CHAPTER XXIV.
The Fight Against Polygamy--Statehood
First Measures introduced in Congress--The Act of 1862--The Cullom Bill of 1869 --Its Failure in the Senate--The United States Supreme Court Decision regarding Polygamy--Conviction of John Miles--Appeal of Women of Salt Lake City to Mrs. Hayes and the Women of the United States--President Hayes's Drastic Recommendation to Congress-- Recommendations of Presidents Garfield and Arthur--Passage of the Edmunds Bill--Its Provisions--The Edmunds-Tucker Amendment-- Appointment of the Utah Commission--Determined Opposition of the Mormon Church--Placing their Flags at Half Mast--Convictions under the New Law--Leaders in Hiding or in Exile--Mormon Honors for those who took their Punishment--Congress asked to disfranchise All Polygamists--The Mormon Church brought to Bay-- Woodruff's Famous Proclamation--How it was explained to the Church--The Roberts Case and the Vetoed Act of 1901--How Statehood came
THE first measure "to punish and
prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States"
was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Morrill of Vermont (Bill
No. 7) at the first session of the 36th Congress, on February 15, 1860. It
contained clauses annulling some of the acts of the territorial legislature of
Utah, including the one incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints. This bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 14, the
committee declaring that "no argument was deemed necessary to prove that
an act could be regarded as criminal which is so treated by the universal
concurrence of the Christian and civilized world," and characterizing the
church incorporation act as granting "such monstrous powers and arrogant
assumptions as are at war with the genius of our government." The bill
passed the House on April 5, by a vote of 149 to 60, was favorably reported to
the Senate by Mr. Bayard from the Judiciary Co mmittee on June 13, but did not
pass that House.
Mr. Morrill introduced his bill by unanimous consent in
the next Congress (on April 8, 1862), and it was passed by the House on April
28. Mr. Bayard, from the judiciary Committee, reported it back to the Senate on
June 3 with amendments. He explained that the House Bill punished not only
polygamous marriages, but cohabitation without marriage. The committee
recommended limiting the punishment to bigamy -- a fine not to exceed $500 and
imprisonment for not more than five years. Another amendment limited the amount
of real estate which a church corporation could hold in the territories to
$50,000. The bill passed the Senate with the negative votes of only the two
California senators, and the House accepted the amendments. Lincoln signed it.
Nothing practical was accomplished by this legislation, In 1867 George A. Smith and John Taylor, the presiding officers of the Utah legislature, petitioned Congress to repeal this act, setting forth as one reason that "the judiciary of this territory has not, up to the present time, tried any case under said law, though repeatedly urged to do so by those who have been anxious to test its constitutionality." The House Judiciary Committee reported that this was a practical request for the sanctioning of polygamy, and said: "Your committee has not been able to ascertain the reason why this law has not been enforced. The humiliating fact is, however, apparent that the law is at present practically a dead letter in the Territory of Utah, and that the gravest necessity exists for its enforcement; and, in the opinion of the committee, if it be through the fault or neglect of the judiciary of that territory that the laws are not enforced, the judges should be removed without delay; and that, if the failure to execute the law arises from other causes, it becomes the duty of the President of the United States to see that the law is faithfully executed."1
1 House Report No. 27, 2nd Session, 39th Congress.
In June, 1866, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio
obtained unanimous consent to introduce a bill enacting radical legislation
concerning such marriages as were performed and sanctioned by the Mormon
church, but it did not pass. Senator Cragin of New Hampshire soon introduced a
similar bill, but it, too failed to become a law.
In 1869, in the first Congress that met under President
Grant, Mr. Cullom of Illinois introduced in the House the bill aimed at
polygamy that was designated by his name. This bill was the practical
starting-point of the anti-polygamous legislation subsequently enacted, as over
it was aroused the feeling -- in its behalf in the East and against it in Utah
-- that resulted impractical legislation.
Delegate Hooper made the leading speech against it,
summing up his objections as follows: --
"(1) That under our constitution we are entitled
to be protected in the full and free enjoyment of our religious faith.
"(2) That our views of the marriage relation are
an essential portion of our religious faith.
"(3) That, in conceding the cognizance of the
marriage relation as within the province of church regulations, we are
practically in accord with all other Christian denominations."
"(4) That in our view of the marriage relation as
a part of our religious belief we are entitled to immunity from persecution
under the constitution, if such views are sincerely held; that, if such views
are erroneous, their eradication must be by argument and not by
force."
The bill, greatly amended, passed the House on March
23, 1870, by a vote of 94 to 32. The news of this action caused perhaps the
greatest excitement ever known in Utah. There was no intention on the part of
the Mormons to make any compromise on the question, and they set out to defeat
the bill outright in the Senate. Meetings of Mormon women were gotten up in all
parts of the territory, in which they asserted their devotion to the doctrine.
The "Reformers," including Stenhouse, Harrison, Tullidge, and others,
and merchants like Walker Brothers, Colonel Kahn, and T. Marshall, joined in a
call for a mass-meeting at which all expressed disapproval of some of its
provisions, like the one requiring men already having polygamous wives to break
up their families. Mr. Godbe went to Washington while the bill was before the
House, and worked hard for its modification. The bill did not pass the Senate,
a leading argument against it being the assumed impossibility of convicting
polygamists under it with any juries drawn in Utah.
The arrest of Brigham Young and others under the act to
punish adulterers, and the proceedings against them before Judge McKean in
1871, have been noted. At the same term of the court Thomas Hawkins, an English
immigrant, was convicted of the same charge on the evidence of his wife, and
sentenced to imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of $500. In passing
sentence, Judge McKean told the prisoner that, if he let him off with a fine,
the fine would be paid out of other funds than his own; that he would thus go
free, and that "those men who mislead the people would make you and
thousands of others believe that God had sent the money to pay the fine; that,
by a miracle, you had been rescued from the authorities of the United
States."
After the passage of the Poland law, in 1874, George
Reynolds, Brigham Young's private secretary, was convicted of bigamy under the
law of 1862, but was set free by the Supreme Court of the territory on the
ground of illegality in the drawing of the grand jury. In the following year he
was again convicted, and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and to pay
a fine of $500. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which
rendered its decision in October, 1878, unanimously sustaining the conviction,
except that Justice Field objected to the admission of one witness's testimony.
In its decision the court stated the question raised to
be "whether religious belief can be accepted as a justification for an
overt act made criminal by the law of the land." Next came a discussion of
views of religious freedom, as bearing on the meaning of "religion"
in the federal constitution, leading up to the conclusion that "Congress
was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to
reach actions which were in violation of social duties, or subversive of good
order." The court then traced the view of polygamy in England and the
United States from the time when it was made a capital offence in England (as
it was in Virginia in 1788), declaring that, "in the face of all this
evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of
religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most
important feature of social life." The opinion continued as follows: --
"In our opinion, the statute immediately
under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is
constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing
in the Territories, and in places over which the United States has exclusive
control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who
make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the
statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their
religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be
acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal
law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and, while they cannot
interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious
worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which
he lived could not interfere to preven t a sacrifice? Or, if a wife religiously
believed it was her duty to burn herself on the funeral pile of her dead
husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her
carrying her belief into practice?
"So here, as a law of the organization of society
under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural
marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary
because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed
doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to
permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only
in name under such circumstances." A criminal intent is generally an
element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and
legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here the accused knew he had
been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his
second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second
time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law, and the breaking of the
law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly
done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.2
2 United States Reports, Otto, Vol. III, p. 162.
P. T. Van Zile of Michigan, who became district
attorney of the territory in 1878, tried John Miles, a polygamist, for bigamy,
in 1879, and he was convicted, the prosecutor taking advantage of the fact that
the territorial legislature had practically adopted the California code, which
allowed challenges of jurors for actual bias. The principal incident of this
trial was the summoning of "General" Wells, then a counsellor of the
church, as a witness, and his refusal to describe the dress worn during the
ceremonies in the Endowment House, and the ceremonies themselves. He gave as
his excuse, "because I am under moral and sacred obligations to not
answer, and it is interwoven in my character never to betray a friend, a
brother, my country, my God, or my religion." He was sentenced to pay a
fine, of $100, and to two days' imprisonment. On his release, the City Council
met him at the prison door and escorted him home, accompanied by bands of music
and a procession made up of the benevolent , fire, and other organizations, and
delegations from every ward.
Governor Emery, in his message to the territorial
legislature of 1878, spoke as plainly about polygamy as any of his
predecessors, saying that it was a grave crime, even if the law against it was
a dead letter, and characterizing it as an evil endangering the peace of
society.
There was a lull in the agitation against polygamy in
Congress for some years after the contest over the Cullom Bill. In 1878 a
mass-meeting of women of Salt Lake City opposed to polygamy was held there, and
an address "to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes and the women of the United
States," and a petition to Congress, were adopted, and a committee was
appointed to distribute the petition throughout the country for signatures. The
address set forth that there had been more polygamous marriages in the last
year than ever before in the history of the Mormon church; that Endowment
Houses, under the name of temples, and costing millions, were being erected in
different parts of the territory in which the members were "sealed and
bound by oaths so strong that even apostates will not reveal them;" that
the Mormons had the balance of power in two territories, and were plotting to
extend it; and asking Congress "to arrest the further progress of this
evil."
President Hayes, in his annual message in December,
1879, spoke of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, and said
that there was no reason for longer delay in the enforcement of the law, urging
"more comprehensive and searching methods" of punishing and
preventing polygamy if they were necessary. He returned to the subject in his
message in 1880, saying: "Polygamy can only be suppressed by taking away
the political power of the sect which encourages and sustains it.... I
recommend that Congress provide for the government of Utah by a Governor and
judges, or Commissioners, appointed by the President and confirmed by the
Senate, (or) that the right to vote, hold office, or sit on juries in the
Territory of Utah be confined to those who neither practise nor uphold
polygamy."
President Garfield took up the subject in his inaugural
address on March 4, 1881. "The Mormon church," he said, "not
only offends the moral sense of mankind by sanctioning polygamy, but prevents
the administration of justice through ordinary instrumentalities of law."
He expressed the opinion that Congress should prohibit polygamy, and not allow
"any ecclesiastical organization to usurp in the smallest degree the
functions and power, of the national government." President Arthur, in his
message in December, 1881, referred to the difficulty of securing convictions
of persons accused of polygamy -- "this odious crime, so revolting to the
moral and religious sense of Christendom" -- and recommended legislation.
In the spirit of these recommendations, Senator Edmunds
introduced in the Senate, on December 12, 1881, a comprehensive measure
amending the anti-polygamy law of 1862, which, amended during the course of the
debate, was passed in the Senate on February 12, 1882, without a
roll-call,3 and in the House on March 13, by a vote of 199 to 42,
and was approved by the President on March 22. This is what is known as the
Edmunds law -- the first really serious blow struck by Congress against
polygamy.
3 Speeches against the bill were made in the Senate by Brown, Call, Lamar, Morgan, Pendleton, and Vest.
It provided, in brief, that, in the territories,
any person who, having a husband or wife living, marries another, or marries
more than one woman on the same day, shall be punished by a fine of not more
than $500, and by imprisonment, for not more than five years; that a male
person cohabiting with more than one woman shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,
and be subject to a fine of not more than $300 or to six months' imprisonment,
or both; that in any prosecution for bigamy, polygamy, or unlawful
cohabitation, a juror may be challenged if he is or has been living in the
practice of either offence, or if he believes it right for a man to have more
than one living and undivorced wife at a time, or to cohabit with more than one
woman; that the President may have power to grant amnesty to offenders, as
described, before the passage of this act; that the issue of so-called Mormon
marriages born before January 1, 1883, be legitimated; that no polygamist shall
be entitled to vote in any territ ory, or to hold office under the United
States; that the President shall appoint in Utah a board of five persons for
the registry of voters, and the reception and counting of votes.
To meet the determined opposition to the new law, an
amendment (known as the Edmunds-Tucker law) was enacted in 1887. This law, in
any prosecution coming under the definition of plural marriages, waived the
process of subpoena, on affidavit of sufficient cause, in favor of an
attachment; allowed a lawful husband or wife to testify regarding each other;
required every marriage certificate in Utah to be signed by the parties and the
person performing the ceremony, and filed in court; abolished female suffrage,
and gave suffrage only to males of proper age who registered and took an oath,
giving the names of their lawful wives, and promised to obey the laws of the
United States, and especially the Edmunds law; disqualified as a juror or
officeholder any person who had not taken an oath to support the laws of the
United States, or who had been convicted under the Edmunds law; gave the
President power to appoint the judges of the probate courts;4
provided for escheating to the U nited States for the use of the common schools
the property of corporations held in violation of the act in 1862, except
buildings held exclusively for the worship of God, the parsonages connected
therewith, and burial places; dissolved the corporation called the Perpetual
Emigration Company, and forbade the legislature to pass any law to bring
persons into the territory; dissolved the corporation known as the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and gave the Supreme Court of the territory
power to wind up its affairs; and annulled all laws regarding the Nauvoo
Legion, and all acts of the territorial legislature.
4 The first territorial legislature which met after the passage of this law passed an act practically nullifying such appointments of probate judges, but the governor vetoed it. In Beaver County, as soon as the appointment of a probate judge by the President was announced, the Mormon County Court met and reduced his salary to $5 a year.
The first members of the Utah commission appointed
under the Edmunds law were Alexander Ramsey of Minnesota, A. B. Carleton of
Indiana, A. S. Paddock of Nebraska, G. L. Godfrey of Iowa, and J. R. Pettigrew
of Arkansas, their appointments being dated June 23, 1882.
The officers of the church and the Mormons as a body
met the new situation as aggressively as did Brigham Young the approach of
United States troops. Their preachers and their newspapers reiterated the
divine nature of the "revelation" concerning polygamy and its
obligatory character, urging the people to standby their leaders in opposition
to the new laws. The following extracts from "an Epistle from the First
Presidency, to the officers and members of the church," dated October 6,
1885, will sufficiently illustrate the attitude of the church organization: --
"The war is openly and undisguisedly made
upon our religion. To induce men to repudiate that, to violate its precepts,
and break its solemn covenants, every encouragement is given. The man who
agrees to discard his wife or wives, and to trample upon the most sacred
obligations which human beings can enter into, escapes imprisonment, and is
applauded: while the man who will not make this compact of dishonor, who will
not admit that his past life has been a fraud and a lie, who will not say to
the world, 'I intended to deceive my God, my brethren, and my wives by making
covenants I did not expect to keep,' is, beside being punished to the full
extent of the law, compelled to endure the reproaches, taunts, and insults of a
brutal judge....
"We did not reveal celestial marriage. We cannot
withdraw or renounce it, God revealed it, and he has promised to maintain it
and to bless those who obey it. Whatever fate, then, may threaten us, there is
but one course for men of God to take; that is, to keep inviolate the holy
covenants they have made in the presence of God and angels. For the remainder,
whether it be life or death, freedom or imprisonment, prosperity or adversity,
we must trust in God. We may say, however, if any man or woman expects to enter
into the celestial kingdom of our God without making sacrifices and without
being tested to the very uttermost, they have not understood the Gospel....
"Upward of forty years ago the Lord revealed to
his church the principle of celestial marriage. The idea of marrying more wives
than one was as naturally abhorrent to the leading men and women of the church,
at that day, as it could be to any people. They shrank with dread from the bare
thought of entering into such relationship. But the command of God was before
them in language which no faithful soul dare disobey, 'For, behold, I reveal
unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant,
then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to
enter into my glory.'... Who would suppose that any man, in this land of
religious liberty, would presume to say to his fellow-man that he had no right
to take such steps as he thought necessary to escape damnation? Or that
Congress would enact a law which would present the alternative to religious
believers of being consigned to a penitentiary if they should attempt to obey a
law of God which would deliver them from damnation?"
There was a characteristic effort to evade the law as
regards political rights. The People's Party (Mormon), to get around the
provision concerning the test oath for voters, issued an address to them which
said: "The questions that intending voters need therefore ask themselves
are these: Are we guilty of the crimes of said act; or have we the present
intention of committing these crimes, or of aiding, abetting, causing or
advising any other person to commit them. Male citizens who can answer these
questions in the negative can qualify under the laws as voters or
office-holders."
Two events in 1885 were the cause of so much feeling
that United States troops were held in readiness for transportation to Utah.
The first of these was the placing of the United States flag at half mast in
Salt Lake City, on July 4, over the city hall, county court-house, theatre,
cooperative store, Deseret News office, tithing office, and President
Taylor's residence, to show the Mormon opinion that the Edmunds law had
destroyed liberty. When a committee of non-Mormon citizens called at the city
hall for an explanation of this display, the city marshal said that it was
"a whim of his," and the mayor ordered the flag raised to its proper
place.
In November of that year a Mormon night watchman named
McMurrin was shot and severely wounded by a United States deputy marshal named
Collin. This caused great feeling, and there were rumors that the Mormons
threatened to lynch Collin, that armed men had assembled to take him out of the
officers' hands, and that the Mormons of the territory were arming themselves,
and were ready at a moment's notice to march into Salt Lake City. Federal
troops were held in readiness at Eastern points, but they were not used. The
Salt Lake City Council, on December 8, made a report denying the truth of the
disquieting rumors, and declaring that "at no time in the history of this
city have the lives and property of its non-Mormon inhabitants been more secure
than now."
The records of the courts in Utah show that the Mormons
stood ready to obey the teachings of the church at any cost. Prosecutions under
the Edmunds law began in 1884, and the convictions for polygamy or unlawful
cohabitation (mostly the latter) were as follows in the years named: 3 in 1884,
39 in 1885, 112 in 1886, 214 in 1887, and 100 in 1888, with 48 in Idaho during
the same period. Leading men in the church went into hiding -- "under
ground," as it was called -- or fled from the territory. As to the actual
continuance of polygamous marriages, the evidence was contradictory. A special
report of the Utah Commission in 1884 expressed the opinion that there had been
a decided decrease in their number in the cities, and very little decrease in
the rural districts. Their regular report for that year estimated the number of
males and females who had entered into that relation at 459. The report for
1888 stated that the registration officers gave the names of 29 females who,
they had good reason to believe, had contracted polygamous marriages since the
lists were closed in June, 1887. As late as 1889 Hans Jespersen was arrested
for unlawful cohabitation. As his plural marriage was understood to be a recent
one, the case attracted wide attention, since it was expected to prove the
insincerity of the church in making the protest against the Edmunds law
principally on the ground that it broke up existing families. Jespersen pleaded
guilty of adultery and polygamy, and was sentenced to imprisonment for eight
years. In making his plea he said that he was married at the Endowment House in
Salt Lake City, that he and his wife were the only persons there, and that he
did not know who married them. His wife testified that she "heard a voice
pronounce them man and wife, but didn't see anyone nor who
spoke."5 Such were some of the methods adopted by the church to
set at naught the law.
5 Report of the Utah Commission for 1890, p. 23.
But along with this firm attitude, influences were
at work looking to a change of policy. During the first year of the enforcement
of the law it was on many sides declared a failure, the aggressive attitude of
the church, and the willingness of its leaders to accept imprisonment, hiding,
or exile, being regarded by many persons in the East as proof that the real
remedy for the Utah situation was yet to be discovered. The Utah Commission, in
their earlier reports, combated this idea, and pointed out that the young men
in the church would grow restive as they saw all the offices out of their reach
unless they took the test oath, and that they "would present an anomaly in
human nature if they should fail to be strongly influenced against going into a
relation which thus subjects them to political ostracism, and fixes on them the
stigma of moral turpitude." How wide this influence was is seen in the
political statistics of the times. When the Utah Commission entered on their
duties in Aug ust, 1882, almost every office in the territory was held by a
polygamist. By April, 1884, about 12,000 voters, male and female, had been
disfranchised by the act, and of the 1351 elective officers in the territory
not one was a polygamist, and not one of the municipal officers of Salt Lake
City then in office had ever been "in polygamy."
The church leaders at first tried to meet this
influence in two ways, by open rebuke of all Saints who showed a disposition to
obey the new laws, and by special honors to those who took their punishment.
Thus, the Deseret News told the brethren that they could not promise to obey
the anti-polygamy laws without violating obligations that bound them to time
and eternity; and when John Sharp, a leading member of the church in Salt Lake
City, went before the court and announced his intention to obey these laws, he
was instantly removed from the office of Bishop of his ward.
The restlessness of the flock showed itself in the
breaking down of the business barriers set up by the church between Mormons and
Gentiles. This subject received a good deal of attention in the minority report
signed by two of the commissioners in 1888. They noted the sale of real estate
by Mormons to Gentiles against the remonstrances of the church, the
organization of a Chamber of Commerce in Salt Lake City in which Mormons and
Gentiles worked together, and the union of both elements in the last Fourth of
July celebration.
In the spring of 1890, at the General Conference held
in Salt Lake City, the office of "Prophet, Seer and Revelator and
President" of the church, that had remained vacant since the death of John
Taylor in 1887, was filled by the election of Wilford Woodruff, a polygamist
who had refused to take the test oath, while G. Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow, who
were disfranchised for the same cause, were made respectively counsellor and
president of the Twelve.6 Woodruff was born in Connecticut in 1807,
became a Mormon in 1832, was several times sent on missions to England, and had
gained so much prominence while the church was at Nauvoo that he was the chief
dedicator of the Temple there. While there, he signed a certificate stating
that he knew of no other system of marriage in the church but the one-wife
system then prescribed in the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants."
Before the date of his promotion, Woodruff had declared that plural marriages
were no longer permitted, and, when he was confronted with evidence to the
contrary brought out in court, he denied all knowledge of it, and afterward
declared that, in consequence of the evidence presented, he had ordered the
Endowment House to be taken down.
6 Lorenzo Snow was elected president of the church on September 13, 1898, eleven days after the death of President Woodruff, and he held that position until his death which occurred on October 10, 1901.
Governor Thomas, in his report for 1890, expressed
the opinion that the church, under its system, could in only one way define its
position regarding polygamy, and that was by a public declaration by the head
of the church, or by action by a conference, and he added, "There is no
reason to believe that any earthly power can extort from the church any such
declaration." The governor was mistaken, not in measuring the purpose of
the church, but in foreseeing all the influences that were now making
themselves felt.
The revised statutes of Idaho at this time contained a
provision (Sec. 509) disfranchising all polygamists and debarring from office
all polygamists, and all persons who counselled or encouraged any one to commit
polygamy. The constitutionality of this section was argued before the United
States Supreme Court, which, on February 3, 1890, decided that it was
constitutional. The anti-polygamists in Utah saw in this decision a means of
attacking the Mormon belief even more aggressively than had been done by means
of the Edmunds Bill. An act was drawn (Governor Thomas and ex-Governor West
taking it to Washington) providing that no person living in plural or celestial
marriage, or teaching the same, or being a member of, or a contributor to, any
organization teaching it, or assisting in such a marriage, should be entitled
to vote, to serve as a juror, or to hold office, a test oath forming a part of
the act. Senator Cullom introduced this bill in the upper House and Mr. Struble
of Iowa in the House of Representatives. The House Committee on Territories
(the Democrats in the negative) voted to report the bill, amended so as to make
it applicable to all the territories. This propose d legislation caused great
excitement in Mormondom, and petitions against its passage were hurried to
Washington, some of these containing non-Mormon signatures.
As a further menace to the position of the church, the
United States Supreme Court, on May 19, affirmed the decision of the lower
court confiscating the property of the Mormon church, and declaring that church
organization to be an organized rebellion; and on June 21, the Senate passed
Senator Edmunds's bill disposing of the real estate of the church for the
benefit of the school fund.7
7 After the admission of Utah as a state, Congress passed an act restoring the property to the church.
The Mormon authorities now realized that the public
sentiment of the country, as expressed in the federal law, had them in its
grasp. They must make some concession to this public sentiment, or surrender
all their privileges as citizens and the wealth of their church organization.
Agents were hurried to Washington to implore the aid of Mr. Blaine in checking
the progress of the Cullom Bill, and at home the head of the church made the
concession in regard to polygamy which secured the admission of the territory
as a state.
On September 25, 1890, Woodruff, as President of the
church, issued a proclamation addressed "to whom it may concern,"
which struck out of the NECESSARY beliefs and practices of the Mormon church,
the practice of polygamy.
This important step was taken, not in the form of a
"revelation, "but simply as a proclamation or manifesto. It began
with a solemn declaration that the allegation of the Utah Commission that
plural marriages were still being solemnized was false, and the assertion that
"we are not preaching polygamy nor permitting any person to enter into its
practice." The closing and important part of the proclamation was as
follows: --
"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by
Congress, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last
resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to these laws, and to use my
influence with the members of the church over which I preside to have them do
likewise.
"There is nothing in my teachings to the church,
or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be
reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy, and when any elder of
the church has used language which appeared to convey any such teachings he has
been promptly reproved.
"And now I publicly declare that my advice to the
Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the
law of the land."
On October 6, the General Conference of the church, on
motion of Lorenzo Snow, unanimously adopted the following resolution: --
"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff
as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the only
man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing
ordinances, we consider him fully authorized, by virtue of his position, to
issue the manifesto that has been read in our hearing, and which is dated
September 24, 1890, and as a church in general conference assembled we accept
his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding."
This action was reaffirmed by the General Conference of
October 6, 1891.
Of course the church officers had to make some
explanation to the brethren of their change of front. Cannon fell back on the
"revelation" of January 19, 1841, which Smith put forth to excuse the
failure to establish a Zion in Missouri, namely, that, when their enemies
prevent their performing a task assigned by the Almighty, he would accept their
effort to do so. He said that "it was on this basis" that President
Woodruff had felt justified in issuing the manifesto. Woodruff explained:
"It is not wisdom for us to make war upon 65,000,000 people.... The
prophet {Joseph Smith} organized the church; and all that he has promised in
this code of revelations {the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants"} has
been fulfilled as fast as time would permit. That which is not fulfilled
will be." Cannon did explain that the manifesto was the result of
prayer, and Woodruff told the people that he had had a great many visits from
the Prophet Joseph since his death, in dreams, and also from Brigham Young, but
neither seems to have imparted any very valuable information, Joseph explaining
that he was in an immense hurry preparing himself "to go to the earth with
the Great Bridegroom when he goes to meet the Bride, the Lamb's wife."
Two recent incidents have indicated the restlessness of
the Mormon church under the restriction placed upon polygamy. In 1898, the
candidate for Representative in Congress, nominated by the Democratic
Convention of Utah, was Brigham H. Roberts. It was commonly known in Utah that
Roberts was a violator of the Edmunds law. A Mormon elder, writing from
Brigham, Utah, in February, 1899, while Roberts's case was under consideration
at Washington, said, "Many prominent Mormons foresaw the storm that was
now raging, and deprecated Mr. Roberts's nomination and
election."8 This statement proves both the notoriety of
Roberts's offence, and the connivance of the church in his nomination, because
no Mormon can be nominated to an office in Utah when the church authorities
order otherwise. When Roberts presented himself to be sworn in, in December,
1899, his case was referred to a special committee of nine members. The report
of seven members of this committee found that Roberts married his first wife
about the year 1878; that about 1885 he married a plural wife, who had since
born him six children, the last two twins, born on August 11, 1897; that some
years later he married a second plural wife, and that he had been living with
all three till the time of his election; "that these facts were generally
known in Utah, publicly charged against him during his campaign for election,
and were not denied by him." Roberts refused to take the stand before the
committee, and demurred to its jurisdiction on the ground that the hearing was
an attempt to try him for a crime without an indictment and jury trial, and to
deprive him of vested rights in the emoluments of the office to which he was
elected, and that, if the crime alleged was proved, it would not constitute a
sufficient cause to deprive him of his seat, because polygamy is not enumerated
in the constitution as a disqualification for the office of member of Congress.
The majority report recommended that his seat be declared vacant. Two members
of the committee reported that his offence afforded constitutional ground for
expulsion, but not for exclusion from the House, and recommended that he be
sworn in and immediately expelled. The resolution presented by the majority was
adopted by the House by a vote of 268 to 50.9
8 New York Evening Post,
February 20, 1899.
9 Roberts was tried in the district court in
Salt Lake City, on April 30, 1900, on the charge of unlawful cohabitation. The
case was submitted to the jury of eight men, without testimony, on an agreed
statement of facts, and the jury disagreed, standing six for conviction and two
for acquittal.
The second incident referred to was the passage by
the Utah legislature in March, 1901, of a bill containing this provision: --
"No prosecution for adultery shall be
commenced except on complaint of the husband or wife or relative of the accused
with the first degree of consanguinity, or of the person with whom the unlawful
act is alleged to have been committed, or of the father or mother of said
person; and no prosecution for unlawful cohabitation shall be commenced except
on complaint of the wife, or alleged plural wife of the accused; but this
provision shall not apply to prosecutions under section 4208 of the Revised
Statutes, 1898, defining and punishing polygamous marriages."
This bill passed the Utah senate by a vote of 11 to 7,
and the house by a vote of 174 to 25. The excuse offered for it by the senator
who introduced it was that it would "take away from certain agitators the
opportunity to arouse periodic furors against the Mormons;" that more than
half of the persons who had been polygamists had died or dissolved their
polygamous relations, and that no good service could be subserved by
prosecuting the remainder. This law aroused a protest throughout the country,
and again the Mormon church saw that it had made a mistake, and on the 14th of
March Governor H. M. Wells vetoed the bill, on grounds that may be summarized
as declaring that the law would do the Mormons more harm than good. The most
significant part of his message, as indicating what the Mormon authorities most
dread, is contained in the following sentence: "I have every reason to
believe its enactment would be the signal for a general demand upon the
national Congress for a constitutional amendment directed solely against
certain conditions here, a demand which, under the circumstances, would
assuredly be complied with."
The admission of Utah as a state followed naturally
the promulgation by the Mormon church of a policy which was accepted by the
non-Mormons as putting a practical end to the practice of polygamy. For the
seventh time, in 1887, the Mormons had adopted a state constitution, the one
ratified in that year providing that "bigamy and polygamy, being
considered incompatible with 'a republican form of government,' each of them is
hereby forbidden and declared a misdemeanor." The non-Mormons attacked the
sincerity of this declaration, among other things pointing out the advice of
the Church organ, while the constitution was before the people, that they be
"as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves." Congress again
refused admission.
On January 4, 1893, President Harrison issued a
proclamation granting amnesty and pardon to all persons liable to the penalty
of the Edmunds law "who have, since November 1, 1890, abstained from such
unlawful cohabitation," but on condition that they should in future obey
the laws of the United States. Until the time of Woodruff's manifesto there had
been in Utah only two political parties, the People's, as the Mormon
organization had always been known, and the Liberal (anti-Mormon). On June
10,1894, the People's Territorial Central Committee adopted resolutions
reciting the organization of the Republicans and Democrats of the territory,
declaring that the dissensions of the past should be left behind and that the
People's party should dissolve. The Republican Territorial Committee a few days
later voted that a division of the people on national party lines would result
only in statehood controlled by the Mormon theocracy. The Democratic committee
eight days later took a directly cont rary view. At the territorial election in
the following August the Democrats won, the vote standing: Democratic, 14,116;
Liberal, 7386; Republican, 6613.
It would have been contrary to all political precedent
if the Republicans had maintained their attitude after the Democrats had
expressed their willingness to receive Mormon allies. Accordingly, in
September, 1891, we find the Republicans adopting a declaration that it would
be wise and patriotic to accept the changes that had occurred, and denying that
statehood was involved in a division of the people on national party lines.
All parties in the territory now seemed to be
maneuvering for position. The Mormon newspaper organs expressed complete
indifference about securing statehood. In Congress Mr. Caine, the Utah
Delegate, introduced what was known as the "Home Rule Bill," taking
the control of territorial affairs from the governor and commission. This was
known as a Democratic measure, and great pressure was brought to bear on
Republican leaders at Washington to show them that Utah as a state would in all
probability add to the strength of the Republican column. When, at the first
session of the 53d Congress, J. L. Rawlins, a Democrat who had succeeded Caine
as Delegate, introduced an act to enable the people of Utah to gain admission
for the territory as a state, it met with no opposition at home, passed the
House of Representatives on December 13, 1893, and the Senate on July 10, 1894
(without a division in either House), and was signed by the President on July
16. The enabling act required the constitutional convention to provide "by
ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people
of that state, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured,
and that no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or
property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; provided,
that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."
The constitutional convention held under this act met
in Salt Lake City on March 4, 1895, and completed its work on May 8, following.
In the election of delegates for this convention the Democrats cast about
19,000 votes, the Republicans about 21,000 and the Populists about 6500. Of the
107 delegates chosen, 48 were Democrats and 59 Republicans. The constitution
adopted contained the following provisions: --
"Art. 1. Sec. 4. The rights of conscience
shall never be infringed. The state shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no
religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public
trust, or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as
a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There
shall be no union of church and state, nor shall any church dominate the state
or interfere with its functions. No public money or property shall be
appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction,
or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment."
Art. 111. The following ordinance shall be irrevocable
without the consent of the United States and the people of this state: Perfect
toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this state
shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of
religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited."
This constitution was submitted to the people on
November 5,1895, and was ratified by a vote of 31,305 to 7687, the Republicans
at the same election electing their entire state ticket and a majority of the
legislature. On January 4, 1896, President Cleveland issued a proclamation
announcing the admission of Utah as a state. The inauguration of the new state
officers took place at Salt Lake City two days later. The first governor, Heber
M. Wells,10 in his inaugural address made this declaration:
"Let us learn to resent the absurd attacks that are made from time to time
upon our sincerity by ignorant and prejudiced persons outside of Utah, and let
us learn to know and respect each other more, and thus cement and intensify the
fraternal sentiments now so widespread in our community, to the end that, by a
mighty unity of purpose and Christian resolution, we may be able to insure that
domestic tranquillity, promote that general welfare, and secure those blessings
of liberty to ou rselves and our posterity guaranteed by the constitution of
the United States."
The vote of Utah since its admission as a state has
been cast as follows: --
| 1895. Governor 1896. President 1900. Governor 1900. President |
REPUBLICAN 20,833 13,491 47,600 47,089 |
DEMOCRAT 18,519 64,607 44,447 44,949 |
10 Son of "General"
Wells of the Nauvoo Legion.