this talk of the "Mormon Church," "Mormonism" and "Church rule"
is foreign to the question before the nation. Congress has no business
with ecclesiastical affairs. The Government of the United States cannot
interfere in questions of religious faith or the doctrine or discipline of
a religious body Individuals who break the law can be prosecuted under the
law, no matter what may be their creed or standing in any Church. But the
people who are moving for Statehood are not violators of the law. They do
not propose to violate it. They are acting as American citizens striving
for those political privileges which belong to citizenship in its full
sense. It is not a question of "Mormonism" or any other ism except
constitutionalism. The attempt of those who oppose it to mix religion up
with politics is not to be admired. It is practising that of which they
have falsely accused the "Mormons." It is an evidence of weakness. It is
purile and paltry. And the continual misrepresentation in which they
indulge is proof positive that they have taken a false stand and can find
no facts to help their cause. (Deseret Evening News, Editorial)

11 Nov 1887:
	Receiver Dyer took possession of the Tithing Office, Salt Lake City,
but did not interfere with regular business.

15 Nov 1887:
	Receiver Dyer took possession of the Historian's office and the Gardo
House. The Tithing office and the Historian's office were leased to the
Church. The marshal demanded the President's office delivered to him.

17 Nov 1887, New York Sun:
	STRANGE PROCEEDINGS IN UTAH.
[50]	Under the law passed at the end of the last session of Congress, the
United States government is prosecuting proceedings to wind up the affairs
of the corporation known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.
	The anti-polygamy measures prepared by Senator Edmunds, Senator
Ingalls, and others, provided, among other things, for the dissolution of
two great corporations which have been the material basis of the Mormon
system, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the
Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company.
	The act declared the existence of these corporations at an end, and
directed the Attorney General to institute proceedings in the Supreme
Court of the Territory to wind up their affairs conformably to law; that
is to say, to pay the debts and lawful claims, and to dispose of the
property of the concerns, the proceeds, after the settlement of all
equitable claims, to be forfeited to the United States, and by the United
States to be applied to the benefit of the common schools of the
Territory. The law excepts from forfeiture all buildings and grounds used
exclusively for church purposes, also the parsonages and cemeteries. * * *
	Few people at the east are aware of the scope of the anti-Mormon
legislation adopted in the last days of the Forty-ninth Congress, or that
this tremendous process of dissolution and settlement is now under way in
the Utah courts. * * *
	Whatever are the merits of the law under which the United States of
America, plaintiff, has now brought suit in the Supreme Court of Utah
against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints et al.,
defendants, it will be seen that this law, must be executed with the
utmost care and caution, and with the most scrupulous regard for all the
safeguards of justice and equity. Otherwise it is capable of becoming the
engine of outrageous oppression, of abominable and un-American
persecution.
	Is the law now being fairly and justly executed? We learn from Utah
that in the due course of the proceedings to wind up the corporations, the
Supreme Court has appointed a receiver of the property of the Mormon
Church. This receiver is no other person than the United [51] States
Marshal for the Territory of Utah. In other words, the plaintiff is made
receiver. In a private suit such an appointment would be scandalous,
incredible. For this appointment as receiver or a representative of the
plaintiff--and that officer of the government, too, who as Marshall will
have to serve all the processes that may be issued in order to get the
property into his possession as receiver--two of the Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court of Utah are responsible. We understand that Chief
Justice Zane dissented from the extraordinary appointment, although
concurring in the order directing a receiver. * * *
	These are strange proceedings. Not so much in justice to the Mormons
as in justice to the United States government and the common rights of its
citizens, of whatever religious faith, we should say that the Judiciary
Committee of the House ought to investigate this matter as soon as
Congress meets. -- New York SUN, Nov 17. (Deseret Evening News, 23 Nov
1887)

18 Nov 1887:
	Receiver Dyer took possession of the property belonging to the
Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company.

22 Nov 1887:
	"* * * Brother John T. Caine being sent for, came and received such
instructions as the brethren had to give him. Afterwards he was blessed
and set apart for his labors as Delegate from Utah at Washington by Bro.
W. Woodruff, Geo. Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith and Franklin D. Richards.
Geo. Q. Cannon, mouth. I was then blessed and set apart for my labors, to
assist Bro. Cain, and do all the good in my power in the interest of Utah
and the Saints at Washington by these same brethren, Jos. F. Smith, mouth.
(Diary of L. John Nuttall)

23 Nov 1887:
	Receiver Dyer took formal possession of the President's office,
leaving two deputies in charge.

[52]
5 Dec 1887:
	Receiver Dyer demanded the Weber Stake property delivered over to him
but was refused.

7 Dec 1887:
	Receiver Dyer seized the President's office and carried off books,
some of which never belonged to the Church.

12 Dec 1887:
	Several anti-polygamic measures were introduced in the U.S. Senate.

1888:
	The year, generally speaking, was a prosperous one for the Saints in
Utah and surrounding Territories, although more arrests and imprisonments
for conscience sake took place this year than during any previous season
since the prosecutions under the Edmunds law commenced - - -.

13 Jan 1888:
	An act for the punishment of polygamy was introduced into the Utah
Legislature by Wm. H. King, a Mormon, of Millard County. See Deseret
Evening News, 14 Jan 1888.

28 Jan 1888, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	THE NEW "CRY" AGAINST UTAH.
	It has often been said that should the Latter-day Saints relinquish
any principle of their religion, it would make no difference in the
hostility of its enemies. The abandonment of one doctrine would be
immediately followed by a demand for the renunciation of another, and the
encroachment would go until not a vestige of the distinctive features of
our faith would be left to show its identity.
	In Missouri, before there was any adoption of peculiar marriage views
by the "Mormons," they were ordered by General Clark, while their leaders
were under a military sentence of death, to separate and no more organize
with Bishops and other Church officers, or [53] pretend to believe in
healing the sick, speaking with new tongues or any other religious powers
different from their neighbors. This illustrates the spirit of opposition.
It is antagonistic to that liberty which is supposed to be the common
right in this free land and which is really guaranteed by the Constitution
of the United States.
	Today the uncompromising and conscienceless enemies of the people of
Utah are shifting their ground of assault while still acting in the same
spirit as of old. It is but a little while ago that the only point of
difference was declared to be the practice of polygamy. Now that is
declared to be not the issue at all. Belief in its rightfulness under any
circumstances is made to answer in the absence of the practice, and
law-abiding citizens are excluded from jury service and other situations
of public trust, simply on account of their abstract belief. Also aliens
who have every statutory qualification for citizenship are excluded from
naturalization, solely and entirely because of their religious faith
although ready and willing to take the prescribed oath for the regulation
of their actions.
	And the change of base goes a great deal farther. The "polygamy" cry
is almost abandoned in many quarters. The operations of special
Congressional laws, and the fact that the masses of Utah's population are
practically monogamous, with the very general subscription to the
anti-polygamous test oath, have taken away the ground from under the feet
of those who were continually shouting "polygamy," and the country is
getting information as to the manner in which a small thing has been
magnified, and a comparative mole-hill has been made to appear as a
monstrous mountain.
	The offense of the "Mormons" now is their unity, and the cry to take
the place of "polygamy" is "the rule of the Church." The Latter-day Saints
are told that they must repudiate Church direction, and it is intimated,
may asserted as a matter on which there is no dispute, that a hierarchy
here controls political action and interferes with the liberty of the
citizen. The unity of the Saints, one of the grand objects of Christian
teachings and [54] Christian influence, is to be made the new rock of
offense to the country. The authority exercised in Church affairs by
Church leaders "chosen by the body" and upheld by the members, is to be
distorted and construed into theocratic rule destructive of political
freedom.
	This "crime" of unity, whether it be religious, social or political,
is the real offense of the Latter-day Saints against their opponents. And
it is that which is desired to be broken up. If the "Mormons" would
dissolve their organization and have no order, discipline or common
purpose, they would perhaps be tolerated by their so-called "Christian"
friends and the union-haters who are hungering for spoils, no matter what
might be their morals or family relations or associations. This unity
which is not but ought to be as firm and general as it is described by
those who wish to dissolve it, is a result which they do their very utmost
to bring about among themselves. And it is a fact that cannot be denied
without lying, that there is a thousandfold more coercion used to
establish it among the pronounced anti-Mormons than has ever been
exercised among the "Mormon" people. The abuse that has been heaped upon
non-"Mormons" who have dared to speak in favor of the majority of the
people of Utah, and the issues by which they have been whipped into line
when they have attempted to act with the least independence, has been
something awful yet ludicrous, and as shameful to those who have submitted
to it as it was dastardly and vile in those who resorted to it.
	Such union as exists among the "Mormons" today is in the fullest
sense a voluntary union. There is no power by which it could be enforced.
It comes from inward, individual conviction. This union of purpose and
act, in any direction, is the result of belief and intent. There is no one
man or class of men who could possibly compel it. Men of influence might
by argument, persuasion or other legitimate means, bring others to see as
they see and act as they desire. But the rule and coercion which designing
persons pretend are in force among the "Mormons," are not only figments of
the imagination but an impossible force among a people who have
em-[55]braced an unpopular faith from conviction, and who are armed with
the voting power in church and a secret, impenetrable ballot at the polls.
	Such influence as certain leading men among the "Mormons" are
supposed to wield, is the very power that the petty politicians who
misrepresent it desire to obtain. And it is because they cannot exercise
it that they are so venomous and intolerant. If it were true that the
majority of the people of Utah voted, either in religion or politics, as
their Church leaders advised, there would be nothing in it unlawful,
improper or subversive of republican principles. Citizens have the right
to choose their own counselors on every matter that relates to their own
welfare, spiritual, temporal, social and political. It is the purpose of
the maligners of the people of Utah to deny them that liberty, and compel
them to cease from acting on their own volition if it involves the seeking
or acceptance of advice from any one but their opponents.
	He who states that there is any compulsion over the "Mormon" people,
whereby they are deprived of their liberty to vote as they choose or to
refrain from voting if they so desire, is either grossly mistaken or
asserts a naked and baseless falsehood. Individuals may have advanced
theories and enthusiasts may have advocated extreme notions, but the very
genius of the "Mormon" faith and the positive revelations which the Saints
regard as the word of God to them, preclude anything like slavish
submission to human dictates, come when or how they may. The doctrine of
rewards and punishments is based on the principle of human agency and the
freedom of the creature, and both are essentials and fundamentals in the
"Mormon" creed.
	It matters not that the class of persons engaged in misrepresenting
the "Mormons" cannot comprehend unity of action except as effected by
coercive force. The fact remains that the "Mormons" have a common faith
which is exhibited in United action, and that the motive and the force are
internal, individual and from a common impulse, and that they are not and
cannot be forced to do anything against their will and desire. And while
that [56] will and the acts springing therefrom are not in violation of
law, no lawful or rational objection can be urged against either.
	The "Church rule" which is denounced is a myth. It is worse. It is a
creation of the unprincipled and scheming persons who lust after power and
would destroy every liberty left to the people of Utah, so that they might
revel in the rule and have a free path to a career of irresistible
plunder. Papers that echo their latest cry become accessories before the
fact to a contemplated political crime, a double crime--the deprivation of
rights and privileges of a body of citizens who are justly entitled to
them, and the investment of power in the hands of persons bent on the
enslavement of an industrious and peaceable community, for their own
profit and advancement. The fair-minded and respectable non-"Mormons" of
Utah, as well as the thoughtful and just elsewhere, should refrain from
joining in or giving countenance to the latest outcry, designed to
supplant the now dying objection to Utah's freedom and form a new obstacle
to her advancement and prosperity. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W.
Penrose, Editor)

18 Feb 1888, Franklin S. Richards:
	By Telegraph to the NEWS.
	UTAH AND STATEHOOD.
	Taking testimony before the Senate Committee:
	Washington, Feb. 18. --The Senate committee on territories gave a
hearing today upon the admission of Utah as a state. Franklin S. Richards,
of Salt Lake City, described the barrenness of Utah when the settlers
first entered it, and the wonderful productiveness, prosperity and wealth
which have resulted from their diligence and enterprise. This was Utah's
fifth petition for admission and, as eldest of the territories, it was
hoped her appeal would be heeded. She had reached a point beyond which
progress, under a territorial government was impossible. It had been
objected that the "Mormons" were polygamists. As a matter of fact, not
more than two per cent of them ever were polygamists or are such now. Time
was rapidly solving [57] the problem. The members of the constitutional
convention took oaths against polygamy and adopted a constitution which
made polygamy or bigamy a crime. As the speaker read the paragraph of the
constitution providing that the anti-polygamous sections shall never be
repealed or changed without the assent of Congress and the President,
Senator Butler queried: "You don't expect Congress to act favorably upon
such a proposition, do you? I, for one, say frankly and emphatically I
will not vote for it. I do not believe Congress or the President has
anything to do with changing the constitution."
	Senator Stewart assenting, said he did not think Congress had a right
to make a treaty with a State or Territory.
	Richards said that whatever might be the opinion of the committee,
the provision at least demonstrated the good faith of the men who framed
the constitution to do all in their power, if permitted, to wipe out
polygamy. The people of Utah recognized that the country required it and
they wished to meet the requirements. They, however, proposed to
accomplish it by more humane methods than those proposed by the present
laws. He sketched cases of "Mormons" who had been tried and convicted by
the courts, and showed by what he declared to be indisputable facts that
parties were innocent of charges brought against them. The prosecution and
courts were unable to bring proofs of unlawful cohabitation and, in fact,
had invented constructive cohabitation and convicted and punished
offenders for this.
	Some of the committee asked if the stories as Richards related them
embodied facts which were conceded by the prosecution.
	Richards could not say what they conceded, but said he stated what
he, having been present as counsel for the defence, knew to be the truth.
	It was proposed by Senator Platt and others that the names of the
prosecuting officers be taken with a view to inquiring of them as to their
version of the matter, and with this understanding the witness proceeded.
	As to the marriage relation, he said, much misapprehension existed by
reason of a confusion of the terms [58] "celestial" with "plural"
marriages. He explained the difference at great length, and read "Mormon"
revelations on the point. A celestial marriage might or might not be a
plural marriage. Under both, however, cohabitation with more than one wife
was permitted. Celestial marriage was made for time and for eternity. It
was not true that plural celestial marriage was enjoined upon the
"Mormons," the fact being that it was only merely permitted. (Deseret
Evening News, 18 Feb 1888)

29 Feb 1888, Angus M. Cannon:
	THE CHURCH SUITS.
	The testimony now being taken before the examiner.
	The process of taking testimony in the suits of the government
against the Church, has dragged slowly on, each day being occupied in the
examination of witnesses before Judge E. T. Sprague. Yesterday was the
second day that President Angus M. Cannon was on the witness stand. The
testimony as taken by stenographer John M. Whitaker, is as follows: * * *
	Mr. Williams--Mr. Cannon, how many temples are completed and how many
are in course of erection?
	C. --Two are completed, and two in course of construction.
	W. --Are these temples used for public worship?
	C. --No, sir; they are for the performance of sacred rites, but in
the temple at Logan there are lectures delivered to the students of the
school, not only in relation to our faith, but also on scientific
subjects, as we were told by the founder of this church, Joseph Smith, to
store our minds with knowledge from all good books, so that our
intelligence would correspond, if not exceed that of the people of the
world. And only those who can get the proper recommend, or whose names are
on the list, are permitted to attend these schools.
	W. --Will you state whether or not it is a tenet of your church that
a man may marry more than one woman at the same time?
	C. --That is according to the revelation received by Joseph Smith in
1843.
[59]	W. --Is it taught now by the Church?
	C. --I will say I have not heard it taught for some time.
	W . --Is it still a tenet of the Church?
	C. --I believe it is; at least, that is my opinion.
	W. --Do not the authorities of the Church perform polygamous
marriages in the Temple now?
	C. --No, sir. It has been discontinued--it must have been for nearly
a year, that persons who have applied have been refused.
	W. --Do you issue certificates or recommends?
	C. --No, sir; I have simply to sign them. And when persons have come
to me, I have told them the consequences if they did.
	W. --Are these marriages which have been discontinued, permanent?
	C. --I cannot say.
	W. --Why was it suspended?
	C. --I don't know, unless it is that it has entailed so much
suffering upon the people and brought them in conflict with the
government. But we feel that the responsibility rests upon those who
prevent us; and it is out of honor for the laws.
	W. --Why have you refused to recommend persons to the Temple?
	C. --Because I have heard that President Woodruff would not endorse
their recommends.
	W. --Do you refuse to grant or endorse recommends on hearsay?
	C. --No, sir; I wrote to President Woodruff, and he told me he could
not grant recommends to the Temple for such marriages.
	W. --How long has this been stopped?
	C. --I should think about a year.
	Mr. Sheeks--Mr. Cannon, are there any other ordinances performed in
these temples, or do they continue these marriages?
	C. --No, sir; the authorities of the Church have seen best to
discontinue them. (Deseret Evening News, 29 Feb 1888)

[60]
13 Mar 1888, L. John Nuttall:
	"* * * The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia yesterday
decided that the Edmunds-Tucker law was not applicable to the District of
Columbia. The court held that the statute was intended for the Territory
of Utah alone and was not intended to be enforced or apply in the
District. * * * (Diary of L. John Nuttall)

14 Mar 1888, Deseret Evening News:
	THE NATIONAL CAPITAL IS EXCLUDED.
	Doubtless many of our readers will remember the case of Surgeon
Millard H. Crawford, U.S.N., who, about a year ago, as is alleged, seduced
a young girl, at Washington, and was soon afterwards prosecuted for
fornication, under the Edmunds-Tucker law. There were no merits on the
side of the defense to rely upon. The evidence of the defendant's guilt
was not impeached, and his sole hope of escape from the vengeance of the
law was based upon the technicality that the statute under which the
prosecution had been instituted was not intended to apply to the District
of Columbia. Since the prosecution of Crawford began, other cases similar
to his have arisen at the National Capital, and it has been reported that
considerable uneasiness existed there, relative to the question as to
whether the Edmunds-Tucker law embraced the District of Columbia or not.
	California papers have received a telegram from Washington to the
effect that the appellate court in the Crawford case, Chief Justice
Bingham presiding, has decided that the statute in question does not apply
to the District of Columbia. The decision holds that the "statute was
clearly intended to meet the practices of the Mormons in the Territory of
Utah, " and that "when Congress passed laws for the District it usually
included a statement to that effect." * * *
	In view of the circumstances under which it was delivered, Judge
Bingham's decision in the Crawford case is a remarkable one. The
Edmunds-Tucker ace, by the explicit language of its title, is declared to
be "An act to amend an act entitled `An act to amend section fifty three
hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of the [61] United States,
in reference to Bigamy, and for other purposes' approved March
twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two." In other words it is
amendatory of what is popularly known as the Edmunds law. * * *
	In no less than three different sections of the Edmunds law does
language occur making its provisions applicable "in a Territory or other
place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction." The
clause quoted occurs in section. 1, defining and punishing polygamy; in
section 3, punishing unlawful cohabitation; and in section 8,
disfranchising polygamists. The punative sections of the Edmunds law are
in terms made to apply wherever the United States have exclusive
jurisdiction, and no intimation diverse from this occurs in the punative
sections of the Edmunds-Tucker law, which are amendatory of and
supplementary to the former. True, some of the sections of the
Edmunds-Tucker law are in terms limited to Utah, but this circumstance is
an argument in favor of the view that other sections, not so limited, have
the broader scope.
	According to this remarkable decision, so apparent in its conflict
with the language of the law, the "Mormons" in Idaho, Arizona and
elsewhere outside of Utah are not subject to the operations of the
statute. If Judge Bingham is right in excluding the District of Columbia
on the ground stated by him, by no known process of logic could any other
Territory or other place over which the United States have exclusive
jurisdiction be included.
	If he be correct, then the law is a delusion and a snare and one of
the most gross and inexcusable pieces of special and therefore
unconstitutional, legislative hypocrisy ever perpetrated in this or any
other nation. The arguments while both the original and subsequent or
amendatory measures were pending showed plainly that, so far as words
convey an impression, the legislation was not intended to be of a special
or class character. (Deseret Evening News, 14 Mar 1888)

26 Mar 1888:
	The U. S. Senate Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the
Utah State constitution and accompany-[62]ing memorials, reported
unfavorably for Utah's admission into the Union, and was discharged from
its further consideration.

9 Jul 1888:
	Receiver Frank H. Dyer petitioned the Supreme Court of Utah to have
$157,666.15 worth of Church property delivered to him.

11 Jul 1888, Deseret Evening News:
THE CONFISCATION
The Seizure of Church Property Still Goes On.
	Up to last night Marshal Dyer made demands for alleged Church
property, and received the same to the amount of about $181,000. The
demands were made in his capacity of Receiver in the confiscation of
Church property by the United States.
SHEEP AND CATTLE.
	Among the property asked for were 30,000 head of sheep, which had
been sold on March 2, 1887, and $75,000 worth of cattle similarly disposed
of. By an arrangement with the Receiver, this stock is to be delivered by
September 1st next. The following is the agreement entered into:
	Salt Lake, Utah, July 9, 1888. The undersigned hereby undertake and
agree to surrender and deliver to Frank H. Dyer, as Receiver of the
corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on or
before September 1st next, of the personal property claimed to have been
assigned to the various stake corporations throughout the Territory of
Utah by John Taylor, trustee in trust, on or about February 28th, 1887,
livestock of the value of $75,000, or as much thereof as may be
practicable, and that in case the said live-stock so to be turned over
shall amount in value to less than $75,000, the balance thereof the
undersigned undertake and agree to pay to the said Receiver in cash.
	The undersigned also hereby undertake and agree to surrender and
deliver to the said Frank H. Dyer, as such Receiver, on or before
September 1st next, 30,000 head [63] of sheep of the grade and quality of
those delivered to LeGrande Young on or about May 1st, 1887, by Francis
Armstrong.
(Signed)				JOHN H. WINDER,
					Wm. B. PRESTON,
					ROBERT T. BURTON.
					By JOHN R. WINDER.
THE THEATER.
	A demand was also made on LeGrand Young for notes to the amount of
$27,000, covering stock in the Salt Lake Dramatic Association, or the
Theatre, transferred March 2, 1887. Mr. Young produced the receipt for the
notes and handed it over to the Receiver. The notes are described as
follows:
	One for $13,333.32, signed by John Sharp and Feramorz Little; due two
years from the date hereof with interest at 6 per cent.
	One for $1,833.33, signed by James Jack and secured by 250 shares of
the capital stock of the Salt Lake Dramatic Association; due and interest
same as above.
	One for $1,666.66, signed by LeGrand Young and secured by 100 shares
of the capital stock of the Salt Lake Dramatic Association; interest and
terms same as above.
	Also one for $5,000.00 signed by B. B. Clawson, secured by 300 shares
of the capital stock of the Salt Lake Dramatic Association; interest and
terms same as above.
DESERET TELEGRAPH.
	On March 1, 1887, the stock of the Deseret Telegraph Company held by
the Church was distributed to the various Stake Associations. Yesterday
afternoon the demand for this stock was complied with. The Deseret
Telegraph line therefore passed into the hands of the United States
marshal. The agreement says:
	We hereby agree that, in accordance with the agreements heretofore
made between the agents of the Church [64] of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints and the Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court of Utah Territory,
in the case of the United States of America against the late corporation
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in regard to the
delivery of the stock of the Deseret Telegraph Company that lately
belonged to the said church, and that was by said Trustee-in-Trust on the
3rd of March, 1887, assigned to the several Stakes of Zion in this
Territory of Utah, consisting of--shares of stock, shall all be turned
over and delivered to said Receiver within a period of thirty days from
this date, and the offices, and possessions of said line and
appurtenances, subject to existing contracts with any other company, shall
be delivered to said Receiver within two days from date.
					JOHN R. WINDER,
					LeGRAND YOUNG.

July 10th, 1888.
THE COAL MINES at Grass Creek, near Coalville were taken by the Receiver,
the value thereof being placed at $100,000.
	The property of the Church now in the hands of the Receiver,
exclusive of the Temple Block, upon which no valuation is at present
placed, is placed at the following sums:
Aggregate amount of values settled by order of
the Supreme Court Monday, July 9 . . . . . . . . . . .  $137,666.15
Church Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  150,000.00
Coal Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000.00
Thirty Thousand Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000.00
Notes for Theatre Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,000.00
Deseret Telegraph Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,000.00
Personal Property (cattle, etc. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,000.00
Gas Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,000.00
Tithing Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50,000.00
Gardo House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000.00
Historian's Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20,000.00
Dividends on Gas Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000.00
											------------
[65]		Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $798,666.15

	Added to this, in the line of seeking Church property, is the suit in
the First District Court for the tithing office and grounds at Ogden. The
demurrer of the defense in this case was overruled by Judge Henderson
yesterday, and thirty days' time given in which to file an answers. This
afternoon District Attorney Peters and Marshal Dyer leave for Washington.
Their principal business there is to confer with the government officials
regarding the suit against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. (Deseret Evening News)

25 Aug 1888, John T. Caine:
	POLYGAMY IN UTAH--A DEAD ISSUE.
	(The House having under consideration a resolution introduced by Hon.
Fred T. Dubois, of Idaho, viz:
	Resolved, That the Attorney General be requested to furnish to the
House of Representatives a list of pardons granted by the President of the
United States to persons convicted of the crime of unlawful cohabitation
in Utah Territory and in Idaho Territory since March 4, 1886, giving the
name, date of sentence, length of sentence, and date of pardon in each
case--
	And the substitute reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, as
follows:
	Resolved, That the Attorney General be requested to furnish to the
House of Representatives the number of convictions for polygamy, adultery,
and unlawful cohabitation had in the Territories of Utah and Idaho under
the provisions of the anti-polygamy law of 1862 and the act of 1882
amendatory thereof, and the act of March 3, 1887, and the dates thereof as
shown by the records of the Department of Justice, together with the
amount of fines, forfeitures and costs collected from said prosecutions,
with the date of judgments under which said several sums were collected; a
list of pardons granted by the President of the United States to persons
convicted of such crimes of polygamy, adultery, and unlawful cohabitation,
respectively, in the said Territories of Utah and Idaho, giving the name,
date of sentence, time of im-[66]prisonment, amount of fine, date of
pardon, and the reason for granting the same in each case--) Mr. Caine
said:
	Mr. Speaker: The purpose of those who originated this resolution was
plainly political. As to the resolution as reported from the Judiciary
Committee I not only have no objection, but I most earnestly favor its
adoption. The information it calls for will show conclusively that undue
leniency has not been shown to convicted persons in Utah and Idaho, and at
the same time it will demonstrate under whose administration the laws in
question have been most rigidly enforced.
	Mr. Speaker, there is no longer a possibility of objecting to Mormons
on account of polygamy. That is a dead issue. It can not be vitalized. But
undoubtedly our opponents will be most reluctant to abandon the old cry
which has served them so long and so well. They will, however, have to
abandon the cry against polygamy, because it has ceased to exist. It has
been suppressed by act of Congress, and the great bulk of the Mormon
people have accepted the situation.
	What does the record show? It shows that recently in regular judicial
proceedings in Salt Lake City, the fact was proven by a high church
official that the Mormon Church no longer gave permission for plural
marriages. The late Chief Justice Zane of the supreme court of Utah, in
answer to an inquiry from General McClernand, one of the Utah
commissioners, says no case of polygamy occurring since the passage of the
Edmunds-Tucker law has come under his judicial notice. Moreover, the
Territorial Assembly adopted a resolution in regard to the laws enacted by
Congress known as the Edmunds, and Edmunds-Tucker acts, respectively of
March 22, 1882, and March 3, 1887, which is as follows:
	"Resolved, That said Assembly are in favor of a just, humane, and
impartial enforcement of said laws of the United States, in the same
manner as other criminal laws are enforced, under the Constitution and
laws of our country, to the end that said offenses may be effectually
prohibited."
[67]	And further, the Legislative Assembly has enacted, and the governor
has approved, a marriage law for the Territory prohibiting and declaring
void a marriage "when there is a husband or wife living from whom the
person marrying has not been divorced;" providing also that no marriage
shall be solemnized without a license, for the issuing of which the most
stringent regulations, under pains and penalties, are provided, and
prescribing who shall solemnize marriages and making it a penal offense,
punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years
or fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both fine and imprisonment, for any
person knowingly, with or without such license, to solemnize a prohibited
marriage. No State in the Union has a more complete and perfect marriage
law, and few if any States have one in all respects so good.
	I assert, moreover, and the official evidence supports my assertion,
that since the constitutionality of the act of Congress of July 1, 1862,
was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States plural marriages
were exceptional and not general among the Mormons.
	This is the sober truth. Less than 1 per cent of the population of
Utah to-day have been polygamists. The great majority of the Mormon voters
have voted to make polygamy a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment. A
Mormon Territorial assembly demands the enforcement of the laws of the
United States against bigamy, polygamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest,
adultery, and fornication. It provides a marriage law which imposes heavy
penalties in the event of plural marriages being solemnized. This ought to
satisfy reasonable men.
	Among the 165,000 Mormons of Utah, as I have heretofore stated, there
are not more than 2,000 men who have ever had a plurality of wives. Not
one of these 2,000 men, under the law, exercise any political rights. They
can not vote and they can not hold office. Before a citizen of Utah can
register and be qualified to vote he must take the following oath: (See
under date 29 Sep 1887, Report of the Utah Commission.)
	The only male citizens who can participate in political affairs in
Utah are those who can pass the ordeal of the [68] above oaths. They are
the great majority, because only a small fraction of the Mormon men have
ever practiced polygamy.
	Mr. Speaker, the monogamous Mormons, those who not only have never
practiced polygamy, but have solemnly sworn that they will obey the law of
March 22, 1882, and that of March 3, 1887, and, further, that they will
not directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel or advise by acts of
Congress as "Polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery,
and fornication," have made and accepted a constitution under which they
ask the admission of Utah as a State in the Union. * * *
	Mr. Speaker, as a member of the convention which framed this
constitution under which the people of Utah are asking admission to the
Union, I repudiate with scorn the accusation which, in effect, is made
against the men who framed that constitution and the thirteen thousand and
odd hundred people who voted to ratify their work, that it was the result
of a conspiracy hatched for the purpose of deceiving the people of the
United States. I denounce as an infamous slander the insinuation that it
was an attempt to gain admission to the Union under false colors and upon
false pretenses. * * *
	It is the merest balderdash to insist that the Mormon Church has
maintained, does maintain, or may hereafter maintain that plural marriage
is one thing and bigamy and polygamy are other and entirely different
things. The members of the constitutional convention who as a committee,
draughted section 12 of article 15, who voted to incorporate it in the
constitution, and the people who voted to ratify the work of the
convention did so without any mental reservation whatsoever. They knew,
perfectly well what they were doing. They intended that bigamy and
polygamy should be made offenses in the future State, punishable by heavy
fine and imprisonment, and they not only fixed the offense in the organic
law and provided the penalty for the infraction thereof, but they provided
that in this particular the constitution should not be "amended, revised,
or in any way changed" without the approval of the Congress and the
President of the United States.
[69]	Why should we be accused of insincerity? Why should we be suspected
of bad faith? The whole history of the Mormon people gives the lie to the
assertion that they are hypocrites. Even the majority of the Utah
commissioners, men who have no love for us, are compelled to declare that
"the Mormon people can not be called hypocrites." Of the 16,640 votes cast
at the last election in Utah, 13,195 were for the ratification of the
constitution with section 12 of Article XV, prohibiting polygamy and
prescribing penalties for its infraction, and only 502 against it. Of the
16,640 voters who went to the polls, only 2,913 refrained from voting for
or against the constitution. The 13,195 voters, I insist, were honest and
conscientious men. They never had been polygamists. They never had
violated the law against polygamy or against unlawful cohabitation. They
had not accepted the revelation concerning plural marriages as mandatory
and obligatory upon them. They had taken the stringent oath I have read;
had solemnly sworn that they intended to obey the laws, and that they
would not "directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel or advise any other
person to commit any of said crimes defined by acts of Congress as
polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery, and
fornication."
	It is a preposterous proposition to insist that a whole people have
deliberately forsworn themselves. You must bear in mind that every man who
sat in that constitutional convention, every man who recorded his vote in
favor of that constitution, had, with uplifted hand, in the presence of
his God, solemnly sworn that he was not a bigamist or polygamist, that he
would obey the laws known as the Edmunds and the Edmunds-Tucker laws in
respect to the crimes in said acts defined and forbidden, and that he
would not, directly or indirectly, aid, abet, counsel, or advise any other
person to commit any of said crimes defined by acts of Congress as
polygamy, bigamy, unlawful cohabitation, incest, adultery, and
fornication. * * *
	Mr. Speaker, I admit that the Mormon people are united, but I deny
that their unity is due to ecclesiastical authority. Irishmen are united.
Is their unity due [70] to the fact that they are Roman Catholics? No,
sir. It is due to the fact that they are determined to regain the right of
community self-government, which they were wrongly deprived of, and which
is unjustly denied them. The Mormon people are united because there has
been, and there is a settled purpose on the part of a small but persistent
minority to deprive them of the right of local community self-government.
	Mr. Speaker. I have endeavored thus briefly to show what the
monogamic Mormons of Utah have done to place themselves and the Territory
in accord with public sentiment and to solve a troublesome problem.
Entertaining as they do the highest veneration for the institutions of
their country, as well as a due respect for the opinions of the majority,
they deliberately determined on the course they ought to pursue. They put
their hands to the plow. They drew the furrow broad and deep. They will
not look back. (Pamphlet, published, Washington D. C.)

17 Sep 1888:
	Apostle George Q. Cannon, who had been hiding for some time,
surrendered himself to U. S. Marshal Dyer, pled guilty to two indictments
charging him with unlawful cohabitation, and was sentenced by Judge
Sanford in the Third District Court to 175 days' imprisonment and to pay a
fine of $450.

24 Sep 1888, Report of the Utah Commission:
	The crime of polygamy is complete with the performance of the
marriage ceremony. But a great evil resulting from such marriage consists
in unlawful cohabitation, the pernicious moral example of one man living
with two or more women as wives under the plea of performing a religious
duty. The proposed constitution is silent with respect to this offense.
The full importance of this omission will be better understood by the
statement that during the twenty-seven years and over the anti-polygamy
laws have been in force but few persons have been convicted for the crime
of entering into polygamy, the evidence of such marriages being studiously
concealed.
[71]	The Commission was therefore of the opinion that, before the people
of Utah Territory had passed beyond the wholesome restraints of the
national law's into the sovereign domain of statehood, they should at
least manifest by their acts that the new departure was taken in good
faith; that there was in truth a complete emancipation from the errors of
the past. This conclusion seemed to us to be supported by the principles
both of justice and policy; justice--for the Government has the right to,
and should know before it yields its authority that the sentiment of the
country as expressed in its legislation respecting polygamy, in all its
breadth and depth, has been accepted by the Mormon people; policy--because
the Government can not afford to assume any risk in its treatment of the
evil of polygamy--cannot afford to surrender the great advantage which it
now holds, and which has been secured at so much expense and trouble.
	Further, there can be no harm result from delay in the admission of
the Territory to the Union of States.
	If, in truth, polygamy has departed, as is now claimed, such action
should be taken as will forever prevent its return. * * *
	The majority also said: "The Commission recommends as a measure of
great importance the passage of a law conferring upon the governor of the
Territory the power to appoint the following county officers: Select-men,
clerks, assessors, recorders, and superintendents of public schools. * * *
	One of the obstacles to the enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws is
the presence of a majority having exclusive occupancy of a large part of
the Territory who have hitherto declared that they do not believe these
laws to be constitutional and morally just. It is true there have been
some desertions from their ranks. The commission has learned, however,
from years of experience in the appointment of its registration and
election officers that there are many instances where persons who have
withdrawn from the majority have sought homes in some other State or
Territory; thus, [72] while to a small extent there has been a decrease in
the strength of the majority, who have opposed the enforcement of the
laws, it has not resulted in a corresponding increase in those who have
supported the laws. It therefore appeared to us to be very necessary that
some steps should be taken looking to the encouragement of that portion of
the population who are disposed to withdraw, from the church and become
the steadfast friends of the Government. If the above enumerated officers
are made appointable by the governor, it will enable him to utilize them
so as to afford this encouragement, and to strengthen the influence and
the energy of the Federal authority. * * *
	The placing of the control of the county offices and the public
schools in the hands of persons appointed through an agency of the Federal
Government will bring home to every citizen the power and determination of
the Government to enforce obedience to its laws, and may prove a strong
inducement to those who may desert the majority to remain in the
Territory.
	In our opinion one of the chief causes for the long delay in the
settlement of the contest in Utah has been the exercise of political power
subordinate to the interests of the church.
	It has been repeatedly asserted that the punitory provisions of the
laws are harsh and unjust, and the manner of their enforcement cruel,
resulting in the disruption of families and subjecting many innocent
persons to unnecessary hardships. This claim is not supported by the
facts, but if the leaders of the people desire a relaxation in the
enforcement of the laws they should not object to recommendations which
have in view the securing of a condition of things which will obviate the
necessity for these persecutions. * * *
	The public schools have been largely under the control of the
Mormons. With the exception of a few districts in the mining camps in Salt
Lake City and elsewhere, they have exclusive control of the public school
system.
	Under the Edmunds-Tucker law the Territorial superintendent of
district schools is appointed by the Territorial supreme court. Of the
twenty-four county superin-[73]tendents of the district schools, all save
one are Mormons. In Salt Lake City, where the non-Mormons are gradually
increasing in strength, the school districts in the central part of the
city are passing into their hands. While in Utah there is a public-school
system, there is not a free-school system. The scholars have to pay
tuition fees to support the school. At the last session of the legislative
assembly a bill was introduced looking to the establishment of free public
schools. The bill passed the house of representatives and went to the
council. There it was amended by the adoption of a substitute, which reads
in part as follows:
	"All schools organized under the direction of the trustees in the
respective school districts of this Territory shall be known in law by the
name and title of district schools, and all other schools shall be known
as private schools. All schools, both district and private, shall be
entitled to a just and equitable apportionment of any public school fund
arising from the United States or from legislative enactments of this
Territory.
	The substitute was returned to the house of representatives, where it
was agreed to, and sent to the governor for his approval. The governor
returned it with his veto, upon the ground that the bill, if permitted to
become a law, would destroy the present public-school system, and was in
conflict with the general sentiment of the country regarding the public
schools. The passage of this act committed the legislature to the doctrine
of supporting private (which includes the denominational) schools from the
public funds.
	It seemed to be an attack upon the system of free public schools,
which is regarded as one of the strongest supports of our system of
government. This action of the legislature, when considered in connection
with the policy of the Mormon Church in establishing church schools in
different parts of the Territory, and with the action of the church
authorities in establishing a "general board of education for the church"
in each church stake (there are twenty-four in the Territory), and with
the following extract from a letter of President Wilford Woodruff, under
date of June 8, 1888:
[74]	"We feel that the time has arrived when the proper education of our
children should be taken in hand by us as a people. Religious training is
practically excluded from the public schools. The perusal of books we
value as divine records is forbidden. Our children, if left to the
training they receive in these schools, will grow up entirely ignorant of
those principles of salvation for which the Latter Day Saints have made so
many sacrifices. To permit this condition of things to exist among us
would be criminal. The desire is universally expressed by all thinking
people in the church that we should have schools where the Bible, the Book
of Mormon, and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants can be used as
text-books, and where the principles of our religion may form part of the
teaching of the schools;--may be accepted as conclusive evidence that the
Mormon Church is committed to a policy which, if allowed to succeed, will
prove destructive of the public school system in Utah. To these schools
many have looked for aid to accomplish the purposes of the Government in
Utah. The action of the legislature and the church authorities furnishes
all the argument which is needed in support of the recommendation made by
the majority last year, and elsewhere in this report, that superintendents
of public schools be made appointable by the governor. If this
recommendation should become a law the public school system of the
Territory will be placed in the hands of those who are in favor of
preserving it. * * *
	We have annually noted such facts as were deemed important in their
bearing on the state of affairs in Utah, and the result of our observation
during the current year in regard to the progress made toward securing a
general observance of the laws of Congress. Since our last annual report
it has been claimed by and in behalf of the Mormon people that a great
change, amounting almost to a social and political revolution, has taken
place in the Territory. It is claimed that the church has ceased to
sanction violations of the laws prohibiting polygamy, and like all
religious associations leaves [75] individual members free to act on their
own responsibility; that the legislature, as far as it could, declared in
favor of enforcing the laws of Congress. Having done these things, it is
now claimed the inducements to special Federal control and the main
objections to statehood have been removed.
	We find the only accessible evidence offered is the testimony of
Angus M. Cannon, president of the Salt Lake Stake, before a United States
commissioner, in his examination in proceedings by the receiver to reach
church property in the suit of the United States against the church and
other parties. The following is the testimony on that point:
	Q. I wish you would state whether or not it is one of the doctrines
and tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that a man
may marry more than one woman and have more than one wife at the same
time.
	A. That is according to the revelation received through Joseph Smith
in 1843.
	Q. Well, it is a tenet or doctrine of your church, is it not?
	A. Yes, sir.
	Q. And is taught?
	A. I will say that I haven't heard it taught for some time.
	Q. It is a tenet, however?
	A. It is embraced in one of the revelations published in our works.
	Q. And is accepted by the authorities and priesthood of the church as
a doctrine of the church?
	A. By part of them.
	Q. By what part of them?
	A. I can't say how many. From the accounts I have seen lately there
is a good many who appear to have gone back on it.
	Q. It has been taught publicly and privately, in the course of the
teaching of the church for years past, has it not?
	A. Yes, sir.
[76]	Q. Is that doctrine or tenet abandoned by the church?
	A. Not that I am aware of.
	Q. Is it still a doctrine of the Church?
	A. It is still a doctrine of the church, although, as I stated, I
hadn't heard it proclaimed of late.
	Q. And the church, through its officials, not only teaches the
doctrine of plural or celestial marriage, but the sanction of the church
its officers perform such marriage, do they not?
	A. No, sir. It has been discontinued.
	Q. Since when?
	A. It must be a year I think, very near a year, not quite, since
persons applying have been refused.
	Q. All persons?
	A. All persons that I have known.
	Q. To whom did you apply for entering into such marriage?
	A. Well, I have had them come and ask me if we were still doing
anything of that kind. I told them there was nothing done that I knew of.
	Q. Is that abandonment of polygamous marriage permanent?
	A. I can't say about that.
	Q. Why is it abandoned or suspended?
	A. I don't know, unless it is that it is because it is found to
entail so much suffering on the people, and it has brought us into
conflict with the Government.
	Q. It was not abandoned simply because there was a law against it,
then?
	A. I think that the primary object was because the law enforced
conditions upon us that the officers felt they were not justified in
doing.
	Q. You know that the law, has existed for a good many years, do you
not, prohibiting polygamy and making it penal?
	A. It is true, but the judgment was proclaimed against the officers
performing or taking part in that--no penalty attached to those
ceremonies.
	Q. Never has been at any time, has there?
	A. A recent act of Congress proclaimed there should be.
[77]	Q. A penalty for performing those?
	A. Taking part in them; yes, sir.
	Q. And it was because of that, as you understand it, that they have
ceased to perform those marriages?
	A. And we have felt that the responsibility rested upon those who
interfered and prevented us from performing these ceremonies.
	Q. Then it is a cessation because you could not safely perform these
marriages; is that the idea?
	A. It is a cessation because the law declared we should not do it:
out of honor for the law.
	Q. It was what?
	A. Out of honor for the law.
	Q. Why was it that when the law made these marriages penal that out
of honor for the law they were not stopped twenty-five years ago?
	A. I will state that upon persons applying to me for recommends to
go, when I believed such was their object I have told them the
consequences.
	Q. And gave them the recommend?
	A. They didn't get the recommend from me; it was from the bishop, but
I had to approve it.
	Q. Then you approved the recommend?
	A. I approved the recommend after explaining to them that if they
performed them they must endure the penalty as Daniel did when he prayed
contrary to law, and when they insisted that they preferred to endure the
penalty to forgoing the promised blessings of God in that direction, I
have signed the recommends.
	Q. And now when they desire to avail themselves of those expected
blessings, you deny them that benefit?
	A. I have told them that I can't grant them that, from the fact that
I had understood the president above me had refused to do so.
	Q. That was the president of the church?
	A. President of the church refused to sanction them or permit them to
be performed in our sacred houses at present.
	Q. Did the president of the church, to your knowledge, decline to do
so, or is that hearsay to you?
	A. I remember seeing him on one occasion, when he [78] told me that
he could not do it.
	Q. Which president was that?
	A. President Woodruff; several months ago, since the death of
President Taylor.
	Q. Those polygamous marriages are solemnized in these temples, are
they not, when they are solemnized?
	A. That is where they used to be solemnized, and those temples were
used for that amongst other services of the church.
	Q. And the church, or under the sanction of the church, its proper
officers perform these plural marriages, do they not?
	A. They did; yes, sir.
	Q. And in pursuance of the doctrine you have referred to as being a
doctrine of the church?
	A. Until they were forbidden.
	Q. Until the officers were forbidden to participate?
	A. Until the officers refused.
	Q. Until the officers refused?
	A. Yes; the law forbade them.
	Q. Has this refusal been since the death of President Taylor only?
	A. I have understood that it existed before his death, but I was not
conscious of it. I had no occasion to sign any for some time, and when I
did, being told that persons had been refused, I made inquiry from
President Woodruff, and he had failed to approve them. I made the inquiry
because parties told me that they were not permitted to pass through those
ordinances in the temple, and I desired to be informed directly from the
first president. He was the one I received my instructions through always.

	This testimony has been referred to as proof that the church is now
free from the imputation of inculcating or sanctioning violations of law.
It may be observed that no authoritative publicity of such a change has
been given; that it came out incidentally in proceedings in court, and the
source of the information, the fact that it was desirable to show the
church property was not used for unlawful purposes, and the nature of the
[79] evidence gives to it a suspicion that under license church, before
declining to sanction such marriages, had provided other means and places
for their solemnization. It had appeared by testimony in court some years
ago that marriages could, by license, be solemnized anywhere. (See Deseret
Evening News, 18 Oct 1884)
	The non-Mormons are so accustomed to try to see within the wooden
horse of Mormonism, that in this case they may have been unjustly
suspicious and suspected stratagems where there were none. We do not
decide, and merely state the facts; but a man who testifies that for
twenty-five years the church officials sanctioned and solemnized such
marriages, leaving the parties subject to the penalty, and only declined
"out of honor for the law" when the penalty was extended to them as
abettors, has invited suspicion and has but little ground for complaint.
Assuming the literal truth of the statement, it does not show the
important fact it is quoted to prove, that the church and its doctrines
and teachings is loyal to the laws. It quite clearly shows the contrary.
It appears that until within less than a year prior to the date of the
testimony the church had not only taught the unlawful doctrine of plural
marriages, but had, through its officials, solemnized them, and only
ceased, if at all, when a penalty reached its officers. The testimony
shows the solemnization of such marriages by church officials was a
regular business during some of those later years in which it was
announced at home and abroad that polygamous marriages had ceased.
	In this state of affairs a loyal attitude can not be shown by merely
refusing to sanction polygamous marriages. The most important question is,
does it encourage or discourage them? We find no change in its doctrines
or in its teachings. It has not ceased to deplore prosecutions as
persecutions for conscience' sake, or to withhold excuses and sympathy for
offenders; the church organ constantly referring to men convicted under
the law as being convicted for living with their wives. * * *
	It will thus be seen that if the Mormon problem is not settled until
the Territory is filled by non-Mormon immi-[80]gration the end is not
near.
	The reform must come from within the ranks of the Mormon people, and
it is to this end that the Government should direct its efforts, and to
aid in the accomplishment of which we have made the recommendations else
where referred to in this report, and expressed our conclusions with
regard to them.
	In conclusion we have only to say, the Government ought not to turn
back; the enforcement of the laws should be continued; and, if we are
right in assuming that the evil will not end until a majority (and it
should be a strong majority) believe in the enforcement of the laws, then
so long should the laws be enforced. How, and when this end will be
reached we can not tell. We express the opinion, however, that an
energetic enforcement of the laws, and of the continuation of political
disabilities, together with the measures we have recommended will combine
to effect the end. These will be aided by the spirit of the age, the
habits and customs of the times, contact with the world, financial
considerations, and education.

Minority Report:
	* * * Apart from sexual offenses (which are decidedly on the
decrease) the Mormon people of Utah will compare favorably with other
communities for peace, good order, sobriety, honesty, and industry. the
mass of the Mormon voters have taken the registration oath, swearing that
they will not go into polygamy, and 95 per cent of them voted in August of
last year for the adoption of a constitution prohibiting and punishing the
offense. * * *
	Within a few days past a number of Mormons, charged by indictment
with sexual offenses and who had been evading trial, came into open court,
waived trial, voluntarily pleaded guilty to the indictments and received
sentence of fine and imprisonment. Among the number so doing were one or
more leading men. We repeat that this example is, in our opinion, pregnant
with significance, and that it will be followed by other like examples;
that the hindrance which has hitherto impeded [81] the course of law and
justice is giving way as a raft before the steady and increasing current
of the rising stream. It is hardly to be supposed that they or other men
in the same category would voluntarily take such steps, with the purpose
to repeat and continue to repeat them. On the contrary, rationally, they
conduct to a different conclusion, namely, a disposition on the part of
the Mormons to abandon the commission of sexual offenses and to yield
obedience to the law. Yet the laws should continue to be vigilantly and
strictly enforced against all violating them. No step backward in this
regard should be sanctioned. Let the laws be executed. 
	The facts above set forth with others that have fallen under our
observation confirm the opinion that a great majority of the Mormons have
wisely resolved that the practice of polygamy should be abandoned.
	Our view that polygamy is on the decline in Utah is supported by an
eminent Methodist minister who for many years has been in charge of the
"Methodist mission in Utah," and who has mingled with the people in all
parts of the Territory. He is credibly reported as having stated in
conference, at Cincinnati, early in this month, "that notwithstanding
reports given out by the press in general, polygamy is on the decline,"
and that "in a few more years it will be driven out of Utah."
	The ex-chief justice of Utah, the Hon. C. S. Zane, over a year ago
expressed the opinion "that the existing laws, diligently and strictly
enforced, might be reasonably relied on to work a cessation of polygamy as
a practice," and about the same time the Hon. William G. Bowman, surveyor
general of Utah, stated that it the change in Mormon sentiment in the last
year has been marked and encouraging on the question of the suppression
and abandonment of polygamy."
	The statement of the reverend gentleman, hereinbefore mentioned,
suggests the remark that on account of the "peculiar institutions" of a
portion of the people of Utah, "the reports given out by the press" are
not only at present, but have been for years, of a sensational and highly
colored character. That the condition of affairs has been improving in
Utah for many years is evidenced [82] by the following statement made
about five years ago by the leading anti-Mormon newspaper of Utah:
	"Salt Lake City is so changed from the Utah of ten years ago that,
could the old style of affairs be restored for a week, the old slavery,
the old tyranny and the restrictions, the Mormon people would themselves
rise up in rebellion. There are forces at work in Utah which are
all-powerful, and which no artifice or restrictions, no falsehoods and no
superstitions can resist."
	The "forces at work" at that time have been supplemented by
additional Congressional legislation, and such vigorous enforcement of the
laws that there can be no doubt of a successful result in the near future.
	We are thoroughly satisfied that the work of reformation in Utah is
progressing rapidly, and that it will soon result in a successful issue
without a resort to legislation that is proscriptive of religious opinion.
Our view may be epitomized in a few words: Punish criminal actions; but
religious creeds, never. * * *
	This year, in the real estate excitement in Utah, commonly called a
"boom," the Mormons freely sold their city lots and other real estate to
Gentiles as well as to others; and this, notwithstanding the general
understanding that the Mormon Church leaders have deprecated and
remonstrated against their people selling their land to Gentiles. This is
another strong evidence of the spirit of independence among the monogamous
Mormons that is influencing young Utah, and of the general disposition to
repudiate the authority of the Church leader, in secular and civil
affairs. "Business is business," and it has a wonderfully cosmopolitan
effect upon all classes of men, the Jew and the Gentile, the saint and
sinner, the Catholic and the Puritan. * * *
	We are not under any obligation, nor have we any disposition, to
defend the Mormons against all that has been alleged against them, but we
believe they are entitled to be treated with justice and humanity; that
they are subject to be influenced by the same causes that have changed and
ameliorated other peoples' churches and creeds. We also believe that they
have got common [83] sense, and by the exercise of this valuable attribute
they have found out that polygamy must go. * * *
	These laws variously and powerfully re-inforced by the progress of
ideas, intelligence, and the modern agencies of communication and
intercourse, as railroads, the telegraph, and the press, have, in our
opinion, struck a deadly blow at the institution of polygamy and the
indulgence of sexual offenses in Utah. * * *
	The revolution of opinion and conduct among the Mormons in Utah,
particularly in the rising generation, is inaugurated and advancing with
increasing momentum to the front and the control, and, in our opinion, it
will irresistibly proceed until its mission is finished. Revolutions, as a
rule, do not retrograde. * * *
	In the discharge of our official duty relating to Utah we have
endeavored to divest ourselves of all prejudice and animosity, and in a
calm and judicial frame of mind to ascertain the truth. Our conclusion,
from all the evidence before us, including our personal observation, is
that a radical reform in the near future is morally certain, and that
"Young Utah" will stand forth redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled
from the heavy burden that has so long rested upon the people.
(U.S.G.P.O.)

12 Oct 1888, L. John Nuttall:
	Prest. Budge and Bro. Nibley asked counsel in case the decision of
the Idaho court should be adverse and they suggested as a last resort the
idea of disorganizing the Stakes and Wards of the church in Idaho for a
term of three weeks or a month for the purpose of enabling the voters to
register and cast their votes, and then reorganize again, to do this
openly and let it be known and understood why it was done. Bro. Nibley was
requested to see Messrs Sheeks and Rawlings and ask their legal opinion of
such a measure. It was also decided to call the Apostles together at 6:30
this evening to consider this question. At 6:30 p. m. Prest. W. Woodruff,
Apostles B. Young, Jos. F. Smith, John H. Smith and H. J. Grant, Atty. F.
S. Richards, Elder C. W. Nibley and L. John Nuttall met to consider the
question of dis-[84]organizing the stakes and wards of the church in Idaho
as submitted by Prest. Budge and Bro. Nibley. Bro. Nibley reported that
Sheeks and Rawlins thought the move would be a good one and favored it.
Atty. Richards was not in favor of it, thought it would have a bad effect
and the Courts would rule against it. Other propositions were submitted
and the matter fully considered. Elder H. J. Grant moved: If the people
are driven to the necessity, that all members of the church in Idaho, who
are entitled to vote, have our consent to withdraw, their membership in
the Ward where they reside, and after they have voted, when they apply for
membership, they can again be received, provided that the Governor of the
Territory will exercise the pardoning power in all cases, should any of
the brethren be convicted for registering and voting. Sec. by Elder Jos.
F. Smith and carried Unanimously. Adjourned. Prest. Woodruff informed
Elder Jos. F. Smith and myself that he purposed taking a trip for a few
days for recreation, to start on Monday, so that he would not be with us
until his return, and he wished us to keep the business going and change
our quarters for a few days. Bro. C. H. Wilcken said he would arrange for
quarters for us. Bro. Smith went home this evening and I went to Bro. R.
C. Badger's where I met Sophia. Bro. Geo. Reynolds, at my request stayed
with Bro. Woodruff on Saturday. Bro. Bateman took me home this evening.
(Diary of L. John Nuttall)

Nov 1888:
	Marshal Frank H. Dyer demanded $25,000 for his services as Receiver.
So far, $750,000 worth of Church property had been placed in his charge.

6 Nov 1888:
	In Idaho, a number of the brethren, who had withdrawn from the
Church, voted, but nevertheless Mr. Fred. T. Dubois, a bitter anti-Mormon
Republican, was elected delegate to Congress.

20 Nov 1888:
	Wm. W. Drummond, ex-chief Justice of Utah, died [85] in a grog shop
in Chicago, Ill., as a drunken pauper.

1889:
	By the Saints in Utah, 1889 will be remembered as the year when the
question whether or not the Church to which they belonged could be robbed
of its property by the government was laid before the supreme tribunal of
their country; and also the question whether they could be robbed of civil
and political rights as individual citizens, because of their religious
belief. * * *

19 Jan 1889:
	In the U.S. Supreme Court, arguements were heard in the Church
escheat suits.

19 Jan 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
	When this last desperate attempt to secure Statehood for Utah
ignominously fails, we wonder if Messrs. RICHARDS and CAINE will not have
their faith in the efficacy of a bluff somewhat shaken. Under what pretext
will they next proceed and ring in the old declarations as to the final
decease of polygamy and the utter absence of church domination? And did
our average Saintly friends ever stop to consider in what light Messrs.
CAINE and RICHARDS are showing up the ancient seers, prophets and
revelators of their creed? For instance, when they say that polygamy is
dead, they in effect declare that every Mormon in Utah has proven
unfaithful to his creed, for every true Mormon must believe that polygamy
is a divine sacrament, whether he practice it or not, until a new
revelation shall be received, announcing that it may be stopped; and no
such revelation has yet come. When they declare that there is no
despotism, no church control in temporal affairs among their people in
Utah, they in effect declare that JOSEPH SMITH, BRIGHAM YOUNG, JOHN
TAYLOR, ORSON PRATT and all the long array of Saintly chiefs were most
unconscionable liars, because each one of these declared that the rule of
those who possessed the keys were the very keystone of the arch of
Mormonism; that they stood in God's stead, that what they said was as
though God Himself had spoken, [86] and more, that theirs was the only
legal government which the earth had known since the Church was first
established by the Messiah. (Salt Lake Tribune)

23 Jan 1889, L. John Nuttall:
	Prest. Woodruff signed 12 recommends. I read to him the letters and
answered them. A letter was written to Pres. M. W. Merrill of Logan Temple
to discontinue plural marriages for the present until further advised,
unless for special occasions, for prudential reasons. (Diary of L. John
Nuttall)

22 Feb 1889, Nephi Ensign:
	Apostle John W. Taylor and Lorenzo Snow came south last Sunday
morning intending to fill an appointment in San Pete that day. They found
that the S.P.V.R.R. ran no train on Sunday and they were therefore obliged
to remain in Nephi to the very great, but very pleasant, surprise of those
who gathered in the Tabernacle on Sunday afternoon to participate in the
usual Sunday services. They both spoke to the congregation. Apostle Taylor
had been rubbed crossways very roughly by reading John T. Caine's speech
in Congress where he stated polygamy in Utah was a "dead issue" and seemed
to be very much relieved and consoled after he had told his hearers that
when Mr. Caine made that statement he told a d-d lie. Having got thus far
in his remarks, he became very earnest, if not very eloquent, and assured
his hearers that as he understood Mormonism when polygamy was a dead issue
the whole religion was dead. He did not wish to teach polygamy, but it was
one of the principles of the religion, and if any of the principles of
Mormonism were true and correct, this one was. As American citizens, if we
break the laws of our country, let us be punished for it, but let us not
lie to a nation like ours, for there is no such thing as deceiving a
nation like this. He expounded on the necessity of telling the truth at
all times and under all circumstances and abiding by the consequences and
scored Mr. Caine and all others who would for policy's sake state anything
other than the exact truth. Polygamy [87] was one of the principles of the
Mormon religion and was not a dead issue. Its practice was another thing
and was governed by a Mormon's conscience and the law of the land. Apostle
Snow delivered an excellent discourse on the causes of apostacy from the
Mormon faith, dwelling mainly upon the spirit of speculation that absorbs
the mind and leads it from things spiritual. Warned the Saints against
exposing themselves to different temptations, and spoke of the glory in
store for the faithful. (Nephi Ensign; also Salt Lake Tribune, 6 Mar 1889)

2 Mar 1889:
	The Supreme Court of Utah rendered a decision fixing the compensation
of Receiver Dyer and his attorneys at $27,365.63 for one year's services.

16 Mar 1889, John W. Taylor, Deseret Evening News:
To Whom It May Concern:
	Some remarks made by me at Nephi, on the 3rd instant, having caused
considerable comment leading to misapprehension, I freely admit, on
further investigation, that I was in error respecting the attitude of Hon.
John T. Caine in his speech before the Congressional Committee on
Territories respecting polygamy being "a dead issue in Utah. " I do not
now dissent from his statement on the important question involved.
	My remarks were not fully, nor in all respects, correctly reported,
but, finding that I was in error, I hasten to acknowledge that I did him
great injustice in denouncing his utterance, and I freely, in this public
manner, express my deep regret and acknowledge the wrong I did him. Other
than myself; no person is responsible for my utterances or acts, but when
I wrong anyone I am willing to make restitution, as far as I can, and with
this in view, I publish this card.

17 Mar 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
	Apostle TAYLOR does not deny the language attributed to him at Nephi;
all he says is that his remarks "were not fully, nor in all cases
correctly reported." Of course there was no claim that his remarks were
fully or in all [88] cases correctly reported; but as to the specific
matter that was quoted, it was undoubtedly quoted correctly, and more
fully, it appears, than is now agreeable to apostle TAYLOR. So he has to
take it back; that is he did CAINE "an injustice in denouncing his
utterances. " He now thinks he shouldn't have done that, but ought to have
let CAINE lie on unchallenged. It was simply a question of policy, not of
fact. Or, perhaps "on further investigation" he finds that Caine's denial
of polygamy was in the usual Mormon vein; that is, that while repudiating
"polygamy," Caine wanted simply to satisfy the Gentiles at Washington, but
did not want the Saints to understand him as saying anything against
"celestial marriage," which they hold to be a different thing altogether.
That would of course reconcile him. As to the Apostle's further statement
at Nephi that "as he understood Mormonism, when polygamy was dead the
whole religion was dead," there is no taking of that back. The whole
trouble appears to be that apostle TAYLOR thought when he was making his
Nephi talk he was in one of the remote settlements, where what he was
saying would not leak out, and that so he was at liberty to talk the true
business to the brethren. In this he miscalculated, for Nephi is no longer
a back-country town, and what he said was promptly aired. His policy
retraction is worth little in view of all the facts; he no doubt thinks
privately exactly as he spoke at Nephi. (Salt Lake Tribune)

24 Mar 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
	The Nephi Ensign which first reported Apostle TAYLOR'S d--d lie
sermon in refutation of Delegate CAINE, now prints TAYLOR IS "Correction,"
saying it should have been headed instead, "A Retraction. It says further:
	"The Ensign is called upon for a few, words upon this matter. The
Ensign is in no way an anti-Mormon sheet--we are guaranteed freedom, and
no censure can be laid upon us for telling the world what Apostle Taylor
said that Sunday afternoon in the Nephi Tabernacle. We have been dealt
with unjustly by Apostle Taylor in his [89] "Correction." He says "My
remarks were not fully, nor in all respects, correctly reported." No,
friend Taylor, your remarks were not fully reported. Had they been--had we
repeated all you said about this "d--d lie," you would have been in a
worse boat than you are now in. You would have had a great deal more to
"correct."--you would have had a great deal more about which to "freely
admit, on further investigation" that you were in error. This part of your
"correction" does hurt us. It is where you state that you were not
correctly reported. Our brief mention of your remarks could hardly be
called a report, but we said nothing in that mention but what was truth
and you said all that we gave you credit for and considerably more that
was hardly fit for publication. If by stating that you were not correctly
reported, you mean that all you said was not published, you are
understood; but as it stands now you have done us an injustice in
publishing to the world something about us that is untrue. The Provo
American and THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, two anti-Mormon sheets, took this
matter up, quoted the article in question and made comment on the same,
all of which they or any other journal are perfectly welcome to do, as we
always tell the truth and report correctly, to the best of our ability,
Apostle Taylor to the contrary notwithstanding."
	There is no doubt of the correctness of the TAYLOR remarks; indeed,
TAYLOR doesn't deny their correctness as to the main point, where he said
that in proclaiming polygamy to be a dead issue in Utah Delegate CAINE
told "a d--d lie," and that when polygamy is dead Mormonism is dead. There
is equally no doubt that TAYLOR canidily told the truth. His taking of it
back was simply for effect, to keep the Mormon counsels solid, and for use
on the outside. The brethren understand the play thoroughly. (Salt Lake
Tribune)

26 Mar 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
	Conference is once more growing very near. Have the chiefs of the
Church decided upon doing anything to relieve the pressure upon their
people? That is the [90] question which is being asked anxiously in ten
thousand Mormon homes. They are asking: "Have we not waited long enough
and suffered enough?" We tell the chiefs that so long as they cling to the
delusion that they will eventually triumph; that the old prestige will be
given to polygamy and polygamists, and that the old rule in politics and
business will be restored to them in its old offensive audacity, they are
running a fearful risk. Young Utah may make no plaint, but it is growing
exceedingly restive under the burdens of unfulfilled prophecy and
increasing poverty. THE TRIBUNE repeats what it has been saying for years;
the Saints must either come within the laws or must find some other spot
in which to carry out their purposes. To what other spot can they go? Has
the world any other place for them? There has been a lull of late because
there has been a change of administration, but the man who is President
now is a straight laced man and disciplined soldier. He believes in the
majesty of the law, and believes that unwise laws even must be enforced
until they are legally repealed or amended. The old man threw, turf at the
boys, but when they would not come down he resorted to stones. Does any
Mormon, high or low, believe that he will permit things to go on here as
they have been going on during the past three years? The Saints are fond
of declaring that they are being persecuted. Did they ever stop to think
that possibly their persecutions have not yet really commenced? There is
not one of them who is a real citizen of the United States, because there
is not one who has ever given his first allegiance to the Republic of the
United States. Suppose that the next move shall be to deny to Saints the
right to enter lands, and to attack the titles already secured to land?
What will the 170,000 Mormons in Utah do in case a real contest comes
between them and the sixty millions of the Republic? And the
responsibility of all this rests upon the chiefs. Under the discipline of
the organization the rank and file obey. It is possible for the chiefs to
hold them yet for a period, but they run a fearful risk, a fearful double
risk; first that the people will break away, and second, if they do not,
that the Government, through the machinery of the [91] law, may outlaw and
disinherit them. See what BISMARK is doing with an alien sect in his
dominions. He will have no people within his country's borders that cannot
be depended upon to yield full and true allegiance to the Empire of
Germany. If republics are more generous, they are no less severe than
empires when aroused. And it is time for the chiefs to make the needed
diversion here, and to bring their people out of their troubles. Will they
do it now, or will they trust to luck and Providence for six months more?
(Salt Lake Tribune, Editorial)

7 Apr 1889:
	In the general conference of the Church, held in Salt Lake City, a
First Presidency was sustained, consisting of Wilford Woodruff, President;
George Q. Cannon, First Counselor, and Joseph F. Smith, Second Counselor.
Franklin D. Richards was sustained as Church Historian and General Church
Recorder.

7 Apr 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
	* * * I am strongly impressed today, in reflecting upon our history
and the history of myself, and the position which I occupy, with the
promises of God to me in those early days. They have been fulfilled; and
this day has crowned the pinnacle of the responsibility which is placed
upon my head. I marvel when I contemplate these things, which are in
fulfilment of the promises of God unto me. And when I say this of myself,
I speak of hundreds of the Elders of Israel who have been moved upon in
the same manner that I have been. Those with whom I stood connected in the
early period of the Church--the Prophet Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and
those men that laid the foundation of this Church and kingdom, together
with other Prophets and Patriarchs--have passed away. They are on the
other side of the veil. I still have the privilege of remaining, and I
this day have been called to this responsibility in the midst of my
brethren;--a responsibility that no man can fill unless he is inspired of
God.
	But I will say this to my brethren and sisters, in the name of
Israel's God; The Almighty will never permit me, [92] nor any other
President who holds the keys of the Kingdom of God, to lead you astray. If
I do not walk in the paths of righteousness and do what is right in the
position that I occupy, He will remove me out of my place, or any other
man who attempts to lead the people astray. The position which I occupy,
and that occupied by my brethren the Apostles, should not have a tendency,
if we have the Spirit of God, to make us lifted up or exalted in our
spirits before the Lord. I know, as the God of Israel lives, that I have
no power, nor have I had, in this Church, to perform any work pertaining
to this Kingdom until it has been given unto me by the God of heaven. I
know Joseph Smith had not, nor Brigham Young, nor John Taylor, nor any
Apostle or Elder in this Church and Kingdom. And the moment that I attempt
to become lifted up in the pride of my heart, because of any position that
I hold, that moment I become a very unwise man. So with anyone else. The
higher our position the more our responsibility. During the little time I
may spend here in the flesh, I stand in need of the prayers of the
Latter-day Saints, of those who have faith in God. So do my brethren that
surround me. So do all the authorities of the Church. We all stand in need
of the Holy Ghost and the power of God. Without this we are not qualified
to fill the positions which we are called to occupy. * * *
	We have, however, a mighty responsibility resting upon us. The eyes
of all the heavenly hosts are upon us. The eyes of Father Adam, and the
patriarchs and prophets, both ancient and modern, who have gone to the
other side of the veil, are over us. And if our eyes are open to
comprehend the things of God, we can comprehend our responsibilities; we
can comprehend the powers of the Holy Priesthood, and the relationship
which we sustain to God. We certainly should humble ourselves before the
Lord. We should labor with all our might to build up the Kingdom of God in
what little time we have [93] to spend here in the flesh. Our aim is high.
We aim at eternal life; we aim at immortal glory; we aim at a place in the
celestial Kingdom of our God, with God and Christ and those who have kept
the celestial law. In order to get there, we have got to keep the same law
that has exalted those who have gone before us. This is not our home. We
were kept in the spirit world until this generation, and have been brought
forth, through the loins of Joseph and Ephraim, to stand in the flesh and
to bear off the Kingdom, to hold the Holy Priesthood, to do the works of
righteousness, to build temples, to redeem our dead, and to attend to
those ordinances which the God of heaven has declared we shall perform.
This is our work. We have a long eternity before us. But all of us will
have to meet at the bar of God--the righteous and the wicked, those who
are living and those who are dead.
	This is the condition of the Latter-day Saints. I hope that we may
escape the power of the enemy. As was said here this forenoon, it matters
but very little what may take place outside of Zion, or outside of the
Kingdom of God. The God of Israel holds the destiny of this nation; He
holds the destiny of this people, and of all men on the face of the earth.
They are at His command and in His power. He will hold this nation, as He
did Jerusalem, responsible for the curse they pursue with regard to the
Latter-day Saints. We also will be held responsible for the course we
pursue. The Lord has led this Church from its organization until the
present day. He will lead it until the coming of the Son of Man. He is not
going to desert His people not His cause. But it is our duty to plead with
the Lord, remember our prayers, keep our covenants, and walk perpetually
before Him, that we may have His favor and blessing resting upon us.
	I wish to say with regard to the rising generation:--the sons and
daughters of the Latter-day Saints--that they should take the counsel of
their fathers; they should honor their parents, and honor God, and receive
such counsel as is given unto them by wise men. I think many times that
our children do not comprehend the position they occupy. They do not
comprehend what lies before them. [94] Their fathers are passing away. Yet
this Kingdom has got to remain on the earth until the coming of the Son of
Man. This work has got to follow their fathers; it has got to rest upon
the sons and daughters of Zion. I have a great desire that the
institutions which have been organized in Zion for their welfare may be
blessed; that our sons and daughters may attend the Primaries, the Sabbath
Schools and Mutual Improvement Associations, and unite together in these
societies, that they may receive the benefit of the same. * * * (Deseret
Evening News, 13 Apr 1889)

15 Apr 1889, George Teasdale:
THE REAL POINT AT ISSUE:
	Those who think "Mormonism" never would have encountered any great
amount of opposition had it not been for the principle of plural marriage,
utterly fail to comprehend the forces at work in this matter. The
agitation on "Mormon" matrimonial affairs simply serves as a cloak to
cover other designs, as we shall hereafter see.
	The assault against the Church is made on the line of the marriage
question because it seems to offer at present the greatest prospect for
the success of hostile effort. The Saints in general are less firmly
united on this principle than on many others belonging to the Gospel, and
it is hoped by our enemies that this circumstance will conduce largely, if
not successfully, to bring about its renunciation by the people in a
Church capacity. Such an act would be tantamount to an apostacy, and the
consequent destruction of the power and authority of the Priesthood would
be consummated. This is the great object aimed at.
	That the question of marriage among the Saints can not be justly
chargeable with arousing more than a proportionate share of anti-"Mormon"
antipathy, is evident from the fact that popular hatred against us as a
people was just as violent before the law of plural marriage was revealed
as it was after that event. This fact is notorious. If there were any
phase of the "Mormon" question which could be used at present more
successfully to inflame public prejudice and fanaticism against us, no one
[95] need suppose it would not be made to do duty forthwith. The
correctness of this assertion is supported by facts of history. Not many
years have rolled into the eternities since it was almost universally
regarded as sacrilegious, if not blasphemous, to teach the doctrine of
continued and immediate revelation from heaven, and there were not lacking
pious zealots who thought they were doing God's service by imbruing their
hands in the blood of their fellows who dared to believe in and advocate
the unpopular doctrine. But with millions of spiritualists at present in
the United States and elsewhere, the old pious war cry against personal
communication with the spirit world can not be made to subserve the same
purposes which it did formerly, and hence we hear less and still less of
it in these later times. It was this principle of immediate revelation
from God which aroused the first great anti-"Mormon" agitation, nor was it
allowed to lapse into comparative forgetfulness until something was
forthcoming which was found to be more effectual in exciting the basest
and most merciless of human passions. When, however, the opportune moment
arrived there was a change of tactics.
	 The next war cry was founded on the question of human freedom. In
all sobriety, which made the hideous burlesque more conspicuous, the new
complaint against the Saints was set forth by the free citizens of an
alleged free country who assembled in convention at a town called Liberty,
in Missouri. This assembly of freemen set forth that the "Mormons" "were
eastern men, whose manners, habits, customs, and even dialect, are
essentially different from our own. They are non-slave-holders, and
opposed to slavery, which in the peculiar period, when abolitionism has
reared its deformed and haggard visage in our land, is well calculated to
excite deep and abiding prejudice in any community where slavery is
tolerated and protected."
	Thus it appears that in a land avowedly dedicated to the cause of
human liberty, the Saints became odious and were made to suffer untold
hardships and privations because they espoused the cause of universal
freedom for mankind. Such things read more like the vagaries of a [96]
mind diseased than the stern realities of history. This same charge
against the "Mormons" is no longer agitated, because it is not now "well
calculated to excite deep and abiding prejudice in any community." If it
had not lost this acceptable and prized feature in the eye of the
anti-"Mormon" agitators, it would not be allowed to lapse into oblivion.
Satan is wise enough to employ his best instruments against the cause of
God, and he has a knack of always selecting men with natural aptitude to
operate with them.
	A further objectionable feature of the latter-day movement, and which
was made quite prominent in earlier days, was based upon the doctrine and
practice of "gathering." The Saints assembled from all quarters of the
world and devoted their energies to building up communities of their own.
There was nothing in such proceedings which should justly provoke the
wrath of a Christian nation. If the "Mormons" were the vile and
disreputable people their enemies represented them, the exodus of so many
dangerous persons from moral communities should have been looked upon as
an unmitigated blessing, and every facility should have been afforded to
aid, and make general the migratory movement. In opposing it, however, our
enemies gave the lie direct to their own charges of gross immorality
against the "Mormon" people, or they may be considered as being in
sympathy with vice and corruption, since they were strenuously opposed to
having the alleged, vicious classes depart and live in isolated
communities by themselves.
	Other specific charges have been made from time to time against this
people, but none of them have ever directly embraced the real cause of
antagonism which exists between the Church and the world. This, all shall
ultimately discover, arises from the principle of the priesthood which the
Almighty has restored to the earth. So long as men do not possess
legitimate authority to minister in the ordinances of the Gospel, the
Gospel must practically be no more than a theoretical system of religion,
and consequently no one can be saved by it. We are not left to conjecture
in regard to the real issue between the opposing powers of good and evil,
but may [97] readily understand the situation by reference to the
description of one of the wonders which St. John the Revelator saw in
apocalyptic vision. He speaks of it as follows:
	"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with
the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve
stars; and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to
be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a
great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon
his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and
did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which
was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was
born." (Rev. xii, 1-4)
	In this symbolical representation the woman stands for the true and
apostolical Church of God, while the anti-Christian power appears in the
form of a great, red dragon. It will be observed that the woman herself,
or the Church, is not that against which the dragon is specially disposed
to exert his power of destruction; but the chief object of his animosity
is the man-child which should be born. Who, or what this child is, has
greatly puzzled the learned theologians of the world. Some of them imagine
that Christ is meant; and others that some great friend of the Church is
signified. All such views are manifestly erroneous. With respect to the
first one, Scripture in a number of passages represents Christ as the
husband of the woman or Church, and hence He must be the father of the
man-child which was to come forth. The proposition is too absurd for
serious consideration, that a son should be his own father, and hence
Christ can not be intended. Nor can any individual of purely earthly
origin be meant, for the parentage of the child is wholly celestial and
Divine. None of the difficulties alluded to will appear if we consider
that the man-child represents the priesthood. This comes through the
Church, and has God for its author. It is in every sense Divine. It is the
ruling power in the Church and kingdom [98] of God, and is given for the
very purpose for which the child was to have a being, viz: to rule, to
hold power, and to officiate in the ordinances of the Gospel of the Son of
God.
	Such in brief, is the correct interpretation of this sacred
symbolism; and those who have read the vision of St. John and understand
it cannot be deceived by any of the false pretenses which are set up from
time to time by the enemies of this work. Their primary object is the same
as that of the dragon, which is, to destroy the power and authority of the
Priesthood of God on the earth; and there is little doubt that ere long
the true is sue will be squarely made. The indications point in that
direction already, and upon that question the fiercest conflict will
probably be waged. Let each one, by continually striving to magnify his
office and calling in the Priesthood, prepare himself to meet, without
fear before God, the most determined assaults of our foes. The issue of
the conflict is certain, and the wicked shall know that the Lord reigneth
in Zion. (M.S. 50:232-235)

26 Apr 1889, The Woman's Industrial Christian Home Association. The
Woman's Industrial Christian Home Association of Utah is in hearty
sympathy with those women who feet themselves wronged and oppressed by
polygamy. In order to help them out of this condition be securing for them
the means of self-support, this association has secured from our homane
Government in Washington an appropriation of about $70,000 with which to
purchase ground and erect a building suitable for a pleasant home, and
also for giving instruction in various branches of self-supporting
industry, such as telegraphy, typewriting, shorthand, book-keeping,
laundrying, and scientific cooking and housekeeping.
	A three-story building suitable for the purpose has been erected,
where these industries will be taught as soon as there is a demand for
them. The new Home will be opened in June, under the supervision of the
kindhearted Christian women who belong to the association, [99] and they
will leave nothing undone to make it an attractive place of residence for
those who wish to learn some industry in order to be self-supporting.
	An Act of Congress put the Home within reach of the following classes
of women:
	1. Women who renounce polygamy, and their children of tender age, and
first or legal wives who wish to get away from polygamy.
	2. Women and girls with polygamous surroundings in danger of being
coerced into polygamy.
	3. Girls of polygamous parentage anxious to escape from polygamous
surroundings.
	4. Women and girls who have been proselyted elsewhere and removed
into the Territory in ignorance of the existence there of polygamy.
	These different classes of women who wish to renounce polygamy, and
the children of such women of tender age will be received into the Home,
where school privileges will be provided for the children. Free
transportation from any part of the Territory will be granted to any of
the above classes who wish to avail themselves of these privileges of this
attractive Home.
	And all the friends of this philanthropic enterprise over the
Territory are hereby requested to seek out those who desire to enter the
Home, and report their names to the president of the association, Mrs. Wm.
M. Ferry, of Park City, Utah, or to the secretary, Mrs. N. L. Putnam, Salt
Lake City.
	By order of the directors.
	Salt Lake City, April 26, 1889.
	(Report of the Utah Commission, 19 Dec 1889)

13 May 1889:
	The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the First District
Court of Utah and decided that a man cannot be convicted of two different
offences (adultery and unlawful cohabitation) which are covered by the
same transaction, etc.

2 Jun 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
	Before the close of this conference there is a subject [100] upon
which I wish to bear my testimony. There were perhaps very few people here
yesterday who are in this assembly today, when Brother Thatcher delivered
a lecture upon the life of President Brigham Young. He referred to a
saying of President Young which I, being a witness of, feel it my duty to
allude to. I am the first person unto whom he made the remark, and the
only one living in the flesh who was with him and Joseph Smith, the
Prophet of God, when he gave to the Twelve Apostles their charge
concerning the Priesthood and the keys of the Kingdom of God; and as I
myself shall soon pass away like other men, I want to leave my testimony
to these Latter-day Saints.
	I was sitting with Brigham Young in the depot in the city of Boston
at the time when the two Prophets were martyred. Of course we had no
telegraphs and no fast reports as we have today to give communication over
the land. During that period Brother Young was waiting there for a train
of cars to go to Peterborough. Whilst sitting there we were overshadowed
by a cloud of darkness and gloom as great as I ever witnessed in my life
under almost any circumstances in which we were placed. Neither of us knew
or understood the cause until after the report of the death of the
Prophets was manifested to us. Brother Brigham left; I remained in Boston
and next day took passage for Fox Islands, a place I had visited some
years before, and baptized numbers of people and organized branches upon
both those islands. My father-in-law, Ezra Carter, carried me on a wagon
from Scarborough to Portland. I there engaged passage on board of a
steamer. I had put my trunk on board and was just bidding my father-in-law
farewell, when a man came out from a shop--a shoemaker--holding a
newspaper in his hand. He said, "Father Carter, Joseph and Hyrum Smith
have been murdered in Carthage jail!"
	As soon as I looked at the paper the Spirit said to me that it was
true. I had no time for consultation, the steamer's bell was ringing, so I
stepped on board and took my trunk back to land. As I drew it off, the
plank was drawn in. I told Father Carter to drive me back to [101]
Scarborough. I there took the car for Boston, and arrived at that place on
Saturday night.
	On my arrival there I received a letter which had been sent from
Nauvoo, giving us an account of the killing of the Prophets. I was the
only man in Boston of the Quorum of the Twelve.
	I had very strange feelings, as I have no doubt all the Saints had. I
attended a meeting on the following day in Boydston's Hall, where a vast
number of the inhabitants of Boston and some three hundred Latter-day
Saints had assembled. Hundreds of men came to that meeting to see what the
"Mormons" were going to do now that their Prophets were dead. I felt
braced up; every nerve, bone and sinew within me seemed as though made of
steel. I did not shed a tear. I went into that hall, though I knew not
what I was going to say to that vast audience. I opened the Bible
promiscuously and opened to the words of St. John where he saw under the
alter the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and heard
them cry, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge
our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" The Lord informed them that
they must wait a little season, until their brethren were slain as they
were. I spoke on those words.
	Next day I met Brigham Young in the streets of Boston, he having just
returned, opposite to Sister Voce's house. We reached out our hands, but
neither of us was able to speak a word. We walked into Sister Voce's
house. We each took a seat and veiled our faces. We were overwhelmed with
grief and our faces were soon bathed in a flood of tears. I felt then that
I could talk, though I could not before--that is, to Brother Brigham.
After we had done weeping we began to converse together concerning the
death of the Prophets. In the course of the conversation, he smote his
hand upon his thigh and said, "Thank God, the keys of the Kingdom are
here. Brother Thatcher referred to that yesterday.
	All that President Young or myself, or any member of the Quorum need
have done in the matter was to have referred to the last instructions at
the last meeting we had with the Prophet Joseph before starting on our
mission. [102] I have alluded to that meeting many times in my life.
	The Prophet Joseph I am now satisfied had a thorough presentiment
that that was the last meeting we would hold together here in the flesh.
We had had our endowments; we had had all the blessings sealed upon our
heads that were ever given to the Apostles or Prophets on the face of the
earth. On that occasion the Prophet Joseph rose up and said to us,
"Brethren, I have desired to live to see this temple built. I shall never
live to see it, but you will. I have sealed upon your heads all the keys
of the Kingdom of God. I have sealed upon you every key, power, principle
that the God of heaven has revealed to me or sealed upon me. Now, no
matter where I may go or what I may do, the Kingdom rests upon you." Now
don't you wonder why we, as Apostles could not have understood that the
Prophet of God was going to be taken from us? But we did not understand
it. The Apostles in the days of Jesus Christ could not understand what the
Savior meant when He told them "I am going away; if I do not go away the
Comforter will not come! Neither did we understand what Joseph meant.
"But, he said, after having done this, "Ye Apostles of the Lamb of God, my
brethren, upon your shoulders this Kingdom rests; now, you have got to
round up your shoulders and bear off this Kingdom." And he also made this
very strange remark, "If you do not do it you will be damned."
	I am the last man living who heard that declaration. He told the
truth, too; for would not any of the men who have held the keys of the
Kingdom of God or an Apostleship in this Church have been under
condemnation, and would not the wrath of God have rested upon them if they
had deserted these principles or denied and turned from them and
undertaken to serve themselves instead of the work of the Lord which was
committed to their hands?
	When the Lord gave the keys of the Kingdom of God, the keys of the
Melchisedeck Priesthood, of the Apostleship, and sealed them upon the head
of Joseph Smith, He sealed them upon his head to stay here upon the earth
until the coming of the Son of Man. Well might Brigham Young say, "The
keys of the Kingdom of God are here." [103] They were with him to the day
of his death. They then rested upon the head of another man--President
John Taylor. He held those keys to the hour of his death. They then fell
by turn, or in the providence of God, upon Wilford Woodruff.
	I say to the Latter-day Saints the keys of the Kingdom of God are
here, and they are going to stay here, too, until the coming of the Son of
Man. Let all Israel under stand that. They may not rest upon my head but a
short time, but they will then rest on the head of another Apostle, and
another after him, and so continue until the coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ in the clouds of heaven to "reward every man according to the deeds
done in the body."
	I want to add another thing, because, I feel it my duty to say it to
the Latter-day Saints. There is a feeling--it was so in the days of Joseph
Smith--that he was not the man to lead the Church. Even his bossom
friends, men with whom he saw the angels of God, Oliver Cowdery and
others, considered him a fallen Prophet and thought they ought to lead the
Church. This history is before the world. The same feeling was manifest in
the days of Brigham Young when he was called to hold the keys of the
Presidency of the Church. There were other men who thought they should be
appointed to that office. But the God of heaven manifested to you, and to
me, and to all men, who were in Nauvoo, upon whom the mantle had fallen.
Brigham Young took his place, and led the Church and Kingdom of God up to
the day of his death.
	There are men today, there will be men till the coming of the Son of
Man, I expect, who feel as though they ought to lead the Church, as though
it is not going on right--that this, that, and the other is wrong. I say
to all Israel at this day, I say to the whole world, that the God of
Israel, who organized this Church and Kingdom, never ordained any
President or Presidency to lead it astray. Here it, ye Israel, no man who
has ever breathed the breath of life can hold these keys of the Kingdom of
God and lead the people astray.
	We talk of revelation. There has been a feeling of wonder many times
as to why Brigham Young did not have [104] revelation, why John Taylor did
not have revelation, why Wilford Woodruff does not have revelation, why
any other Apostle does not have revelation. I hold in my hand a book of
revelations, enough to lead this Church into the celestial kingdom of God.
Anybody who will obey that law will have all the revelation that he can
fulfill on the earth. We are not without revelation. The heavens are full
of it, so is the holy Priesthood.
	I know the destiny of this people; it is revealed by the God of
Israel and left on record. I know the destiny of this kingdom, and I want
to say, let us try to unite together and fulfill the law of God. You need
not trouble about the Kingdom God has established. He will take care of
it. The same God who has organized this Zion and gathered one hundred and
fifty thousand people here from the nations of the earth, has His eye over
you, He is watching over you, and He will take care of you when you do
your duty. Zion is not going to be moved out of her place. The Lord will
plead with her strong ones, and if she sins He will chastise her until she
is purified before the Lord.
	I do not pretend to tell how much sorrow you or I are going to meet
with before the coming of the Son of Man. That will depend upon our
conduct.
	With regard to the keys of the Kingdom of God, they were placed on
the earth to remain, and they will remain until Jesus Christ comes in the
clouds of heaven. But I and other men, the Apostles, and all who are
called to officiate in the name of the Lord need the faith and prayers of
the Latter-day Saints.
	By way of closing I will say that Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford
Woodruff, these Twelve Apostles around me, and everyone of the Seventies,
High Priests, High Councilors, Presidents of Stakes, the Melchisedek and
all the Aaronic Priesthood, and all the Latter-day Saints--all will get
what they labor for. Whatsoever we sow, whether good or evil, of that we
will reap the fruit.
	But in the morning of the resurrection you will find Joseph Smith
holding the keys of this kingdom and dispensation at the head of all
Israel who belong to this dispensation; he will hold them to the endless
ages of [105] eternity, notwithstanding that we shall all get our reward
for what we do. The keys of the Kingdom were given to Joseph Smith. They
were placed on the heads of other men to make use of on earth for a short
time and when we get through we shall all have our reward.
	Let us make up our minds to serve and honor God. Do not have any
fears concerning the kingdom; the Lord will lead that aright; and if
Brother Woodruff or any of the Presidency of this Church should take any
course to lead you astray, the Lord will remove us out of the way. We are
in the hands of the Lord and those keys will be held and taken care of by
the God of Israel until He comes whose right it is to reign.
	God bless you all. (Contributor 10:380-384)

16 Jul 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	In the process of time strangers, attracted by the opportunities to
acquire property created by the Saints who preceded them, have gradually
settled down in their midst and obtained possession of lands which
"Mormons" were willing to turn over to them for money. These persons have
brought with them the spirit of the world as well as its ways and customs,
its vices and its ambitions. They have also set their hearts upon
obtaining control of this Territory and its people. To accomplish this a
large number of them will stop at nothing that appears safe for them to
attempt. Success in small things naturally emboldens them to attempt
greater things. Their purpose is to divide us * * *.
	We are approaching a crisis. The very atmosphere seems to bear a
warning of it. The calamities of the world seems to bear a warning of it.
The calamities of various kinds that are overtaking the world are
indications of its advent. The spirit that is working in the midst of the
Saints, leading to worldiness, recklessness, excess of pleasure, disregard
of good counsel and of solemn obligations; the disposition to contend and
complain, and believe evil reports and accuse others of wrong motives; the
readiness exhibited to be swayed by invective and censure, instead of
wisdom and principle, by sound rather than sense to be captious,
resentful, [106] faultfinding and opinionated; and the lethargy in regard
to many important things, spiritual, social and political, all mark the
approach of troublous times, when "all things that can be shaken will be
shaken, and only those that cannot be shaken will remain."
	The people of God have been forewarned of this, and that which is to
come should not take them unawares. But who are the wise that will see,
and harken, and be prepared to "stand in holy places and be not moved,"
when the Lord shall shake terribly the world? Is it not time that all who
are called by the name of Saints should examine themselves and see "what
spirit they are of." Look at the history of the people called of God in
former ages, note the causes that led to their downfall, and see if
similar influences are not now operating among us tending to the same end.
	We do not wish to act the alarmist. We do not believe that there will
be any failure of the prime object for which the Saints gathered to this
favored spot. But we cannot close our eyes to the evils that have been
gaining ground, nor fail to sound a warning when we see troublous times
ahead. A great change is needed in the course of many professed Latter-day
Saints and it ought to be commenced at once. When any who are called by
that name are so blind that they cannot discern the difference between the
purpose of their friends and the intent of their enemies, nor behold nor
appreciate the dividing line between the two hostile elements, it is a
sign that Satan has had power to befog their vision and that they are upon
very dangerous ground. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

24 Jun 1889:
	The Supreme Court of Utah ordered the Church farm leased to John R.
Winder for $401 per month.

29 Jul 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
	I consider that the mother has a greater influence over her posterity
than any other person can have. And the question has arisen sometimes,
"When does this education begin?" Our prophets have said, "When the spirit
[107] life from God enters into the tabernacle." The condition of the
mother at that time will have its effect upon the fruit of her womb; and
from the birth of the child, and all through life, the teachings and the
example of the mother govern and control, in a great measure, that child,
and her influence is felt by it through time and eternity. * * *
	Now brethren and sisters, we are trying to prepare ourselves for
exaltation and eternal life. We have received the Holy Priesthood. There
is no change to that Priesthood. It belongs to the Celestial Kingdom of
our God. It does not belong to the terrestrial nor to the telestial
kingdom. If you and I ever get into the celestial kingdom, we have got to
keep the law of that kingdom. Show me the law that a man keeps and I will
tell you where he is going. We, as Latter-day Saints, have everything to
encourage us. We have received the Gospel of Christ and the blessings
thereof. What did we know in regard to God and salvation until the Lord
revealed Himself? Who ever knew, before the Lord revealed it to us, that a
man could have his wives and his children with him in the morning of the
resurrection, in the family organization, with himself at the head, to
dwell together for ever and ever? I have thought many a time that if I
labored until I was as old as Methusalah and by that means could have my
family dwell with me in glory in the eternal worlds, it would pay me for
all the pain and suffering I could endure in this world. And this is only
one of the blessings that are promised unto us.
	Our young people should labor to qualify themselves by reading the
revelations of God. There is not time to waste in reading novels. Read the
Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the records
which the Lord has given unto us, and treasure up these revelations and
see what the Lord has promised unto us . We then treasure up something of
worth to us. (Tooele Stake Conference, Deseret Evening News, 10 Aug, 1889)

9 Aug 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	At the time the polygamy question gave them some [108] apparent
excuse for the working of this scheme. They took advantage of the popular
ignorance and the popular prejudice concerning this subject, and their
success in procuring inimical legislation against Utah were the result of
that advantage. Today they boast of what they have accomplished in this
direction. That is, that they have succeeded in depriving of the ballot
most of the leading spirits who pioneered the way for those who now enjoy
the benefits of civilization in these mountains, and made it possible for
their enemies to exist here and plot against them. Also that they have
robbed of the elective franchise all the women of this Territory who had
held and used it consistently for many years. * * *
	This is an undeniable fact: The objective point of every "Liberal"
plot, speech and anti-"Mormon" falsehood disseminated by type or
telegraph, is the destruction of the franchise in "Mormon" hands, the
political enslavement of the whole "Mormon" people. If they succeed in
their persistent scheme no "Mormon" young, old or middle-aged will be able
to vote at any election or hold any civil office, local or national. This
has no actual relation to the polygamy question. It is the monogamists who
are to be robbed of the right to vote. Politically polygamy now, cuts no
real figure. It is only its shadow that is held up as a bugaboo to the
uninformed. The present project is directed against monogamic "Mormons"
and, so far as this "Liberal" movement is concerned, polygamy is truly "a
dead issue." (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

26 Aug 1889, Deseret Evening News:
THE "MORMONS" IN CANADA.
	The press of the country divides its continued comments on the
"Mormon" question between rejoicings over the result of "the Salt Lake
City election"--which has not yet taken place--and predictions as to the
trouble which will arise over the practice of polygamy by the "Mormons" in
Canada--which has no actual existence.
	We are told in regard to the former that "the Mormon power in the
municipality is broken for ever," and this will "induce Gentile
immigration and create a real estate [109] boom of large porportions," and
in regard to the latter that lithe Mormons in the Northwest Territory are
practising polygamy openly in spite of the government." These are both
gross errors. The first has been occasioned by intentional misstatements
made from this city, the second has arisen partly from some arguments made
by Mr. Stenhouse, formerly a member of the Canadian Parliament and who
resigned his place to cast his lot with the colony of Latter-day Saints in
Alberta.
	It appears that this gentleman has written his opinions on the
marriage question, which have been published in several papers, and
conclusions have been drawn there from entirely unwarranted by the text.
Mr. Stenhouse has the right to entertain what opinions he pleases and to
publish them if he can get them into print. But he does not speak for the
Church to which he belongs, nor for the colony where he resides. They are
simply his views and nothing more.
	It does not follow because the gentleman advocates plural marriage
that the "Mormons" in Canada practice polygamy. We understand he is
himself a bachelor. The colonists in Alberta are not there to violate the
laws of the Dominion. If any of them should do so they can be prosecuted.
It will be time enough to raise the cry of "polygamy" in Canada when
somebody attempts its practice. Diligent inquiry will fail to find a
single case of plural marriage in that settlement. The New York Times
closes an editorial on the subject with this sentence:
	"The Dominion Government will act wisely if it shall speedily
prosecute and punish every person at Lee's Creek or elsewhere in the
Dominion? Why, it says, Mr. Stenhouse has declared:
	"That the practice of polygamy was sanctioned and even required by
the Mormon Church, and that the polygamous settlers ought to be permitted
to live in accordance with their religious belief."
	With all due respect to the New York Times, Mr. Stenhouse has done
nothing of the kind. He has not declared that the "Mormon" Church
"requires" this, nor has he asked that the "polygamous settlers be
permitted" [110] to do anything. He is not likely to have done either,
because no such requirement is made by the Church and there are no it
polygamous settlers" to ask anything for. (Deseret Evening News, 26 Aug
1889)

1 Sep 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
	Nearly sixty years have passed and gone since this Church was
organized. It has fallen to my lot to be associated with this people for
the last 56 or 57 years of my life. I traveled with Joseph Smith and the
Apostles and with many who are now in the spirit world, hundreds and
thousands of miles laboring for the salvation of our fellow men. We are
very differently situated today from what we were in the early days of
this Church. We now occupy permanent homes in the valleys of these Rocky
Mountains. I came here with Brigham Young when the country was a barren
desert. The record of our lives for the last forty years, during which
time we have been here, is before the world as history. The aim and object
of our lives today are what they were in the beginning, namely the
building up of the Kingdom of God upon the earth. And I wish to bear my
testimony to the Latter-day Saints and to the world that this Gospel of
the Kingdom which the angel of God delivered unto Joseph Smith will be
preached as a witness to all the world before the end come. It is the same
Gospel that was preached by Christ and the Apostles, and which the Jews
rejected. There is but one Gospel plan of salvation, and it is eternal and
everlasting in its character; it cannot be perverted or changed with
impunity; hence the Apostle Paul has said in this connection, "Though we,
or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which
we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. "What was the Gospel
taught by Paul, and by Peter, James and John? The first principle of the
Gospel they taught was faith in God; the next was repentance of sins, and
then baptism for the remission of sins. Jesus Himself was baptized of
John, that he might fulfill all righteousness, because baptism was a
righteous law, and one of the ordinances of the everlasting Gospel. At
first John declined to baptise the Savior, recognizing the fact that He
was without [111] sin, and that baptism was for the remission of sin. But
Jesus answering said, "Suffer it to be so now for or thus it becometh us
to fulfill all righteousness. And He baptized the Savior and Redeemer of
the world. As soon as this ordinance was attended to the heavens
acknowledged the act by the manifestation of the Holy Ghost. And the next
ordinance after baptism is the laying on of hands for the reception of the
Holy Ghost. This was the Gospel taught by the Apostles while they lived.
The Holy Ghost gave unto men a testimony that Jesus was indeed the Christ,
the Redeemer of the world; and it was a guide to their feet and a lamp to
their path during their whole lives. The Church at first was organized
upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief
corner stone. We are told that Christ has set in the Church, "First
apostles, secondarily prophets;" that "He gave some apostles; and some
prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers , and they
were to be standing ministers to the Church "for the perfecting of the
Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, into a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ." The Lord required Joseph Smith to organize the Church
of Christ after this order. He did so, and this Church has remained intact
in its organization from that day to the present; and it will continue to
remain until the coming of the Son of Man. And I would say here that there
is no change of the Gospel of Christ in this, neither has there been in
any other age of the world. There never has been any change from eternity
to eternity, neither has there been any change of the ordinances, or of
the Holy Priesthood; they are the same yesterday, today and forever."
(Deseret Evening News, 14 Sep 1889)

2 Sep 1889, George Q. Cannon:
	There are many things growing up among us that are contrary to the
spirit of Zion; many things operating upon our people that call for grave
thought and careful consideration. We are now, as has been the case with
[112] us from the beginning, passing through new scenes, encountering new
difficulties; and so much has this been the case that our lives as
Latter-day Saints have possessed, it might be said, dramatic interest. Our
history, as a Church, has been like a drama. No scenes acted upon the
theatrical stage ever possessed more engrossing interest than have the
scenes of our lives as Latter-day Saints. And there is a constant change
of circumstances. We are environed by new, difficulties, and it requires
constant watchfulness on our part to avoid taking a wrong step or
committing ourselves in some direction, that might be injurious to us.
Therefore, God has ordained that there shall be Prophets and Apostles
whose duty it is to guide and counsel, to instruct, to reprove when
necessary, to warn; and great responsibility rests upon them in connection
with these duties I tremble at the very thought of it. I am filled with
feelings that cause me to shrink when I think about the great
responsibility that God has placed upon the leading Elders of this Church.
The welfare, the future happiness and the prosperity of the people are to
a great extent entrusted to those men who are called to be the shepherds
of the flock of Christ. I often ask myself, how can I appear before the
Lord Jesus, my Master, if He should call me to account for the charge that
He has placed upon me; can I stand up and say I have not obstructed the
work with which I am connected; I have not obscured the light of heaven; I
have not acted in any way to divert the rays of truth from shining in the
midst of the children of men--I ask myself, can I stand in this position
and look upon the face of God without feeling condemned, and that my
garments are unstained with the blood of this generation; that I have been
a faithful minister of the Lord, a faithful shepherd of the flock of
Christ, a watchman who has never slept at his post, who has never failed
to utter the cry of warning when danger has menaced the Zion of God. This
is a feeling it seems to me every man who bears the holy Priesthood ought
to have. I say, every man, not any one class of men, but every man bearing
the Priesthood of the Son of God in this Church, should feel that there is
a responsibility resting upon [113] he be not careful he may him, and that
perchance if wake up in eternity and find himself under serious
condemnation for having neglected to do his duty to his fellowman, and to
magnify the holy Priesthood that God has placed upon him. It would be a
dreadful thing in my view, to be found with the blood of man staining our
garments--that is, to feel that God had intrusted to us powers, and
afforted us opportunities, and laid upon us responsibilities, and we had
failed to discharge them honorably and faithfully in the interest of our
fellowman.
	We are at present in peculiar circumstances. I need not say to you,
for you doubtless are familiar with the fact, that those who oppose us
expect in a very short time to gain a great victory over us; this, in
fact, has been the expectation of our enemies from the beginning of this
work. It is not a new thing for those who have opposed this work to
anticipate a triumph over it, and to imagine that they had laid the plans
and perfected the details for a victory, for the overthrow, of the church
and the destruction of the power of the Holy Priesthood. Already they are
reveling over their expected triumph, reveling in the prospect of having
us in their power--something they have labored for long and hard. Much
depends upon us, brethren and sisters, whether this will be so or not. We
hold, so to speak, our destiny in our own hands. If we are overcome we
ourselves shall be to blame; the work that we are connected with cannot be
charged with this. If defeat befall us and we are subjected to the power
of our enemies, the cause of defeat will be found within ourselves,
traceable to our own conduct, either through neglect to do that which we
should have done, or doing that which we should not have done. This every
one of you should take to heart. Trouble of any kind has never yet come
upon us that was not traceable to ourselves. There never has been a
people, I don't think, in any dispensation who have had the flood of light
bestowed upon them that has been poured out upon us in this day. For forty
years and upwards the voices of inspired men teaching the people the
principles of life and salvation have become familiar to us. Can you think
of any people who have had such opportun-[114]ities as we have had?
Doubtless the Nephites had in some parts of their history. But there never
was a more favored people than we. When I think of the mighty men that
have stood in our midst, filled with the power of God--Prophets and
Apostles, whom God chose and whom He bestowed His gifts and graces; and
how many of them have worn themselves out preaching to this people,
entreating them in the most eloquent manner, adducing the greatest and
strongest reasons that could appeal to our human natures, and revealing to
us the mind and will of God, it does seem to me that a terrible
responsibility rests upon us if we depart from the path which God has
marked out. We can never say we have not been taught, that we have not had
opportunities. We can never blame our Father for not imparting to us, in
the utmost plainness, and through the demonstration of His Holy Spirit,
His word and His counsel, President Young, while he lived, labored
indefatigably to the utmost of his ability; never sparing himself, but
constantly teaching the people, teaching them with his counsels, and
giving them suggestions that are unequaled. I do not know such a record
anywhere to be found as even the record of his discourses to this people;
and then, think of President Taylor, and the others associated with
President Young, and the effect their labors have had in teaching this
people.
	Now we are brought face to face with this question, shall we take
these counsels to heart, shall we listen to the voice of God through his
servants which we have heard now these 42 years in these valleys, and
follow the direction which they have given concerning the people of Zion,
or shall we make a new departure? Shall we throw aside all that we have
heretofore been taught as the correct course and policy to be adopted in
building up the kingdom of God, shall we throw it aside, cast it behind us
and adopt some new principles, some new policy and practice concerning the
Zion of our God in the earth? This is a question that is forcing itself
upon us. I have seen things already which I never believed I would see; I
have witnessed conduct I never believed I would witness. I had hoped
better things. I have ob-[115]served a disposition to disregard the
counsels of the servants of God, to turn aside from the path that God has
marked out, to spurn that authority which He has said shall reign. I have
seen a disposition to bend and bow to the wishes of the world, to take to
heart and to partly believe as true the accusations and the
misrepresentations and the charges that have been made by the enemies of
the Kingdom of God against the Kingdom of God and its policy, and against
the men whom God has chosen. And today in our midst there is a great
amount of falsehood in circulation concerning the truth, concerning the
work of God, and concerning the servants of God; and a disposition to
believe evil and to misconstrue conduct and counsel and various things of
this character.
	If this spirit should prevail among the Latter-day Saints it will
certainly prove disastrous to those who receive it and afford it a
lodgment in their hearts.
	I do not think that those who are present today are the ones who are
susceptible to this influence--at least very few, if any. Many of those
that are absent I am afraid are the ones who ought to be talked to and
seasoned with upon this point. The men and women who attend meetings
regularly, and who think it important to come here to receive instructions
are not the ones, as a rule, who require censuring or reproof; as a
general thing they are found in the path of duty and are walking in the
ways of the Lord.
	One of the speakers at our meeting last evening called your attention
to and spoke upon the subject of union. Whenever the Latter-day Saints
become divided; Whenever you see one Latter-day Saint arrayed against
another, you may know that one or both are in the wrong. When they become
divided in their interest, when they seek their own aggrandizement,
careless about the rights of their fellowmen; whenever you see this spirit
prevail, then it betokens trouble among ourselves and we shall lose power.
Let me ask you what is it that gives us strength? Are we numerous? Why, we
are but a small handful of people; our opponents outnumber us by millions.
Are we wealthy? Our wealth is not to be men-[116]tioned in comparison with
the wealth that is opposed to us. Are we learned? We do not compare in
worldly learning with those who are arrayed against us. In what then does
our strength consist? It consists in the union of the people, and their
faithfulness in keeping the commandments of God; it consists in our
obedience to the counsels of God's servants. Whenever this people shall
fellowship a spirit to disregard the counsels of the Priesthood, seeking
to accomplish ends by methods that are popular in the world, then they
become like other people, and their strength leaves them. Samson, after he
disregarded certain commandments to him personally by shaving his head and
divulging the secret of his wonderful strength, easily fell a prey to the
Philistines. This will be the case with us if we take the course advocated
by many so-called Latter-day Saints, and which they think is right to
take. I will tell you, and risk my reputation as a prophet upon it,
although I don't often talk about being a prophet; I say, I am willing to
risk my reputation, as a prophet upon this, that the man who takes this
course, the family or the community that takes it will become as weak as
water, and eventually become part of the world for departing from the way
that God, through his servants, has pointed out. Our strength consists not
of being part of Babylon, but the very opposite of that. Our strength
consists in God; and the fact that this is so has made us a peculiar
people. Divest ourselves of this peculiarity and we then become like the
rest of the world, no better, no stronger than they are; and we will be
overcome by them, for their forces are stronger and greater than ours. Can
you not see this ? To me, it is as clear as the light that shines. If we
are strong at all, we are strong because we are Latter-day Saints. That is
the cause of our strength-the strength which God has given unto us through
His Gospel. Whenever we depart from that policy we become weak like other
men. It is time we understood this; it is time we looked at it in its true
light. We are going arm in arm with the world, are we? We are going to be
like them? Whoever has that spirit will apostatize as sure as God lives,
unless he repents. I do not mean by this to say there is any
antag-[117]onism between us and the world. We have no warfare to wage,
none whatever. All we have to do is to be true to our principles. If our
enemies conspire against us, let us be true to our God, true to Zion, true
to the methods that God has revealed unto us for the building up of His
Kingdom, and take the course that will be right and pleasing in the sight
of God. I do not mean by this that I wish to put myself on opposition to
the laws, or to that which is now the counsel concerning matters. I want
to define my position so you will understand it, that no advantage be
taken of it.
	God has established His Zion, and He is building it up in the way He
has revealed and that He communicates to His servants from time to time.
	And let me say to you, my brethren and sisters, any spirit that leads
to division among the Latter-day Saints, you may know is not the Spirit of
God; you may know it is from beneath; and if it be evil it will bring
destruction upon those who indulge in it. We must see eye to eye; we must
progress in this direction. It is true our progress in some things is not
what it ought to be. We do not progress, for instance, in the proper
management of financial matters, and in union as foreshadowed in the
revelations of the Lord concerning temporal matters to the extent and with
the rapidity that many of us hoped we would see. But nevertheless it is
our duty to keep on doing the best we can, striving to come to the unity
of the faith in regard to these affairs. The time must come in Zion when a
new order of things will be established in regard to temporal matters. We
all look forward to it; we all pray for it; we all labor for it--that is,
all who have the love of Zion at heart; and we deprecate and deplore
everything that would retard us in this direction. The spirit of
selfishness appears to be prevalent, the spirit of self-aggrandizement,
and we deplore its aggrandizement, and we deplore its manifestation. We
would like to see the Latter-day Saints receive the counsel of God, and
the burden of the preaching of the Elders of this Church should be to
endeavor to get the Latter-day Saints to see the importance of this
principle--to be unselfish. God will bless the man who loves his neighbor,
[118] who seeks to promote his neighbor's interest. I do not care what his
station may be; he may be humble and obscured; whoever he may be, if he
seeks to promote his neighbor's interests he will find that God will bless
him, and He will do everything for the man that will be good for him. We
must cultivate this spirit; we must seek for it, and struggle for it. The
spirit of selfishness is in the earth; every man for himself. And this
spirit comes into our borders, and we partake of it to a greater or less
extent. Nevertheless, the time will come when this will be changed. God
will bring it about. He will bring us through circumstances that will make
us know the evil of it, and make us see the necessity of cultivating the
principle of unselfishness in our midst. Selfishness is our weak point
today. The fact that we are organizing after the fashion of the world, and
that every man is for himself to a great extent, is our weak point; and to
guard against it we should be careful not to permit that spirit to enter
into our hearts. (Deseret Evening News, 28 Sep 1889)

13 Sep 1889, Deseret Evening News:
	The Milwaukee Wisconsin Evening has an editorial on "Religious
Liberty," suggested by the clause in the Idaho State Constitution which
disfranchises citizens for professing the "Mormon" religion. That paper
makes a mistake in charging this great wrong against Montana. With this
exception its remarks are so just and pertinent that we copy most of the
editorial from its columns. After expressing the opinion that the
convention that framed the constitution will "invite defeat" for the
instrument by this clause, it says:
	"Civil and religious liberty is one of the boasts that is in every
man's mouth in this country, and it is no part of the business of any
state to meddle or concern itself with any man's religion. Every man has
the undoubted constitutional right in this free country to adopt any form
of religious worship that he pleases, or espouse any creed, no matter how
absurd, provided he obeys the laws and does not interfere with the rights
of his neighbors. As distasteful as Mormonism is to most rational [119]
people, it is nevertheless a most unquestionable privilege to profess it,
just as much as it is another privilege to become a Methodist or a
Presbyterian. The adjunct of polygamy is a crime against the laws, and
punishable as such, but the Montana (Idaho) people go too far when they
aim to eradicate the whole of the Mormon faith.
	It may not be generally known, so much popular clamor has been raised
against the Mormons, that their creed is eminently orthodox, except that
it goes to far, and takes in some things that modern Christians repudiate.
Indeed, the Mormons hold to the cardinal doctrines promulgated by John
Calvin as firmly as any Presbyterian or Baptist, and in defense of
polygamy they quote the practice of some notable men of ancient times who
loved the women not wisely but too well. They believe in God, in the
Trinity, in the fall of man in Adam, in vicarious atonement, in baptism by
immersion, in miracles and the punishment of the wicked after death.
	It will be all right for Montana (Idaho) to exclude polygamists from
the polls because that is now a criminal practice under our laws, but no
Mormon should be persecuted simply because he has become a proselyte to
that particular form of religious fanaticism." (Deseret Evening News, 13
Sep 1889)

23 Sep 1889, Utah Commission Report:
	When the Commission was first organized, it was a matter of grave
consideration with the able men then composing it, headed by that wise and
safe counselor ex-Governor Alexander Ramsey, as chairman, as to the proper
policy to be pursued in discharging the very responsible as well as
delicate trust committed to its direction.
	After mature thought and deliberation, it was unanimously considered
by the Commission that, under the act of Congress establishing it, the
duty of the Commission was to so shape its policy, and the administration
of the affairs committed to it, as to be in harmony with the spirit of the
laws of Congress regarding the principal and perhaps sole object in view
in its creation to be the extinction of polygamy, and the stamping out,
[120] as far as possible, of all polygamous influences and tendencies.
	How best to accomplish this was a grave question, and was approached
with some hesitation and much serious thought, but as subsequent events
have shown, was determined wisely.
	The act of Congress of March 22, 1882, commonly known as the "Edmunds
law," cut off polygamists, bigamists, and those who might thereafter be
convicted of kindred offenses, from exercising the right of sufferage, and
from the privilege of holding office in the Territory, and it became the
duty of the Commission to exclude all such persons from participating in
the elections.
	The commission did not, however, consider this to be the sole object
of the law, but that it was also intended to make those offenses which
were practiced by the Mormon people in direct violation of the law, and
which were under the ban of civilization everywhere, odious.
	In order to accomplish this and to thoroughly convince the Mormon
people of its earnestness of purpose, and to impress them with the idea
that the Government, through its authorized agencies, meant that polygamy
should be punished and eradicated, and its sovereign power in the
enactment of laws for the suppression and punishment of crime should be
respected and obeyed by all people within its jurisdiction and limits, the
Commission adopted the rule of appointing registrars, wherever
practicable, from the Gentile or non Mormon element of the population,
believing them to be more in harmony with the attempts to carry out and
enforce the provisions of the law than members of the other party, and in
the matter of judges of election, the law requiring three persons, it
appointed, wherever they could be found, two out of the three from the
non-Mormon element. In many precincts none but Mormons were to be found,
and in such places Mormons were appointed. They have thus had re
resentation upon all election boards, and entire control of some.
	This policy of the Commission has been steadily pursued to the
present time, and, it is believed, with the most satisfactory results, as
evidence by the steady [121] increase of the anti-Mormon vote, and by the
abandonment, except in some remote districts, of the open practice of
those offenses for the suppression of which the law was enacted. * * *
	But the Commission has acted on the idea that it was the intention of
Congress to impress upon the Mormon people that it has a fixed purpose to
compel obedience to the laws enacted by it, and if possible, to bring them
and their institutions into harmonious relations with the General
Government; that to do this it has prescribed grave punishments for
offenses either sanctioned or tolerated by them and a denial of the right
to participate in the affairs of the Government by voting or holding any
office of honor, trust, or profit to all who are guilty of such offenses,
and thereby to convince those who are not actual offenders and criminals,
but who adhere to the same creed and lend their moral, if not open,
support and encouragement to those who do violate the law, concealing
their crimes and persons from the officers of the law and ostracising
those of their number who give aid in enforcing the law in any manner;
that they, to that extent, are under bans and not to be promoted to places
of trust and emolument so long as they thus give aid and comfort to those
who defy the law and lionize those who are convicted and punished as
heroes and martyrs who have suffered persecution for conscience sake by
meeting them with bands and triumphal processions as they leave the door
of the penitentiary and promoting them to higher offices in the church.
	It may be considered a quasi punishment imposed upon them while they
are still permitted to use the ballot in all elections held in the
Territory. It is quite certain, to, that if Mormons were placed in control
of the election machinery they would give the most liberal construction
possible in favor of the peculiar practices and tenets they profess to
hold as revelations from God.
	We therefore insist that the Commission did right originally in
adopting the rule that the duties pertaining to registrations and
elections should be placed in the hands of and be performed by those who
were not in sympathy with the Mormon church and creed, and that [122] the
wisdom of a strict adherence to that line of policy has been demonstrated
by the charges that have been produced and in the awakened prosperity and
progress which are everywhere visible.
	Polygamy is not at the present openly practiced, except perhaps in a
few remote and out of the way places, but the non-Mormon element insists
that plural marriages are solemnized clandestinely and practiced secretly
in the larger centers and throughout the Territory. This may or may not be
true. This Commission neither affirms nor denies in the absence of
positive evidence. We know this, however, to be a fact. There are places
where Mormons must necessarily be appointed registration officers for the
reason that no Gentile qualified to hold the position is to be found in
the community in which the duties are to be performed. This Commission
annually sends out circulars to each registration officer in the
Territory, requesting him to report any cases of parties who have entered
into polygamy or bigamy, and while from a number of places reports have
been made by Gentile registrars, giving names, times, and places as nearly
as practicable, not one case has ever been reported by a Mormon registrar,
although it is sometimes strongly asserted, and generally believed, that
the practice has been indulged in openly in some of their precincts. * * *
	In the opinion of the Commission, the influences brought to bear
under the act of Congress creating it and those amendatory thereof,
together with the vigorous administration of the criminal law by the
courts, have had a marked influence in restraint of polygamy. That which a
few years ago was practiced openly, and flaunted in the face of the world
as the boast and pride of this peculiar people, has been driven to cover
and the secrecy of other crimes. If plural marriages are now celebrated it
is done in the secret chambers of the temples and endowment houses, where
the light of the sun never enters and no eyes but those of priests and
neophites are allowed to witness the ceremonies.
	If polygamy is practiced, it is with the secrecy with which the
burglar guards his housebreaking and the thief [123] his larcenies. Few,
convictions are had for polygamy. Few, polygamous marriages can be proven
within three years, the period of limitation, but the trials and
convictions for unlawful cohabitation and kindred offences, a frequent
incident to polygamy, and generally with indications that they are of a
polygamous character, are, as will be seen from the statistics presented,
quite numerous in each of the three district courts of the Territory.
	Those who are convicted invariably regard themselves, and are
regarded by the church, as martyrs. When one is convicted, the usual
announcement in the organ of the church is that he has been convicted of
"living with his wives," or of "living his religion." Those eminent in the
church who have been convicted of sexual crimes on emerging from the
penitentiary, have in some instances been met at the prison doors by brass
bands and a procession with banners, escorted to their homes to be
toasted, extolled, and feasted as though it were the conclusion of some
brilliant and honorable achievement, rather than the expiration of a
sentence, an expiation for a crime committed against the laws of the
country, and a disgraceful confinement within the walls of a penal
institution.
	It is not regarded as any disgrace by the Mormons of Utah to have
served a term in the penitentiary for any of the sexual offenses inhibited
by the laws of Congress. On the contrary it is regarded as a badge of
merit, and as entitling the persons so convicted to promotion in the
church, as has been the case in some instances.
	The law, as administered by the courts, mercifully keeps open the
door to escape punishment for all convicted of polygamy by offering them a
suspension of sentence and amnesty for the past, upon the sole condition
that they make a promise in open court to obey and live within the laws,
and keep the same; yet few accept the offer so graciously made, nearly all
preferring the prison life and its privations to a renunciation of the
article of their creed which puts them under the ban of the law and at
war, as it were, with the Government which gives them protection.
[124] Fear of punishment for their crimes, dread of further and more
stringent legislation, and a policy dictated by the hope of statehood at
an early period, when they would be the State and make and administer the
laws in accord with their peculiar institutions and pretended revelations,
are sufficient motives to account for the prudent submission that is shown
at present. * * *
	The Commission in previous reports has made certain recommendations
which were, in its opinion, necessary and proper to give force and effect
to the provisions of the law under which it was created and which had not
yet been enacted into law.
	These may be summarized as follows:
	(1) In regard to the courts. The conferring upon the district courts
jurisdiction of all polygamous and sexual offenses without regard to the
place in the Territory committed; investing them with power co-extensive
with that possessed by the United States circuit and district courts in
the States in the matter of contempt and the punishment thereof;
authorizing the process of subpoena to run from the Territorial courts
into any other district of the United States; authorizing the selection of
jurors by open venire, providing that when continuance is granted on
motion of defendant, depositions of witnesses on the part of the
prosecution may be taken on notice and used in case the witness be dead,
absent from the Territory, or so concealed as to elude the service of
subpoena, and that a sufficient fund to enable the prosecuting officers to
efficiently perform their duties and enforce the laws be furnished by the
Department of Justice to the proper law officers of the Territory.
	(2) That prosecutions for polygamy and bigamy be exempted from the
operation of the general statue of limitations.
	(3) That the term of imprisonment for unlawful cohabitation, fixed by
section 2 of the act of 1882, be extended to at least two years for the
first and three years for the second offense. The Commission adds to this
the recommendation that the term of imprisonment for polygamy, bigamy, and
unlawful cohabitation be extended, and that hard labor be added to the
punishment.
[125] (4) That it be made a penal offense for any woman to enter into the
marriage relation with any man, knowing him to have a wife living,
undivorced, coupled, however, with the provision that in cases where a
polygamous wife is called as a witness against the husband, her testimony
could not be used in any future prosecution against her, and a like
provision as to the husband.
	(5) The appointment of the Territorial auditor, treasurer,
commissioners to locate university lands, probate judges, county clerks,
selectmen, assessors and collectors, recorders and superintendents of
district schools, by the governor, subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
	(6) That all persons be excluded by law from making a location and
settlement upon any of the public lands who shall refuse on demand to take
and subscribe an oath, before a proper officer of the land office in which
his or her application is made, that he or she does not cohabit with more
than one man or one woman, as the case may be, in the marriage relation,
and that he or she will obey the laws of the United States in relation to
polygamy and bigamy.
	(7) That the laws with reference to the immigration of Chinese, and
the importation of contract laborers, paupers, and criminals be so amended
as to prevent the immigration of persons claiming that their religion
justifies the crime of polygamy.
	(8) A Constitutional amendment forever prohibiting polygamy.
	(9) The enactment of a law creating a board to consist of the
governor, Utah Commission, and the secretary of the Territory, to
apportion Salt Lake City into aldermanic and councilmanic districts.
	The Commission respectfully recommends all these propositions to the
attention of Congress, and in addition makes the following
recommendations:
	(10) Authorizing this commission, in its discretion; to cause to be
made annually a new registration instead of revisions of former lists, and
to make and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with the laws
of the United States for the conduct of registrations and elec-[126]tions.
	(11) That Congress pass laws for the government and public schools in
the Territory of Utah.
	(12) That as soon as the result of the census of 1890 is known, there
be created a board consisting of the governor, Utah Commission, and
secretary of the Territory with power to redistrict the Territory for
legislative purposes.
	Some of these propositions are of grave importance, and may provoke
much discussion and adverse criticism. Those relating to the practice in
the courts will be at once understood by our law-makers, and need no
explanation. * * *
	In regard to a law establishing and regulating the management of free
schools, the Commission is not of the opinion that the legislature of
Utah, as likely to be constituted for some time to come, can be expected
or trusted to establish a system of free schools in sympathy with the
enlightenment of the age, or free from the teachings of polygamy and so
called revelations, and therefore recommend that Congress assume the duty
providing for the education and enlightenment of the youth of the
Territory.
	The Commission believes the limitation on prosecutions for polygamy
and bigamy should be extended, among other reasons, because, under the
peculiar missionary service of the church it is easy for one to enter
polygamy, go on a mission for three years, and return to assume his
polygamous relations, defying the authorities to punish him for the main
offense, and be in danger only of prosecution for the lesser offense of
unlawful cohabitation. The term of imprisonment for this offense should be
increased to meet this state of affairs, and sentence of hard labor should
be added, that their confinement may not be spent in idleness and
glorification of their supposed martyrdom.
	The Commission has no doubt that punishment of the woman for
voluntarily entering the polygamous relation would do much to lessen her
zeal for the peculiar institution, and thus tend to remove one of its
strongest bulwarks.
[127] It recommends the granting to the governor the power to appoint the
officers named, because:
	(1) He is more nearly than any other the representative of the power
and majesty of the Government among the people of the Territory, and
granting powers to him which will bring him more and more into direct
contact with them would tend to increase their respect for the National
Government, an element almost unknown to them.
	(2) Because residing among them, he can better judge of the
necessities of the case and of the qualifications of the officers to be
appointed than would be possible if the appointing power should be vested
in the President.
	(3) Because such power would take the control of Utah affairs out of
the hands of officers who are chosen, not by a free selection of the
people, but whose nomination is made by "counsel" from the priesthood, and
whose election is a mere form, and place it in the hands of men who
represent civilized ideas, are in sympathy with the efforts of Congress to
suppress polygamy, and will assist the officers of the Government in the
work of enforcing the laws, instead of using all the influence and moral
support of their positions to nullify the laws, prevent execution, and
shield offenders, as is now the rule and practice.
	In regard to the proposed amendment of the immigration laws and the
restriction upon the location of public lands the Commission respectfully
submits, that while we forbid the immigration of the non-proselyting,
peace loving, docile Chinaman, because we fear a future danger from his
coming, while we forbid the landing on our shores of contract laborers,
because they cheapen wages of American-born citizens, and paupers, because
they may become a burden, there is far greater reason for closing our
doors as a nation, and forbidding citizenship to the hordes who are
brought here to swell the ranks of an organized body, which teaches them
in advance to hate the Government of the United States, denominates its
executive, law-makers, judges, and prosecutors as persecutors, and
instills into every mind the constant teaching that their pretended
revelations are more bind-[128]ing than the highest and best laws of the
land, and that resistance to such laws is a virtue and a rendering of
obedience to God. How far short of treason these teachings are we leave
those who can to answer. By cutting off this importation of generally
ignorant and fanatical classes, many of whom neither speak nor care to
learn our language, and to say the least are not in sympathy with the
institutions or the laws of our country, the principal source of the
growth of this conspiracy against what we hold as best and dearest in
American civilization would be materially diminished, and the spread of
this relic of Oriental barbarism to that extent averted.
	The Commission would further suggest for the careful consideration of
Congress, the propriety and expediency of enacting laws providing for the
disfranchisement of such persons who may not themselves be guilty of
crimes forbidden by law, but who are or may become members of
organizations or societies whose tenets and principles are inimical to the
Constitution and laws of the country, and teach that the practice of
certain criminal acts are virtues, and throws about its members who do
practice such crimes the shield of the whole power of such organizations,
morally, socially, and otherwise, and to debar them from the privileges of
the homestead laws. The Commission does not strenuously urge such
legislation at this time, partially because the Supreme Court has not yet
passed upon the constitutionality and legality of such enactments.
	The Commission yields to none in reverence for and earnest desire to
protect from violation every provision of that instrument, sacred to every
true American citizen as the palladium of his liberties and the great
safeguard of the Republic, but it is not of the opinion that laws made to
prevent crime, to prevent combinations and conspiracy against the State,
and to punish persons who combine and conspire to commit crime can be
called laws which interfere with religion, whether the persons who so
combine and conspire call themselves by the name of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints or by any other name, whether they pretend
that their conspiracy is a religion or openly declare their object to
[129] be to commit crime.
	Religious fanaticism even can not be allowed to commit crimes against
the law or to teach others to do so, either by the acts of the individual
or an organization composed of many individuals, whether they avow that
they act voluntarily or under a pretended spiritual revelation.
	The law aims at the crime against society, no matter by what name it
is called, or in what guise it is perpetrated. The man who robs you in the
guise of a Samaritan is no less a robber because of his disguise.
	It may not he considered out of place to mention the fact that
similar views to those above expressed have received the sanction and
approval of the supreme court of Idaho in deciding the appeal in the case
of Dooley vs. Watkins et al., a case in which the principles involved in
the suggestion of the Commission are ably discussed. The Commission
desires to commend the governor, the judges, and district attorney and
assistants of the Territorial district courts, and the officers of the
United States generally for Utah, for the intelligent, zealous, and
faithful manner in which they have performed their difficult and sometimes
arduous and distasteful duties in enforcing the laws of Congress, and for
the willing and efficient aid they have given the Commission upon all
occasions. The utmost harmony exists among all the Government officials in
the Territory, so far as is known to the Commission.
	In concluding, the Commission is of the opinion that in this matter
the Government and Congress should take no backward or even wavering step,
but should continue the active and vigorous enforcement of the laws, and
the improvement of them by the amendment of such as would be made more
effective thereby, and by enacting such into laws as experience may show
to be wise and more efficacious to accomplish the desired end, until not
only the practice but the inculcation of crimes of this nature shall, as
far as possible, be stamped out, and until a majority of the people shall
abandon a pretended belief in doctrines which incite to treason against
the state, which sap the foundations of society, and re-[130]tard the
growth of nineteenth-century civilization, and until they show that they
can be trusted to make and enforce laws which forbid the practices
elsewhere universally condemned. * * *

MINORITY REPORT, John A. McClernard:
	Recapitulating with brief addition: Polygamy is contrary to the
divine exonomy; contrary also to the moral law and to enlightened opinion.
It breeds caprice, cruelty, and license. It enervates the man and
debauches the woman. Physically, socially, and morally it deteriorates and
corrupts. Despotic in the family, it prototypes and engenders despotism in
the state. Perforce it works its own retribution, and so it accounts for
the unequal development of the Asiatic and European races; for the
indolence and feebleness of the one; for the enterprise and energy of the
other. Incapacity and inferiority are its label and condemnation. Hence,
in the armed contests of rival civilizations (sic) notably in ancient
Greece and modern India, it succumbed to the characteristic valor and
vigor of represented monogamy.
	Following the example of the wisest and most progressive nations, and
with them holding fast to the attar of individual purity and
self-restraint as the imperative condition to national esteem, strength,
and prestige, the United States have placed the seal of condemnation upon
polygamous practices everywhere within the domain of their exclusive
jurisdiction. The relevant laws enacted by Congress are numerous and cover
a period of nearly forty years. To assist to an easy and ready
apprehension of their purport, I subjoin here substantially their
pertinent provisions and their familiar popular titles:
	The act of 1862 declares, as a rule, that any person having a husband
or wife, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single,
shall be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and upon conviction thereof, by a
jury, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $500, and by imprisonment
not exceeding five years. (Sec. 1.)
	The "Poland act" of 1874 provides that in all criminal [131] cases
the court and not the jury shall pronounce the punishment under the
limitation prescribed by law and withholds from each party more than three
peremptory challenges in any criminal case except murder. (Sec. 4.)
	The "Edmunds act" of 1882 is more comprehensive, yet more minute. It
declares polygamy and unlawful cohabitation severally to be offenses, and
defines what shall constitute each; annexes to the one the same penalties
enacted by the act of 1862, and to the other a fine not exceeding $300, or
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, in the discretion of the
court; and allow's a joinder of counts for polygamy and unlawful
cohabitation in the same information or indictment. (Secs. 1, 3, 4.)
 	Disqualifies any person from serving as a juror in any prosecution
for polygamy or unlawful cohabitation, who is living or has lived in th
(sic) practice of bigamy, polygamy, or of unlawful cohabitation with more
than one woman, or who believes it right for a man to have more than one
living and undivorced wife at the same time, or who believes it right to
live in the practice of cohabitation with more than one woman, if such
person shall be challenged as a juror for any such cause. (Sec. 6.)
	Legitimates the issue of polygamous marriages solemnized according to
the ceremonies of the Mormon sect, who were born before the 1st day of
January, 1883. (Sec. 7.)
	Disqualifies any polygamist or other person cohabiting with more than
one woman from voting at any election, or for election or appointment to
any office of trust, honor, or emolument. (Sec. 8.)
	The "Edmunds-Tucker act" of 1887, extending the purview of the
previous acts, defines other crimes and misdemeanors with their penalties,
namely:
	Incest, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than
three nor more than fifteen years. (Sec. 4.)
	Adultery, punishable by like imprisonment not exceeding three years.
(Sec. 3.)
[132] Fornication, punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months or
by fine not exceeding $100. (Sec. 5.)
	Waives, in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful
cohabitation, the process of subpoena, for sworn cause, for the process of
attachment, instead, to the witness. (Sec. 2.)
	Qualifies the lawful husband or wife, each, with his or her consent,
to testify as a witness touching the other, in any prosecution for bigamy,
polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, except as to any statement or
communication made by either deemed at common law confidential. (Sec. 1.)
	Requires every celebration of marriage performed in Utah to be signed
by the parties thereto, and by every priest or other person taking part
therein, and that the evidence of marriage when so authenticated shall be
filed in the office of the probate court for record, and that such record
shall remain subject to inspection, and punishes any willful violation of
the requirement by fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not
exceeding two years, or by both, in the discretion of the court. (Sec. 9.)
	Vests in the commissioners who are or may be appointed by the supreme
court or district courts in the Territory the same powers and jurisdiction
possessed by the justices of the peace therein, or by the commissoners
appointed by the circuit courts of the United States. (Sec. 7.)
	Continues the powers and duties of the Utah Commission until it shall
have been superseded by the legislative assembly of the Territory with the
express approval of Congress. (See. 23.)
	Abolishes the right of female suffrage for any public purpose (sec.
20), and limits the right of male suffrage by the precedent condition that
such person shall have registered his name as a voter and subscribed an
oath or affirmation that he is over twenty-one years of age; has resided
in the Territory six months and in the precinct of his residence one
month--including in such oath or affirmation a statement, according to the
fact, that [133] he is a native-born or naturalized citizen, of his age,
his place of business, his status, whether single or married, and if
married, the name of his lawful wife; that he will support the
Constitution of the United States and faithfully obey the laws thereof,
and especially the act of 1882 and this act in respect to the crime
therein defined and forbidden, and will not, directly or indirectly, aid
or abet, counsel or advise any other person to commit any of said crimes.
(See. 24.)
	Disqualifies any person to serve as a juror or to hold any office who
shall not have first taken an oath or affirmation setting forth his full
name, his age and place of business, his status, whether single or
married, and, if married, the name of his lawful wife, and that he will
support the Constitution of the United States and obey the laws thereof;
or who shall have been convicted of any crime under the act of 1882 or
this act. (Sec. 24.)
	Regulates and secures the right of dower (sec. 18); makes the judges
of the probate courts appointive by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate (sec. 19); requires the governor and the
secretary of the Territory, with the Utah Commission, to redistrict the
Territory into representative and councilor districts, and to apportion
the representation of the people of the Territory in porportion to their
numbers and the number of the districts and of the members of the present
legislative assembly. (Sec. 23.)
	Provides the agencies and mode of forfeiting and escheating to the
United States, for the use of common schools, the property of corporations
obtained or held in violation of the act of 1862, except buildings, with
their appurtenant grounds, held and occupied exclusively for the worship
of God, or for the parsonages connected therewith, or for burial places.
(Secs. 13, 14.)
	Disapproves and annuls all laws of the legislative assembly of the
Territory, or of the so-called State of Deseret, creating, organizing,
amending, or continuing the corporation called the Perpetual Emigration
Company, and, dissolving it, provides the mode and agencies of adjudging
its dissolution and of carrying the same into effect. Forbids the assembly
from passing any law [134] operating to bring persons into the Territory;
and escheats the property and assets of the corporation, in excess of its
lawful liabilities of the United States for investment and disposition, by
the Secretary of the Interior, for the benefit of common schools in the
Territory. (Secs. 15, 16.)
	Disapproves and annuls all acts of the legislative assembly of the
Territory; also the ordinance of the so-called state of Deseret
incorporating, continuing, or providing for the corporation known as the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; disincorporates and dissolves
that corporation; vests the supreme court of the Territory with equity
power to wind up the affairs of the corporation conformably to law, and to
carry all these provisions into effect, and, in so doing, to cause to be
transferred to trustees, for the use of the corporation, the real estate
now held and used by it for places of worship, and for parsonages
connected therewith, and for burial grounds, subject to the limitation
imposed in that regard by sections 13 and 26 of the act. (Secs. 13, 17,
26.)
	Suspends the laws of the Territory providing the method of electing
and appointing the Territorial superintendent of district schools;
abolishes the office of such superintendent, and makes it the duty of the
supreme court of the Territory to appoint a commissioner of schools,
clothed with the same powers and charged with the same duties appertaining
to the Territorial superintendent under the laws of the Territory; clothed
also with the power to prohibit the use of any book of a sectarian
character or otherwise unsuitable in any district school; and charges him
also with the duty of reporting annually to Congress, through the governor
of the Territory and the Secretary of the Interior, concerning the number
of children of school age, the proportions attending and not attending
school, and generally of the progress of the schools and the operation of
his office. (Sec. 25.)
	It annuls all laws passed by the so-called state of Deseret or by the
legislative assembly of the Territory for the organization of the militia
or the creation of the [135] Nauvoo Legion, and provides that the militia
of Utah shall be organized and subjected in all respects to the laws of
the United States, and that the governor of the Territory, by and with the
advice and consent of the council thereof, shall appoint all general
officers of the militia, until, as further provided, the assembly shall
have passed other laws for organizing the militia, subject to the approval
of Congress.
	These laws are far-reaching and stringent. They bespeak an unusual
remedy for an obstinate and formidable evil. They extend to all offenders
convicted of violating them not only the penalty of fine and imprisonment,
or both, but forfeiture of the elective franchise and eligibility to hold
office or to perform jury service. More than that, they cautiously
require, even of non-offenders, a test oath involving divers unusual
precedent conditions to the exercise of the elective franchise or to the
holding of office or serving as a juror. * * *
	From the earliest history of England, the mother country, the offense
was treated as one inimical to the well being of society, and a statue of
James I, denounced it as a felony punishable with death, if committed in
England or Wales. In 1788 Virginia re-enacted substantially the same
statue, including the death penalty, (see Appendix) and since then it may
be safely affirmed that there has never been a day in any State in the
Union when polygamy was not cognizable as a crime by the civil courts and
was not punishable with more or less severity.
	Recurring to the subject of actual decline of polygamous offenses, as
already noticed, it is proper to remark that that fact carries with it a
pregnant and welcome moral significance. It means the birth of a
reformatory spirit and its advancing development. This truth is variously
evidenced. * * *
	In conformity with these cannons, thus variously pro-pounded, the
Commission has from time to time officially assured the Mormon people
domiciled in Utah that the Government of the United States had no no (sic)
design to coerce them for their church membership, or their religious
opinions, and that all that was required [136] or could be rightfully
required of them was to obey the laws.
	In the Commission's first annual report, 1882, it said:
	"The legislation of Congress as we understand it is not enacted
against the religion of any portion of the people of this Territory. The
law under which we are acting is directed against the crime of polygamy.
	In its report of 1883 it said that-
	"By abstaining from the polygamic relation they (the Mormons) will
enjoy all the political rights of American citizens. "
	In its report of 1886 is said:
	"We recognize the obligation of the Government of the United States
to protect the personal and property rights of the Mormon people, and to
deal with them as equals before the law, yet it is equally the duty of the
Government to punish crime."
	Again, in its circular of March, 1887, to election officers, it said,
after enumerating all the disqualifications of voters-
	"That no opinion which they (the Mormons) may entertain upon
questions of religion or church policy should be the subject of inquiry or
exclusion from the polls."
	But this limitation, while shielding the elector, does not
necessarily include the juror, the nature of whose functions imperatively
requires of him judicial impartiality. Hence the law of 1882 wisely and
conservatively provides that any one offered as a juror in a prosecution
for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation under a statue of the
United States, who believes the acts constituting these offenses right,
shall, for such cause, upon challenge, be rejected.
	With this record of historic names and wisdom and of [137] the
organic and municipal law of the land outstretched before us, what
addition to it, if any, does experience now admonish?
	Answering this question, I would respectfully recommend an amendment
to the Federal Constitution perpetually prohibiting polygamy under
whatsoever its guise, not only in the States, but also in the Territories
and other places over which the United States have or may have exclusive
jurisdiction.
	The importance of such an amendment can not be overestimated. I would
draw under a common and uniform civil cognizance the conditions of
marriage and divorce, with the evidence and the authentication of the
evidence of their verity, and thus subserve convenience and certainty in
respect of the paramount feature of social life. Moreover, it would draw
under the same cognizance the question of monogamy and polygamy, upon the
dual terms of which in the one case turns the capacities of individual,
social, and national development, and, in the other, turns the deadening
and corrupting influence of the patriarchal principle and stationary
despotism.
	It would substitute a lasting organic law for a fugitive legislative
enactment, which must cease to operate with the cessation of the anomalous
Territorial condition.
	It would raise an inferred and parasitic power, obscurely deduced
from another power, administrative in its terms, and pointing directly to
the disposal of property, to the dignity and distinctness of an expressed
power.
	It would inure as a solemn, deliberate, and final repudiation in this
country of the Asiatic and African pestilence, polygamy.
	It would be an authoritative and conclusive notification to
immigrants from every land that We United States are dedicated to the
virtues and blessings of monogamy, and, not least, the amendment, passing
as a lesson unto the common and higher schools of the land, would form and
train the minds of generations in accord with its Spirit, and reason. * *
*
	The Mormon religion purged of its impurities will [138] probably
survive, how long no one can foresee. Its votaries, impelled by the zeal
characteristic of a new sect, are active propagandists. Its vices,
however, like those distorting any other system, must be amenable to the
corrective laws of progress and intelligence. Civilization is a sublime
revelation, modifying, improving, and elevating the yearnings of the human
heart and mind. The ages of that fanaticism and fatuity which contrived
the inquisition and the rack; which invented the medieval writ "de
heretico comubrento"; which burned Latimer and Ridley at the stake; which
inflicted the massacre of St. Bartholomew; which ruthlessly exterminated
dissenters from orthodoxy in the Netherlands, and which drove the
Puritans, the Huguenots, the Quakers, and their co-devotees to the cause
of freedom in their native lands to find refuge in the New World, and to
people it with teeming millions, and to bless it with republican
principles and forms--those ages have passed away. To revive their dark
and intolerant spirit now, in the nineteenth century, would add another
proof and lament that the course of nations is not upon straight lines,
but in wayward circles, ending where they began and rebeginning where they
ended. The commentary of the philosophical historian would not be doubted.
Passing the dismal panorama of reaction before him, he would not spare
just censure upon whomsoever or whatsoever it should fall.

25 Sep 1889, A House of Ill-Fame Raided:
	"Yesterday about noon J. B. McLellan. arrested Eugene Cambell of the
Globe hotel on Grant avenue, for keeping a house of prostitution. He also
took in charge four girls, one of them colored, on the charge of resorting
to the house of ill-fame for immoral purposes. They were at once taken
before Commissioner Cross, where the girls pleaded guilty with the
exception of one, who was sick and who was allowed to go. Their names were
Sou Cleveland, Jane Doe and Carry Green. They were fined $10 and costs and
committed to the county jail for thirty days.
[139] "Campbell was placed on the stand and from his testimony one would
judge that the family had lived in a fearful condition for sometime. He is
said to have a daughter who is a prostitute and has now, a child only
three days old. He had kept several girls in the house for some time, and
his wife and small children lived in the midst of this sin and misery. The
resort was kept for parties of both color. He was committed to the county
jail for four months, and was fined $100 and costs, to stand committed
until the fine and costs were paid.
	"Deputy McLellan states that Eugene Campbell was convicted some time
ago in the First District Court of adultery, but Judge Henderson suspended
sentence during good behavior." (Ogden Standard, see also Deseret Evening
News, 25 Sep, 1889)

29 Sep 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
	This morning THE TRIBUNE lays before its readers the current annual
report of the Utah Commission. The telegraphic summary of its points was
given in a fairly accurate manner; it also justifies reasonably well the
forecasts made of it by the Associated Press. Best of all, it will please
the loyal Americans of Utah, and will give them courage and strength for
the heavy fight they must win against the legions of darkness. A very
large portion of the report is taken up with a review of facts familiar
here and a statement of laws and conditions we all know. We are glad to
see that this report recognizes the continued tendency toward polygamy of
the Mormon people, in the advocacy of it by their press and priests, and
in the persistant reports from the Mormon temples. It is true, as the
Commission say, that it is so difficult as to be in the main impossible to
obtain legal proof of these illicit marriage ceremonies; but it comes out
incidently in a large number of the unlawful cohabitation cases that there
must have been to give rise to them, recent polygamous marriages. And
cases of proof of the actual polygamous ceremony are not altogether
wanting. A very plain case was developed against HANS JESPERSON at Provo
on Thursday last, where the plural wife swore positively to the ceremony
and the [140] place and time; conviction will be easy. The report as to
the Mormon attitude on this matter is able and accurate. It is equally
true and emphatic on the results which would follow the admission of Utah
as a State, and against any such disastrous move.
	For the recommendations made, the Gentiles owe thanks to the
Commission. The suggestions relating to the amendment of the laws in such
manner as to facilitate the work of the courts are such as experience has
shown to be needful, so that the courts may work freely and with
efficiency. The recommendations that the time limitation be removed for
prosecutions; that punishment for unlawful cohabitation be extended to two
years, that hard labor be coupled with the sentence, and that women be
made amenable to the law, if they knowingly enter into polygamy, are all
strictly in the line with the narrowing of the circle around the
law-breakers that was promised if they refused to surrender to the law.
They are also right in themselves. Unlawful cohabitation is simply
continuous polygamy, and is the real offense aimed at; it was a blunder to
fix the penalty so low. Hard labor is the usual sentence of felons, and
there is no reason why the most persistent of them should escape it. Women
are not now obliged, even by Church pressure, to go into polygamy; if they
sin knowingly and perversely, as they must do now when they sin at all,
there is no reason in the world why they should escape the penalty.
	The recommendation to forbid the immigration of defiant polygamists
and to forbid such taking the public lands, are well, though tardy; these
measures have been advocated in Utah for years, and are just. The
recommendations for a redistricting of Salt Lake City and a Legislative
reapportionment for the Territory after the coming census should be
complied with as a matter of course; they are but the ordinary political
provisions that usually prevail without question.
	The recommendation that the public schools be lifted out of Mormon
solution and put in loyal hands is but the dictate of patriotic wisdom; it
is a recommendation that cannot be carried out too soon, and when done it
will be a long step toward the final and permanent solution [141] of the
long-pending "Utah question."
	The report strikes a vital point also where it recommends that the
county officials it names should be appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the Commission; an entirely practicable plan of procedure,
and one that would do more than any other one thing suggested to destroy
the theocratic power here, since it would deprive the theocracy of the
power of distributing these offices (which are often great rewards and
bribes) as rewards of merit or inducement to the wavering to stay with the
organization.
	Altogether, the tone of the report is admirable, the Commissioners
have done themselves credit in formulating and signing it. (Salt Lake
Tribune)

29 Sep 1889, The Mice Do Play:
	Yesterday we printed the rebellious expressions of a Mormon paper at
Nephi against the undue influence of the priesthood in Mormon politics. We
give herewith an editorial of the latest issue of the Wasatch Wave,
printed at Heber City, ABE HATCH's home. It deals with another phase of
Mormon "peculiarity, " and though not quite as squarely put as the Nephi
man's protest, it is yet a hopeful sign of progress. The Wave, in speaking
of Judge JUDD's recent charge to the grand jury at Provo, says:
	"Judge Judd in his charge to the grand jury last Monday said, that
when the jury came to consider the offenses peculiar here, they should
remember that what they did should be done in a humane and Christian
spirit. They should not carry out some person's malicious schemes, and
should bring in no indictment unless they believed it was bound to
convict. "These people," he said, "must bow to the supremacy of the law.
They must acknowledge the law; must respect the law, and not hate it. The
people must take a new stand; they must obey the law or leave the
territory and government of the United States. There is a cims of people
here who married plural wives before the government actively undertook to
enforce the laws, and who are aged people; [142] they should be delt with
leniently. But when young men 30 or 40 years of age violate the law with
their eyes open, they should be dealt with vigorously and without mercy".
	"No fairer charge than this could be made by any Judge under the
present peculiar condition of affairs in this Territory.
	"The United States Congress has enacted laws against certain
practices in this Territory. These laws have been declared constitutional
by the highest judicial power of the land, and, as the Judge says, they
must be obeyed. It is impossible for any people or association of persons,
in any country or under any government, to live to open violation of the
laws passed by the legislative department of that Government, and declared
valid by the highest judicial function. The people must obey the law or
the Government is worthless, and cannot stand. Every subject must
acknowledge the supremacy of the law and obey it, or suffer the
consequence of disobedience.
	"In this Territory there are aged men who years ago married plural
wives, some of them before there was any law of the United States
forbidding it; others, after such a law had been enacted but before it had
been declared valid by the courts. These men married their young wives
long, long ago, have lived and associated with them and raised families,
and it is hard for them now to give up their families, discard them,
disown them, and say they will literally obey the law. These men deserve
leniency and sympathy. But men who have married plural wives of late
years, who have knowingly and defiantly, and, as Judge Judd says, violated
the law with their eyes open-well, it is quite a different thing. Of this
we have nothing to say. We pass."
 	It is only now that any Mormon papers would dare to say such things,
and they only dare to say them now because of the progress made by Liberal
sentiment. That progress saps the foundation of the ridiculous Mormon
claims to infallibilty (sic), and undermines the foul structure of sin and
shame that has been reared in Utah. It would not be possible for the
Mormon papers in Salt Lake to say such things as the remoter papers are
saying; [143] the presence of the terrible central cat prevents any such
display of friskiness on the part of the central mice; but on the
outskirts the mice take more freedom, even risking the deadly stroke of a
paw that might annihilate them. But this stolen freedom may, by-and-by,
get to be a right; such liberties sometimes grow that way. That they may
do so in this case constitutes the need and the hope of Utah. (Salt Lake
Tribune)

30 Sep 1889, Deseret Evening News:
	THE report of the Utah Commission to the Secretary of the Interior, a
synopsis of which has been furnished by the Associated Press and which we
have already reviewed, is being noticed by the newspapers and will no
doubt be widely commented upon.
	The Springfield Republican, referring to the suggestion of the
Commission as to the adopting of the Idaho test oath infamy, says:
	"So long as Congress aims at the immoral practices of Mormons it will
be on safe ground. Beyond that a policy of repression is perilous."
	The Philadelphia Press remarks:
	"Every new measure brought forward against polygamy is more radical
than would have seemed possible a few years before. We have no doubt that
the twin relic will be suppressed eventually, though the process of
reaching it threatens to strain severely a good many old-fashioned notions
of personal right."
	Yes, those "old-fashioned notions of personal right" which were
entertained by the founders of this nation, and are embodied in the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States,
have received several severe strains in the treatment of the people called
"Mormons." And in their anxiety to supress and destroy an unorthodox creed
and people, the pretended puritans and moral legislators of the age will
continue to strain them until they are stretched beyond all
recog-[144]nition.
	The, measure now proposed, a few years ago would have been denounced
by every journal and statesman in the land, professing any veneration for
that civil and religious liberty considered essential to the perpetuity of
republican institutions. Familiarity with acts and projects that violate
the spirit of our system of government, blunts the perceptive powers and
dulls the sensibilities of those who favor them, and thus that veneration
for the basic principles of free government, which once imbued all hearts
in this great country, is giving place to sympathy with schemes of
expediency, and the doctrine that the end justifies the means is gaining
ground in high as well as low places in the land.
	We are sorry to see this, not only on account of its probable effects
upon the people of Utah, but because of its certain results, if it is
continued, upon the future of this whole government and nation. When those
sacred rights for which the fathers of our country struggled and died are
trampled upon by national sanction, woe to the people and their rulers by
whom the wrong is perpetrated: (Deseret Evening News)

1 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
	Up to an early hour on Sunday morning, we had hoped for his own
credit and for the patience of the loyal men of Utah, that Gen. McCLERNAND
would refrain from inflicting on the public an adverse report as a member
of the Utah Commission. But the infliction came along, like other
nuisances in their season, to exasperate and annoy, like the, potatobug,
the curculio or the appleworm. An abstract of the childish rubbish he sent
in for a minority report of the Utah Commission was telegraphed on Sunday
morning. Since a similar abstract telegraphed Friday night turned out to
be a very fair and accurate statement of the points in the Commission
report proper, we are justified in assuming that this abstract of
Commissioner McCLERNAND'S paper is also a fair summary of its contents. We
may, then, confidently say that this alleged "report" of a minority which
is composed of one member is simply a Mormon [145] harangue; we report
such every week in brief from the Tabernacle speakers, and see them
constantly in the Mormon papers. The whole tone of the document is that
somebody is proposing to interfere with the liberty of conscience, and to
undertake the extripation of a religion by a persecution for which it
cites the burning of LATIMER and RIDLEY at the stake and the massacre of
St. Bartholomew as parallels. Such talk is simply the babbling of a feeble
and malicious old man in his dotage. There is no proposition to do
anything whatever by law with respect to any religion or in any way to
affect the freedom of conscience; it is proposed to stop active crime and
to bring Utah into harmony with American institutions; that is all; and
the gush about religion and conscience is but foolish twaddle, having no
relevance to any living issue; the froth about individual liberty and
political rights threatened are simply vain beatings of the empty air. The
most that has ever been proposed is that aliens shall be treated as
aliens; when they forsake their alien allegiance then they are entitled to
political rights in the United States, and not before.
	Commissioner McCLERNAND was sent out here under the provisions of an
act to aid in the suppression of polygamy in Utah, and to take the control
of the elections out of the hands of a polygamous priesthood; he has
constantly voted to restore the control of elections to that priesthood,
and for now these three years has openly come out as the friend and
apologist of polygamy and polygamists, urging in their behalf the very
sophistries and deceptive phrases which they themselves employ in
protesting against the enforcement of existing statues. It is therefore
plain that General McCLERNAND has ranged himself on the side of the
law-defiers and against the law, and this with a persistent obstinacy
which leaves no room for doubt that all chance for his usefulness as a
member of the Commission is gone. He is hostile to the law which gives him
place and in sympathy with the very thing that he, as an official, is
pledged to oppose. Such an anomalous position would be an intolerable one
for a man of spirit and conscience; such a man finding himself in the
position Gen. McCLERNAND is would [146] escape by resignation; but Gen.
McCLERNAND is very old, and probably does not realize, as a man in the
full possession of his faculties would do, the dishonorable nature of his
position. Yet his failure to respond to what honor demands should not
operate as a brake on the loyal people of Utah. They should move promptly
in this case, and protest in no unmistakable terms against the continuance
of a Mormon mouthpiece in a position which he prostitutes; of an official
in a place where he openly proclaims his hostility to legislation to which
he owes his position; of an imbecile where vigor and strength are of all
needed requirements the chief . This is the appropriate vent for the
public indignation which will surely follow this renewed insult to loyal
sentiment and intelligence and outrage on public propriety. The demands
for Gen. McCLERNAND'S removal should follow swift and strong on the heels
of this wretched infliction he has put upon the public, and should be
backed by the full power and force of the Liberal sentiment and numerical
strength in Utah. The patience of the loyal men has been abused long
enough; their forbearance has been mocked at. There remains but one thing
to do; we must move on the enemy's works. (Salt Lake Tribune)

2 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
	We have waited for some days to see what the exponents of Mormonism
would say about the latest developed polygamy case, that of HANS JESPERSON
of Goshen, Utah County; but all have been silent. The complaint on which
the warrant for JESPERSON'S arrest was issued recites that the accused
committed the crime of polygamy on the 8th day of April, 1889, in Salt
Lake City, by feloniously marrying one ALICE HORTON, while he already had
a living and divorced wife. * * *
	On this state of facts our correspondent at Provo, on Monday of this
week, interviewed several of the leading lights of the polygamous church
there, with the following result:
	"The reporter called at the First National Bank to [147] interview
Stake President A. O. Smoot. The old gentleman was busy in the money vault
but on hearing himself asked for stepped out, and on being made acquainted
with the reporter's business, asked the scribe to step into the private
office. Asked the reporter, "Mr. Smoot, in view of what John T. Caine said
in Congress about polygamy being a dead issue in Utah, and the development
of the Jesperson case, what have you to say about the situation?"
	"I can say that I think Mr. Jesperson acted very unwisely and
indiscreetly. I don't think the authorities of the church sanctioned the
Jesperson marriage. If he was married at all, it is a bogus marriage. So
far as I know the church authorities have repudiated the practice, not the
doctrine of polygamy, therefore Caine's statement is substantially true.
If plural marriages are consummated now, they are clandestinely performed,
so far as I know. I didn't give a recommend to Jesperson to marry
polygamously. I may have endorsed a bishops recommend for him to do temple
work. I understand that no more plural marriages are solomnized in the
Temples."
	Thanking Mr. Smoot for the courtesy shown him THE TRIBUNE man
retired.
	David John, First Counselor to A. O. Smoot in this stake of Zion
said: "I don't know anything about it--don't understand it. The case has
created a regular stink, and no one in the Territory regrets the affair as
much as Mr. Smoot and myself. I have never given a recommend in this or
any other instance for a man to take a plural wife since the passage of
the Edmunds-Tucker law. As I understand it, polygamy is practically
repudiated by the Church, the practice, not the belief."
	S. S. Jones was seen in his office this morning buried in a bundle of
business letters. He smilingly greeted the reporter and talked freely of
the Jesperson case. Mr. Jones's plural wife is sister to Jesperson's legal
wife and, therefore, it is apparent that Mr. J.'s opinion would be of
public interest. Mr. Jones said:
	"As long as I live I'm not going back on my religion, polygamy
included, but I've got no United States to set [148] up on end. I am not
responsible for what Mr. Cain or any one else say. I believe in polygamy
as much as ever, but the practice is another thing, just now. I'm not
directing the affairs of the Church; I have enough to do to manage my own
business."
	John G. Grahm, editor of the Enquirer hadn't heard that the doctrine
or practice of plural marriage had been authoritively repudiated by the
Church authorities; don't think there is anything in the Jesperson case;
was perfectly astounded at it, when he heard of it. I have been under the
impression that no polygamous marriages had taken place in two or three
years past. If Caine stated in Congress that polygamy is a dead issue--but
I don't think he did, without some qualifications--in view of the
Jesperson case, it will be an awful position for our Delegate Caine in
Congress next winter.
	Acting City Prosecuting Attorney W. H. King, a leading light in the
People's party and the church here, held that Caine spoke truly. "There
may be isolated cases," said Mr. King, "of violating the law, as the
Jesperson one for instance. I wouldn't say that the church has repudiated
polygamy, but there has been a great diminution in if not entire cessation
of polygamous marriages. It is a dead issue in Utah, politically. I think
the authorities of the church act negatively rather than otherwise with
respect to the principle. I don't think the ecclesiastical authorities
would recommend a man to violate the law, by entering into polygamy, and
would refuse to extend that opportunity to him."
	It is clear from the above that the pretended abandonment of the
practice of polygamy is all humbug; that the preliminary steps thereto
have been altered, and that instead of the candidate for surreptitious
matrimony receiving a permit from his bishop, which must be endorsed by
the president of the stake, some other routine has been established.
President SMOOT, who has the repute of being one of the most
straightforward and honest of the polygamous presidents, is not quite
candid in his statement, for whatever the routine is he undoubtedly is
familiar with it, and his concealment on this point is [149] not in accord
with his frankness elsewhere when he confesses that the approaches to
these illicit weddings are such that he is able to disown an active part
in them. "So far as I know," says SMOOT, "the church authorities have
repudiated the practice, not the doctrine, of polygamy, therefore CAINE'S
statement (that polygamy is, a dead issue in Utah) is substantially true."
This is very guarded language, both at the opening, and at the close of
the sentence. Its true interpretation probably is that the church
authorities have so hedged polygamy about just now as to be able to disown
responsibility for its practice, while preaching the doctrine as lustily
as ever; and that if any man desires to enter that "celestial state," the
responsibility is his own; but the church authorities will be found at the
old stand, ready for business.
	The other churchmen interviewed did not harmonize well with each
other nor, with President SMOOT. JONES would not go back on his religion,
polygamy included, as long as he lives, but as he wasn't running the
church he declined to assume any responsibility. W. H. KING conceded that
"there may be isolated cases of polygamy," has not abandoned the practice,
but stands willing to perform the polygamous ceremony. GRAHAM "hadn't
heard that the doctrine or practice of polygamy had been authoritatively
repudiated by the church authorities;" nor has anybody else heard it. He
further said if CAINE stated in Congress that polygamy is a dead issue in
Utah, this case puts him in "an awful position;" but he doesn't think
CAINE said so without some qualification, which means that CAINE made with
the repudiation of polygamy some statement that appeared to be no
modification of his declaration, but which the brethren understand to mean
that he made sufficient reservation to save his bacon. That clears the
saintly sky all around. The church shifts the responsibility of the
present polygamous marriages to the shoulders of those who apply for them,
but preaches the doctrine and stands ready to abet the crime by performing
the ceremony and protecting to the utmost possible extent those who are
the principals [150] in that crime (two prominent Saints promptly go
JESPERSON'S bail for instance). CAINE'S repudiation of polygamy is to be
taken with that modification; and, so modified, everything is to go on
pretty much as before.
	This polygamous marriage ceremony took place in Salt Lake; probably
President ANGUS CANNON knows no more about it than does President SMOOT,
but it is plain that the general authorities of the church know all about
it, and no doubt about other like affairs; but they persist in asserting
that polygamous marriages are not now celebrated; what explanation have
they to offer the public for their shameful imposture? (Salt Lake Tribune)

4 Oct 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	The people of the United States have been greatly agitated over the
imagined horrors of polygamy in Utah, and special legislation has been
obtained looking to its supression. The Utah Commission report that it is
not now, openly practiced, and that they do not know, of any new cases of
polygamy themselves; however they give publicity to rumors of which they
admit they have no proof, but these amount to very little even if they are
true, which we do not admit.
	So much for the practice which the people of the United States seem
so anxious to destroy. The Commission are not satisfied with this, nor
with the eradication of the custom of plural marriage. They want people
who are members of a Church which the Commission claims still teaches this
form of marriage, to be pursued by the law, and deprived of the right of
suffrage simply because they belong to that Church. This is carrying
animosity against the "Mormons" a little too far for reasonable people,
and we do not believe it will have the desired effect.
	We have quoted remarks from several leading papers on this subject.
We now take the following from the San Francisco Examiner, a paper that
has never been favorable to the "Mormon" Church or its tenets:
	"The members of the Utah Commission have kept their eyes fixed on the
Mormon problem until they are [151] unable to see anything else. In their
just published report they say:
	"While we forbid immigration of the non-proselyting, peace-loving,
docile Chinaman because we fear the future danger of his coming * * *
there is far greater reason for closing our doors as a nation and
forbidding citizenship to hordes who are brought here to swell the ranks
of an organized body which teaches them in advance to hate our government,
denominates its executive, law-makers, judges and prosecutors as
persecutors, and instills into every mind the constant teaching that their
pretended revelations are more binding than the highest and best laws of
the land, and that resistance to such laws is a virtue and the rendering
of obedience to God."
	That is the sort of caricature of the truth that we used to see while
we were discussing the first Restriction Act. The Mormons are bad enough,
but it is simply extravagance to say that they are worse than the Chinese.
The "non-proselyting Chinaman" is not, to be sure, a drummer for religious
novelties. But he is a missionary of vice and counts his converts by the
thousands in the human driftwood of our streets--the wreckage of once
promising lives.
	The "peace-loving Chinaman" is at this moment beginning an
internecine war in which the Wongs and Lees will slaughter each other,
men, women and children, because they could not agree about some burying
grounds. He rose in Bangkok the other day in a quarrel between two
high-binding societies, and 5000 coolies fought with spears and tridents,
impaling their enemies and carrying their bodies on the points of their
weapons. He fought pitched battles in the streets of Eureka until the
people put him out and kept him out. He maintains standing armies of
professional assassins in San Francisco, open to engagement for any
undertaking of riot or murder on a fixed scale of foes.
	The `docile Chinaman' is the most unruly and impudent worker in the
world. He is the terror of the kitchen, and when he works in a factory he
demands and obtains privileges which the white operatives beside him go
without. He has reduced the boycott to an exact science, and an [152]
employer or landlord who is dependent upon him must humor his caprices or
go into bankruptcy.
	There are two objections to the Mormons--they believe in polygamy and
they have a government within a government. That is sufficient to justify
our opposition to their increase, but the Chinese have both these faults
and innumerable others. The Mormons have taken the dregs of Europe and
turned them into what would be, but for its religious drawbacks, a
comparatively desirable population. Their towns are neat, temperate and
moral. To say that such immigrants are worse than the Chinese is to
discredit the whole argument in which the opinion appears."
	The foregoing is addressed chiefly to the proposal of the
Commission--not an original one by the by--to prevent people who belong to
the "Mormon" Church from landing on our shores. The annexed is clipped
from the New York World, a paper that has been very pronounced against
"Mormonism," sometimes being very unfair in its criticisms, but it cannot
endorse this proposition to legislate against belief. Under the heading of
"Mormons and the Law," it says:
	"It appears from the report of the Utah Commissioners that under the
stringent laws now in existance for the suppression of polygamy, the
practice of that crime has almost entirely ceased, but that, as the
commissioners believe, the Mormon Church still secretly teaches the
doctrine that polygamy is a `saving grace,' wherefore they recommend some
additional legislation.
	We have no particle of sympathy with Mormon ideas, and only loathing
for polygamy, as a practice or as an institution, and we have steadfastly
urged not only the enactment but the relentless enforcement of stringent
laws for the punishment and suppression of the system. But we may be
permitted to suggest to the commissioners that it is none of their
business what doctrines of "saving grace" the Mormon or any other church
teaches. With that the law in this free country has nothing whatever to
do, its function being to deal with the punishment of [153] criminal
conduct and not with the suppression of unsound, speculative doctrines.
	Polygamy as a practice is now in effect suppressed. The laws against
it are rigorously enforced, and in aid of the laws changed circumstances
have rendered the system practically impossible. Mr. Hepworth Dixon, when
he saw Harper's Bazar for sale on Salt Lake news-stands, declared that
polygamy was doomed. Whatever might have been possible in an isolated
community where women dressed in calico and sun-bonnets, plural marriage
could not exist in company with fashion journals which set wives dressing
against each other.
	If there is any point in which the laws for the punishment of bigamy
in Utah can be strengthened, by all means let them be amended and enforced
until the stain shall be utterly wiped out; but there could be no more
serious mistake than for the government to assume an attitude of
surveillance and dictation in the matter of doctrinal teaching. That way
danger lies."
	No matter how much the intent may be disguised by words, it stands
out clear and distinct as advice for legislation against belief. People
usually join churches because they believe in the doctrines taught
therein. At any rate it is taken for granted that this is their object. If
therefore any citizen is deprived of political rights or privileges
because only of his membership in a Church, it is legislation against
belief, and any pretense to the contrary is hypocritical and false.
	To this length we do not believe Congress is prepared to go, and
therefore we think the recommendation of the Utah Commission, and the
hopes and plans of the "Liberals" here who promoted that body, will fall
to the ground and provoke only disfavor and disgust in the breasts of
fair-minded Americans, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. (Deseret
Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

6 Oct 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
* * * As far as constitutional liberty is concerned, I will say, the God
of heaven has raised up our nation, as [154] foretold by His Prophets
generations ago. He inspired Columbus, and moved upon him to cross the
ocean in search of this continent. The world is acquainted with the
history of his course; his pleadings with courts of Europe, and his final
triumph in finding sympathy in the King and Queen of Spain, who furnished
the necessary means to make the exploration. It is also well known how our
forefathers found a home and an asylum in this land from the hand of
persecution, and how they planted here the tree of liberty and jealously
guarded it from the attempt of the mother country to uproot and destroy
it. The hand of God was in all this; and it is through the intervention of
His providence that we enjoy today the freest and most independent
government the world ever saw. And what was the object of this? It was to
prepare the way for the building up of the Kingdom of God in this the last
dispensation of the fullness of times; and as long as the principles of
constitutional liberty shall be maintained upon this land, blessings will
attend the nation. But wo (sic) unto those who fight against Zion, said
the Lord. I have heard the Prophet Joseph Smith remark, that if he were
Emperor of the world, and had the power to control the whole human family,
he would sustain every man, woman and child in the enjoyment of their
civil and religious rights, let their religion be what it may. In saying
this he expressed my sentiments, and the feelings of this entire
community. For God has given to every man individual agency, and He will
hold him accountable for the use of this agency. And while we in our
hearts and feelings accord to the whole world this blessing, we claim the
same for ourselves. To obtain this and to secure it to our children, we
have struggled; and we look forward with joyful anticipation when it shall
be beyond the power of man to drive any more from the earth. Our feelings
with regard to religious liberty have been manifested towards the
religious denominations that have come among us. Not a single one of them
can accuse us of doing anything to hinder them in their labors by way of
establishing themselves among us; on the other hand, we have opened our
doors to them; they have occupied our public stands until [155] they have
had meeting houses of their own. We have never had a fear that our people
or our children would be captivated by their doctrine or converted to
their religion; if they have a single truth which we have not, we want it,
for it is truth we are after. This Church has been organized now, nearly
sixty years. It certainly has been like the little stone cut out of the
mountain without hands. It has withstood all the opposition that has been
aimed against it; and it will remain firm and immovable, fulfilling the
destiny marked out for it, until the winding up scene. Zion will arise,
clothed with the glory of God, no matter what we may have to pass through.
We are in the hands of God, and so are all men and nations; and if this is
the work of God--and we say it is--He will bear it off triumphant.
	Brother George Q. Cannon in his discourse this morning referred to
the different laws which govern man, and the different glories that attend
their observance. And I say, show me a nation or people and I will tell
you their future condition by the laws which govern them. All the
creations of God are governed by law; and all blessings are predicated
upon the observance of law. Opposition to the laws of God commenced in the
councils of heaven at the time one-third of the heavenly hosts were cast
out; and they are here upon the earth still opposing the work of God. They
are without tabernacles; they never had bodies, and that is the curse
visited upon them. Those who did not rebel were permitted to take
tabernacles. The war that commenced at that time is still being waged, and
the struggle will continue until Christ shall come to assume the reigns of
government. * * *
	We have at present about two hundred thousand people in these
mountains who have received the Gospel, out of the millions that now
inhabit the earth, and it seems, in consequence of the unpopularity of the
Gospel, that we are under the necessity of passing through more or less
persecution. We have these things to meet, as other men have met them. In
ancient times the Apostles were ready to lay down their lives for the
truth's sake. They know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that
they had been called to and endowed with the Priesthood [156] of heaven.
Are we any better than they? Are the Apostles of this day any better than
those of former days? If God were to require it at our hands that our
testimony be sealed by our blood, I believe there is not a single member
of the Council of the Twelve but what would be ready to make the
sacrifice. Why? Because we, like the former day Apostles, know for
ourselves that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that we
are His servants. Whatever sacrifices the Lord may require at the hands of
this people, will be met by the people. But ours is not a day of
sacrifice. Our special calling is to build up Zion, and prepare the people
to stand in holy places while the judgments of the Lord are being poured
out upon the wicked. And whatever may be before us we must meet in the
fear of our God, believing that He will deliver us in His own due time.
The Lord, for our encouragement, has told us that Zion shall not be moved
out of her place. But if we do not do our part, as the brethren have said
who have preached to us during this Conference, we shall be chastised.
This is my testimony to the Latter-day Saints.
	To the Latter-day Saints I would say, be ye faithful in keeping the
commandments of God the little time we have to remain here. We are as much
upon a mission to this generation as the Prophets which have preceded us
were to the generations in which they lived. We have our day; they had
theirs. As they have gone to render an account of their stewardship, so we
shall follow, and will be held to answer for the deeds done in the body,
and the manner in which we shall have used the talents entrusted to us.
Brothern and sisters, be true and faithful, and keep inviolate the
covenants you have entered into, that we may be worthy of eternal life,
the greatest of all the gifts of God to man. * * * (Deseret Evening News)

13 Oct 1889, A Strange Interview, Wilford Woodruff:
	The New York Herald of the 13th inst., has a special dispatch from
this city dated the previous day, which is the substance of an interview
between the correspondent and President WILFORD WOODRUFF, in which the
head [157] of the Mormon church declares that it is the intention of the
Mormons to fully obey the laws. The substance of his statement is as
follows:
	"I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of
plural marriages since I have been president. I know that President
Taylor, my predecessor, also refused. Since the Edmunds-Tucker law we have
refused to recommend plural marriages, and have instructed that they
should not be solemnized."
	Becoming more and more explicit as he proceeded President Woodruff
told of a special case. One of the bishops at the head of a stake, which
is a Church designation for a large district, came to him with the
petition of a couple to have the plural marriage ceremony performed
between them. The stake bishop represented that the parties fully
understood the risk they were runing. He wanted from the head of the
Church a ruling on the course to pursue. "I told the bishop," said
President Woodruff, "that it would not do at all. There must be no more
plural marriages. I am confident," said the president, it that there have
been no more plural marriages since I have been in this position, and yet
a case has recently occured which I will say to you I do not understand at
all. It is giving us a good deal of trouble. Perhaps you have heard of
it?" The president referred to the Hans Jesperson case. Jesperson is a
Dane. He lives at Goshen, at the head of Utah Lake. Recently a neighbor
reported to the United States authorities at Provo that he believed
Jesperson was sustaining the plural marriage relations with Mrs. Alice
Horton. A deputy marshal went out and brought in the Jesperson family and
Mrs. Horton. All of them denied knowledge of any improper relationship. At
last, Mrs. Horton broke down and testified that she was married to
Jesperson on the 8th of last April. She said that part of the ceremony
took place in the Temple at Manti and part of it at the Endowment House in
Salt Lake City. This testimony was given before the United States
Commissioner. Jesperson was convicted and sentenced to five years in
prison for polygamy and three years on another charge. [158] It is the
only performance of a plural marriage ceremony this year which the courts
have unearthed.
	"It seems incredible if it is true," Woodruff said. "It is against
all of my instructions. I do not understand it at all. We are looking into
it and shall not rest until we get at all the facts. There is no intention
on our part to do anything but to obey the law." We give the statement for
what it is worth. We will not charge, either, that President WOODRUFF
spoke insincerely in what he said. But he confesses that a case has arisen
which he does not understand. If he but knew it there are plenty more just
such cases. The permits are no longer given in the old way, but the
marriages are going on. One of the bishops that testified in one of the
Idaho registration cases, last autumn, said that it was not necessary to
visit a temple or endowment house to be married, that it could be done
anywhere. And those marriages are going on. If there was a suspension that
fact would be stated authoritatively and openly to the people. It would be
explained that while the law remained in force polygamous marriages must
be suspended. No such word has been passed along the line, and on that
question the attitude of the church has not changed one particle since the
old, roaring days of JEDEDIAH GRANT. The bad feature of the foregoing is
that the head of the church tells to a newspaper correspondent a something
relating to a great feature of the creed of which he is the head, which he
refuses to state openly to his people and the country. (Salt Lake Tribune,
20 Oct 1889)

16 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
	The News grows captious. Telegrams sent East giving the synopsis of
Conference proceedings, stated that the Saints had yielded nothing, that
there was the same commands given, to live their full religion, to obey
the laws of God and the counsels of their leaders. One dispatch said that
this command included polygamy. At this the News calls the attention of a
just world to the spectacle of what a liar the news dispatcher must be,
[159] inasmuch as polygamy was not once mentioned at the Conference. Now
we would not wrong a contemporary knowingly. We put the News on its honor
to answer whether for a Mormon to live his full religion and to obey the
law's of God in all things, includes polygamy or not? If it does not why
have both the chief editors of the News suffered a cheap half-martyrdom
for their religion? And if there was a studied effort on the part of all
the speakers at the Conference to avoid even mentioning the word, was not
that proof conclusive that they meant to include that sacrament of their
creed with the rest? Did any one of them say: "You must live your full
religion in all things except in teaching and practicing polygamy. That
has been inhibited by the laws of the land, and hence the sacrament has
been suspended for the present?" If that is still a sacrament of the
creed, was it not included in the injunction, and was it not so understood
by the faithful? And if that was included, is not our pious comtemporary
resorting to the most vulgar sort of jugglery when it puts on a long face
and cries out: "See what liars they are; polygamy was not mentioned at the
Conference?" (Salt Lake Tribune)

17 Oct 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
* * * The three natural rights that are inalienable, unconferable and
inherited are the right to life, liberty, and to hold property, of none of
which can any citizen be deprived by any process than applies equally to
all others. This position is unassailable, and on that ground the law that
seizes and appropriates the property of the Latter-day Saints must be
unconstitutional. It may be made otherwise in a legal sense, but never as
a matter of fact and justice.
	Aside from that of constitutionality, another phase in question is
being discussed. * * * We refer to the utility of confiscation in the
attainment of the object said to have been the incentive to the creation
of the law. Its passage was based upon the erroneous theory that the
genius of "Mormonism" is inimical to the American commonwealth. This
impression has been created by a flood of misrepresentation proceeding
from designing [160] politicians and jealous sectarian religionists. But
be this as it may, the idea was that the religious system must be put
down, and robbing its adherents of their hard-earned property was deemed
an effective method by which the purpose could be accomplished. The theory
was necessarily a false one. A serious and dangerous blunder was
committed. The question is being agitated from that standpoint by journals
which are noted for unfriendliness, amounting to antipathy, toward the
"Mormons." Even the New York Mail and Express, remarkable for anti
"Mormon" bias, declaims against confiscation as a means of suppressing the
religion of the Latterday Saints, properly holding that it does not touch
the question at all, and that it is a detriment instead of a benefit.
Straws show, the direction in which the wind is blowing on the subject of
the confiscation scheme. The breeze has begun to blow, and it is not too
much to expect it to develop, at no distant day, into a hurricane.
(Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

Sunday 20 Oct 1889, George Q. Cannon:
	I have read in your hearing a portion of this great chapter which
forms a part of the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. The whole
chapter is worth reading, as other portions of Scripture are, because they
are the words of God. This chapter gives us a clear conception of that
which can be accomplished through the exercise of faith. I have been led
to think that some of the Latter-day Saints do not appreciate as they
should do the power of faith, and that they reason that if certain results
do not appear likely to come to pass, looking at them from a natural
standpoint, it is useless for us to expect them. In other words, there is
too much of a disposition growing up on our midst to walk by sight and not
by faith. I have heard that some of our people feel discouraged and
disheartened at prospects that are before them, and they are disposed to
look at the dark side of affairs to anticipate disaster, and to imagine
that there is some fate awaiting us that will be very serious in its
character, and from which it is useless for us to make any exertions to
escape.
[161] I do not know how general this feeling may be. I have not met with
it myself, not probably having had the opportunity of mingling with those
who entertain it; or, if they have entertained it, they have not expressed
it in my hearing. I have, however, as I have said, heard considerable
concerning its existance. But I wish to say to you, my brethren and
sisters, this afternoon, that this whole work is which we are engaged,
from its inception until the present time, has come in contact with
everything that men would call natural; that is, the results which have
been wrought out have not been according to the judgment of men concerning
them. If the Latter-day Saints had believed, in the beginning of this
work, that which was said by men of the world concerning the work and the
preaching of the Gospel, they would have sat down and resigned themselves
to the fate that was predicted regarding this work. But this was not the
spirit of him whom God chose to lay the foundation of the work--the
Prophet Joseph Smith. It was not the spirit of those associated with him.
They were filled with faith. And when the Church numbered no more than
would occupy a small room, I have heard those who were present on many
occasions say that they heard the Elders then predict in the plainest
manner that which we now behold. They foresaw, by the spirit of prophecy
which God poured out upon them, the development and advancement of this
work and the great and mighty result that would be accomplished through
the preaching of the Gospel unto the inhabitants of the earth. No greater
evidence can be brought forward of the divinity of the mission of Joseph
Smith and his prophetic office than the predictions which he uttered in
early days concerning the future of this work.
	I might go on and dwell upon many things that have occurred since
then, to show unto the Latter-day Saints here assembled that faith is a
very great and important principle with us. There never has been a work
accomplished in preaching the Gospel to the nations that faith has not
been required. Those who in their ministry have united energy and
perseverance with faith have always succeeded. No matter how, unpromising
the field [162] to which a man may be sent, if he have faith in God and he
labor with energy, obstacles that would appear insurmountable will be
overcome and pass away. He may think at times that his path is entirely
hemmed in, and that it is impossible for him to overcome the things which
may be in the way; but if he be resolute, if he be determined, if he be
full of faith, as he progresses he will find that every step which he
takes will only make the pathway clearer; difficulties will vanish, and
his way will come out victorious if he will only persevere. All of you who
have been on missions must have had experience of this character. My life
is full, I might say, of illustrations of this kind. I might go on and
give, if it were prudent or in good taste, from my personal experience,
many illustrations of the principles of which I speak, where it has seemed
as though it were impossible to do certain things, and yet by
perserverance and faith, believing that God has power to extend help and
deliverance to those who seek for it, everything has been accomplished
that could be desired and success has rested down upon our efforts. In
fact, the history of this entire people, from beginning to end, is an
illustration of this glorious principle of which Paul writes so
beautifully in this chapter to the Hebrews. I know that the lives of
thousands who are listening to my voice this afternoon, are full of
illustrations of it; and if you had the privilege of telling your
experience it would be corroborative of that which I am endeavoring to say
this afternoon. Those of you who have heard the gospel in foreign lands;
those of you who have been gathered from the nations of the earth; those
of you who have gone as missionaries in foreign lands; those of you who
have dwelt in this country, and who have had the difficulties to contend
with incident to a residency here, can also bear abundant testimony of
this principle that I am dwelling upon.
	You have all had experience in it, to a greater or less extent; and
if the opportunity, as I say, were given to you, we could have thousands
of testimonies to the truth of this--that God, in a miraculous manner, has
helped each and all of you. You have witnessed His power. You [163] have
seen His hand. He has enabled you, individually, to do things that would
appear impossible. Is it not so? I know it is. Therefore, in speaking to
you in this strain, I am not talking to a people who have had no
experience in these matters, and who are compelled to trust to my words
and to my theories. It is not a matter of theory; it is a matter of
practical knowledge among us. All of us, even our children, know that
there is a power in faith which makes apparently impossible things easy of
accomplishment.
	Now, after all this experience, is there any man among us who will
yield to discouragement, and who will become disheartened, because
sometimes there are prospects before us that are not as bright as they
might be? I dread it among this people more than anything else, excepting
actual transgression. When I hear of the Latter-day Saints becoming supine
and indifferent and careless, and imagining that certain things will come
despite their efforts, I feel sick at heart; I am inclined to lose
courage, to lose hope; because I know that when that feeling prevails, we
are beaten; Satan has gained his point, and we cannot accomplish that
which God designs we shall do. We have lost our faith. We have lost our
grip. We have lost our hope, and we are in the worst possible
condition--in a condition to be easily overcome and driven by our enemies.
They like to infuse that feeling into you. They would like to weaken your
hands. They would like to make your hearts sink within you. They would
like to take from you every hope and give you every discouragement.
Nothing would please Satan better. Nothing would give his allies or his
satelites more encouragement and make them feel better, than to have you
sink in your faith and indulge in fears, in doubts and in discouragement.
I know that it is not of God. I know that any man who gives way to that
spirit has not got the Spirit of God in him. I care not if we were opposed
by millions, or if the whole world were to band itself against us, it is
not for us to yield to discouragement and to give way to doubt and to
relinquish hope. It is contrary to the mind and will of God concerning
this work, and I warn you against it--every man, [164] every woman and
every child. Dismiss these feelings from your hearts; for if you do not,
Satan will obtain power over you, and you will lose your faith--that faith
which should be as strong and as unyielding as the pillars of heaven. We
have a tremendous work to do in the earth, and if we are discouraged at
obstacles, then we shall prove that we are unworthy of the trust God has
reposed in us. He has chosen us to do this work. He fills us with His
Spirit when we do that which He asks of us. He gives us hope. He fills us
with joy and with peace; and however dark the prospect may be, when we do
as we ought to do we are filled with that feeling which I describe. Did
you ever have any other kind of feeling when you were under the influence
of the Spirit of God? No matter how dark the circumstances might have been
that surrounded you, did you ever have any other feeling than that? No, I
know you never did. I know that when the Spirit of God rests upon a man,
or upon a woman, or upon a child, it fills these individuals with hope,
with joy and with peace, and they know that God is with them, that angels
are on their side, and that they will come off conqueror if they will only
do that which He requires at their hands. All the circumstances and
conditions may not be such as they would like, or as they would provide if
they had the power; but by putting their trust in God, He shapes
circumstances and brings to pass results, and they are always glorious to
His name and full of salvation to His people.
	I beg of you, therefore, my brethren and sisters, to strengthen
yourselves in the Lord. This is a good day for Zion. I never saw a better
day myself. I never saw a happier time. I never saw a time when I had
cause, it seems to me, for more joy and thanksgiving than I have this day
of the Lord, in this Tabernacle and in the midst of this congregation. We
may have difficulties and trials and sorrows to contend with; but accept
them as coming from God, and not be weighed down by them, nor imagine that
we are foresaken and forgotten. Never let that feeling enter into our
hearts; but, as I have said, let us strengthen ourselves in the Lord. Let
us reflect upon the many, many times He [165] has delivered us. He has
never yet forsaken us. He has never yet refused to listen to us. He has
never yet failed to come to our deliverance. He has always provided a way
of escape for us. He has always filled us with His Spirit when we have
sought for it. Did you ever go to Him in a secret place and call upon Him
without His hearing you, without His answering you, or without His pouring
out upon you a blessing and filling you with His Holy Spirit? In hours of
sorrow, of affliction and of deep trial, did He ever fail to respond to
your cries? I know He never did. No faithful man, no faithful woman or
child ever went to Him and poured out their sorrow unto Him without His
coming to their aid and their deliverance, and filling them with
inexpressible peace and joy. He has lifted their burdens and He has
lightened their sorrows and given them all that their hearts could desire.
	Brethren and sisters, let us continue to put our trust in God, and I
can testify to you that if you do so He will lead you onward until He will
bring you into His presence and crown you with glory at His right hand;
which I ask in behalf of all of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
(Deseret Evening News)

Monday 28 Oct 1889, Judge Zane's Decision:
	THE FULL TEXT Of Judge Zane's Decision on Ending the Polygamous
Relation.
	The following is the opinion rendered in the Bennett case yesterday
afternoon, a synopsis of which appeared in last evening's NEWS:
	The question asked by Mr. Rawlins, and objected to by Judge Powers,
is as follows: "What has been the reputation among your mother's relatives
and the defendants, as to their having finally and fully separated from
one another as husband and wife?
THE DECISION:
	Judge Zane said--The question read is objected to on the grounds that
it is immaterial and irrelevant, because, as insisted, if a polygamous
marriage with this woman in respect to whom the question was asked was
proven, that it continues until the defendant obtains pardon and [166]
amnesty from the President of the United States; that no agreement between
the parties to terminate the polygamous relation is sufficient, though
made in good faith and the parties thereafter cease to recognize each
other as husband and wife and refuse to maintain the relation by act or
intent.
	The eighth section of an act of Congress approved March 2d, (sic) is
as follows: "No polygamist, bigamist, or any person cohabiting with more
than one woman, and no woman cohabitating with any of the persons
described as aforesaid in this section, in any Territory or other place
over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall be
entitled to vote at any election held in any such Territory," etc. The
question is, what is the meaning of the term polygamist, as used in this
section? If it is a relationship, what is necessary to terminate it? The
act of Congress known as the Edmunds-Tucker law, which is an amendment to
this statute, uses similar language. The last clause of section 24 of that
act is as follows: "No person who shall have been convicted of any crime
under this act, or under the act of Congress aforesaid, approved March
22nd, 1882, or who shall be a polygamist, or who shall associate or
cohabit polygamously with persons of the other sex, shall be entitled to
vote in any election in said Territory, or be capable of jury service, or
to hold any office of trust or emolument in said Territory."
	In the general sense, a man is termed a polygamist who practices
polygamy, or who maintains that it is right--that would be broader than
intended of this statute. The Supreme Court of the United States, in the
case of Murphy vs. Ramsey (114 U.S., page 40) referred to has had the
question under consideration. That was an action against the Utah
Commissioners for refusing to register the plaintiff in that case, and in
reference to one of the questions raised by demurrer the court says: "But
in both cases the complaints omit the allegation, that, at the time the
plaintiffs respectively claimed to be registered as voters, they were not
such, either a bigamist or a polygamist." They did not deny in the
complaint that they were bigamists or polygamists at the [167] time they
offered to register; and the demurrer was to the effect that the complaint
was insufficient in not so averring. The court says further: "It is agreed
that they cannot be understood as meaning those who, prior to the passage
of the act of March 22nd, 1882, had contracted a bigamous or polygamous
marriage, either in violation of an existing law, such as that of July
1st, 1862, or before the enactment of any law forbidding it; for to do so
would give to the statute a retrospective effect, and by thus depriving
citizens of civil rights, merely on account of acts which, when committed,
were not offenses, would make it an ex post facto law." The question was
whether the law in question applied to such persons as entered into
polygamy before the act referred to took effect, or whether it referred to
an existing relation. * * *
	"In our opinion any man is a polygamist or bigamist in the sense of
this section of the act who, having previously married one wife, still
living, (sic) and having another at the same time when he presents himself
to claim registration as a voter, still maintains that relation to a
plurality of wives, although from the date of the passage of the act of
March 22, 1882, until the day he offers to register and vote he may not in
fact have cohabited with more than one woman. Without regard to the
question whether at the time he entered into such relation it was a
prohibited and punishable offense, or whether by reason of time since its
commission a prosecution for it may not be barred, if he still maintains
the relation he is a bigamist or polygamist, because that is the status
which the fixed habit and practice of his living has established. He has a
plurality of wives, more than one woman whom he recognizes as a wife, of
whose children he is the acknowledged father, and whom with their children
he maintains as a family, of which he is the head. And this status as to
several wives may well continue to exist at a practical relation, although
for a period he may not in fact cohabit with more than one; for that is
quite consistent with the constant recognition of the same relation to
many, accompanied with a possible intention to renew cohabitation with one
or more of the others when [168] it may be convenient." And further in the
opinion the Court says: "But because, having at some time entered into a
bigamous or polygamous relation, by a marriage with a second or third
wife, while the first was living, he still maintains it, and has not
dissolved it, although for the time being he restricts actual cohabitation
to but one. He might in fact abstain from actual cohabitation with all,
and be still as much as ever a bigamist or a polygamist. He can only cease
to be such when he has finally and fully dissolved in some effective
manner, which we are not called on here to point out, the very relation of
husband to several wives, which constitutes the forbidden status he has
previously assumed." * * * "The crime of bigamy or polygamy consists in
entering into a bigamous or polygamous marriage, and is complete when the
relation begins. That of actual cohabitation with more than one woman is
defined and the punishment prescribed in the third section. The
disfranchisement operates upon the existing status and condition of the
person and not upon a past offense. It is, therefore, not retrospective.
He alone is deprived of his vote who, when he offers to register, is then
in the state and condition of a bigamist or a polygamist, or is then
actually cohabiting with more than one woman." * * * "Continuing to live
in that state afterwards is not an offense, although cohabitation with
more than one woman is. But as one may be living in a bigamous or
polygamous state without cohabitation with more than one woman, he is in
that sense a bigamist or polygamist, and yet guilty of no criminal
offense."
	The point that the court seemed to have its attention more
particularly directed to was as to whether cohabitation with more than one
woman was essential to the justification of the registration officer in
refusing registration on the ground that the applicant was a polygamist
and the definition given here seems to be with respect to this point. The
court says: "He can only cease to be such, that is, a polygamist, when he
has finally and fully dissolved in some effective manner, which we are not
called on here to point out, the very relation of husband to several
wives, which constitutes the forbidden status he has previously assumed."
The court held that [169] the polygamous relation may exist, though the
polygamous marriages may have been contracted before the law took effect,
and it may exist though the parties do not actually cohabit together. The
question is, what is necessary to constitute the relation? Because it is a
relation. It is the relation which a polygamist bears to his wives, where
there is no cohabitation existing; what, therefore, is necessary to
constitute a polygamous relation where there is no cohabitation? The court
says: "He still maintains that relation to a plurality of wives." And
further: "If he still maintains the relation he is a bigamist or
polygamist." What is the meaning of this term maintain as here used? Does
it simply mean the relation that may exist after the parties have in good
faith agreed to be husband and wife no longer and ceased to recognize each
other as such, and refuse by physical or mental act to maintain the
polygamous relation; does it mean simply the relation existing be reason
of the former unlawful marriage and cohabitation? To maintain, in its
ordinary sense, means to continue to act or intent. It includes some
consent--some act of the mind. There may not be any outward act, but some
act of the mind, consenting to the continuance of the relation, consenting
to recognize the woman as his wife, consenting to maintain the relation is
necessary.
	The Court further says: "He has a plurality of wives, more than one
woman whom he recognizes as a wife, of whose children he was the
acknowledged father." There the necessity of recognition is stated--that
he recognize her in some way; and there is no way of recognizing except by
some act of the mind admitting the relation as existing. The question is,
whether a man recognizes a woman as his wife, when both agree that she
shall not be his wife, when they have in good faith said that they will
not live together, and when they refuse to continue the relation and to
recognize the relation. Is that a recognition? The court says further:
"recognizes a wife of whose children he is the acknowledged father, and
whom, with their children he maintains as a family of which he is the
head." There the Court undertakes to give a description of what
constitutes the relation. I [170] confess it is a very imperfect one: "He
has a plurality of wives, more than one woman whom he recognizes as a
wife, of whose children he is the acknowledged father, and whom, with
their children, he maintains as a family of which he is the head." The
Court speaks of, the polygamous relation as a status; a state or condition
is here referred to--a status which the law recognized as unlawful. The
law may recognize things as lawful or unlawful; when unlawful it is
condemned. "And this status as to several wives may well continue to
exist," the court says, as a practical relation, although for a period he
may not in fact cohabit with more than one. For that is quite consistent
with the constant recognition of the same relation to many, accompanied
with a possible intention to renew cohabitation with one or more of the
others when it may be convenient." It is spoken of as a practical
relation. "Although for a period he may not in fact cohabit with more than
one woman, for that is quite consistent with constant recognition." So
that the Court holds to the idea that there must be recognition to
constitute the polygamous relation. The idea is held all through the
opinion that there must be recognition of the relation--there must be a
recognition that the woman is his wife. The Court refused to say in terms
how the relationship could be terminated. It says: "He can only cease to
be such when he has finally and fully dissolved the relation in some
effective manner."
	The most effectual manner of dissolving the polygamous relation is
for the man and his polygamous wife to agree in good faith to terminate
and dissolve the polygamous relation, to cease to recognize each other as
man and wife, and to refuse to maintain the relation longer. A divorce
would not of itself terminate unlawful cohabitation, and pardon and
amnesty would not terminate the polygamous relation if the parties should
continue to recognize each other as husband and wife. Such a construction
as given above encourages polygamists to abandon unlawful cohabitation and
the polygamous relation, and in that respect to obey the law, and become
good citizens. The dissolution would be effective if the parties, before
other persons, agree in good faith to separate [171] and afterwards
continue to disregard the polygamous relation and abandon it, and refuse
to recognize each other as husband and wife. Of course it is for the jury
to determine whether the dissolution is in good faith and whether the
parties are keeping it.
	Pardon and amnesty are not intended as a means of terminating a
polygamous relation. Pardon is the remission of the consequences of an
offense after the parties have been convicted. Amnesty is the remission of
the consequences of a crime, and may be after or before a conviction.
Though pardoned, the defendant might be guilty of maintaining and
recognizing the polygamous relation. It is for the jury to determine
whether the parties in good faith have terminated the polygamous relation
in this case, and the evidence on that point that is competent is
admissible. The only question left is whether the answer to question tends
to prove the dissolution of the polygamous relation, and tends to prove
that the parties in good faith are keeping the dissolution--whether they
consider the marriage as dissolved, and in good faith are keeping their
agreement. (Deseret Evening News, 29 Oct 1889)

Tuesday 29 Oct 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THE STATUS OF FORMER POLYGAMISTS.
	The decision of Judge Zane in the Bennett case has given great
offense to the "Liberal" plotters, who counted on the obstruction of a
number of legal voters of the People's Party, but have failed in their
nefarious project. A synopsis of the decision appeared in our issue of
Monday evening, and in this paper will be found the full text thereof.
	The position taken by Judge Zane is exactly the ground we assumed
when the case was first opened. It is the only common sense position that
can be found. It is not a new, point of argument, And the Judge's views,
as expressed on this occasion, are consistent with those he has held on
previous occasions. It is also in strict accordance with the opinion of
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murphy vs. Ramsay.
So the Judge can afford to be at outs with the rabid portion of [172] his
own party, and can smile at the arrant nonsense voided by their organ.
	The only question at issue was, the status of a man who, having at
one time been a polygamist, had severed his relations with his plural wife
and no longer recognized her as such or associated with her in family
relations. Is he a polygamist when he has only one wife? Common reason
answers, no. But what does the law say? Is there any statue, or rule of
law, or judicial decision, which would give color to the notion that a man
at present having but one wife is now- a polygamist. We do not know of
anything of the kind, and nothing of the sort has been cited during the
case at issue.
	The question has been asked many times during the legal discussion of
the polygamy problem, how, is a man who has married a plural wife to
effect a legal dissolution of the relationship. It has never been
answered, because it cannot be. The fact that the marriage is not
recognized as legal, precludes any legal action for divorce. In the Snow
case Mr. F.S. Richards desired the counsel of the government to show how
this relationship could be extinguished, but failed to obtain a
satisfactory reply. The Court also pressed the question in vain. Mr.
Richards said, in his argument:
	"A great deal has been said during this discussion about putting an
end to the relationship existing between these parties, and opposing
counsel has intimated that there are many ways in which this may be done;
but as yet he has failed to point out any one of these ways, although
pressed by the court upon this very point. Why was it that he refrained
from telling, in clear unmistakable forms, how this relationship could be
dissolved? Is it possible that he could not do so? Let us see. There is
existing between Mr. Snow and his wives a marital relationship which they
believe to be eternal and indissoluble in its character. Except as to the
first or legal wife this relationship is not recognized by the law as
being valid, but on the contrary all the subsequent marriages are legally
void, hence there can be no divorce. Considered from a legal standpoint
these marriages never existed and therefore cannot be dissolved. No [173]
lawyer will dispute this proposition, and when it is conceded we perceive
at once the utter impossibility of legally terminating a relationship
which never had a legal existence. I suppose it was for the purpose of
avoiding this dilemma that counsel asserted here that the women named in
these indictments made the pretense of being lawful wives. Doubtless he
believed what he said to be true, but it is not. Such a claim is not made
by any plural wife. Their claim of marriage is based entirely upon their
religious belief, and not upon any recognition of the law, for they
realize that they have no legal status as wives."
	This position is legally unassailable. Under the Dickson regime here
it was claimed that some judicial action must be taken to dissolve
entirely a plural marriage, but the courts were not committed to the legal
absurdity. In the present case it was argued by Mr. Powers that the
polygamous status could only be dissolved by amnesty or pardon from the
President. The nonsense of this was clearly exposed in the decision of
Judge Zane.
	In the case of Murphy against the Utah Commission, the Supreme Court
of the United States said:
	"It is not therefore because the person has committed the offense of
bigamy or polygamy at some previous time in violation of some existing
statute and as an additional punishment for its commission, that he is
disfranchised by the Act of Congress of March 22, 1882, nor because he is
guilty of the offense as defined and punished by the terms of that Act;
but because at some time having entered into a bigamous or polygamous
relation by a marriage with a second or third wife while the first was
living, he still maintains it and has not dissolved it, although for the
time being he restricts actual cohabitation to but one. He might in fact
abstain from actual cohabitation with all and be still as much as ever a
bigamist or polygamist. He can only cease to be such when he has finally
and fully dissolved in some effective manner which we are not called on
here to point out, the very relation of husband to several wives which
constitutes the forbidden status he has previously assumed." * * *
[174] "The disfranchisement operated upon the existing state and condition
of the person and not upon a past offense. It is therefore not
retrospective. He alone is deprived of his vote who, when he offers to
register is then in the state or condition of a bigamist or polygamist or
is then actually cohabiting with more than one if woman."
	There is no more effectual way that we know of by which the relations
between a man and his plural wife can be dissolved in this world than by
the means adopted in the Bennett case. That is by what is commonly called
a "Church divorce." The marriage was a Church marriage unrecognized by the
civil law. The divorce was a Church divorce and was as valid as the
marriage, no more and no less. The relations of the parties ceased from
the date of the document, and could not be assumed except by means of a
new marriage. A resumption of the relations without such a marriage would
be adultery in the eyes of the Church, a new marriage would constitute
polygamy in the eyes of the law.
	We do not believe that either of the lawyers who planned or
prosecuted the Bennett case believe in their own theory. It is evident
from the anger of the crowd they repressed that the whole thing was a
political scheme. The design was to prevent every man who had been at any
time a polygamist and had not received executive clemency, although he
might be a practical monogamist or even a widower, from voting at the
coming election, on the false ground that he was still a polygamist.
	This would be very bad policy for courts or the Government to
encourage, if the desire is the suppression of the practice of polygamy.
And it seems by the tactics of certain professed opponents of that
practice that its cessation is the very thing they do not want. Those who
have abandoned the practice are not encouraged, but stumbling blocks are
placed in their way by the hypocrites who claim so loudly their hatred of
plural marriage.
	If we could feel sorry for the schemers who planned this vexatious
Bennett prosecution, we would pity their [175] discomfiture. But we feel
so much contempt for their serpentine curse that we have, at present, no
place for the softer sentiment. But if they have any sense left they
should not exhibit, so openly, their deep chargrin.
	And now let it be understood as judicially settled that any citizen
who is not now a polygamist in practice, and who can take the oath
provided in the Edmunds-Tucker act, is entitled to register and vote and
that it is not only his right but his duty to do so and to help his fellow
citizens in maintaining good order and good government. (Deseret Evening
News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

Wednesday 30 Oct 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
THAT VERY STRANGE DECISION
	The original EDMUNDS act made polygamy a misdemeanor; the
EDMUNDS-TUCKER act makes it a felony. In his reasoning and ruling in the
BENNETT case, Judge ZANE seems to have been governed by the Supreme Court
decision in the case of MURPHY vs. RAMSEY. In the body of that decision
the Court say of the polygamist:
	"He can only cease to be such when he has finally and fully dissolved
in some effective manner, which we are not here called upon to point out,
the very relation of husband, etc."
	Why was the Court not called upon to point out the effective manner
to procure the needed release? Simply because the EDMUNDS act did point
out the manner in Sec. 6 which reads as follows:
 	SEC. 6. That the President is hereby authorized to grant amnesty to
such classes of offenders guilty of bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful
cohabitation, before the passage of this act, on such condition and under
such limitations as he shall think proper; but no such amnesty shall have
effect unless the conditions thereof shall be complied with.
	That section was inserted for the very purpose of providing a way for
polygamists to absolve themselves [176] from a crime. The law was meant as
an olive branch to them, but still it withheld from them the privileges of
citizenship until they should manifest repentance and sue for grace, that
is, give the church and the world notice that they meant to offend no
more. Judge ZANE holds that there is no offense the moment a man can get a
Church divorce and get two or three neighbors to testify that they
understand the pair have separated. Were a man arraigned for
horse-stealing, and were he to take the stand and admit that he did steal
the horse, but that he had since given the horse away, Judge ZANE would
hardly instruct the jury to acquit. Again, in the same EDMUNDS law, we
find one ground of challenge to a juror, "that he believes it right for a
man to have more than one living and undivorced wife at the same time."
Surely if a man has a right to register and vote, he has also the right to
sit on juries, but in this case of BENNETT not one trace of evidence was
shown that in the Church he had relinquished one belief or changed his
mind in the least on the question. The plural wife testified that he and
the woman "had become sick of the bargain." There was not a trace of
evidence that the act was performed through a desire to place themselves
right before the law, but it was the result of a growing dislike for each
other. How does anyone know but that the anger of the wife was due to
BENNETT'S taking some other plural wife to himself? He has made no
renounciation; he stands all right with the Church; if he was put under
examination tomorrow as to his qualifications as a juror, and were asked
the question whether he believed it was right for a man to have more than
one wife at the same time, the conslusion is irresistible that he would
answer yes, for according to his own testimony he lived in that relation
until a certain time, and then only dissolved it, not on conviction that
it was wrong, but because he did not like the plural wife, while the
woman's testimony was that she compelled the separation. Still it is held
by Judge ZANE that a polygamist can absolve himself simply be ceasing to
live with a plural wife. While the certain proof of such a course would,
perhaps, be a good defense on a trial for unlawful cohabitation, [177] the
EDMUNDS law flatly declares that before a man so tainted can exercise the
full privileges of citizenship; before he can vote or hold office or serve
on juries, he shall petition to the President for amnesty. The reason for
the rule is patent. Without it the world has no notice of any changed
relations; without it any other polygamist can do what this one did; he
can go and swallow all the oaths necessary to register as a voter and,
when arraigned for the act can procure a paper which will set forth that
the man and the woman have agreed to permanently disagree and get two or
three of their neighbors to state that they so understand it, and though
the man still holds his full standing in the Church, though he has never
relinquished a belief or in any way changed his mind, he is solid and can
vote. It seems to us that the decision is a direct slap in the face of the
EDMUNDS law; it treats what the law declares is a felony as merely a bad
habit which the offender can absolve himself from by seeming to give up
the habit. Naturally there is exulting among the Mormons, and the notice
for them to act at once is supplied in the following closing paragraph of
an editorial on the subject in last evening's News:
	"And now let it be understood as judicially settled that any citizen
who is not now a polygamist in practice, and who can take the oath
provided in the Edmunds-Tucker act, is entitled to register and vote, and
that it is not only his right but his duty to do so and to help his
fellowcitizens in maintaining good order and good government." (Salt Lake
Tribune)

Tuesday 5 Nov 1889:
WHY THE DESERET NEWS SHOULD BE SUBSCRIBED FOR IN PREFERENCE TO ANY OTHER
PAPER.
	1. It is the Organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, and the authorized medium through which the views, wishes and
instructions of the Church Authorities are expressed, and given to the
Saints. (Deseret Evening News)

[178]
Tuesday 5 Nov 1889, Report of Gov. Thomas:
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Means Suggested Whereby the Troubles Here May be Mitigated:
	Elsewhere in this report I have recommended that the public schools
be placed under the control and authority of some Federal agency; that
certain county officers by made appointable by some Federal authority;
that a new Legislative apportionment be made after the taking of the next
census, and that prisoners confined in the Penitentiary be placed at work.
	I believe it is the intention of the American people to extripate
polygamy and its kindred evils from their land; and that Congress is
determined to give force and effect to this intention by appropriate
legislation. The reports made by previous Governors of the Territory, and
by the Utah Commission, recommend special measures for consideration by
Congress, all of which, so far as they are now essential, have my hearty
endorsement and support. Encouraging Gentile immigration has been
suggested. The walls are up against it, unless a great increase in mining,
the establishment of manufacturing on a large scale, or the founding and
enlargement of industrial pursuits, other than agriculture, take place.
The founding, example and teaching of Christian churches has been
recommended. Several denominations have established churches, but the
converts from Mormonism are none too numerous. There is a selfsufficient
complacency in the Mormon, which entirely satisfies him with his religion.
Establish schools throughout the Territory, others say. This has been done
to some extent by various religious denominations, but the progress is
slow, in producing any marked result. It has been suggested that the
courts should be increased and offenses vigorously prosecuted. The
Government has been for years well represented by able and effecient
officers, and the result has been important but not decisive. This course
has not changed opinion, but has caused greater care in concealing
offenses. (Salt Lake Tribune)

[179]
Friday 8 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	In the Third District Court on Thursday, Judge Anderson, who is
assisting in this District, and attending every morning to cases of
naturalization, drew a line which everybody who is not foolish or unfair
will agree is parallel with law, with good common sense, and with sound
political economy.
	"The law of the land requires that a man shall be of good moral
character and attached to the principles of the Constitution. The fact of
a man's religious belief or that he is a member of the Church in good
standing is not a ground for exclusion."
	Judge Anderson, in reply to some foolish questions and objections by
a "Liberal" hireling, whose impudence is out of all porportions with his
intellect, referred to the prohibition law of Iowa, which he, with many
others, believed to be wrong, and said he had worked with them for its
repeal. But he had never heard of a proposition to exclude a man from any
political right or privilege because he was opposed to the law, so long as
he did not violate it. The Judge also showed that a man might be a member
of a Church and yet not conform to all of its teachings.
	These are fair and common sense propositions. And the point reached
by their judicial enunciation is this: The bare belief of any alien who is
a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should cut no
figure in admitting him to citizenship, no matter what may be the doctrine
of that Church in reference to the polygamy question. If the man is of
good moral character and attached to the principles of the Constitution
and has complied with the laws relating to naturalization, he should be
admitted to citizenship.
	A practical polygamist would not be admitted, because under the
rulings of the Courts here, he would not be considered a man of good moral
character. Courts may be justified in this view of the case, under the
circimstances. As Judge Anderson remarked: "The Court is not here to say
what the law should be but what it is." [180] And if a man should declare
in Court that he considered it right and proper to violate the laws of
Congress in any particular, very few persons would blame the Court for
considering that attitude, in using the discretion which he is authorized
to exercise in cases of naturalization. But a man's abstract belief, or
his mere membership in a Church, whatever may be its tenets, ought not to
enter into the question of his moral character or his admission to
citizenship. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that
actions, not beliefs, are proper subjects of legislation.
	A man may believe that a law of the United States or of State or
Territory is wrong or impolitic, and he has perfect right to his opinion
and to the expression thereof. He is also at liberty to strive in all
lawful ways for its repeal, and to obtain judicial decisions as to its
validity. But if he breaks the law he is liable to its penalties. This is
true in regard to laws in relation to polygamy as to those in regard to
prohibition. There is no law of the United States which makes it criminal
to believe in plural marriage or in celibacy. He may believe either to be
right and the other wrong and may advocate his view's by tongue and pen,
and there is nothing in the spirit or the letter of the law to forbid this
freedom of faith and of speech.
	The "Liberal" quibbler referred to had the impertinence to inform the
Court that the heads of the Church ought to be summoned, and be required
to testify as to the requirements for admission to Church membership and
as to whether polygamy was compulsory or not. The courts have nothing to
do with the mere tenets of a church or its conditions of membership.
Ignorance and impudence generally go together, and the latter is often the
sure sign of the former.
	For the information of persons not of our faith, we take the
opportunity of stating that the conditions of admission into the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are: Faith in Jesus Christ, and
repentance of sins. Persons who truly believe and repent are baptized for
the remission of sins and confirmed members of the Church by the laying on
of hands for the gift of the Holy [181] Ghost. The fact of submission to
these ordinances in in (sic) itself a recognition of the claims of the
officiating minister to Divine authority, which has been received by
modern revelation, and of the position of the Church to which he belongs
as the true Church of Christ. But no other requirement is made of the
candidate. Repentance, however, includes a godly life for the future as
well as regret for and forsaking the wrong-doings of the past.
	Members of the Church are free as to their opinions. There is no
bondage in its creed or discipline. The Church has the right under the
institutions of this land of liberty to promulgate doctrines and defend
principles pertaining to religious faith, no matter how unorthodox they
may be or how erroneous they may appear to other persons. Courts have
nothing to do with creeds. Congress has no control over religion. Acts in
violation of statutes are within the purview of the civil power, but
tenets, principles, opinions and organizations for their lawful
promulgation are protected by the Supreme Law of the land in full and
perfect liberty.
	It is the policy of this country, everywhere else but in Utah, to
encourage aliens in their efforts to become citizens of the United States.
Nowhere else are obstructions placed in their way in any respect like
those interposed in this Territory. We admit that Courts are, perhaps,
justified in making special interrogations here in view of the situation
and the past prevalence of a practice made an offense by law. But there
should be a limit to this, and that limit should, in our opinion, be the
private belief of an applicant, which God and the Constitution have made
free. With that neither courts, nor lawyers, nor by-standers have any
right to interfere or to call in question.
	A man's character is exhibited by his acts. If his deeds are immoral
his character is immoral. And it should be remembered that the law which
makes it criminal for a man to cohabit with more than one woman by later
additions which should be construed with the original statute, reaches out
and covers several immoral acts and is not confined to polygamous
associations. Yet the courts do not seem to be anxious to learn of the
moral or [182] immoral character or doings of any applicants for
naturalization but "Mormons, " and most notoriously immoral persons have
been admitted to citizenship quite recently, without a gulp from a judge
or an objection from pretended champions of a pure morality.
	We hope the courts at least will keep clear from party bias. It would
be a disgrace to the ermine if the stamp of the "Liberal" party were
affixed to it and exhibited in judicial discrimination. When every
People's Party applicant is obstructed, and the path of every "Liberal"
applicant is smoothed, and the difference is so obvious and marked, people
with eyes and brains cannot refrain from opinions, which will some time be
expressed, and perhaps in a way and in places where they will receive due
and effective consideration.
	We feel pleased to be able to commend Judge Anderson's ruling on
Thursday, as it touches a vital question, and is in accordance with the
genius of American institutions and in harmony with the spirit of civil
and religious liberty. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

Saturday 9 Nov 1889:
VICE SUSTAINED:
	Yesterday, in Ogden, a female known as Elsie St. Omair was tried
before Commissioner Perrin, on a charge of keeping a house of ill-fame. C.
C. Richards conducted the prosecution and L. R. Rogers and Thomas Maloney
appeared for the defense. During the impaneling of a jury, Charles
Duchaman was challenged by the prosecution. In answer to a question he
said that he thought, in a town the size of Ogden, houses of ill-fame ough
(sic) to exist. Further questioning confirmed the bias of the juror in
favor of vice, yet a challenge for cause was denied, and the prosecution
peremptorily challenged him. The jury was completed, and the prosecution
offered evidence which showed, directly and positively the guilt of the
defendant, both from her own confessions, and from the circumstances.
	Mr. Rogers, for the defense, made a startling statement to the
following effect: It was true that a law, exist-[183]ed here against
keeping a house of ill-fame, but there were also in Kentucky, Delaware and
other States of the Union laws passed which were not considered in force
by the people and they gave such heed or respect to them as they chose.
There was for instance the old blue-laws which are not enforced, yet
appear on the statues. In the matter of the law under which this case had
been brought, the city officers, to whom eminently belonged the right of
acting in the premises, had not seen fit to enforce it, and the legal
voters of this city did not consider that they ought to be enforced; the
legal voters had proclaimed at the polls that such things should exist;
and he further considered the City Council, under whom the officers acted,
to be the proper guardians of the public morality and the public itself;
for that reason he did not consider that the law should be held in force
in this case.
	After the closing speech of Mr. Richards the jury were charged. It
took them but a short time to decide, and in a few moments they returned a
verdict of "not guilty."
	The particulars of this case are given by the Ogden Standard. (See
also, Deseret Evening News, 9 Nov 1889)

Saturday 9 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
	Today was again occupied by Judge Anderson in hearing applications
for citizenship, * * *
	When John Moore came he passed the examination satisfactorily and was
about to be sworn, when Hurd and Lipman asked him if he had taken an oath
in the Endowment House. He said he had not. They further urged that he had
taken an oath against the government of the United States. Mr. Moore
denied that he had, or that he had any memory of the government even being
referred to.
	Lipman--I know that they so take an oath, and I want somebody
acquainted with those ceremonies--some of the leaders--subpoenaed to tell
the court about them. It is the general rule there to take an oath against
the government of the United States, but they won't reveal it.
	B. W. Driggs, Jr., said that Mr Lipman's statement [184] was untrue.
The applicant had testified that he never took such oath, and the courth
(sic) had not the right, upon the assertion of an officious and
irresponsible person to compel the exposure of the secret rites of any
organization.
	Court--I know we cannot make persons divulge the secret rites of any
society. But if any organization requires an oath against the Government,
then we have the right to get at it. If Mr. Lipman's statement is correct,
then there are some who have left the Church who can tell it.
	Lipman--It is a notorious fact such an oath is taken, but it is of
such a terrible nature that not even an apostate dares to divulge it. I
want some of these people who know, who are in this organization, to tell
the court what that oath is.
	Mr. Driggs again objected, unless the court would confine the inquiry
to matters referring to the government. He thought it was a gross wrong to
compel men to divulge secrets just to gratify the curiosity of
unscrupulous enemies. If the matter was to be confined to any oath against
the government, he would like the court to express it.
	Court--The issue will be confined to assertaining whether there is
required of those who go through the Endowment House an oath that is
inconsistent with the duties of a citizen. Other secret rites or
obligations shall not be interfered with. Congress has made special laws
against this organization and its members, and if there is an oath that is
incompatible with the duties of a citizen, that fact should be known.
	Lipman wanted authority to subpoena witnesses who might not be
willing to come upon his invitation, and the court granted the request.
	Mr. Moore's application was deferred till Thursday next, at 10 a.m.,
when the witnesses will be called to tell what they know on the subject
introduced by Lipman. (Deseret Evening News)

Monday 11 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
NO "MORMONS" NEED APPLY.
[185]
That is the Order for the Present, in Naturalizations.
	The matter of hearing applications for naturalization was up before
Judge Anderson again today. One man who had been a Mormon" was admitted,
and Fred W. Miller was called. He passed the court's examination all
right, saying that he believed polygamy wrong, and that he would obey all
the laws against it. To the "Liberal" representative he said he had never
been through the Endowment House, but was a "Mormon."
	Joseph Lipman then objected to Mr. Miller's admission on the ground
that he was a member of the "Mormon" Church. He said that he expected to
show that there was a ceremony of the Church, connected with the Endowment
House, which required every member of the Church to take an oath that he
would avenge, on the United States, the blood of Joseph Smith and all the
other Saints that had been killed. He did not know how the avenging was to
be done, whether by maiming or killing citizens, but he would show that
such an oath was taken, and he thought that no member of the Church should
be admitted to citizenship.
	Mr. Moyle denied that any such oath was required; and, however that
might be, this man had never been through the Endowment House.
	The court said he would pass upon Mr. Miller's application on
Thursday, as it had been shown he was a member of the Church.
	Mr. Moyle said it was plain that the course followed by Lipman and
his associates was merely a political trick, and asked the court, if it
refused to hear the applications of "Mormons" for naturalization, that no
distinction be made, and the business of admitting citizens be deferred
till after the investigation on Thursday.
	This request was refused by Judge Anderson.
	Wm. J. Owen was another applicant. His parents were members of the
"Mormon" Church, and he was at one time, but he had never performed any of
the duties of a member, and did not now consider himself one. He did not
know that he had ever been excommunicated.
	The "Liberals" objected to him because of his membership, and he was
ordered to wait.
[186] Thus every "Mormon" who came up was peremptorily ordered to stand
aside, simply because of his membership in the Church, while those who
were brought in by the "Liberal" whips were passed through in short order.
	Finally one John Y. Phillips presented himself. He passed the court's
questions all right. To Mr. Moyle he stated that he had been married a few
months. When asked whether he had been guilty of sustaining improper
relations with persons of the other sex he looked surprised that such a
thing should be considered anything unusual, and answered "Yes".
	Mr. Moyle objected to his admission, as by his own confession it was
shown that he was guilty of a crime and was not a man of good moral
character.
	This brought Hurd, Lipman and Laney to their feet. They were
"righteously indignant" that a man who had engaged in indiscriminate
sexual relations should be referred to as not of good moral character and
unfit for citizenship in this great government. They were very wrathful at
the course taken, and were very emphatic in their denounciations. "Why,"
said Hurd, "there is not a man in a dozen who hasn't done just the same as
this man, only he has been more honest than most of them, and has admitted
it. Besides all the Mormon applicants here are liars and have perjured
themselves."
	Mr. Moyle--Mr. Hurd, it ill becomes you to judge the "Mormons" by
yourself or by your own methods. If any "Mormon" has perjured himself you
would prosecute him to quickly, and that he has not is proved by the fact
that you dare not proceed against one of them whom you have unjustly
accused.
	F. Ferguson, the deputy clerk, remarked that Phillips did not belong
to a people who organized themselves to commit a crime.
	Mr. Moyle--No, but to the nine-hundred and ninety-nine out of a
thousand who are not only guilty but think it all right to be.
	There was some further discussion of a like nature, which Judge
Anderson cut short by saying he had given no thought to the ground of
objection, but would take it under advisement and pass upon it next
Thursday. (Des-[187]eret Evening News)

Tuesday 12 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
	At 4 p. m. Pres. L. Snow, and Apostles M. Thatcher, John Henry Smith,
H. J. Grant, and A. H. Cannon, also Bros. C. W. Penrose, James H. Moyle,
and myself met at the Gardo House office. The question before the U. S.
Third District Court on Naturalization and the supposed oaths made in the
Endowment House and was presented by Bro. Moyle for consideration, that
whatever steps, if any needed, may be taken so as to be ready for the
Court on Thursday at 10 a.m. It was deemed proper for some of our brethren
to be present in Court on Thursday whether they are subpoened by our
enemies or not, and give testimony that no such oath is required of any
Latter-day Saints against the Government of the United States in the
Endowment House or elsewhere. That this is an opportune time for the
Church to declare itself against these foul untruths so often repeated. It
was agreed to have a number of brethren invited to meet tomorrow evening
at 7:30 o'clock at the Gardo House office. Telegrams were sent to Bro.
A.H. Lund at Manti and to Bros. M.W. Merrill and A.D. Thatcher at Logan to
be present at the meeting. (Diary of L. John Nuttall)

Wednesday 13 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
---At 7:30 p.m. ---at the Gardo House office. Pres. L. Snow stated the
object of the meeting, and referred to the rulings of Judge Anderson on
the naturalization of citizens, his objections to Mormons and the efforts
to bring before the Court the Endowment House ceremonies. He requested
Bro. Moyle to lay before the meeting anything further that should be said.
He also referred to the meeting held last night. Bro. Moyle referred to
the rulings of the Court and what he thought would be required of the
witnesses before the Court. He suggested that some of the brethren who may
be called upon might be asked some questions so that some idea may be had
as to what can be answered. This was approved. Bro. Moyle asked several
questions of Bros. John H. Smith, [188] A.H. Lund, and M.W. Merrill, also
of Bro. A.D. Thatcher, John Clark, W.W. Riter, E.G. Wooley, Frank Jennings
and Jas. H. Anderson which was quite satisfactory. It was decided that the
following brethren attend the Court tomorrow and if wanted that they
testify, viz. John H. Smith, M.W. Merrill, A.H. Lund, A.D. Thatcher, John
Clark, E.G. Wooley, and J.H. Anderson. Bro. C.W. Penrose said The Central
Committee had suggested that one or two outside lawyers be employed to
assist our lawyers in this business. Bro. LeGrand Young did not think it
to be necessary to employ any outside lawyers. No action was taken. (Diary
of L. John Nuttall)

Wednesday 13 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
	It has been proclaimed by representatives, in open court, that nine
hundred and ninety-nine men out of a thousand have committed sexual sins,
which are crimes under the same law that provides penalties for polygamy.
These offences are "Liberal" every day affairs. It has been admitted by
our opponents, official and otherwise, that they are not usual with the
"Mormons." Attorneys in court who object to a man's naturalization because
he is a "Mormon," are highly indignant that any objection should be made
to a "Liberal" because he is an adulterer or fornicator!
	And now Judge Anderson rules that one or several acts of this
character do not make a man immoral, if secret, but only when he is
continuously and habitually lewd. And yet the Edmunds-Tucker Act provides
a penalty for a single act of this kind, and the law was supposed to have
been passed in the interest of general morality and to take away the odium
of the appearance that its penalties were only enacted against the
"Mormons."
	God preserve us against the morality of the "Liberal" party, which
sustains prostitution in Ogden and champions fornication in Salt Lake. And
let the country judge of the moral intentions and spirit and actions of
the thrice condemned hypocrites, who pretend to oppose "Mormon" plural
marriage on the ground of its immorality! (Deseret Evening News, Charles
W. Penrose, Editor)

[189]
Thursday 14 Nov 1889:
	In the Third District Court, Salt Lake City, the extra-ordinary
proceedings, in which John Moore and other "Mormons" were refused
citizenship, on the pretence that they had subscribed to a certain secret
and disloyal oath in the Endowment House, was commenced before Judge Thos.
J. Anderson. Proceedings were continued day by day until the 25th.

Thursday 14 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
* * * At the U. S. Dist. Court, this morning a number of apostates had
been subpoened and they were given every opportunity to say all they
desired in regard to the Endowments &c. R.N. Basken & W.H. Dickson are
employed on the part of the Liberals & LeGrand Young. J.H. Moyle & R.W.
Young for the Peoples Party. John Bond, Martin D. Wardell, James McGuffie,
Andrew Cahoon, James Spillett, Chas. Gilmore and Joseph Silver, apostates
were sworn & testified in a very bitter vindictive manner. Bro. Moyle also
testified as one of their witnesses but refused to give the Endowment
House ceremonies. Judge Anderson allowed all kinds of evidence to be
admitted, notwithstanding the objections of our attorneys. I wrote out a
telegram in cipher & sent to Pres. Woodruff at Portland informing him of
what is now going on. At 7:30 p.m. Prest. L. Snow, Apostles J.H. Smith,
H.J. Grant, M.W. Merrill & A.H. Lund, also Bros. LeGrand Young, J.H.
Moyle, R.W. Young, C.W. Penrose, A.D. Thatcher, J.H. Anderson, F.
Jennings, S.R. Thurman, E. Stevenson & myself met at the G.H. office. The
proceedings of the day were spoken of -- Pres. Snow said I shall be very
much disappointed if after this investigation we don't come out all the
brighter for it, and make a good record for the Church. As witnesses in
that court we have a right to the spirit of the Lord. This is His work and
He will stand by us in doing our best to maintain it. The question of
testifying to any of the Endowments or instructions was considered; some
thought that the instructions given about praying to the Lord to avenge
the blood of the Prophets and referring to the 6th Chapter of Revelations
of John, [190] 9th & 10th verses, so as to refute the testimony which has
been given today, would be proper, others thought it should not be
mentioned as fully &c. Bro. E. Stevenson was asked some questions as to
memory & c. The propriety of Bros. Merrill, Lund & Thatcher going onto the
Stand was discussed as they are so intimate with the Temple labors -- also
that those who are expected to testify should be subpoened, so that they
would be properly in court. After talking upon these matters the brethren
of the Apostles & Elder Thatcher & myself remained. After consideration,
it was decided that the witnesses should meet at Bro. Moyle's office at
9:00 a.m. tomorrow where they could be subpoened. Prest. L. Snow was of
the opinion that Bros. Merrill & Lund and Thatcher could go onto the stand
and testify that there were no such oaths, obligations or covenants
required in the Endowments, but if they should be asked what did transpire
there, they could refuse to answer. Bro. John Henry Smith, asked if there
would be any objections to his referring to what is written in the
Revelations of St. John in regard to prayer &c., by way of rebuttal. Bro.
Snow answered "No!", that it would be proper for him to do so and that
Bros. Merrill and Lund could corroborate that; but that none of the
brethren should give any of the Endowments or instructions but refuse to
answer question to that end. With this understanding the following
brethren will be subpoenaed and if necessary will testify. Viz: John Henry
Smith, M.W. Merrill, A.W. Lund, A.D. Thatcher, E.G. Woolley, John Clark,
James H. Anderson, Heber M. Wells. (Diary of L. John Nuttall)

Friday 15 Nov 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE MORALITY QUESTION.
	The News discusses the morality of the Liberal party. It holds that
it is immoral on the part of Liberals to refuse naturalization to men
simply because they believe in polygamy, while at the same time immoral
men are admitted. The News quibbles on words. A man who has vices may be a
strictly honest man in business and may be a patriot who would on demand
cheerfully lay down his [191] life for his country. Such a man, despite
his vices, is a first-class citizen. Again, a man may live a respectable
life, but may hold certain of this country's law's in derison. Such a man,
if tried, would certainly prove a bad citizen. Again, a man may be ever so
good a citizen in the general acceptation of that term and be still
ineligible to citizenship in this country, because his real allegiance may
be to another power. There are Liberals no doubt who are addicted to
vices, but they are bound to no organization which makes the practice of
those vices a sacrament, to be taught to little children and to be held as
a club over women to impress upon them their inferiority. Neither do
Liberal ministers of religion urge that certain practices must be
authorized by the church, else members cannot be trusted to restrain their
animal desires. This has been advanced by the chiefs of the Mormon creed
within the last few years, and hence the plea of virtue on the part of the
News, if it were true--which it is not--would amount to nothing but a
confession of satiety. But the real point hinges on the score of
patriotism, and the rule is an inviolable one. When a man under oath
admits that he is an extreme Mormon and believes in polygamy as a divine
ordinance, it is a clear case that he has swallowed the whole business,
and that in the event of a crisis he would obey the government which holds
his only legitimate allegiance, and which is not the Government of the
United States. The News knows of men who are common liars, who frequently
get drunk, who do never so many wrong things, but who are admitted into
priesthood meetings without question. It knows of plenty of Gentiles who
have not a stain upon their characters who would not be permitted in a
Mormon priesthood meeting for an instant. The reason is, one has given his
fealty to the creed, the other has not. So it is perfectly proper to
refuse citizenship to Mormons who believe in polygamy, for it is certain
proof that they are not well enough disposed toward the Government of the
United States to defend it under all circumstances. That is the supreme
test of citizenship, and hence a wrong was committed when citizen papers
were issued to the editor of the News. (Salt Lake Tribune)

[192]
Sunday 17 Nov 1889, Editorial, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.
	The News denies the truth of the statements made by witnesses
regarding the nature of the Mormon creed. It sees no object on producing
it except in furtherance of a deep laid conspiracy to rob the Mormon
people of all their political rights. It is mistaken. The object, or at
least one of the objects, is to ascertain what political rights men have
in a free Republic like this who have voluntarily, under the most solemn
forms and with the most frightful obligations, bound their allegiances to
another temporal power. That is legitimate, is it not? Can men bear true
allegiance to two governments at the same time? These witnesses swear that
the creed teaches treason to the Republic. That in itself establishes
nothing beyond a suspicion. But if that testimony can be corroborated by
proof that such teaching is the rule, then the proof is perfected and the
testimony is conclusive. If when dedicating a temple, room by room, a
place set aside for the secret and most sacred rites of the church, one
next to the highest in authority invoked of Almighty God His destruction
upon this nation and if he was followed in other rooms by an echo of the
same prayer, pronounced by lesser members of the priesthood; if we find in
the holy books the claims of the creed are nothing less than absolute and
universal rule; if in them, too, we find described the extent of this
kingdom which includes a celestial kingdom and a kingdom of God on earth
the power and authority of which extends downward to the minutest affairs
of life, politics, business and even the domestic affairs of the people;
if upon this we see that through forty years there has been nothing but
obedience to the priesthood which claims to rule in God's stead, what else
is needed to make the awful circle complete? Especially what further
assurance is required to show that it is suicide for the Government of the
United States to place in such hands the only weapon which the fathers
left with which the republic might defend itself? The News treats this
effort to purge the registration list and to keep men who have surrendered
their consicences to the keeping of priests, as a mighty hardship. Suppose
it [193] were reversed what would the News urge? Would it not be that men
must be against us if they are not with us? Would the News permit radical
Gentiles to have any part in the government of the Mormon temporal
kingdom? Certainly not, though such men would be bound by no oaths and if
they took an oath to faithfully perform the duties of their office, there
would be no other oath that would overshadow it. The News tells its people
that there is nothing behind all this movement but a desire to prosecute
men for opinion's sake. There it is wrong again. The movement is only one
of self-preservation. It was urged just as strongly when there were but a
handful of Gentiles here as it is being urged now. And no one understands
the fact better than the News. The desire is to awaken this people and to
induce the chiefs of this creed to throw over board what is Aslatic,
tyrannical and barbarous in their system, and to become Americans. Until
they do, they of right have no political rights in a Republic, and the
privileges which are extended to free and patriotic American citizens no
more belong to them; than the right to help elect the officers of the
Mormon kingdom belongs to a Gentile. These present developments are no new
developments to old residents here. They may be startling and shocking to
the nation at large, but to men here they are but a confirmation of what
they have known to be the facts through the ebb and flow of a score of
years. And the lesson it all teaches is that the thing for the chiefs of
the Mormon creed to do is to Americanize their system, stop this
contention, and go about making of Utah a spot fit to become an American
State. (Salt Lake Tribune)

Sunday 17 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
	EDITOR TRIBUNE: --I feel to rejoice at the noble report of our worthy
Governor Thomas to the Secretary of the Interior. In my mind it is a
strong document, it presents in a strong and dignified manner the wants of
the loyal-hearted of this Territory to be put in harmony with the rest of
the States and Territories of this Republic. Our Governor is frank, manly,
as well as courageous. Long may he live for his fidelity to the cause of
[194] right and duty, which I am satisfied is a characteristic of his
disposition. He has taken a wide and comprehensive view of the situation
and wants of the whole people, and should the Government act upon his
recommendations they will have the desired effect to ameliorate this much
neglected disloyalty in Utah. This report, too, will, if acted upon,
strike the deep-rooted cankered ulcer. We have a man now who is tried, and
who, too, by the rights of free men, will see all are equal under the law.
	I have no doubt but the majority here will read his opinions and
recommendations through different spectacles, and that it will raise the
ire of those who are determined that their pet theocracy shall live
irrespective of the enlightenment of this Republic. He does not falter in
setting forth the true inwardness of this monstrosity. I have talked with
a good many in this vicinity, as well as in the Liberal precinct of Echo,
with reference to the Governor's report, and they all pronounce it a
sound, good document; it meets with general approval and approbation. They
say he is a brick, and long may he live to help vindicate the right. I
still live in hopes that his wise recommendations setting forth truthfully
what the eye can see and the ear can hear, will have a hearing in the
halls of Congress, for the good of all; and that this tiresome and
unlawful iniquity may be banished from the land, so peace and prosperity
will reign triumphantly. I shall rejoice when the Latter-day Saints come
within the laws of common decency, and take from their name all that is
illegal and immoral and un-American in their system and banish it to the
wind forever. I am mindful that the situation is a grave one; I have lived
in Utah in its darkest days; I know of the sorrows of the fair daughters
and sons; of their crying to their God in secret for just retribution to
fall on their oppressors, and I am confident there is only one way (and
that is by Congress) to right their grievances. God speed the day, and let
them breath the air of liberty as a free people, and take the shackels off
which are bound so tightly--the chains of superstitious slavery and lust.
LOGAN TEMPLE A BREEDER OF POLYGAMY. I wish to call to the notice of this
Republic, as well as [195] the News, that polygamy is not dead. I have had
brought to my notice within the last two weeks, people who I know went
through the Logan Temple, that breader of polygamy. I have heard a man's
wife say since she and her husband came from the same, that she never was
jealous before as to polygamy; but now, she said, if he did not do
differently, she would insult the young woman the first time she came to
the house, as she wanted no polygamy in hers. Now is this not brazen and
defiant of the Mormon Church authorities? That polygamy is a dead issue is
simply preposterous to think of. Are we, my fellow-citizens, going to sit
supinely down and not make an effort to prevent the dishonor to our land
and Americans' homes? I say for one, no; our homes shall be free, and
woman shall be the equal of man, and she the queen of the household, and
the sorrow, stricken wives in Utah shall cease to be the saviors of
lustful barbarism in this enlightened age of Christian civilization. I say
for the sake of humanity, forbid it, Almighty God, so peace, love and joy
shall inhibit the hearts of the disloyal, and may they be brought to a
knowledge of the enraged moral sentiment of society. Washington still
lives, and there I hope we shall get redress of our grievances. Then, and
not till then, will we hold out the olive branch of peace.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, A CHANGE.
	I wish to say with reference to the public school system of Utah,
that it is quite faulty, and in my judgment a change is required. I am of
the opinion that the whole Mormon people with almost entire unanimity are
publicly advocating denominational schools in which their children may be
taught Mormon theology. Stake academies have been established under Church
auspices. I will say with such a presentment of facts, it would be unwise
on the part of our Government, to give the theocratic power aid or
assistance, while their ideas are foreign to a republican form of
government.
	Therefore I coincide with our worthy Governors report as to the
schools. Congress should at once place the schools in the hands of the
loyal Americans, the stay of our Nation, and abolish the system which is
so dangerous to our country and society. The strongest pillars [196] that
support our political fabric are the proper safeguards of our school
system. I believe in the enlightenment of our society to make a
progressive country, not as it has been taught here for half a century
almost by Brigham Young and other high dignitaries, to keep the young and
rising generation ignorant and poor so they could be handled easily. A
nice system, to be sure, while they were sending their children to the
best of Gentile colleges. The only thing which I think made the Mormon
people in later years take an interest in schools, was a fear of the
schools of Gentile enlightenment. I believe in progression. I have stood
here years gone by, when this theocracy was in its bloom of blood. I had
manhood then, but I dare not assert it for fear of that dreaded monster,
death, the peril of which they now so strenously deny. I say, I could not
be a conscientious Mormon and a dutiful citizen; therefore I denounced
that which is called the kingdom of God, a theocracy, or in other words, a
kingdom governed by direct revelation from God. I am now trying to do my
duty, as a conscientious citizen of this Republic, I thank God, too, that
my Government has a big heart, and does not put its subjects through such
oaths and penalties to be a dutiful subject as does the Mormon Church.
APPEAL FOR LIBERTY.
	I say as I was born and raised in the Mormon Church, to its
adherents, come back within the laws, denounce lust, and such treasonable
acts as have been taught you and me for half a century. Will you do it? I
hope so. Then you and I can be friends, while otherwise I will be socially
ostracised, and my associations with my Mormon neighbors broken off for my
present course. But I dare to do right. I am not compelled to ask my file
leaders as I used to years gone by. My leader is my own conscience. That
is my inward monitor to direct me aright, and I truly hope they will take
the same course. Thuggism was the supreme law at one time here, but thanks
be to God, this Republic still lives. We have a way to escape, and get
redress of our grievances. The Mormon monster is not dead, it is alive and
flourishing, still gnashing its jaws with rage at our God-given
Repub-[197]lic. I say, long may it live and prosper as a shining light to
all nations. I say and do this knowing I will have to face my acts and
sayings before the bar of God, and an enlightened people. If I have said
anything to injure any one, put it down as a fault of the head, not of the
heart. Duty is my motto. I call upon Young Utah, come within the law. We
can then stand by one common cause of advancement, prosperity and good
government. JOHN BOND, HENNEFER, Summit Co., Nov. 14. (Salt Lake Tribune)

Monday 18 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
IT DOESN'T YIELD MUCH.
	Thus far the political scheme operated in the Third District Court by
the political "bosses" of the "Liberal" party has not yielded much capital
to those who instituted and have operated the proceedings. To our
knowledge not a few prominent members of that party have been
inexpressibly disgusted at the whole movement. They are heartily ashamed
of the attempt to compel persons to divulge secret religious ceremonies,
and denounce the whole thing as an outrage.
	Even if the ceremonies were described, those who have sought to
compel persons to exhibit them, would be more than disappointed, as they
would not get what they want, but directly the opposite.
	It is plain to the most casual observer, as it is thoroughly known to
the initiated, that there is no element of antagonism to the institutions
of this government and the principles upon which it was founded, in the
religion of the Latter-day Saints. Its whole genius and tendency is
preservative in that regard. The testimony of certain apostate
anti-"Mormon" cranks will not weigh to the contrary with sensible people.
As was stated before in these columns their presence in court after a
record of virulent opposition to the Priesthood gives the lie direct to
their assertion that disobedience incurred the death penalty. Their
situation is supremely contradictory and absurd. Similarly false is their
statement regarding a covenant of antagonism toward the government of the
United States.
[198] Outside of the bitter and unscrupulous class of apostate "Mormons,"
doubtless there are members of seceders from the Church who have too much
honor and regard for truth to be guilty of bearing such false witness upon
those two important points that have been made so prominent in these
extraordinary proceedings. The testimony of Mr. Harrison in relation to
the alleged antagonism to the government is in point, and in that
direction joins with that given by the brethren, which was clear,
straightforward and not susceptible of being overturned.
	The evidence given by witnesses showing the preservative character of
the Gospel in its relation to the government appeared to sit sourly on the
stomachs of Mr. Baskin and Mr. Dickson. The former admitted, ironically
and sarcastically, that 10,000 "Mormons" would testify similarly, and the
latter increased the array to 150,000, both admissions being accepted by
the other side. This admission was in the nature of an insinuation against
the honesty and truthfulness of the "Mormon people. We are pleased to be
able to state, from a knowledge of their character, that for truthfulness
and integrity they are not excelled by any other people as a class,
abundance of evidence could be offered in substantiation of this
assertion, the testimony coming from non-"Mormon" sources. Mr. Baskin
himself has even made genuine admission on that score.
	In this connection it may be appropriate to quote from a statement
made in testimony by a non-"Mormon" devoid of affection for that people,
before the congressional House committee on Territories, on January 21st,
1870:
	"I have been for five years past a resident of Utah. I must do the
Mormons the justice to say that the question of religion does not enter
into their courts, in ordinary cases. I have never detected any bias on
the part of jurors there in this respect, as I at first expected; I have
appeared in cases where Mormons and Gentiles were opposing parties in the
case, and saw, much to my surprise, the jury do what is right.
[199] It will, perhaps, appear somewhat remarkable to our readers when we
say that the gentleman who made that statement so eulogistic of the
Latter-day Saints, showing how regardful they were of the rights of
others, was Robert N. Baskin, ex-Assistant United States District
Attorney, and one of the bitterest of bitter anti-"Mormons." (Deseret
Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

Tuesday 19 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE AVENGERS OF BLOOD.
	The exposures now making in the Third District Court of the awful
nature and treasonable forms of the Endowment House Oaths are having a
deep effect upon the community. Especially is this effect marked upon
newcomers and upon young men raised in the country who have never been at
outs with their Mormon relatives or with the Church particularly, but who
have never taken much interest in the alleged "religion." To be sure,
these have heard in a general way pretty much all that has been now
disclosed, but in scraps and by piece meal, and the prompt denials of the
truth of these bits of information have left the minds of these young men
about as if they had heard nothing. But now it is different. Here is a
practical test made of a man's eligibility to become a citizen of the
United States while he at the same time adheres to an organization which
requires in its fellowship secret oaths of vengance upon this Nation,
enforced by bloody penalties. The nature of these oaths is told by witness
after witness with such eumulative effect that the force of the evidence
cannot be evaded. The enforcement of the penalties is recited, and an
instance given of the murder of a man who had "violated his covenants."
Citations are made of teachings by the authorities of the Mormon people in
direct line with the testimony offered; of prayers for the breaking up of
this Nation "unless it repents," or ORSON PRATT'S solemn and accepted
declaration that "the Kingdom of God on earth" is the only legal and
authorized government that exists or can exist among men. All this makes a
perfect case. To meet it the Mormons put on their witnesses, who make a
[200] pitiably showing. Apostle JOHN HENRY SMITH was all loyal and bland
till he was asked a few questions involving the practical application of
his pretensions; then he collapses utterly, refuses to answer, and his
counsel finally appeals to the Court to instruct the witness that he need
give no answer that "would criminate (sic) himself." Surely a most
contemptible outcome from such lofty claims so the witness began with; his
mission on the stand was to show, how loyal and true his people were to
this Nation, and his counsel turn white with apprehension lest his own
testimony will land him in the penitentiary! He took the hint, and his
refusal to answer pointed questions was virtually an admission on the
general issue that the evidence of the "Apostates was true, and personally
that a truthful reply would open for him the gates of jail.
	The other witnesses to Mormon loyalty were all of the same sort on
the main question. When it came to the point, they with one accord refused
to answer, which demonstrated that they could not deny facts sworn to by
Messrs. BOND, WARDELL, CAHOON and others. Mr. AARON THATCHER, indeed,
stated very plainly that this was so in his case, when he said he would
answer as to what was not said, but not as to what was said; following
this up with "decline to state" when the questions involving these very
disclosures were put to him. Yesterday's Mormon testimony was of precisely
the same character as on Saturday. The turth is, that all these matters
testified to have been notorious for years; only just now they are put
with a coherency, connectedness and practical force never before
attempted. The showing is a thorough vindication of the Apostates, of THE
TRIBUNE and of loyalty in Utah. Its effect is bound to be very great.
(Salt Lake Tribune)

Wednesday 20 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
HE GOES TO THE PENITENTIARY.
	In the proceedings before Judge Anderson yesterday afternoon, CHAS.
W. PENROSE continuing his testimony, said--The first Doctrine and
Covenants I ever saw (in about 1850) contained the article on government,
and [201] I understand it has been in all editions. The officers of the
Church get office by the vote of the people, in a general or local
capacity. In 1880 the General Assembly of the Church elected John Taylor
President. The authority of the Church is announced in the Doctrine and
Covenants. If any man, even the President of the Church, preaches contrary
to the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations stand,
and are the standard by which to judge. (Mr. Penrose read from Sec. 107,
of the Doctrine and Covenants, in regard to the powers of the Priesthood,
and its organization and officers.) If the people, as a body of the
Church, reject the President, then there would be no President till
another is elected. The President receives revelation for the Church; but
the members are not compelled to receive it. The portions of the Doctrine
and Covenants relating to this were read. Mr. Penrose also read from a
sermon by President Brigham Young, June 5, 1859, regarding the agency and
freedom of choice that belongs to mankind; also other extractions on the
same subject, from President Young's remarks. I know of instances where
the people refused to accede to the expressed desire of President Young.
It was in 1876 or 1877, in the Third Ward, where the President's candidate
for Bishop was voted down, and afterwards the old Bishop was sustained. In
Iron County, the President wanted a man for President of the Stake, but
the people voted him down. There is not, nor has there been any doctrine
of the Church, that the President or any man has the right to order a man
to be killed. Such an idea would be contrary to the Church doctrine. I
never heard of one being killed in that way. In regard to the doctrine of
the blood atonement, I never heard it taught that a man could be killed
for any purpose. I have preached on the subject, and my teachings have not
been disapproved. I believe that they are in conformity with the Church
doctrines. The killing of an individual is viewed with abhorrance by the
Church. In section 12, paragraphs 18 and 19, the Lord commands us not to
kill, and says that he who kills shall not have forgiveness in this world
nor in the world to come. The Bible is also a standard work of the Church,
and it forbids murder. The [202] Doctrine and Covenants says that those
who kill shall be delivered up to the laws of the land. John's epistle
says a murderer has not eternal life. The Bible and Book of Mormon are
both standards of doctrine to the Church. They contain the revelations
given anciently, and the Doctrine and Covenants those given in this age,
and all combine. The doctrine of blood atonement is believed in as Paul
says, that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins
that Jesus Christ died for man's sins and this is blood atonement--that
Christ's blood atoned for sin, and by obeying His laws we receive the
benefit of that atonement. We believe that if men sin against the Spirit
of God so far as to shed blood, they cannot be forgiven; their only
atonement is the shedding of their blood, and that must be done by the
law's of the land. There is no one in the Church authorized to do it. Our
idea is that a murderer's blood should be shed, and that is the reason the
Utah statutes gives one condemned to death the choice of the manner of
death. We regard the crime of adultery by a man who has taken certain
covenants as worthy of death, but we do not believe we have any authority
to inflict that penalty; we accept the Mosaic doctrine. We think that if
the law of God were enforced there would be a provision in the law of the
land inflicting that penalty on adulterers. This is what Brigham Young,
Jedediah M. Grant and others referred to.
	Mr. Penrose's address on "Blood Atonement" was offered in evidence.
	Mr. Penrose then read from President Young's remarks on the killing
of Dr. Robinson. In this the President denounced the killing and said that
if anyone ever said that he counseled them to kill any one it was a lie.
Mr. Penrose further testified--It is not a doctrine of the Church that
apostasy is punishable with death. I do not know any one who believes in
it. We abhor the shedding of blood except in self-defense, in the
execution of the civil law, and in defense of country and family. I have
preached the Gospel more or less the past thirty-eight years, and have
preached a great deal. It has been largely the business of my life, and I
think I am fairly [203] acquainted with the doctrines of the Church. I
have been a student and expounder of Church doctrines. The extreme penalty
of the Church is excommunication; dis-fellowship is a lesser penalty. In
the course of the endowments there is nothing in opposition to the laws of
any country. The government is not referred to. The endowments relate
principally to the future state; there is no authorization to shed human
blood under any circumstances. There is no penalty for apostasy. I know
what the Articles of Faith of the Church are. They were formulated by
Joseph Smith, as Prophet and President of the Church.
	The Articles of Faith were introduced as evidence and were read.
	Dickson then began the cross-examination of Mr. Penrose, who
testified--I was born in London, and came to Utah in 1861; joined the
Church in 1850; took an oath of allegiance to the government in 1865 or
1866; Judge Titus was judge of the court when I was naturlized. I have
been amnested by the President of the United States.
	Mr. Dickson insisted that Mr. Penrose should tell how many wives he
had.
	Mr. Penrose said he was pardoned and amnestied by the President.
	The court said the fact that any witness was a polygamist should be
known to the court, to be considered in weighing the evidence, and that he
should answer the question.
	Mr. Penrose--Does not the fact that I had received pardon show that I
had violated the law?
	Court--Yes, but it does not show any foundation for it.
	Dickson--He says that so far as he knows there is nothing
inconsistent with good citizenship in the teachings of the Mormon Church.
	LeGrand Young--That has nothing to do with how many wives he had. He
was under indictment for unlawful cohabitation. The people had been
advised by eminent counsel that the law of 1862 was unconstitutional, but
in 1879 it was decided constitutional. It was not charged that Mr. Penrose
had violated it since then. Inquiry into his marriage relations cannot be
gone into after the [204] Chief Magistrate of the nation has wiped the
crime out of existence.
	Mr. Dickson insisted that the question should be answered, and said
he had not only violated the law, but continued to violate it, and to
preach that it was unconstitutional up to 1884.
	LeGrand Young--I admit that polygamy is a doctrine of the Church
today. I don't deny it; but I do not say it is right to violate the law,
against it. I have a right to speak against the law of the country, and
agitate its repeal. We think that in the peculiar circumstances of the
case, Mr. Penrose has a right to refuse to answer.
	The court ruled that the question should be answered.
	Dickson--How many wives have you?
	Mr. Penrose--I decline to answer.
	Dickson--Lest it would criminate you?
	Mr. Penrose--No, sir; but on the grounds that I have received pardon.
	Mr. Young said he understood the ruling to be that the question could
be inquired into. He was surprised at the position the witness had taken.
	Court--I am surprised also.
	R. W. Young--It might be construed into holding them out. Court--That
would be a reason for refusal.
	Dickson --It would not be a reason, we could compel him to answer if
he was now violating the law, in cases where the United States is a party.
	Mr. Moyle--The United States is not a party in this case.
	Mr. Penrose--I have reasons for not answering the question in its
present form, and could explain them to the court in private.
	Dickson said the Court had ruled the question proper, and the witness
declined to obey the injuction of the court. It was an attempt to trifle.
If he still refused to answer he should be dealt with.
	The Court said it could not hear any private reason. Judge Anderson
suggested that the witness be given a short time to consider.
	LeGrand Young asked that time be given till morning.
[205] The Court said it was not disposed to be arbitrary, but if it was
insisted upon, must commit the witness.
	Mr. Moyle suggested that the witness have the privilege of consulting
with counsel.
	Dickson said he protested against any trifling or defiance. He wanted
an answer compelled and no time given.
	LeGrand Young--Judge Zane has given witnesses time to consider, and
it did not infringe on the dignity of the court.
	Dickson again opposed the request.
	Mr. Moyle suggested that the court had said that some time ought to
be given, and as counsel on the other side sought to compel the court it
indicated that there was vindictiveness.
	Baskin then made a speech urging the court to act summarily.
	The court said many witnesses had declined to answer questions, but
they were not insisted on. This case was, however, different.
	R.W. Young--We only ask a postponement till morning at the same time
wishing to preserve the dignity of the court.
	There was further discussion, and the court said it would commit Mr.
Penrose for contempt.
	Mr. Penrose--I would like time to consult with my attorneys, and
respectfully request the court to defer action till tomorrow morning.
	P.L. Williams opposed the granting of the request, and said the
witness was defying the laws of the land.
	Court--I feel it is my duty to commit this witness. But he says he
has reasons which he cannot state here, and in view of that fact will give
him till tomorrow, morning to consider whether he will answer or go to
jail. But this will not be a precedent. Court adjourned till 9:30 today.
	When court resumed its session this morning. MR. PENROSE again took
the witness stand.
	Dickson again asked the question--How many wives have you?
	LeGrand Young stated that if the witness still declined [206] he
should make a written answer to the court, giving his reasons, and denying
any intention of contempt.
	Baskin--Does he intend to answer?
	LeGrand Young--He does not. I am stating it for him, and ask the
court to permit a written statement of his reasons.
	Court--You may file such statement. The counsel have a right to
insist on the answer, and he will be committed for contempt. He will be
committed in the penitentiary.
	Dickson--We ask that this investigation be continued till he answers.
	LeGrand Young--That is not right. We are not responsible for this,
nor is Mr. Moore. This case should be drawn to a close; we want to
introduce more testimony.
	Dickson said he was unwilling to proceed without cross-examining Mr.
Penrose.
	Baskin--He is their most important witness and without a
cross-examination the case before the court would be imperfect. We could
strike the testimony out.
	LeGrand Young--Mr. Penrose is willing to answer any question--except
as to his family affairs. There is no pretense that he has not been a
polygamist. I don't think the court has power to go over Mr. Penroses
actions that have been amnestied. I have the authority of the United
States Supreme Court for this statement. They expect to follow him back
through his life, and I say they have no right to do so.
	The court said that the amnesty did not wipe out the fact that he had
violated the law. The witness was one of the most important men in the
Church, and as to the fact whether he had violated, or had taught
violation of, the laws of the United States was pertinent, he cannot
answer in the way he has. He is squarely in contempt. He, is upon his
dignity.
	LeGrand Young--No, your honor, he is not. They show, that they intend
to pursue him into that for which he has been pardoned.
	Mr. Moyle said this proceeding had been instituted to deprive men of
the privilege of citizenship, and the scope [207] of the evidence had been
very broad. Because a witness now refused to answer, was no reason for
postponing it. The question had no relevancy to the issue. The evidence
that had been admitted by the court, to a great extent, was not lawful.
	The Court said that so far as the applicants for naturalization were
concerned it would be right to continue this case till the witness did
answer. But the court will go on.
	Dickson said they expected to show that the witness misstated facts
when he said the Church had not dictated in political matters. He expected
that blood atonement would be shown to be a doctrine of the Church, and
that they considered it would yet be enforced against those, for instance,
who committed adultery. We say that no member of the Church has any right
to citizenship, and the government now, purposes to take that position by
its authorized representative.
	Baskin--When this case ends, which ordinarily would end in a day or
two, he will be released from the penitentiary, and I think the court
should keep him in the penitentiary, long enough to make it irksome, and
should make him an example. The case should be kept alive for a whole year
if necessary.
	R.W. Young--It seems to me that the other side are arbitary in their
manner, and it is quite plain to all.
	Baskin--We can't go on today anyhow.
	LeGrand Young--Mr. Penrose stated emphatically that he will not
decline to answer any question that is proper cross-examination.
	Court--Mr. Penrose must answer the questions that are held to be
proper.
	The anti-"Mormon" demonstrations that had frequently been made during
the examination again broke forth, but in a more marked degree, there
being stamping of feet and clapping of hands.
	Judge Anderson interrupted it, and made an order that if it was
repeated the court room would be cleared.
	P.L. Williams urged the court to adopt Baskin's plan. Judge Anderson
said he had to go to Beaver next week [208] and the case could either be
finished before then or be postponed till after he returned. "I propose
that this witness must answer this question, unless he puts his refusal
upon the one ground that he can put it on--self-crimination. If any
witness refuses to answer any question except upon legal grounds, he will
be compelled to answer.
	The court continued the investigation till 10 a.m. tomorrow.
	The latest information respecting Mr. Penrose, this afternoon, was
that he still declined to answer the question. He was in custody in the U.
S. Marshal's office, and the probability was that he would soon be
conveyed to the penitentiary. (Deseret Evening News)

Wednesday 20 Nov 1889:
	Charles W. Penrose, who had testified as a witness in the
naturalization case before Judge Anderson in the Third District Court, was
committed to the penitentiary for refusing to answer an impertinent
question with reference to his family affairs.

Wednesday 20 Nov 1889, Editorial, Deseret Evening News:
THE POLITICAL SCHEME.
	The proceedings in the Third District Court, Judge Anderson
presiding, are growing more and more peculiar in their aspect. In a number
of particulars they are violative of the common law, because they tend to
withdraw from the citizen the protection which it guarantees. One of its
provisions forbids that a witness shall be required to testify to anything
that would render him infamous.
	The Judge has insisted, in the proceedings that have been consuming
the time of his court for several days, that a witness shall answer a
question propounded by the attorneys claiming to represent the "Liberal"
party, as to how many wives he has. In this instance the relation of the
question to the protective provision of the common law alluded to can be
seen at a glance. Judge Anderson has already ruled that a man who has at
any time had more than one wife is not a man of good moral character,
[209] and has refused application for naturalization on that ground alone.
The case of Mr. William C. Dunbar is in point. Mr. Penrose, as a witness,
is coerced into stating, in effect, whether he is or is not a man of good
moral character. This is equal to an insistance that he be compelled to
render himself infamous in violation of the common law provision already
cited. It is indeed an anomalous position for the court to declare a
certain status to be immoral or infamous and then compel a witness to
testify to his own position in that regard.
	We are unable to understand what warrant the court has for compelling
a witness to testify to his own injury. If there is authority in civilized
jurisprudence for the position, we are not familiar with it. Besides its
incompatibility with the common law, it seems to be contrary to common
sense.
	The raking over of the dead embers of the past, in the form of
expressions made by prominent men under circumstances entirely different
to those of today, and seeking to fasten the responsibility for them upon
the people of the present, is also unjustifiable on its face.
	The statements thus resurrected were made under extraordinary
conditions, which caused excitement to prevail to a large extent. But even
such expressions as have been fished out of the tomb of the past that have
been used as a handle to suit the political purpose of the opposition are
buried under the accumulated weight of utterances as patriotic, pacific,
humane and philanthropic as ever dropped from human lips. They have been
spoken and written too by the same men as are quoted on the contrary. In
fact nothing has been produced that has been incompatible with the genius
of patriotism. It is unfair, however, to judge a people or community upon
any other basis than the present exhibits.
	The attempt made by leading active politicians of the "Liberal" Party
to use the court to compel the members of a religious organization to
divulge secret rites and ceremonies that are deemed sacred, in an
inexcusable invasion of the rights of the citizen. It is an outrage to
make such an unprecedented and proposterous demand. It is enough for all
legal purposes for witnesses to state [210] that the ceremonies have
nothing in them, in form or genius, antagonistic to the government. Beyond
that point the State cannot step without invading a sacred right.
	If the position taken by the "Liberal" representatives should carry,
and the Court demand of a witness not only a statement as to whether the
rites and ceremonies in question are or are not in conflict with the
government, but that he divulge the whole formula, the Masonic fraternity
and every other secret society would be jeopardized. The State has no
right to information as to the secret formula further than that which
relates to its friendly character to the government. Any other position is
unqualified tyranny. (Deseret Evening News, Charles W. Penrose, Editor)

Thursday 21 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
THE LESSON IT SHOULD TEACH.
	The revelations now being daily given in the Third District Court
room will lose half their effect if the Mormons who want to be good
citizens of the United States do not heed their real significance and at
the same time take into consideration the fact that a government like
ours, which rests entirely upon the loyalty of its citizens, must take the
necessary steps to see that its sovereignty is absolute here. Let them
try, also, to see in what a position their own chiefs are placing them in
before the world. Elder PENROSE was skulking and hiding for years. He at
last obtained a pardon from the President upon representations made by his
brother Priesthood that he was in point of fact without blame before the
laws, and also that he had done so much to heal the differences between
the Mormons and the Gentile people. But day before yesterday when the
direct question was asked him, how many wives he had at present, he
declined to answer, insisting at the same time that his refusal was not
because the answer would criminate him, and yesterday, rather than answer,
went off for a little cheap martyrdom to the Penitentiary. We believe his
refusal was because an honest answer would have established that he has
been living right along in polygamy, [211] and further that it would have
revealed the fact that after the EDMUNDS law was passed he, like JOHN
TAYLOR, GEORGE Q. CANNON, ANGUS CANNON and plenty of others, merely to
show contempt for the law and as an example to the rank and file of the
people, was sealed to one or more women. Had it not been so, the answer he
would have made suggests itself to everybody. It would have been, in
effect, "I have four (or six or a dozen). I have not formally separated
from any of them. I have no divorce. I still look upon polygamy as a
righteous sacrament. I still extend my care over my children, but I have
accepted peculiar grace from the President of the United States. I have
permitted my friends to become security for my honor. I am like a soldier
on parole. I live with my legal wife only." That would have raised the
witness in the estimation of Mormons and Gentiles alike; but he could not
so answer, and when he declined, and went to the Penitentiary, it was
under a double conviction. It was as good as a clear conviction that since
the EDMUNDS law was passed he has been guilty of both unlawful
cohabitation and polygamy, and by it he admitted that he had consented to
have his friends lie for him to the President; that he has continually
violated the honor that was pledged for him, that he is not only not a
loyal citizen of the United States, but that he takes a delight in defying
the laws. He in his regular business often deplores the cruelty that has
made it impossible for "the eldest and best citizens" of the Territory to
vote. What Mormon in his heart thinks it would not be a crime to place the
free American ballot in his treacherous and dishonest hands? He not only
stands before the country as a disloyal man, but as a soldier who has
broken his word of honor. What would any other government save ours do
with him? What would any other government do with men who feel like him?
It is not hard to decide. Yet this man so suits those who rule here that
even during all the time of his exile his name was paraded daily as the
editor-in-chief of the acknowledged organ of the Mormon Church. Well, our
country is not like any other. It is so free; the people are so free and
the laws are so gentle that men brought [212] up as our Nation has been
brought up hesitate along time before they trench in the least upon the
fullest perrogatives of the citizen, and especially is this so when there
is a question of religion in any way involved. But that mercy is not a
sign of any want of power, and we tell the Mormon people that unless they
change their front there will come a time, and that in the very near
future, when every member of the church will be disfranchised. That fact
is as clear as the midday sun when the smile of June is upon these
mountain tops. The Nation recoils astonished before the revelations now
being made in the District Court, and when it is understood everywhere, as
it has been for years here, that this creed here is an absolute temporal
kingdom within the Republic, that for years has been claiming every right
of citizenship for its people, and all the time has been working with the
certain purpose of ultimately overthrowing the Republic; then there will
be awakened a sentiment which will be filled with sinister omens to
law-defiers. Surely it is time for the church to change both its course
and its ritual. Every Mormon father should think of this as at night he
goes home and sees his little children asleep in their cribs, for a
persistence in present methods will just as surely bring sorrow to those
children as it is sure that effect follows cause. (Salt Lake Tribune)

Friday 22 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
PRESIDENT WOODRUFF SPEAKS.
His Views Regarding the Recent Proceedings in Court.
	Following is the full text of the statements made by President
Wilford Woodruff to an Associated Press reporter and as published in the
eastern press:
	SALT LAKE CITY, Nov. 22, 1889. President Wilford Woodruff, of the
"Mormon" Church, in the course of an interview today, expressed the
following views concerning the investigation now taking place in the Third
District Court, arising from the application of a "Mormon" for
naturalization.
	President Wilford Woodruff said: You must understand that this is the
periodical anti-"Mormon" sen-[213]sation which we are accustomed to expect
in November. Congress meets in December and it is presumed that the usual
efforts will be made to secure legislation against the "Mormons. " Of
course, this cannot be accomplished unless the public mind is first
prepared for it. In addition to this, I might explain we are on the eve of
an important municipal election here in which the anti-"Mormon" party by
preventing the naturalization of "Mormons," and in other improper ways,
hope to be
successful.
	Reporter--But, President Woodruff, what can you say as to the claim
made before the court that membership in the "Mormon" Church is
incompatible with good citizenship?
	I can truthfully say there is absolutely nothing in the "Mormon"
religion that is not consistent with the most patriotic devotion to the
government of the United States.
	The revelations and commandments to the Church require that the
Constitution and laws of the land shall be upheld. It is also a part of
our belief that a time will come when this country will be distracted by
departures from the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and when
general lawlessness will prevail, and that when the condition shall arrive
the "Mormon" people will step forward and take an active part in rescuing
the nation from ruin. As a people the "Mormons" have the highest
veneration for the institutions of the Republic. There are among our
community quite a number of decendents of the revolutionary fathers who
fought and bled to establish our popular government.
	Reporter--But, Mr. Woodruff, to be specific, what about the claim
that the Priesthood or chief authorities of the Church assert or usurp the
right to control the Mormon people in all their temporal (including
political) affairs?
	President Woodruff--I am the present head of the Church and I do not
make any such claim. It would be impossible to exercise it if I did. The
Mormon people would not tolerate any such absolutism. It is true the
authorities of the Church have taken a great deal of interest in the
temporal affairs of the people, and the [214] results are apparent
everywhere. One is that the great majority of the "Mormons" own their own
homes. The leading men among them have been mostly men of experience,
accustomed to wrestle with the crude elements. Their advice and direction
to the people in temporal affairs have therefore been of great value.
About political matters, the charge of undue interference is absurd.
Elections are conducted under a strictly secret ballot system, so that no
man knows how his neighbor votes. All the management of elections, down to
the smallest details, is in the hands of the officers of the United States
Government and their appointees. True, the "Mormons" are to a considerable
degree knited in their political affairs. This is largely due to their
being constantly and vindictively assailed by a small minority in Utah who
have sought to wrest the control of public affairs from the hands of the
majority. They have thus been driven together by a common interest and
compelled to distinguish their friends from their enemies.
	Reporter--One of the aims of the proceedings now, going on in court
is to prove that there is something antagonistic to the government in the
"Mormon" Endowments. What about that charge?
	President Woodruff--I have already said that there is nothing of that
kind in any part or phase of "Mormonism." I ought to know about that as I
am one of the oldest members of the Church. A good deal is being made of a
form of prayer based upon two verses in the sixth chapter of the
Revelations of St. John, as contained in the New Testament. It relates to
praying that God might avenge the blood of the prophets. An attempt has, I
see, been made to connect this with avenging the death of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith, and to have reference to this nation. It can have no such
application, as the Endowments were given long before the death of Joseph
and Hyrum Smith, and have not been changed. This nation or government has
never been charged by the "Mormon" people with the assassination of Joseph
and Hyrum Smith, as it is well known the murder was the act of a local mob
disguised.
	Reporter--Then there is nothing in the cry about blood atonement?
[215] President Woodruff: Well, there is this: The foundation of our
religious faith is belief in the atoning blood of Christ, through which
the resurrection will be brought about. We believe in the scriptural
doctrine, whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed; but
we also believe that all executions for murder should be under the law of
the land and by its offices only.
	Reporter--What about the statements made by two or three apostate
"Mormon" witnesses to the effect that the Endowment ceremonies involved
the death penalty upon those who leave the Church and disobey the
Priesthood?
	President Woodruff--Well, there is no accounting for the bitterness
and untrughfulness of some men who have been connected with an
organization, especially a religious one, and have turned against it. All
their former sweetness turns to vinegar and gall. The Catholic and other
churches have had much to contend with in that line. If it were not a
serious subject, the position of such men would be amusing, it is so
ridiculous. After they have been fighting the Church for from fifteen to
twenty-five years, they are living witnesses to the falsity of their own
statements: The investigation in progress shows that no such penalty has
ever been inflicted. Many ex-"Mormons" are too honorable to make such
horrible and unwarranted assertions. It is unjust to judge a church from
the statements of its relentless enemies.
	Reporter--Why do "Mormons" when on the stand decline to disclose the
formula of the endowment?
	President Woodruff--Because secret religious rites and ceremonies are
the property of the individual citizen, and do not belong to the State.
You might as well ask why a Mason, if he were placed on the witness stand,
should refuse to reveal the rites and signs of that order. I myself am a
Master Mason and have been informed that many Masons as well as people not
connected with that fraternity have been indignant at the attempt that has
been made during the last few days, to extort secret information from
"Mormons." Members of other benevolent societies can see that their rights
and organizations would be in danger should such proceedings [216] carry.
While Mormons have refused to divulge the rites for the court they have
uniformly sworn that there is nothing in the endowment ceremonies
inconsistent with good citizenship. Several prominent ex-Mormons testified
to the same effect.
	Reporter--What is the exciting cause of the present agitation here?
	President Woodruff--As I before stated, it is purely political. There
are two local parties. The People's Party is composed largely of our
people, although a number of non-Mormons sympathise with it. The
self-styled Liberal party is composed almost entirely of anti-Mormons, and
they are but a small minority in the Territory. There will be a municipal
election next February. The present proceedings have been instituted by
the anti-Mormons as a means to enable them to carry that election. A man
named Moore, a Mormon, applied to the court for naturalization. Some of
the anti-Mormon whips objected on the ground of his membership in the
Church. Hence the alleged investigation conducted by prominent
anti-Mormons and designed to obstruct, if not prevent, the naturalization
of Mormons on account of their religion. Doubtless the agitators have also
in view the approaching session of Congress. If they intend applying for
more special legislation they are gathering a mass of anti-Mormon
sensational material to aid them in their proposed work. (Deseret Evening
News, 26 Nov 1889)

Saturday 23 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
* * * DR. JAS. E. TALMAGE was called by the defense. He testified--I am
principal of the Latter-day Saints College in this city; was formerly
member of the faculty of the Brigham Young Academy in Provo; acted in that
capacity four years; attended school there five years; have studied at the
Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, and the John Hopkins University,
Baltimore; in the Latter-day Saints College we give instructions in
theology, the same as other branches; our theological classes study the
Bible and other Church works; the principles of the New Testament are
taught there; the New Testa-[217]ment is a text book of daily use, The
Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are also; sermons are not
referred to. The Constitution of the United States is taught. We teach
that the Constitution is inspired, and of all human documents approaches
nearest to perfection; it is taught that it is the foundation of the
government of the United States and must be revered. We teach celestial
marriage, but not plural marriage. We teach that celestial marriage is a
contract for both time and eternity, while the civil marriage binds people
only in this life; we teach that marriage is a religious as well as a
civil contract. We never say anything about polygamy. There may have been
a question asked about it, but I recall no instance. The B.Y. Academy
follows the same rule as does our college. Both are sustained by voluntary
donation from members of the Church. I have been a member of the Church
eighteen years. We teach man's free agency as a part of our course. We
teach that man's free agency is paramount--that it has not been interfered
with by the Creator, and should not be by any power. We teach that man's
future depends on his course in this life; that he might by the exercise
of his own agency show his nature and preferences. We also teach that the
Kingdom of God is to be an outgrowth of the Church of Christ; that it is
not here, but that it will be established, and that we should pray for it.
When it is established, Christ will be its King. We say that he will come
as the Bible says, but the time no man knows, not even the angels in
heaven. We have never taught anything contrary to the laws of the land. It
is a part of our teachings that people should prepare themselves to be
good citizens. The teachings in the B.Y. Academy and in our own college
have been approved by the authorities of the Church--that is the plan of
instruction has.
	To Dickson--We teach that celestial marriage is distinct from plural
marriage; the meaning of plural marriage is expressed, and the meaning of
celestial marriage is explained. We teach that celestial marriage may be
entered into in the monogamic relation; that it is different from ordinary
marriage in that it is available in eternity. We teach the pupils to obey
all the [218] laws of the United States. We mention no laws specially. We
have not had any questions upon the laws relating to polygamy, that I can
recall. We also teach obedience to the revelations of God as a religious
duty. We teach that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. We
teach students to obey the laws. We also teach them that they have the
privilege of obeying God in their religion. I believe in the revelation on
plural marriage, and that if the Constitution had been conformed to there
would have been no law against it. I teach the pupils what I believe, but
not all that I believe. We also explain that the revelations do not
require violation of law. I think the statutes against bigamy are
constitutional. I don't think plural marriage is characterized by the
features of bigamy, as a crime. I think Congress sought to suppress plural
marriages and I think they overstepped the Constitution. In the school we
teach the free agency of man; we also teach that it is proper to seek
counsel from the best sources. We have not taught that it is wrong to
revel against the Priesthood. We have taught that members of the Church
should obey the authority of the Priesthood, but they may disobey if they
choose. I think that we should obey the instructions of the President of
the Church in his official capacity in relation to the Church. The subject
of obedience to the Priesthood is not discussed. I don't teach anything I
do not believe, but I do not force on the pupils all that I do believe.
There are many topics that are not referred to. In our college the pupils
are from 14 to 30 years of age. I am 27 years old. In regard to the
Kingdom of God, I do not understand that it is set up at all. I understand
it is the mission of this Church to prepare for the Kingdom of God, but to
do so that it is not necessary for them to exercise temporal authority. I
have read the sermons of the leaders of the Church, but have not seen any
declarations that the Kingdom of God is set up, without modifications of
those declarations. I understand that when the principles of righteousness
taught by the Church shall prevail, then the Kingdom will be established.
But in the sense of a kingdom, it is the teaching that it is not set up.
[219] To the court--When Christ comes and reigns, then the kingdom will be
established; it cannot be a kingdom yet, because there is no king.
	To Dickson--The President of the Church is not the representative of
the King in temporal matters. He is in spiritual matters. I believe that
when Christ comes He will hold control in temporal matters, and that all
men who work righteousness will aid in control--that the Priesthood holds
no control in temporal matters, but in spiritual matters. I do not believe
that the Priesthood have the right to control men in all temporal matters.
I don't think the President has a right to direct absolutely in all
temporal matters. A doctrine to that effect is foreign to my
understanding. I never have understood that they have a right to dictate
in all matters. I have studied the teachings of the authorities of the
Church.
	To Baskin--We teach the pupils that there is a distinction between
plural and celestial marriage. We designate no revelation as the one on
polygamy. We have one on the eternity of the marriage covenant. We teach
that the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants are divine, and this
includes the revelation on celestial marriage. Plural marriage is not
given as a command to the Church, but celestial marriage is. Plural
marriages in the Church are celestial marriages, but celestial marriages
are not all plural marriages. I believe that a deception or fraud is a
necessary characteristic of bigamy. I understand there was no law, in 1843
against a man marrying two wives, unless he practiced fraud. I understand
now that there are law's against polygamy now in existence. I do not
consider that our system includes bigamy. In the school we have not given
any instructions as to whether plural marriage should or should not be
practiced.
	To the Court--In the highest grade in the school these questions may
come up. We say that celestial marriage is binding for eternity, being
consummated, by divine authority. We do not explain what plural marriage
is, but I understand it to mean plurality of wives. We teach that marriage
can be performed as a religious ceremony or as a civil contract. We don't
mention plural mar-[220]riage, either one way or another. I am neither
authorized nor qualified to teach plural marriage. We do not understand
that teaching that plural marriage is corrupting the morals of the pupils,
because we do not teach it. There has never been any comparison between
the laws of the government and the doctrines of the Church. I believe
plural marriage to be a proper condition, but have given no instruction
upon it. I think a young man educated in the college would believe that a
law which binds his conscience is unconstitutional, but he would not
believe that such a law was not binding. I would not advise the breaking
of any law, for I consider a law binding until it is annulled.
	To Dickson--I believe the anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional, but
that it is binding. I have never taught the children that plural marriage
is right because I have not taught it at all. The Priesthood do not now
control in temporal matters. I have never heard it taught that plural
marriage, of itself, will exalt anyone, I believe celestial marriage is
essential to exaltation.
	To LeGrand Young--A celestial marriage is one consummated between a
man and a woman that will be of avail in eternity as well as in this life.
This is the revelation on celestial marriage. I understand that polygamy
is not obligatory, but is permissive. I think celestial marriage is
obligatory for exaltation--that is an eternal union in marriage of husband
and wife. The revelation has been read in school. We teach that marriage
for eternity is necessary. We have never taught that polygamy is
necessary. We have never taught that the Priesthood control in temporal
matters. We teach that advice in temporal matters from those who
understand them is proper, and the same as to spiritual matters. I think
there must be a king to a kingdom. I think Christ will be King of the
Kingdom of God, and that there will be no other ruler. As to the
proportion of polygamists in Utah, I would say there is not to exceed one
in thirty among the adult male members of the Church.
	To Dickson--I think there are less than 200,000 people in the
Territory; do not know how many Gentiles there are.
[221] To Baskin--I said if I needed medical advice I would ask one
qualified to give it.
	Baskin--Is laying on of hands for the healing of the sick a doctrine
of the Church?
	The court ruled that this was improper.
	To Mr. Young--When a man is a polygamist, it is usually but a short
time before his neighbors know of it. I don't think it possible to keep it
secret long. I know the monogamists have the elective franchise, and
polygamists do not take the oath. Some people do not take it from
conscientious scruple. A man who does not take it is usually spotted.
	To Dickson--I have never taken any steps to prosecute polygamists. I
consider it my duty to mind my own business.
	To the court--I know prominent men in the Church who are not
polygamists. I do not understand that all the Apostles are polygamists.
Brigham Young, John Taylor, Geo. Q. Cannon, J.H. Smith, C.W. Penrose were
polygamists. I understand that Apostles H.J. Grant, John W. Taylor and
A.H. Lund are not polygamists.
	Did you never hear that Heber J. Grant had a second wife, now in
England?
	Dr. Talmage--I never did.
	Court took recess till 7:30 this evening when it is expected that the
testimony will all be in. (Deseret Evening News)

23 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
"* * * Bro. Young felt it will be a proper time to state in Court that
instructions have been given by the Presidency that no more plural
marriages shall be solemnized, etc, * * * Pres. Cannon was not in favor of
such action and said that Pres. Woodruff was the only one to decide that.
It was proposed that Bro. Young see Pres. Woodruff tomorrow. (Diary of L.
John Nuttall)

Sunday 24 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
CURRENT EASTERN COMMENT.
	The press of the East is horrified at the disclosures [222] that have
been made in the endowment house investigation now in progress in this
city. It begins to discover that polygamy, bad as it is and which the East
has harped upon for so long as the chief evil of Mormonism that it has
come to believe that way, is a trivial matter compared with the awful
oaths taken and the bitter hatred of this Nation inculcated in the
endowment house. Much of the comment of Eastern papers is born of this new
light, and is bitter, both because of the nature of the exposures here and
because of the discovery that former opinions were erroneous; for we are
little inclined to forgive peole whom we have always despised for one bad
trait when we find that what we have taken for their worst quality is far
short of their actual iniquity. (Salt Lake Tribune)

24 Nov 1889, L. John Nuttall:
"* * * Bro. D. R. Bateman called for me---and took me to the Gardo House.
I found Pres. Woodruff there. He with Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon had met this
afternoon with Bro. John W. Young. LeGrand Young, Jas. H. Moyle and R.W.
Young to consider the matters as presented and talked upon yesterday, and
the question was left with Pres. Woodruff to decide. The President told me
of this and said that he had made the subject a matter of prayer and by
the voice of the spirit he was directed to write after he had concluded
writing which he was doing when I arrived. He asked me to copy a
Revelation which he had received--I did so. Having heard Bro. J.W. Young's
reasoning, I felt very much worked up in my feelings for I did not feel
that as a church we could assume the position in regard to Celestial
Marriage which he seemed to desire should be taken, and when Pres.
Woodruff commenced talking to me this evening I felt that he had become
converted and actually trembled, for I knew, such had not been Pres.
Woodruffs feelings before, but as I wrote at his dictation, I felt better
all the time and when completed I felt as light and joyus as it is
possible to feel, for I was satisfied that Pres. Woodruff had received the
word of the Lord. When Pres. Jos. F. Smith returned and read the
revelation he was moved to tears and expressed his approval and acceptance
of [223] the word of the Lord to His Servants and Saints. We all felt well
and thankful to the Lord. Prest. Woodruff remained with us at the Gardo
House Tonight." (Diary of L. John Nuttall)

24 Nov 1889, Wilford Woodruff:
	Attended a meeting with the lawyers at the Gardo (House) in the
evening. They wanted me to make some concession to the court upon polygamy
and other points, and I spent several hours alone and inquired of the Lord
and received the following revelation:
	"Thus saith the Lord to my servant Wilford. I, the Lord, have heard
thy prayers and thy request, and will answer thee by the voice of my
spirit.
	Thus saith the Lord unto my servants the Presidency of my Church, who
hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on the earth. I the Lord hold the
destiny of the courts in your midst, and the destiny of this nation, and
the destiny of all other nations of the earth, in mine own hands, and all
that I have revealed and promised and decreed concerning the generation in
which you live shall come to pass, and no power shall stay my hand.
	Let not my servants who are called to the Presidency of My Church
deny My word or My law, which concerns the salvation of the children of
men. Let them pray for the Holy Spirit which shall be given them to guide
them in their acts. Place not yourselves in jeopardy to your enemies by
promise. Your enemies seek your destruction and the destruction of my
people. If the Saints will hearken unto my voice, and the council of my
servants, the wicked shall not prevail.
	Let my servants who officiate as your counselors before the courts
make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without
any further pledges from the Priesthood.
	I, the Lord, will hold the courts, with the officers of government
and the nation responsible for their acts towards the inhabitants of Zion.
	I, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, am in your midst. I am your
advocate with the Father. Fear not, [224] little flock, it is your
Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom. Fear not the wicked and
ungodly.
	Search the scriptures, for they are they which testify of me; also
those revelations which I have given to my servant Joseph, and to all my
servants since the world began, which are recorded in the record of divine
truth.
	Those revelations contain the judgements of God which are to be
poured out upon all nations under the heavens, which include Great
Babylon. These judgements are at the door. They will be fulfilled as God
lives. Leave judgement with me, it is mine, saith the Lord. Watch the
signs of the times and they will show the fulfillment of the words of the
Lord. Let my servants call upon the Lord in mighty prayer, retain the Holy
Ghost as your constant companion and act as you are moved upon by the
Spirit and all will be well with you.
	The wicked are fast ripening in iniquity, and they will be cut off by
the judgements of God. Great events await you and this generation and are
nigh at your doors. Awake! O Israel, and have faith in God and his
promises and He will not forsake you. I the Lord will deliver my Saints
from the dominion of the wicked in mine own due time and way.
	I cannot deny My Word, neither in blessings nor judgements. Therefore
let mine anointed gird up their loins, watch and be sober, and keep my
commandments. Pray always and faint not. Exercise faith in the Lord and in
the promises of God; be valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ.
	The eyes of the Lord and the Heavenly Hosts are watching over you and
your acts. Therefore be faithful until I come. I come quickly to reward
every man, according to the deeds in the body, even so, Amen. (Journal of
Wilford Woodruff, see also Diary of L. John Nuttall under the date of 27
Nov 1889)

Monday 25 Nov 1889:
	On order of Judge Anderson, C.W. Penrose, Esq., editor-in-chief of
the Deseret Evening News, was released from the penitentiary. (Deseret
Evening News, 26 Nov 1889)

[225]
Monday 25 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
MORMONS IN CANADA.
By Telegram to the NEWS!
Mormon Immigration to Canada.
	OTTAWA, Ont., Nov. 25. --The Journal, which supports the government
of Sir John McDonald, says:
	It looks as though there would be a large Mormon immigration into the
Canadian Northwest unless checked by hostile legislation. The colony near
McLeod has propsered. It has been visited by delegates sent from Salt Lake
City to report and arrange for immigration to the British Territory, and
there is little doubt but the result will be a rapid growth of Mormon
settlements within the prairie territories of the Dominion. Unless the
threatened mischief is nipped in the bud, Canada is destined at no very
distant period to witness within her borders a repetition of the horrors
the United States have had to contend with in Utah. The press and public
men of Canada may as well make up their minds before the next session of
Parliment upon what terms Mormon immigration into this country will be
allowed, if at all.
	The Dominion government have detectives about the Mormon colony near
Lee's Creek, investigating the marital relations of a few suspected
persons and keeping in close surveilance a number of recent arrivals.
(Deseret Evening News, 26 Nov 1889)

Tuesday 26 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
PRESIDENT WOODRUFFS REPLY.
	WILFORD WOODRUFF has found it necessary to step forward, and as
President of the Mormon Church undertake to defend it from the logical
consequences of the dreadful showing of its disloyalty and
bloodthirstiness made in court the past ten days. Inasmuch as he is
particeps criminis in an eminent degree in all the things charged against
the church, his defense of it must be taken much as would be the
disclaimer of a culprit of the crime alleged against him. But what a weak
disclaimer the old man makes. "It is the periodical Mormon sensation" he
says, when the fact is that the Gentiles didn't [226] get it up at all; it
was brought on by the Mormons themselves in the application of one of
their oath-bound aliens to be made a citizen of the United States. This
application was opposed by Gentile counsel, and then the whole flood of
villainy was exposed--a living, polluted stream that ramifies into every
Mormon family and vitiates every Mormon pretense of loyalty to this
Nation. The action of the Gentiles was purely negative; they simply
resisted a disloyal aggression upon American institutions. Yet WOODRUFF
has the effrontry to assume that it is "the periodical Mormon sensation,"
thus exactly reversing the true state of the case, which is natural enough
after all for him to do, since that is the way of his sect.
	WOODRUFF also gets off the stereotyped claim of loyalty; "the
revelations and commandments of the church require the Constitution and
laws to be upheld," he says; yet it has been fully proved that Mormon love
for the Constitution goes solely to the point that they claim under that
instrument, liberty to disregard and defy such law's as are not in accord
with their revelations; and that when they have so determined any law to
be unconstitutional, their ruling upon it is what they hold to, in utter
disregard of any ruling of the United States Supreme Court. When WOODRUFF
says further that the Mormon people expect a time to come when the country
will be given over to lawlessness and then they expect to step forward and
save it from ruin, we can only say, God help this Nation in that day; the
salvation offered it by Mormonism would be a more complete and disastrous
ruin than any other of which it is possible to conceive.
	WOODRUFF makes a disclaimer of the claim of authority by the
priesthood over temporal or political affairs. Yet the assertion and
exercise of that claim has been fully proved in this investigation; it has
been open and continuous all along; no one acquainted with the workings of
Mormonism could possibly fail to run up against it. WOODRUFF himself has
preached it. He now denies for outward effect a thing he knows perfectly
to be a radical part of the Mormon system.
	The "form of prayer" in the endowment ceremonies [227] with regard to
avenging the blood of the prophets, WOODRUFF explains as did apostle JOHN
HENRY SMITH; yet no sooner had JOHN HENRY'S cross-examination begun than
he landed in deep water and began his long series of "declines to answer."
Doubtless, WOODRUFF would also land in deep water could he be asked a few
questions on this point. It is idle to squirm, lie and evade; this
avenging of the blood of the prophets was to be on this Nation, and not
one in the ten thousand of the oath-bound endowment house devotees
understood any other prophets to be referred to than the Mormon
"martyers," beginning with JOSEPH and HYRUM SMITH.
	"Concerning the cry about blood atonement," says WOODRUFF, it means
really the atoning blood of Christ; that executions for murder shall be
under the law of the land and by its officers only. This is not the fact.
Apostacy was to be followed by death; and no laws of the land could
possibly take notice of such an alleged offense. Besides, if the laws of
the land and the civil officers were to be the only agencies in this
matter, what had the church to do with it? What business has the function
of a criminal court of high resort in church ceremonies? If the law of the
land is to alone take control of the shedding of blood, how does it come
that every person who passes through the endowment house is obligated to
enforce that penalty, and that his arm is anointed to make it strong in
the church service in the enforcement of these bloody covenants? It won't
do, Mr. WOODRUFF. The case is made against you on sworn testimony. Your
explanations are not true, and you can see easily that they do not meet
the case. Your words leave the showing against your sect worse than if you
had not spoken; for people will naturally say on reading your ramshackle
defense that it is practically an admission of everything, since you are
not able to shake in the slightest degree the case made; in fact, make a
worse showing than some of your pitiable tools who shook with fear on the
stand at the shadow of the jail gradually reaching out towards them, for
violations of law almost confessed.
	Mr. WOODRUFF finally enters a formal denial of the truth of the
disclosures made on the stand by "apostate [228] Mormon witnesses." But
his denial counts for nothing. He adds that Mormons have as much right to
decline to divulge the "innocent formula of the endowment" as Masons have
to refuse to disclose the Masonic ritual. It is a weak plea; for as has
been perfectly shown those endowment formulas are by no means innocent;
they are traitorous and bloody, involving pledges to crime and to an alien
service hostile to this Nation. When any one has the audacity to charge
anything of the sort upon the Masonic ritual, it will be time enough to
talk about disclosing it. (Salt Lake Tribune)

Saturday 30 Nov 1889, Salt Lake Tribune:
A PRIVILEGE, IS IT?
	In a discourse to the people of Bear Lake, reported in the Deseret
News of September 22, 1883, the late JOHN TAYLOR, then President of the
Mormon Church, said:
	"I will here call your attention to the revelation itself, which
reads:
	"Verily, thus saith the Lord, unto you, my servant Joseph, that
inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I,
the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; as also Moses,
David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of
their having many wives and concubines;
	"Behold! and lo! I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as
touching this matter;
	"Therefore, prepare thyself to receive and obey the instructions
which I am about to give unto you for all those who have this law revealed
unto them must obey the same.
	"This you will see is strictly in accordance with what I have told
you Joseph Smith told the Twelve--that if this law was not practiced, if
they would not enter into this covenant, then the Kingdom of God could not
go one step further. Now, we did not feel like preventing the Kingdom of
God from going forward. We professed to be the apostles of the Lord, and
did not feel like putting [229] ourselves in a position to retard the
Kingdom of God. The revelation, as you have heard, says that all those who
have this law revealed unto them, must obey the same. Now, that is not my
word. I did not make it. It was the Prophet of God who revealed that to us
in Nauvoo, and I bear witness of this solemn fact before God, that He did
reveal this sacred principle to me and others of the Twelve, and in this
revelation it is stated that it is the will and law of God that `all those
who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.' And the
revelation further says:
	"For behold: I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if
ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned."
 	"Think of that, will you. For it is further said:
	"No man can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my
glory."
	There are many people who try to excuse themselves in this matter,
and who essay to do as they please, but as the Lord liveth, he will not
excuse them. He expects those who profess to be His people to carry out
that law. The revelation continues to say:
	"For all who will have a blessing at my hands, shall abide the law
which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof as were
instituted before the foundations of the world.
	* * And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was
instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness
thereof, must and shall abide the law or he shall be damned, saith the
Lord God."
	The woods seem to be full of Mormons now-a-days who "are damned,"
unless the foregoing is simply rot. But perhaps the covenant wasn't so
dreadfully "everlasting if after all. Within six brief years it seems to
have passed away entirely. President WOODRUFF, [230] JOHN HENRY SMITH,
Bro. PENROSE, and all the witnesses for the defense appear to know nothing
about it. (Salt Lake Tribune)

Saturday 30 Nov 1889, Deseret Evening News:
	The Federal Courtroom was filled this morning by those assembled to
hear the decision of Judge Anderson in the case involving the eligibility
of "Mormons" for citizenship. The reading of the opinion occupied an hour,
and at its conclusion the crowd, which was almost entirely anti-"Mormon,"
expressed their approval of the judge's decision by stamping their feet
and clapping their hands. The opinion is as follows:
In the District Court for the Third Judicial District of the Territory of
Utah.
	In the matter of the application of John Moore, Fred W. Miller, Henry
J. Owen, John Berg, Walter J. Edgar, Charles E. Clissold, Nils Anderson,
Carl P. Larsen, Thomas M. Mumford, John Garbet and Arthur Townsend, to
become citizens of the United States.

OPINION:
Anderson, J.
	In these applications the usual evidence on behalf of the applicants
as to residence, moral character, etc., was introduced at a former
hearing, and was deemed sufficient. Objection was made, however, to the
admission of John Moore and William J. Edgar upon the ground that they
were members of the Mormon Church, and also because they had gone through
the Endowment House of that Church, and there had taken an oath or
obligation incompatible with the oath of citizenship they would be
required to take if admitted. The admission of the other applicants was
objected to solely on the ground that by their own statements they were
members of the Mormon Church, although they had not gone through the
Endowment House, and had not taken the oath usually administered there,
nor in fact any oath incompatible with citizenship.
[231] The claim is made by those who object to the admission to
citizenship of these persons, that the Mormon Church is and always has
been a treasonable organization in its teachings and in its practice,
hostile to the government of the United States, disobedient to its laws,
and seeking its overthrow, and that the oath administered to its members
in the Endowment House binds them, under the penalty of death, to implicit
obedience in all things, temporal as well as spiritual, to the Priesthood,
and to avenge the death of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith upon the
government and people of the United States. The taking of further
testimony at this time is for the purpose of determining whether or not
these allegations are true.
	The third subdivision of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States provides that in order to entitle an alien to be admitted as
a citizen of the United States, it shall be made to appear to the
satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided in the
United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where
such court is at the time held, one year at least, and that during that
time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the
principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to
the good order and happiness of the same. Those objecting to the right of
these applicants to be admitted to citizenship, introduced eleven
witnesses, who had been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church. Several of these
witnesses had held the position of Bishop in the Church and all had gone
through the Endowment House and participated in its ceremonies. The
testimony of these witnesses is to the effect that every member of the
Church is expected to go through the Endowment House, and that nearly all
do so; that marriages are usually solemnized there, and that those who are
married elsewhere go through the Endowment ceremonies at as early a date
thereafter as practicable, in order that the marital relation shall
continue throughout eternity. That these ceremonies occupy the greater
part of a day, and include the taking of an oath, obligation or covenant,
by [232] all who receive their endowments, that they will avenge the blood
of the Prophets, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, upon the Government of the United
States, and will enjoin this obligation upon their children, unto the
third and forth generations; that they will obey the Priesthood in all
things, and will never reveal the secrets of the Endowment House under the
penalty of having their throats cut from ear to ear, their bowels torn
out, and their hearts cut out of their bodies. The right arm is annointed
that it may be strong to avenge the blood of the prophets. An
undergarment, a sort of combination of shirt and drawers, called the
endowment robe, is then put on, and is to be worn ever after. On this
robe, near the throat, and over the heart, and in the region of the
abdomen, are certain marks or designs intended to remind the wearer of the
penalties that will be inflicted in case of a violation of the oath,
obligation or covenant he or she has taken or made.
	On behalf of the applicants, fourteen witnesses testified concerning
the endowment ceremonies, but all of them declined to state what oaths are
there taken, or what obligations or covenants are there entered into, or
what penalties are attached to their violation; and these witnesses when
asked for their reason for declining to answer, stated that they did so
"on a point of honor," while several stated they had forgotten what was
said about avenging the blood of the prophets. John H. Smith, one of the
Twelve Apostles of the Church, testified that all that is said in the
endowment ceremonies about avenging the blood of the prophets is said in a
lecture, in which the 9th and 10th verses of the sixth chapter of
Revelations is recited, as follows:
	"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the alter the
souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony
which they held. And they cried with a loud voice saying, How long, O
Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that
dwell on the earth."
	Other witnesses for the applicants testified that this [233] is the
only place in the ceremonies where avenging the blood of the prophets is
mentioned.
	John Clark, a witness for applicants, testified he took some
obligations, made some promises, entered into some covenants in the
Endowment House, and wore his endowment robes, but did not know the
significance of the split over the heart. E.L.T. Harrison, another of
applicant's witnesses, testified he had a clear recollection that his
right arm was washed, and something said about it being made strong to
avenge the death of the Prophets, and that the names of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith were not mentioned, but were understood to be among the number whose
blood was to be avenged; and E.G. Woolley, a witness for the applicants,
testified they were to pray to the Lord to avenge the blood of the
Prophets. Every other witness for the applicants who was asked the
question stated that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were understood to be included
among the Prophets whose blood was to be avenged.
	The witnesses for the applicants, while refusing to disclose the
oath, promises and covenants of the endowment ceremonies, and the
penalties attached thereto, testified generally that there was nothing in
the ceremonies inconsistent with loyalty to the government of the United
States, and that the government was not mentioned. One of the objects of
this investigation is to ascertain whether the oaths and obligations of
the Endowment House are incompatible with good citizenship, and it is not
for applicants' witnesses to determine this question. The refusal of
applicants' witnesses to state specifically what oaths, obligations or
covenants are taken or entered into in these ceremonies, renders their
testimony of but little value, and tends to confirm rather than contradict
the evidence on this point offered by the objectors. The evidence
established beyond any reasonable doubt that the endowment ceremonies are
inconsistent with the oath an applicant for citizenship is required to
take; and that the oaths, obligations or covenants there made or entered
into are incompatible with the obligations and duties of citizens of the
United States. The applications of John Moore and Walter J. Edgar, both of
whom were [234] shown on the former examination to be members of the
Mormon church, and to have gone through the endowment house, are therefore
denied.
	As to the objection made to the admission of the other applicants
upon the ground solely of their being members of the Mormon church, a
large amount of evidence, mostly documentary, has been introduced, only a
small portion of which can be noticed in this opinion without extending it
to too great a length. The evidence consists mostly of the sermons and
writings of the Mormon rulers and leaders, published under the direction
of the church. On the subject of the right of the priesthood and rulers to
dictate to the members in temporal matters, portions of section 124, page
436, of the Doctrine and Covenants is offered by the objectors, containing
the prophecies of Joseph Smith as follows:
	"And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I
have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built
unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph,
and his house, have place therein, from generation to generation. For this
anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put
upon the head of his posterity after him. And as I said unto Abraham
concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant
Joseph, in thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.
Therefore, let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in that
house, from generation to generation, for ever and ever, saith the Lord.
And let the name of that house be called Nauvoo House, and let it be a
delightful habitation for man, and a resting place for the weary traveler,
that he may contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this the
corner stone thereof. That he may receive also the counsel from those whom
I have set to be as plants of renown, and as watchmen upon her walls.
Behold, verily I say unto you, let my servant George Miller, and my
servant Lyman Wight, and my servant John Snider and my servant Peter Haws,
organize themselves, and appoint one of them to be a president over their
quorum for the purpose [235] of building that house. And they shall form a
constitution whereby they may receive stock for the building of that
house. And they shall not receive less than fifty dollars for a share of
stock in that house, and they shall be permitted to receive fifteen
"thousand dollars from any one man for stock in that house; but they shall
not be permitted to receive over fifteen thousand dollars stock from any
one man; and they shall not be permitted to receive any man as a
stockholder in this house except the same shall pay his stock into their
hands at the time he receives stock."
	Also from page 241 of the same book, as follows:
	And now verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant
Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks should return upon his business, and to
his agency in the land of Zion; and that which he hath seen and heard may
be made known to my disciples, that they perish not. And for this cause I
have spoken these things. And again I say unto you, that my servant Isaac
Morley may not be tempted above that which he is able to bear, and counsel
wrongfully to your hurt I gave commandment that his farm should be sold."
	From page 242 of the same book as follows:
	And it is not meet that my servants, Newell K. Whitney and Sidney
Gilbert, should sell their store and their possessions here for this is
not wisdom, until the residue of the Church, which remaineth in this
place, shall go up unto the land of Zion."
	Also an extract from a discourse by President Brigham Young delivered
in the Tabernacle in this city, June 16, 1867, in which he used the
following language:
	"You may say it is hard that I should dictate you in your temporal
affairs. Is it not my privilege to dictate to you? Is it not my privilege
to give this people counsel to direct them so that their labors will build
up the Kingdom of God instead of the kingdom of the devil? I will [236]
quote you a little scripture if you wish, the words of an apostle of the
Lord Jesus Christ to me. You may think that I saw him in a vision, and it
was a vision given right in broad daylight. Said he: `Never spend another
day to build up a gentile city, but spend your days, dollars and dimes for
the upbuilding of the Zion of God upon the earth, to promote peace and
righteousness and to prepare for the coming of the Son of Man, and he who
does not abide this law will suffer loss.' That is a saying of one of the
apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. He said it to me. Do you want to know,
his name? It is not recorded in the New Testiment among the apostles, but
it was an apostle whom the Lord called and ordained in this, my day, and
in the day of a good portion of this congregation, and his name was Joseph
Smith, Jr. These words were delivered to me in July, 1833, in the town of
Kirtland, Geauga County, in the State of Ohio. The word to the Elders who
were there was: `Never from this time henceforth do you spend one hour to
sustain the kingdoms of this world, or the kingdoms of the devil, but
sustain the Kingdom of God to your uttermost. Now, if I were to ask the
Elders of Israel to abide this, what would be the reply of some amongst
us? The language in the hearts of some would be, `It is none of your
business where I trade.' I will promise those who feel thus that they will
never enter the celestial kingdom of our Father and God. That is my
business. It is my business to preach the truth to the people, and it will
be my business by and by to testify for the just and to bear witness
against the ungodly. It is your privilege to do as you please. Just please
yourselves, but when you do so, will you please bear the results and not
whine over them?"--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 59.

	In another discourse made in the Tabernacle in this city, March 9th,
1862, the same distinguished leader used the following language:
	"There is not a man upon the earth who could magnify even an earthly
office without the power and wisdom of God to aid him. When Mr. Fillmore
appointed me [237] Governor of Utah, I proclaimed openly that my
Priesthood should govern and control that office. I am of the same mind
today. We have not received our election returns, but should I be elected
Governor of the State of Deseret, that office shall be sustained and
controlled by the power of the eternal Priesthood of the Son of God, or I
will walk the office under my feet. Here it, both Saint and sinner, and
send it to the uttermost parts of the earth, that whatever office I hold
from any government on this earth shall honor the government of heaven, or
I will not hold it."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p. 42.

	Elder George Q. Cannon, in an address in this city on the 1st day of
January, 1865, used the following language:
	"When the counsel of God comes through his servants to us, we should
bow to that, no matter how much it may come in contact with our
preconceived ideas; submit to it as though God spoke it, and feel such a
reverance towards it as though we believed that the servant of God had the
inspiration of the Almighty upon him."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p.
77.

	In a discourse delivered in this city on the 30th day of August,
1857, Elder John Taylor, afterwards one of the Presidents of the Church,
used the following language:
	"God has established His Kingdom. He has rolled back the cloud that
has overspread the moral horizon of the world. He has opened the heavens,
revealed the fulness of the everlasting Gospel, organized this His
Kingdom, according to the pattern that exists in the heavens, and He has
placed certain keys, powers and oracles in our midst, and we are the
people of God; we are His government. The Priesthood upon the earth is the
legitimate government of God, whether in the heavens or on the
earth."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, 187. (sic)

	In a discourse by President Heber C. Kimball, de-[238]livered in this
city, Sunday morning, August 30th, 1857, he used the following language:
	"I want to tell some of my feelings here today in a few words
relative to Brother Brigham. I call him brother, because he says if I call
him President he shall call me President, and just as sure as he does, I
am flat as a pancake. I shall only call him President before the Saints in
his calling. I was going to say, before our enemies, but damn them, they
shall never come here. Excuse me, I never use rough words only when I come
in contact with rough things, and I use smooth words when I talk upon
smooth subjects, and so on, according to the nature of the case that comes
before me. You all acknowledge Brother Brigham as President of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then you acknowledge him as our
leader, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and then you acknowledge him in
every capacity that pertains to his calling both in Church and State, do
you not? (Voices, Yes.) Well, he is our governor. What is a governor? One
who presides or governs. Well, now, we have declared in a legislative
capacity that we will not have poor, rotten hearted curses to rule over us
such as some they have been accustomed to send. We drafted a memorial and
the council and house of representatives signed it, and we sent to them
the names of men of our own choice, as many as from five to eight men for
each office, men from our own midst, out of whom to appoint officers for
this Territory. We sent that number for the President of the United States
to make a selection from, and asked him to give us men of our own choice
in accordance with the rights constitutionally guaranteed to all American
citizens. We just told them right up and down that if they sent any more
such miserable curses as some they had sent were, we would send them home;
and that is one reason why an army or rather a mob, is on the way here as
reported. You did not know the reason before, did you?
	I want you to go and get your butcher knives, your bowie knives and
jack knives, and sharpen them. There is nothing to fight and there will
not be this year. We shall [239] have a year of peace. They may try to
come here, and then they will not come here. If they do not undertake to
come here, then there will not be any trouble; but they never will force a
governor on us again. No, never. Nor their poor, rotten-hearted judges and
marshals, etc., if you will do right."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p.
160.

	Elder Wilford Woodruff, now president of the church, on the 8th day
of April, 1862, delivered an address in this city, in which he used the
following language:
	"This Kingdom has got to rise up and take its stand in majesty, in
strength and power among the nations, and all that the Lord has promised
will be realized. Our President has frequently told us that we shall not
separate the temporal from the spiritual, but they must go hand in hand
together. And so it is, and so must we act in reference to building up the
Church and Kingdom of God."--Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 325.

	On the 22nd day of October, 1865, President Woodruff delivered an
address in the Tabernacle in this city, in which he used the following
language:
	"The Lord has said that in the last days the kingdom should not be
taken from the earth nor given to another people, but that the kingdoms of
this world should become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. We have
the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other
revelations of God to this effect. Either this is the Kingdom of God or it
is not the Kingdom of God. If it is not the Kingdom of God, then are we
like the rest of mankind. Our faith is vain, our works are vain, and we
are in the same condition of ignorance with regard to the Gospel and the
purposes of God as the rest of the world. There are tens of thousands
throughout these valleys who know that this is the Kingdom of God. They
know this by the revelations of Jesus Christ. It is not the testimony of
another man that gives me the knowledge for myself. If I had not the
testimony of truth for myself, I would not be [240] qualified to build up
this kingdom. There is no man or woman qualified to build up the kingdom
of God if they have not the testimony of truth for themselves. I will say
to this congregation, Jew and Gentile, believer and unbeliever, that this
is the great kingdom spoken of by Daniel, the commencement of the Zion of
our God, which every prophet has spoken of who has referred to the Zion of
the last days. The Lord has sworn by Himself, because he could swear by
none greater, that He will establish it in the latter days."--Journal of
Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 245.

	Evidence was also introduced showing that the Bishops courts of the
Church exercise judicial functions to the extent of rendering judgments
and annuling or modifying judgments rendered by the civil courts. It is
contended, however, that they have no power of enforcing their judgments
except by excommunication or other like means. This is perhaps true, but
with a people so completely under the control of their leaders as the
members of this Church are, this method is in many, if not in most cases,
as effectual as an execution or other process of the civil courts. The
following are samples of the procedure in the Bishops' courts:
	"Salt Lake City, Utah, November 20th, 1889. "Brother Otto Van Ostrum:
	"You are hereby notified to attend a Bishop's court to be held in the
Sixteenth Ward School House, Salt Lake City, on Friday evening, November
22nd, 1889, at 7 o'clock, to answer the following charge, which has been
preferred against you:
"SALT LAKE CITY, Oct. 30, 1889. "To Bishop F. Kessier:
	"Dear Brother--I hereby prefer a charge against Otto Van Ostrum, a
member of the Sixteenth Ward, for unchristianlike conduct, in enforcing a
contract to exchange property between us through the United States
commissioner's court, before my wife had agreed to the transaction, and
before I fully understood the nature of the [241] contract, through my
limited knowledge of the English language. And also for my being about to
sell a portion of my property by marshal's sale to satisfy damages which
he has never sustained, as neither him nor I were in the least injured by
the failure of the exchange. The time of the sale having been advertized
for November 16th, I would respectfully ask that a hearing may be had
before you in this case as early as possible. (Signed) "G. L. JENSEN."

	"Do not fail to appear with your testimony prepared for investigation
of the above charge.
	"By order of Bishop F. Kessler and council.
	"GEORGE R. EMERY, Ward Clerk.
	"N. B. --If you do not appear or send a justifiable excuse for your
absence, this case will be heard and acted upon whether you are present or
not. "G.R.E."

SALT LAKE CITY, Jan. 24, 1887.
	"We, the bishop and council of the Fourth Ward, after due
deliberation render the following judgment in the case of Joseph Sowdan
vs. Charles Williams. The interest now due, amounting to $178, is to be
paid on the 15th day of April, 1887; $100 of the principal and $12.50
(interest on $350 for six months at 10 per cent per annum) to be paid on
the 24th day of July, 1887, the remaining $450 principal and $22.50
(interest on $450 for six months at 10 per cent per annum) to be paid on
the 24th day of January, 1888.
	"Harrison Sperry, Bishop; Thos. Cerless and Charles Knight,
Counselors; W.F. Smith, Clerk."

	I think there can be no question but that the Church claims and
exercises the right to control its members in temporal as well as
spiritual affairs.
	The evidence also shows that blood atonement is one of the doctrines
of the Church under which, for certain offenses, the offender shall suffer
death as the only means of atoning for his transgressions, and that any
member of the Church has the right to shed his blood.
	In a discourse delivered September 21st, 1856, Brig-[242]ham Young
said:
	"There are sins which men commit for which they cannot receive
forgiveness in this world or in that which is to come; and if they had
their eyes open to their true condition they would be perfectly willing to
have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might
ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; where as, if such is not
the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit
world. I know when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off
from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save
them, not to destroy them. It is true the blood of the Son of God was shed
for sins through the fall, and those committed by men, yet man can commit
sins which it never can remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our
day, and though the principles are taught publicly from this stand, still
the people do not understand them. Yet the law is precisely the same.
There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in
ancient days and there are sins that the blood of a lamb or of a calf or
of turtle doves cannot remit; but they must be atoned for by the blood of
the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this
stand. They understand the doctrine and throw out a few words about it.
You have been taught that doctrine, but you did not understand it."
	And again, on the 8th day of February 1857, in a discourse in the
Tabernacle, President Young used the following language (see DESERET NEWS,
Vol. 6, p. 397):
	"But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin
no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven
them without taking of life. You are aware that when Brother Cummings came
to the point of loving our neighbors, he could say yes or no, as the case
might be. That is true; but I want to connect it with the doctrine you
hear in the Bible. When will we love our neighbors as ourselves? In the
first place, [243] Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is
admitted by all, every person loves himself. Now, if we do rightly love
ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist; we want to go into
the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity and see no more sorrow, or death.
This is the desire of every person who believes in God. Now, take a person
in this congregation who has knowledge with being saved in the Kingdom of
our God and our Father, and being an exalted one, who knows and
understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and
excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain, foolish
things of the world, and suppose he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he
has committed a sin which he knows will deprive him of that exaltation
which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of
his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for
that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods. Is there a man or woman
in this house but what would say, `Shed my blood, that I may be saved and
exalted with the gods?' All mankind love themselves, and let these
principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his
blood shed. That would be loving themselves even unto an eternal
exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they
have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of
their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their
blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to
love their enemies in their wickedness. He never intended any such thing.
I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously
slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of
people for whom there would have been a chance in the first resurrection,
if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled upon the ground as a
smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil,
until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up, conquers death, hell
and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left the Church for
whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had
been spilled it would have been better [244] for them. The wickedness and
ignorance of the nations forbids this principle being in full force, but
the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This is
loving our neighbors as ourselves. If he needs help, help him; and if he
needs salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood upon the ground in
order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the
principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of
blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until
your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you
desire. That is the way to love mankind."

	President Jedediah M. Grant delivered a discourse March 12th, 1854,
on the subject of what he calls "covenant breakers," that is, those who
leave the Mormon Church, in which he used the following language:
	"Then what ought this meek people, who keep the commandments of God,
to do unto them? `Nay,' says one, `they ought to pray to the Lord to kill
them.' I want to know if you wish the Lord to come down and do all your
dirty work. Many of the Latter-day Saints will pray and petition and
supplicate the Lord to do a thousand things they themselves would be
ashamed to do. When a man prays for a thing he ought to be willing to
perform it himself; but if the Latter-day Saints should put to death the
covenant breakers, it would try the faith of the very meek, just and pious
ones among them. It would cause a great deal of whining in Israel. Then
there was another old commandment. The Lord God commanded them not to pity
the person whom they killed, but to execute the law of God upon persons
worthy of death. This should be done by the entire congregation, showing
no pity. I have thought there would have to be quite a revolution among
the Mormons before such a commandment could be obeyed completely by them.
The Mormons have a great deal of sympathy. For instance if they can get a
man before a tribunal administering the law of the land, and succeed in
getting a rope around his neck and having him hung up like a dead dog, it
is alright; but if the [245] Church and Kingdom of God should step forth
and execute the law of God, Oh, what a burst of Mormon sympathy it would
cause. I wish we were in a situation favorable to our doing that which is
justifiable before God without any contaminating influence of Gentile
amalgamation, laws and traditions, that the people of God might lay the
axe to the rest of the tree, and every tree that bringeth not forth good
fruit might be hewn down. What! Do you believe that people would do right
and keep the law of God by actually putting to death the transgressors?
Putting to death the covenant breakers would exhibit the law of God, no
matter by whom it was done. That is my opinion. You talk of the doings of
different governments, the United States if you please. What do they do
with traitors? What mode do they adopt to punish traitors? Do traitors to
that Government forfeit their lives? Examine also the doings of other
earthly governments on this point, and you will find the same practice
universal. I am not aware that there are any exceptions, but people will
look in the books of theology and argue that the people of God have a
right to try people for fellowship, but they have no right to try them on
property or life. That makes the devil laugh, saying, "I have got them on
a hook now. They can cut them off, and I will put eight or ten spirits
worse than they are into their tabernacles, and send them back to mob
them." (Deseret News, July 27th, 1854.)

	Referring to the right of the Church to shed the blood of those who
apostatize, Brigham Young, in an address delivered in the Tabernacle March
27th, 1853, and found in Vol. 1, Journal of Discourses, page 81, used the
following language:
	"I will tell you a dream that I had last night. I dreamed that I was
in the midst of a people who were dressed in rags and tatters. They had
turbans upon their heads, and they were also hanging in tatters. The rags
were of many colors, and when the people moved they were all in motion.
Their object appeared to be to attract attention. Said they to me, `We are
Mormons, Brother Brigham.' `No, you are not,' I replied. `But [246] we
have been,' said they; and they began to jump and caper about and dance,
and their rags of many colors were all in motion, to attract the attention
of the people. I said, `You are no Saints, you are a disgrace to them.'
Said they, `We have been Mormons.' By and by along came some mobocrats,
and they greeted them with `How do you do, sir? I am very happy to see
you.' They kept on that way for an hour. I felt ashamed of them, for they
were, in my eyes, a disgrace to "Mormonism." Then I saw two ruffians, whom
I knew to be mobbers and murderers; and they crept into a bed where one of
my wives and children were. I said: `You that call yourselves brethren,
tell me, is this the fashion among you? They said, `But they were good
men. They are gentlemen.' With that I took my large bowie knife, that I
used to wear as a bosom pin at Nauvoo, and cut one of their throats from
ear, to ear, saying, `Go to hell across lots.' The other one said, `You
dare not serve me so.' I instantly sprang at him, seized him by the hair
of the head, and, bringing him down, cut his throat and sent him after his
comrade. Then told them both if they would behave themselves they should
yet live, but if they did not, I would unjoint their necks. At this