Below you will find diary entries on the topic of “Fine Arts.” You can view other subjects here.
Search the diary entries below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.
Fri., 26 Sep., 1947:
“At 8 a.m. this morning met by appointment Dr. Lowell Lees. . . . We discussed the advisability of taking immediate steps to build a replica of the Salt Lake Theatre on the U of U campus.”
Tues., 28 Sep., 1948:
“After the conference with Bro. Benson, I met Sister McKay, and together we went to see ‘Good Sam,’ with Gary Cooper playing at the ‘Uptown’ theatre. We enjoyed the show very much. It concerned the story of a man who had a lot of faith in people and who was always extending a helping hand to persons in need, and in trouble. Much to the distress of his wife, he almost lost their savings which were to be used in buying a new home. The story ended with Good Sam being fully repaid for his kindness to people.
Mon., 23 Mar., 1953:
“During my absence from the office Mrs. Minerva Teichert of Idaho left several colored slides of paintings she has done of Book of Mormon subjects, (which she is planning to have published in book form), for approval of the First Presidency. She is especially seeking approval of two paintings of Christ which she would like to include in the collection.
Later, upon viewing the two slides containing pictures of Christ, I expressed disapproval of the halo Mrs. Teichert has so pronouncedly placed around the head of Christ—I think this should be modified.
Will take these slides into the meeting of the First Presidency tomorrow morning.
Mrs. Teichert asks that the slides be returned to her at Cokeville, Wyoming by Sunday morning.”
16 Apr., 1953:
“Note dictated by President Ernest L. Wilkinson from Provo, Utah:
Dear President McKay:
Many thanks for inviting me to talk to Lowell Thomas on ‘Cinerama’. Since you asked me to give you my reaction after listening to him, permit me to say that its possibilities are of such magnitude that I think the Church would be justified in investing several million dollars, provided you get proper representation on the Board of Directors and can sit in on the making of the main decisions. Certainly you have men among the General Authorities who know much more about the sound financing of a business venture than apparently Lowell Thomas knows.
I wish the Church could take the place of Whitney if his deal is not closed. If it cannot, the Church should certainly be able to obtain the same terms as Whitney, or even better terms should the Church decide to take a large proportion of the stock.
These are my humble views on first impression, subject, of course, to checking the information that Thomas gave.
Sincerely and cordially,
Ernest L. Wilkinson
ELW:cm”
Wed., 22 Apr., 1953:
“At Laguna Beach, California. Received telephone call from my secretary Clare who advised me of important matters that had come up during my absence, and also from Brother Henry D. Moyle who reported to me in substance his findings with reference to ‘Cinerama’. It was decided with the approval of the brethren that in the event it is considered necessary to give a report to Mr. Lowell Thomas with reference to the proposals he has made to the Church concerning investment in ‘Cinerama’ that our reply should be in the negative, for the following reasons: First, because of the highly speculative nature of the investment; secondly, because nothing definite appears at the present time as to collateral advantages that we might secure from our identification with the project; and thirdly, that the publicity which should be attracted to our investment would not be good for the Church not well received by our members
Later I telephoned President Richards and said that I had been thinking the matter over and that I should be pleased to have the brethren close the matter with Mr. Thomas and thank him for the opportunity, and say it was felt we should not invest in ‘Cinerama’ and make a final conclusion of it.
Fri., 11 Sept., 1953:
“Returned to the office at 3:30 p.m. – Met Brother Howard J. McKean and accompanied him to the sculptor’s studios to see the work being done on the angel to be placed on the Los Angeles Temple. I liked the work being done with the exception of the face of the angel, which to me has been depicted entirely too feminine.”
Tues., 15 Sept., 1953:
“At 3:30 p.m. left with Brother McKean, Brother Silver, and Brother Bringhurst of the Church Building Committee for the Buehner Block Company, to inspect model of the Angel Moroni, from which model, statue will be carved to be placed on the Los Angeles Temple. This model is just one-fourth of what it will be in the original size. The other day when I inspected the model, I disapproved of the effeminate characterization of Angel Moroni. However, the artist has modified the expression, making the eyes a little larger and farther apart, etc. We all agreed that it is now a good model for the statue that is to be made, and told the artist to go ahead with his plans.”
Tues., 13 Oct., 1953:
“Drove into Los Angeles and out to the Temple site at Westwood. Had a conference with Edward O. Anderson, the architect and Soren Jacobsen, the contractor. They recommended that the following artists be chosen to paint scenes for rooms as indicated:
Room #1 – Harris Weber
Room #2 – Robert L. Shepherd
Room #3 – Edward Grickware, Cody, Wyo.
Baptismal Font – Lecont Stewart, Joe Gibby, a student of Lecont Stewart
It had been suggested that the corner stone should be laid about January 20, 1954. However, while we were inspecting the corner stone, we found they have already chiseled in the stone ‘erected 1953’, so we shall have to hold these services in December. The oxen and the figure on the tower should be completed right away.
We also inspected the Mission Home, headquarters of the California Mission — a beautiful structure, complete in every way.”
Wed., 7 Apr., 1954:
“9:30 to 10:15 a.m. – First Presidency’s meeting. The following items were considered:
1. Los Angeles Temple Paintings
Edward O. Anderson called with Brother Wiberg one of the artists who is making sketches for the paintings in the Los Angeles Temple. They presented a sketch that Brother Wiberg had prepared for the Creation room. The Brethren thought the conception of the earth was too distinct, and that the moon should be eliminated. Brother Wiberg will make another sketch in accordance with the suggestions offered.
Temple in England
Brother Edward O. Anderson submitted a sketch of the proposed temple in England, also a birdseye view of the property with the buildings thereon. Discussed the matter of the water level. Brother Anderson said that engineers will drive five holes to determine the water level and whether one of the present buildings could be used for a heating plant, to determine the earth strata, etc.
Discussed the wisdom of employing an architect in London to assist in the work. Brother Anderson mentioned an English architect, Louis Redgate, who is giving us some help on the Los Angeles Temple. Brother Anderson also mentioned that Brother Reiser has engaged an architect to do the preliminary work, to make a survey. The firm of Dannes & Moore will dig the holes. They could handle it from the Los Angeles office and will give instructions to the agent in London.
Brother Anderson was requested to present these things to the Building Committee.
Materials to be Used in Temple Annex, etc.
Brother Anderson submitted a sample of oak wood to be used for the pulpit in the chapel in the annex to the temple, with some hand carving on it the design being a representation of the Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph. The Brethren suggested that there be some indistinct writing or characters on the scrolls, just a few characters. The sample of oak is such as is proposed for use throughout the rooms. The Brethren approved the color and sample.
Brother Anderson also exhibited some samples of marble, which the Brethren discussed, to be used in the various rooms.
Endowment Presentation
I referred to the Committee that had been appointed, of which Brother Anderson is a member, to arrange the new form of presentation of the endowments. The committee has made its recommendations, one of which was that Brother Zimmer was to come here. It has been deemed advisable that he should not come. Brother Anderson said that President Joseph Fielding Smith wanted to have a meeting this afternoon to go over the details so that they can present it to the First Presidency for final approval. After that is approved, these instructions ought to go to Switzerland as soon as possible.
Supervisor of Work in England
Discussed the matter of sending someone from here to England to have supervision of the work there, to install the television and see that it is done properly. It was decided to see what the Committee recommends. They felt, however, that someone who could envision the whole new plan of temple work should see that the construction is feasible.
Tues., 18 May, 1954:
“First Presidency’s meeting
Los Angeles Temple Entrance: I called attention to a suggestion made by Edward O. Anderson that instead of having a statue of the ‘Woman at the Well’ at the entrance to the temple in Los Angeles as provided in the original plans, that we make a granite fountain on each side of the entrance, which can be done for much less money and which will look just as well without having a statue. This was to be taken to the Expenditures Committee today.”
Fri., 21 May, 1954:
President Wilkinson left the meeting at 10:15 a.m., and we continued our regular First Presidency’s meeting.
Further mention was made of paintings of the Savior. The Brethren felt that all pictures of the Savior that we use should be pictures of him in connection with his ministry and not any representation of him after his resurrection.
Sun., 11 July, 1954:
“This morning Mr. Arnold Friberg, Utah artist and member of the Church, (present address 5451 Marathan Street, Hollywood, 78 California) called at the office and explained very unaffectedly his position with Cecil B. deMille who has employed him to paint pictures of characters and costumes, the sword of Pharoah, etc. for the forthcoming motion picture masterpiece, ‘The Ten Commandments’ which is being produced by Mr. deMille of the Paramount Studios.
He said that next year they are going to Palestine to take scenes of the crossing of the Red Sea. They will also make scenes on Mt. Sinai.
Brother Friberg also said that Mr. deMille confers with him from time to time about different phases of the Old Testament. For example, the conferring of the Priesthood upon Joshua. Mr. deMille said that this was the first instance of the conferring of the Priesthood. Brother Friberg told him No; that Adam conferred the Priesthood upon his sons Seth, Noah, and others. Upon hearing this, Mr. deMille changed the scenes pertaining to this in his picture accordingly.
Furthermore, Mr. deMille is reading the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, etc.
During one of their conversations, on a certain subject, Mr. deMille said, ‘If I knew your President, I would telephone him upon this matter.’ Said he had met President Grant, and President Smith, but that he had never met President McKay.’ Brother Friberg told him that he was sure it would be perfectly all right to call me, but Mr. deMille was reticent about doing so. He said, however, that he would very much like to make my acquaintance. I told Brother Friberg that I would be in Los Angeles the first week in August, and at that time arrangements can be made for me to meet Mr. deMille.
Brother Friberg then talked about his Book of Mormon paintings which he is doing for the Primary Association. Suggested that he would like to have a room in which to place them after they are completed. He has not yet finished all of them. It was because of these Book of Mormon paintings that Brother Friberg was chosen to do the ‘Ten Commandment’ drawings.
Cecil B. deMille is putting forth his greatest effort in producing The Ten Commandments. It seems that he had made inquiry of an international artist for a recommendation as to the best man he could get to make drawings for this picture. This international artist had seen Friberg’s Book of Mormon pictures and he wrote to Mr. deMille mentioning Brother Friberg. deMille wrote to Friberg who took the Book of Mormon pictures to him and he was employed to paint all of the costumes, characters, and pictures for The Ten Commandments story. Brother Friberg has become very successful in his work.”
Thurs., 12 Jan., 1956:
“Sent a letter this day to Mr. Lee Flint, Member Board of Directors, Kennecott Copper Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, asking if the Kennecott Copper Company could make a contribution of $225,000 toward the erection of a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre on the U of U Campus. (see letters following)
Thursday, January 12, 1956
January 12, 1956
Mr. Lee Flint, Member
Board of Directors
Kennecott Copper Company
c/o Flint Distributing Company
316 West 2nd South Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear friend and brother:
At the conclusion of our latest conference, when you and our mutual friend, Orval Adams, called at the office, I took the liberty to mention to you a matter that I have cherished for many years as a heartfelt hope–that is the building on the University campus a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre. Such an edifice will be not only a memorial to the ideals of the Pioneers regarding the drama, literature, and fine arts, but a connecting link between later generations and the worthy Pioneers to whose integrity, industry, and foresight we are so much indebted.
Of course, the expense of erecting such a building will have to be met largely by public subscription. I was bold enough to ask if you thought your great company–the Kennecott Copper Company–might be sufficiently sympathetic to such a movement as to make a contribution of $225,000.00. It is estimated the undertaking will cost about $1,000,000.00. If we can raise one-half the amount, it is thought that the balance can be raised by the issuing of a bond to extend probably over a thirty-year period. It is believed that an annual net income of $27,000.00 will be required to pay the interest and principal on a $500,000.00 bond issue at three percent over thirty years. President A. Ray Olpin of the University of Utah thinks it somewhat doubtful whether the money can be obtained at three percent. If not, the annual debt will, of course, be increased.
Doctor C. Lowell Lees and President Olpin are interested in this building project and will give their hearty cooperation in its consummation.
Anything that you can do to help us, if you think the matter worthy of your interest, and that of your company, will be greatly appreciated.
I am still thrilled in contemplation of the project you presented on the occasion to which I have already referred.
With appreciation and kind regards, I remain
Sincerely yours,.
___________________
(President)
Thursday, January 12, 1956
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City
Department of Speech
301 Kingsbury Hall January 6, 1956
Bro. David O. McKay
President, Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Dr. McKay:
I cannot express to you my joy at your telephone conversation of yesterday. I requested our controller, Mr. Garrett, to give me a letter relative to the amortizing of a bond of $500,000. He has given me a letter, which I am enclosing. I am sure that the University Theatre season can pay off the amount indicated in letter. We are at present doing a relatively small season of plays, which grosses close to $75,000 a year. I am sure that with proper advertising and some additional program that the University Theatre could readily earn additional revenue to pay off the indebtedness in the period indicated.
My hopes are that ways may be found to erect this symbol of our culture, which is so badly needed. All my gratitude to you.
Sincerely,
signed
C. Lowell Lees, Head
Department of Speech
Thursday, January 12, 1956
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City
Albert Ray Olpin
President January 6, 1956
Dr. C. Lowell Lees
Department of Speech
201 Kingsbury Hall
Campus
Dear Dr. Lees:
Following your telephone call yesterday regarding the possibility of a sizeable contribution from outside interests for the construction of a theatre, I asked Mr. Morgan and Mr. Garrett to make a hurried study of what it would cost to amortize a bond issue of $500,000 over a thirty-year period. As a result of this quick analysis of the problem, it appears that an annual net income of $27,000 would be required to pay the interest and principal on a $500,000 bond issue at three percent over thirty years. It is a bit doubtful that the money would be obtained at three percent and if not the annual debt service would of course be increased. It should also be pointed out that the annual amount of $27,000 does not include the building up of a sinking fund which may or may not be required by the bond holder. Neither does it include interest on the money during construction which would probably amount to some $30,000.
In other words a total of $530,000 would be required to get $500,000 worth of construction and thereafter would cost approximately $27,000 per year to repay the bond over a thirty-year period at three percent.
As you well know I am extremely interested in doing everything possible to take advantage of the gift which has been so generously proposed. I shall appreciate your keeping me informed of the developments on this matter and shall be pleased to assist you in any way possible.
Very sincerely yours,
signed
A. Ray Olpin
President
ARO:an”
Thurs., 9 Feb., 1956:
“2:30 p.m. Met by appointment Architects Howard Barker and Harold Burton, and Dr. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah. We considered the possibility and advisability of building on the University of Utah campus a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre.
I asked Brothers Barker and Burton to give us an estimate as to what it would cost to rebuild the Old Salt Lake Theatre. This project is a continuation of the hopes and dreams that I had when I was Chairman of the Utah Centennial Commission that the old Salt Lake Theatre could be rebuilt on the University of Utah Campus, in 1947; however, our plans at that time did not materialize because of lack of funds. (See Jan. 4 – Jan. 12)
Mon., 13 Feb., 1956:
“Came to the office at 8:30 at which time I met by appointment Dr. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah, Dr. Elmo Morgan, Vice-President of the University of Utah, and Harold W. Burton, Church Architect.
They brought with them, in accordance with a previous request from me, an estimate of the cost of the reproduction of the Salt Lake Theatre. At first these brethren were of the opinion that it would cost about one million dollars for this building, but after a careful study, they find that it will cost $1,611,000.
They gave me a copy of the estimate which I shall give to Mr. Lee Flint, director of the Kennecott Company, who will take it with him to a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Kennecott Company to be held within the next few days. Mr. Flint will leave for New York sometime the early part of next week.”
Tues., 14 Feb., 1956:
“Sent to Mr. Lee Flint of the Kennecott Company Board of Directors an estimate of the cost of rebuilding the old Salt Lake Theatre on the University of Utah Campus. Mr. Flint will take this estimate with him when he attends the directors’ meeting of the Kennecott Copper Company with a view of securing a substantial contribution from the Kennecott Corporation towards the cost of erecting this building.
Tues., 28 Feb., 1956:
Tuesday, February 28, 1956
Telephone Conversation with Mr. Orval Adams, First National Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Mr. Orval Adams of the First National Bank called me by telephone.
He stated that he had talked to Mr. Lee Flint, Flint Distributing Co., Kennecott Copper Company. Mr. Flint had given him good news. (Mr. Flint had been approached previously about the possibility of Kennecott Copper Company assisting financially in the building of a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre on the University of Utah campus.) Mr. Flint reported today to Mr. Adams that the appropriation from Kennecott Copper Company for the building of this theatre looked favorable. Mr. Flint has just returned from the East where he took these matters up with his company. He is going to have a meeting with Dr. C. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah regarding this theatre.
Mr. Adams stated that Mr. Flint had indicated to him also that there would be no question regarding Kennecott Copper Company building a building on the corners of South Temple and Main Street and Main Street and 1st South. I asked him if Kennecott would build the building or if we would build it and lease part of it to them. Mr. Adams stated that Mr. Flint had not stated just yet which plan would be worked out. Mr. Adams stated that Mr. Flint would be contacting me one of these days regarding this matter.
Mr. Adams also stated that he had a loan application today from Covey’s Little America group. They have an endorsement of several partners on this loan. It is worth a million and a half dollars.
Mr. Adams inquired about my health. I told him I feel much better. He reminded me that I had a strenuous task coming up in connection with the dedication of the Los Angeles Temple.”
Fri., 23 Mar., 1956:
“First Presdiency’s meeting
Telephone Conversation with Brother Howard Barker, Building Committee, Friday, March 23, 1956
I called Brother Howard Barker of the Building Committee regarding the proposed replica of the Salt Lake Theatre on the University of Utah campus. I asked him if he could remember the estimate he and Brother Harold W. Burton made on their latest figuring regarding the cost to build this replica of the Salt Lake Theatre. Brother Burton stated that he had referred these figures and did not have a copy in his office, however, he said that it was about a million and a half dollars. This estimate of a million and a half dollars did not include some of the special electrical features, etc. Brother Barker stated that they had figured top quality for the structure. They had also figured a plan whereby the most accurate reproduction of the original Salt Lake Theatre could be built. They planned to have stucco over concrete and paint it rather than a finished brick in order to have the new building resemble the old as much as possible. Brother Barker also stated that the new building would be a little larger than the original. The seating will be about the same, but the stage is much larger and the dressing rooms. The plan of the Theatre includes complete floor area. There is full basement space that could be used later.
I asked Brother Barker if this undertaking would exceed the estimate they had made. Brother Barker stated that it has been estimated that the cost with the equipment that is needed would cost around $1,750,000.00, not including some electrical and stage equipment.”
Tues., 8 May, 1956:
“11:50 a.m. – Met by appointment at their request Dr. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah, and Mr. Lee Flint, director of the Kennecott Copper Company.
They came in again to report on the progress of our plans to build a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre on the University of Utah campus.
Dr. Lees and Mr. Flint revealed the good news that the State will give $300,000 toward this project, the Kennecott Copper Company $350,000, provided the Church will contribute $250,000, which will make a total of one million dollars. Bonds can be issued for the balance needed to build this replica.
This is the nearest we have ever come to getting the funds for this worthwhile project. I am confident that the building of a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre will perpetuate the high ideals of education, culture, and art held by our Pioneers when they founded the University of Utah and built the Salt Lake Theatere wherein the best in drama and music were performed. The young people of today attending the University, both members and non-members should know and realize what the Pioneers contributed toward the University and these fields of art.”
Mon., 18 June, 1956:
“9 a.m. Brother Mendenhall, Howard Barker, and Harold W. Burton of the Church Building Committee called at the office. We discussed matters pertaining to the replica of the Salt Lake Theatre which is to be built on the University of Utah Campus.
Fri., 27 July, 1956:
“8:45 a.m. Howard Barker and Harold W. Burton of the Church Building Committee called at the office. They submitted plans they have drawn up for the replica of the Salt Lake Theatre which is to be built on the Univeristy of Utah campus.
After looking at these plans, we decided that there are a few changes that must be made. The plans are to be drawn up not as the Salt Lake Theatre was when it was torn down, but as it was when it was first built.
The architects are suggesting an enlargement, but I suggested that they keep the cost to about a million and a half dollars, even though we might have to reduce the seating capacity to 150 or 200 people. However, we shall await for the return of Dr. Lowell Lees from Europe before making a final decision in this matter.
We then held a short discussion regarding the naming of the building.
We decided that we shall call it The Salt Lake Memorial Theatre.
Fri., 24 Aug., 1956:
2. Brother Burton then brought up the matter of the Salt Lake Theatre replica. He asked me if I had seen the brochure that had been prepared on the Salt Lake Theatre building. I told him that I had seen it and that it is very good. Brother Burton stated that they had another copy of the brochure to give to the proper people, but I told him that I should like to have another talk with them before they start. Brother Burton stated that they had had a conference with the University people the day before yesterday and also again yesterday, and realize that they must make some sort of a setup or business arrangement to handle this. Brother Burton told them that it was not our idea to be burdened with this problem. Brother Burton said they would probably want to see me again when they had more definite plans arranged to obtain our approval. The University people are very pleased with the plans and advancement that has been made on this project. They are presenting these matters to the Regents at their meeting this morning.”
Wed., 14 Nov., 1956:
“11:30 a.m. Dictated to Clare a letter to Mr. Charles R. Cox, President of the Kennecott Copper Corporation, New York City, New York which when written and signed by me will be taken by Mr. Lee Flint, local man, and a director of Kennecott Copper Company, to a directors’ meeting being held in New York in the near future. This letter gives a brief story of the founding of the historic Salt Lake Theatre building by the Mormon Pioneers, and states the desire of a group of citizens here to build a memorial to the Utah Pioneers by erecting a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre. It then exresses the hope that the Kennecott Copper Company will be sufficiently sympathetic with the idea to join the Church and State in making a substantial contribution towards the raising of $1,111,350, thus leaving a balance of $500,000 to be carried by a bond issue.
(see copy of letter following)
Wednesday, November 14, 1956
Re: contributions towards the erecting of a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre
November 14, 1956
Mr. Charles R. Cox, President
Kennecott Copper Corporation
161 East 42nd Street
New York City, New York
My dear Mr. Cox:
For several months past a group of citizens have expressed a desire to build a memorial to the Utah Pioneers by erecting a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre.
A brief story of the founding of this historic building will show why these Utahns think the proposal possesses merit.
When, in the summer of 1848, the first group of Mormon emigrants reached the end of the long and arduous journey from Missouri to the valley of the Great Salt Lake, they found themselves not merely in a new and unsettled land, but in an arid, desert basin. Here, in isolation from the civilization of the rapidly expanding America, they undertook to plant a community, a religion, and a culture unaided by neighbors and with few natural resources lying ready to hand. It is not surprising, then, that devoted though they had been to the social arts of drama and music, their first two years were spent providing a mere subsistence, erecting shelters against the summer sun and the winter frost, and coaxing from the dry and reluctant earth enough food to ward off hunger. But with these people the needs of the spirit and the mind never seemed secondary; places of worship were planned as soon as homes were, and only two years after they had first scratched the soil of their new refuge, they were presenting theatrical performances in a rudely improvised theatre.
For the early Mormons never regarded the theatre as merely a mode of amusement, though it was surely that: they found it a means of uttering and sharing in the impulses of the mind and the feelings, and thereby establishing in the wilderness a spiritual oasis where the minds and souls of men could be refreshed, where men could lose the sense of isolation and loneliness and return to their tasks refreshed and with a renewed conviction of solidarity. But such activity, like the other activities of a community must be housed; there must be a gathering place. Not for long did the tiny Social Hall serve these needs; by 1866, years before the advent of the transcontinental railway made construction materials readily available, these pioneers had constructed a theatre by hard work in which persons from all walks of life shared, and by ingenious use of what natural resources the vicinity had to offer. They built of logs hauled from the mountains, brick made from adobe clay, granite quarried from the neighboring canyons, thongs from the dried hides of deer and buffalo. The Salt Lake Theatre was built by the loving handiwork of the community itself; and when plays were presented, the performances were likewise labors of love on the part of actors, carpenters, painters, hairdressers, tailors, and musicians. To a degree elsewhere unmatched, the drama was here a true focus of a community’s creative life, a community which developed a living tradition of the theatre as a rich and natural way of mutual inspiration, a growing nucleus of cultural life.
The Salt Lake Theatre became a cultural and recreational center also for the outlying farmers and the citizens of neighboring towns. From near and far, families came, sometimes by ox team. They left their oxen in a kind of corral across the way. If they were short of money, they paid the almost nominal admission fees in produce. Young and old came together here, craftsmen and farmers and administrators and sheepherders, the learned and those first exploring the delights of learning and the arts. Here the lines of Shakespeare which they had, many of them, learned by heart hearing them read in the family circle, took on new dimensions of life and meaning; here the characters of Dickens stepped from the pages to the new vividness of live impersonation. And later, the isolated little community felt less separated from the great currents of American cultural life when, thanks to the new railroads, they were able to see at the Salt Lake Theatre the same productions that New York and Philadelphia had admired, and hear the living intonation of those actors who had reached the very pinnacle of their art. And as the community became larger and more heterogeneous, and the danger of rivalries and animosities increased, the theatre remained a common meeting ground for all, however divided by religion or politics.
For well over half a century, then, the Old Salt Lake Theatre was a nerve center for a culture in which the drama was an organic part; generations grew up to whom participation in dramas on stage, behind the scenes, and in the auditorium seemed as natural as breathing, and almost as essential. In small communities throughout the Great Basin the tradition of theatre was vigorous and growing, at once a sign of healthy civic life, and a means of promoting it. And all this theatrical vitality was nourished from the theatre in Salt Lake, which, as it became old, took on also the character of a monument to the courage and enterprise of the early settlers from whose endeavors the whole tradition took life.
And so, when in 1928 it became necessary to demolish the fine old structure, the sense of loss was acute and widespread, for this was a loss not only of a loved and useful building, but a severing of the continuity of the present with a rich and fruitful past that was still a lifegiving root of the present. The art of drama had lost its home.
In this building was embodied a part of history which must not be forgotten; therefore, a memorial to the achievements of those early days is greatly to be desired. But a mere monument to the past, –a cenotaph, or statue, or plaque — however noble the past or however beautiful the monument, is trivial compared to the continuation and revivification of that past. A new memorial Salt Lake Theatre can be a reminder of those glorious days when a theatre could truly be a cultural ‘cathedral in the desert’, but it will be far more than that: it will make it possible for the tradition of drama as a function of community life to take still deeper root, and prolong the glories of the pioneer past.
As already stated, it is proposed that such a memorial be erected on the campus of the University of Utah at an estimated cost of $1,111,350. This cost will have to be met largely by public and private subscription. Business firms of the Church and the Church itself will contribute $250,000. In addition, the Church will furnish architectural plans and specifications.
We have received assurance that the Governor of the State of Utah has promised to appropriate $375,000. If we can raise another $486,000 it is thought that the balance of $500,000 can be raised by the issuing of a bond to extend probably over a thirty-year period. It is believed that an annual net income of $27,000 will be required to pay the interest and principal on a $500,000 bond issue at three per cent over the period named. Considering the present tightening of the money market, it is doubtful whether the money can be obtained at three per cent. This being true, the annual debt service consequently will have to be increased.
We are asking this morning if the Kennecott Copper Company will be sufficiently sympathetic with the idea of building a Memorial to the Utah Pioneers regarding drama, literature, and the fine arts to join the Church and State in making a substantial contribution towards the raising of $1,111,350, thus leaving a balance of $500,000 to be carried by a bond issue.
Cherishing the hope that you and your Board will consider this proposed tribute to the Utah Pioneers worthy of favorable action, I remain with best wishes
Gratefully yours,
_______________________
(President)
Thurs., 6 Dec., 1956:
“Telephone Conversation regarding announcement of the building of the replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre with Pres. A. Ray Olpin, University of Utah, Thursday, December 6, 1956.
Pres. A. Ray Olpin of the University of Utah called by telephone. He said that he was upset over the article which had appeared yesterday morning in the Salt Lake Tribune regarding the building of a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre on the University of
Utah campus. Pres. Olpin stated that he had called several people Wednesday evening regarding this matter, and he had felt sure that the story had been ‘killed’.
Pres. Olpin stated that they had been instructed to get the individual signatures of the Regents on this request for a deficit appropriation. They also were to get the individual signatures of the members of the Board of Examiners. Therefore, they wrote a letter explaining this matter and Mr. Morgan, Vice President of the University of Utah and Pres. Olpin personally carried the letter to every Regent in this area and got telegrams from the Regents out of the area with the exception of LaMont Toronto who is also a member of the Board of Examiners. They talked to him, and he said he would sign it if they brought it up to him.
At the suggestion of Governor Lee the signing of this paper had been timed so that it would not go to the official meeting of the Board. They had all agreed to this. Then the publicity was to be released properly. Pres. Olpin said that yesterday he had talked to the Attorney General and told him that if they acted on this appropriation, it would be kept confidential until such time as everything was in order, and then the proper thing was for the Church to make the announcement in the Church Section. The Attorney General had agreed with Pres. Olpin. The Attorney General called the Governor’s office, but he was not in. The Governor was to return to his office Thursday morning, and he did not know the signatures had been obtained Wednesday. Mr. Toronto was to be at a Boy Scout meeting at noon Wednesday and Mr. Morgan was to attend this same meeting. Mr. Toronto had agreed to sign the paper at this meeting. It turned out that Mr. Toronto could not be at the luncheon meeting, and he made an appointment with Mr. Morgan to meet him in his office. Mr. Morgan went to the Secretary of State’s office at 1:45 p.m. and Mr. Toronto did not show up. Mr. Morgan waited until ten minutes to three, and then gave Mr. Toronto’s assistant the letters and told him to keep them and give them to Mr. Toronto when he came in. Pres. Olpin stated that they did not know anything more on this matter until Mr. Morgan returned to the University of Utah. Pres. Olpin received a call from Mr. Joe Fitzpatrick who covers the news for the Capitol Building for the Tribune. Joe Fitzpatrick began to ask Pres. Olpin some pointed questions. Pres. Olpin asked him where he was getting this information, and he stated that he knew all about it. He stated that he had seen the letter on file in the Secretary of State’s office. I said that that did not authorize anyone to look over such papers. Pres. Olpin told Joe Fitzpatrick that he was trying to ruin a good project. Pres. Olpin then called Mr. Toronto at his home. Mr. Toronto stated that any papers addressed to the Board of Examiners were considered public papers as far as he was concerned. Pres. Olpin told him that this would be the worst thing that could happen and told him that it would have to be stopped. Pres. Olpin then called John Fitzpatrick, father of Joe Fitzpatrick. John Fitzpatrick stated that he had expected Dr. Olpin’s telephone call. Dr. Olpin told Mr. Fitzpatrick that a mistake had been made and that an agreement had been made that this would be released at the proper time. He also told him that he would not be surprised if the people who had offered to make contributions would withdraw them if this was published at this time. Mr. Fitzpatrick then stated that he would do what he could to see that this article would not be published if the Deseret News did not publish it. Pres. Olpin then called Dr. Robinson at the Deseret News. Dr. Robinson agreed that nothing would be said in his paper. Dr. Olpin stated that he would have called me, but he understood that I was still out of town. Art Deck then called Dr. Olpin and stated that they had to publish the story because it is public property now because the wire service has it. Dr. Olpin stated that the wire service couldn’t have it unless the Tribune had given it to them because they were the only people that had the information. John Fitzpatrick then called Dr. Olpin and asked him if he had his radio on. John Fitzpatrick stated that the story is on the wires, and that now the Tribune would have to publish the story. Pres. Olpin had to attend a dinner Wednesday evening. However, he had two or three people listening to all the different newscasts. None of the listerners heard a word regarding this announcement.
Dr. Olpin got in touch with Mr. W.J. O’Connor, member of the Bd. of Regents, and he was angry about the whole situation. Dr. Olpin suggested that they try immediately to get in touch with Leland Flint, Kennecott Director. Dr. Olpin called Llewelyn to see where he could get in touch with me in the East. Llewelyn stated that I was back in town. Then he found out from my secretary that I was in Council Meeting. Dr. Olpin placed a call for Leland Flint in Havana, Cuba. Mr. Flint had checked out of his room, and they were able to find out where he would be located in Miami, Florida this evening. Dr. Olpin is going to desperately try to get Mr. Flint to-night and try to get him to preview Mr. Cox on what has happened before he gets it in another way.
There was nothing in the letter that would indicate who the contributors are, but the information regarding this seemed to be generally known at the paper. The reporters said also that a meeting of the Board of Examiners was going to be held Thursday morning at which approval would be given. Dr. Olpin told them at the paper that no meeting of the Board of Examiners was scheduled, and the newspaper people said that that is not what the Governor told us. Dr. Olpin then asked where the Governor was because he would like to talk to him. Dr. Olpin remembered that Joe Fitzpatrick was one of Lee’s Committee on the ‘Citizens for Lee’ campaign. Dr. Olpin stated that when he read the paper this morning everything was clear.
Dr. Olpin called Governor Lee this morning, and the Governor said that all would be out anyway. Fifteen minutes later the Governor called Dr. Olpin to inform him that the appropriation was approved.
I told Dr. Olpin that the matter had been very embarrassing to me. I had not seen the newspaper article myself, but when I went to my meeting this morning, one of my counselors called my attention to it. I told Dr. Olpin that I had not taken my associates into my confidence on this matter until I knew where we stood.
Dr. Olpin said that every one who had had anything to do with the project had cooperated 100 per cent. He said that Dr. Lees was with him, and that he also felt very badly about the matter. I asked Dr. Olpin if the News would come out with a story this evening on this announcement. Dr. Olpin stated that he had talked to Dr. Robinson, and he said that this was not the story that they intended to release.
Dr. Olpin also mentioned to me about the misstatement in the Tribune on classrooms. I told Dr. Olpin that it might be best to let the matter drop.
Dr. Olpin said that the Deseret News intended to run a picture of the Old Salt Lake Theatre. I told Dr. Olpin now that the whole story would be out. I also stated to him that our position may change regarding the collecting of the million and a half dollars. Dr. Olpin said that that is what he told these people last night and that he had spent the majority of his life getting people to cooperate on matters, and that this publicity is the very worst thing that could be done in connection with a large project of this type.
I told Dr. Olpin that we would now see what develops, and then we would know what to do.
Dr. Olpin told me that he wanted me to understand clearly that this report was not released from his office. I told Dr. Olpin that I could not imagine the Secretary of State releasing a letter like this that was in his office for signature. I also cannot imagine the Tribune releasing the story. Dr. Olpin stated that he felt that the Tribune reporter was close to the Governor and got his consent to go ahead. Mr. Fitzpatrick had stated that he thought the Govenor was doing it and knew what he was doing. Dr. Olpin stated also that they had hoped to wait until Governor Clyde returned from a navy cruise in the Pacific so that they could brief him on this subject before it was thrown at him.
I told Dr. Olpin that this whole announcement is a blunder. A mistake can be rectified, but a blunder cannot. Dr. Olpin apologized. I told him that he was not responsible. Dr. Olpin said that they had been called down to Mr. Flint’s office just before he left for the East, and they had been told that everything was ready.
I thanked Dr. Olpin for his call.
U. REVEALS PLAN TO REBUILD S.L. THEATER
Proposed construction of a 1 1/2 million dollar replica of the Old Salt Lake Theater was revealed Wednesday when the University of Utah Board of Regents requested a deficit appropriation of $500,000 as the state’s share of the cost.
The structure is to be located on the university campus.
In a letter submitted to the State Board of Examiners Wednesday, the regents said the deficit appropriation is necessary at this time ‘to enable the university to take advantage of a proferred contribution from private sources of approximately $700,000’ to assist in construction of the theater.
‘This project has been planned by the university for over 10 years,’ the letter continued, ‘and has had the enthusiastic endorsement of officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of many of the largest concerns operating in this area.
‘It has now come to our attention that the private contributions may be conditioned upon the university’s having available the sum of $500,000 before the end of the current calendar year.’
(This would require a deficit appropriation this month by the State Board of Examiners, rather than asking an appropriation by the Legislature, which doesn’t convene until January.)
The letter concluded that if the requested deficit appropriation plus the private gifts are not sufficient to complete the project, ‘we have been assured that bonds could be favorably sold for the balance – these bonds to be retired from revenues earned in the operation of the building.’
It was signed by Dr. A. Ray Opin, university president; W.J. O’Connor, regents chairman, and other members of the regents.
Dr. Olpin said Wednesday afternoon that he could not comment on the matter at this time ‘because I cannot speak for the other parties involved.’
Gov. J. Bracken Lee, one of the three members of the Board of Examiners, said it was his understanding ‘that Kennecott Copper Corp. and several other companies and the LDS Church have offered contributions totaling about one million dollars to ward building the theater on the university campus if the state would put up $500,000 before the first of the year.’
The governor said he was informed the structure would be almost an exact replica of the old Salt Lake Theater, except for modern safety features, and that it would also contain classroom space that could be used by the university every day.
‘Now that the request has been officially submitted,’ the governor said, ‘I believe the board of examiners will act on it as soon as possible – probably Thursday.’
‘Now that the request has been officially submitted,’ the governor said, ‘I believe the board of examiners will act on it as soon as possible – probably Thursday.’
Gov. Lee said he was inclined to favor granting the deficit appropriation.
Secy. of State Lamont F. Toronto said he was in favor of constructing the theater, but wanted assurance from Atty. Gen. E.R. Callister that such a deficit appropriation is legal.
Atty. Gen. Callister, who is the third member of the examiners, is studying the proposal.
As long as 10 years ago, the LDS Church expressed interest in construction of such a building and offered financial aid to the university to help erect it.
The old Salt Lake Theater was erected in 1862 on the northwest corner of 1st South and State St. For 66 years it reigned as the cultural center of the entire area, until torn down in 1928. The site is now occupied by the Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. building.
The Salt Lake Tribune – Thursday, December 6, 1956
STATE DEFICIT FUNDS GRANTED; CAMPUS EXPECTED AS SITE
A $500,000 deficit appropriation for the reconstruction of the famous old Salt Lake Theater was approved by the State Board of Examiners Thursday.
The famous building, for many years the cultural center of the territory, may possibly be built on the University of Utah campus.
The money appropriated by the board of examiners may be used by the University of Utah to construct the theater only if private contributions which had been offered are made available.
If these private donations are not forthcoming, the $500,000 will revert to the state.
The university Board of Regents Wednesday submitted a request to the state Board of Examiners for a deficit appropriation of $500,000 as the state’s share of building the replica.
The request asked for the money before the first of the year in order to take advantage of proffered private contributions of some $700,000.
‘It has now come to our attention that the private contributions may be conditioned upon the university’s having available the sum of $500,000 before the end of the current calendar year,’ the letter said.
The old Salt Lake Theater, constructed in 1862, was for many years the most imposing entertainment building in the territory.
Except for modern safety features and possible classroom space, the proposed reconstructed theater would be an exact copy of the old building.
‘This project has been planned by the university for over 10 years and has the enthusiastic endorsement of officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of many of the largest corporations operating in this area,’ the regents wrote.
If the requested deficit appropriation plus the private donations are not enough to complete the project, the regents wrote that ‘we have been assured that bonds could be favorably sold for the balance.’
Such bonds would then be retired from revenues earned in the operation of the building, they said.
Unanimous assent by the regents and the three-member board of examiners would be required to make the money available.
The old Salt Lake Theater was located at the northwest corner of 1st South and State St. where it stood for some 66 years.
It was finally torn down in 1928 to make way for a telephone exchange. Movies finally proved too much for the theater, which ceased yielding adequate profits about 1925.
Deseret News – Thursday, December 6, 1956
Fri., 7 Dec., 1956:
“2 p.m. Received a courtesy call from Mr. W. J. O’Connor, member of the University of Utah regents. He came in to give his viewpoint on the article that had appeared in the paper yesterday pertaining to the building of the Salt Lake Theater replica.”
Fri., 14 Dec., 1956:
“8:30 a.m. Met by appointment Mr. Lee Flint, member of the Board of Directors of the Kennecott Copper Company and Dr. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah, and discussed with them plans for raising money to build the replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre on the University Campus.”
Sat., 22 Dec., 1956:
“President A. Ray Olpin came in very upset over the fact that the papers had published an account about Attorney General Callister’s questioning the legality of Governor Lee appropriating $500,000 toward the erection of the replica of the Salt Lake Theater on the U. of U. Campus. An appropriation from a large company toward this project is dependent upon the state’s appropriation, so Dr. Olpin was all excited and said that the whole thing is off, and he wanted me to write a letter and take the blame for what had happened. I told him no, that I certainly would not write such a letter, but that I should like to meet Governor Lee, the Governor elect, and senators in a special meeting at the State Capitol Monday at 10 o’clock. I asked Dr. Olpin to call this meeting and also to invite representatives from the Kennecott Company, and at that time I should tell them the whole story.
Mon., 24 Dec., 1956:
“9:10 a.m. Mr. Lee Flint of the Kennecott Copper Company came in regarding the relationship of the Kennecott Copper Company to the financing of the replica of the Salt Lake Theatre. We considered problems that will come up at the meeting of the legislators this morning.
9:45 a.m. Meeting of Governor Lee, Governor-elect Clyde, members of the new Legislature, Senator Hopkin, leader of the Democrats in the Legislature, and representatives from the paper.
I presented the story of the proposition to place on the University of Utah Campus a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre. After a discussion of two hours, it was evident that they were 100% for the proposition. Governor Lee spoke in favor of it; Governor-Elect Clyde said the Legislature will approve it, and Senator Hopkin representing the minority group said that they would approve it.
The meeting was highly successful, and I was very happy over the outcome. (see newspaper clippings).
THEATER PLAN BACKED BY PRES. MCKAY
Proposals for construction of a replica of the old Salt Lake Theater on the Univesity of Utah campus were explained Monday at a meeting in the state capitol.
President David O. McKay of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reviewed the proposal and told how it had developed. The meeting, held in the governor’s board room, was attended by government and civic leaders.
Among those in attendance were Gov. J. Bracken Lee, Governor-elect George D. Clyde, Lamont F. Toronto, secretary of state; Gus P. Backman, executive secretary of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce; Dr. A. Ray Olpin, president of the university of Utah; a number of legislators, businessmen and representatives of the press.
Hall Overworked
Dr. Olpin said the proposed facility was needed by the university in its speech and drama departments. He pointed out that Kingsbury Hall, which now serves as the university’s theater, is a much-used building. Last year it was used for more than 260 public functions of an educational nature, he said.
President McKay made a strong appeal for construction of the building.
He said that various accounts of the project that have been widely circulated have been in error. No fully accurate statement has appeared, he declared.
Some unfavorable reaction to the project has been based on ‘premature judgment’, he said. There has been much public misunderstanding of it, he added.
Claims Much Merit
‘I think it has great merit for the state,’ he declared.
He pointed out that the old Salt Lake Theater was one of the West’s great historical buildings and has been so recognized by artists and historians. The memories and pioneer achievements associated with it ‘never should be lost,’ he said.
Memorial To Pioneers
President McKay said it long had been the hope of many people that a replica of the old Salt Lake Theater could be built as a ‘memorial’ to the pioneers.
It was agreed, however, he observed, that such a memorial should be more than just a ‘monument.’ It should be useful and contribute to the cultural enrichment of the state, he said.
Proposed plans call for construction of a building that would be as nearly as possible like the old theater on the ‘exterior’ but which would be modernized and modified on the ‘interior.’
Present plans call for as modern a theater, as far as functional elements are concerned, as can be constructed.
No Exact Replica
Any suggestion that the new building should be an exact replica of the old structure is sheer folly, he said.
It had been agreed that the university ‘which belongs to all the people,’ would be the proper site for the building, he said. Students receiving their education then would at least come in contact with something to recall the state’s pioneer heritage.
The financing of the building has been discussed for some years, President McKay said. It eventually was agreed that if a state appropriation could be made the Church would make a contribution and some large corporations would be invited to join in financing the project. A state deficit appropriation of $500,000 was secured, he related. The Church agreed to contribute about half that amount and several business interests showed interest in it, he said.
Would Borrow Some
It is estimated, Pres. McKay said, that the building would cost something over $1,600,000. He pointed out that through a contribution of $500,000 the people of the state stood to gain a $1 1/2 to $2 million building. Financing plans call for borrowing about $400,000 on the building, the sum to be repaid out of earnings of the structure, he said.
In answer to a question, Dr. C. Lowell Lees, head of speech department at the university, said he though the building would be in constant use. He noted that Kingsbury Hall actually is a lecture hall and is not suited to the ‘intimate’ type of theater being used today. The new building would have a seating capacity of about 1,400.
Questions also were raised by legislators present on the legality of the deficit appropriation.
Legality Assured
Gov. Lee said he had asked the state attorney general about the legality of a deficit appropriation for the purpose and had been assured it would be legal.
‘Otherwise I would have called a special session of the Legislature,’ he said. ‘I thought the project was of such a worthy nature that there would be no objection,’ he added.
He further stated that action was necessary before the end of the year so that corporations expecting to contribute to the project could obtain any possible tax benefits.
Deseret News – Monday, December 24, 1956″
December 30, 1956
S.L. THEATER: NEW PATTERN, OLD LOOK
Architects’ designs for a proposed replica of the historic Salt Lake Theater were released Saturday by officials of the University of Utah.
The structure, which would be erected on the university campus if plans materialize, would be known as the Salt Lake Memorial Theater.
Plans, prepared by Harold W. Burton and Howard Barker, architects and engineers, follow closely those of the famous playhouse built in pioneer days. The new building, however, will be of modern, fireproof construction.
The exterior appearance will be that of the old theater as it was when completed in 1862, and before changes were made which partly covered the handsome doric columns on the front of the building, added a massive iron stairway on the east outside wall and a peanut stand on the corner.
The interior also will be patterned after the design of the pioneer playhouse, except that some changes will be made to enlarge the seating capacity.
The State Board of Examiners has made a $500,000 deficit appropriation to help pay for the new building, contingent upon receipt from other sources of more than twice this amount, which will be necessary to complete the building.
State Sen. Orval Hafen (R-St. George), who will be president of the 1957 State Senate, has questioned the constitutionality of any deficit appropriation as an ‘unconstitutional grant of legislative power to the executive department.’ He has written to Atty. Gen. E.R. Callister, requesting a ruling on the entire question of deficit appropriations.
The old Salt Lake Theater stood for 66 years as one of the great shrines of American drama. It was built at the direction of Brigham Young, who said, ‘The people must have amusement as well as religion.’
One of Finest
At the time of its dedication on March 6, 1862, it was regarded as one of the finest theaters in the country. That was seven years before the advent of the railroad and only 15 years after the Mormon pioneers first arrived in Salt Lake Valley.
The earliest performances were by home dramatic companies, but later some of the world’s greatest dramatic stars were induced to appear on its huge stage. Before the railroad they made the long trek overland by stagecoach.
The theater served as the main center of amusement until well into this century. Then its doom was spelled by the advent of vaudeville and the motion picture, which provided a cheaper form of dramatic fare and resulted in a drop of interest in the legitimate stage.
During its heyday the Salt Lake Theater stage was the scene of many memorable operatic presentations and performances by some of the leading actors and actresses of the time.
Trod the Boards
Among those who appeared there were Lawrence Barrett, Edwin Booth, E.A. Sothern, Julia Marlowe, Lillian Russell, Sarah Bernhardt, Minnie Maddern Fiske, Otis Skinner, Ethel, John and Lionel Barrymore, Lily Langtry, Maxine Elliott, Mrs. Leslie Carter, Harry Lauder, Chauncey Alcott, Fanny Davenport, Nat Goodwin, Jane Cowl, Ina Claire, Al Jolson.
Maude Adams, a native of Salt Lake City, who later rose to international fame, made her first stage appearance as a babe in arms at the Salt Lake Theater.
In April 1928 the old theater was sold by the Salt Lake Dramatic Assn. to the Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., which desired the site at the northwest corner of State and 1st South for its present main office building.
Demolition of the theater began later that year and was completed in 1929.
The Salt Lake Tribune – Sunday, December 30, 1956″
Fri., 8 Feb., 1957:
“8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Appointment with Dr. Lowell Lees and Pres. A. Ray Olpin. They met with me regarding the Salt Lake Theatre replica. A meeting of the committee of students is to be held at the University of Utah. They wondered if I could be at the meeting and present our plans with reference to the building of a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre. It was decided that Brother Harold Burton go to the University and present this matter to the students. He is to tell them that the proposed replica is not an old-fashioned thing, that it will be a modern theatre.
Wed., 13 Feb., 1957:
“11:45 to 12:25 p.m. Consultation with Bishop Thorpe B. Isaacson regarding Senators who have come to him relative to the bill that is to be presented in the Senate for an appropriation for the building of the replica of the Salt Lake Theatre.”
Fri., 15 Feb., 1957:
Telephone Calls
“1. Senator Alonzo Hopkin called me by telephone regarding the building of the replica of the Salt Lake Theatre. He wanted to know if he should go through with the presenting of his bill for an appropriation from the State for this building for passage by the Senate. He particularly wanted to know whether it would be agreeable to me if they would pass the bill conditionally that another $500,000 be raised from other sources, and I answered that this would be agreeable to me.
Tues., 26 Feb., 1957:
“Note: House of Representatives Drops S.L. Theatre appropriation – see newspaper clipping following. Also see February 27, 1957 regarding the reversal of the decision of the House.
February 26, 1957
HOUSE DROPS THEATER FUND
By Conrad B. Harrison
Deseret News Staff Writer
The Utah House of Representatives Tuesday cut a half-million dollar allocation for a proposed Salt Lake Theater replica from the general state building fund bill, but there was doubt Wednesday the action would stick.
Rep. Elizabeth Vance (D-Ogden) served notice as the House was adjourning late Tuesday that she would ask for reconsideration of the bill sometime Wednesday. She had voted on the winning side of a 52 to 6 ballot that passed the measure after the theater allocation had been deleted.
Routine Day
The action, which climaxed a morning long discussion of the bill, highlighted an otherwise routine day in the House. Five other measures, all House bills, were passed during the afternoon.
Included in the measures sent along to the Senate were bills to bring the food, drug and cosmetic act of the state up to date with federal laws and to tighten up requirements for pharmacist and pharmaceutical business licenses.
Others would permit osteopathic physicians to establish their own hospitals; provide for permanent affidavits for permanent blindness and limit taxation of co-operative non-profit telephone companies to $10 per mile of lines.
Climaxes Protests
Amendment of the building bill to eliminate the theater replica climaxed a sudden storm of protest against pleas to pass the bill without altering it. The measure had passed the Senate the day before with a total allocation of $8,768,000.
A move to add $20,000 to the allocation to the School for Deaf and Blind for a building planning program was turned back, and the bill headed for House adoption.
Then Rep. George A. Hurst Jr. (R-Blanding) registered protests against the $500,000 allocation for the theater replica and an allocation of $1,500,000 for medical center beginnings on the University of Utah campus. He offered no amendments, however.
Rep. Adam M. Duncan (R-Salt Lake) dropped the bombshell when he moved to delete the theater allocation.
After considerable debate in which it was pointed out the allocation hinged entirely on fate of Senate Bill 156, which provides for construction of the building, the amendment was approved on a vote of 32 to 26.
Rep. Orville Gunther (R-Lehi) explained that the item was put in the bill only in event the Senate bill passes. He said the money would revert to the general fund if SB 156 failed. He then warned that there would be no money available for the construction if SB 156 passed and if the allocation were deleted from the building bill.
House Speaker Jaren L. Jones, later explaining his vote, said it was his opinion Senate Bill 156 would be passed. This was followed by a prediction by Rep. John Rowberry (D-Tooele) that the House would reconsider the measure, reinsert the $500,000 allocation and pass the bill.
Deseret News, Wed., February 27, 1957″
Wed., 27 Feb., 1957:
“Telephone Conversation with Mr. E.Q. Cannon, Jr. of the Utah House of Representatives. Re: appropriation for the S.L. Theatre replica
Representative Cannon called me today while at home. He wanted to know my stand regarding the bill that is now being considered in the House concerning the appropriation from the State of $500,000 for the Salt Lake Theatre replica to be built on the U of U campus.
He said that Jerry Jones had asked him to say something in the session of the House this afternoon in behalf of the Salt Lake Theatre Building appropriation. He said he was in the meeting the first of the year at the Capitol when I met with those interested in the passage of this bill, and heard my plea for the erection of this building – that he was impressed with what I said and would like to do what he can to help.
I told Mr. Cannon that between the Church and the Kennecott people $500,000 would be provided, the state $500,000. In addition to that $75,000, the cost of drawing the plans, is also guaranteed. The balance, possibly $400,000 will be raised by a mortgage to be redeemed throughout a period of years from income from the theatre.
The state will receive a million and a half building for $500,000, and the University will have a theatre building of which they can be proud.
Mr. Cannon thanked me for the information and said that it put a different light on the whole subject.
February 27, 1957
(Telephone conversation with Representative Vance, State Capitol Building, Wednesday, February 27, 1957.)
Dr. Lowell Lees called by telephone and asked me to speak to Representative Elizabeth Vance, who had come out of a session of the House of Representatives at the State Capitol, regarding the replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre bill. Representative Vance stated that she is from Ogden. Yesterday she made a motion on the floor of the House and was going to ask for reconsideration of Senate Bill 266 on the appropriation of $500,000 for the building of a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre. It is her feeling that she can put the bill back today and remove the objections that the House had yesterday. Representative Vance asked me if I would desire her to do this, and I told her that I wish she would. She then said that she just wanted to hear me say that I wanted her to do this. She expressed her loyalty and respect, and her faith in the Prophet of God.
I mentioned to Representative Vance that if this bill is passed it might be to the best interest of the State and the Church generally; that it is a good investment to the State and the school. I further stated that on the strength of Governor Lee’s having set this appropriation aside, we had given our word to prominent business interests, and it would be rather embarrassing now and a great loss to the State if it is not replaced, and that I should appreciate her help very much. Representative Vance said that she, too, thought it would be a good investment, and that she will do everything in her power to help us. She said also that it would be a help to the State.
In conclusion, the Representative said that she asked the Lord’s blessing upon me. I told her that I appreciated her calling me and her loyal support.
February 27, 1957
Telephone Conversation with Dr. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah Regarding the Passage of the bill for the $500,000 appropriation for the building of a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre on the U of U Campus.
Dr. Lees called me at the house this evening to give me the good news that the House of Representatives had reversed itself regarding the $500,0000 appropriation for the building of the old Salt Lake Theatre replica. He had just received the good news that the House had passed the bill 41 to 15 this afternoon.
Said that Senator Hopkins sends his best regards to me. He thinks he is going to have trouble in getting the bill passed by the Senate tomorrow.
Dr. Lees then extended congratulations to me as he said that it had been my pleas and my interest in the bill that had turned the vote.
I told Dr. Lees that this news was the climax of a wonderful day — a most eventful day, with events stretching from Salt Lake to London, to Switzerland — from there to New Zealand.
See newspaper clipping concerning the reversal of the decision of the House of Representatives regarding the $500,000 appropriation for the Salt Lake Theatre building.
February 27, 1957
The following letter gives a good insight into the attitude of many people concerning the Church and its efforts and interest in bettering our community both culturally and economically.
SALT LAKE CITY
CHAMBER
of
COMMERCE
March 4, 1957
Miss Clare Middlemiss
Secretary to President David O. McKay
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Miss Middlemiss:
The incident that you are probably interested in occurred on the morning of February 27 at a breakfast meeting of the Republican members of the Utah House of Representatives who hold a regular meeting each Wednesday morning to review various legislative matters and to determine policy on procedures.
The matter that received the most consideration on this occasion was the appropriation for the replica of the Salt Lake Theater on the University of Utah campus which had been stricken from the appropriation bill the day previous by House action. Representative Orville Gunther first requested the opportunity of discussing the matter in detail and did a magnificent job in presenting all the facts connected with the appropriation and recommended that they vote for the appropriation when the bill came up for reconsideration, which was to be done at the morning session. This presentation by Mr. Gunther immediately called for rebuttal on the part of several individuals who not only went out of their way to state their objection to the appropriation but discussed the relationship of the proposal to the Church and ultimately to President McKay.
The final statement which caused me to ask for the opportunity of being heard was a statement made by one of the persons present, that ‘what’s the use of discussing this matter when we all know that when they put the pressure on the vast majority of us will have to vote for it.’ I then asked Clair Hopkins, who was presiding, for the opportunity of making a few statements with respect to the President and also with respect to the position of the Church in political matters.
I began by saying that since my father was dead to me the greatest man in the entire world from every angle was President David O. McKay and whether I liked the theater program or not it was a personal desire of his and that the State of Utah and every one in the room owed so much to the President who was trying so hard to do everything possible to prove that the Church was interested not only in the B.Y.U. but all educational faciliites in the State of Utah and was anxious to have the Church make the contribution on the University campus to prove that position.
I then outlined to them the basis upon which many of their decisions were reached calling attention to the fact that in many instances purported information was either rumor or plain fallacy. I called to their attention the fact that they had before them the bill on Sunday closing and of course they were all aware of the fact that that bill had been recommended by President McKay and the Church authorities. You would have been surprised at the number of heads that were nodded yes they knew it. Then I advised them that on a recent visit with the President he had called the matter to my attention and made the statement that he supposed he would be blamed for that and I advised him that I was certain that was the case. The President immediately advised me that they had nothing whatever to do with it and I could so advise Mr. Brewster, the author of the bill.
I then took the opportunity of telling them that based on statements made by the people on the street throughout the whole State of Utah the Church was opposed to having industry come into the State, they did not want foreigners to come and interfere with the perogatives of the Church, and that the officials of the Church wanted to hold Utah in tact against anything coming in from the outside. At this time a great many heads nodded so I advised them that in order to offset this type of statement I had taken every business leader of worthwhile organizations investigating the feasibility of establishing operations in Utah to the President in order to give them the privilege of meeting this great man and having him greet them, extending to them the hand of friendship, express to them as he always does his appreciation for their considering participating with us in the development of our economy, and assuring them of our desire and the desire of the Church to cooperate in every way.
I next had the opportunity of discussing with Mr. Erickson, who is a very wonderful man from Richfield, the relationship of the Salt Lake City Police Department and the orders given to the Chief of Police by the Church to see to it that they conduct themselves in accordance with the desire of the General Authorities of the Church and when he heard me say that the President was in my opinion more interested in the development of harmony between the L.D.S. and non-L.D.S. than were the people who were non-L.D.S. he had nothing further to say.
Following the meeting several of the fine people who were in attendance, even some who had spoken against the theater, came to me and expressed appreciation for my bringing facts to their attention, including one wonderful little fellow with whom I am not personally acquainted but a representative from one of the outlying counties who exressed thanks to me for what I had done on the basis that if someone such as he had made the statement they would feel that it was for the purpose of protecting the Church and inasmuch as they were recognized Church autorities in their local communitiies what I said had much more weight. At this point I asked this fine gentleman if my reputation as a ‘renegade’ had even gotten into his community but he smilingly said no but after all the legislators appreciated that possibly I was much more worldly than some of the Church people who were in the Legislature. This gentleman had served on a mission under the presidency of President McKay at some time.
Our mutual friend Maurice Anderson, who operates the clothing shop in Hotel Utah, also defended the Church’s attitude admirably. I know he would be thrilled to have the President mention it to him some time.
Following the meeting I got a hold of Mr. Erickson and suggested to him that I would like to have the opportunity of having him meet the President so he could form his personal opinion of the magnitude of this man. I pointed out to Mr. Erickson and some of the folks who are leaders in the Masonic Order the wonderful reaction received by Mr. Coleman,* the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on his recent visit with the President. When he left the President’s office he said to me, ‘I only wish I could have the opportunity of spending hours with this man who expresses better than any one I have ever heard the fundamental religious concepts that all of us have regardless of the church with which we are affiliated.’
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Gus
GUS P. BACKMAN
Secretary
GPB: pks
*Mr. John S. Coleman
February 27, 1957
HOUSE SWITCHES SIGNALS ON U. THEATER BILL
By CONRAD B. HARRISON
Deseret News Staff Writer
The Utah House of Representatives Wednesday reversed itself completely on a $500,000 allocation in the state building fund bill for a replica of the Salt Lake Theater.
Not only did the representatives put the amount back in the bill, but they eliminated a provision that the allocation be contingent on passage of a Senate bill to provide for construction of the theater on the University of Utah campus.
The action climaxed a busy day in the House that opened with the lawmakers passing and sending to the governor a bill to change the name of Utah State Agricultural College to the Utah State University of Agriculture and Applied Science.
Three additional Senate Bills, including a new ‘escheat law’ to place inactive and unclaimed bank deposits in the state treasury after 12 years of dormancy and a single House bill were also approved.
The House bill was a new measure introduced by Rep. Orville Gunther (R-Lehi) by unanimous consent of the House. It provided for coverage of $1,282,238 worth of deficits piled up by state departments, in addition to the more than $1 million in deficits in the general appropriations bill.
Rep. Elizabeth Vance (D-Ogden) asked for reconsideration of the building fund bill as she followed up her notice of Tuesday afternoon. At that time the House had deleted the half-million dollars for the replica and passed the measure.
Immediately after gaining reconsideration, Mrs. Vance proposed an amendment to reinsert the amount. Representative Gunther then proposed an amendment to the amendment to provide that no portion of the $500,000 ‘shall be expended until money in the sum of $600,000 has become available for the same purpose from private sources.’
In finally presenting this latter amendment, Speaker Jaren L. Jones (R-Salt Lake) said that it removed necessity of passing SB156, which would have appropriated the money and proposed construction of the building.
Both propositions carried and the bill was passed in its new form on a vote of 46 to 15 with three absent.
Holding firm against the amendment and the bill was Rep. Adam M. Duncan (R-Salt Lake), who had offered the amendment Tuesday to delete the amount. He insisted there were far more urgent needs for the half-million dollars in other state construction, ‘even on the University of Utah campus.’
Helping to put the clincher on the $500,000 allocation was Dr. C. Lowell Lees, director of the University Theater, who spoke to House members while they were in committee of the whole.
Dr. Lees said the building was not so much a ‘replica’ as a ‘symbol.’ He said it would ‘symbolize the cultural heritage of the state.’
Deseret News – Thursday, February 28, 1957″
Thurs., 28 Feb., 1957:
“2:50 p.m. At the request of Dr. C. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah, addressed a letter to the Honorable Orval Hafen, President of the Utah State Senate, in which I explained that the State will not need to contribute more than the proposed $500,000 appropriation for the erection of the replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre.
Telephone Calls
2. (2;15 p.m.) Grant S. Thorn and Dr. C. Lowell Lees
Relative to the bill for the appropriation of $500,000 for the building of the replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre.
Salt Lake Theatre Building
3. Dr. Lowell Lees called at 5:10 o’clock this evening and reported that the Bill for the appropriation of $500,000 by the State for the building of a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre had passed the Senate 15 to 4. (see newspaper clipping regarding this following) (Also see editorials which appeared both in the Deseret News and Tribune concerning the benefits to be derived from the new Salt Lake Theatre Bldg. both to the State and to the School)
Telephone conversation with Dr. Lowell Lees and Senator Grant Thorn, Thursday, February 28, 1957, 2:15 p.m.
Dr. Lowell Lees called by telephone from the State Capitol. He gave me the following information regarding the bill which is now before the Senate to appropriate $500,000 to assist in building a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre on the University of Utah campus. It had appeared until the present time that this bill was going through the Senate, but now there is talk of sending the bill back to the House for an amendment stating that this is the extent of the money to be given by the State. Dr. Lees feels that if the bill goes back to the House it will be ‘killed.’ Senator Grant Thorn, chairman of the appropriation Committee told Dr. Lees that if I would say to them that the $500,000 is the extent of the funds that will be asked from the State, that this will save the bill. I told Dr. Lees that I should be happy to give this information to Senator Thorn. Then Dr. Lees stated that Senator Thorn is in a session, and he will get him to the telephone for me. They will call me back in a few minutes.
I then told Dr. Lees that I had understood that there were some Senators at my office to see me about 1:30 p.m. today. I informed him that I did not know about this appointment. Dr. Lees said that he knew I did not know the Senators were coming, but he had just taken a chance in telling them to call with the hope that I would be in my office. I told Dr. Lees that I would be in my office until 3:00 p.m. and I would wait for his call until that time.
In a few minutes Dr. Lees called again by telephone. Senator Grant Thorn was on the line with him. We talked to him regarding the Salt Lake Theatre bill now under consideration.
I asked Senator Thorn if he had called at my office today at 1:30 p.m. with some of the Senators. He said, ‘No.’ I then asked him if he would explain to the Senators that I knew nothing about the appointment as I certainly did not want to miss them. He said that he would explain this to the Senators.
Senator Thorn said he had been in a meeting with Mr. Orval Hafen, President of the Senate, and with Chairman Lloyd, the majority leader of the Senate, regarding the bill to raise funds to build a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre on the University of Utah campus. President Hafen is concerned about the other $400,000 that has to be raised for the construction of this building, and he wants to put an amendment to the bill stating that the State will not be asked for additional funds. Senator Thorn feels that if the bill goes back to the House for the amendment, there is a chance of losing it. Senator Thorn had suggested that they obtain a letter from me and a letter from the President of the University of Utah, explaining that the State would not be asked for additional funds. I told Senator Thorn that I will be happy to write a letter explaining this. The letter is to be directed to President Orval Hafen,* President of the Senate, and Mr. Thorn feels that this matter can be taken care of this afternoon. The letters to be written by President Olpin of the University of Utah and me, stating how we expect to obtain the extra money, will serve the same purpose as an amendment to the bill. I told Senator Thorn that there has been a misunderstanding from the beginning with regard to this bill. He stated that Dr. Lees will come to my office to pick up the letter in a few minutes, and they will try to take care of this matter this afternoon.
*see copy of letter following — see also clippings from newspaper concerning the passage of the bill for an appropriation for the Salt lake Theatre building – March 1, 1957
February 28, 1957
February 28, 1957
Honorable Orval Hafen
President, Utah State Senate
Utah State Legislature
State Capitol Building
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Senator Hafen:
With further reference to the impending bill before the Legislature to appropriate $500,000 towards the erection on the University Campus of a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre, I have just learned that there is concern in the minds of some senators that the balance of the million dollars needed to erect the building may not be raised and that the State will have to contribute more than the present $500,00.00.
This is to assure you that $600,000.00 is now awaiting your action on the $500,000.00. In addition to that the cost of drawing the plans (approximately $75,000.00) is also guaranteed.
It is proposed that the balance, possibly $400,000.00, will be raised by a mortgage to be redeemed throughout a period of years from income from the theatre.
Sincerely yours,
___________________________
(President)
DOM:mh
COPY
SENATE OKAYS STATE BUILDING
$8,768,000 Bill Includes $500,000 For U. Theater
By M. DeMar Teuscher
Deseret News Political Editor
The Utah Senate Thursday gave final passage to an $8,768,000 state building program for the next two years, including a $500,000 appropriation for construction of a replica of the old Salt Lake Theater on the University of Utah campus.
The measure now goes to Gov. George Dewey Clyde for his signature.
Vote on the building measure, amended by the House to nail down the theater appropriation, contingent only upon $600,000 being made available in private funds for the building, was 19-4 with two absent.
The building bill had once passed the Senate, then the theater appropriation had been stricken by the House. Later the House reinserted the $500,000 allocation and returned the bill to the Senate for final action.”
Deseret News – Friday, March 1, 1957
February 28, 1957
THEATER REPLICA RUCKUS LANDS IN CLYDE’S LAP
The controversy over the Salt Lake Theater replica has shifted from the legislature to the governor’s office.
Appropriation of $500,000 to build the structure on the University of Utah campus has been approved by both houses.
Several hundred people have written letters, postcards, signed petitions and called the governor to ask him to veto the appropriation.
Gov. George D. Clyde says that most of the opposition is based on a ‘misunderstanding.’
It will not be a replica of the old theater, he said, except for the exterior. The interior will be used for calssrooms and a stage to serve the university’s drama and speech departments.
The governor said that he has won several opponents to his view by explaining how the building would be used.
The state appropriation was made contingent upon receipt in cash of at least $600,000 from private sources. More than that has been pledged.
Several long petitions have been sent to the governor asking his veto. Some of the arguments against the measure are (1) that it is a waste of taxpayers’ money – that the public should not be forced to pay for a project desired by a few; (2) that money should not be spent to build a replica but that a completely new building should be designed.
The governor has indicated he will sign the measure, which is included in a bill providing money for several state buildings. But he has not said specifically what his action will be.
The Salt Lake Tribune – Wednesday, March 6, 1957
February 28, 1957
CURTAIN DROPS
DEBATE ENDS, CLYDE INITIALS THEATER BILL
Gov. George D. Clyde signed his name to a bill Thursday, ending a long debate over a $500,000 appropriation to help build a $1,600,000 classroom replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre on the University of Utah campus.
The bill he signed was SB 266 which provides $8,762,000 for construction of state buildings. The appropriation for construction of the replica was included in the measure.
As approved by both houses and the governor, the state will not allocate any of the $500,000 until at least $600,000 in private funds have been deposited to aid in the construction.
The building will be a replica of the old theater in its exterior.
Inside, there will be classrooms and an auditorium. The governor said he signed the bill without waiting for the full five-day period allowed him to study it because opposition to it faded when he explained that the $500,000 would provide the cheapest possible classroom space the state could buy.
The Salt Lake Tribune, Friday, March 8, 1957
February 28, 1957
LEGISLATURE VOTES STATE’S SHARE OF THEATER FUND
Action this week by the State legislature assured the state’s participation in the building of a handsome addition on the University of Utah campus. The new building will serve as a modern center of theatrical presentation and instruction in dramatics, as well as a memorial to the historic Salt Lake Theater.
Serving the dual purpose of a memorial as well as a modern and efficient educational facility, the building will follow the general exterior architectural design of the old theater, and will include also many of its unique interior features. It will have completely modern stage and theatrical facilities, in addition to a considerable number of classrooms to serve the school’s speech and drama departments.
Cost of the proposed structure has been estimated at from $1,600,000 to $1,750,000. The Church and various business and industrial concerns have pledged donations covering the principal part of this sum. The state has appropriated $500,000 in its building funds bill which the governor signed Thursday, and if necessary it is proposed to raise some $400,000 from a loan, to be repaid from operating revenues.
In outlining the plan for the proposed memorial some time ago, President McKay declared it was important that the cultural heritage of the West as established by the Salt Lake Theater in Pioneer days, be preserved and developed.
The original Salt Lake Theater, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of First South and State Streets, was built under the direction of President Brigham Young in 1861. It was dedicated for use the following year, and from that time until its passing in 1928, it ranked as one of the great theatrical institutions of the country.
During the theater’s long history nearly all of the great dramatic stars as well as many of the world’s leading musical artists appeared on its stage. In addition, it was the scene of the production of countless productions by amateur and home dramatic companies.
Deseret News – Church Section, Saturday, March 9, 1957
Thursday, February 28, 1957
EDITORIAL
RECONSTRUCTION AT ITS BEST
Since the demolition of the old Salt Lake Theatre 29 years ago, the fires of ambition to build another Salt Lake Theatre and also to carry on the pioneer heritage of great drama have never gone out.
Occasionally, the flames were banked dangerously low through depression days and war years, or, for example, as construction costs mounted for rebuilding. But not so the flames of desire to know great drama. Season after season Utah’s three institutions of higher learning, the Mutual Improvement Associations, and others, have toiled unceasingly and successfully to carry on Utah’s love for theatre.
The announcement now that the Salt Lake Theatre is to be rebuilt, from both public and private funds, comes as one of the most welcome of Christmas presents. How fortunate, too, that there stand ready professional directors and competent actors, supported by a loyal and enthusiastic patronage to move into the strucutre when it is completed. No time need be lost in ‘building’ casts or box office.
As 1928, the year of demolition, has long been held a sad one for Utah drama, 1956, the year of announcement of reconstruction, will long rank high in the history of Utah drama. For more than a century Utah has led out in theater, as witness the fact the University of Utah’s drama budget is the highest of any college or university in the United States, and one that is entirely self-supporting.
With the proposed reconstruction, Utah will continue its leadership in a nation that is currently enjoying a spectacular interest in drama. The 1955-56 season saw the theater on Broadway and the ‘road’ amass a record gross of more than $58 million. These figures attest to the commercial comeback of the theater, but they do not fully convey the strong revival of interest in the most ancient of entertainment forms. The 1,500 community theaters, growth of college drama departments, and ‘little theaters’ are other aspects of this survival.
Reconstruction of the Salt Lake Theatre will be Utahns’ way of continuing their leadership in making Americans more theater-conscious than ever before.
Deseret News – Saturday, December 8, 1956
February 28, 1957
EDITORIAL
SHOWCASE HISTORIC AND MODERN
Christmas Day 94 years ago was one of the most important days our Utah pioneers had ever enjoyed. The talk of the little town was about the opening of the Salt Lake Theater on Christmas Eve. Though many – perhaps most – of the pioneers did not yet have comfortable homes, yet they had been willing to help in the construction of their largest structure; they realized the impact that the theater and drama played in their daily lives.
Christmas Day, 94 years later, shouldbe a red letter day for the descendants of those 1863 pioneers. The talk of today’s metropolitan city is about the announcement made on Christmas Even that a modern-day Salt Lake Theater is planned to be rebuilt. The ‘new’ theater to be a replica of the old but with modern interior and stage facilities.
Likely, 1862’s citizen would have been more than pleased that today’s generation of leaders sense the enrichment that a modern-day theater can bring to the community. And he would have been delighted with such a bargain. Because no one helped him finance or build his Salt Lake Theater, he would, indeed, be amazed at the generosity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a number of large industrial companies that have unofficially pledged to give approximately a million dollars if the State will appropriate $500,000 already approved by the Board of Examiners. No doubt, Grandfather would have been just as anxious to get this bargain by deadline date so that the donating companies might obtain any possible 1956 tax benefits.
The pioneers of 1862 were not only pioneers of new land, but also they were pioneers of new ideas. They wanted to pioneer new things. When they opened their first theater in Salt Lake Valley in 1850, they had to present their plays between sundown and dark because there was no lighting system. But soon after the Salt Lake Theater was dedicated in 1862, these pioneers ‘pioneered’ with 385 gas lights. If the pioneers thought that their descendants were going to go back to gas lights (or even the old inadequate electric lights that were installed in September, 1880), and that these descendants were not going to ‘pioneer’ ahead with new developments, they would be shocked.
But they won’t be. The proposed building is to include every new feature and facility of modern theater construction. The building will follow the outside architecture of the old Salt Lake Theater but the inside will be thoroughly modernized.
For the real 1862 pioneer, the Old Bowery and the Social Hall were no more adequate for his drama than is Kingsbury Hall for today’s drama. Kingsbury Hall was built as a lecture hall, not to be a theater. The stage, for one thing, is only 30 feet deep as compared with the old Salt Lake Theater’s stage that was 62 feet deep.
The Third Old Bowry and the Social Hall were busy around the calendar, too, just as is today’s Kingsbury hall for 265 days of the year for public functions. And in addition there is also the University of Utah’s heavy schedule of affairs for its students.
Grandfather was thrilled with the opening of his Salt Lake Theater 94 years ago because he no longer had to depend on his other busy and inadequate public halls. But he wasn’t any more exicted than are his grandsons today with the proposal for a new, modern, and efficient Salt Lake Theater.
Deseret News – Tuesday, December 25, 1956
February 28, 1957
EDITORIAL
THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS
Now that the University of Utah theater project has been finally approved, there are some misunderstandings concerning the structure which should be cleared up in fairness to those in the Legislature and elsewhere who have supported the proposal.
So much attention has been focused on the fact that this will be a memorial to the famed old Salt Lake Theater, that the practical aspects of the project have been overlooked.
In the first place this will be a replica only so far as the exterior is concerned. Inside there will be a thoroughly modern 1,300-seat theater. It will be a much better facility for dramatic productions than Kingsbury Hall, and it will free this often overused auditorium for other purposes.
Before this particular project was proposed to the university and the state, University of Utah planners had projected just such a theater as the principal unit of a Fine Arts Center on the new upper campus. It thus fits into the entire university future development program. But it will have immediate practical benefit too.
Included will be a small theater suitable for daily use in dramatic training, 10 classrooms, 13 offices and 19 audition rooms. Availability of this space will permit use of 6,000 square feet of classroom and office space in Kingsbury Hall for other university purposes, and it will permit elimination of 10,000 square feet of temporary wooden buildings.
It costs Salt Lake City more than $500,000 to construct a 13-classroom grade school building. The university and the people of Utah are obviously getting very good value for their $500,000 in classroom and other instruction area space alone. The theater is a million dollar extra thrown in at no cost to the taxpayers, thanks to the money and architectural service to be contributed by the LDS Church and Utah industrial concerns, plus an undetermined amount of revenue bond financing which will be repaid out of theater earnings.
The Salt lake Tribune, Friday, March 8, 1957
February 28, 1957
EDITORIAL
THEATER FOR THE FUTURE
Somehow the notion persists, if the letters and telephone calls are an accurate barometer, that the Salt Lake Memorial Theatre is going to be an exact duplication of the historic old building – even to the gas lamps.
As has been pointed out in these columns previously – December 8th and 25th – the only exact duplication in the reconstruction will be the architecture of the outside. If our pioneers thought that today’s generation were going to honor them by going back to gas lamps (or even the old-fashioned inadequte electric lights that were installed in September, 1880) they would hardly appreciate the honor.
Our pioneers ‘pioneered’ both new lands and new ideas. To be worthy of the heritage they left us, they would expect that we, too, would continue ‘pioneering’ – the pioneering of the latest engineering and the most up-to-the-minute ideas in theater construction. This is the way the reconstruction of the Salt Lake Memorial Theatre is going to be. The building is to include every new feature and facility of modern theater construction.
Some letter writers have also indicated that there is little need for the new building. The facts hardly justify such an opinion. Kingsbury Hall is used an average of 265 days of the year for public functions. In addition there is also the University of Utah’s heavy schedule of affairs for its large student body. And, fundamentally, Kingsbury Hall was not intended to be a theater; it was built to be a lecture hall. The stage, for one thing, is only 30 feet deep as compared with the Old Salt Lake Theatre’s stage that was 62 feet deep.
And for those letter writers who complain about the expense, how much better bargain could they ever get? By putting up $500,000 taxpayers are going to get a building that is expected to cost nearly $2 million. All the expense above the legislature’s $500,000 appropriation will be raised from private funds – business firms and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – or from a revenue bond that will cost the taxpayer nothing. Morever the theater will be the first permanent building to be built on the Utah campus even partially with public tax money in 20 years.
Every Utahn who has an interest in the great cultural arts heritage that is his ought to be pleased as Punch that the Legislature passed the appropriation, that Governor Clyde signed the bill, and that nearly three-fourths of the total expense is being made available by generous private donations.
Deseret news – Saturday, March 9, 1957″
Tuesday, March 5, 1957:
Senator Luke Clegg of Provo called President McKay’s office. Inasmuch as the President was in meeting, he left the following message:
Senator Luke Clegg of Provo called by telephone. He stated that he has always wanted to uphold the wishes of the Church officials while he has been working in the Senate. He feels that they have a fine group of men trying to work things out for the best value of the State at the Legislature.
Senator Clegg would like to know if there is any way things can be straightened out with regard to the Salt Lake Theatre bill. A great deal of criticism has come to the various Senators from people of their home towns. Senator Clegg feels that the people do not understand the purpose of the bill. He is wondering if word could be sent out through the Stake Presidencies, etc. to the people, giving them the truth about this matter.
Senator Clegg can be reached during the day at the State Senate at the Capitol, or during the evening at the Temple Square Hotel.
At 4:30 p.m. President McKay returned Senator Luke Clegg’s telephone call.
I told Senator Clegg that I had received his note with regard to the Salt Lake Theatre bill, and that I did not understand why there was so much talk about it, since the purpose back of the bill is a most worthy one. Senator Clegg said that he also felt that way. He had voted for the bill and feels that he has no apologies whatever to make.
I further stated to Senator Clegg that in the first place the building will be a tribute to the Pioneers who founded the University of Utah. The people who are living now know all about the experiences of the Mormons regarding the Mountain Meadow Massacre, etc. but they do not know anything about their love of truth, liberty, educational pursuits, etc. Here is one opportunity to bring educators in touch with what the Pioneers did for the theatre just a few years after they entered the valley.
Senator Clegg stated that an article had been published in his local paper, and he thought he would answer it. I told Senator Clegg that this is probably the first article that has come out in the public press.
The I told him that the reason we are putting this theatre building on the University of Utah campus is because there will be non-members who, in the future, will have children coming in contact with that Institution. A plaque will be placed upon the theatre building giving credit to the Pioneers.
Then I stated that there is a growing sentiment that we are boosting the B.Y.U. and have the attitude that the University does not belong to all of the people of the State; and do not want that school to grow. Whereas, the truth is that we are just as interested in the growth of the University of Utah as we are the Brigham Young University.
Senator Clegg said that he understood, but so many of our people do not. He felt that the people would not be nearly so critical if the Stake Presidents, Bishops, etc. scattered the news around as to the real purpose of this building. I agreed with Senator Clegg and told him that we shall get the news around a bit.
I thanked Senator Clegg for calling.”
Wed., 20 Mar., 1957:
*Salt Lake Theatre Building
At this meeting we discussed the following matters: that in order to retain the $500,000 appropriated by the Utah State Legislature, it is necessary that we raise $600,000 through private subscription. So far we have $250,000 from the Church, plus $75,000 in archietectural services; $225,000 from Kennecott Copper Company. Mr. Lee Flint of the Board of Directors of Kennecott Copper Company is going to try to get another $25,000 from the Kennecott people.
I expressed the thought that we should not bond the theatre for $500,000, which will take twenty years to pay off this indebtedness, but that we should reduce the amount to be bonded from $500,000 to either $400,000 or $350,000.
We concluded that we would try to raise more cash so that the bonded indebtedness would be reduced.”
Wed., 27 Mar., 1957:
Wednesday, March 27, 1957
KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION
161 East 42nd Street
New York 17, N.Y.
C.R.Cox
President March 18, 1957
Mr. David O. McKay
President
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear President McKay:
You will be pleased to be advised that our Board, as of Friday, March 15th, approved the recommendation of the Contributions Committee for a commitment to the project you wrote me about on November 14, 1956, i.e. the Old Salt Lake Theatre, in the amount of $250,000.00.
I do hope that this project will materialize in the way in which you indicated in your letter and that it will provide the link with the past that means so much.
Very sincerely yours,
/s/ C.R. Cox
(Original letter in the Letter Scrapbook.)
Wednesday, March 27, 1957
March 27, 1957
Mr. Charles R. Cox, President
Kennecott Copper Corporation
161 East 42nd Street
New York City, New York
Dear President Cox:
Your kind letter of March 18, 1957, advising that the Board of the Kennecott Copper Corporation as of Friday, March 14, had approved the recommendation of the Contributions Committee for a commitment of $250,000 toward the erection of a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre on the campus of the University of Utah, made the project committee and others interested very appreciative and happy.
Your generous contribution, with a like amount from the Church, and $500,000 from the State made available by the Utah State Legislature (approving the sum set aside for this purpose by former Governor Lee) makes it possible to proceed at once with this commendable project.
Personally, and in behalf of the Church, I desire to express appreciation to you and other members of your Board for your gracious response to our request for your participation in the erection of this Theatre, which serves a present need, and will be a memorial to the ideals and sacrifices of the Pioneers.
Again – Thank You!
Cordially and sincerely yours,
_________________________
(President)
DOM:cm:lf”
Sat., 27 Apr., 1957:
“Site Chosen for the Salt Lake Memorial Theatre
This morning at 8:30 I met by appointment at their request Dr. C. Lowell Lees and Mr. Lee Flint of the Kennecott Copper Company pertaining to matters associated with the building of the Salt Lake Memorial Theatre. We decided that the $500,000 appropriated by the State had been matched by the $600,000 raised by Kennecott Copper Company and the Church, and that now we could proceed to have architectural plans drawn for the Salt Lake Memorial Theatre.
A plaque for the Memorial Theatre was discussed to be preceded or followed by the following:
‘As a lasting tribute to the pioneers of Utah, to their culture, and to their promotion of the refining arts this architectural replica of the old Salt Lake Theater is erected on the campus of the University of Utah.
‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, United States Steel, Kennecott Copper Corporation and State industries have joined with the State in providing the necessary funds.
‘It is the hope of the sponsors that the structure may serve not only as a useful facility but also as an enduring and stimulating remembrance of the ennobling and beautiful heritage transmitted to future generations by the founders of a select society.’
Following our discussion the three of us went up to the University of Utah campus, and chose the site preferred of the three sites set aside upon which it may be built.
We decided that the next step will be to prepare the plans, economizing in every way in the erection of this building.
Sat., 18 May, 1957:
9 a.m.
Elias L. Day, State Senator, called at the office by appointment at his request, and related an impression that Senator Grant S. Thorn had during the discussion of members of the Utah State Legislature in relation to the appropriation by the State to the Memorial Theatre on the University of Utah Campus.
He said that there was quite a strong opposition exhibited toward the appropriation, and Senator Thorn got an impression that if the President of the Church would write a letter to the Senators assuring them that the $500,000 appropriation by the State would be matched by contributions from various business institutions that the opposition would be overcome.
This was done, and the whole tide was turned.
Wed., 18 Dec., 1957:
“8 a.m. – According to appointment at their request, met the following with reference to the Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre:
Mr. Lee Flint, Director of the Kennecott Copper Co.
Mr. Elmo Morgan of the U of U Finance Dept.
Dr. Wm. F. Edwards, financial secretary to the First Presidency
Dr. A. Ray Olpin, President of the University of Utah
At this meeting the above committee reported that they had reduced the plan for the memorial theatre which will cut the cost of the building.
Mr. Morgan, representing the University of Utah, will now communicate with the Church Architects on the final drawings.
We decided that Mr. Flint will obtain the $250,000 from the Kennecott Copper Company, and that I shall deposit the money to be contributed by the Church.”
Thurs., 26 Dec., 1957:
11 a.m. Dr. William F. Edwards, financial secretary to the First Presidency, came in, and I went over with him the following agenda which is to be presented to the Committee of the Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre at 11:30 a.m.:
Agenda:
1. Deliver checks to President Olpin – Kennecott Copper $250,000
Church checks: $250,000
75,000 for architects’ fees
2. Authorize contract with Harold Burton and Howard Barker for design of building in keeping with revised sketch calling for approximately 47,000 square feet.
3. Appreciate most sincerely the assurances of the University regarding raising $250,000 by loan and an additional $175,000 by contributions of cash or materials and equipment to complete the financing of the project. These additional funds should be on hand or firmly committed before the construction contract is awarded.
4. General agreement on the plaque to designate the building.
At 11:30 a.m.
The following men came into my private office for a meeting:
President A. Ray Olpin, President of the University of Utah, Mr. William O’Connor, President of the University of Utah Board of Trustees, Dr. William F. Edwards, and Mr. Morgan of the University of Utah Alumni Association.
First, I delivered to Mr. O’Connor, President of the Board of Trustees of the U of U, and President A. Ray Olpin, President of the U of U, the Kennecott Copper Company check for $250,000, and two Church checks – one for $250,000, and one for $75,000 for the architects’ expenses of drawing the plans, which is necessary because the old plans for the theatre were changed. (Total contribution of the Church – $325,000)
We authorized Harold Burton and Howard Barker, architects, to design the building.
Before the question of the plaque to be placed on the completed building came up, President Stephen L. Richards had suggested that we use the name ‘Pioneer Theatre’ instead of ‘Pioneer Memorial Theatre’. None of those present at this meeting liked the name – neither Dr. Edwards nor the University of Utah representatives. They thought the word ‘Pioneer’ would be less complimentary to the Pioneers than the word ‘Memorial’. Brother Edwards got out the telephone book and showed us how generally the word ‘Pioneer’ designated companies here in the Salt Lake area–scores of them! But the word ‘Memorial’ will immediately arouse the question – Memorial to whom, or to what? So this matter was left to be reconsidered. The following, however, was accepted as suitable for the plaque:
UTAH PIONEER MEMORIAL THEATRE
This building is erected as a memorial to the cultural contribution of the Mormon Pioneers who in the early days of the settlement of this community founded this university and at great sacrifice built the old Salt Lake Theatre, which for more than half a century brought dramatic and musical talent from many parts of the world for the entertainment and education of the people. The exterior of this building is in part a replica of the old Theatre.
It is the hope of those who have fostered the project that the high ideals in dramatic arts and wholesome entertainment which were held by the Pioneer founders may never be forgotten.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kennecott Copper Corporation have given funds which, with those furnished by the Legislature of the State, and others, have provided the major portion of all the means to enable the University to finance, erect, and furnish the building.
It was decided that suitable notes for the publicity of this meeting will be prepared by the four gentlemen present and submitted to the First Presidency before given out to the press.
From 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. – Dictation to Clare. One letter dictated was to Mr. Charles R. Cox, President of the Kennecott Copper Corporation, New York City, thanking him for the $250,000 check given in behalf of the Kennecott Copper Corporation as a contribution to the erection of the Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre. (see copy of letter following) (also see copies of letters of appreciation sent by Dr. A. Olpin of the University to President McKay, Kennecott Copper representatives, etc.)”
Tues., 21 Jan., 1958:
“9 a.m. to 10 a.m. – Presided at the regular meeting of the First Presidency.
At this meeting took up the following matters:
(1) Reported that Mr. Charles D. Michaelson of Western Mining Div. of Kennecott Copper Corporation had accepted invitation to become a member of the Zion’s First National Bank.
(2) Gift to construction of Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre
In reviewing recent events, I stated that on December 18, Mr. Lee Flint of the Board of Directors of the Kennecott Copper Corporation and Mr. L.F. Pett of the Utah Division, presented a check for $250,000 toward building memorial theatre.
On December 26, I presented to Mr. William O’Connor, Chairman of the Board of Regents and to President A. Ray Olpin, President of the University of Utah, another check for $250,000 on behalf of the Church, as promised to the Legislature, and also a check for $75,000 for architects’ expenses in preparing the plans.
I read the text of the inscription to appear upon the plaque, reciting that the building is to be known as the Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre. The word ‘Pioneer” is commonly used in the names of many businesses in the community, but nevertheless, the desirability of preserving the word ‘Pioneer” in the name of the Memorial Theatre was accepted and the wording of the inscription to appear on the plaque was also accepted word for word.
I explained that before the Legislature met in 1957, Governor Lee had agreed to make available $500,000 from a special fund, but Senator Hafen challenged the Governor’s right to pledge the money without the approval of the Legislature.
The erection of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre was made contingent upon $600,000 being raised from gifts. The announcement to be released by the University states that ‘the presentation of the checks was in conformity with the arrangements made prior to and during the 1957 session of the Utah State Legislature. These gifts together with gifts previously pledged will make $600,000.”
Thurs., 23 Jan., 1958:
“Thursday, January 23, 1958.
Excerpt from Minutes of the Meeting of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, Thursday, January 23, 1958.
Regarding: Old Salt Lake Theatre and New Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre.
‘President McKay said that President Richards had related to the brethren in the Expenditures Committee meeting some of his personal experiences in regard to the closing of the Salt Lake Theatre, something which President McKay said was entirely new to him, and he asked President Richards to relate this same thing to the Brethren of the Council for their information.
‘President Richards said that the matter had come up in connection with the question of an appropriation for the replica of the Salt Lake Theatre to be built on the University campus, and he had remarked that he remembers that when the matter of disposing of the Theatre was under discussion he knew that President Grant and most of the Brethren were anxious to retain the old Theatre if it were possible to do so. President Richards asked President Grant on one occasion if he might go to the Mayor of Salt Lake City and ask if they would consider taking the property over, thus avoiding taxes because the Theatre had been losing money for a long time and it was no doubt difficult to pay the taxes, let alone any dividends to the stockholders. President Grant said that would be all right. President Richards called on Clarence Neslen, who was then the Mayor, and he looked with favor upon some plan to retain it, but he said, ‘Of course we haven’t any money. Some very great concessions would have to be made to the city before we could acquire the property,’ and there would have to be considerable reduction in price. President Richards asked the Mayor if it would be all right for him (President Richards) to speak to one or two of the Commissioners, and he did speak to a couple of them, although he did not now remember who they were, and they were pretty much of the opinion that the city might look with favor upon the project if concessions might be made that were sufficient so that the city could meet the financial obligation.
‘President Grant tried to get the stockholders, or at least some of them, to make a concession in order that an acceptable proposal might be made to the city, but he afterwards reported that it was not feasible, that it could not be done. President Richards said he remembered in that connection that one of the large stockholders by the name of Wrathall would not make any concession under the price that they were to receive on the offer from the Mountain States Telephone Company to purchase the property. President Richards thought that President Grant was of a disposition that he would have been willing to accept for the Church a considerable reduction on its major portion of the stockholdings, but other stockholders would not consent and seemed to insist that the Corporation of the Salt Lake Theatre accept the offer which had been made by the Mountain States Telephone Company for that property without making any concessions, and there the matter died because they could not make a proposition to Salt Lake City that the city could meet.’
Thursday, January 23, 1958.
Excerpt from Minutes of Meeting of Committee on Expenditures, held 10 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 1958.
58-121. Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre – Contribution Toward Construction of and Wording for Plaque.
‘The Committee was advised (1) that on December 24, 1957, Mr. Lee Flint, a member of the Board of Directors of the Kennecott Copper Company and Mr. L. Fern Pett, General Manager of the Utah Copper Division presented to the First Presidency a check for $250,000 as a contribution toward the building of the Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre, the exterior of which is to reflect in part the appearance of the old Salt Lake Theatre, the interior incorporating the most advanced concepts of design and arrangement for theatrical uses; (2) that on December 26, President David O. McKay, after having conferred with and received approval of the First Presidency’s proposal from Elders Henry D. Moyle and LeGrand Richards and Presiding Bishop Joseph L. Wirthlin, delivered to President A. Ray Olpin and Mr. William O. Connor, President of the Board of Trustees of the University of Utah, the Kennecott Copper check for $250,000, plus a matching check of $250,000 from the Church, and a second check from the Church for $75,000 which is to cover architectural expenditures in the preparation of new plans, as it had been found impossible to use the old plans; (3) that this made a total contribution from the Church of $325,000 and a total from the Church and the Copper Company of $575,000; (4) that this amount, plus other contributions received prior to that time, exceeded the $600,000 contribution upon which the $500,000 appropriation by the 1957 Legislature was contingent; (5) that with this $1,100,000 available, President Olpin advises, the University of Utah will be able to proceed wtih the design and construction of the Theatre; and (6) that an estimated additional $1,500,000 is to be raised through gifts and a bond issue which is to be retired by revenues from the Theatre. The Committee ratified the action of the First Presidency in making this contribution of $325,000 with the understanding that it is to be considered a 1957 expenditure.
‘The Committee was then presented with and approved the wording to be incorporated on a plaque to be placed at the Theatre. The wording of a news item to be released by President A. Ray Olpin was also read to the Committee.
‘The Committee was further advised by President Stephen L. Richards, that prior to President Heber J. Grant and his counselors giving approval to the sale of the old theatre property at First South and State Street, he had received approval and encouragement from President Grant to meet with officials of Salt Lake City in an attempt to get the City to take over and preserve this property as a Historic Landmark and he had received assurance that the City would take over the property if the stockholders would make concessions in the price being asked. It was pointed out that by doing this the City would not only incur some obligations in maintaining it as a historic property, but would also be deprived of the taxes that would otherwise be derived from this property. President Richards explained that due to an unyielding arbitrary attitude of certain of the minority stockholders, this transfer could not be made even though the First Presidency seemed disposed to contribute its interest in the property.
‘Wording of plaque approved. Statement made regarding the sale of old theatre.'”
Thurs., 5 Mar., 1959:
Pioneer Memorial Theater
It was called to the attention of the First Presidency that the theater has been identified with a number of different names. The initial release to the press referred to it as the Salt Lake Memorial Theater. An official newspaper release regarding the project dated April 29, 1958 referred to it as the Utah Pioneer Memorial Theater. The First Presidency in a recent meeting indicated a preference for the name, ‘Pioneer Memorial Theater.’
Brother Edwards reported on a meeting that was held in the office of President Olpin February 26. The meeting was called by President Olpin and those in attendance included Paul Hodson, the official of the University designated to represent the University on this project; Royden Derrick, a member of the Board of Regents and Chairman of the Building Committee of the University; Clarence Bamberger, a member of the Board of Regents of the University and also a member of the building Committee; Dr. Lowell Lees; Leland Flint, a member of the Board of Regents who was also in attendance as a director of Kennecott Copper; Harold Burton, Howard Barker, and William F. Edwards. There was also in attendance Martin Brixen, head of the Architectural Department of the University.
There was a full discussion at this meeting of the advantages and disadvantages of the design presently prepared for the front of the building and the possibility of a new design. The architects for the project, Harold Burton and Howard Barker, expressed the opnion that if the sponsors were agreeable to a change that would eliminate any reference to the old Salt Lake Theater in the exterior of the buidling that they would appreciate the opportunity of preparing an alternate design. They estimated that this would require about one to two weeks of work, and it would be an additional cost of $200 plus for a new prospective. They also estimated that if the alternate design were approved, there would be added architectural costs of $4,000 to $5,000 to re-do some 70 final working drawings. It was recognized that the architects could not be expected to absorb these extra expenses. it was also recognized that the Church could not be expected to pay the additional architectural costs. Therefore, these costs would have to be absorbed by the project. It was agreed that this group would meet and review the new alternate prospective as soon as it was ready.
Action:
1. The First Presidency approved of the name, ‘Pioneer Memorial Theater.’
2. The First Presidency were pleased with the report of the group meeting and desire that the architects complete the alternate design and that the design be examined by this group before the matter is presented again to the First Presidency.”
Fri., 20 Mar., 1959:
“Friday, March 20, 1959.
First Presidency Minutes Friday, March 20, 1959 at 10:00 A.M. All three members of the First Presidency were in attendance.
Pioneer Memorial Theater
Brother Edwards informed the First Presidency of a meeting at the University at which time a revised drawing of the front of the Pioneer Memorial Theater was considered. There were in attendance at this meeting six members of the University’s Buildings and Grounds Committee including President Olpin, royden Derrick, Chairman, and Leland Flint. There were also in attendance Harold Burton, Howard Barker, Lowell Lees, Professor Brixen, head of the University’s Architecture Department, and William Edwards. Harold Burton presented the new design, but he took a generally neutral point of view. A letter from Royden Derrick dated March 18, 1959 contains the following paragraph which outlines the action of the Buildings and Grounds Committee at this meeting:
‘After careful review of all the information available and after contacting the members of the Design Committee, the Chairman stated that he felt the committee members wer inclined to accept either plan advocated by the architects. However, a motion was placed by Mr. Bamberger which was passed by members of the committee by a vote of our to two in favor of using the original design as modified by the changes in the North and South elevations, which we understand have already been incorporated by the architects.’
There was then reveiwed a subsequent letter written by Harold W. Burton and addressed to the First Presidency which reads in part as follows:
‘The design illustrated in color represents our best efforts to preserve an element of likeness to the old theater. The nature of a new setting on the university campus, of course, changed materially the memory of the old theater, which was located at the intersection of two downtown business streets. We feel that this design is attractive and that is would please you if it is built.
‘However, we must say that we much prefer the second design which is illustrated in black and white. It is simple, dignified and monumental. The writer’s feeling is that we can preserve the memory of the old Salt Lake Theater as well, or better, with this design with emphasis on sculptured tablets, inscriptions, mural paintings and the museum feature now incorporated in the plans. The building originally conceived has been so altered in arrangement by functional requirements that any resemblance to the old Salt Lake Theater is very thin. Had we not been working under instructions to develop a building resembling somewhat the old theater, but had we been entirely free to design a memorial building, we would have developed originally the third or revised design for this building.
‘We believe the probably saving in construction costs if the simpler design is adopted will more than justify the expense and time required to revise the drawings that are now nearly complete. This is an important consideration as the building has been creeping in size as added features have been requested by University representatives.’
Brother Edwards further explained the feelings of Brother Burton on the subject. Brother burton feels that he made a mistake at the meeting of the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the University by failing to stress his very strong preference for the revised prospective. Brother Burton feels that this prospective is so much superior to the previous design that he will be unhappy unless the new prospective is approved.
After full consideration it was the opinion of the First Presidency that the revised prospective would be superior.
Action: It was agreed that Brother Edwards would draft a letter for the First Presidency in which they would inform the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the recommendation of Brother Burton and express the opinion that, ‘We feel his recommendation is worthy of reconsideration by the Buildings and Grounds Committee of the University.’
Tues., 24 Mar., 1959:
“8:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.
Pioneer Memorial Building, U of U Campus
The First Presidency met with Mr. W.J. O’Conner, Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, Secretary of State LaMont Toronto, exofficio, member of the Board of Regents, Mr. Leland B. Flint, Mr. Clarence Bamberger, Richard L. Evans, and others, to consider matters pertaining to the proposed Pioneer Memorial Theatre to be erected on the University of Utah Campus.
Three designs of the proposed building were presented and studied. After considering these at length, it was decided that they should proceed with Design No. 1, which was rendered in color. (see minutes following) (See also newspaper clippings of announcement)
Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Pattonsburg Reservoir in Missouri
After conferring with the above brethren, the First Presidency returned to the north Board Room and met with Brother Alvin R. Dyer, formerly President of the Central States Mission, and Assistant to the Twelve, on developments in Washington, D.C. on the propsoed Pattonsburg Reservoir which threatens to inundate the Adam-ondi-Ahman site, near Gallatin, Missouri. David S. King, Congressman from Utah, has conferred at length with the U.S. Army Corps of engineers in Washington, D.C. about the project. They show an earnest desire to respect the Church’s wishes in the matter. It was felt that rather than the First Presidency write a letter to the Chief of Engineers, Alvin Dyer, should go to Washington, D.C. and quietly confer with David S. King, our Senators, and the US Chief of Engineers with regard to an alternate site for the location of the dam farther up the river, which would preserve the properties we now hold at Adam-ondi-Ahman, as well as surrounding areas which are sacred to us as a people.
Tuesday, March 24, 1959.
Minutes of the Meeting
of the
First Presidency
Held Tuesday, March 24, 1959 at 8:30 A.M.
Present: Presidents David O. McKay, Stephen L. Richards and J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
Memorial Theatre on the Campus of the University of Utah
The First Presidency withdrew from the President’s Room to the main Board Room on the main floor of the building where Architect Harold Burton and Brother Howard Barker had exhibited three sketches of the proposed Pioneer Memorial Theatre Building to be erected on the campus of the University of Utah, to the construction of which the Church, the Kennecott Copper Company, and the State of Utah had made appropriations.
Mr. W.J. O’Conner, chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, Secretary of State LaMont Toronto, exofficio, a member of the Board of Regents, Mr. Leland B. Flint, Mr. clarence Bamberger, Mr. Royden Derrick and Richard L. Evans, members of the Board of Regents, and Mr. Paul Hodson, executive-assistant to the president of the University, Mr. Martin Brixen, director of Planning and Construction Department, University of Utah, Mr. William F. Edwards, Financial Secretary of the Church, were also present. Mr. O’Conner referred to the three sketches of the proposed Memorial Theatre to be erected on the University of Utah campus and briefly reviewed the development of the three proposals. He stated that at a meeting held yesterday it was the judgment of the University group that the selection of the design should be up to the First Presidency of the Church and stated that whatever the First Presidency decide upon would be satisfactory to the others.
At his request, Mr. Toronto, Secretary of State, reviewed the consideration given the subject that a Board of Examiners who understood the desire of the First Presidency to be for a replica for the Salt Lake Theatre, but modernized inside, while maintaining on the outside what the Old Salt Lake Theatre should have looked like.
The interior, according to the original plan and instructions is to be ‘functional’ in that it provides much needed classrooms and teaching rooms, as well as theatre facilities for the Speech Department of the University. He stated that he felt there is a moral obligation to adhere as closely as possible to this understanding in the selection of the exterior design.
Mr. Bamberger explained that Design No. 1* had been acceptable to all except one person.
Architect Harold Buton reviewed the preparation of the designs and explained that the three designs had evolved, growing out of the need to provide a memorial and yet a useful building which would have classrooms and teaching facilities for the Speech Department. Brother Howard Barker further amplified the developments and explained the problems involved in preserving the exterior design in such a way as to retain a feeling for the spiritual and cultural aspects of the Old Salt Lake Theatre.
Brother Burton explained that the original Salt Lake Theatre was arranged on the horseshoe type of seating with the balconies, which were good for hearing but not so good for seeing. He also explained the changes which had been made in the interior of the proposed building to cause it to meet the requirements for classrooms, teaching rooms, rehearsal and theatre facilities.
He also explained the difference in the cost of construction. He exhibited the third design which is more modern and stated that the cost of construction will be less than the classical design. He stated that the floor space in both buildings is the same. He expressed the opinion that the exterior resemblance of the classical building to the Old Salt Lake Theatre is rather ‘thin’.
In answer to a question Brother Burton stated that the difference between the Design 2 and Design 3 is in the facade, the exterior elevation.
President McKay briefly reviewed suggestions that placques or sculptured representations of the Old Theatre would be provided to commemorate the features of the Old Theatre.
Mr. O’Conner asked, ‘Would the First Presidency express preference for the design they would favor?’ and said that the Executive Committee and the Board of Regents will meet and report on its recommendation.
President McKay asked Brother Burton if the second plan (classical) violates any rules of architecture.
Brother Burton stated that the criticism had been made that it was a ‘stuck-on design’. He stated that the architects have done their best to meet instructions under which they have been working. He said he thought that the architects could do as well with Design 3 and that neither design looks very much like the Old Salt Lake Theatre.
Mr. O’Conner pointed to Design No. 1 and said, ‘We will proceed with this plan.’
Wed., 6 May, 1959:
“Salt Lake Theatre Replica
Editorial appeared in Deseret News of this date regarding the building to be erected on the University of Utah campus as a memorial to the old Salt Lake Theatre – see editorial following. President McKay, and the Centennial Committee of which he was Chairman, were the originators of the plan to build a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre.
Wednesday, May 6, 1959
EDITORIAL
NOT A REPLICA BUT A MODERN THEATER
Project Originally as a sentimenal replica of the historic Salt Lake Theater, the much-discussed new theater at University of Utah has now taken architectural form – on paper – as an ultramodern true theater building.
That is as it should be. The old Salt Lake Theater, were it still standing today, would be regarded as out-dated, inadequate in style, capacity and utilitarian value.
Those who pushed the project as a memorial to the old theater will be pleased to know at least the front entrance will be strikingly similar. Those long-remembered classic Greek pillars will grace the entrance, forming the only actual replica of the old building. A miniature replica of the Salt Lake Theater in the lobby will help to link the new structure with one of Utah’s finest cultural traditions.
Patrons of the theater may be disappointed at first to learn that there will be only 1,005 seats. But the designers had in mind preserving the intimate contact between actor and audience, so essential to a top-grade performance. Plans call for 585 seats in the main section, 160 in the balcony, slightly elevated above the main floor, and 260 in a small gallery to the rear of the balcony. Every patron, no matter where seated, will have a clear view of the whole stage. The most remote seat will be only 80 feet from the stage.
The architects planned wisely when they adopted the ‘continental plan’ of seating, without center aisles. Concourse areas are at either side, and the rows of seats are 40 inches apart. This arrangement provides easy access to any seat in the house, with no standing up to let in late patrons, no stepping on toes, and much greater leg room. The 75-foot stage will be ultra-modern, too, with fly gallery and gridiron so that one set of scenery can be set up while the previous set is in use, greatly reducing the waits between acts.
It is noted that construction plans are already in the making, although there’s still some $400,000 to be raised on the $1.5 million facility. This is a joint undertaking. The 1957 Legislature appropriated $500,000. The Kennecott Copper Corporation and the LDS Church matched this sum with $250,000 each. The Church also agreed to pay for the plans, which will cost $75,000. The University of Utah Theater put up $25,000, running the total to $1.1 million. It is hoped that gifts and contributions will provide the last $400,000 necessary.
It takes all kinds of interests and activities to make up the cross section of American community life, and the arts – including the drama – are integral cultural needs. The proposed new Memorial Theater appears to be all the area could hope for to preserve a time-honored and rapidly growing dramatic tradition.
Deseret News – Wednesday, May 6, 1959″
Mon., 5 Oct. 1959:
“8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Re: Pioneer Memorial Theatre Building
Met by appointment in the West Board Room of the Church Offices Mr. Leland B. Flint, Elder Richard L. Evans, Paul W. Hodson, Reed W. Brinton, Dr. C. Lowell Lees of the University of Utah, Earl A. Hansen, President of the Sons of the Utah Pioneers, and several members of that Organization whose names appear on the following minutes of the meeting.
I presented to them a project to raise $250,000 toward the erection of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre on the University of Utah campus. The original plan was to place a mortgage on it for $400,000, but it was thought it would be unwise to have the mortgage hanging over the theatre, and it was decided that the best way would be to have the names of the Pioneers on the seats to cost $200 each. (see copy of minutes and notes used by President McKay in presenting this project following)
I have never seen a group of men accept a proposition so readily as these men did. They voted unanimously to raise $250,000, and to have it by Thanksgiving Day this year. They formed their committees immediately after the meeting, and are now working on it. (see tele conversation Oct. 7, 1959)
October 5, 1959
Monday morning, October 5, 1959, at 8:30 a.m. at the invitation of President David O. McKay, the following representatives of the Sons of Utah pioneers and of the University of Utah met in the board room on the main floor of the Church Office Building at 47 East South Temple Street in Salt Lake City, Utah:
(see attached list.)
Mr. Leland B. Flint, representing the Board of Regents of the University, at President McKay’s request acted as chairman of the meeting.
Mr. Flint briefly explained the purpose of the meeting to be to give the officers, representing organizations of the Sons of Utah Pioneers a report of a project in which it is hoped they will have an interest and to explain a concept for memorializing the Pioneers. He then asked President McKay to tell the group what help is needed to carry out the project.
President David O. McKay reviewed briefly the inception of the project to erect a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre. He stated that a memorandum in March 1946 reminded him to report to the Utah Centennial Commission (of which he was Chairman) that the Board of Regents of the University of Utah had favorably considered the Commission’s recommendation that the University sponsor the rebuilding of the Salt Lake Theatre on the University campus. The Regents were unanimous in their approval, and authorized their Chairman Mr. Roy D. Thatcher to appoint a committee to work with other agencies to bring to fruition this project on the University campus. The following were appointed to act as the Committee: (for the Regents) George M. Cannon, Jr., Mrs. A.J. Gorham; (for the Faculty) Dr. E.E. Ericksen, Dr. C. Lowell Lees, Dr. Llewellyn McKay, and Judge Herbert M. Schiller.
President McKay then referred to a letter addressed to Dr. C. Lowell Lees in May (22) 1946 commending the Board of Regents, the President and Faculty of the University of Utah for sponsoring the building of a replica of the historic Salt Lake Theatre on the Campus, and expressing the expectation that ‘the State, civic organizations, and the people generally would whole-heartedly cooperate in this worthy enterprize’.
He next referred to a letter from George M. Cannon, Jr., chairman of the Committee relating to furthering the project and a letter from Dr. C. Lowell Lees giving futher details about the development of the project.
He stated that in January 1956 Leland B. Flint and Orval Adams called at his office on another civic matter at which time the proposal to build a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre was referred to again and the point was emphasized that ‘such an edifice will be not only a memorial to the ideals of the Pioneers, regarding the drama, literature and fine arts, but a connecting link between later generations and the worthy Pioneers to whose integrity, industry, and foresight we are so much indebted.
‘Of course, the expense of erecting such a building will have to be met largely by public subscription.’ (Continuing reading from a letter which he addressed later to Mr. Flint, January 12, 1956) – ‘I was bold enough to ask if you thought your great Company – the Kennecott Copper Company -might be sufficiently sympathetic to such a movement as to make a contribution of $225,000. It is estimated that the undertaking will cost about a million dollars. If we can raise one-half of the amount, it is thought that the balance can be raised by the issuing of a bond to extend probably over a thirty-year period.’
Mr. Flint accepted the responsibility, President McKay continued, and met his Board.
A letter was sent to Mr. Charles R. Cox, President of the Kennecott Copper Company and dated November 14, 1956. This was a 2 1/2 page letter. (‘Just think of sending a 2 1/2 page letter to a busy executive. We said, ‘If you have not time to read this long letter just turn to the last paragraph and get the purpose of it’.)
A copy of the letter is included with these minutes.
President McKay then stated that Mr. Cox acknowledged the letter and said copies were being sent to the Contributions Committee.
In a letter dated March 13, 1957, Mr. Cox announced that not $225,000 but $250,000 was authorized to be contributed to the project. (The letter included the statement which President McKay read:)
‘I do hope that this project will materialize in the way which you indicated in your letter and that it will provide the link with the past that means so much.’
President McKay said: ‘In that ‘link’ we emphasized this point: that the old Salt Lake Theatre, not withstanding the plaque on the wall of the building (Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company) on State Street, there will be thousands – tens of thousands of our young people who know nothing about it. They will remember plural marriage. They may remember the Danites and other stories which people will perpetuate out of ignorance, but we young people who attended the old Theatre and went up in ‘nigger heaven’ and enjoyed the plays will pass away and those students who come to the University will know nothing about it. It is not the Theatre we want to perpetuate – it is the spirit of the Pioneers – their love of culture, their love of truth, their energy and push forward to keep abreast in art, literature, science, and particularly religion.
President McKay then stressed the importance of the old Theatre being where young people meet and come under the influence of continuing to perpetuate the ideals of drama and art and which would connect them with the Pioneers.
The replica of the Building is to perpetuate the ideals of the Pioneers.
President McKay next stated that on Monday, December 14, 1956, he and Mr. Flint met with Governor J. Bracken Lee, Governor-elect George D. Clyde, members of the new Legislature, with Senator Hopkins, leader of the Democrats in the Legislature and presented the proposal to them. Governor Lee spoke in favor of it. Governor-elect Clyde said the Legislature would approve and Senator Hopkins, representing the minority group said they would approve it.
The State agreed to contribute $500,000, on condition that $500,000 would be raised from other sources.
President McKay then summarized saying that Kennecott Copper Company has contributed $250,000, the Church $250,000, plus $75,000 for drawing the plans and for architectural costs, a total of more than a million dollars, but that the architects estimate that the cost will be $1,500,000 to $1,600,000. At one time it was suggested that the remainder be raised by bonding the structure over a 30 year period.
He then stated that Mr. Flint would present another plan for financing which will memorialize the Pioneers in a most appropriate way.
Mr. Flint suggested that a copy of President McKay’s letter to Mr. Cox be provided the Sons of Utah Pioneers, as he regarded the letter as inspired.
He explained that an erroneous newspaper account started the idea that the plan was to build a duplicate of the Salt Lake Theatre but that this was not the purpose. Rather it was to build a Salt Lake Pioneer Memorial Theatre. He reviewed the presentation before the legislature and the approval given, especially when it was made clear that for the tax-payers money which the State will invest, it will receive more classrooms and teaching facilities than it can buy for any other money it is investing in school buildings.
He explained that the seating capacity of the theatre is 1022, and that this is in accord with standards for intimate theatres throughout the country.
He then explained the plan to have various areas in the theatre represent various groups of pioneers, according to the time of arrival in the Valley. On certain seats the name of the pioneer memorialized will be placed on the seat.
Sketches of plaques suggested to memorialize the pioneers by groups were exhibited and distributed.
Other listings of pioneers by groups will be prepared and mounted on plaques in designated places in the Theatre.
One area in the dress circle of 159 seats will be available for designating memorials to particular Pioneers. The memorials will be affixed upon a contribution of $3,000 per pair of seats.
The upper levels of the Theatre will have elevator service. Rest rooms will be provided. A permanent pair of seats will be reserved for the President of the University, another pair for the President of the L.D.S. Church, and his wife, and another for the Governor of the State and his wife. These six seats will be permanently reserved out of 159 seats in the dress circle. The remaining 153 seats will be designated for individuals contributing $1,500 per seat. The names of pesons thus to be memorialized will appear upon a plaque in the foyer leading into the dress circle. These contributors for life will receive a pass or complimentary ticket to the opening night performances of each attraction. Holders of such tickets will be rotated as to seats assigned for a series of 60 attractions or a period of 5 years so that everyone will have opportunity to view the performance from every section of the dress circle.
In other areas of the Theatre, for $200 contribution, names of pioneers to be memorialized will be added to the memorial plaques to be placed in various places in the Theatre, depending upon the group to which the pioneer belongs.
In the dress circle will be a plaque upon which will be listed the names of the persons memorialized.
The person who made the contribution would have a pair of seats for the opening night performance as long as he or his wife live.
Mr. Flint stated that in getting the Sons of Utah Pioneers to help work with the children of Pioneers who should be memorialized, at $200 a seat, it can be a truly Salt Lake Memorial Theatre.
Dr. C. Lowell Lees recalled when he was carried in his mother’s arms to the old Salt Lake Theatre and later seeing performances from the family circle where the family had tickets. He recalled being trained in the M.I.A. to act at the age of 12. He acknowledged his debt to the community and expressed his satisfaction and pride that the pioneer leaders who founded the Theatre were not rough, uncouth, simple people, but cultured people. He said when he was a missionary in France he would explain that we have a monument which was built when his forebearers came into these rugged valleys. They thought so highly of their culture that they wanted to have a symbol of their culture in art, music, and literature combined in a real theatre.
He said it was obvious why the old Theatre had to go. Now it leaves us with a rich feeling and we cannot say this represents the dignity and culture of those joyous hours, which must still continue to be ours.
He said he remembers going into the old Theatre to play. ‘There was something different. There was a certain hush which we felt when we walked onto the boards of the Theatre. We knew that the greats of United States and Europe had at one time or another had done things in this Theatre and it made us feel a great humility and a kinship with something which was great and fine.
He reviewed features of pioneer culture in the Theatre and emphasized the importance of perpetuating these achievements for the appreciation of young people of this and future generations and of visitors and tourists who come to this city.
He described the location proposed for the new building – as the architects sketch was exhibited – and stated that it would be on the University Campus at the head of Third South Street in a position where nothing can be built to cut it off from view.
At the conclusion of Dr. Lees remarks, Mr. George Wallace Fox, Third Vice President of the Salt Lake Luncheon Club of the sons of Utah Pioneers proposed the motion that the Sons of Utah Pioneers adopt the suggested plan for memorializing the Pioneers and undertake to promote the gathering of contributions for the erection of the building as proposed. The motion was seconded by William A. Dunn, of the Salt Lake Luncheon Club and upon being put by Chairman Leland B. Flint was unanimously carried.
The Chairman answered Mr. Wendell J. Ashton’s question as to the date set for completing the solicitation, saying that no time has been set, but that it is hoped it can be done as fast as possible, preferably by the first of the year.
And the question as to whether or not the contribution would be tax deductible, saying if made to the Alumni University of Utah Development Fund, it would be eligible for tax deduction by ruling of the Internal Revenue Department. The donor can expressly designate that the contribtuion thus made payable is to be for the Memorial Theatre.
The question as to the size of the Theatre was answered with the information that with 1022 seats it is larger than certain New York theatres, but still with the range of the ‘intimate’ theatre in which every patron is near enough to the action on the stage to experience it closely. Dr. Lees explained the advantage gained by having performances repeated until a point of practical perfection is reached. The most distant seat will not be more than 90 feet from the stage. Dr. Lees also explained in answer to a question, that the use of the theatre would not be limited to plays, but that the offerings will include opera, musicals, ballet.
Its relation to Kingsbury Hall was answered by Dr. Lees who said the University has no thought to abandon Kingsbury Hall because Kingsbury with its 3500 seating capacity will continue to serve as a big civic center for lectures and other gatherings requiring the greater capacity. The Memorial Theatre as planned, will offer teaching facilities which the University sorely needs which Kingsbury Hall does not provide.
President McKay read the following from the dedicatory prayer of the Salt Lake Theatre, offered by President Daniel H. Well, March 6, 1862:
‘Suffer no evil or wicked influences to predominate or prevail within these walls; neither disorder, drunkenness, debauchery, or licentiousness of any sort of kind. xxx
‘May order, virtue, cleanliness, sobriety, and excellence obtain and hold fast possession herein, the rightious possess it, and ‘Holiness to the Lord’ be forever inscribed therein.’
Mr. D. Crawford Houston (National First Vice President and Chairman of the Salt Lake Region Projects) said:
‘As an officer of the ‘National Sons’ and as a grandson of James Houston, who came in 1948, let me say I think this is an inspiration to have the pioneers memorialized in this way, and in seconding it the motion, I will say that James Houston’s name will be on the plaque.’
A speaker – not identified, remarked ‘I can get the George Q. Cannon family by this afternoon.’
Mr. Flint said he was with President McKay selected the location for the building and that the building will be in view directly up Third South Street as the Park Building is up Second South Street.
Dr. Lees remarked that ample parking is available in the parking area south of Carlson Hall. The Institute of Religion is across the street north.
President McKay remarked that by the action today it will be possible for the building to be paid for and dedicated.
Mr. Earl A. Hansen, National President of Sons of Utah Pioneers said:
‘This is really thrilling to me. I remember, though I live in Logan, when the Salt Lake Theatre was dismantled it hurt, because it was built by the brawn, by the labor and sweat of our forebears. Three of my progenitors were Handcart people, one with the famous Willie Company. My one grandfather worked with President Snow in Brigham City and was one of the first settlers there. My ancestors were with the first settlers in Cache Valley. This is a glorious, momentous occasion for the Sons of Utah Pioneers.
‘I am certainly thrilled and pleased with the response to this motion that we accept, and as the President of the organization I am whole-heartedly behind you and will work with the Committees that are now in existence and will set up a committee to work and to coordinate with you, Sons, what have we got to lose with our great Church behind us, with our State behind us, we have nothing, absolutely nothing to lose. Everything is for the good and benefit of the things that we stand for as an organization and for the preservation of the cultures and the arts and the things we have wanted to build for this State. I think it is one of the greatest things that has ever happened in this area, and for our organization, so I will, at this moment, I will take this opportunity to suggest that our Brother Crawford Houston here and until we can meet and set up a definite committee to work with the committees, and we will meet this thing and really accomplish the thing that has been asked of us.’
Mr. Horace A. Sorenson said it was a great inspiration to be here this morning and to feel the sentiment that is behind this great proposal to memorialize the Utah Pioneers. ‘It seems to me that President McKay has called us because he knew that with him right behind us we could go ahead and accomplish this task. And President McKay, I am sure we will back you up 100%. Our great President, and Crawford and all these fine men, heading our chapters, are working 100% to take care of things like this. We just want to say that we won’t stop until we see it through. Is there a motion?’
An unidentified speaker replied: ‘There was a motion and it has been passed, while you were out getting the photographer, and we have accepted it.’
Whereupon, Mr. Sorenson said:
‘I want to endorse that and I want to put every ounce of energy back of this. Lets put this over. I have a photographer here. I think we ought to have a photograph of this occasion.’
President McKay: ‘I think that is excellent.’
Mr. Flint: ‘That is excellent. Thank you, Horace.’
Mr. Edgar Martindale: ‘May I, who have never seen this Theatre, say something?
‘I have never seen this Theatre. I don’t think I have seen this picture, but I have heard much about it. For one, who has not seen it, I will say the Holladay Chapter will be behind it.’
Mr. Flint said, ‘We have Paul Hodson, Vice President of the University. We have had Richard L. Evans, who had to leave to conduct a marriage. We have Regent Reed Brinton. I think we would like to hear from these men.
Mr. Paul Hodson, Vice President of the University, said:
‘Brethren, I am very much thrilled with the reception that has been given this project this morning. I would like to say a word in behalf of the Administration of the University. President Olpin would be here if he were in the City, but he is not. He has felt for a long time that this memorializing concept was extremely important. It was he who first came up with the idea of placing the names of the Pioneers upon the seats. We who are instrumental in guiding the administrative processes of the University have a feeling of the deep responsibility which is ours. We are anxious that the young men and women who come to the University learn to discern between fact and opinion and are able to evaluate on the basis of strong and good principles those opinions with which they come into contact. When the idea came up about a bond issue on the Theatre, and this was discussed, some of us felt it would be a mistake. When you get a mortgage on a project you have to pay out every month and sometimes you compromise on the things you do, because you have to get the money.
‘We did not want to have that experience. Actually in terms of the money the construction cannot begin until the money is in the State Building Board coffers. Under the State law they cannot begin the structure. Under the State law which is managed by the State Building Board we cannot begin the structure until the money is actually there and if the plans are not complete. We cannot begin the construction until the $400,000 is in. The architects estimate the construction is $1,500,000 and we are $400,000 short of that amount. There are some alternate proposals in the plans which may be left out or put in according to how this bid estimate comes out. We are extremely anxious to get started and to complete it and we are anxious to push it. I am delighted to hear the proposals of the Committee.
‘There are some details and problems. There are more than 1022 Pioneers. Of course, there are places for the rosters on the walls but there are details to work out. We have done preliminary research with Brother Lund in the Church Historian’s Office. There are some details which could not be settled and we would like very much to work with the committees so these can be worked out carefully and perpetuate this concept.
‘It is a thrill to say that the President of the University, both Vice Presidents and the men who stand with the President are all High Priests; three are in bishoprics or have been and the fourth, Brother Durham, is a member of the Stake High Council in his Stake. We are anxious to see ideals of this Pioneer concept memorialized and perpetuated and that real values can be profoundly communicated to young people on the Campus by the memorializing in the Theatre which is modern in design and that its function will be performed in the future as it is today. It can be a strong communicative message in the Pioneer spirit to all who pass it on the Campus daily.
‘We were delighted that you feel the way you do and we are extremely anxious to work with you.’
Mr. Dennis Murphy, an officer of the Salt Lake Luncheon Club, said:
‘I remember when I was a young fellow in the First Ward it was a general thing and I took part in the plays on the stage and recited at missionary farewells when the missionaries went out. I was in a play when Vida Fox Clawson and Ida Due appeared. I want to say that my forebears who were early Pioneers, Mark Lindsey, the Lindsey who established the first playground Lindsey Gardens, will be represented in the seats.’
Mr. Reed Brinton of the Board of Regents expressed the question as to whether the people of our generation could measure up to the Pioneer forebears in the way they solved their problems. He said:
‘I am glad to see that you are taking hold of such a wonderful spirit.’
He told the story of a man visiting his granddaughter who he wanted to see how smart she was in money matters. He put down a dime and a dollar bill and said to her, ‘Which would you like?’ She looked at the money and said that her mother had told her that when she was offered a choice she should take the smaller but she said, ‘Just to make sure that I will not lose it, I will take it and wrap it up in this nice piece of green paper.’ He said, ‘If you had taken the dollar and wrapped it up in a bigger piece of folding money I am sure it will be done in very splendid manner and in a very short time.’
Mr. Houston requested a copy of the letter which President McKay sent to Mr. Cox and it was agreed that copies would be provided.
President Earl Hansen asked for a copy of the minutes of the meeting.
Mr. Flint said that since the start was made in presenting the idea everyone who understood it has accepted it whole-heartedly and of great enthusiasm. He said that the only adverse comment came as a result of mis-information that got into the newspaper. He said that he would never forget the afternoon of the day before Christmas when he and others met at the State Capitol with the Legislators and some of them expressed themselves in opposition but they had heard nothing about it only what they had read. Mr. Flint then said, ‘I do not believe that it was more than fifteen minutes before everyone unanimously stood up and voted in favor of it. The Governor going out and the Governor-elect were enthusiastic about it. It was approved. The State is getting more square-foot of teaching facilities than it could buy for $500,000 and the people are getting a memorial of our ancestors the Pioneers, and we will have something to help the people who come to visit us in the City to always remember. It will help our children to remember their grandparents and their great-grandparents as people of culture and education and it gives a great opportunity to have a truly great memorial.’
He recounted an experience with friends in a New York theatre who expressed the advisability of having the Pioneer Memorial Theatre as large as the New York theatre, but it was learned that the New York theatre was in fact smaller. He explained that Dr. Lees, architects, and designers have done much research and have visited the best and finest theatres to arrive at a right size and arrangement and acoustics. Four years have been devoted to this research, study, and planning and we know now that the work is just right. He said that he has spent a great deal of time, the Regents have taken time, and President McKay has given a great deal of thought and as the plan is now unfolding it is hoped that all will decide it is right.
He said that Salt Lake City does not have a theatre. It has picture show houses and an auditorium but it does not have a theatre where the people can see the faces, the actions, the expressions, or hear the various tones of the voices of the actors and these things are important to a live theatre for music, comedy, and drama. He said that he is thrilled today to think that we have gone this far along but the sons of the Pioneers have taken this project to raise $204,000 to help memorialize our great pioneers.
An unidentified speaker said that we as Sons of Pioneers are for the most part 100% Latter-day Saints but that there are people who are pioneers who are not Latter-day Saints, such as the Auerbach’s and others, and what of them.
Mr. Flint said that it is very important that they also be memorialized as everyone else.
Mr. Wendell Ashton: ‘I would like to move that the Sons of the Pioneers set the day for the completion of this drive as Thanksgiving Day and that this be a Pioneer Thanksgiving in Utah.’
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wallace Fox and upon being put was unanimously carried.
President McKay: ‘In regard to making out checks I have this note. ‘On the morning of December 24 Mr. L. Fern Pett and Mr. LeLand B. Flint a member of the Board of Directors of the Kennecott Copper Corporation presented a check for $250,000 from the Kennecott Copper Corporation to the Alumni University of Utah Development Fund for the Memorial Theatre on the Campus of the University of Utah.’
‘This is a historic meeting, that will go down in the annals of Utah and be passed on to generations yet to come. I think you will have no difficulty in getting the balance of the money. I mentioned it to Sister McKay and she said, ‘I want my grandmother and my grandfather who went around Cape Horn and Aunt Annie who was named Annie Pacific, and who landed in San Francisco to be remembered.’ I can see that I have $800 that I have to get to have these names memorialized. We will have them there. It is wonderful this spirit of unity of response by you Brethren.
‘I think it is glorious Brother Sorenson. It is a good project and a worthy project which all are united in fostering.
‘I would like to say a word in regard to the possibility of some complaint. I think I have heard it already. ‘Why put it at the University of Utah?’ ‘Why not somewhere else?’ The University of Utah is our school. It belongs to all of us. ‘Some of us are giving a lot to the Church and to the B.Y.U. Why give it to the University of Utah?’ Because the University of Utah is our school. It belongs to members of the Church and to non-members alike and it is just the place for it. There at the University of Utah it will be where the boys and girls, members and non-members, will go and participate in drama and other cultural features and they should have pride in their hearts for what the Pioneers of this country suffered and accomplished and have taught to the people of the world. Our history is just glorious. The trek across the plains is unparalleled in the achievement of those who came here for religion. In education the first thing they did was to build a school house and to have their school house used as a meeting house. They built a theatre two years after for holding drama and to have a continuity of their culture in that sense. They sought everything cultural, everything virtuous, lovely, and of good report, and praise-worthy. They sought after those things.
‘I am happy that you have grasped this opportunity to render service to the State. With all my heart I say God bless you and may you succeed in this and all your worthy undertakings to perpetuate the ideals and accomplishments of the Pioneers. And I pray the Lord’s blessings to attend you, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.’
At this point Mr. Horace A. Sorenson arranged for the photographer to photograph the group.
ahr:lm
Outline of Talk Before A Special Committee Comprised of Leaders and Representatives of Utah Sons of Pioneers and Others, To Consider Suggestive Plans of Raising Funds to Complete The Pioneer Memorial Theatre To Be Erected on the University of Utah Campus, Meeting held in the Board Room, Church Offices, Monday, October 5, 1959, 8:30 a.m.
I. Inception of Project — A replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre
1. Meeting of Mr. Leland B. Flint, and Orval W. Adams in my office early in January, 1956.
a. Read following letter to Mr. Flint; sent to him under date of January 12, 1956
‘Mr. Leland B. Flint, Member
Board of Directors
Kennecott Copper Company
c/o Flint Distributing Company
316 West 2nd South Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear friend and brother:
At the conclusion of our latest conference, when you and our mutual friend, Orval Adams, called at the office, I took the liberty to mention to you a matter that I have cherished for many years as a heartfelt hope — that is the building on the University campus a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre. Such an edifice will be not only a memorial to the ideals of the Pioneers regarding the drama, literature, and fine arts, but a connecting link between later generations and the worthy Pioneers to whose integrity, industry, and foresight we are so much indebted.
Of course, the expense of erecting such a building will have to be met largely by public subscription. I was bold enough to ask if you thought your great company — the Kennecott Copper company — might be sufficiently sympathetic to such a movement as to make a contribution of $225,000.00. It is estimated the undertaking will cost about $1,000,000. If we can raise one-half the amount, it is thought that the balance can be raised by the issuing of a bond to extend probably over a thirty-year period. It is believed that an annual net income of $27,000 will be required to pay the interest and principal on a $500,000 bond issue at three per cent over thirty years. President A. Ray Olpin of the University of Utah thinks it somewhat doubtful whether the money can be obtained at three per cent. If not, the annual debt service will, of course, be increased.
Dr. C. Lowell Lees and President Olpin are interested in this building project and will give their hearty cooperation in its consummation.
Anything that you can do to help us, if you think the matter worthy of your interest, and that of your company, will be greatly appreciated.
I am still thrilled in contemplation of the project you presented on the occasion to which I have already referred.
With appreciation and kind regards, I remain
Sincerely yours,
/s/ David O. McKay
2. Presentation of the Proposition to State Legislature
Monday, December 14, 1956, at 9:45 a.m., at a meeting of Governor J. Bracken Lee, Governor Elect George D. Clyde, members of the new Legislature, with Senator Hopkins as leader of the Democrats in the Legislature, held at the State Capitol, I presented the proposition to erect on the University of Utah Campus a replica of the old Salt Lake Theatre.
After a discussion of two hours, it was evident that all were 100% for the proposition.
Governor J. Bracken Lee spoke in favor of it, Governor Elect, George D. Clyde, said the Legislature would approve of it, and Senator Hopkins, representing the minority group, said they would approve of it.
3. Letter to Mr. Charles R. Cox, November 14, 1956
‘Mr. Charles R. Cox, President
Kennecott Copper Corporation
161 East 42nd Street
New York City, New York
My dear Mr. Cox:
For several months past a group of citizens have expressed a desire to build a memorial to the Utah Pioneers by erecting a replica of the Old Salt Lake Theatre. A brief story of the founding of this historic building will show why these Utahns think the proposal possesses merit.
When, in the summer of 1847, the first group of Mormon emigrants reached the end of the long and arduous journey from Missouri to the valley of the Great Salt Lake, they found themselves not merely in a new and unsettled land, but in an arid, desert basin. Here, in isolation from the civilization of the rapidly expanding America, they undertook to plant a community, a religion, and a culture unaided by neighbors and with few natural resources lying ready to hand. It is not surprising, then, that devoted though they had been to the social arts of drama and music, their first two years were spent providing a mere substance, erecting shelters against the summer sun and the winter frost, and coaxing from the dry and reluctant earth enough food to ward off hunger. But with these people the needs of the spirit and the mind never seemed secondary; places of worship were planned as soon as homes were, and only two years after they had first scratched the soil of their new refuge, they were presenting theatrical performances in a rudely improvised theatre.
For the early Mormons never regarded the theatre as merely a mode of amusement, though it was surely that: they found it a means of uttering and sharing in the impulses of the mind and the feelings, and thereby establishing in the wilderness a spiritual oasis where the minds and souls of men could be refreshed, where men could lose the sense of isolation and loneliness and return to their tasks refreshed and with a renewed conviction of solidarity. But such activity, like the other activities of a community must be housed; there must be a gathering place. Not for long did the tiny social Hall serve these needs; by 1866, years before the advent of the transcontinental railway made construction materials readily available, these pioneers had constructed a theatre by hard work in which persons from all walks of life shared, and by ingenious use of what natural resources the vicinity had to offer. They built of logs hauled from the mountains, brick made from adobe clay, granite quarried from the neighboring canyons, thongs from the dried hides of deer and buffalo. The Salt Lake Theatre was built by the loving handiwork of the community itself; and when plays were presented, the performances were likewise labors of love on the part of actors, carpenters, painters, hairdressers, tailors, and musicians. To a degree elsewhere unmatched, the drama was here a true focus of a community’s creative life, a community which developed a living tradition of the theatre as a rich and natural way of mutual inspiration, a growing nucleus of cultural life.
The Salt Lake Theatre became a cultural and recreational center also for the outlying farmers and the citizens of neighboring towns. From near and far, families came, sometimes by ox team. They left their oxen in a kind of corral across the street. If they were short of money, they paid the almost nominal admission fees in produce. Young and old came together here, craftsmen and farmers and administrators and sheepherders, the learned and those first exploring the delights of learning and the arts. Here the lines of Shakespeare which they had, many of them, learned by heart hearing them read in the family circle, took on new dimensions of life and meaning; here the characters of Dickens stepped from the pages to the new vividness of live impersonation. And later, the isolated little community felt less separated from the great currents of American cultural life when, thanks to the new railroads, they were able to see at the Salt Lake Theatre the same productions that New York and Philadelphia had admired, and hear the living intonation of those actors who had reached the very pinnacle of their art. And as the community became larger and more heterogeneous, and the danger of rivalries and animosities increased, the theatre remained a common meeting ground for all, however divided by religion or politics.
For well over half a century, then, the Old Salt Lake Theatre was a nerve center for a culture in which the drama was an organic part; generations grew up to whom participation in dramas on stage, behind the scenes, and in the auditorium seemed as natural as breathing, and almost as essential. In small communities throughout the Great Basin the tradition of theatre was vigorous and growing, at once a sign of healthy, civic life, and a means of promoting it. And all this theatrical vitality was nourished from the theatre in Salt Lake City, which, as it became old, took on also the character of a monument to the courage and enterprise of the early settlers from whose endeavors the whole tradition took life.
And so, when in 1928 it became necessary to demolish the fine old structure, the sense of loss was acute and widespread, for this was a loss not only of a loved and useful building, but a severing of the continuity of the present with a rich and fruitful past that was still a life-giving root of the present. The art of drama had lost its home.
In this building was embodied a part of history which must not be forgotten; therefore, a memorial to the achievements of those early days is greatly to be desired. But a mere monument to the past — a cenotaph, or statue, or plaque – however noble the past or however beautiful the monument, is trivial compared to the continuation and revivification of that past. A new memorial Salt Lake Theatre can be a reminder of those glorious days when a theatre could truly be a cultural ‘cathedral in the desert’, but it will be far more than that: it will make it possible for the tradition of drama as a function of community life to take still deeper root, and prolong the glories of the pioneer past.
As already stated, it is proposed that such a memorial be erected on the campus of the University of Utah at an estimated cost of $1,611,350. This cost will have to be met largely by public and private subscription. Business firms of the Church and the Church itself will contribute $250,000. In addition, the Church will furnish architectural plans and specifications.
We have received assurance that the Governor of the State of Utah has promised to appropriate $375,000. If we can raise another $486,000 it is thought that the balance of $500,000 can be raised by the issuing of a bond to extend probably over a thirty-year period. It is believed that an annual net income of $27,000 will be required to pay the interest and principal on a $500,000 bond issue at three per cent over the period named. Considering the present tightening of the money market, it is doubtful whether the money can be obtained at three per cent. This being true, the annual debt service consequently will have to be increased.
We are asking this morning if the Kennecott Copper Company will be sufficiently sympathetic with the idea of building a Memorial to the Utah Pioneers regarding drama, literature, and the fine arts to join the Church and State in making a substantial contribution towards the raising of $1,111,350, thus leaving a balance of $500,000 to be carried by a bond issue.
Cherishing the hope that you and your Board will consider this proposed tribute to the Utah Pioneers worthy of favorable action, I remain with best wishes,
Gratefully yours,
/s/ David O. McKay
President, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints
II. Realization of Requests
1. Letter, dated December 10, 1956, in answer to letter addressed to Mr. Charles R. Cox under date of November 14, 1956:
‘Mr. David O. McKay, President
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear President McKay:
Your letter of November 14th is acknowledged. You have set forth the picture quite succulently.
I am today transmitting copies of your letter to the members of our Contributions Committee and it will be discussed shortly.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
/s/ C.R.Cox
President, Kennecott Copper Corporation
New York, N.Y.
2. Letter dated March 13, 1957 from Mr. Charles R. Cox, President of the Kennecott Copper Corp. – Approval of Contribution
‘Mr. David O. McKay, President
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear President McKay:
You will please be advised that our Board, as of Friday, March 15th, approved the recommendation of the Contributions Committee for a commitment to the project you wrote to me about on November 14, 1956, i.e. the Old Salt Lake Theatre, in the amount of $250,000.
I do hope that this project will materialize in the way in which you indicated in your letter and that it will provide the link with the Past that means so much.
Very sincerely yours,’
/s/ C.R. Cox
President, Kennecott Copper Corp.
3. Kennecott Copper Corporation representatives deliver check
On the morning of December 24, 1957, Mr. L. Fern Pett, & Mr. Leland B. Flint, member of the Board of Directors of the Kennecott Copper Corporation, called at the Church Offices, and Mr. Pett officially presented a check for $250,000 from the Kennecott Copper Corporation to the Alumni-University Development Fund as a contribution toward the erection of the Utah Pioneer Memorial Theatre on the campus of the University of Utah.
4. Church’s Contribution
On December 26, 1957, at 11:30 a.m., I held a meeting in my private office with the following: President A. Ray Olpin, President of the University of Utah, Mr. William O’Connor, President of the Unversity Board of Trustees, Dr. William F. Edwards, and Mr. Morgan of the University of Utah Alumni Association.
At this time I delivered to Mr. O’Connor and President Olpin, the Kennecott Copper Corporation check for $250,000 and two Church checks — one for $250,000, and one for $75,000 for the architects’ expenses of drawing plans, etc. – total contribution by Church of $325,000.
5. Appropriation from the State
Under date of March 4, 1957, I received the following letter from Quayle Cannon, Jr., Secretary of Senate:
‘President David O. McKay
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear President McKay:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the law which gives $500,000 to the University of Utah for the replica of the Salt Lake Theatre. Also enclosed is a copy of the Journal on final passage of the bill.
Sincerely yours,
Quayle Cannon, Jr.
Secretary of Senate Chamber
State of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah'”
Wed., 7 Oct. 1959:
“10:30 a.m.
Met by appointment at their request, Mr. Crawford Houston (Director of Communications, Kennecott Copper Company) and member of the Utah Sons of Pioneers who is Chairman of a Committee appointed to raise $250,000 for the Pioneer Memorial Theatre, and Mr. Earl A. Hansen, National President of Sons of Utah Pioneers. At this time I made a contribution of $600.00 for the theatre fund and for plaques to be placed on seats in the theatre for my paternal grandparents, William McKay and Ellen Oman, also for Sister McKay’s maternal grandparents, John Rogers Robbins, and Phoebe Ann Wright. Picture were taken for the newspaper to announce the opening of their drive for theatre funds. (see newspaper clipping following) (See also October 5 for minutes of meeting held – also telephone conversation held with Dr. C. Lowell Lees which follows)
Wednesday, October 7, 1959
Telephone conversation between President McKay and Dr. C. Lowell Lees, of the University of Utah.
Dr. Lees: Good morning. How are you?
President McKay: I am fine. Did we make ourselves clear the other morning?
Dr. Lees: I thought that was splendid. I was pleased. In fact, I have been on the clouds.
I am going to appear before the Son’s of the Utah Pioneers Luncheon Club, and there will be about 280 people there. I am taking all those pictures with me for them to see.
President McKay: How much do I owe you for my grandparents’ plaque — for the William McKay’s, and my wife’s grandparents who went around the ‘Horn’?
Dr. Lees: We most certainly want them in the theatre, but don’t worry about paying for them — at least not for a long time. We have so many people who want plaques, that we may run out of space. To make them available to the most people, we will have to take whole families, and make a floor plaque and a wall plaque with all the pioneers’ names, particularly where there are many, many descendants — where couples have ten or twelve children.
President McKay: I know it is $200.00 a plaque — $200.00 a seat. It is for my paternal grandparents, William McKay and Ellen Oman; and Sister McKay’s maternal grandparents, John Rogers Robbins, and Phoebe Ann Wright.
Dr. Lees: We can put a seat in the theatre for each one, or for the husband and wife. The only thing I wondered about — in cases where there is a polygymous wife — what should we do?
President McKay: If it is a polygymous wife, ….
Dr. Lees: We made arrangements for that because the second wife might have come in another company, so she would have her name put somewhere else.
President McKay: Where they came in the same company, the husband and wife would have to be on the same plaque. But where they came in a later company–the husband or wife–they would have to have two plaques. In that case, you would have a husband on two seat plaques.
Dr. Lees: We would put the husband on one plaque under the date he came, and his wife’s name on another plaque when she came. But if they came in the same company, it could bear the same name.
President McKay: My wife’s grandparents went around Cape Horn — John Rogers Robbins and Phoebe Ann Wright.
Dr. Lees: In that case, President McKay, they could both be put on the same seat plaque, which would state: ‘This seat memorializes John Rogers Robbins and Phoebe Ann Wright Robbins’ — There would be one seat for the two of them.
President McKay: And one seat plaque is $200.00.
Dr. Lees: Where they came in different companies, thereby necessitating the use of two seat plaques, the cost would be $200.00 for each seat plaque. We can put on the plaque the name of one, or two, or three people, or whatever needs to be put on. Sometimes we will need to put on the husband’s, wife’s, and children’s names. Perhaps we could put a family group on a wall plaque for $200.00. Another thing we could do is have a large floor plaque for the people who came around Cape Horn. We will have to see how many people want plaques. We may have far more people who are interested in having names put on plaques than we can put in the theatre.
President McKay: I anticipate that.
Dr. Lees: In that case, we would call one group the ‘Water’ Mormons and put their names on that plaque, and so forth. We have seats for approximately 1,000 people, and if we have more people who are interested in having names put on plaques, we could assign certain areas to certain groups, and so forth. It will be $200.00 for a couple’s names to be put on a plaque if they came in the same year.
President McKay: But if they did not, their names would have to be on separate plaques.
I have a group of men here in the room now who are meeting in regard to this matter, and they send kind regards to you.
Dr. Lees: Thank you, and I return their greeting.”
Fri., 4 Dec. 1959:
“11:40 a.m. Brother Ortho Fairbanks, sculptor, came in, and reported his objections to the policies of the Brigham Young University in the Department of Fine Arts, with specific reference to painting and sculpture. He said that it seemed to him that we are ‘letting down, failing to uphold the standards of the Church and catering to modernistic art, which seems little better than pornography.’ In support of his contention, he gave specific examples. Brother Fairbanks left with me a letter which he has written to Elder Hugh B. Brown to whom he has already talked about this matter.”
Thurs., 14 Jan. 1960:
Telephone Calls
Re: Heroic size statue of the Prophet Joseph Smith for Los Angeles Temple Grounds.
I telephoned to Brother Ortho Fairbanks, sculptor, and told him that we have in contemplation the erection of a heroic size statue of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the Los Angeles Temple grounds; that on the base of this statue would be inscribed some of the Prophet’s prophetic sayings. I stated that we hoped this statue would be a center of attraction for the tourists who visit the Los Angeles Temple grounds.
I then asked Brother Fairbanks to submit a model; that we are also asking Avard Fairbanks to submit a model, and that we do not wish to be under any obligation in this transaction; that we are merely asking for a model to guide us, and then we shall decide to whom we shall give the contract.
Brother Fairbanks answered that he would be very happy to submit a model under those terms.
I told him that I am leaving tonight for Los Angeles, and that I should communicate with him again when I get back.
I then telephoned to Brother Avard Fairbanks and also told him that we are contemplating erecting a heroic size statue of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the Los Angeles Temple grounds, around the base of which statue we wish to have inscribed prophetic sayings of the Prophet.
I said,’ Now this is just in the formative state, and we wonder if you would submit a model; that this is not an agreement; that we are letting some others submit a model also.’
I then told him that I am leaving tonight for Los Angeles, and that I would talk to him further about it.
Brother Fairbanks said: ‘I have been hoping I could do something for the Los Angeles Temple all along.’
I said, ‘You submit a model without any obligation on the part of the Church.’
Brother Fairbanks said: ‘Thank you, President McKay, I shall be glad to do it.'”
Fri., 1 July 1960:
“7 o’clock p.m.
Sister McKay, my son Lawrence who drove the car, and I attended groundbreaking ceremonies for the Pioneer Memorial Theatre, held on the University of Utah Campus.
At the invitation of Dr. A. Ray Olpin, President of the University of Utah, I delivered the main address and broke ground for the $1,500,000 structure which will be a lasting memorial to one of the most famous Pioneer landmarks — the old Salt Lake Theatre. It was just 99 years to the day that ground was broken for the Salt Lake Theatre so it was a very fitting and significant occasion. (see newspaper clippings following giving details of the ceremony)
Friday, July 1, 1960
July 18, 1960
Dear President McKay,
Much earth has been moved from the site of the projected Pioneer Memorial Theater since you turned the first shovel of dirt on July first. The firm employed to build this new edifice seems determined to do a first-class job and to do it as expeditiously as possible. We hope that it will not be long until we will have the privilege of hearing from you again at the dedication of this new theater.
And now, pursuing the vein of your impressive address at the ground breaking, I should like to express to you the sincere appreciation of the regents, administration, faculty, and students of the University of Utah, and, I am sure, of the citizens of this great state, for the active interest you have manifested from the beginning in the project of restoring the traditions of the great Salt Lake Theater. This building will forever stand as a monument to you and the people over whom you preside who are vitally interested in cultural things.
With kindest regards.
Very sincerely yours,
A. Ray Olpin
President
President David O. McKay
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City 1, Utah”
July 1, 1960
…AND THE FUTURE’S PROMISE
A new decade in Utah drama dawns when President David O. McKay breaks ground for the ‘Pioneer Memorial Theater’ Friday evening on the campus of the University of Utah, an hour before the Summer Festival opens.
It is the restoration of ideals that are past combined with a keen eye to the future that will give this ‘Theater of My Fathers’ its special fascination. The graceful pioneer-conceived colonial (gothic) architecture of the entrance will stand as eloquent tribute to the actors, theater-goers, producers and directors, and sponsors who brought the great art of drama to a desert wilderness a century and less ago.
The inside will also compliment the pioneers, because they ‘pioneered’ progress at every opportunity. The Memorial Theater’s interior will be as up-to-date as modern science and art and construction can make it. Indeed, our pioneer fathers would consider themselves disgraced if their posterity did not take advantage of every modern item possible in theater construction. Here will be a modern and practical university building, with classrooms, foyers and other important theater facilities.
There will be a good deal more to the Pioneer Memorial Theater than its physical stage and auditorium. Dedicated to the art of drama, as well as a memorial, the gracious building will at once be assured a permanent place in the cultural life of Utah. The enthusiasm and energy of it sponsors and donors are sure to carry into the lives of the actors who play upon its stage and the students who study in its classrooms.
Even as the dreams of our pioneer fathers came true in their revered old Salt Lake Theater which they built, so also will the dreams of today’s builders come true as this new building becomes a magnet for great drama in the decades ahead. The men who are making tomorrow’s groundbreaking ceremonies possible have, indeed, their own legions of admirers.
Deseret News – Thursday, June 30, 1960″
Thurs., 25 Aug. 1960:
Just prior to the regular meeting, Dr. A. Ray Olpin came in, and presented to me, on behalf of the University of Utah, a copper souvenir shovel produced by the Kennecott Copper Company, which was used by me to turn the first sod for the building of the Salt Lake Pioneer Memorial Theatre on the campus of the University of Utah.
Fri., 9 June 1961:
Clare called me at the apartment and said that Elder Ezra Taft Benson had called and left a message that he was greatly concerned over what had been reported to him about the MIA play, ‘Promised Valley’. He said that he has heard that in one scene there is ‘too much kissing’, and in the ‘sparkin’ on a Sunday afternoon’ scene is not what it should be. I told her that we would judge that after we have seen it this afternoon.
5 p.m.
Sister McKay and I attended the MIA’s production of the play ‘Promised Valley’ held in the Kingsbury Hall, U of U Campus.
The original of this production was composed by Dr. Crawford Gates at the request of the Centennial Commission of which I was Chairman in 1947. I was, therefore, very interested in seeing this musical again after all these years. It received wide acclaim at the time. Sister McKay and I thought this production by amateurs was wonderful, and much credit should be given to the MIA drama directors for the excellence of the entire play. There was nothing in it that could be criticized. I understand that this play will not be produced throughout the stakes and wards of the Church.”
Tues., 25 July 1961:
“8:30 a.m.
Met with Presidents Henry D. Moyle and Hugh B. Brown, President Clark still confined to his home.
Laraine Day and Her Husband
Before leaving the meeting, Elder Richard L. Evans reported that he had spent an hour this morning with Mr. Grilikhes, husband of Laraine Day. ‘They have a group of L.D.S. people in television and motion pictures who are arranging to serve the Church anonymously, and they are here today wanting to meet President McKay,’ Elder Evans said. I said that I would arrange an appointment with them. (Saw them at 3:45 p.m.)
Church Film Production
President Brown reported that Ellis Craig, former missionary for the Church, is in touch with the leading movie people in Hollywood and is now the head of a big advertising firm. He and Judge Whittaker, who is in charge of film production at the B.Y.U., would like to present to the First Presidency a proposition which would involve for the time being only the matter of looking into the possibility of producing a full-sized film telling the story of the Church, the Joseph Smith Story, etc. After reviewing ‘The Twenty-Seventh Wife’ story, they feel that without any reference whatever to this story, they could produce a first-class film telling the story of Mormonism with some of the dramatic incidents that have happened, at least down to the death of the Prophet Joseph. They have asked to meet with the First Presidency about the matter and we agreed to meet them Wednesday morning, July 26, at 8:30 o’clock.”
Wed., 26 July 1961:
“8:40 to 11 a.m.
Meeting of the First Presidency held. Present: Presidents Henry D. Moyle and Hugh B. Brown. President Clark excused, being indisposed at home.
Joseph Smith – Restoration Motion Picture Project
At 8:30 a.m. we met with Wetzel Whittaker, who is in charge of film production at the B.Y.U., and Ellis Craig, form missionary of the Church who is in touch with the leading movie people in Hollywood and who is now the head of a big advertising firm in California. They discussed with us the possibility fo producing a moving picture regarding the Joseph Smith-Restoration Story for the purpose of creating a true ‘image’ of the Church in the general public mind to correct false and distorted images and to head off the production of motion pictures that are unfriendly to the Church.
A letter addressed to Hugh B. Brown was read to the Brethren. They propose that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints enter the Field of Mass Education through the use of spectacular, Class AA Motion Pictures, produced in full screen, full color and stereophonic sound; that the Joseph Smith – Restoration Story be the first project, followed later by productions on major Mormon subjects. The letter sets forth their purpose as: a) to create a true and impelling ‘image’ of the Church in the general public mind; b) To correct the false, distorted or shallow ‘image’ of the Church largely held in the general public mind; c) to head off the production of Motion Pictures on these extremely attractive and provocative Mormon subjects by people and organizations NOT interested in or NOT friendly to the Church; d) To protect and accelerate the current Missionary ‘break through’ which shows such promise, but which could be blunted seriously by a wave of Anti-Mormon Motion Pictures and TV films of the ‘Twenty-Seventh Wife’ type. The letter then discussed the popular ‘image’ of the Mormon Church and Mormons in the minds of most Americans; the ‘fantastic persecution, including ridicule and slander from the press ‘generally’ suffered by the Church through the years until the 1950’s when ‘a marvelous new thing called Television came into being’ and the church was given ‘coverage of Mormon Conferences by radio and television in the Utah area and therefore provided for the general public. Later a network of Television stations throughout the west was set up to carry Mormon Conferences, and for the first time in modern history a major means of mass communication, extending over a large area, was carrying forthright declarations and testimonies by the General Authorities about Joseph Smith, The Restoration, and the Divine Nature of the Church.’
These brethren feel that the time is now ripe when the Church must create a major ‘break through’ in the general public mind regarding the proper ‘image’ of the Church, and they think that major motion picture productions of the type they describe will accomplish the ‘break through.’
We then discussed the steps to be taken in preparing the Joseph Smith story. Brother Craig suggested that there are available writers at the motion picture department at the Brigham Young University who could produce the first rough draft, which would be submitted to the First Presidency for their approval, after which the script could be turned over to the best writers in Hollywood to make a complete first-class, excellent script under the direction of the Church. Brother Craig felt that the Church should control what is called the package; namely, the story, the script, the producer and director, and everything that goes into the production, and that the type of money that goes into the production should not have strings on it so that those who are interested in it financially would not try to change the script in order to make it more interesting as they see it. He thinks it would be better to have a production independent of the Church so far as the public is concerned. I said that I think the group that would have the matter in charge would be made up of members of the Church – men whom we could trust who would submit the manuscript to the Church, and who would assume the financing of the production and receive the financial benefits therefrom. Brother Craig said he thought that would be the thing to do as long as this group of men were answerable to a committee in the Church, or directly to the First Presidency. He felt it would be tragic to let the story of Joseph Smith get off in any sense onto a side road where through financial sources we would lose control of the content of the picture. In our discussion of the matter mention was made of the fact that Michele Grilikhes, husband of Motion Picture Star, Laraine Day, had said that he had forty million dollars available if we wanted it to finance such a proposition. There was a rather lengthy discussion regarding the financing of such production. The fact was emphasized to see that those who provide the finances would not have authority to change the script in any way or distort the truth. Brother Whittaker said he thought there was no question about the dramatic quality of the whole story; that the only thing that might affect the popularity of the story might be the prejudice in people’s minds, but he felt sure they would not question the dramatic quality. Matters pertaining to ways and means of distributing the film were then discussed.
I told Brother Whittaker and Brother Craig that we would turn the matter over to them to take the first step, and after making investigation regarding it, we would wish to know what the preliminary steps will cost, and the Church would be prepared to take care of the expense of these preliminary steps, the understanding being that the Brigham Young University motion picture department would prepare rough script and submit it to the First Presidency for their approval.
Brother Whittaker raised the question as to through whom they should work, and to whom they should present any questions that may arise. The Brethren suggested that Brother Whittaker consult Elders Mark E. Petersen and Richard L. Evans regarding these points. It was stated that Brother Evans is very much interested in the whole proposition, and would be a very good man for them to confer with. I stated that President Brown would represent the First Presidency so far as consultations with the First Presidency are concerned, and could make the necessary arrangements for any appointments with the First Presidency.
Following the departure of the above named brethren, the First Presidency proceeded to take up regular, official church matters, concluding our meeting at 11 a.m.”
Fri., 28 July 1961:
“8:40 a.m.
Improvement Era — The Gospel in Art. Elder Richard L. Evans, President Joseph T. Bentley, Brother Doyle Green, Edward O. Anderson, and artist, Brother Arnold Friberg met with the First Presidency by appointment made through me.
They presented two paintings by Arnold Friberg with the recommendation that small reproductions of these paintings and several other paintings to be prepared by Brother Friberg are to be offered at a reasonable cost to subscribers of the Improvement Era. It was observed that these pictures could be framed and hung in the homes with the intent of creating an atmosphere of ‘the Gospel in Art in the home.
In reviewing the other picture, ‘Christ’s First Visit to the Nephites,’ it was suggested that the Savior’s clothing should not be open, revealing major portion of his chest even though the intent of the picture is to illustrate Christ’s invitation to the people to feel the nail prints in His hands and feet, and to thrust their hands into the wound in his side. It was also suggested that while it is scripturally correct that Nephi kissed the Savior’s feet, this should not be depicted in the picture due to the emphasis which the Catholic Church places on Peter kissing the feet of the Savior. It was therefore concluded that this picture should be re-drawn.
A number of Kodak pictures taken by Brother Doyle Green of various scenes in the Holy Land were presented. It was explained that Brother Green has attempted to find the natural conditions similar to what may have existed at the time of the Savior instead of showing modern developments. The use of these pictures in the November issue of the Era was approved.”
Tues., 26 Sept. 1961:
“8:30 a.m.
Attended the meeting of the First Presidency. Among many matters we considered the following:
4) Films on the Church — A letter was read from Miles Hinshaw of Hollywood, California, dated September 22, 1961, giving his background of experience in the moving picture world, and stating his intention to develop a story for presentation to the moving picture public regarding the faith, courage, and tribulations of the pioneers. He stated that upon the completion of the film he would like to utilize the auditorium facilities of the various LDS Church groups and that perhaps the Tabernacle Choir might be used for background music in certain parts of the film. It was decided to refer this matter to Elders Mark E. Petersen and Richard L. Evans. I commented that Mr. Hinshaw is in the right field, that that is one of the most thrilling and colorful subjects that could be presented.
Mon., 18 Dec. 1961:
Film on the Prophet Joseph Smith
President Brown reported on preliminary research which has been done by a woman in Oregon under the direction of Brother W.O. Whitaker of the Brigham Young University Motion Picture Production Department, and submitted a bill for $7,463.00 which she has. In reply to my inquiry as to the original authorization for this expenditure, President Brown explained that no specific appropriation of the money had been made, but that the people had been told to go forward and to move cautiously and present their bill for actual expense. He said the project has continued and that the picture will be comparable to the film presented this morning (The Brigham Young University film on Science and Religion to be used in the Stake Conferences in 1962.) President Brown said that a reading of the text proposed for the film will be given so that the nature of the presentation can be known. He recalled that Brother Whitaker and Ellis Craig had come to the First Presidency and told about the material the woman in Oregon had gathered, and that the project is now ready for the appointment of a writer to prepare the material for motion picture presentation. The next step will be the choice of the writer, and recommendations will be submitted to the First Presidency.
I directed that the present bill of costs be paid, and that the director of the project be advised to wait for further instructions. I then signed the approval for payment of the bill and directed that it be given to Brother Rulon Tingey of the Financial Department.
Wed., 20 June 1962:
“Avard Fairbanks’ Model of Bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery — I inquired for information as to any custom in the temple of putting the hand upon the left shoulder when more than one officiator performs the ordinance of ordination to the priesthood. No information on this subject being offered, after discussion, it was agreed that the Avard Fairbanks’ model of the statuary of the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery should be modified to have all three, Peter, James, and John, represented as placing both hands upon the head.
11:40 a.m.
Had a brief conference with Avard Fairbanks, sculptor, at which time I called attention to an error in his model of the Melchizedek Priesthood monument. I told him that Peter should have two hands on the head of Joseph Smith in conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood upon him, rather than one hand as he now has depicted it.”
Sat., 14 July 1962:
“9:00 a.m.
According to appointment made on Friday, Dr. A. Ray Olpin, President of the University of Utah, and Dr. C. Lowell Lees, Director of the Utah Theatre and Theatre Arts Department, came in to my office.
President Olpin explained that their principal desire is to talk about the dedicatory services of the new Pioneer Memorial Theatre. He said that Dr. Lees is leaving for South America, and they would like to get some matters settled before he goes. Dr. Olpin stated that they are most sincere in wanting me to be the one to decide when the dedication should be held, and when it would be most convenient for me; that they wished to go over the details with me. He asked, ‘Would it be better to have the dedication separate from a production of a play, or should we have the dedication and the play together?’ He then said, ‘We want you to be the principal person to be honored on that night and have you offer the dedicatory prayer — you, Dr. Lees, and Leland B. Flint are the prime movers in this building.’ He said that they have heard various rumors about how I should like the dedication to be, and that they come to me this morning to hear directly from me what I should like them to do.
We decided that the opening of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre would be on Wednesday, October 10, 1962, and that a brief dedicatory service should probably be held at 7:30 p.m. We decided further that the Shakespearean play ‘Hamlet” would be enacted immediately following the services.
Wed., 10 Oct., 1962:
9:30 a.m.
Inspection of the new Pioneer Memorial Theatre
Returned to my private office where I met by appointment Mr. Leland B. Flint and my son, Lawrence. We left for the University of Utah where for the next hour and a half we inspected the new Pioneer Memorial Theatre. It is a magnificent building, and I am well pleased with the whole structure.
7:45 p. m.
Attended the Dedicatory Services and Opening Night of the magnificent new Pioneer Memorial Theatre.
This was a never-to-be-forgotten occasion. The theatre was filled to capacity with people who had come from all over the State to pay honor to the Pioneers who had been staunch supporters of the cultural arts, and to see the first dramatic performance in this beautiful new theatre. Sister McKay and I were delighted and thrilled with the dedicatory services and with the production of “Hamlet”. I thought the dedicatory exercises were inspirational! (See program following) I had the honor and privilege of offering the dedicatory prayer. (see following)
(Newspaper clippings regarding this event following)
At the finish of the Play, Sister McKay and I greeted and shook hands with many who were gathered in the Lobby of the theatre. It was one o’clock before we reached our apartment, and 1:30 a. m. before we retired! Although we were very tired, we were happy that our dream to have a memorial to the old Salt Lake Theatre had come true.
Note:
For letters from Dr. A. Ray Olpin, President of the University of Utah, from Dr. C. Lowell Lees, head of the Dramatic Arts Department of the University of Utah, and from Dr. Lowell G. Durham, Dean of the College of Fine Arts of the University of Utah, commenting upon the success of the dedicatory services of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre, see following.
Note by CM
When President McKay stood at the pulpit to offer the dedicatory prayer, there was a profound reverential feeling present. All present, including many non-members of the Church, were very impressed with the words he uttered in tribute to our Pioneers.
Note by CM (2)
Although it was published in the newspapers that President McKay would dedicate the new buildings at the Brigham Young University, President McKay was not able to be present at the dedicatory services because of numerous official duties at the office, and principally because of his appointment to dedicate the new Pioneer Memorial Theatre on the University of Utah campus, a project in which President McKay had been interested since 1937 when he was Appointed chairman of the Centennial Commission. He therefore asked President Hugh B. Brown to represent him in dedicating the BYU buildings. (see newspaper clipping following.)”
“Opening Remarks given by President David O. McKay at the Dedicatory Services of the PIONEER MEMORIAL THEATRE, October 10, 1962.
My mind goes way back to 1896, when Maud May Babcock gave physical cultural lessons in the old Council House on State Street. My sweetheart was one of the girls who took lessons there, and I remember now seeing her and her associates in their “bloomers”.
If I start to reminisce, you will be quoting Hamlet and the soliloquy “to be or not to be”.
I feel more like praying than speaking and respond to my duty to represent you, President Olpin, Dr. Lees, Mr. Flint, Governor Clyde, Mayor Lee, and all the others, in expressing thanksgiving and appreciation for the Pioneers and for what they have done for us. It was Carlyle, I think, who said, “In this world there is one godlike virtue, the essence of all that ever was or ever will be of godlike in this world — the veneration done to human worth by the hearts of men.”
Let us bow our heads in veneration of the worth of our intrepid Utah Pioneers, and pray that somehow, somewhere many of them will be with us this night, though they are on the Other Side these many years.
(See following page for Dedicatory Prayer. )
Dedicatory Prayer offered by President David O. McKay at the Dedication of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre, on the University of Utah Campus, Wednesday, October 10, 1962, at 7:45 p. m.
O God, our Heavenly and Eternal Father, we, thy children here assembled, present ourselves in praise and gratitude for Life and Divine Blessings associated therewith. For the association of Loved Ones and Friends we are especially grateful.
It has been said that “in this world there is one godlike virtue, the essence of all that ever was or ever will be of godlike in this world — the veneration done to human worth by the hearts of men”.
Help us, O God, to cherish that virtue as we express our gratitude for our daring, faith-inspired Pioneers, who faced the dangers and endured the vicissitudes of crossing the Western Plains in 1847 to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake, and then found themselves not merely in a new and unsettled land, but in an arid, desert basin.
We express appreciation for the sacrifices of the Pioneers, for their willingness to toil in building roads, bridges, canals, and ditches which carried the sparkling mountain waters to the thirsty soil.
We are grateful that even though they had to fight primitive conditions of Pioneer Life in providing a mere subsistence, erecting shelters against the summer sun and the winter frost, the needs of the spirit never became secondary; places of worship were planned co-existently with sheltering homes, and only two years after they had first scratched the soil of their new refuge, they were presenting theatrical performances in a rudely improvised theatre. They cherished in their hearts the love of the beautiful and artistic, and manifested in their actions a willingness to enjoy the privileges and blessings which an all-wise Creator had placed within their reach.
We are grateful that they cherished the belief that there was nothing delightful and beautiful in the world but that the Lord had created it for the good of His children. It was under that spirit that they built the old Salt Lake Theatre.
In memory of their sacrifices, their love of art and desire for the esthetic culture, we have met tonight to dedicate this Pioneer Memorial Theatre, a beautiful structure, reflecting the skill of the architect and builders, a credit to the President and Board of Regents, Faculty, and students of the University of Utah.
We are grateful that we live in a country where the individual rights of Liberty are protected, where the Constitution of the United States vouchsafes to every individual the right to speak, the right to worship, the right for the individual to choose as he pleases so long as he grants to every other person those same privileges. Preserve these individual rights, O Father, to the people of the United States, and frustrate any plan or any cult or organization that would deprive the people of this liberty or curtail it in the least, that this country may continue to be a Light unto the world in true freedom and respect for others.
We thank Thee for this Government which permits the building of such edifices. We thank Thee for the Church, for this State, for this great University, and for the business organizations which have so willingly contributed to the erection of this Temple of the Thespian Art.
Now, O Father, as Thy servant holding the Holy Priesthood, I dedicate this edifice as a Memorial to the Utah Pioneers, and as a place where the Drama, Literature, and Fine Arts may be nurtured and cultured.
We dedicate the ground upon which it stands. We dedicate the Lobby, the Stage, the Theatre proper. We dedicate the Seats which have been set apart in honor of the Pioneers by their descendants.
We dedicate the Little Theatre and the class rooms adjoining. Bless the instructors, and all actors and actresses who perform in this building that they may ever be impressed with the realization that theirs is the obligation to make their profession respectable, and, as the Greek Theatre of old, “the hearth of pure, intellectual entertainment, and a perpetual source of spiritual instruction and affirmation.”
Bless the audiences who assemble for relaxation and entertainment, that the hours spent in this temple of amusement may be filled with joyous contentment in an intellectual atmosphere, and in a moral and spiritual realm; that it will be most uplifting and inspiring, in memory of which it will be contributive to a more enjoyable life.
This plea for Thy divine protection over this Memorial, this Dedication, we offer to Thee in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, Amen.”
“October 19, 1962
Dear President McKay,
One of the fondest dreams of my nearly two decades of service as president of the University of Utah has now been realized, and the Pioneer Memorial Theatre is a reality. Seldom have I been more thrilled than I was when I welcomed you at the door of our new theatre on the evening of October tenth, and shortly thereafter my heart was overflowing with thanksgiving as I listened to the beautiful dedicatory prayer offered by you as president of the great church which was instrumental in establishing, a permanent community in the intermountain country and building the Salt Lake Theatre as a cathedral of culture in the desert.
You have always manifested a profound interest in the theatre and appreciated the full value of drama in cultural development. The University of Utah has been fortunate indeed in having your support in its efforts to develop and cultivate the finer things of life. As its president, I take this opportunity to express to you the sincere appreciation of the regents, faculty, and students. We hope you will be pleased with all that transpires within the walls of this beautiful edifice and that you will have many opportunities to enjoy in comfort the productions of the University Theatre.
Mrs. Olpin and I were honored indeed to sit beside you and Mrs. McKay throughout the premiere production of “Hamlet,” and I am happy to learn that you are planning a second visit to the theatre while this great Shakespearean tragedy is being presented. My wife and I saw it the second time on Tuesday evening, and I assure you that it is a much improved production over the one we saw on October tenth.
Very sincerely yours,
A. Ray Olpin
President”
Wed., 16 Jan. 1963:
“Bureau of Information and Paintings for new building
Elders Richard L. Evans and Robert R. McKay of the Temple Square Mission came in by appointment previously made by me. They were accompanied by Cannon Young, the architect. They discussed with us the painting of murals just under the dome of the new Bureau of Information in the big rotunda. They presented rough sketches submitted by Arnold Friberg and explained that the basic dimensions of the mural are 132 feet by 26 feet. Elder Evans said they had talked with a number of artists and that Brother Friberg had come up with the idea of using it to portray the whole story of the dispensations, starting with the pre-existence, showing the different dispensations of the Gospel, and bringing it up to the restoration and the present time. Brother Evans stated that this would be a very expensive project. He thought it might cost around $300,000 or $400,000. President Moyle made the suggestion that perhaps they might use the murals in the Cody, Wyoming chapel painted by Mr. Grigware, making a copy of them to fit the Bureau of Information situation. I seriously questioned that this would be satisfactory, and referred to the great works of art in Copenhagen, Denmark depicting the Twelve Apostles, and mentioned the great impression that this makes upon those who see these works of art. I said I think it would be better to limit the murals to the restoration of the Gospel in this dispensation rather than to try to depict the entire history of the Gospel from the beginning. Elder Evans said that he was sure Brother Friberg would be pleased to do anything the brethren wanted him to do in this respect. It was agreed that Brother Evans would talk with Brother Friberg about this matter and obtain from him, and bring to us, a sketch along the lines suggested by me. Elder Evans said that we would perhaps incur some obligation by having Brother Friberg do this, but I said that that would be all right.
Mention was made of the fact that the statue of the Christus would be in the center of the rotunda and that the mural should be centered around that theme.
Tues., 16 Apr. 1963:
We then continued our meeting of the First Presidency, and considered a number of official matters, among which were:
Painting of the Savior appearing to the Nephites in Ward Chapel
President Brown explained that he is going to Boise for the dedication of a building at the request of President Dunn who explained that some time ago they placed in the chapel a painting of Christ appearing to the Nephites. He wants to know if they may leave the painting or whether it should be taken out. Brother Hunter told President Dunn that it is not in harmony with the established practice of the Church to have pictures in the chapel. This rule, however, has been altered, and permission was given to have a picture in the chapel in Vancouver. I said I do not know why we should not have a picture of Christ. President Moyle and President Brown concurred in the decision that the painting need not be removed.
Mon., 20 Jan. 1964:
“10:30 to 12:00 Noon
My secretary, Clare, came over with a number of office matters.
John F. Kennedy Music Center – donation to from the Church
I noted in the Church Section an announcement that the Church had made a donation of $10,000 to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C.
As I did not remember approving of this contribution, nor had I seen a letter transmitting these funds, I called President Hugh B. Brown and asked him when we had approved of this donation. He said that it was his understanding that it had been approved; however, I called Joseph Anderson and asked him to look in the minutes and see when we had approved of this amount of money being donated for this purpose. He read to me over the telephone from the minutes of the First Presidency that this matter had been brought up by President Brown at the request of Brother Willard Marriott of Washington, D.C., who is on the National Committee sponsoring the project. The minutes stated that I had asked that before making the donation I should like a report on the amount of money being donated by other churches, and then we should decide about what we should do.
However, as the decision had been made, and the money sent directly to Willard Marriott, there was nothing more to do about the matter. Several letters have been received since from members of the Church objecting to tithing money being used for this purpose. (see copy of letter of thanks for the $10,000, and newspaper clipping following)
Thurs., 6 Feb. 1964:
“Kennedy, President John F. – Contribution to Cultural Memorial
I mentioned that I have received letters from Church members complaining because the Church has made a contribution of $10,000 to the John F. Kennedy Cultural Memorial in Washington, D.C. President Tanner agreed that there is nothing to be gained by publicizing these matters. This contribution was made without my approval.
Wed., 15 July 1964:
“Minutes of the Meeting of the First Presidency
Held Wednesday, July 15, 1964, at President McKay’s Home in Huntsville, Utah at 8 a.m.
Present: Presidents David O. McKay and N. Eldon Tanner. President Hugh B. Brown in Europe.
Paintings in Storage
President Tanner read a letter from President Howard S. McDonald and counselors of the Salt Lake Temple reporting that in the sub-basement of the present annex of the Salt Lake Temple there are hundreds of paintings in storage and asking what should be done with these paintings when we move to the new annex. The temple presidency suggests that perhaps the BYU would be pleased to be a depository for these paintings and from there they could be assigned to various offices in the Church.
President McKay suggested that we get a list of the paintings together with all the information we can obtain regarding each of them and that consideration be given to the appointment of a committee to arrange for their distribution. The First Presidency will discuss the matter further tomorrow.
Wed., 28 Apr. 1965:
“8:30 a.m.
Held the regular meeting of the First Presidency. Some of the matters discussed were:
Joseph Smith – Painting of the First Vision
The Brethren gave consideration to a painting that has been prepared by an artist portraying the First Vision, wherein the boy Joseph saw the Father and the Son. It was reported that the Deseret Book Company in preparing a pictorial book regarding the Church is desirous of using in the book a copy of this painting to represent the Mormon attitude about Deity.
I advised against using a picture of the First Vision in which God the Father is portrayed, stating that it was beyond the comprehension of the human mind to portray the Father. I suggested that if it were desired to use the picture the artist might portray these beings surrounded by light brighter than that of the noon day, but not attempt to portray the features of the Father, that He might be shown rather indistinguishably in outline. The suggestion was also made that there should be improvement in the features of the boy Joseph.”
Thurs., 13 May 1965:
“8:30 a.m.
Held a First Presidency’s meeting with my counselors in my apartment in the Hotel. Some of the matters we discussed were the following:
Pioneer Memorial Theatre
Some discussion was had regarding the $400,000 obligation owing to the Church in connection with the construction of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre on the University of Utah campus. Mention was made of the fact that in February 1962 the Church advanced $400,000 for this purpose, to be paid at the rate of $40,000 a year over a three-year period at five percent interest, that to date only one payment of $40,000 has been received, which was made December 1963. The committee headed by Royden Derrick had called on the First Presidency and said that they were not able to make these payments, that they had not been successful in raising the funds they had anticipated in the program that had been worked out, namely, by selling to pioneer families copper plates to be placed on the seats in the theatre. It was mentioned that Governor Rampton had called in to see the Brethren recently and said that the State would be prepared to pay $15,000 a year instead of $40,000, and had suggested that the Church forgive the last $100,000. President Tanner had told Governor Rampton that he did not think we should promise to forgive anything, at least until the other payments have been made, when the matter could be again considered. It was reported that a letter has now been received from Royden Derrick, Chairman of the committee, mentioning Governor Rampton’s interview with the First Presidency on the subject and stating that they would arrange to pay the Church $25,000 to cover the December 1964 payment and subsequent payments of a like amount December 1, 1965, December 1, 1966, and December 1, 1967, this $100,000 to be applied on principal. Chairman Derrick expresses the hope that the Church will give consideration to a forgiveness of any interest on the obligation and states that the University will attempt to raise funds through the sale of the name plates and by other various methods. It was agreed that President Tanner will talk with the Governor further about this matter and make the best possible arrangement, but not agree to forgive them anything as of now.
Tues., 5 June 1965:
“9:00 a.m.
Held a meeting with Presidents Brown and Tanner and Elders Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley regarding missionary work.
Book of Mormon Edition – Illustrated by First Council of Seventy
Reference was made to the desire of the First Council of Seventy to print a large edition of the Book of Mormon for distribution under the program of the Seventies, which edition would be a paper bound book, and it is proposed that there be included in the book the reproduction of eight Book of Mormon paintings by Arnold Friberg. It was mentioned that some of the brethren of the Twelve had questioned the advisability of using pictures in the Book of Mormon.
Reference was made to the fact that a seminary edition is already in circulation containing these pictures, as also the Holy Scriptures deluxe quadruple combination book. After full consideration, authorization was given for the printing of the book with the illustrations mentioned.
I said that I could see no more objection to illustrating the Book of Mormon than having illustrations in the Bible.
Thurs., 1 July 1965:
“8:30 a.m.
Held a meeting with my counselors – the following were among the items we discussed:
Pioneer Memorial Theatre – University of Utah Obligation of $400,000
President Tanner reported that Royden Derrick who has been serving as Chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of Utah, and whose term expired yesterday, brought to him yesterday the University’s check for $285,000, which amount we had agreed to accept, together with seat plaques, as full payment of the $360,000 obligation owing to the Church on the $400,000 note of the University of Utah for the building of the Pioneer Memorial Theatre. The plaques were handed to President Tanner.
Fri., 19 Aug. 1966:
“4. I asked for a policy statement of whether we should attempt to show the figures of Deity in any kind of art work relating to the First Vision of Joseph Smith. He said we should not use the figures of Deity, but to show Joseph and the shaft of light only.
I am giving you this report on the meeting for your record.
Yours sincerely,
Mark E. Petersen
MEP/dw”
Tues., 15 Aug., 1967:
“8:30 a.m.
Met with Presidents Brown, Tanner, and Smith, and considered with them various letters and general Church matters.
Utah Symphony Orchestra – Contribution of $100,000 by the Church
There was read to the Presidency a letter from Ed M. Naughton, Chairman of the Ford Foundation matching fund committee for the Utah Symphony Orchestra, dated August 10, 1967, of which committee I am the honorary chairman. President Tanner explained that Gus Backman and Bishop Victor L. Brown had called on him the other day and stated that in talking with me about the Symphony Orchestra matter, I had referred them to my counselors. President Tanner had suggested to them that Mr. Naughton write a letter setting out his understanding regarding this whole matter, and this is the letter that was read to the brethren at this time. The proposition is that the Ford Foundation will contribute a million dollars to the Utah Symphony on condition that the local people raise a similar amount within the next five years to match the contribution by the Foundation. The letter indicates that a number of local people have made large contributions to this fund, that it is proposed to encourage company managements to agree to solicitation of their employees and that Mr. O’Keefe of the Kennecott Copper Corporation has indicated that he is of the opinion that Kennecott’s corporation contribution will be $100,000 to $125,000. President Tanner stated that the committee feels and hopes that the Church will make a contribution comparable to the Kennecott contribution. He suggested that such contribution as the Church may make should be made through one of the business organizations of the Church. In discussing the matter, it was our sentiment that the Church should make a contribution to this fund.
President Brown moved that the First Presidency pledge $100,000 to be paid $20,000 a year for the next five years in support of the program. Motion was seconded and unanimously approved.”
Thur., 12 Oct., 1967:
“Held a meeting with Presidents Hugh B. Brown, Nathan Eldon Tanner, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Elder Alvin R. Dyer, newly-sustained Apostle. This was Elder Dyer’s first meeting with the First Presidency, and he had come at my invitation. A number of matters were presented by the Brethren, among them were:
Utah Symphony – Presentation of Plaque
President Brown reported having attended the Symphony Orchestra concert last night at which Maurice Abravanel presented a plaque to the First Presidency, which reads as follows: “To the First Presidency with heartfelt gratitude for its boundless generosity in welcoming us most warmly in this magnificent and inspired edifice on more than seven hundred occasions of music making. For the Utah Symphony, Mauxice Abravanel, October 11, 1967.” I suggested that this plaque be hung in the First Presidency offices.
Wed., 8 Nov., 1967:
“8:30 a.m.
Held a meeting with my Counselors–Presidents Brown, Tanner, and Smith. Elder Alvin R. Dyer who now meets with us in these meetings, is on his way to visit Nauvoo at my request.
Chapels – Pictures of Christ May be Hung on Walls of
Attention was called to correspondence which originated with a letter from Mrs. Hazel I. Clark of Westport, Washington, and concerning which we have had a letter from President Herbert S. Anderson of the Olympia Stake regarding the removal of a picture of the head of Christ from the wall of the Grays Harbor Ward chapel. President Anderson explains the reason for this removal; namely, that the Handbook of Instructions states that “murals or pictures should not be placed in chapels but should be used in the foyer or office or one of the other rooms.” President Smith mentioned that he had seen the picture in question and he did not like the picture too well.
We felt that it might raise some serious questions in the minds of the people if we objected to hanging on our chapel walls a picture of the Savior, provided it is something that represents our ideas of the Lord.
It was agreed to tell President Anderson of the Olympia Stake that it would be well for them to replace the picture in the chapel.
Mon., 4 Nov., 1968:
“8:30 a. m. President N. Eldon Tanner came over to the office with Joseph Anderson, secretary. I learned later that neither President Joseph Fielding Smith nor President Alvin R. Dyer had been notified of this meeting.
The following matters were discussed:
(Minutes of President Alvin R. Dyer)
(Glass Doors for Entrance of Anteroom)
Later, John Wallace came over to discuss the physical characteristics of hanging the glass doors which he desired to make a gift to the Church in the entrance to the anteroom of the council room of the First Presidency. It was determined that some of the marble framework and lintel would need to be sawed away in order to get them in, but that this would not be serious.
I looked at the photograph or the cut supposedly representing the characters on the glass door and it appeared to me that it was distinctly Catholic and that the background of the two figures who were assumedly angels who held one hand in an upward fashion and the other clutched to a bell and that the background of the figures was completely of feathers indicating the winged status of an angel or the symbolism of wings for an angel. This bothered me to some extent and I pulled President Tanner aside and mentioned this fact to him. He said openly to Brother Wallace that inasmuch as I had raised some question about it that the matter had better be settled before Brother Wallace went ahead and purchased these in order to make the gift to the Church. I suggested to Eldon that he might ask some of the brethren about it so that there wouldn’t be any criticism to him and to the Church for having hung them even though he had told me he had discussed the matter with President McKay and President McKay had approved the receiving of the gift.
Later President Tanner called me and stated that he had talked to Brother Harold B. Lee, Marion G. Romney, and Mark E. Petersen, Joseph Fielding Smith, and one other, (I don’t just remember who the other one was) but that each of them said that they saw no offense in the feather structure of the design in the glass and that it was not offensive to them. He said that Brother Lee had suggested that inasmuch as I had raised an objection, that he should probably take it back to the First Presidency and there get final approval before they went ahead.
President Tanner said that he had gone back to President McKay. He did not invite me. I don’t know whether any of the other members of the First Presidency went, but I did not go. He said that President McKay stated again that it would be all right to place these glass doors in the place that has been mentioned. I told President Tanner that since this was apparently the wish of President McKay and Brother Lee and others had felt that it was all right, that I would withdraw my objection.
(Comment:)
The withdrawing of my objection, of course, means that I will not cause any disturbance with regard to the placing of the glass doors there but, personally and inwardly, I still feel that it is an offensive thing to place such things as this that are so distinctly Catholic, symbolizing the wings on an angel in a Latter-day Saint structure, but I am obedient to the will of the rnajority and especially to the apparent wish of President McKay to have them placed there in accordance with the statements of President Tanner.”
Wed., 18 Dec., 1968:
“9 a.m. A regular meeting of the First Presidency was held in my office in the Hotel Utah apartment.
Paintings of Christ in Chapels and Homes
President Tanner called attention to a letter that had been received from a Sister Myra C. Dickson addressed to Hartman Rector, to which an answer had been prepared relative to a class discussion regarding the use of paintings of the Savior in chapels and homes.
I stated that there is certainly no reason for people not having a picture of the Savior in their homes if they desire, and as far as pictures of the Savior in chapels is concerned there is no objection provided the picture or painting is artistic and worthy.
President Tanner said that the answer that had been prepared was in accordance with the sentiments expressed by the brethren.”
Tues., Sept. 2, 1969:
“Minutes of the Meeting of the First Presidency
Held Tuesday, September 2, 1969, at 9:00 A.M., in the First Presidency’s Office
Present: Presidents Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner, Joseph Fielding Smith and Alvin R. Dyer
Historic Arts
President Dyer reported that he met with the historic arts committee which is a group appointed to collect pioneer artifacts, paintings and other items of culture. Elder Mark E. Petersen is the chairman of the committee. President Dyer said it is the feeling of the committee that we should turn over to them the responsibility of identifying and placing under their responsibility all paintings and artifacts we now have throughout the Church in different buildings and elsewhere, that these may be cataloged and recorded. The brethren were agreed that it is definitely important that we make someone responsible for every item and have it properly recorded. President Dyer said they desire to have a secretary and an office and are suggesting that a letter be sent out to all stake presidents inviting them to advise this committee of any pioneer artifacts they would like to contribute to the Church. The committee could then determine which of the articles we would want. He mentioned that there are many of these items that are already in storage. He said that Sister Florence Jacobsen would prepare the letter for the First Presidency to sign and that it is proposed to place an item in the Church News stating that this committee has been formed and that people who desire to make contributions of the kind mentioned may do so to them. The brethren in discussing the matter were agreed that it is not the intention to take everything that might be offered but that the committee and experts would pass upon these items and make the necessary investigation regarding their authenticity and value.
President Dyer further stated that when this committee was approved they wanted $25,000 as a fund to work with on the purchase of paintings and other things as they became available, which items they could not obtain by contribution but are definitely historic in their nature. At that time the brethren did not favor doing this but suggested that if they would submit each item they wanted to buy to the First Presidency, the First Presidency would furnish the money for the purchases that were considered desirable. President Dyer said the committee is now asking for permission to purchase two paintings, one for $450 and another for $6400, both of which are pioneer paintings.
President Tanner thought we should be careful about making such investments. He did not favor paying $6400 for the painting mentioned. He said he did not see why we are buying such paintings now, that we would have to insure them, clean them up, take care of them and be responsible for them and keep them in storage. It was decided to have Brother Petersen come in an discuss these matters with the First Presidency.
[Filed under Tues., Sept. 2:]
“September 9, 1969
TO ALL STAKE PRESIDENTS IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
Dear Brethren:
The Church is concerned with collecting, preserving, and displaying historical artifacts of significance including books, letters, journals, papers, documents, paintings, sculptures, crafts, drawings, architecture and architectural fragments, photographs, metalwork, carriages, wagons, all household furnishings, handwork, pre-Columbian artifacts, and pioneer memorabilia.
Members and friends of the Church who may possess such items and may wish to contribute them for preservation and display purposes are advised to contact Elder Mark E. Petersen, chairman of the Historical Arts Committee at 47 East South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah, phone 364-2511, extension 2102.
You are also requested to recommend a man or woman qualified to act as correspondent to the Historical Arts Committee in your area. This person should be interested in all historical articles and have a working knowledge of our pioneers and Church history and be able to bring to the attention of the committee items of historical significance which should be obtained by the Church. Upon receipt of the name of the person you recommend as correspondent, the committee will review qualifications and select and notify the necessary correspondents who will then assist the committee in the collection of historical artifacts.
It is imperative that members of the Church consciously and actively preserve articles they have inherited which are piece by piece being lost to posterity and the Church through the bulying and selling market today. All items of historical significance should be considered in the program of collecting, preserving, restoring, and displaying the culture of the Mormon people from the beginning of the Church to the present time.
Also, if there is a building or dwelling in your area which should be preserved because of its part in Church history or the history of your local community, please report this to Elder Mark E. Petersen of the Historical Arts Committee.
Yours sincerely,
David O. McKay
Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon tanner
The First Presidency”
Wed., Sept. 17, 1969:
Meeting of the First Presidency
The President was interested in reading the following items from the Minutes of the First Presidency’s Meeting, which meeting he was unable to attend:
Historical Arts Committee
President Tanner reported that yesterday a request came for $10,000 for the Historical Arts Committee and we had also received a memo from President Dyer asking for something over $1,000. President Dyer said that the matter of the need for some funds for the payment of important expenses had been discussed and the question was raised as to whether there would be any other expenses connected with the committee and President Dyer reported that they are going to set up an office and hire a girl to start cataloging all the pictures. The brethren questioned the advisability of setting up an office at this time. It would thought that perhaps Brothe Petersen could have someone serve as an assistant to his secretary to take care of this. A question was raised about $1700 that had been approved by the Expenditures Committee, which amount will be needed to pay the expenses of an expert who is coming here to give his opinion on the paintings we have in storage.