Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “Temples, 1889.” You can view other years here.
Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.
TEMPLES, 1889.
1889: 4/24 Jan.: Nuttall signs recommends instead of Woodruff.
“Jan 4 I am alone today. I signed 12 recommends.
“Jan 24 Prest Woodruff instructed me to attend to the Mail and to sign the recommends while he is away.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 4 & 24 Jan., 1889)
13 Jan.: Concerning burial in temple robes.
“During our noon hour we had a short council of Presidents, in which Bro. Hancock desired to know what he should do in the case of his uncle, Joseph Hancock when he died. This man was in Zion’s Camp, he was a body-guard to the prophet Joseph when he started for the Rocky Mountains before his martyrdom, and he also was one of the Pioneers to these valleys. Through Pres. Young giving away a lot that had been assigned him in Salt Lake City he became disaffected and though never severed from the Church lost all interest in it. After the brethren had expressed themselves, I said that in the absence of instructions to the contrary I would favor dressing Jos. Hancock in his temple robes when he died. The virtue of the robes, however, consists in the integrity of the wearer.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 13 Jan., 1889)
21 Feb.: Last Nauvoo company didn’t finish endowment.
“President Cannon
Remembered when the Nauvoo Temple was near completion, the saints look forward with fond anticipation to the time when they could go forth and do a work for their dead; but many were driven from Nauvoo before their anticipations could be realized and some of the last company, who did go through never got further than the Terrestiral Room.” (St. George Temple Minute Book, K9361R pp. 180-181, 21 Feb., 1889)
21 Feb.: Proxy baptisms only for same sex.
“President Cannon . . .
Remember when men and women were baptized in the Missouri River, men for women and women for men, but they were told that this was wrong and that men whould be baptized for men and women for women which they did, in a Temple, in a font resting upon 12 wooden oxen, after-which changed to stone oxen.” (St. George Temple Minute Book, K9361R pp. 180-181, 21 Feb., 1889)
25 Feb.: Sealing to one’s brother.
“Agnes Schwartz & her daughter Mary called this morning to see Prest. Woodruff, on her family matters, which he promised to write to her about. She said that her Brother John the late President John Taylor had told her some 30 years ago that if she could not be reconciled to continue with any of her husbands she might be sealed to his brother William or himself, and she now wanted to be sealed to him. This is a very curious proceeding & which I dont understand.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 25 Feb., 1889)
16 Mar.: Stake Presidents, not Bishops, to recommend for 2nd anointings.
“March 16th, 1889
President Ira N. Hinckley,
Fillmore.
Dear Brother:–The enclosed recommend for Christian P. Boreguard and his wife Anna to obtain their second anointings, is returned herewith for corrections.
In regard to these matters, I will say that it is not expected that the Bishops will take these cases in hand and recommend persons for this ordinance.
The instructions which have been given on this subject are, that the President of the Stake, as they shall find from time to time in their Stake those brothren who are aged, and who have been faithful in the Church during their lives, and through their untiring energies have proven themselves worthy of this blessing, will take note of such cases and, through the President, will submit to me the names of such persons and their wives, both living and dead, who have also been faithful and are worthy for consideration. In forwarding to me the names of such persons, I must have the age, in years, of each one named. It is not expected that any person will be informed of what action is being taken until [p.425] after their names are approved and their recommends properly endorsed by me. Faithful and worthy aged brothren who have died without this blessing, should be remembered with their wives in this connection.
After names of worthy aged persons have been submitted by the President of the Stakes and been approved by me. the usual recommend can then be forwarded, with a slip of paper calling my attention to the fact.
Trusting this will be satisfactory to you, and with kind regards,
I am your Brother
W. Woodruff”
(First Presidency Letterpress Copybooks, 1877-1949, pp. 424-425, CR/1/20/#17. Bergera collection.)
19 Mar.: No 2nd anointing for woman following divorce after prior 2nd anointing.
“March 19th 1889
President John D.T. McAllister,
St. George Temple.
Dear Brother:–Your letter of Feb. 27th, asking certain questions pertaining to Temple ordinances, has been received and considered.
In regard to your last question, pertaining to a woman having been sealed and anointed [second anointing] to her husband, but subsequently divorced from him, he continuing a faithful, good man, etc, is she to be anointed to a second good man as though she never had been anointed? I answer, No. In such a case it will not be proper for the sister to be again anointed.
Your second question as to my having any word for you in relation to adoption—
I would say it will be well to leave the matter of adoption for the present as they have been, and not make any changes. This will also answer your question in regard to going back as far as records can be obtained correctly in adoptions. [p.2]
In relation to children who are old enough to be baptized [&] who are dead, receiving their endowments. I will say that in performing ordinances for the dead it is safe to follow the rules observed in regard to the living, unless there may be special occasions which can be attended to when the circumstances require.
With kind regards,
I am you Brother,
W. Woodruff
(First Presidency Letterpress Copybooks, 1877-1949, pp. 430-431, CR/1/20/#17. Bergera collection.)
May: Vision of the spirit world.
“By the courtesy of a friend who came into possession of a copy of it, the Contributor is enabled to present a statement of an exceeding interesting spiritual manifestation. It is valuable for a number of reasons. One of these is the high character of the lady who was the recipient of the communication. Her experience shows the closeness of the relation between the mortal and the spiritual life, and the deep interest taken by departed friends in the well-being of those they have left behind. It also tends to give some idea of the realism of the condition of the spirits who are in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection, and the importance the righteous among them attach to the performance of the vicarious work to which the temples erected by the Saints to the name of the Lord are largely devoted:
I, Elmira Pond Miller, will relate what I have seen and heard.
I was at my daughter’s house, in Hyrum, Cache County, in the early part of May, 1889. I had just lain down on the bed, as it was beginning to get dark. There appeared in the air lines of writing. After I had read those lines there appeared other lines of writing upon the wall at the head of the bed. Around these were round spots of the color of amber, which seemed to give light to the writing, without which I could not have seen to read the words that were portrayed on the wall. I will give a sketch of what was shown me in the writing:
Many things were mentioned which took place before my husband’s death, which occurred three and a half years previous. I will relate it as near as possible in his own words. He said:
I have seen Brothers Joseph and Hyrum Smith; also Brother Brigham and all the worthies who went before. I have seen my brother Daniel and many of the friends of your youth. They are anxious about you.
In speaking of his departure, he said:
They came and took me away, and left you a lone widow. I am very lonesome without you. The other brethren have their wives with them. You have always been a good wife to me. But I have been of a hasty temper, and have not controlled it as I shouild while in the flesh. I am now willing to make amends for the past, that when you come we may begin as we began in the days of our youth, and go on until we go up higher. I have sent up a petition asking leave to come for you. I think if you are as lonesome without me as I am without you that you will be willing to come. I will not tell you in what way I will take you, but you will exclaim, ‘Behold the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof.’ I want you to be buried by my side if there is room. I want you to see Jacob (meaning Jacob Miller) and have the ordinances attended to, sealing me to my father. I want you to do what work you can in the Logan Temple. I think, if you are as anxious as you were to do the work in the St. George Temple that you will do all you can. The work you have done in the St. George Temple has greatly enhanced my happiness in the spirit world. I want you to do the work for your sisters Anner and Huldah and have them sealed to their husbands and have their little ones sealed to them.
I have come tonight to talk to you. I will come again and hear you talk. Cheer up; great things await you. You are of the blood of Ephraim, and will receive your inheritance with the tribe of Ephraim. It is very essential that we should do the work for the dead; but we are apt to be careless about it. We are going into the United Order here.
Our daughter Ruth’s daughter Ruth, will come soon. There will be more changes before a great while. I will not tell any more at this time. Your children have come to see you. We can see you, but you cannot se us, unless the veil is taken away.
The deed that was made of the house and lot is no mistake at all. I thought you would not care, as you would not come to live there any more. I wished to keep the other lot and the barn together. I wish you would write to my children and see how they are getting along. I bid you good-night and pleasant dreams.
I only write a part of what was said to me, as I consider it more for my comfort, as a man speaking to and comforting his wife. When it came to the deeding of the house and lot, as mentioned, I heard my husband’s voice, in a loud whisper, helping me to read. The sound came from the writing on the wall. Ruth’s daughter, as spoken of, was sick at the time, and died in about three weeks after the manifestation.
I wish to testify that what I saw, was when I was wide awake and in my right mind. In fact, I had not been asleep.
Elmira Pond Miller.”
(“The Living and the Dead: An Interesting Spiritual Manifestation,” Contributor 17(3):198-200, Jan., 1896)
30 May: Our own identity ceases when working for dead.
“We should give our full attention to the rendition of the different parts and see and hear all pertaining to the ordinances. No matter how familiar we ourselves may be with them we are instructed to receive them anew, when we represent the dead, as though we had never received them before.
The person for whom we are officiating knows nothing about these ordinances except through us. As soon as we are anointed for the dead our own identity ceases, and we who are workers then leave our official calling and should not attempt to act in administering ordinances until we have finished our representation of the dead for whom we are receiving endowments.” (J. G. Bleak, St. George Temple Minute Book, p. 237, 30 May, 1889)
4 Jun.: Adoption to Joseph Smith.
“We drove to the Temple to attend to our adoptions to Joseph Smith, but upon examination of the record, it was found that the work necessary for all the adoptions that should be done had not been completed so this work was defered until September next.” (Levi Savage diary, 4 Jun., 1889; LC Collection)
8/9 Jun.: Temple clothing placed next to decomposed body.
“[8 Jun.] The body of Elder Alma P. Richards reached this city today and was sent to his home in Littleton, Morgan County. . . . It was in an advanced stage of decomposition, but was identified by the underclothing worn. A metallic coffin was procured and the body was enclosed and started home. . . .
[9 Jun.] The cortege went about 2 1/2 mi. to the Littleton cemetery where the remains were deposited–a suit of temple clothes being laid on the casket and within the outer box.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 8 & 9 Jun., 1889)
11 Jun.: No additional ordinances beyond 2nd anointing.
“Garden City Rich Co Utah
11th of June 1889
President Woodruff
Salt Lake City
Dear Brother,
I with my youngest wife, have received our 2d anointing, but the 2 older ones have not yet been able to get to the temple, to attend to theirs but intend to as soon as circumstances will permit. I was informed there was another ordinance which might be given at some future time in an upper room. Can we not pass through them all for that is my blessing given by the Patriarch. So I feel to ask for all, although the day may be breaking, I cannot let thee go, except thou bless me. So said our father Jacob. I have one wife who died in the faith. She was a good saint, she had her endowment in the Endowment house in Salt Lake, and was sealed to me by permission of President Taylor. Can she receive the 2d anointing by Proxey. Should not those wives that have been sealed to me who died out of the church, be adopted to their parents who will have done the work for [her] in the temple. And should not those parents, who adopted to us who have done this work for them, as we have been adopted. I suppose none of these recieve a 2d anointing who have not recieved the gospel in the flesh. Please excuse me, for so much inquisitiveness for I know not where else to apply for this information. The spirit prompts me to ask is there not another ordinance yet concerning a rod, if so can I receive it. I do not know that there is, but I feel to ask for all that is for me. Your brother
Phineas W. Cook
[over] Jesus said seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, I feel that a blessing that is not worth asking for is not worth having, and if I ask and am refused I hope it will not injure me. P.W.C.
[In pencil & different handwriting]: He has got all the ordinances he has a right to.”
(Letter from Phineas W. Cook, to Pres. Wilford Woodruff, 11 June 1889, Wilford Woodruff Incoming Corr. Uncataloged. CHO. Bergera collection.)
“June 18th, 1889
Elder Phineas W. Cook,
Garden City, Rich Co.
Dear Brother:–I have received your letter of the llth inst., in which you speak of another ordinance in addition to the second anointing, which might be given at some future time in an upper room.
You have received all the ordinances which we administer. The ordinance to which you refer is one between yourself and your family, and which doubtless was explained to you when you received your second anointing.
Your wife who is dead, and who, you say, was a faithful woman, can receive her second anointing. One of your other wives can act for her. Those who died out of the Church, and who have been sealed to you since, need not at the present time receive this ordinance. We do not administer it to those who are in this condition.
As to the ordinance connected with the rod, we know nothing of that. You will have to wait for awhile or until we meet Aaron.
Of course, your present living wives, if they are worthy and can obtain recommendations from the Bishop, can receive the ordinance of second anointing, whenever it will be convenient to you and to them.
With kind regards,
I am your brother,
W. Woodruff”
(Letter from Wilford Woodruff to Phineas W. Cook, June 18, 1889, CR/1/20/#17/p. 766. Bergera collection.)
20 Jun.: Endowment necessary before adoption.
“I wrote a letter to my sister Emaline asking her to procure Mother’s endowments as soon as possible that we might proceed with the adoptions.” (Levi Savage diary, 20 Jun., 1889; LC Collection)
5 Aug.: Woodruff’s counselor signs recommends.
“Pres Smith signed 2 recommends.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 5 Aug., 1889) [Note: When did Counselors begin to sign recommends?]
19 Sep.: Albert Carrington buried in temple clothing.
“I attended a meeting of the Presidency and Apostles at the office at 2 p.m. It was decided that Bro. Albert Carrington who is reported to be dying may be Ordained an Elder that when he died he could be buried in his Temple clothing. Prest Angus M. Cannon was authorized to ordain him. As Bro Cannon entered the house he was informed that Bro. Carrington died at 18 minutes to 4 p.m. It was afterwards decided that Bro. Carrington may be buried in his Temple Clothing.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 19 Sep., 1889)
7 Oct.: 2nd anointing for old men.
“Pres. Woodruff spoke in regard to second anointing and said the Presidents of Stakes were to be judges of who were worthy to receive them, but it was an ordinance of the eternal world which belonged particularly to old men.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 7 Oct., 1889)
18 & 22 Oct.: Decision to dismantle Endowment House.
“Pres Woodruff & Cannon Apostles B Young, F. M. Lyman H. J. Grant, & A H. Cannon also J. W Young, S. B Young & C W Penrose met in the office. I was also present. The question of taking down the Endowment House was submitted by Bro. Penrose. After consideration Elder B. Young moved that the Endowment House be taken down, but that the font with the drressing [sic] rooms be preserved for baptismal purposes. Secd & Card [seconded and carried].” (L. John Nuttall diary, 18 Oct., 1889)
“Some of the Twelve then voted with President Woodruff to have men employed to remove the Endowment House and erect a small building over the baptismal font.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 18 Oct., 1889)
“I informed Bp R T Burton & architect D. C. Young in regard to taking down the Endowment House and building up a neat building over the font for Baptismal purposes.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 22 Oct., 1889)
9 Nov.: Anderson case.
“THAT MYTHICAL OATH
Witnesses to be Called to Tell What It Is.
Today was again occupied by Judge Anderson in hearing applications for citizenship, and the following was admitted: L. Leonidas, Matthew Hudson, F. O. Webb, Henry Deiner, Frantz Kroll, David Jones, Jerman Holm, Gustaf D. Herber, R. Anderson, W. H. Andrews and Casper Pfeister. In the case of Deiner the witnesses had known him but a little over a year, and Mr. Moyle objected to his admission on the ground that the law required that residence in the United States for five years should be shown. The Judge, however, admitted him and Frantz Kroll, who was in the same position, two more ‘Liberal’ voters being thus added. After they had gone, however, the judge said he had some doubt about such a procedure, and would admit no more on the same terms.
When T. O. Webb applied, he was objected to by the ‘Liberal’ representatives because one of his witnesses was not a citizen, having only taken out his first papers. The court admitted him, and said he would look more closely into the issue raised, and act upon the results of his investigation on Monday.
Mr. Norris was refused admission because he thought he might aid in secreting a friend who might be accused of unlawful cohabitation, and because he would not be as willing to convict men accused of polygamy as those charged with other offenses–that is if it was a part of their religion.
Mr. Herber knew nothing of the Constitution or principles of government, but was not a ‘Mormon’ and was willing to obey the laws against polygamy. He was admitted.
When John Moore came he passed the examination satisfactorily and was about to be sworn, when Hurd and Lipman asked him if he had taken an oath in the Endowment House. He said he had not. They further urged that he had taken an oath against the government of the United States. Mr. Moore denied that he had, or that he had any memory of the government even being referred to.
Lipman–I know that they so take an oath, and I want somebody acquainted with those ceremonies–some of the leaders–subpoenaed to tell the court about them. It is the general rule there to take an oath against the government of the United States, but they won’t reveal it.
B. W. Driggs, Jr., said that Mr. Lipman’s statement was untrue. The applicant had testified that he never took such oath, and the court had not the right, upon the assertion of an officious and irresponsible person to compel the exposure of the secret rites of any organization.
Court–I know we cannot make persons divulge the secret rites of any society. But if any organization requires an oath against the Government, then we have the right to get at it. If Mr. Lipman’s statement is correct, then there are some who have left the Church who can tell it.
Lipman–It is a notorious fact such an oath is taken, but it is of such a terrible nature that not even an apostate dares to divulge it. I want some of these people who know, who are in this organization, to tell the court what that oath is.
Mr. Driggs again objected, unless the court would confine the inquiry to matters referring to the government. He thought it was a gross wrong to compel men to divulge secrets just to gratify the curiosity of unscrupulous enemies. If the matter was to be confined to any oath against the government, he would like the court to so express it.
Court–The issue will be confined to ascertaining whether there is required of those who go through the Endowment House an oath that is inconsistent with the duties of a citizen. Other secret rites or obligations shall not be interfered with. Congress has made special laws against this organization and its members, and if there is an oath that is incompatible with the duties of a citizen, that fact should be known.
Lipman wanted authority to subpoena witnesses who might not be willing to come upon his invitation, and the court granted the request.
Mr. Moore’s application was deferred till Thursday next, at 10 a.m., when the witnesses will be called to tell what they know on the subject introduced by Lipman.” (Deseret Evening News, 9 Nov., 1889; in JH 9 Nov., 1889)
“In the U. S. 3rd Dist Court today Judge Anderson presiding in the cases of admission to citizenship in the U. S. a brother John Moore having passed all questions & before being sworn a Mr Hurd & Mr Jos. Lipman asked him if he had taken an oath in the Endowment House against the government of the United States, to which he answered No. But these men insisted that such an oath is taken. Atty B. W. Driggs Jr said that Mr Lipman’s statement was untrue and objected to the Court considering the rites of any secret organization upon the assertion of an officious and irresponsible person. The Court ruled if any Organization requires an oath against the Government, we have the right to get at it. After further remarks. The court said The issue will be confined to ascertaining whether there is required of those who go through the Endowment House an Oath that is inconsistent with the duties of a citizen. Other sacred rites or obligations shall not be interfered with. Congress has made special laws against this organization and its members, and if there is an oath that is incompatible with the duties of a citizen, that fact should be Known. Mr Lipman was granted authority to subpoena witnesses to testify before the Court on Thursday next at 10. O.clock a.m. Bro C W Penrose called and stated he had been informed that Mr Lipman will furnish a list of names and several of the Authorities will be suppoenad. as witnesses as the enemy have made their prags of exposing all the Endowments before they get through with the investigation. As President Woodruff & Council are away and may return some time during next week, I deemed it proper to try & learn of their where abouts so that they may be apprised of this action. Whereupon I sent for Supt W. B. Dougall of the Deseret Telebraph Co. and I wrote out a telegram to Capt Willard Young at Portland Oregon asking him to arrange to see the brethren on their arrival and ask them to telegraph here where a letter can reach them. A similar telegram was sent to Mr Brown Paso “Agent C. P. R R. at Vancouver B. C. Also a telegram to Pres’ L. Snow at Brigham City asking him to come to the City.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 9 Nov., 1889)
11 Nov.: Anderson case.
“The matter of hearing applications for naturalization was up before Judge Anderson again today. One man who had been a ‘Mormon’ was admitted, and Fred. W. Miller was called. He passed the court’s examination all right, saying that he believed polygamy wrong, and that he would obey all the laws against it. To the ‘Liberal’ representative he said he had never been through the Endowment House, but was a ‘Mormon.’
Joseph Lipman then objected to Mr. Miller’s admission on the ground that he was a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church. He said that he expected to show that there was a ceremony of the Church, connected with the Endowment House, which required every member of the Church to take an oath that he would avenge, on the United States, the blood of Joseph Smith and all the other Saints that had been killed. He did not know how the avenging was to be done, whether by maiming or killing citizens, but he would show that such an oath was taken, and he thought that no member of the Church should be admitted to citizenship.
Mr. Moyle denied that any such oath was required; and, however that might be, this man had never been through the Endowment House.
The court said he would pass upon Mr. Miller’s application on Thursday, as it had been shown he was a member of the Church.
Mr. Moyle said it was plain that the course followed by Lipman and his associates was merely a political trick, and asked the court, if it refused to hear the applications of ‘Mormons’ for naturalization, that no distinction be made, and the business of admitting citizens be deferred till after the investigation on Thursday.
This request was refused by Judge Anderson.
Wm. J. Owen was another applicant. His parents were members of the ‘Mormon’ Church, and he was at one time, but he had never performed any of the duties of a member, and did not now consider himself one. He did not know that he had ever been excommunicated.
The ‘Liberals’ objected to him because of his membership, and he was ordered to wait.
Thus every ‘Mormon’ who came up was peremptorily ordered to stand aside, simply because of his membershi in the Church, while those who were brought in by the ‘Liberal’ whips were passed through in short order.
Finally one John Y. Phillips presented himself. He passed the court’s questions all right. To Mr. Moyle he stated that he had been married a few months. When asked whether he had been guilty of sustaining improper relations with persons of the other sex he looked surprised that such a thing should be considered anything unusual, and answered ‘Yes.’
Mr. Moyle objected to his admission, as by his own confession it was shown that he was guiolty of a crime and was not a man of good moral character.
This brought Hurd, Lipman and Laney to their feet. They were ‘righteously indignant’ that a man who had engaged in indiscriminate sexual relations should be referred to as not of good moral character and unfit for citizenship in this great government. They were very wrathful at the course taken, and were very emphatic in their denunciations. ‘Why,’ said Hurd, ‘there is not a man in a dozen who hasn’t done just the same as this man, only he has been more honest than most of them, and has admitted it. Besides all the Mormon applicants here are liars and have perjured themselves.’
Mr. Moyle–Mr. Hurd, it ill becomes you to judge the ‘Mormons’ by yourself or by your own methods. If any ‘Mormon’ has perjured himself you would prosecute him too quickly, and that he has not is proved by the fact that you dare not proceed against one of those whom you have unjustly accused.
F. Ferguson, the deputy clerk, remarked that Phillips did not belong to a people who organized themselves to commit a crime.
Mr. Moyle–No, but to the nine-hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand who are not only guilty but think it is all right to be.
There was some further discussion of a like nature, which Judge Anderson cut short by saying he had given no thought to the ground of objection, but would take it under advisement and pass upon it next Thursday.” (Deseret Evening News, 11 Nov., 1889; in JH 11 Nov., 1889)
“On the statement of Joseph Lipman, a Tribune reporter, that he expected to prove on Thursday next that an oath against the government was taken by every member of the Church who passed through the Endowment House, Judge Anderson refused to naturalize any ‘Mormon’ until after the investigation. Yet he admitted men to citizenship who admitted their intercourse with other women than their wives–self-acknowledged law breakers.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 11 Nov., 1889)
12 Nov.: Anderson case.
“At 4 p.m. the Apostles who could be found at the Gardo House or in the city were called together. There were present Lorenzo Snow, Moses Thatcher, J. H. Smith, H. J. Grant and myself. We listened to statements from James H. Moyle and C. W. Penrose concerning the efforts that will be made on Thursday to show that oaths have been taken against the government by those who passed through the endowment house and therefore that ‘Mormonism’ is in hostility to the Constitution and ‘Mormons’ should not be admitted to citizenship. It was decided to rebut any testimony the opposite side might give by the statements of a number of polygamists and monogamists from among our people among whom were J. H. Smith, M. W. Merrill, A. H. Lund, A. H. Raleigh, H. M. Wells, W. W. Riter, John Clark, John E. Carlisle and others.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 12 Nov., 1889)
“At 4 p.m. Pres L. Snow, & Apostles M. Thatcher, John Henry Smith, H J. Grant & A. H Cannon, also Bros C. W Penrose James H Moyle & myself met at the Gardo House office The question before the U. S. 3rd Dist. Court on Naturalization and the supposed Oaths made in the Endowment House & was presented by Bro. Moyle for consideration, that whatever steps, if any needed, may be taken so as to be ready for the Court on Thursday at 10. a.m. It was deemed proper for some of our brethren to be present in Court on Thursday whether they are subpoened by our enemies or not, and give testimony that no such oath is required of any Latter-day Saints against the Government of the United States in the Endowment House or elsewhere. That this is an opportune time for the Church to declare itself against these foul untruths so often repeated. It was agreed to have a number of brethren invited to meet tomorrow evening at 730 o.clock at the Gardo House office. Telegrams were sent to Bros. A. H. Lund at Manti & to Bros M. W. Merrill & A. D. Thatcher at Logan to be present at the Meeting.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 12 Nov., 1889)
13 Nov.: Anderson case.
“LIBERAL ‘MORALITY.’
There could be nothing more demonstrative of the hypocritical pretense of the preservation of public morality in the assaults made upon the ‘Mormons,’ legally and politically, than the developments of ‘Liberal’ impurity of principle and character during this municipal campaign.
Aliens in all respects qualified for citizenship have been prevented from naturalization, solely because of their belief that plural marriage is religiously right though legally wrong. Others have been obstructed because, though entirely repudiating polygamy in belief and practice, they belong to the ‘Mormon’ Church. At the same time, men whose lives are openly immoral have been admitted, and a judicial decision is now reached that fornication is of itself no barrier to admission and no evidence that a man who has committed it is not of good moral character!
It has been proclaimed by ‘Liberal’ representatives, in open court, that none hundred and ninety-nine men out of a thousand have committed sexual sins, which are crimes under the same law that provides penalties for polygamy. These offences are ‘Liberal’ every day affairs. It has been admitted by our opponents, official and otherwise, that they are not usual with the ‘Mormons.’ Attorneys in court who object to a man’s naturalization because he is a ‘Mormon,’ are highly indignant that any objection should be made to a ‘Liberal’ because he is an adulterer or fornicator!
And now Judge Anderson rules that one or several acts of this character do not make a man immoral, if secret, but only when he is continuously and habitually lewd. And yet the Edmunds-Tucker Act provides a penalty for a single act of this kind, and the law was supposed to have been passed in the interest of general morality and to take away the odium of the appearance that its penalties were only enacted against the ‘Mormons.’
God preserve us against the morality of the ‘Liberal’ party, which sustains prostitution in Ogden and champions fornication in Salt Lake. And let the country judge of the moral intentions and spirit and actions of the thrice condemned hypocrites, who pretend to oppose ‘Mormon’ plural marriage on the ground of its immorality!” (Deseret Evening News, 13 Nov., 1889; in JH 13 Nov., 1889)
“The Ruling by Judge Anderson To-day.
More citizens were admitted to-day, but none of those who stated that they were ‘Mormons’ passed, though they were closely pinched in the mill which has been instituted to ascertain the status of every applicant on the question of polygamy. Judge Anderson presided at the proceedings, having returned from Ogden.
Edward Peterson came first. He was not a ‘Mormon’–he became a citizen.
Edward Van Ruty was not a ‘Mormon,’ but he had attended a ‘Mormon’ meeting, and had also been to Sunday school a few times. The ‘Liberal’ representatives attended to him, and he replied that he had been prompted as to the proper way of replying to questions. Mr. Moyle suggested to the court that it was not an offense to be prompted–that was the only way of gaining information. The court ruled that it was all right for a man to be prompted on proper subjects, such as appeared to be the case in this instance, and Mr. Van Ruty was admitted.
Charles W. Choules had not been a ‘Mormon’ for ten years, and Soren Johnson did not belong to that class; so they were passed.
In the case of Thomas M. Mumford, Lipman asked the court if he had ruled upon the question as to whether it would be proper to inquire of an applicant if he had committed fornication.
The court said he didn’t think it hardly proper to go into that, unless it was followed openly and notoriously. There was a difference between a single act and a continuous violation of the law, as a matter of right, or as a principle of belief.
John Garbett was closely questioned by the judge as to his relitious belief, after he had stated that he was a ‘Mormon.’ Mr. Garbett said he had never been taught to obey the Priesthood implicitly. If he was advised to do that which he though was right he would follow the advice; if he did not, he would not.
Judge Anderson ordered Mr. Garbett to stand aside, as he was a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church, and his case was taken under advisement till tomorrow.
Arthur Townsend, also a ‘Mormon,’ was treated similarly.
In this case the judge remarked: If a man knows enough to obey the laws, he knows more than many better educated men, and will make a good citizen. His case will be continued till tomorrow solely on the objection of his membership in the ‘Mormon’ Church. I will say in regard to the practice of fornication, as to that or any other offense, whether it makes him a man of bad moral character depends on the circumstances. If it was a single act it will not exclude him. But if he habitually commits fornication, whether openly or secretly, he is not a man of good moral character. If he is an habitual drunkard, or habitually violates any other law, he is a man of bad moral character. In regard to polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, there is an organized effort to establish them as a social condition. But those are not the only crimes that will exclude a man from citizenship–habitual gambling for instance, but occasional acts will not be sufficient to exclude a man. A single immoral act, or even several will not be grounds to reject an application for naturalization.” (Deseret Evening News, 13 Nov., 1889; in JH 13 Nov., 1889)
“At 7.30, after supper at Sarah’s, I went to the Gardo House where some of the apostles and other brethren counseled as to the best course to pursue in regard to the case which tomorrow comes before Judge Anderson, wherein the ‘Liberals’ try to prove that all ‘Mormons’ take oaths against the government when they pass through the Endowment House. As witnesses to disprove this assertion were selected, J. H. Smith, M. W. Merrill, A. H. Lund, John Clark, Jas. H. Anderson, Aaron Thatcher and perhaps one or two more. All were present and received some instructions in regard to their testimony, no advice being given, however, for them to deceive or tell any untruths.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 13 Nov., 1889)
“At 7.30 p.m. Pres L. Snow, Apostles M Thatcher, John Henry Smith, H. J. Grant, John W. Taylor, M. W. Merrill A. H Lund & A. H. Cannon also Bros. Aaron D. Thatcher, E. G. Woolley, John Clark, John E. Carlisle, Richd W. Young James H. Moyle, LeGrand Young, Jas. H. Anderson, W. W. Riter, Frank Jennings, C. W. Penrose, & myself met at the G. H. office. Pres. L. Snow stated the object of the meeting, & referred to the rulings of Judge Anderson on the Naturalization of Citizens, his objections to Mormons and the efforts to bring before the Court the Endowment House ceremonies. He requested Bro Moyle to lay before the Meeting anything further that should be said. He also referred to the meeting held last night. Bro Moyle referred to the rulings of the Court & what he thought would be required of the witnesses before the Court. He suggested that some of the brethren who may be called upon might be asked some questions so that some idea may be had as to what can be answered. This was approved. Bro. Moyle asked several questions of Bros John H. Smith, A. H. Lund & M. W. Merrill also of Bro. A. D. Thatcher, John Clark W. W. Riter, E. G. Woolley, Frank Jennings & Jas. H. Anderson which was quite satisfactory. It was decided that the following brethren attend the Court to-morrow and if wanted that they testify. Viz. John H. Smith, M. W. Merrill, A. H. Lund, A. D. Thatcher, John Clark, E. G. Woolley, & J. H. Anderson Bro. C. W. Penrose said the Central Committee had suggested that 1 or 2 outside lawyers be employed to assist our laywers in this business Bro LeGrand young did not think it to be necessary to employ any outside lawyers. No action taken.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 13 Nov., 1889)
13 Nov.: Adopted to Joseph Smith.
“In the afternoon, after the Endowments were given, My wife and I were adopted to the Prophet Joseph Smith; Elder David Cannon officiating, and Elder John Liman Smith and sister Winsor acting for the Profhet and his wife.” (Levi Savage diary, 13 Nov., 1889; LC Collection)
14 Nov.: Anderson “Endowment House” case.
“‘MORMONS’ AND CITIZENSHIP.
Thursday, November 14th, Judge Anderson called up the application of John Moore, for naturalization, which had been objected to because he had been through the Endowment House, it being alleged that all who received the Endowment ceremony took an oath that is incompatible with the duties of a citizen.
The large Federal court room was filled with a multitude, mostly non-‘Mormons,’ eager to hear the anticipated exposure of the Endowment ceremonies. Baskin and Dickson had seats in front, alongside of Lipman, and it was seen that they were the chosen ones to lead in the desperate assault on the ‘Mormon’ Church. For Mr. Moore, the applicant, Messrs. LeGrand Young, J. H. Moyle and R. W. Young appeared. Among the interested listeners were Apostle J. H. Smith, M. W. Merrill and A. H. Lund. During the proceedings, whenever any of the witnesses made a particularly pointed assertion against the Church, a loud guffaw would arise from the throats of the non-‘Mormons’ both within and outside of the railing.
R. N. Baskin announced that Wm. H. Dickson and himself had been engaged to appear on behalf of the ‘Liberals,’ or those objecting to the naturalization of ‘Mormons.’
Mr. Dickson said they were ready to go on, but might not be completed today, as some of the witnesses had not yet been reached.
Court–This investigation is rather a novel one, and a reasonable time will be given; but it must not be delayed too long.
John Bond was the first witness: He testified–I have been a ‘Mormon;’ left the church in 1869; have been through the Endowment House; this was January 25, 1886 [sic–should be 1868]; I took an oath or obligation there; they gave a grip of the hand (described by the witness) which was a token of the Aaronic Priesthood.
Mr. Moyle–The court said this examination should be confined to an oath against the government.
Court–Anything that does not tend to establish that will be irrelevant. I understand the counsel here is ignorant of the modus oberandi of initiating members into the Church, and must let the witness state what was done, and the court will determine if there is anything that is incompatible with citizenship. If it is shown that anything is immaterial we will not allow it.
Mr. Moyle–We have no objection to the obligation referred to, but we do object to any obligation that does not relate to the government.
R. W. Young objected to any ceremony or obligation but that alleged to be in relation to the government.
Mr. Dickson said there were several obligations that were antagonistic to the government.
Court–Let the witness state what transpired, but not unnecessarily expose the procedure, except in regard to this oath.
LeGrand Young inquired whether all the minutia of the Endowment ceremony was to be testified to. This man, Moore, was accused of taking an oath against the government, and the court had stated that the inquiry would be confined to the alleged oath.
Court–Let the witness state what transpired.
The witness Bond testified–I went through several rooms; in room 5 I took what I call an obligation, named the Aaronic Priesthood, which confined me to obey every doctrine of the Church, especially against the government of the United States. The penalty was that I was to have my throat cut and my tongue torn out. Then I was required to take an oath that I would avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, and teach my children and my children’s children to the latest generation. The penalty was to have my heart and bowels torn out. Another obligation was to obey the Priesthood in all things. Wilford Woodruff put me through this ceremony and married me. I was sorry I took the oath, and resigned from the Church the next year. I did not want to go through, but I had asked Harrison Sperry to marry me.
Mr. Moyle objected to this as immaterial. Objection overruled.
Bond continued–Sperryi sent me to the Bishop, who said he could not marry me, but would give me a recommend to the Endowment House, which I took.
Mr. Moyle asked the court whether it would confine the evidence to that which was legal.
Court–The witness may proceed.
Mr. Moyle–The reason for Bond’s action has no relation to Mr. Moore. This proceeding is without warrant of law.
Court–I think if the applicant has taken an obligation that is incompatible with citizenship, he cannot be admitted. He swore that he did not take such an oath.
Mr. Moyle–Will this man state the oath that Moore took?
Mr. Dickson–No, he will not.
Court–If it is not shown that Moore took it, it will not affect him.
Mr. Baskin–Moore has admitted that he is a member of the ‘Mormon’ church. We will show that any man who belongs to the ‘Mormon’ church should not have citizenship extended to him. We expect to convince this court that no man who belongs to that organization has any right to citizenship. We may not bring the oath home to Mr. Moore. We propose to show what the Endowment ceremonies are.
Court–This investigation may be attended with important consequences. If it is shown that it is a necessary part of a ‘Mormon’ to take this oath, it should be known. It depends whether membership in that Church is inconsistent with citizenship. It is claimed that this can be shown.
The witness Bond continued–There were about 50 other persons there who went through the same ceremony there were two polygamists; my wife was asked if she would allow her husband to take more wives than one; a vote was taken and all responded ‘aye;’ we took obligations not to divulge these ceremonies, and penalties were attached which I do not remember.
LeGrande Young–[Looks like something is out of order here–a question by LeGrande Young probably was omitted from the report.] I am 45; went through in 1868; when the obligation in regard to polygamy was taken, male and females were in the same room; when the obligations or oaths were taken we were all together; some of the time the men were separated; I took the obligation about avenging the blood of the Prophets.
Mr. Young–You are an exceedingly willing witness.
Bond–I am a conscientious witness.
Mr. Young–I always find men who are not conscientious making such declarations. We only want you to tell the truth.
Witness Bond–I lived at Hennefer at the time; I could not get married without. I tried to get away from the Territory last year, because of what I have been through. I took an obligation to avenge the blood of the Prophets on the United States. I took the obligation to go into polygamy. I denounced the whole thing the following year. The obligations were apart from the Endowment ceremony. I always did as I was told in the Church.
Martin D. Wardell, who was very deaf, testified–I live over the Sixth Ward bridge; am a contractor; am 67; was born in England and came to Pennsylvania in 1848; joined the Mormons in 1847; came to Utah in 1862; in my business I superintended carpenter work for the Church six years; in 1863 or 1864 I went through the Endowment House; I went through a second time about a year later; I took an oath that we would avenge the blood of Joseph Smith on this nation, from the President down; they put the lock on to us with an oath that if we revealed any of the secrets we would have our throats cut and our bowels torn out; we were asked to take an oath to obey the Church in all matters, but I backed out; I saw the death penalty inflicted on a man named Green, in 1862, about twenty miles west of Green River; W. H. Dame was captain of the train.
LeGrand Young–If this man knows of a crime he should be called before the grand jury.
Court–He may go before the grand jury, but he can tell it here.
LeGrand Young–It has nothing to do with Mr. Moore, if Wardell helped to commit a murder.
Witness continuing–Billy Williams, now dead, and Mark Surridge were there. Joseph Follett, of Cottonwood, saw the trouble; so did Dave McBride, of Iron County, and Blackburn, John W. Young, of Iron County; George Snyder, now dead, and others; my son George was there; he now lives at Peoa, Summit County; Green, the man killed, had two wagons, with three yoke of cattle to each; a Gentile was with Green; the latter was killed about 9 in the evening; when we got to the place Captain Dame led me outside of the train; I saw eleven men, in buckskin clothes, whom he called mountaineers, and told me to warn people not to go outside of camp; at night Green was called by three men; he would not come, and they dragged him out; one caught him by the hair and another cut his throat; they got $5000 from him; some of us began to object, and John W. Young said if we did not shut up, we would be served the same; next day Dame said Green had apostatized once, and now he had apostatized and gone to hell; my son and the Gentile took Green’s outfit to the Tithing yard. It was John W. Young, of Iron County, cousin to John W. Young of this city. It was not Joseph W. Young, the emigration agent.
LeGrand Young–We move that this be stricken out, as having no connection with the endowment ceremony. This highway robbery and murder, one of the worst stories I ever heard of, is rung in here to prejudice the application of a man who had not the remotest connection with it. No man pretends to justify this crime. If this man is honest, why has he not told it to the grand jury?
Mr. Dickson–We wish to show that the penalty of the Endowment House was enforced. We think we have done it. Dame’s remarks meant that the man had gone back on his covenants. The penalty was to have his throat cut, and it was cut. There was a time when it was not safe for a man to tell this to a grand jury.
Baskin (to witness)–Was there anything said about apostasy?
Wardell–Yes, an apostate was to have his throat cut.
Court–Let the objection to strike out be overruled. The testimony will be admitted.
Witness, to Mr. Young–I went through the Endowment House; the names of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and all of the martyrs were mentioned; so was the government of the United States. The murder I have told of was before I went through the Endowment House. The three men who took Green out of the wagon were seen by the others I have mentioned; one of the three was Bill Hickman; John R. Young was not there; there were more than ten of us present when the three men took him, and we did not try to save him. Green had a wife and two or three children. He lived near Farmington; he told me he had had $5000; I saw the men take the money; I made no protest; we had no idea that the men were Danites, but they were. Bill Hickman was the captain; he afterwards told me he was there. I left the Church about five years after the killing. W. H. Dame lives south somewhere; he is the man who was with John D. Lee. I don’t know whether or not Green had had his endowments; he told me men were spying about him, and he was timid about getting to Salt Lake; he did not say he was afraid of any penalty. We had traveled together from Wood River; there were about 70 wagons altogether. The three men took Green’s body away with them. There was another man present, but I do not remember his name; he kept a green grocer store on First South Street; it was not Billy Gilbert, or Chadd, or Davis; it was Sanders. Several persons protested against the Murder. These were Billy Williams, Follett, Surridge, Sanders and myself. Surridge afterwards apostatized. Joseph Follett is now living near the mouth of Cottonwood.
LeGrand Young renewed his motion to strike out, because it was shown that the murder had no connection with the Church.
The court overruled the motion, and said there might be a fair inference that the murder grew out of the fact that Green had been a member of the Church and had apostatized.
Mr. Moyle–It is not shown that any of these men who committed the crime were of the traveling company, or connected with the Church.
R. W. Young remarked that Mr. Moore would like to get through in time to vote at the next election.
Baskin, sneeringly–It would be a great pity if a member of that organization should not be allowed to vote.
Court–If this man has taken such an obligation he should not be in a hurry.
Andrew Cahoon testified: I came to Utah in 1848; Joined the church in 1833, in Kirtland; was a member till 1871; I was a Bishop 18 years; was one when I left the Church; I received my Endowments 44 years ago, and am familiar with the ceremony so far as my memory goes; never officiated; got my endowments in 1845 or 1846; I took obligations there–everyone has to; there are oaths administered there; they relate to obeying the Priesthood, and to avenge the blood of the Prophets; this was understood to mean Joseph and Hyrum; the blood was to be avenged on any who were guilty of shedding the blood, or consented to it; there was also a covenant to yield implicit obedience, at all times, to the Priesthood; the penalty was death for revealing any of the secrets; I did not understand how the penalty was to be inflicted; the understanding was that if a man apostatized and divulged the secrets he should meet the death penalty; there was something about the throat being cut, and being disemboweled; the right hand was also forfeited; one of the penalties was for disobedience to the Priesthood. The highest allegiance was to the Mormon Church or the Kingdom of God. There was nothing said of obedience to the law of the government. They were instructed that polygamy was a command of God–that all must endorse it or be damned; it was not practiced. There is no age set for a person to go through the Endowments. It was expected that all members would avail themselves of the privilege of going through. A man cannot be legally married except there, as the Church does not recognize any other marriage. A civil or legal marriage is considered good as long as parties live. They regard it as legal in the eyes of the law, but not legal as pertaining to the Priesthood. This is taught in the Endowment ceremony.
To Mr. Young–In the obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophets, the idea conveyed was the blood of all the Prophets and especially of Joseph and Hyrum, and all connected with their death or who consented to it. There was an instruction of allegiance to the Church. There was no instruction to break the laws of the land, but we were to obey the Priesthood. We were not taught to be immoral, we were taught to be good men, and not to break any law of morality; only the doctrines of the Church were considered highest. I considered the general teaching of the Church was in hostility to the law of the land, wherein it advised obedience to the Priesthood. I know instances but cannot name one. I never heard it taught directly that we were to take from our foes. I never taught it, because I did not believe it; some did, but I cannot name who, except Lyman Wight, at Adam-Ondi-Ahman. I did not see it, but I did the results. Lyman Wight apostatized more than forty years ago. The doctrine of taking from our enemies was not taught publicly. The Cahoon family were not trusted with secrets. I was told it would be no harm to put a man out of the way. I don’t know that any man was put out of the way. I don’t remember any man who was referred to. It was some man who had been in some mischief. Never heard he was put out of the way. I was not connected with any of the work, and don’t know a man that was put out of the way. I knew indirectly that men were put out of the way, but it is out of my power to name one. Almon W. Babbitt was killed; I don’t know who did it, or who ordered it. I don’t know that it was ordered. But he was killed, and it was reported that it was done by Indians. I don’t know but what Bill Hickman done the job. Indians may have killed him. I was never advised to break the law of the land, but that was implied in the teaching to obey the Priesthood. It was understood that we should obey the Priesthood. I never taught any one to disobey the law of the land, and was never asked to disobey it myself, or to tell anyone to disobey it; that is a part of the instruction in the Endowment. The Mormons regard a civil marriage as unauthorized. They do not say the offspring are illegitimate. They regard marriages outside of the authority of the Priesthood as of no force in eternity. They taught a legal marriage, under the law of the land, did not go into the other world. They married for time and eternity. They regarded the marriage ceremony of the world as good while the parties lived.
To Mr. Baskin–If a man not married by the Priesthood died, he would have no wife in the next world.
To Mr. Young–Joseph Smith and the leaders of the Mormons professed loyalty, but taught that the Government would be overthrown, and the Kingdom of God would be established. They taught that the Constitution was inspired, but it would be bettered by the Priesthood; that time has been put off from time to time. In the Endowment House they were careful not to mention the Government of the United States.
To Mr. Baskin–It was taught that the kingdom of God would be established, and all other governments would be overthrown, and the United States would be the first.
To Mr. Young–I did not enter into any covenant to overthrow the government, but to sustain the kingdom of God against all others. It was understood that we had to establish the kingdom of God against all other powers. No government was mentioned but it was implied, when we said we would sustain the kingdom, that we would go any way to sustain the kingdom of God. This was to be accomplished by every means, persuasion and force, if necessary. That was the teaching, but I do not remember what was said, I can’t remember the ceremony, but it was that we would sustain the kingdom against all other powers. The government of the United States was not mentioned. They were careful not to do so; they did not need to.
To Mr. Baskin–When I was Bishop, I was taught generally that I had to endorse or embrace polygamy or be damned; don’t know of a case of a man being found with his throat cut; I heard that Ike Potter was so found.
Mr. Moyle–I protest against such proceedings in the name of justice, because I know it is wrong.
The court said it should be known if there was an implied feeling of hostility to the government. If this was one of the penalties inflicted for revealing the secrets of the Endowment House, I think these instances can be shown. If it can be established that members took an oath of hostility to the government, and these penalties were executed, the nature of the ceremonies should be known.
Mr. Moyle–Does the court mean to say that every murder committed in this Territory is to be charged against the Church?
Court–If they can show instances of where this penalty is enforced, that is proper.
Mr. Baskin–I propose to specify cases that the witness could not tell Mr. Young of.
Mr. Moyle–These witnesses are full of hostility to the Church in every way, and their understanding is not proper. We don’t object to the truth, but we do to those hostile ideas.
Court–Let the witness answer.
Witness–I heard of Ike Potter’s death.
Mr. Baskin–Have you ever heard of any others who had their throats cut?
Objected to, as hearsay was not evidence. If the witness knew of anything thay have no objection. Objection overruled.
Mr. Baskin–We have proven that oaths are taken under penalties of death. If we can show that there have been crimes committed in this Territory, that should have a bearing on this matter, and connects them with the Church.
Court–That might be an inference.
Mr. Baskin–We can prove these penalties have been inflicted by Elders and members of the Church, and Potter’s case is one.
Court–If a man enters into such an obligation, that is sufficient.
Witness–I don’t know anything about Nigger Tom’s assassination. It was understood that it was right for a man who had violated any of his oaths; a man would be saved if the penalty was inflicted. That doctrine has been taught in public. I don’t remember the wording of these oaths. After being in the Church forty years, I came to the conclusion that a man could not be a good citizen and a faithful member of the Church.
To Mr. Young–Potter was a noted outlaw; I don’t know that he ever was a Mormon; he was in custody when Killed; as to Nigger Tom, he never went through the Endowment House; I never was a Freemason; I paid the initiation fee, but backed out; I heard a man who was a Freemason say the Endowment ceremony was very similar to that of the Masons; the penalties of the Endowment were to be literal; the Kingdom of God was to be a literal affair.
To Mr. Young–I know of men who have apostatized. It took some courage years ago to do it. Now most of the apostates are in the Church. I knew a man named Mills.
At this point recess was taken until 2 p.m.
—–
This afternoon James McGuffie was the first witness called. He testified–I live at 425 east Seventh South Street; have been in Salt Lake 15 years; lived in Parowan six months before then; came to Utah in 1850, and went to Iron County; with George A. Smith and others established Parowan Jan. 13, 1851, and remained till 1874; Parowan is near the scene of the Mountain Meadow massacre; the Bishop would not let those people pass through the town, and would not let us deal with them.
Mr. Moyle objected to this testimony.
Judge Anderson–Let it go in; he may answer the questions.
McGuffie, continuing–The emigrants had to go outside of the town. Col. W. H. Dame and Bishop Lewis would not let them come it. I joined the Church in April, 1840, in Liverpool; went through the Endowment House Nov. 10, 1856; Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Samuel W. Richards were there; I went through only once; that was enough for me. There was a party of ten to fourteen came up from Parowan; after our washings and anointings we presented our tithing receipts. They then required us to take an oath, and to teach our children and our children’s children to do all we could to uproot the American government, because they had not punished the murderers of Joseph Smith. We took an oath that we would obey the Priesthood in all things; we were citizens of the Kingdom of God, and were to be enemies of the government of the United States, because they did not avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum. The penalties were to have our throats cut, and our hearts and bowels torn out. The penalty was death. That was told to us, and we believe it would be done. I was acquainted with Porter Rockwell, Bill Hickman and Lot Huntington. They were the leaders of three gangs of murderers, the blood atoners, the Danites and the avenging angels. They executed the commands of Brigham Young, who was god on earth. I knew John D. Lee, W. H. Dame and others. John D. Lee was a member of the legislature, and married two wives after the Mountain Meadow massacre. He was on good terms with Brigham Young. Isaac Haight was with Lee in 1857. There were no other penalties except as I have mentioned, and these were for disobedience to the Priesthood and revealing the secrets of the Endowment House. Wm. Laney entertained one of the members of the company killed at the Mountain Meadows. The young man asked for some onions, and Laney gave them to him. Dame sent Barney Carter, a destroying angel, and he hit Laney with a picket, and he has never been of sound mind since.
To Mr. Moyle–I was not present when the young man was at Laney’s, but Laney told me, that’s all I know about it; in the Endowment House I covenanted that I would have my throat cut and my bowels cut out if I rebelled against the Priesthood or revealed the secrets there; that was if I broke the covenants to do all I could to break up the government of the United States. This was not said to mer personally, but it was in instructions given to us; it was ‘Do as you are told and ask no questions.’ One thing is a law one day and another another day. The authorities make the law. I’ve as good a head as any man in this country. John D. Lee told me he was only a tool, and he said he had been made a scapegoat. The people all turned against him, and he was treated as an outcast by all the brethren and sisters in Parowan, except me and my wife. We were his only friends after the Mountain Meadows affair. All the other people shunned him. Fifteen years ago I was at Edward Callister’s house. I don’t remember telling these things there. My wife did not tell me that I was lying. I call that a slander on my character. I did not confess that I lied. The Mormon people respect me, and I have no enmity toward them. I believe the heads of the Church are the greatest scoundrels that ever lived. I don’t feel vindictive to anyone but Angus M. Cannon. I don’t hate the heads of the Church. I am friendly to them; they never injured me. I have no malice towards them. I think they are under a great delusion and I pity them. I have friendly feelings toward them, but if I wanted a favor I would not go to them. I regard them as scoundrels. I know there were three bands of murderers, because it was in everybody’s mouth. I only know what I was told about it. Everybody knew it just as I do. I know as much as anybody, by report. They were all Saints in those days. There were no sinners then. Brigham was god on earth. Heber said he was god to this people as Moses was god to Isarel. He was my god. He was every Saint’s god. That was the doctrine of the Church, and I preached it. All the leading Elders of the Church preached it. They’re all dead but me and Woodruff. I don’t know any man living but myself who preached this. Barney Carter was Dame’s destroying angel, because he sent him after me. Barney afterwards told me that he was appinted to murder. He got tired of ‘Mormonism,’ and went to San Bernardino. He is living there now.
To Mr. Dickson–I have no animosity to any but Angus M. Cannon, because he owes me $100 for wheat. I know the leaders of the Church led me astray. It was in 1868 and 1859 [1869?] when none of the people would fellowship John D. Lee. Bishop Dame treated Lee and Haight as outcasts. Dame was not there at the time of the massacre, but came next day, and when he saw the dead bodies he cried like a child. He said he would send word to Brigham Young. I was not there but somebody told me. My wife is living, and went through the Endowment House with me. She is not a member of the Church.
Andrew Cahoon was recalled and testified–I was a Bishop at the time I withdrew from the Church. I have never heard of any change in the Endowment House oath.
Court–What was the tendency of the teachings in the Endowment House toward promoting a friendly feeling for the government?
Cahoon–It was to alienate the people.
Court–Did it alienate them?
Cahoon–It did.
Court–What was the expression of feeling–was it unfriendly?
Cahoon–It was very unfriendly.
To Baskin–The teachings of the leaders of the Church brought about the Utah rebellion.
To R. W. Young–I got my endowments in 1845 or 1846, shortly after the death of Joseph and Hyrum. The people believed the governor of Illinois was responsible. Mobs came against the people. In Missouri the ‘Mormons’ tried to vote, and they were driven out with considerable hardship and loss of property and life. I got my endowments after that. I think the unfriendly feeling was not altogether the result of this treatment. The leaders taught the people to sustain the Kingtom of God on earth. The head of the Church was the king. I did not understand that the Savior was the king. Brigham Young proclaimed himself king to the pioneers. I did not hear him, for I was not in Utah. I am acquainted with the Lord’s prayer. It asks that the Kingdom of God should come. I regard that as a spiritual affair, not temporal. Some Christians believe the Savior will come to earth as King. I regard it as treasonable to pray for the overthrow of the government. I have heard the leaders of the Church do this. It is so common that every child knows it. I heard Wilford Woodruff do it; it is very comon for him to do that.
To Mr. Dickson–I was not present at the dedication of the Manti Temple.
To Mr. Baskin–I have heard the children sing a song in which they designate Brigham as Prophet, Priest and King.
James Spillett testified–I live at Cottonwood. I am registration officer and have been postmaster; came to Utah in 1853; joined the Church in 1851, in England; left the Church 20 years ago. I went through the Endowment House 23 or 24 years ago; 25 to 40 went through the same day. We took an oath that day. It was administered by Edward Stevenson. There was an oath regarding the avenging of the blood of the Prophets and Apostles on this nation, and to teach it to our children to the third and fourth generation. We took an oath of obedience to the Priesthood in all things. There was a penalty attached to each oath, such as suffering our throats to be cut or we would be disemboweled before we would divulge any of the secrets of the Endowment House. Polygamy was taught there, and we made a covenant to sustain all the principles, which of course include that.
To the Court–No oath is administered to any member of the Church before going to the Endowment House. Of course there is the covenant of baptism. It is expected that every member of the Church in good standing will go through the Endowment House to secure his family in the hereafter.
Charles Gilmor, known as the ‘North Point Terror,’ testified–I came to Utah in 1866; joined the Church in 1868, and left it early in the ’70’s; I went through the Endowment House.
Mr. Moyle–Does the Court say the entire proceedings of the Endowment House shall be asked for here?
Court–If it is necessary to determine whether there is anything incompatible with citizenship.
Gilmore–I have suffered great persecution, and if I tell that, my life will be in danger. I ask that you will excuse me.
Mr. Moyle–This is an outrage. This man has been put on here for effect. He has tried this same plan before, that he is afraid to testify, and its all a sham, a humbug. I say it is an outrage to put such a witness on here, just to effect an injustice.
Court–Do you fear you will be injured?
Gilmore–The obligation is such that it would seal my doom if I was to utter one word.
Court–The United States government is able to protect you. I think there is no danger, but if you really are afraid I will not compel you.
Mr. Baskin–I have known this witness a long time, and I would take his word for truth and veracity as quick as any man’s. A man is not bound by such an oath as this man is being asked about, and it is his highest obligation to come out and expose it. The good of society and his duty to his country call on him to divulge those secrets.
R. W. Young–Myself and my friend, Mr. Moyle, will unite to insure his life for $10,000 if he is scared.
Mr. Baskin–I could never belong to such in iniquity.
LeGrand Young–It is altogether too righteous for you.
The Court asked Gilmor if he was afraid to testify.
Gilmor–It is for my wife and little ones; for myself I have no fear.
Court–We would like to have the testimony.
Gilmor–We went through a tedious ceremony, and then went into another room and put on a robe. We took an oath to yield unquestioning and unqualified obedience to the Priesthood, and to use every means to avenge the blood of the martyrs on the American nation. I raised my left hand. There was the question, ‘Are there any traitors here?’ A reply came from overhead, ‘They are all faithful.’ An arm was pushed through a door, the hand holding a sword. The penalty was dissection of the body. Nothing was said about polygamy, but that was a doctrine of the Church, and of course it was included.
James H. Moyle was called as a witness. He said he placed himself under no obligations, for he considered the proceedings unwarranted. He testified–I receive my endowments two years ago this month. I took no oath whatever there. I know Gilmore as the ‘North Point Terror;’ he is always in trouble, and charges the Church with it. His trouble is with his neighbors, both ‘Mormon’ and non-‘Mormon.’ I never heard him refuse before to testify. I did hear him claim to a jury that the ‘Mormon’ Church were after him. I have made no mistake. He went through the same farce as he has done here. He claimed that he was in danger of his life if he testified. I was through the Endowment House first about twelve years ago. I took no obligation of obedience to the Priesthood.
Mr. Dickson–Was there any penalty for violating your covenants?
Mr. Moyle–I decline to answer. There was no covenant except for chastity, honor and good conduct. There was no reference whatever to the government. That is my explanation to the court for not answering.
To Mr. Dickson–There was nothing said regarding Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The passage of Scripture, in Revelations, regarding the blood of the Prophets, was read in an address, and we were instructed to pray that God would avenge the blood of his martyred Prophets.
Mr. Dickson–Was the penalty of death to be inflicted?
Mr. Moyle–I decline to answer.
Mr. Baskin–Was there anything about cutting the throat or being disemboweled?
Mr. Moyle–Will you specify any oath? If not, I decline to answer. I will say to the court that this instruction which I have named has nothing whatever to do with the government. It has no reference to it whatever.
Mr. Dickson said there were a number of witnesses whom they had not a chance to confer with, and suggested an adjournment till 9 a.m., and he believed they could finish within an hour.
Mr. Baskin–There is one witness, Joseph Silver, that we can examine.
Joseph Silver testified–I have lived in Utah since 1862; was a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church five or six years after then; was baptized in 1848; was ordained to the Melchisedec Priesthood, and have been an Elder and a Seventy; went through the Endowment House in 1863; there were oaths administered there. One that made a lasting impression was one about avenging the blood of the Prophets on their enemies; am not certain the nation was referred to. I was to teach it to my children; was also to obey the Priesthood in all things. If I failed I should be disemboweled, the heart cut out, the throat cut, and so on. Dr. Sprague officiated there. I held my right hand to the square and took the oath of obedience to the Priesthood in all things, and the penalty for breaking this was, as I have said, assassination. I was called upon to promise in the presence of God and angels to keep this covenant. The Endowment garments have marks on. (Baskin called them ‘clouts.’) These marks signified the same as the penalties as regards the heart and bowels. There is one on the knees, but I don’t remember what it means.
Mr. Moyle made another objection to the unseemly proceeding of exposing any of the sacred rights of an organization simply because that organization was unpopular. The courts had ruled that they should be protected when they were not unlawful. This proceeding is only for the sake of exposure, and the defense here should have some protection.
Mr. Baskin said that an Endowment garment had signs to keep the person in mind of the penalties to be inflicted.
Court–He may answer the questions.
Silver, continuing–The impression I obtained was that if I was unfaithful in disrobing myself there was every probability or possibility of my being sick and dying–that it was unsafe to leave them off. Heber C. Kimball instructed me how to put them on.
To Mr. Moyle–The penalty for disobedience to the Priesthood was that my throat should be cut, etc. That was to be done by some Danite, I suppose. I was not told how. It was not that I would suffer these penalties rather than reveal these things. They were too cunning to use the term assassinate. The word government was not used. The blood of the Prophets was to be avenged by the destruction of the government of the United States. The fact in my mind is that that was the purport of that oath. I haven’t any Lord. A God was appealed to, but what that God was, whether Brigham or anyone else, I do not know.
To Mr. Baskin–The avenging was to be done by a destroying angel, appointed by the authorities.
To Mr. Moyle–I think the Church apostatized from me about twenty years ago. Porter Rockwell—-
Mr. Moyle–Tell us somebody living, so they can speak for themselves.
Silver–John Y. Greene.
Wm. Showell (promptly)–John Y. Smith?
Silver–Yes, John Y. Smith. He is, as I suppose, a member of the Church. He has been on the police force 24 or 25 years, and I believe–
Mr. Moyle–Do you know? Is he an avenging angel?
Silver–I presume he is. How do I know? I don’t know.
The court had to instruct this witness how to answer before he would reply directly to Mr. Moyle’s question.
Silver (continuing)–These destroying angels are doubtless appointed in private. I don’t know anything about it. Doubtless Mr. Moyle does not.
Mr. Moyle–One part of your testimony is as true as the other parts.
Silver–According to my belief, such men have been appointed by the Church.
Mr. Moyle–Then it is all your belief?
Silver–Yes, and it’s the belief of thousands of others. Nobody knows anything about it.
To Baskin–The object of anointing the arm was that it might be strong in the defence of the Church, and avenging the blood of the Prophets on those simply who denied ‘Mormonism.’ I could not repeat the ceremony.
James Spillett was recalled and said–At the time I went through the Endowment House my arm was anointed to become strong to avenge the blood of the Prophets upon this nation, as I understood it. Edward Stevenson was there.
The court adjourned till 9 a.m., November 15th.” (DW 39(22):683-693, 23 Nov., 1889)
“BASE FALSEHOODS
Uttered in Court Regarding the Mormon Church.
GROSS MISSTATEMENTS OF SOME WITNESSES.
Another Witness Says Noting but Good was Taught, but He Inferred, Etc.
BASKIN AND DICKSON LEAD THE ASSAULT.
An Infamous Conspiracy Against the Whole ‘Mormon’ People.
[The account of the proceedings duplicates that of the Deseret Weekly News, 23 Nov., 1889]
(Deseret Evening News, 14 Nov., 1889; in JH 14 Nov., 1889)
“Dickson and Baskin today conducted the examination on the ‘Liberal’ side in regard to the Endowment oath. Silver, McGuffie, Cahoon, Bond and other bitter apostates testified that vows were made against the government because of the murder of Joseph and Hyrum, and they told many infamous falsehoods in their efforts to create prejudice against the Church. An adjournment was taken till tomorrow.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 14 Nov., 1889)
“At the U. S. Dist. Court, this morning a number of apostates had been subpoened and they were given every opportunity to say all they desired in regard to the Endowments &c. R. N. Basken & W H. Dickson are employed on the part of the Liberals & Le Grand young. J H Moyle & R W young for the Peoples Party. John Bond, Martin D Wardell, James McGuffie, Andrew Cahoon, James Spillet, Chas Gilmore and Joseph Silver, Apostates were sworn & testified in a very bitter vindictive manner. Bro Moyle also testified as one of their witness but refused to give the Endowment House ceremonies. Jodge Anderson allowed all Kinds of evidence to be admitted. notwithstanding the objections of our attorneys. I wrote out a telegram in cipher & sent to Pres Woodruff at Portland informing him of what is now going on. At 7.30 p. m. Prest. L. Snow, Apostles J. H. Smith, H. J. Grant M. W. Merrill & A H Lund, also Bros LeGrand young, J. H Moyle R. W. Young, C. W. Penrose, A D. Thatcher J. H Anderson, F. Jennin R. Thurman, E. Stevenson & myself met at the G. H. office. The proceedings of the day were spoken of – Pres Snow said I shall be very much disappointed if after this investigation we dont come out all the brighter for it, and make a good record for the Church As witnesses in that court we have a right to the spirit of the Lord. This is His work and He will stand by us in doing our best to maintain it. The question of testifying to any of the Endowments or instructions was considered some thought that the instructions given about praying to the Lord to avenge the blood of the Prophets and referring to the 6th Chap’ of Revelations of John 9th & 10th verses so as to refute the testimony which has been given today, would be proper, others thought it should not be mentioned as fully &c. Bro E stevenson was asked some questions as to memory &c The propriety of Bros. Merrill, Lund & Thatcher going onto the Stand was discussed as they are so intimate with the Temple labors – also that these who are expected to testify should be subpoened, so that they would be properly in court. After talking upon these matters the brethren of the Apostles & Elder Thatcher & myself remained. After consideration, It was decided that the witnesses should meet at Bro. Moyle’s office at 9 a. m to-morrow where they could be subpoened. Prest. L. Snow was of the opinion that Bros. Merrill & Lund and Thatcher could go onto the Stand and testify that there were no such oaths, obligations or covenants required in the Endowments, but if they should be asked what did transpire there they could refuse to answer. Bro. John Henry Smith, asked if there would be any objections to his referring to what is written in the Revelations of St. John in regard to prayer &c. by way of rebuttal. Bro. Snow answered No! that it would be proper for him to do so and that Bros Merrill & Lund could corroberate that; but that none of the brethren should give any of the Endowments or instructions but refuse to answer questions to that end. With this understanding the following brethren will be subpoenaed and if necessary will testify. Viz: John Henry Smith, M. W. Merrill, A. H. Lund, A. D. Thatcher E. G. Woolley, John Clark, James H. Anderson, Heber M. Wells.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 14 Nov., 1889)
15 Nov.: Anderson case.
“Friday, November 15th, the first witness called for was Heber J. Grant, but Mr. Dickson made a mistake in the person and John Henry Smith was called and testified–The St. George Temple was dedicated in April, 1877.
Mr. Dickson asked for a subpoena for George C. Lambert, business manager of the DESERET NEWS, who was ordered to bring with him the files of the DESERET NEWS, daily and weekly, containing the published account of the dedication of the St. George Temple.
Levi Axtell testified–I have lived in Salt Lake nine years; have been a ‘Mormon;’ joined the Church in Brooklyn in 1873; went through the Endowment House in the fall of 1874; I have not been severed from the Church, but am not in good standing; was through the St. George Temple; in my Endowments I was required to take an oath; I was anointed, and was supposed to avenge anything that was contrary to the will of the Church; I took no obligation to avenge the blood of the Prophets; it was; anything not for the Church is against it. I had a conversation with Mr. Dickson last night, and told him I understood the oath was to avenge the blood of the Prophets on the nation, in the overthrow of the government of the United States, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. I also took an oath to obey the Priesthood. The penalty of disobedience was death. A man was to have his throat cut.
To Mr. Baskin–My arm was anointed to be strong to wield the sword, to strike anybody that was an enemy of the kingdom.
Mr. Dickson said he had subpoenaed Mr. Shurtliff, an ex-Bishop, but he had not yet arrived.
The witness Axtell, in reply to the court, said–When the government was overthrown, I understood the Indians were to be the battle-axe to overthrow it. When the kingdom of God was established, the ‘Mormon’ Church was to take the control. The Church was to build up the kingdom on the ruins of the government. I understand the purpose of the Church was to overthrow the government and set itself up in liew of it. I was to take part if it came in my day.
Mr. Baskin said he had some documentary proof, and read from a sermon of President Brigham Young, delivered March 7, 1853, and published in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 83.
Mr. Moyle objected to the reading of the extract, because it had no bearing on the Endowments or the oaths alleged, and did not pertain to the question before the court. Mr. Moore knows nothing of it.
Court–There are other cases than that of Mr. Moore, some of them being persons who have not been through the Endowment House. I have never read this or any other sermon of the Elders of the Church, and will hear it. The objection made is to members of the ‘Mormon’ Church, and if the teachings are to the Church it is proper to hear it.
Mr. Moyle–Will you exclude a man because some other member of the Church made a statement that might be contrary to the law? Will the court place the whole Church on trial for such expressions?
Court–No. That is not right. If Brigham Young was an authorized teacher, still all the members of the Church might not be responsible; but the inference is that they agree with him in a general way, and his teachings would be evidence in this case. Brigham Young was the most prominent leader the Church has had, and his teachings should be heard.
R. W. Young–Suppose teachings should be treasonable, and they were accepted, would that debar another man? Would not that affect freedom of speech?
Court–Of course, freedom of speech should not be interfered with, buit if there is an effort to overthrow the government, all teachings of that nature are evidence.
Mr. Baskin–We claim that any man who joins the ‘Mormon’ Church or affiliates with it is not a man of good moral character.
Court–Is there any claim that that book is not an authorized publication?
Mr. Baskin–It is published by ‘Mormon’ Elder.
Baskin then read from a dream which President Young had related.
Baskin then offerd to read from a sermon by Jedediah M. Grant, published in the DESERET NEWS July 27, 1855.
Mr. Moyle–We object to this because it is immaterial to this issue.
Mr. Young–All of the utterances of the DESERET NEWS are not regarded as authority. That is, the utterances of any man, because they are published by the NEWS, are not binding on the Church.
Court–I suppose every member of the Church is not bound by the utterances of the paper. But it publishes what leading men have said.
Mr. Young said there were many things published there which were not printed as doctrine, and were not accepted as such. Here a man comes and offers to become a good citizen, and because of the utterances of someone, before he came to the country, he is to be kept out. Such a procedure is a farce.
Mr. Dickson said the sermon was by one of the Twelve Apostles.
Court–If it can be shown that the general course of the procedure of the Church was to destroy the government, then every man who becomes a member of that organization endorses that doctrine.
Mr. Young–If they will show any open opposition to the government, except that of 1857, which has been fully explained, and has been settled by Congress, there might be some truth in their claim. But they cannot do this.
Court (to Baskin)–You may proceed.
Baskin read from the sermon regarding covenant breakers and the penalty that the Apostle Paul said should follow them.
LeGrand Young–Jedediah M. Grant was never one of the Twelve Apostles. He was a counselor to President Young, but when this sermon was deliverd he did not even hold that position.
Lipman read from the NEWS a sermon by President Young, delivered Feb. 18, 1857, about reformation, in which it is said that the penalty for adultery should be death.
Baskin offered what he claimed to be a paragraph from a report made to the Church at the October Conference, 1885, by John Taylor and Geo. Q. Cannon.
Objected to by LeGrand Young.
Court–One paragraph might convey an entirely different meaning to that which the complete document would convey.
Mr. Dickson asked the court to go down to the house of Vincent Shurtliff, whom Dickson claimed to be an ex-Bishop, and who was too ill to come into court.
The court suggested that the stenographer go down, and that the testimony be taken and read to the court.
This was agreed to.
Mr. Baskin–We want to introduce the revelation on polygamy.
This was admitted, and court took a recess till 2 p.m., to get the testimony of Vincent Shurtliff.
Vincent Shurtliff testified as follows to Mr. Baskin–My age is 79 years next May; am a native of Massachusetts; have resided in Utah 42 years; have been a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church–first became a member in 1842; ceased my connection with the Church about 16 or 18 years ago. I passed through the Endowment House in the fall of 1850.
Baskin–In passing through the Endowment House did you take an oath relating to your obedience to the ‘Mormon’ Church or Priesthood?
LeGrand Young objected to the question on the ground of its general character, and of its requiring the witness to divulge religious ceremonials which did not pertain to the question at issue, and which, under oath, he is obligated to keep secret.
Witness Shurtliff–Yes, my obligation was in regard to obedience to the Priesthood in all things.
Baskin–Did you take any obligation relating to avenging the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith? If so, state it.
LeGrand Young repeated his objection.
Shurtliff–There was, I expect. I raised my hand to tell the whole truth. It was that the sword should not be sheathed until the blood of Joseph and Hyrum should be avenged.
Baskin–Avenged on whom?
Shurtliff–I concluded, on the United States.
Mr. Moyle objected to the conclusions of the witness.
Baskin–Were the children mentioned in connection with them?
Shurtliff–Yes, we covenanted to teach it to our children and our children’s children, down to the fourth generation.
Baskin–Were there any penalties attached to the obligations you took?
Objected to on the ground of being too general.
Shurtliff–Yes, I concluded there would be–I am of course a Mason.
Baskin–Well, state the penalties attached to the ceremony.
Shurtliff–Well, on the whole, I think it was if we divulged and went against the Priesthood we should have our throats cut, and be disemboweled.
Baskin–Was there anything in that ceremony relating to the establishment of the Kingdom of God? If so state what it was.
Shurtliff–I don’t remember, though I concluded it was the Kingdom of God. I don’t know that there was anything said on the subject.
Baskin–Was there anything said in the ceremony on the subject of the United States government being overthrown and some other government taking its place?
Shurtliff–I don’t remember anything of that sort.
Baskin–You were anointed?
Shurtliff–Yes.
Baskin–State what was said in regard to anointing the arm.
Shurtliff–That it might be made strong in defending the Church and the Kingdom of God, or the Church and people of God–I forget how that was worded.
Baskin–Anything in that connection about avenging the blood of the Prophets?
Shurtliff–That was said before or after–I forget which.
Baskin–Was anything said on the subject of polygamy?
Shurtliff–I don’t think there was at that time.
Baskin–Was there any obligation taken by you which bound you to obey the law of polygamy?
Shurtliff–No, I don’t think there was. I had wives with me at that time; I was already a polygamist.
Baskin–Did you ever know of the penalties that were taken in the Endowment House visited upon any one who violated them?
Shurtliff–I never did.
Cross-examined by LeGrand Young:
Q.–In the general teaching that day, and general course of the Endowment, I understand you there was no particular admonition upon you to be a polygamist?
A.–None.
Q.–You would have heard if there had been?
A.–Yes.
Q.–You say you were once a Mason, in the course of the Masonic covenants did you enter into any particular agreement not to disclose the secrets of the order?
Mr. Baskin objected to the question.
A.–I did not get as far as that; I only attended one meeting; I don’t know anything about their covenants; I have talked with my brother-in-law about it, and what he told me was in substance what I witnessed in the Endowment House.
—–
Mr. Dickson referred to a sermon by President Young, in 1862, and read from the Journal of Discourses. the sermon refers to the unwarranted persecution of Joseph Smith and the ‘Mormons.’ In this the government was referred to as the best of all earthly governments. Mr. Dickson said the tenor of it was to teach the ‘Mormons’ that the government was their enemies.
Mr. Dickson also read sentences from Heber C. Kimball’s remarks, on August 2, 1857, wherein there is a curse pronounced against every man who lifts his heel against the Saints from that day forth.
From a sermon by Heber C. Kimball, Sept. 27, 1857, on obedience, Mr. Dickson also read a number of excerpts.
On Nov. 8, 1857, was another discourse on the same subject, by Heber C. Kimball, from which a paragraph was read; also a sermon on August 30, 1857, in regard to the Gentiles ruling over the Saints. A few lines were also read from one of Heber C. Kimball’s sermons, delivered August 2, 1857. Quotations were also made from a discourse given June 7, 1857.
Baskin said similar quotations could be found by the hundred in the Journal of Discourses.
Baskin offered in evidence a portion of an Epistle to the Church, published October 7, 1885, and signed by Presidents John Taylor and George Q. Cannon. Paragraphs and sentences here and there were picked out and read. They related to the promises of the Lord to deliver those who trusted in Him; to the revelation on celestial marriage, and to religious liberty.
Baskin offered to read from the revelation on celestial marriage.
Mr. Moyle objected, as there was no issue upon that revelation, but the objection made to Mr. Moore was that he had taken an oath in the Endowment House against the government. The United States Supreme Court had said that belief in plural marriage was not unlawful.
Mr. Dickson said that he thought no one who believed polygamy was right should be admitted to citizenship. It will be our contention in this case that no man who believes in plural marriage should be admitted.
Baskin–No man who believes in that revelation.
Dickson–To admit such a one is a farce.
Baskin–This polygamy is one of the doctrines of the Church. If it was a mere matter of belief, an abstract idea, then it could not be reached. But this revelation calls for action, and requires obedience under the penalties of damnation. Thousands have been incarcerated in the penitentiary and hundreds are serving today. Eight or ten thousand citizens have practiced polygamy. This Church assumes to control a man in all things, and one who unites himself with such an organization is not a man of good moral character. Can it be said that a man voluntarily connected with an organization like this Church is well disposed to the American government?
Court–I don’t think it necessary to argue that further. There are several cases depending on whether an oath was or was not taken in the Endowment House. They were also objected to because they were members of the ‘Mormon’ Church. That is, is membership in that Church incompatible with citizenship? the court will hear the portions of the revelation which counsel desires to read.
Baskin then read extracts from the revelation, arranging them to suit himself. He then made an absurd spectacle of himself by endeavoring to explain the meaning of some of the quotations.
Mr. Moyle objected to this, as Mr. Baskin was not a capable expounder of religious doctrines, and particularly those of a people whom he hated intensely.
George C. Lambert was called for and Mr. Dickson discovered that the volumes of the NEWS asked for were not the ones wanted, so Mr. Lambert was sent back for others.
Mr. Dickson said all they wanted was the dedicatory prayer offered in the St. George Temple; but if any new testimony should be discovered, they would want to use it.
Mr. Moyle said he would object.
Court–It would be but justice to the applicant that all the evidence of the objectors to Mr. Moore’s naturalization should be brought in at the outset of the case.
Mr. Lambert arrived at this stage of the proceedings and Dickson and Baskin retired to delve into the files of the DESERET NEWS for a while.
After a lapse of some time Baskin returned and read from the Millennial Star, Volume 19, page 804, regarding the government of ‘Mormonism.’
An hour passed by, when Baskin announced that the document they were searching for was the most important of all they had, and they had not been able to find it.
Mr. Dickson said a synopsis had been found, but the part they wanted was not there.
Baskin had an alleged copy of his own, but there was no evidence that it was authentic, so it was not accepted.
Mr. Baskin said there were other documents, but as yet he had not been able to secure them.
Mr. Dickson was given a subpoena to bring in the official Church records of the dedication of the St. George Temple, and of the site of the Manti Temple, and the case was postponed till 10 a.m., November 16, to which hour the court adjourned.” (DW 39(22):683-693, 23 Nov., 1889)”
“FOR POLITICAL CAPITAL AND OBSTRUCTION.
It needs no statement from us that the peculiar investigation in progress in the Third District Court in this city is in the nature of a political movement. The fact is notorious and no attempt is made to disguise it. It is of a piece with a ‘plan of campaign’ that has been in progress for a long time. Its object is the deprival of the majority of the people of Utah of all their political rights. The present operation is but a fresh step in the scheme, the application of certain members of the Church of jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for naturalization being seized as a favorable opportunity to set it in motion.
The hope of the active politicians who figure in the affair is that they will, by twisting, torturing and disfiguring innocent facts beyond recognition, and the manufacture of whole-cloth fabrications, be able to work upon the credulity of Congress to such an extent as to cause that august body to accede to their nefarious and unrepublican scheme. Of course the obstruction of People’s Party registration for and voting at the approaching municipal election cuts a figure in the proceedings as an object, but it may be properly placed as a secondary consideration.
Some of the witnesses used by the ‘Liberals’ in this ‘rough and tumble’ investigation have been appropriately selected. They belong to the genius known as anti-‘Mormon’ cranks, who were formerly connected with the Church and have apostatized. They are well known for their unreasoning bitterness, occasionally exhibiting their spleen in haranguing crowds on the public streets, and telling the most outrageous falsehoods. They belong to the same class as that known as ‘converted monks’ and ‘escaped nuns,’ who have at various times raised the hair upon the heads of small-minded, credulous people about the horrible wickedness of the Catholic Church. We would be sorry to judge that Church by the fumings and falsehoods of the bitter class of its apostate sons and daughters. It would be manifestly unjust.
We do not rate all of the witnesses in that list. While some of them told what we understand to be unqualified falsehoods, and distorted matters of fact until they had no resemblance to the truth, others may have testified honestly; but if they did their memories were treacherous, and what they did recollect was so mixed up with false reports, allegations and charges that have been in circulation for years, that they were entangled in their minds. Hence the heterogeneous and contradictory statements, not only of the different witnesses, but the conflicts in the evidence of the same individual. In no instance was the truth told as a whole. If it had there would have been none of that hobgoblin, sanguinary element which delighted the anti-‘Mormon’ fire-eaters.
One feature of the testimony could not escape the observation of any intelligent person. It was a peculiarity that gave the lie direct to some statements that were made. It was asserted that those who pass through the endowment take an obligation to obey the Priesthood in all things, the penalty attached to the violation of this covenant being that the individual making it loses his life. According to this testimony a number of those who were on the stand have been giong around in this city and elsewhere with their throats cut for upwards of twenty years. One witness, according to his own evidence, must have been in that ghastly condition for a quarter of a century. Yet he has the appearance of being a healthy old corpse.
The fact that these fellows, who could not well be accused of obedience to the Priesthood they so hotly hate, were on the stand voiding their blood-and-thunder spleen, was sufficient of itself to show their utter unreliability. Their existence is a flat contradiction of their testimony. A party reduced to such expedients and such tools is unworthy of the support of any person with a common sense of self-respect.” (Deseret Evening News, 15 Nov., 1889; in JH 15 Nov., 1889)
“The endowment oath examination continued today, the prosecution bringing in several new witnesses and reading abundantly from Journals of Discourses and the Millennial Star. The defense did not offer any testimony today, but doubtless will tomorrow.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 15 Nov., 1889)
“The U. S. Court is in session again today commencing at 9 a. m. . . . Pres L. Snow, J. H. Smith, H. J. Grant, M. W. Merrill & A. H. Lund called at the office at noon and talked on the Mornings business in court. Bro John Henry Smith was called by the Pres & testified the St George Temple was dedicated in April 1877. Levi Axtell, Vincent Shurtliff testified afterwhich Mr Dickson & Baskin read extracts from the “Deseret News” “Journal of Discourses” and purpose reading some more in the Morning when they will close. . . . At 745 p m Prest L. Snow, Apostles F. M. Lyman, J. H. Smith H. J Grant, M. W. Merrill, A. H. Lund & kBros LeGrand young J. H Moyle, A d. Thatcher, C. W. Penrose, E. G. Woolley, Jas H. Anderson & myself met at the Gardo House. The proceeding of the day in Court were commented upon. It is expected that the Liberals will conclude their side soon after the opening of Court in the Morming. when our side will come on our witnesses as named will go onto the Stand after which such documentary evidence as we have will be read. Bro Penrose will hunt up the documentary evidence and be subpoened so as to testify on the Blood atonement spoken of.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 15 Nov., 1889)
16 Nov.: Anderson case.
“November 16th, Mr. Dickson said he had found the prayer that he had referred to, and offered it in evidence.
LeGrand Young objected to it, as it was not doctrine. It was not assumed to be revelation, and it had never been put before the people and accepted as doctrine. The declarations of any individual were not binding on the members of the Church.
Court–Let it be admitted in evidence.
Mr. Dickson then read from the Prayer by Wilford Woodruff, in which there is a request for the nation which makes war against the Saints, unless it repents, to be swept from the earth as with a besom [sic] of destruction.
Mr. Baskin offered the writings of Orson Pratt on the government of the Church.
LeGrand Young objected on the ground that the parts proposed to be brought in were openly declared by the President of the Church not to be doctrine.
The Court admitted the statements objected to.
The extracts read were from Orson Pratt’s pamphlet on ‘The Kingdom of God.’
Dickson offered a discourse by George Q. Cannon, delivered December 2, 1883, in Salt Lake City, in which the people are advised to be united and keep the commandments of God. The discourse also deals with the doctrine that revelation from God comes only through the one whom God called to preside over His Church; refers to the disfranchisement of the leading ‘Mormons’ by the Edmunds law, and to the divine authority of those called by the Almighty to act in His name and by the Powers of His Priesthood.
Baskin then offered in evidence the Doctrine and Covenants. He then announced that his case was closed.
—–
LeGrand Young stated that, at the first, the court had said, the inquiry would be confined to a certain scope; but this had been departed from, and an effort was made to prove that the Church, and the members thereof, were enemies of the government. The enemies of the people had been called to explain their views and doctrines. This was an unjust procedure. It may be that the witnesses we put on will not disclose the Endowment ceremonies. But we will prove that the allegation that there is an oath against the government is a false allegation. The expressions by President Geo. Q. Cannon, that only one man could receive doctrine for the Church, and that by revelation from God, is a statement of our position, and no member of the Church is bound by the ideas or opinions of another.
Apostle John Henry Smith was the first witness. He testified–I am 41 years of age; I am a ‘Mormon,’ and so were my parents and grandparents; my father was an Apostle, and I am recognized as one; there are the First Presidency of three members; the Twelve Apostles, and the quorum of Seventies. These three quorums possess equal authority, in their capacity as quorums. I belong to the second quorum in the Church, the Apostles. The First Presidency, when organized, is the authoritative quorum. I have had my endowments. Have officiated in the Endowment House, now torn down. In those ceremonies there is no eath or covenant to avenge the blood of the Prophets on this nation or people; nor is there any oath against the government. Nothing of the kind was ever presented to me–no such oath, bond or covenant of that kind, nor anything that would be so contrued. Had any man presented such a thing to me I would have repudiated it. I never heard such an oath administered to me. Implicit obedience is not taught. Intelligent obedience is that which we understand is right is taught in our church. I am as free as any man on earth from my file leader. The basis of our religion is that every man must act on his own free agency. That cannot be infringed upon. No bond is asked, requiring implicit obedience to the Priesthood. We are instructed, in our Church, to be united, as is set forth in President George Q. Cannon’s discourse, which has been read here. It has been our union that has enabled us to make this country habitable. There were hostile Indians here, and there were great difficulties, which we overcame by our union. It is a doctrine of our Church that men should live in union, and protect each other’s rights and interests. In the Endowment there is nothing requiring the avenging of the blood of the Prophets on this nation. The only thing that can be in any shape so construed is in the passages of scripture which are read. They are found in the 6th Chapter of Revelation, 9th and 10th verses. I have been astonished at the testimony here. The verses I refer to are as follows:
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the alter the souls of them that was slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
This is given in the course of a lecture, that is, it is read when no obligations are imposed, and the people are advised to pray that the Lord will avenge the blood of all the Prophets, of any age, precisely as it is set forth in the verses I have read. The names of Joseph and Hyrum Smith are not mentioned to me in this connection. The prayer is taught in the Church, to all members, that justice might be done by the Lord. If the ‘Mormons’ are unjust, they are responsible under this, as well as are others. There is nothing authorizing or approving the shedding of blood. The man who breaks the law of the land is, by command of God, to be turned over to the law of the land for punishment. That is the condition, belief and practice of the ‘Mormon’ people. In the Endowment ceremonies there is no covenant, vow, oath, or agreement by which a man’s arm is to be made strong to avenge the blood of Joseph or Hyrum Smith on this nation or any other. The ‘Mormons’ believe in anointing with oil for sickness, and is a habit with them. In all anointings we pray to God to bless the person anointed.
Baskin–That is balderdash.
Court–What is your objection.
Baskin–It has nothing to do with this case.
Court–It is impossible, sometimes, for a witness to confine an answer so that it is responsive to the question. But he will do so as much as possible.
Mr. Smith, continuing–A person is not required in the Endowment ceremonies to take an oath to go into polygamy.
To Mr. Dickson–I am reasonably familiar with the Endowment ceremonies. I have a deep affection for my country–the United States. I would repudiate any oath, covenant or condition opposed to my country. I am a polygamist, and entered that relation in 1877, before the anti-polygamy law was declared constitutional.
Dickson–Did you live in violation of the Edmunds law.
Mr. Smith–I decline to answer.
Mr. Dickson–If you did, do you say you had an affection for your country.
Mr. Smith continuing–Yes sir. I consider bigamy is the marrying of a second wife, deceiving either or both. If both have knowledge and consent, I do not consider it bigamy. It would be bigamy if a man married another wife contrary to his wife’s consent. I believe the revelation on celestial marriage requires a woman to consent. I had my wife’s consent. If a wife is converted that the principle is correct, she should consent; if not, no. If she refuses, he is at liberty to go ahead. I believe that is the will of God.
Mr. Dickson–If your wife had refused would you have rejected the will of God?
Mr. Moyle–I object to Mr. Smith being required to state his opinions; he has stated the law of the Church.
Court–Oh, I think it proper.
Mr. Smith–Men are left to their own judgment and discretion. This law extends through time and eternity, and I could abide my time to obey the law of God. If I felt to take a wife without her consent when she refused, I suppose I should have done. I became aware that the United States Supreme Court passed on the constitutionality of the law of 1862. I took my wife in 1876 or 1877. As a man of honor I could not abandon my family.
Mr. Dickson–Is it not true that after that law was held to be constitutional you lived in violation of it?
Mr. Smith–Not in this Territory.
Mr. Moyle–The constitutionality of the law against unlawful cohabitation has never been tested.
Mr. Dickson–I want to show that there is no affection for the laws of the United States.
Court–The question of the constitutionality of the law cuts no figure in this case.
LeGrand Young–Unlawful cohabitation was not made an offense till 1882. The prosecutors here tried to make polygamy a continuous offense, but the courts would not allow it. The living with two wives before 1882 was not made unlawful.
Witness, to Mr. Dickson–After the law of 1882 against unlawful cohabitation I did not live with my second wife in this Territory.
Court–He may decline to answer if he desires.
Witness, to Mr. Dickson–I have not violated the law. I decline to say whether I lived with one in one Territory and another in another. I was once arrested. My plural wife never was on the witness stand. She was with me in Europe several years. She afterwards left this Territory of her own volition. Josephine Groesbeck is her name. When the laws of the nation conflict with the law of God, it is not our duty to violate the law of the land. The law found us practicing plural marriage. I never performed a plural marriage. I only know of my own. I do not believe that our Church has the right to pass on the constitutionality of any law. That is the business of the United States Supreme Court.
Dickson read from the Doctrine and Covenants references to the constitutional laws of the land.
Mr. Smith–The Supreme Court of the United States passes on the constitutionality of a law. The Constitution says Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and I looked to it to protect me. I acted on that understanding. When the law of the land makes my religion a crime, I must take the consequences. I think the Constitution is an inspired document, and the United States Supreme Court the final arbiter. If a man breaks the law he must take the consequences. The laws of this land are supreme, and I acknowledge them as such. If I break a law because it infringes on my conscience, I must take the penalty. I believe with Wm. H. Seward that there is a higher law, but if the law of the land puts him in jeopardy he is relieved from obedience to the higher law. Were I a monogamist now, under the circumstances I would not take another wife in the United States. I decline to answer any questions regarding my present status. It is a part of the teachings of the Church that union should exist, and differences be reconciled; but the individuality of any man is not interfered with. I think some men have arrogated powers that they did not possess. If a man wants to obey the counsel of the Priesthood, that is all right. If they refuse,k it is not a doctrine that they will be damned. I regard the President of the Church as the mouthpiece of God when he receives revelation. The Kingdom of God means that when Christ comes He will establish His kingdom. That kingdom is not now established. I have heard it taught that it is, but I do not believe it. We are building up the kingdom, but it cannot be established till the coming of the Savior. We do not believe in the destruction of all sects and nations. The principles you refer to were not understood by the people as you seek to interpret them. I have heard it taught that in all matters, temporal as well as spiritual, the people should obey the word of God, if they accept it. I have refused to obey the orders of the President of the Church. The only command Brigham Young ever gave me was to fit out a man for a mission to Arizona, and I declined to do so. John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff never gave me a command that I remember. They have asked me to do things, and some of them I did not do. Of course, I had and gave a reason for not doing so. The language used in prayer about avenging the blood of the Saints I do not know. I only know that people are instructed to pray to the Lord to avenge the blood of the Prophets, as is said in the verses I have quoted. I decline to state any ceremonies of the Endowment House.
Dickson–What penalties are to be inflicted for revealing those covenants?
Mr. Smith–I decline to answer any questions regarding the Endowment ceremonies. There was no penalty attached to apostasy. Apostasy is not punishable by the Church, except by excommunication.
To the Court–Oliver Cowdery, an associate with Joseph Smith, apostatized and was never harmed. David Whitmer, T. D. Brown and many others, inside and outside of Utah, have apostatized. Baskin has fought the Church bitterly, and I never wronged him nor has he wronged me. No apostate has ever been assassinated by instruction or approval of the Church. I know of no one ever having been assassinated. I don’t believe there has been one, but I decline to state anything of the Endowment ceremonies.
Baskin–How long before you took your second wife did you marry your first wife?
LeGrand Young objected. Objection overruled.
Court–He may answer.
Mr. Smith–I cannot state exactly–several years.
Baskin–Did you not say in the ceremony of your marriage that you would keep to your first wife and none else?
Mr. Smith–I decline to answer as to the marriage or any other ceremony in the Endowment House.
Court–He need not answer unless he wants.
Baskin–Why do you decline to answer?
Mr. Smith–Upon the principle of honor.
Mr. Dickson–I think we can compel the witness to tell these ceremonies and penalties and do not waive that right.
Witness, to Baskin–I have not habitually taught the law of polygamy. I have taught obedience to the laws of God. I have heard plural marriage taught. I have not heard its practice enjoined upon the people that I now recall. They believe in that principle; I do not remember the last time I heard it preached.
Court took recess till 2 p.m.
—–
John Clark testified–I have been a member of the Church 44 years; have been through the Endowment House; never took any oath to avenge the blood of the Prophets on the United States; nothing of that kind was said; there was no oath, covenant or instruction to violate the laws of the land. I did not covenant to go into polygamy; have never been advised to break the laws of the land. There were no instructions, admonitions or agreements to avenge the blood of the Prophets or anybody on this nation or anyone else. I remember no covenant to obey the Priesthood. I am a merchant; have been in business 29 years. I am now president of the corporation of Clark, Eldredge & Co.; was former of the firm of Chislett & Clark. Mr. Chislett is now in California, I believe. The teachings of the Church to me have never been unlawful. The general sentiment of the people in the Church is friendly to the government. That is my experience and knowledge.
To Mr. Dickson–I am 54; have no presiding authority; am a High Priest; those who hold the higher Priesthood usually go through the Endowment House. None of the lesser Priesthood. All of these must receive the higher Priesthood to receive their Endowments. Every person of good standing cannot receive his Endowments unless he receives the higher Priesthood; the female members can all go through if they are in good standing. I cannot give the reason why Priests, Teachers and Deacons cannot go through. I went through in 1852.
Mr. Dickson–Did you take any obligations?
Mr. Clark–Yes, sir.
Dickson–Did yo make any covenants or promises?
Clark–Yes, sir. I heard nothing about avenging the blood of the Prophets. I did not understand Mr. Smith to decline to answer any questions relating to that. I am not a polygamist. Have never been counseled to take another wife; believe in the revelation on celestial marriage. The practice has been restricted by laws, as pertaining to the permission of plural marriage. I have heard polygamy taught since 1862, but not in the past six years. Have not heard people taught to practice plural marriage in defiance of the law. Do not remember a sermon by C. W. Penrose, on July 26, 1884, saying it was right and constitutional to practice plural marriage. Do not remember him saying, in regard to polygamy, that the people thought the law had no right to interfere, and pronounced woes upon those who shrank from preaching the Gospel. I am not compelled to endorse Mr. Penrose’s views. I have heard preaching which might be construed by some people to enjoin polygamy, but I did not, nor did others understand it that way. I understood that Mr. Penrose said and meant that we would contend legally for our rights, and we have done so. I did not understand Mr. Penrose to pronounce a condemnation upon those who do not preach Celestial marriage. Celestial marriage does not mean polygamy. It means marriage for time and eternity. I do not understand that Mr. Penrose had any reference to polygamy. When he said the Gospel, he did not mean polygamy, but he meant the Gospel. I do not say the church has not taught plural marriage since the law of 1862 was declared constitutional. There may have been, and probably have, but I can recall no instance; nor do I recall any instance of an editorial in the DESERET NEWS of that kind. I do not remember the contents of the address to President Cleveland. I may have read it, but do not recollect it. I presume I did, but do not remember the contents. I do not remember the declaration that plural marriage was ‘a vital part of our religion, the decision of the courts to the contrary notwithstanding.’ I do not say plural marriage is not a doctrine, but the law has interfered with its practice. I never covenanted to implicitly obey the Priesthood. I have heard that idea preached, but did not and do not believe it. I believe the Priesthood has a right to counsel and advise, but the people can accept it or not, just as they choose. I see no objection to that doctrine. That don’t mean obedience to the Priesthood. It says and means that the Priesthood can advise and counsel. I regard the President of the Church as, to a certain extent, the mouthpiece of God, that is, he is the only one authorized to receive written revelation for the Church. It is his privilege to receive those revelations, but I do not say whether he does or not. The people are not compelled to obey. In a temporal way a man is free to do as he pleases, that is, if he does right. It is the same in politics. If the President of the Church ordered me to vote for a man at an election, if it was the best ticket I would vote for it. If I thought another ticket was best, I would vote it. I might be susceptible of conversion, but I would act on my own judgment. The Church, as such, does not control in politics. I have not heard that the President of the Church claims that right. Individuals, holding the Priesthood, use their influence, but only as individuals. They advise only as friends, and I see no wrong in following that advice if I want to. I am a citizen of the United States. I don’t remember any of those frightful penalties spoken of. All I have heard are the statements made here in court. I cannot say there were or were not penalties of some kind, because I do not remember them. Excommunication from the Church is the only penalty that I know of for violating Church covenants.
To LeGrand Young–My memory regarding the alleged avenging of the blood has been kept fresh by the false statements that have been made by certain parties for many years, and I say that their statements about avenging blood on this nation are untrue in my experience. These false statements have called that point specially to my attention. I have heard of the many statements of John Hyde, Mrs. Stenhouse and others, and my attention has been drawn to that point.
To Mr. Dickson–I never heard of the penalties, except in court the past few days. I wear the endowment robes, but do not remember the meaning of the marks thereon.
To Mr. Baskin–I do remember covenants to lead an honorable, moral life. Do not remember just what they were in detail. I know that I took no covenant about the United States.
To the Court–Marriages in the Endowment House are those usual for members of the Church, but many are married otherwise. I could not say the proportion of each kind, but only the Endowment House or Temple marriage includes the covenant for eternity.
To Mr. Dickson–Some devout members are married outside of those places, and afterwards go to the Temples.
Judge E. G. Woolley testified–I am 44; am a Mormon; was born in the Church; received my Endowments about twenty-four years ago. I never took an oath, obligation or vow to avenge the blood of the prophets on the United States or its people. I am positive of that. I never covenanted to avenge the blood of Joseph or Hyrum Smith on anybody. I heard nothing in regard to polygamy. Made no agreement in that regard, nor was I asked to. I have resided in Utah for thirty-nine years. In 1870 I went to the southern part of Utah and came back two years ago. Am a merchant.
To Mr. Dickson–I have been through the endowments four times, twice in St. George. The second time I was married, and the last two for dead friends. Was never married but once. I never had but one wife. Was never counseled to enter polygamy. I decline to say whether there was anything said about avenging the blood of the prophets.
Mr. Dickson–What was it?
Judge Woolley–I decline to answer.
Dickson repeated the question, and the witness again declined to answer.
Mr. Dickson–What was the penalty for a violation of your covenants, or any duty enjoined upon you?
Judge Woolley–I decline to answer.
Mr. Dickson went through a list of penalties, and asked if any of them were mentioned there. These questions Judge Woolley declined to answer.
James H. Anderson testified–I reside in Salt Lake City; am 32 years of age; am a printer by trade, at present engaged as reporter on the DESERET NEWS. Am a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church. Have received my endowments; received them in this city eight years ago. I took no oath to avenge the blood of the Prophets against the government of the United States; there was no such oath or covenant administered. I took no oath to enter into polygamy; did not hear it taught that day.
Cross-examined by Dickson:
Q.–You say you made no promise about polygamy?
A.–No, sir. I do not remember polygamy having been mentioned; heard nothing said to my wife about her duty in this regardr; it was not said that I was at liberty to marry more wives than one.
Q.–What was said about avenging the blood of the prophets?
A.–I decline to answer.
Q.–What was the penalty for the violation of your covenants?
A.–I remember none.
Q.–Was there a penalty of death for anything?
A.–I decline to state.
Q.–Was there a penalty that you would have your throat cut?
A.–I decline to state.
To LeGrand Young–Was there any obligation requiring you or any person at all to avenge the blood of the prophets against this nation?
A.–No, sir.
To Mr. Dickson–I took no obligation on that subject.
Q.–Do you know what the signs on the garments signify?
A.–No, I do not.
Q.–Was there a penalty that you should have your throat cut.
A.–I decline to state.
To Mr. Baskin–Was your arm anointed that it might be strong to avenge the blood of the Prophets on this nation?
A.–It was not.
To the Court–I decline to divulge these sacred religious ceremonies.
Aaron D. Thatcher. I am fifty-two years of age; reside at Logan; have been a merchant and am now connected with the milling business; have been in Logan thirty years; am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; I have been through the Endowment House; I made no covenant or promise to avenge the blood of the Prophets on this nation or government; I was not requested to do so. There was no covenant that inculcated hostility to the government. The government was not mentioned. I was not required or requested to enter into that order.
To Mr. Dickson–I have been through the endowments a number of times. I decline to divulge anything that was said or done there. I am not a polygamist.
Mr. Dickson went through a list again regarding alleged occurrences in the Endowment House, and Mr. Thatcher declined to state anything that did occur.
To Mr. Young–Never, at any time, have I made, or been required to make, a covenant to avenge any one’s blood, or to take any one’s life.
Apostle Ahton H. Lund. I reside in Ephraim, Sanpete County; have been there since 1870; have been in the Church thirty-three years; I am a merchant; I am one of the quorum of the Twelve Apostles; was elected last conference; I received my Endowments in 1866, in Salt Lake; I never took any oath, covenant, vow or anything else to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation; nothing of that kind is required in the Endowment ceremonies; no request of that nature, nor that indicates the shedding of blood, is made or required in that ceremony; nor is there a promise made to enter into polygamy, or to implicitly obey the Priesthood.
To Mr. Dickson–I regard the President of the Church as being selected by the approval of the Almighty; he is the ecclesiastical head of the Church; if the members of the Church understand and accept the advice of the authorities, they are at liberty to do so; they can act as they please, politically; they are advised to be united. We are not taught to obey the head of the Church in temporal things. We are not directed to obey the head of the Church in all matters. We are required to recognize that authority in all spiritual matters. There may be teachings of the leaders for the people to obey counsel. I am not a polygamist. I decline to answer anything that occurred in the endowments. I will not divulge them.
Then followed Dickson’s questions for what did occur, with the usual declination to answer.
Mr. Lund said the endowments were for future use, and were not to be made public. In this they were like the Masonic ceremonies. There is a misapprehension about them, but we will not divulge them.
Baskin–Is there an obligation that men and women will not commit adultery?
Mr. Lund–I decline to answer.
To Baskin–It is not explained that men may take plural wives. There is no reference whatever to polygamy. I decline to give the marriage ceremony. I have never solemnized a plural marriage.
To the Court–I decline to answer because the endowments are to be kept secret. I could not conscientiously answer.
Court–You are required not to divulge them under any circumstances?
Mr. Lund–Yes, sir.
LeGrand Young–Do you decline to answer because of any effect it will have on this case?
Mr. Lund–I do not.
Court–Do you understand the term Prophets to include Joseph and Hyrum Smith?
Mr. Lund–Yes, sir.
To Baskin–Nothing is said about the martyrs of the Church.
Mr. Dickson–Were they instructed to pray to the Lord to avenge the blood of the Prophets?
Mr. Lund–I decline to answer.
Baskin–Any more evidence of this kind.
Mr. Young–Some.
Baskin (angrily)–We will admit that 10,000 witnesses will testify to the same things.
Mr. Moyle–We accept the offer.
Mr. Dickson–Yes, 150,000.
LeGrande Young–We accept that too, and they’ll all tell the truth.
The court adjourned untill November 18th.
{To be continued.}”
(DW 39(22):683-693, 23 Nov., 1889)
“Apostle John Henry Smith and John Clark were on the stand today in defense of the Endowment oath case, as also Apostle Lund and several other brethren.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 16 Nov., 1889)
“In Court this morning Apostle John Henry Smith testified after the other side had closed by reading some more articles the prayer of Pres Woodruff at St George Temple &c – Bros Snow Smith Merrill & Lund called at the office at noon & reported. it was deemed proper that jBro Merrill should not go onto the Stand & testify, but Bro Lund & the other brethren could go on & be blessed in so doing. Bro Lund, John Clark E. G. Woolley J H. Anderson & A D. Thatcher testified this afternoon. . . . A few of the brethren met at the office this evening and talked over the Court experience to-day.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 16 Nov., 1889)
17 Nov.: Anderson case.
“At 730 p m. Prests Woodruff, Cannon & Smith, Apostles L. Snow, B Young, J H Smith H J Grant & A H Lund Also Atteys Le Grand Young. J H Moyle & R W Young. & Bros E. G. Woolley, W. A. Rossiter, C. W. Penrose Joshua Bennett John W. Young, C. H. Wilcken & myself met at the Gardo office. The business before the court was explained and rebuttall testimony to that of Mr Wardell in the Green murder case on the plains in 1862 was found in Sister Scott of Meadowville. Horace Newall of Moab – John R Young of Loa, W. A. Rossiter & Joshua Bennett of Oasis – During the meeting Marshal A. Solomon reported that the Son of Mr Wardell was in the city & would testify that no such an occurence ever transpired as testified by his father – his daughter also. other names of witness were taken to testify on Endowments &c & Bro John W Young urged that some policy be defined in these matters. Prest Woodruff concluded to not stay so as to be subpoened.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 17 Nov., 1889)
17 Nov.: Visits by spirit beings to temple workers.
“As I was coming to Ogden this morning Apostle [Marriner W.] Merrill who was aboard told me that many people had received through beings from the spirit world the names of the dead for whom they desired to officiate in the temple.–One young lady who came to the temple to enter plural marriage wavered while there as to whether or not it was proper for her to take this step. She told her doubts to Bro. Merrill and he advised her to go home and make it a matter of faith and prayer. She decided to do this and her intended husband was informed of her resolution in which he acquiesced. She went home and after about two weeks told the Lord that she would neither eat, drink nor sleep till He made known to her the path of duty. At the close of the third day as she was in her room two personages appeared to her dressed in temple robes, and told her the step she was about to take was right and she would find happines therein, and blessed her. She sent for the man to whom she had given her promise and told him of her revelation, when he told her that the Lord had informed him that she was to be his wife even before he had made her acquaintance. Thus does God strengthen his people by His revelations to those who seek Him.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 17 Nov., 1889)
18 Nov.: Anderson case.
“‘MORMONS’ AND CITIZENSHIP.
On the morning of November 18, the forces of the anti-‘Mormons’ were augmented by the addition of Parley L. Williams. The first witness called int he case was Dr. H. J. Richards who testified–I have resided in Salt Lake City since 1848; have been a physician since 1871; have been a member of the Church since I was eight years old; received my endowments in 1856; I made no covenant or oath to avenge the blood of the Prophets against the government of the United States; nothing of that character was presented. I took no obligation to enter into polygamy.
To P. L. Williams–I never officiated in the Endowment House; I saw Heber C. Kimball and Dr. Sprague; I do not know whether I hold the Priesthood or not; this is because I was notified that if I did not join a quorum I would be dropped from the Priesthood; I did not go to the meeting; I am not a very active member of the Church; I go to no meetings whatever. My arm was anointed to avenge the blood of the Prophets; Joseph and Hyrum were not mentioned; I remember no obligation to obey the Priesthood; I do not remember anything about polygamy being said. When I was married there was nothing in the ceremony about avenging the blood of the Prophets, obedience to the Priesthood, or polygamy. I have no recollection of any statement that plural marriage was not adultery. I promised not to state any of the obligations I entered into there. I could not state them, nor am I willing to do so. I don’t wish to reveal any of them. I decline to state what they are.
To the Court–I understood that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were numbered among the Prophets. I took no oath to avenge their blood.
To LeGrand Young–I did not understand the avenging of the blood referred to.
To the Court–I did not understand that the avenging was to be done under orders of the Church, or that I was to do it at all.
To LeGrand Young–When I was married there was nothing said to me about adultery. There was nothing said about the people or the government of the United States. I did not feel enjoined to go out and kill anybody. Never heard any such instruction in public or private.
I did not understand that an apostate was to be killed; never heard of any one being killed for this; I understood that I could offer my life as an atonement for certain sins.
To P. L. Williams–The idea of shedding the blood of apostates was not in the minds of the ‘Mormon’ people at that time. It was a current belief, in 1856, that a man might offer himself as an atonement for his sin; but that his death need not necessarily follow; that was not taught in the Endowment House; I have heard talk about the subject; never heard how the death penalty could be inflicted; never heard the authorities teach such a doctrine; have never heard that idea since the excitement of what was called the reformation, in 1856; it was then the talk of people, not of any authorities.
To Dickson–Brigham Young never preached the doctrine of blood atonement, that I know of.
To Baskin–In this talk about a man offering his life, it was not said that it was for a violation of the Endowment covenants. These may have been included. There was no one authorized to inflict the death penalty. I never heard any one state how it should be done, nor did I ever hear any of the leading men say anything about it.
E. L. T. Harrison testified–I have resided in Salt Lake 27 years; am 59; have been a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church; was a member 20 years; left the church in 1869; am an architect; when I was in the Church I went through the Endowment House; this was in 1862 or 1863; I have a clear remembrance of what took place; there was no covenant to avenge the blood of the prophets against the government; the government or the United States was not referred to; there was nothing that could be construed into teaching a man not be a good citizen; no reference was made to citizenship; the teachings were of another nature; I don’t remember polygamy being mentioned; if it came up it had no prominence in the ceremony; I made no promise about it.
To P. L. Williams–I never went through the Endowment House more than once; do not remember polygamy being mentioned there; it was publicly taught at the time; I was severed from the Church for opposing the doctrine of the Church governing in temporal affairs, at least that was my understanding; my particular act was opposing the direction of the Church in temporal or business matters. We opposed the giving of counsel about this, by the President; it was a dispute about financial matters; one of the points was the development of the mines; there was a Church trial; Brigham Young and George Q. Cannon were present; I was also tried by the High Council; because of my position I was charged with disobeying the counsels of the head of the Church. We did not consider that the teachings were to obey the priesthood, but at that trial it was decided contrary to our views, as I understood it; I was in some apprehension for my personal safety for a year or two; Wm. S. Godbe and I were tried; a number of others left the Church or were excommunicated for sympathizing with us; I barricaded my house because I had apprehensions for my personal safety. I thought some violence might be done by over zealous ‘Mormons;’ there were no teachings to cause that result, but there were some violent men; there was a penalty attached for revealing certain mysteries of the Endowment House. I know of no penalty for apostasy. The penalty of death was attached to revealing these Masonic ceremonies. I have heard more of that in later times than I did then; a requisition was made that the blood of the Prophets should be avenged; this was in instructions; no special importance was attached to it. The people covenanted to keep themselves holy and pure. I remember my washings, and there was no importance or sacredness attached to the avenging business. The penalties were applied to the signs, pass-words, etc.
To LeGrand Young–The reason for my excommunication was because I objected to the direction of the Church in temporal matters. There was little talk about, or interest in politics; we started the Mormon Tribune which was changed to the Salt Lake Tribune, and I was the first editor. There was at our trial a charge that we believed in spiritualism, or receiving revelations for the Church; but that was not the principal charge. The special matter was in what enterprises people should invest their money. The movement we engaged in was called the New Movement; it afterwards drifted into a spiritualistic movement. The people called us Godbeites. There was no charge about spirit revelation, though we believed in it. I was never personally molested after I left the Church; my apprehensions were not from the Church, but I feared some who were ‘Mormons.’ I once heard a ‘Mormon’ speak of me in a way that led me to believe he thought I ought to be assaulted.
To Baskin–He said, ‘There goes a scoundrel that ought to be shot.’
To LeGrand Young–In the Endowment House I heard a reference to avenging the blood of the Prophets, and voted on it. We were also required to live pure and holy lives. No persons were mentioned as Prophets, nor was the Government, or the people of the government, referred to. So little explanation was made of the avenging, and so little attention was attached to it that I did not give special heed to it. I did not understand that I was to do any avenging. I suppose every man interpreted it according to his nature. We claimed to receive revelations at the time of our excommunication. An article which I wrote on spiritual gifts was brought up as evidence of our being wrong. Communications with the dead, which we considered true, were called false doctrine. Brigham Young charged me in public, with receiving spiritual communications. This was before our excommunication. His charge was true. I don’t think our spiritualistic communications were not antagonistic to the doctrines of the Church. We claimed that the Church was right, but that Brigham Young was arrogating that which did not belong to him. I understand that the Church does not now approve the claim made by him. I think that no other man claimed it but him.
To P. L. Williams–I think the tendency of the Church is to the view that we took. When we were excommunicated, we were denounced publicly as apostates.
To Mr. Moyle–It has always been my understanding that the Church, except this claim of Brigham Young, did not control in temporal affairs. I know nothing to the contrary except under Brigham Young. I believe his views in regard to temporal affairs were not endorsed by the people.
To Baskin–I was tried before the High Council of the Salt Lake Stake, presided over by George B. Wallace. The whole Priesthood, at that date, sustained Brigham Young.
To Moyle–I understood that I was held in great disfavor by the majority, but I had no knowledge that they sustained Brigham Young’s claim. We organized a movement that might have antagonized the ‘Mormons’ to us.
To the Court–The names of Joseph and Hyrum Smith were not mentioned in the Endowment House, but I understood they were included among the Prophets. Brigham Young gave no reason for opposing the opening of the mines. We surmised that he did not want people opposed to the ‘Mormons’ to be brought in here. From 1861 to 1869 the people felt that the United States had injured the people, and had persecuted them. I remember of a charge that the court records were burned, but that was not after I came here. The feeling I have referred to was general. It was considered that the officers of the United States who were here did not have good feelings towards the ‘Mormons.’ Some of this feeling related to polygamy. The idea of the people was that the government officers did not do them justice. The people thought the government was wrong in opposing plural marriage. Some individuals were very bitter against the representatives of the government in Utah. They held the idea that these representatives were hostile to the people.
To Baskin–The people regarded all efforts to oppose polygamy as an act of hostility.
To the Court–When the act of 1862 was passed, Brigham Young did not command all the male members of the Church to enter polygamy. They were not advised as a mass to practice it. Those who got special permission were allowed to do so. It was taught that the doctrine was true, and should be obeyed. Those who desired to obey it were not required to pay any money, but to obtain permission of the authorities.
To P. L. Williams–I only met in public meetings, except prayer circles. I was never present, on any occasion when it was proposed to put any one to death. Never heard a proposition or suggestion to that effect. I made no protest against such a thing because their [sic] was no occasion.
To LeGrand Young–I would have remembered such a suggestion but there never was anything of the kind.
R. W. Young offered in evidence a part of the record of the House of Representatives, the portion being the deposition of Eli B. Kelsey before the House committee, where testimony was given that a ‘Liberal’ meeting was prevented by ‘Mormons’ filling the hall, where some damage was done, and that next day President Young’s clerk, Thomas W. Ellerbeck, went to the Tribune and offered to pay it. In the affidavit Eli B. Kelsey states that there is no obligation taken in the Endowment House that partakes in any way of disloyalty. He also states that there is nothing that interferes with the duties of citizenship, and that the people believe in and assume allegiance to the kingdom of God, yet to come.
George Wardell testified–I am the son of Martin D. Wardell; he is in the court room; I came with him, in 1862, in Captain Dame’s company. I am not a member of any Church; do not believe in ‘Mormonism,’ remember crossing Green River; there was no man killed in our train, father crossed the plains only once. If there had been a man named Green killed I would have known it. I heard of nothing of the kind. I did not drive Green’s wagon, nor hear of it. I only drove my father’s wagon. The Church gave us the wagon at Florence, Nebraska, for us to come in, and I left the wagon in the Tithing office; never heard father relate this story before; we came through late in the fall of 1862; do not remember Billy Williams, or George Snyder. No man from our camp was killed. Never heard of any man being killed on the trip across the plains.
To Mr. Dickson–I was sixteen years old. There was more than one hundred people in the train; there were about thirty families; we started from Florence, near Omaha; Dame was in charge; Mark Surridge, Sargent Dame and our own family are about all I can remember; I never heard of a man named Green there; a man of that name might have disappeared without my knowing it. Father had no team of his own, but had one from the Church; I drove it, and he did nothing except that he drove once in a while. I think our wagon was loaded with glass. I followed other wagons into the Tithing Yard. Our family were ‘Mormons’ then. I left the Church three years ago; I was not cut off, but quit the business. I work for myself in the canyon.
To Moyle–A murder might have been committed in the train without my knowledge, but I don’t think it possible.
To Dickson–Mr. Malin first spoke to me about this and I told him I knew of none. I asked him for my expenses. He told me I would get my witness fees. I have had my endowments, but left the garments off about three years ago.
Court took recess till 2 p.m.
Bergen De Mott testified–I live at North Point; know Charles Gilmore; his reputation for truth and veracity is very bad.
To Mr. Dickson–I am a ‘Mormon;’ I am neither an enemy or a friend of Gilmor; have had some trouble with him; he sued me for injuring his stock, but there was no truth in his statement; the jury found in my favor; am not hostile to Gilmor because of his hostility to the ‘Mormon’ Church, never heard anyone in the neighborhood speak well of him.
To LeGrand Young–Gilmor prosecuted me on a charge of malicious mischief, and the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty.
George Sargent testified–I reside at Hoytsville, Summit County; I crossed the plains in Wm. H. Dame’s company in 1862; we had 66 wagons, and left the Missouri River in August; Martin Wardell’s team followed mine, his son and himself drove his team; never heard of any man of our train being killed; never heard of a man named Green in our train; never heard of Green being killed; there was a woman killed accidentally, by being run over with a wagon; there was no man killed, nor was there any robbery in our train while we were crossing. Never saw or heard of any men dressed in buckskin there, and I was one of the guards and took turns.
To Mr. Dickson–Our train was a goods train; there were not many passengers–probably 100 with the teamsters; Mark Surridge, Solomon Edwards, a man named Bennett, and others whom I could name by thinking over the matter, were there; James Sanders, Reuben McBride, and John R. Young were there; never heard of one named Green; One man died shortly after we left the Missouri River; all but the woman who was killed and the man who died reached this city all right. The train was not divided during the last part of the trip; I am a Mormon.
To LeGrand Young–I do not remember the name of the man who died. He was sick when we started, and he died in a few days. He had some relatives with him.
Wm. A. Rossiter testified–I crossed the plains in 1862, in W. H. Dame’s company; remember Martin Wardell being there with his family; there was no homicide in our company; no man named Green was killed there; do not remember a man of that name; no one lost his life near Green River; first heard of the alleged killing when I read Mr. Wardell’s testimony in the paper; never saw any men there dressed in Buckskin. I don’t think it possible for a man to have been killed there without my hearing of it. I think Mark Surridge’s wife was the lady who was run over ahd killed; an old man and a child died.
To Mr. Dickson–I am a ‘Mormon’ and a polygamist; if a man had been missed I would have found it out. It would not have been kept quiet, even if Dame had ordered it.
To Baskin–I did duty as night guard; never herded stock.
Joseph H. Morgan testified–I came to Utah in 1862, in Captain Dame’s train; remember Martin Wardell; did not know a man named Green; never heard of such a man being killed; there was no accident west of Green River; while coming up the river, a lady was run over and killed; there was no man killed from our train; never saw the men dressed in buckskin, described by Wardell. I don’t think it possible for a man to have been killed and I not have heard it. No team was brought in where the driver had been lost.
To Mr. Dickson–I do not remember the names of all in the train.
Mrs. Isabel Wright testified–I live at Mill Creek; crossed the plains 28 years ago; Wm. H. Dame was captain of the company; Martin Wardell is my father; do not remember a man named Green; never heard of him or any other man being killed; heard father first tell this story about two years ago; I told him there was no man killed, and he said no more. Father don’t mean to tell a story, but he imagines things, and then believes they are true. I know several instances of the kind, where there was no foundation for his statements. He is a dreamer and a visionary man.
To Mr. Dickson–I am not very fond of him; I am a ‘Mormon;’ I understand he is an apostate.
William Wardell testified–I crossed the plains in 1862; I was eight or nine years old; Martin Wardell is my father; no man was killed in our train; never heard of the man Green; never heard the story told by father till night before last, and I was astonished.
To Mr. Dickson–I was a child but remember some things that occurred; I am a ‘Mormon,’ and have been through the Endowment House.
Thos. G. Webber testified–I am superintendent of Z.C.M.I.; I was in the east six or seven years before I came here; was a civil engineer; was in the United States army from 1857 to 1863; was first lieutenant in the first regiment of cavalry; was with General McLellan; came to Utah in 1863; am a ‘Mormon;’ have been through the Endowment House; never took an oath to avenge the blood of the Prophets on the United States; nothing like that was suggested or intimated; the government was not mentioned; made no covenant about polygamy or obedience to the Priesthood.
To Dickson–Joined the army in 1857; resigned in 1863; I don’t know where my papers are; I tendered my resignation to Colonel Merritt, who commanded the corps; I first contemplated coming to Utah in 1860; served my full term of enlistment; have been in the Endowment House twice; hold the office of Seventy; there was nothing said about avenging the blood of the Prophets, that I remember; I decline to say anything about what did occur. It has not been the teachings of the Church to implicitly obey the Priesthood. The Church has not taught that it has the right to control in temporal matters; was never on the People’s Territorial Central Committee; the only time I have acted in a political capacity was about six weeks ago, when I was sent as a delegate to a convention; know of no circular sent out by the central committee for a defense fund to defend those charged for breaking the law against plural marriage. I do not remember reading the epistles of John Taylor and Geo. Q. Cannon in 1885 and 1886; never contributed to any defense fund. I decline to state anything about the Endowment House ceremonies.
To LeGrand Young–There was no obligation in the Endowment House for the taking of human life in any way. I know of nothing of the kind having occurred; know lots of apostates.
To Dickson–Blood atonement is not a doctrine of the Church that I know of. Have read some of the teachings of the Church leaders.
To the Court–I am a citizen of the United States; am aware that the objection is that membership in the Church is incompatible with citizenship; I consider that I am bound to the government. If the Church has any doctrines that are treasonable, I would reveal them. I say that none of those teachings are treasonable. I think I am in duty bound to keep religious ceremonies secret, as the Freemasons are.
Court–It is the duty of the court to state what the effects of those ceremonies are, and yet you decline to answer?
Mr. Webber–I know there is nothing in the Endowments that is treasonable to the United States. If there was I would tell it.
To Mr. Dickson–My arm was not anointed to avenge the blood of the Prophets when required. I am connected with Z.C.M.I.; am superintendent now; was secretary and treasurer; in 1885 a flag was at half-mast, and as soon as I learned of it, I went with Mr. Jennings, and had our flag hoisted to the top of the pole. I first went to Mr. Eldredge; neither of them knew the reason of it. I was not fearing any trouble of the alleged insult; I heard it was half-masted over a number of places.
To LeGrand Young–If there was any oath or covenant in the Endowment hostile to the government I should expose it. All those ceremonies relate to the moral nature. The government has no interest in or right to those ceremonies. The government is not suggested in any way. My allegiance to the Church is separate from my allegiance to the government, and does not affect it in any way.
To Dickson–I do not recollect anything being said about avenging the blood of the Prophets.
To the Court–I understand Joseph and Hyrum Smith to be numbered among the Prophets. I know of no reference to the government in that connection. I have been in service in the army. I was not pleased at the flag being at half-mast and took steps to have it raised to its place. I don’t know who did it, but it was done to a purpose. At the City Hall we investigated the matter; and so did the Co-op; at the City Hall the marshal put it at half-mast. The City Council rebuked him for it, and in a resolution explained the real reason. The marshal was severely censured, and he was not again placed in office. The explanation was that an insult was not intended. I took part in the examination of witnesses to ascertain the reason for the flag being half-masted.
To Baskin–We had no evidence about Mr. Crow drawing a pistol, and have not heard of such a thing. I knew of no threatened collision. I know there was considerable excitement. The session we held was not secret.
Spencer Clawson testified–I am a ‘Mormon’ and have received my Endowments; never covenanted to avenge the blood of the Prophets on this nation; never took any covenant hostile to the government of the United States.
To Dickson–I remember nothing being said about the avenging of the blood of the Prophets when required.
Mr. Young said there were other witnesses regarding the alleged homicide, and also other matters, and they would not be here till tomorrow.
Court–There is no need of further evidence regarding that homicide, unless it is direct. Have you not called sufficient already?
LeGrand Young–We have not our evidence all ready, and think we will get through early tomorrow.
Mr. Young said he had forgotten one affidavit, that of Parley L. Williams; he was now looking for one from Baskin or Dickson.
P. L. Williams’ affidavit was to the effect that the ‘Mormons’ were fair-dealing and law-abiding; that Brigham young did not control the elections or interfere with voters; that there was no such organization as the ‘Danites,’ or other unlawful organization; that polygamy was a fundamental doctrine of the ‘Mormon’ Church, and taht LeGrand Young, President Young’s candidate, was defeated.
Baskin–I voted for LeGrand Young.
LeGrand Young introduced the evidence of the conviction of Charles Gilmor of drawing and exhibiting a deadly weapon.
Baskin–Sometimes it’s a man’s duty to exhibit and to use a deadly weapon.
LeGrand Young–I expect yet to find a statement of Mr. Baskin’s regarding the good character and loyalty of the ‘Mormons.’
Baskin–I’d like to have introduced any statement I have made about the ‘Mormons.’
At this point court adjourned till November 19th.” (DW 29(23):715-721, 30 Nov., 1889)
“IT DOESN’T YIELD MUCH.
Thus far the political scheme operated in the Third District Court by the political ‘bosses’ of the ‘Liberal’ party has not yielded much capital to those who instituted and have operated the proceedings. To our knowledge not a few prominent members of that party have been inexpressibly disgusted at the whole movement. They are heartily ashamed of the attempt to compel persons to divulge secret religious ceremonies, and denounce the whole thing as an outrage.
Even if the ceremonies were described, those who have sought to compel persons to exhibit them, would be more than disappinted, as they would not get what they want, but directly the opposite.
It is plain to the most casual observer, as it is thoroughly known to the initiated, that there is no element of antagonism to the institutions of this government and the principles upon which it was founded, in the religion of the Latter-day Saints. Its whole genius and tendency is preservative in that regard. The testimony of certain apostate anti-‘Mormon’ cranks will not weigh to the contrary with sensible people. As was stated before in these columns their presence in court after a record of virulent opposition to the Priesthood gives the lie direct to their assertion that disobedience incurred the death penalty. Their situation is supremely contradictory and absurd. Similarly false is their statement regarding a covenant of antagonism toward the government of the United States.
Outside of the bitter and unscrupulous class of apostate ‘Mormons,’ doubtless there are members of seceders from the Church who have too much honor and regard for truth to be guilty of bearing such false witness upon those two important points that have been made so prominent in these extraordinary proceedings. The testimony of Mr. Harrison in relation to the alleged antagonism to the government is in point, and in that direction joins with that given by the brethren, which was clear, straightforward and not susceptible of being overturned.
The evidence given by witnesses showing the preservative character of the Gospel in its relation to the government appeared to sit sourly on the stomachs of Mr. Baskin and Mr. Dickson. The former admitted, ironically and sarcastically, that 10,000 ‘Mormons’ would testify similarly, and the latter increased the array to 150,000, both admissions being accepted by the other side. This admission was in the nature of an insinuation against the honesty and truthfulness of the ‘Mormon’ people. We are pleased to be able to state, from a knowledge of their character, that for truthfulness and integrity they are not excelled by any other people as a class. Abundance of evidence could be offered in substantiation of this assertion, the testimony coming from non-‘Mormon’ sources. Mr. Baskin himself has even made genuine admissions on that score.
In this connection it may be appropriate to quote from a statement made in testimony by a non-‘Mormon’ devoid of affectin for that people, before the congressional House committee on Territories, on January 21st, 1870:
I have been for five years past a resident of Utah. I must do the Mormons the justice to say that the question of religion does not enter into their courts, in ordinary cases; I have never detected any bias on the part of jurors there in this respect, as I at first expected; I have appeared in cases where Mormons and Gentiles were opposing parties in the case, and saw, much to my surprise, the jury do what is right.
It will, perhaps, appear somewhat remarkable to our readers when we say that the gentleman who made that statement so eulogistic of the Latter-day Saints, showing how regardful they were of the rights of others, was Robert N. Baskin, ex-Assistant United States District Attorney, and one of the bitterest of bitter anti-‘Mormons.'” (Deseret Evening News, 18 Nov., 1889; in JH 18 Nov., 1889)
“Our side in the endowment oath case today impeached the testimony of some of the witnesses for the prosecution. Even E. L. T. Harrison and other outsiders testified that no oath is ever taken by Mormons against the government. The sons and daughters of a man named Wardell, who testified that he saw a man named Green blood atoned for apostasy while crossing the plains, gave evidence that their father lied. In fact the man named Green to whom he refers, still lives at Wellsville.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 18 Nov., 1889)
“The necessary evidence to present to the Court tomorrow was considered. Bro Jos. B. Noble, & Sisters B. W. Smith & M J Thompson were to be seen to testify that the Endowments as given by the Prophet Joseph were the same as given to-day Pres Jos F. Smith saw these sisters this evening & conversed with them & they are witnesses and willing to testify It never was the view of any well informed Latter-day Saint that the Church will supercede the Government of the United States.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 18 Nov., 1889)
18 Nov.: Authority for higher ordinances lost w/Joseph.
“After dinner we returned to meeting where I spoke for 50 min. on the succession in the Priesthood from the Prophet Joseph down to Pres. Woodruff, as it is said some apostates argue that after the death of Joseph the authority to administer the higher ordinances of the Gospel ceased with the Church and all work done in the temple since his day is void.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 18 Nov., 1889)
19 Nov.: Anderson case.
“After the opening of the court on Tuesday, November 19th, Mrs. Barbara Bridges was sworn. She testified–I am now the wife of Henry Bridges; Martin Wardell was my first husband; was married to him in England; had seven children by him; we came to Utah in 1862; he was then my husband; Mr. Dame was captain of the company in which we crossed the plains; came in the same wagon with my husband; my son George drove all the way but a short distance; there was no man from our train killed; remember crossing Green River; there was no man killed near there; never heard of a man named Green being in the camp; heard my daughter say that Mr. Wardell said there was a man named Green killed there, and I told her that the story was a lie; my son drove the same team right across the plains; the team belonged to the Church, and was driven to the Tithing yard. I remember Mrs. Surridge being killed; and an aged man in the next wagon to us died in the first part of the journey.
To P. L. Williams–I was married to Henry Bridges about twenty-three years ago, and now live at East Mill Creek; I left Mr. Wardell four or five years after we came to Utah; I left him because of polygamy; he took another woman and abused me very badly; I asked him to treat me as well as the other, but he said, ‘No, I’ll be d–d if I will;’ his treatment of me was so bad that I had to leave him; my second husband was good to me; I was first asked last night to testify; my son William notified me to come; I told my daughter that the story about Green being killed was a lie; my husband drove no team, but occasionally took turns with my son; I am still a member of the Church; I don’t know about Wardell; I consented for him to marry a plural wife, and lived with him about two years after; I left him because he treated me meanly; there were probably 75 or 100 people in our train; never heard of any man being killed on our trip; no one ever said to me that Wardell ought to be killed for apostasy; never talked with any officers of the Church about his apostasy.
To LeGrand Young–George Sargent drove the wagon in front of us in the train; that behind us was Mr. Follett, then came Mr. Surridge.
Court–It is not material whether that man Green was killed or not, and further evidence is not necessary on that point. Half a dozen witnesses have testified that they were there and did not know, or have any reason to believe, that such a man was killed. There has been sufficient negative testimony on that point.
LeGrand Young–I never before heard the name of a man being killed on that account.
Baskin–Did you hear of Ike Potter?
LeGrand Young–Ike Potter, a noted desperado, was killed by the officers, and was not even a member of the Church.
Court–While it is proper that you should show that Green was not killed, I shall treat the matter as being disproved.
LeGrand Young–We will produce the man Green, and his sister. He was not in the train. Wardell said Green lived at Farmington, and we will bring evidence to show that the only man of that name who ever lived there is still alive. His sister is here today.
Court–The only question here is as to the obligation taken in the Endowment House.
Judge E. G. Woolley was recalled, and testified–The last two occasions of my being in the Endowment House were for dead friends. The ceremony in the cases of dead and living is just the same. There was no requirement, or anointing of the arm, for the avenging the blood of the Prophets. The covenants and endowments of men and women are practically the same; part of the time they are apart, but I have been informed that they are the same. The ceremony does not differ between the dead and the living.
To Mr. Dickson–We were told to pray to the Lord to avenge the blood of the Prophets, and I think reference was made to John’s Revelation.
Court–What sort of a proceeding is that about the dead? I don’t understand that.
Mr. Woolley–We believe the endowments are for the dead as well as the living; the effect, if the dead accept it, is just the same as if they were living; I understand the sealings for the dead are performed in the Endowment House; the dead may be sealed to the living; that is the custom; all marriages in these places are celestial marriages; a marriage by a Bishop or Elder, outside of those places, is a marriage for time only.
J. E. Langford testified–I know Charles Gilmor’s reputation for truth and veracity; it is bad.
To Dickson–I have heard most of his neighbors speak of his bad reputation; he has had trouble with pretty much all of his neighbors. I am a ‘Mormon;’ he has been in trouble with his neighbors ever since he resided there.
Isaac Whittaker testified–Charles Gilmor’s reputation for truth and veracity is very bad.
To Mr. Dickson–Every neighbor he has has thus spoken of him. Have heard men from Pioche say he was a bad character.
To Baskin–Gilmor told me he was an apostate, and I was surprised to hear he was a ‘Mormon;’ never heard anyone else say he was an apostate; if the people there had any ill will to him they could starve him out. The people all say he will not tell the truth where a ‘Mormon’ was interested, nor in other cases where he was involved. When he was hurt, they went and aided him in distress, and we would do so again.
To LeGrand Young–His stock trespass on other people, and that is how he makes a living.
Charles W. Penrose was called. As he was sworn Baskin remarked, in an undertone, ‘We’ll have all that we want now,’ and Mr. Dickson said, ‘That’s all that we want now.’
R. W. Young came into the court room, and Mr. Penrose was called back while some documentary evidence was being read. The first consisted of an extract from a pioneer address by Wilford Woodruff, in which he says that upon the youth of the Latter-day Saints rests the responsibility of building up a State that will be an honor to the American Government, and that it is their duty to maintain the principles of the Constitution.
The next was an extract from an address of John Taylor, made in March, 1865, in which it is said that it was not the right of the Elders to interfere with the political institutions of any nation, and that the Saints owe their allegiance to the government and were loyal thereto–that the only trouble was when the laws were not justly administered; President Taylor also referred to the loyalty of the ‘Mormons’ to the Union when the rebellion broke out; also to the conspiracies and abuses by some Federal officials.
An extract was read from an address by President Brigham Young, in 1874, regarding the establishment of the Kingdom of God, and the protection it would give to the people of the earth.
In volume one, Journal of Discourses, is a speech by George A. Smith, July 4, 1852, from which Mr. Young read.
The next was an extract from a discourse by President Young, delivered on the 6th of April, 1853, on the Endowments, in which it is declared that their purpose is for the next world.
Charles W. Penrose testified–I have resided in Salt Lake City over ten years; have been in the Territory about 29 years; have been a member of the Church nearly 40 years; am now editor of the DESERET NEWS; was also editor of the Ogden Junction, and before that was in the mercantile business; have been preaching the Gospel in most of the countries of Europe and in the United States; am second counselor to the President of Salt Lake Stake. Whatever I state about doctrine is only authority as far as it is sustained by the standard works of the Church; preachings not thus sustained are not doctrines. The terms ‘Church’ and ‘Kingdom of God’ are sometimes used synonymously, but they are separate; Jesus Christ is the first and only King of the Kingdom of God; there can be no kingdom established till He comes. That is the doctrine of the Church as set out in the Doctrine and Covenants, a standard of authority. That revelation, section 58, verses 21 and 23, tells us to be subject to the powers that are till Christ shall come. That is a command of God, through Joseph Smith, the Prophet. There are other commands of the same nature, as sec. 98, verses 4, 5 and 6; sec. 101, verses 76 to 80. In regard to the difference between the Church of Christ and the Kingdom of God, President Brigham Young, in July, 1855, delivered a discourse, speaking of the time when the Kingdom of God shall be established; (this was read from by the witness); it declares that the Kingdom of God grows out of the Church of Christ, and that the agency of man shall not be interfered with; the discourse also says that the flag of the United States will be defended and sustained by a free people. In another discourse, published in volume seven, Journal of Discourses, are the remarks of President Young on the divine inspiration of those who established the government of the United States and a declaration that the Latter-day Saints will sustain the principles of the Constitution of the United States. The sayings of Orson Pratt on the organization of the Kingdom of God were read from. Mr. Penrose stated that some of the writings of Orson Pratt had been disapproved, and he had afterwards made a confession that he had been wrong. (This confession was read from.) President Young, in referring to Orson Pratt’s ‘Kingdom of God,’ and ‘Great First Cause,’ said that Brother Pratt’s vain philosophy was no guide for the Latter-day Saints. The Kingdom of God is to exist in the future; we understand that to be Bible doctrine. The germ of the Kingdom of God is in the Church, but it cannot be established till Christ comes, when, as the Bible says, ‘The kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdom of our God and His Christ.’ This was referred to by Isaiah, John, and all the Prophets. The Priesthood have no right to coerce; they have a right to control the temporal matters of the Church, but not of the people. President Young believed he had the right to counsel in all things, when he was asked, but the people could follow his advice or nt, just as they pleased. The Priesthood have no authority to compel obedience to its mandates; any exercise of that power is contrary to the laws of the Church; if a man does not conform to the Church laws, excommunication is the penalty.
(Mr. Penrose read from the revelation, in proof of his statement that the Priesthood had no right to coerce. He also read from an article on Church government, in the Doctrine and Covenants.)
This article has been published in every edition of that book.
Court took recess till 2 p.m.
During the forenoon much of the time was spent in reading the extracts noted, which explained the ideas of the ‘Mormon’ people relative to the government, and their belief with reference to the powers of the Priesthood and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In the afternoon Judge Anderson stated that the use of the legislative chamber in the City Hall had been secured, and an adjournment was taken to that place, whence the crowd repaired.
Le Grand Young said that he had intended to bring Mr. Green, of Farmington, and the only one of that name who had resided there, to testify. He was not with the train that crossed the plains in 1862. He would leave it to Judge Anderson whether evidence of Mr. Green’s subsequent residence in Farmington would be taken. The witness Wardell had said that the murered Green had lived at Farmington.
The court said a limited amount of such testimony would be admitted.
Mrs. Emma Grover was called and testified–I have lived at Farmington since 1856; I know the people who live there; knew all who lived there from 1856 to 1863; Isaac Green was one; he is my brother-in-law; he came there about 1862 or 1863; I think he now lives at Wellsville, Cache County; there has been no other family, named Green, there since 1856; never heard of a Farmington man being killed on the plains; Isaac Green, the only one of the name of Green, who has resided at Farmington, still lives. I last saw him five years ago, in Farmington; he lived about 200 yards from my house.
James Millard testified–I have lived at Farmington since 1853; there was not a house there when I went; I know all the residents; Isaac Green lived there from 1858 to 1863; he moved to Kaysville and then to Wellsville; I saw him last April; no other family named Green has resided there. I never heard of a man named Green, or of any man from Farmington being killed on the plains.
James T. Smith testified–I went to Farmington in July, 1854; knew Isaac Green well from 1858 to about 1863, when he moved to Kaysville, and thence to Wellsville; no other man named Green has resided there; never heard of a Farmington man being killed on the plains.
Mr. Penrose was recalled and continued his testimony. The Book of Doctrine and Covenants is an accepted book of the doctrines of the Church; it was formally accepted at a General Assembly of the Church, October 10, 1880; the book as it existed in 1835 was accepted by the Church in Kirtland; there have been additions since that time. The minutes of the meeting of October 10, 1880, were read from.
The first Doctrine and Covenants I ever saw (in about 1850) contained the article on government, and I understand it has been in all editions. The officers of the Church get office by the vote of the people, in a general or local capacity. In 1880 the General Assembly of the Church elected John Taylor President. The authority of the Church is announced in the Doctrine and Covenants. If any man, even the President of the Church, preaches contrary to the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the revelations stand, and are the standard by which to judge. (Mr. Penrose read from Sec. 107, of the Doctrine and Covenants, in regard to the powers of the Priesthood, and its organization and officers.) If the people, as a body of the Church, reject the President, then there would be no President till another is elected. The President receives revelation for the Church; but the members are not compelled to receive it. (The portions of the Doctrine and Covenants relating to this were read. Mr. Penrose also read read from a sermon by President Brigham Young, June 5, 1859, regarding the agency and freedom of choice that belongs to mankind; also other extracts on the same subject, from President Young’s remarks.) I know of instances where the people refused to accede to the expressed desire of President Young. It was in 1876 or 1877, in the Third Ward, where the President’s candidate for Bishop was voted down, and afterwards the old Bishop was sustained. In Iron County, the President wanted a man for President of the Stake, but the people voted him down. There is not, nor has there been any doctrine of the Church, that the President or any man has the right to order a man to be killed. Such an idea would be contrary to the Church doctrine. I never heard of one being killed in that way. In regard to the doctrine of the blood atonement, I never heard it taught that a man could be killed for any purpose. I have preached on the subject, and my teachings have not been disapproved. I believe that they are in conformity with the Church doctrines. The killing of an individual is viewed with abhorrence by the Church. In section 42, paragraphs 18 and 19, the Lord commands us not to kill, and says that he who kills shall not have forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come. The Bible is also a standard work of the Church, and it forbids murder. The Doctrine and Covenants says that those who kill shall be delivered up to the laws of the land. John’s epistle says a murderer has not eternal life. The Bible and Book of Mormon are both standards of doctrine to the Church. They contain the revelations given anciently, and the Doctrine and Covenants those given in this age, and all combine. The doctrine of blood atonement is believed in as Paul says, that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins; that Jesus Christ died for man’s sins; and this is blood atonement–that Christ’s blood atone for sin, and by obeying HIs laws we receive the benefit of that atonement. We believe that if men sin against the Spirit of God so far as to shed blood, they cannot be forgiven; their only atonement is the shedding of their blood, and that must be done by the laws of the land. There is no one in the Church authorized to do it. Our idea is that a murderer’s blood should be shed, and that is the reason the Utah statutes gives one condemned to death the choice of the manner of death. We regard the crime of adultery by a man who has taken certain covenants as worthy of death; but we do not believe we have any authority to inflict that penalty; we accept the Mosaic doctrine. We think that if the law of God were enforced there would be a provision in the law of the land inflicting that penalty on adulterers. This is what Brigham Young, Jedediah M. Grant and others referred to.
Mr. Penrose’s address on ‘Blood Atonement’ was offered in evidence.
Mr. Penrose then read from President Young’s remarks on the killing of Dr. Robinson. In this the President denounced the killing, and said that if any one ever said that he counseled them to kill any one it was a lie. Mr. Penrose further testified–It is not a doctrine of the Church that apostasy is punishable with death. I do not know any one who believes in it. We abhor the shedding of blood except in self-defense, in the execution of the civil law, and in defense of country and family. I have preached the Gospel more or less the past thirty-eight years, and have preached a great deal. It has been largely the business of my life, and I think I am fairly acquainted with the doctrines of the Church. I have been a student and expounder of Church doctrines. The extreme penalty of the Church is excommunication; disfellowship is a lesser penalty. In the course of the endowments there is nothing in opposition to the laws of any country. The government is not referred to. The endowments relate principally to the future state; there is no authorization to shed human blood under any circumstances. There is no penalty for apostasy. I know what the Articles of Faith of the Church are. They were formulated by Joseph Smith, as Prophet and President of the Church.
The Articles of Faith were introduced as evidence and were read.
Dickson then began the cross-examination of Mr. Penrose, who testified–I was born in London, and came to Utah in 1861; joined the Church in 1850; took an oath of allegiance to the government in 1865 or 1866; Judge Titus was judge of the court where I was naturalized. I have been amnested by the President of the United States.
Mr. Dickson insisted that Mr. Penrose should tell how many wives he had.
Mr. Penrose said he was pardoned and amnested by the President.
The court said the fact that any witness was a polygamist should be known to the court, to be considered in weighing the evidence, and that he should answer the question.
Mr. Penrose–Does not the fact that I have received pardon show that I had violated the law?
Court–Yes, but it does not show any foundation for it.
Dickson–He says that so far as he knows there is nothing inconsistent with good citizenship in the teachings of the Mormon Church.
LeGrand Young–That has nothing to do with how many wives he had. He was under indictment for unlawful cohabitation. The people had been advised by eminent counsel that the law of 1862 was unconstitutional, but in 1879 it was decided constitutional. It was not charged that Mr. Penrose had violated it since then. Inquiry into his marriage relations cannot be gone into after the Chief Magistrate of the nation has wiped the crime out of existence.
Mr. Dickson insisted that the question should be answered, and said he had not only violated the law, but continued to violate it, and to preach that it was unconstitutional, up to 1884.
LeGrand Young–I admit that polygamy is a doctrine of the Church today. I don’t deny it; but I do not say it is right to violate the law against it. I have a right to speak against the law of the country, and agitate its repeal. We think that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, Mr. Penrose has a right to refuse to answer.
The court ruled that the question should be answered.
Dickson–How many wives have you?
Mr. Penrose–I decline to answer.
Dickson–Lest it would criminate you?
Mr. Penrose–No, sir; but on the grounds that I have received pardon.
Mr. Young said he understood the ruling to be that the question could be inquired into. He was surprised at the position the witness had taken.
Court–I am surprised also.
R. W. Young–It might be construed into holding them out.
Court–That would be a reason for refusal.
Dickson–It would not be a reason, we could compel him to answer if he was now violating the law, in cases where the United States is a party.
Mr. Moyle–The United States is not a party in this case.
Mr. Penrose–I have reasons for not answering the question in its present form, and could explain them to the court in private.
Dickson said the Court had ruled the question proper, and the witness declined to obey the injunction of the court. It was an attempt to trifle. If he still refused to answer he should be dealt with.
The Court said it could not hear any private reason. Judge Anderson suggested that the witness be given a short time to consider.
LeGrand Young asked that time be given till morning.
The Court said it was not disposed to be arbitrary, but if it was insisted upon, must commit the witness.
Mr. Moyle suggested that the witness have the privilege of consulting with counsel.
Dickson said he protested against any trifling or defiance. He wanted an answer compelled and no time given.
LeGrand Young–Judge Zane has given witnesses time to consider, and it did not infringe on the dignity of the court.
Dickson again opposed the request.
Mr. Moyle suggested that the court had said that some time ought to be given, and as counsel on the other side sought to compel the court it indicated that there was vindictiveness.
Baskin then made a speech urging the court to act summarily.
The court said many witnesses had declined to answer questions, but they were not insisted on. This case was, however, different.
R. W. Young–We only ask a postponement till morning, at the same time wishing to preserve the dignity of the court.
There was further discussion, and the court said it would commit Mr. Penrose for contempt.
Mr. Penrose–I would like time to consult with my attorneys, and respectfully request the court to defer action till tomorrow morning.
P. L. Williams opposed the granting of the request, and said the witness was defying the laws of the land.
Court–I feel it is my duty to commit this witness. But he says he has reasons which he cannot state here, and in view of that fact will give him till tomorrow morning to consider whether he will answer or go to jail. But this will not be a precedent.
Court adjourned till 9:30 Nov. 20.” (DW 29(23):715-721, 30 Nov., 1889)
“The naturalization case still continues with our witnesses.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 19 Nov., 1889)
20 Nov.: Anderson case.
“When court resumed its session November 20th, Mr. Penrose again took the witness stand.
Dickson again asked the question–How many wives have you?
LeGrand Young stated that if the witness still declined he shiould make a written answer to the court, giving his reasons, and denying any intention of contempt.
Baskin–Does he intend to answer?
LeGrand Young–He does not. I am stating it for him, and ask the court to permit a written statement of his reasons.
Court–You may file such statement. The counsel have a right to insist on the answer, and he will be committed for contempt. He will be committed in the penitentiary.
Dickson–We ask that this investigation be continued till he answers.
LeGrand Young–That is not right. We are not responsible for this, nor is Mr. Moore. This case should be drawn to a close; we want to introduce more testimony.
Dickson said he was unwilling to proceed without cross-examining Mr. Penrose.
Baskin–He is their most important witness, and without a cross-examination the case before the court would be imperfect. We could strike the testimony out.
LeGrand Young–Mr. Penrose is willing to answer any question–except as to his family affairs. There is no pretense that he has not been a polygamist. I don’t think the court has power to go over Mr. Penrose’s actions that have been amnestied. I have the authority of the United States Supreme Court for this statement. They expect to follow him back through his life, and I say they have no right to do so.
The court said that the amnesty did not wipe out the fact that he had violated the law. The witness was one of the most important men in the Church, and as to the fact whether he had violated, or had taught violation of, the laws of the United States was pertinent, he cannot answer in the way he has. He is squarely in contempt. He is uopn his dignity.
LeGrand Young–No, your honor, he is not. They show that they intend to pursue him into that for which he has been pardoned.
Mr. Moyle said this proceeding had been instituted to deprive men of the privilege of citizenship, and the scope of the evidence had been very broad. Because a witness now refused to answer, was no reason for postponing it. The question had no relevancy to the issue. The evidence that had been admitted by the court, to a great extent, was not lawful.
The Court said that so far as the applicants for naturalization were concerned it would be right to continue this case till the witness did answer. But the court will go on.
Dickson said they expected to show that the witness misstated facts when he said the Church had not dictated in political matters. He expected that blood atonement would be shown to be a doctrine of the Church, and that they considered it would yet be enforced against those, for instance, who committed adultery. We say tht no member of the Church has any right to citizenship, and the government now purposes to take that position by its authorized representative.
Baskin–When this case ends, which ordinarily would end in a day or two, he will be released from the penitentiary, and I think the court should keep him in the penitentiary, long enough to make it irksome, and should make him an example. The case should be kept alive for a whole year if necessary.
R. W. Young–It seems to me that the other side are arbitrary in their manner, and it is quite plain to all.
Baskin–We can’t go on today anyhow.
LeGrand Young–Mr. Penrose stated emphatically that he will not decline to answer any question that is proper cross-examination.
Court–Mr. Penrose must answer the questions that are held to be proper.
The anti-‘Mormon’ demonstrations that had frequently been made during the examination again broke forth, but in a more marked degree, there being stamping of feet and clapping of hands.
Judge Anderson interrupted it, and made an order that if it was repeated the court room would be cleared.
P. L. Williams urged the court to adopt Baskin’s plan.
Judge Anderson said he had to go to Beaver next week and the case could either be finished before then or be postponed till after he returned. ‘I propose that this witness must answer this question, unless he puts his refusal upon the one ground that he can put it on–self-incrimination. If any witness refuses to answer any question except upon legal grounds, he will be compelled to answer.’
The court continued the investigation till 10 a.m. November 21.” (DW 29(23):715-721, 30 Nov., 1889)
“THE POLITICAL SCHEME.
The proceedings in the Third District Court, Judge Anderson presiding, are growing more and more peculiar in their aspect. In a number of particulars they are violative of the common law, because they tend to withdraw from the citizen the protection which it guarantees. One of its provisions forbids that a witness shall be required to testify to anything that would render him infamous.
The Judge has insisted, in the proceedings that have been comsuing the time of his court for several days, that a witness shall answer a question propounded by the attorneys claiming to represent the ‘Liberal’ party, as to how many wives he has. In this instance the relation of the question to the protective provision of the common law alluded to can be seen at a glance. Judge Anderson has already ruled that a man who has at any time had more than one wife is not a man of good moral character, and has refused application for naturalization on that ground alone. The case of Mr. William C. Dunbar is in point. Mr. Penrose, as a witness, is coerced into stating, in effect, whether he is or is not a man of good moral character. This is equal to an insistance that he be compelled to render himself infamous in violation of the common law provision already cited. It is indeed an anomalous position for the court to declare a certain status to be immoral or infamous and then compel a witness to testify to his own position in that regard.
We are unable to understand what warrant the court has for compelling a witness to testify to his own injury. If there is authority in civilized jurisprudence for the position, we are not familiar with it. Besides its incompatibility with the common law, it seems to be contrary to common sense.
The raking over of the dead embers of the past, in the form of expressions made by prominent men under circumstances entirely different to those of today, and seeking to fasten the responsibility for them upon the people of the present, is also unjustifiable on its face. The statements thus resurrected were made under extraordinary conditions, which caused excitement to prevail to a large extent. But even such expressions as have been fished out of the tomb of the past that have been used as a handle to suit the political purpose of the opposition are buried under the accumulated weight of utterances as patriotic, pacific, humane and philanthropic as ever dropped from human lips. They have been spoken and written too by the same men as are quoted to the contrary. In fact nothing has been produced that has been incompatible with the genius of patriotism. It is unfair, however, to judge a people or community upon any other basis than the present exhibits.
The attempt made by leading active politicians of the ‘Liberal’ Party to use the court to compel the members of a religious organization to divulge secret rites and ceremonies that are deemed sacred, is an inexcusable invasion of the rights of the citizen. It is an outrage to make such an unprecedented and preposterous demand. It is enough for all legal purposes for witnesses to state that the ceremonies have nothing in them, in form or genius, antagonistic to the government. Beyond that point the State cannot step without invading a sacred right.
If the position taken by the ‘Liberal’ representatives should carry, and the Court demand of a witness not only a statement as to whether the rites and ceremonies in question are or are not in conflict with the government, but that he divulge the whole formula, the Masonic fraternity and every other secret society would be jeopardized. The State has no right to information as to the secret formula further than that which relates to its friendly character to the government. Any other position is unqualified tyranny.” (Deseret Evening News 20 Nov., 1889; in JH 20 Nov., 1889)
“Today Chas. W. Penrose was on the witness stand in the endowment oath case, and because he refused to answer Dickson telling how many wives he had, Judge Anderson sent him to the ‘Pen’ for contempt of court. The question was entirely irrelevant to the investigation, and I think Bro. P. did just right in refusing to answer. The whole matter of the endowment oath is a political plot to defraud the People’s Party.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 20 Nov., 1889)
21 Nov.: Anderson case (continued).
“November 21, there was another large attendance of anti-‘Mormons’ and a few ‘Mormons’ at the City Hall, where Judge Anderson’s branch of the Third District Court is making its inquiry with reference to the eligibility of ‘Mormons’ for citizenship.
LeGrand Young stated to the court that the case of the defense was through with the exception of a little documentary evidence and the testimony of two or three witnesses, one of whom was sick. He wanted to know, however, what the court proposed to do with Mr. Penrose’s testimony.
Dickson objected to the case being closed till Mr. Penrose should answer. The striking out of his testimony was not sufficient.
The court said that the case would not be closed till Mr. Penrose should answer, whatever time that might require, and as to the applicant Moore it would be kept open till Mr. Penrose’s cross-examination was completed.
LeGrand Young thought that the most the court should ask was that his testimony should be stricken out. The defense wanted it in. If all the objectors want is cross-examination, they could have done so without referring to Mr. Penrose’s private matters. Their whim should not be allowed to block this whole case, because the witness would not publicly state his family affairs. The defense wanted to know their standing.
Court–Mr. Penrose’s testimony will not be considered till he submits to cross-examination.
LeGrand Young said they wanted to introduce the documents referred to by Mr. Penrose as evidence.
Baskin said there would be no objection to that.
R. W. Young offered in evidence a letter of Col. Steptoe and several other United States officers and officials, recommending Brigham Young for reappointment as Governor, and testifying to his firm adherence to the Constitution of the United States.
The court, on Baskin’s objection, refused to admit it.
R. W. Young then read an extract from the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple, asking that the principles of the Constitution be established on this land forever.
Mr. Moyle offered Baskin’s statement, made Jan. 21, 1870, before the House Committee on Territories.
Baskin denied having made it.
Moyle–Do you deny it?
Baskin–That is not all I did say. I made that statement, and more. I made a speech there, but I never revised it. The reporter did not report all I said, or it is not correct. I used language like that in connection with something else.
Baskin took the statement and began to read it, but the Court said that Baskin could not be bound by his statements of nineteen years ago. No lawyer could.
Moyle–He asked us to bring it, and we did so. We withdraw it if he feels embarrassed.
Baskin–I would like it to go in with an explanation.
Moyle–We don’t care.
Baskin appeared badly nettled at the presentation of the extract from his speech.
Mrs. Bathsheba W. Smith testified–I am 67 years old; have resided in Utah since 1849; was born in West Virginia; am a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church; joined it in 1837; my husband, George A. Smith, died in 1875; he had been an Apostle and was then First Counselor to President Young; I knew the Prophet Joseph Smith quite well; my husband was his first cousin; my husband was one of the Twelve five years before Joseph Smith died. Joseph Smith was killed June 27, 1844, at Carthage, Ills.; I have had my endowments in Nauvoo, in 1843; Joseph Smith presided at the meeting then; I officiated in the Temple at Nauvoo subsequently; my own endowments were received in the Masonic Hall, Nauvoo. I became quite familiar with the ceremony; worked in the Endowment House here many years, assisting in the ceremony as Priestess; there have been no changes in the ceremony up to the present time; they are the same today as in the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph; no change has been made in any respect from the first.
To Mr. Dickson–The ritual is not written. I officiated eight or ten years in the Endowment House, up to its close, about five years ago. My duties were confined to a particular part, but I frequently listened to the whole ceremony, and was familiar with it all. In one room I did not accompany the males. I know what the ceremony is, but did not witness it performed.
To Le Grand Young–In the course of the ceremonies there is no reference to avenging the blood of the Prophets, except to pray to the Lord and quote the verses in the Bible–in the book of Revelation. It is just the same now as before Joseph Smith’s death. It is referred to only in the presence of both males and females.
In response to a question by LeGrand Young, the Court said the documents and extracts read by Mr. Penrose were admitted in evidence.
Le Grand Young said the defense did not admit that all the expressions made by the leading speakers were doctrines of the Church.
Le Grand Young said he expected Joseph Follett, whom Wardell said saw the killing of Green on the next train; also that he wanted the deposition of Mrs. M. R. Thompson, who was too ill to attend. He also wanted to prove, which he could do, that the records alleged to be burned, and which caused the Utah war, had not been burned at all.
The testimony of Mrs. M. R. Thompson was expected to be a substantial reiteration of that by Mrs. B. W. Smith in regard to the Endowment ceremonies, and that there had been no change made in them.
By agreement this evidence was admitted without Mrs. Thompson’s deposition. After some further discussion, however, this plan was changed, and Mrs. Thompson’s evidence was taken, the court having a recess in the meantime.
Mrs. Thompson’s testimony presented nothing in addition to that given by Mrs. Smith. Her deposition was read at the opening of court this afternoon.
Le Grand Young stated that Mr. Follett had not yet appeared, but they still expected him.
Jesse West was called and sworn, but Le Grand Young said it was a specific act and they would withdraw the witness.
Dickson said they were prepared to sustain McGuffie’s character.
In reply to Le Grand Young the Court said Joseph Follett would be examined when he came.
Le Grand Young offered the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants in evidence on the part of the defense.
Dickson–Call George Q. Cannon.
President George Q. Cannon testified–I am one of the First Presidency of the Church. Have been in that office since 1880, except from July, 1887, to April 1889. I remember the Epistle to the Church in 1885.
Dickson–Read that (handing him a paper).
Mr. Cannon read the document and then continued, in response to questions–I cannot say positively that this is a copy of that Epistle, but I think it is. It was addressed to the officers and members of the Church.
Dickson–That is all.
Dickson said he introduced the Epistle to show that the Church was acting in concert to overthrow and defeat the laws of the government.
S. R. Thurman said the defense objected to this, as it was not the proper order of evidence.
Dickson said the first proposition was whether there was anything in the endowment ceremonies that was incompatible with good citizenship? Second, was blood atonement a doctrine of the Church? Third, is control in temporal affairs claimed by the Priesthood? The defense had denied these propositions by evidence, and the document was to rebut that evidence.
Thurman–From what I have witnessed in this case, the testimony of the objectors went to prove a general tendency of the teachings of the Church leaders against the government; and expressions were cited for that purpose. This is claimed to be in the same line, and on the statement of counsel should be excluded. We should not drift too far from the rules of evidence.
The court said he had asked whether the feeling of the ‘Mormon’ people was hostile or friendly to the government.
Baskin said his position was that no member of the Mormon Church was eligible to naturalization; and that the oaths of the Endowment House were such as no citizen could take. The defense had claimed this position was incorrect, and had introduced evidence to sustain their claim.
The Court admitted the document and said the responsibility of the investigation rested on the court. The question was whether persons, otherwise qualified, were to be excluded from citizenship because of membership in the ‘Mormon’ Church, and wanted to hear all evidence it could to determine that fact.
The Epistle was then read. It is dated May 26, 1885, and is signed by Presidents John Taylor and George Q. Cannon.
Mrs. Sarah Gilmor testified–I am 38 years old; have been a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church; passed through the Endowment House; Eliza R. Snow, Mrs. B. W. Smith and Mrs. Hyde were there.
The evidence was objected to.
Dickson asked permission to reopen his case by the introduction of witnesses who could not be procured before this. One of them had officiated in the Endowment House.
Mrs. Gilmor continued her testimony–there was an oath that the blood of Joseph and Hyrum Smith should be avenged on the American nation, and that they would teach it to their children and their children’s children to the third and fourth generation. There was also a covenant of strict obedience to the Priesthood in all things, spiritual and temporal. We were told that if we revealed anything we would be dissected.
To Mr. thurman–I did not take the oath. There wer so many there that they couldn’t tell who took it or who did not. I am the wife of Charles Gilmor.
Henry W. Lawrence was called for and testified–I am 54 years old; have resided in Utah 39 years; have been a member of the Mormon Church; my parents also were members; I was 15 when I came to Utah; I was 3 years old when my parents joined the Church; I have left the Church; when a member I was a counselor to the Bishop of the Eighth Ward; officiated in the Endowment House from 1865 to 1869. The Endowments are taught orally; they are not written. I was familiar with them, and assisted in administering them. It would take time to tell them. Obligations and covenants were entered into. There is a covenant to avenge the blood of the Prophets; reference is made to Joseph and Hyrum Smith. There are explanations; in substance it is: ‘You each and all covenant and agree to avenge the blood of the Prophets, and of the Prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith, who have sealed their testimony with their blood. This you will teach to your children and your children’s children to the third and fourth generation. This you do in the presence of God, angeles and these witnesses.’ There is also a covenant to obey the Priesthood in all things. There is a covenant prohibiting adultery. There are penalties for revealing the secrets of the House and violating covenants. The general implication is that adultery can only be atoned for by death. There is a covenant that the men will keep themselves true to the wives that are given them by the Holy Priesthood. Reference is made to the sixth chapter of Revelations as justifying the avenging the blood of the Prophets. The penalties are for revealing the secrets. The penalty is death. I was excommunicated from the Church soon after Messrs. Godbe and Harrison. It was on a general charge of apostasy. Disobedience to the Priesthood was regarded as apostasy.
Objected to by the defense; objection overruled.
Mr. Lawrence, continuing–I was taught ‘Mormonism’ was the only true religion; my parents were sincere–I was sincere. There are many pretty theories with ‘Mormonism;’ the practice is one thing, the theory another. I was acquainted with Joseph Smith, and was taught that he was a Prophet of God. Was taught the same regarding Brigham Young, and that they were to lead and direct in all things. During the last years of my association with the Church there were many things that were objectionable. We said these things are wrong, and the other things are wrong, but we were told that we would see that they were all right. We were required to give up our agency. This is the influence the people were under. Mr. Godbe started the Utah Magazine, the forerunner of the Tribune. We advanced liberal ideas, and wanted ‘Mormonism’ to be true. At that time Brigham Young was supreme. We were isolated, and to object to any of the counsels of the leaders was worthy of excommunication and ostracism–a hard thing to bear. Brigham Young taught obedience in all things. This is not taught today. We saw that there was an effort, to defy the goverment, and we wanted to prevent it. The opening of the mines was opposed. Brigham young tried to control the wages of the working-men. Mr. Harrison wrote a piece in opposition to this. In the School of the Prophets Brigham expressed his views. When Mr. Harrison wrote an article on the mines, we were in Bear Lake, and we knew the conflict would come and we would have to come out of the Church. The article was trimmed to be as little objectionable as possible. I said to them, ‘Boys, I’ll give you six weeks to stay in the Church.’ We came home in about ten days, and Messrs. Harrison and Godbe were called up. T. B. H. Stenhouse offered to stand by us. Some of the disaffected gave in, and so did Stenhouse. He was afraid to do otherwise.
Mr. Moyle objected to this, as they had been shut out by the court from introducing testimony of the same class. The objection was overruled.
Mr. Lawrence, continuing–Any opposition to the Priesthood was called apostasy. The leading men of the Church were at that meeting I am referring to. Mr. Godbe followed Stenhouse, and took a firm stand. It was a serious matter then to oppose Brigham Young. Godbe justified himself, and Mr. Harrison took a similar stand. He claimed that they had a right to publish their ideas. There was quite a feeling displayed. There was no charge against me, but I agreed to stand by them. A motion was called to discontinue the Utah Magazine, and all but myself and a few others voted for it. I voted in favor of continuing the Magazine, and that was called treason in those days. There was a risk in saying anything against the Church. I was called to the stand, and maintained my position. Brigham Young said he had heretofore carried Godbe in his coat pocket. The meeting adjourned, and Godbe and Harrison were cited to appear before the High Council, which met in this room 20 years ago this month. Geo. Q. Cannon was prosecuting officer. He read the article on the mines as an evidence of apostasy. This was because we opposed the Priesthood.
Le Grand young–I don’t wish to interrupt the witness in his speech. But he has no right to go in his lecture on early Utah beyond the question at issue here. Even if Godbe and Harrison were cut off for the reason claimed, is that any reason why a member of that Church should be denied citizenship? It may be admitted that the early inhabitants opposed the opening of the mines, but that is not a reason for keeping Mr. Moore from the privileges of a citizen. Mr. Moore may be in favor of opening the mines, but that makes no difference to this case. His speech should not be permitted here, because it is uncalled for and at this stage of the proceedings illegal.
Dickson wanted Lawrence to go on in the line he was following. In his speech he demanded that ‘Mormons’ be excluded from citizenship, and the mob in attendance began stamping their feet and clapping their hands.
Baskin followed in the same line as Dickson, and said he opposed the Church because it was a theocracy, and no member of it could be attached to the Constitution or to the American institutions.
R. W. Young suggested that Mr. Lawrence had said he had exercised his free thought. Were not the Mormons entitled to take their view? They did not force him to remain in the Church. The people had a right to refrain from dealing with him if they wanted to. The ‘Mormons’ had as much right to vote the People’s ticket as the non-‘Mormons’ had to vote the ‘Liberal’ ticket.
Le Grand Young suggested that the Catholic allegiance was always first to the Pope, but their practice was to be loyal to the governments where they resided. You may accuse the ‘Mormons’ of claiming allegiance to the Priesthood, but their practice has been that of people devoted to the Constitution, and we challenge the world to a comparison with us. Let the actions of the people speak for them.
Judge Anderson said this was not the first time the question of excluding members of a certain Church from citizenship had been raised. It had been suggested in regard to Catholics, but not in the courts. If it can be shown that the ‘Mormon’ Church claims to control in temporal matters, then membership in that Church disqualifies a man for citizenship.
H. W. Lawrence continued–Other charges were made against Godbe and Harrison. The latter asked the President of the High Council, G. B. Wallace, ‘Is ther anything against our moral character?’ The reply was in the negative. Brigham Young said, ‘Not that we know of.’ It is a theory of the Church that no man can apostatize without committing sin. The idea was given out that we had committed a secret sin, or we would not have given up the truth. None of the High Council voted in favor of Godbe and Harrison. Eli B. Kelsey was cut off for voting in favor of them, without even giving him a trial. This was done on motion of Brigham Young. I voted with Kelsey, but nothing was said to me. Brigham pleaded with me to stay with the Church, and I left it of my own accord about a month afterward. I had nothing but kind feelings for the people. I wanted to bring about reforms. We did not want to go out of the Church at the time of the trial, but I did so a month or so afterwards. When I stood by these men I was cited before the Bishop, and was cut off. The Church claims to be the government and kingdom of God. It is a present, literal kingdom; its territorial jurisdiction was expected to reach over the whole earth. The Christ was to come and reign. When I was cut off I was doing a business of $15,000 to $20,000 a month. In a little while it was down to one third of that, and I was socially ostracised. Nobody wanted to be seen in my company.
To Le Grand Young–Mr. Harrison made a mistake when he said the names of Joseph and Hyrum Smith were not mentioned in the Endowment House. Of course the ceremony may not have been the same as when I administered. I think Harrison intended to tell the truth; so did Tullidge and Kelsey. They were all with us in the new move. Godbe, Harrison, Tullidge and myself were among the leaders. Mr. Tullidge has not taken an active part against the Church. Mr. Kelsey also ceased his active opposition, and became favorable to it. Since Brigham Young opposed the opening of the mines, many Mormons have been engaged in the mining business. John Taylor was in that business, but if he had done in 1869, he would have been cut off. It was the idea that the Lord would direct when the mines were to be opened. The only reason Brigham gave for his opposition was the bringing in of many people whom he could not control. He also said he thought an agricultural and manufacturing people would be more prosperous; I knew Anthony Ivins. He was quite prominent, and was engaged in opening the mines. He was in good standing in the Church to his death. One of the charges against Godbe and Harrison was that they taught false doctrines. One of the false doctrines was opening mines; another was individual agency. It was not till after that they began teaching spiritualism. There was only one thing before them. It was not generally known that they were having revelations. It was mentioned at the trial. The charge was apostasy, and that included many things. The temporalities were prodominant [predominant?]. George A. Smith said they wanted to open the mines and ‘bring in all hell and the devil.’ I believe in ‘Mormonism’ sincerely.
At this point court adjourned till November 22nd.” (DW 29(23):721-724, 30 Nov., 1889)
“CHARACTERISTIC SMALLNESS.
The commitment of Mr. C. W. Penrose, by Judge Anderson, for contempt because he declined to answer a question which the Court ruled to be proper, aroused a great deal of sympathy in the community for that gentleman. The whole movement which lead to his being placed in custody of the U. S. Marshal is political, but into it religious and social affairs have been dragged by the ‘Liberal’ party, some of whose most active leaders have conducted the proceedings thus far.
While Mr. Penrose’s offense is constructive contempt, he is, to all intents and purposes a political prisoner, being in durance because he declined to personally give publicity to his domestic affairs. He is a gentleman of well established ability and standing in the community, and all decent people even among those who differ with him in religion and politics, will regret the position in which he is placed.
It is an unspoken understanding among the journalistic fraternity that outside of differences arising from divergence of opinion upon public matters, there should exist among them, whenever occasion demands it, a certain degree of professional amenity. When one member is presumed to be at a disadvantage, especially if he be placed ina tight position on account of being adjudged guilty of a mere technical offense, such as refusing to answer a question regarding his domestic relations, it is not the rule for journalists with souls to jump on him with both feet and gloat over what they might cnosider his discomfiture. To act in such a brutal fashion would not be magnanimous nor professional. In such case the least indication of generosity that could be manifested would be a semblance of decency in the shape of silence. There is nothing of that manly sentiment in a half-expressed wish that the position of the person placed at a disadvantage be rendered worse and more irksome.
But fresh water cannot be drawn from a dry well. On the same premise you cannot extract commity from where it does not appear to exist. Consequently circumstances have long ceased to justify an expectation of anything like magnanimity from the leading ‘Liberal’ journal of this city towards those it esteems to be its antagonists. It carries on the conflict in a personal sense with an opponent whose hands are tied. It is not pleasing to see journalism thus disgraced.
These comments have been superinduced by the following, which appeared in this morning’s issue of the chief ‘Liberal’ organ of this city:
Penrose was not taken out to the Penitentiary until 8 o’clock, and the action of the officers in allowing him to remain in the city until that hour was severely criticised by some. Deputy Marshal Vandercook, who has charge of the office in the absence of Marshal Parsons, explained this by saying that the penitentiary wagon had to wait until that time for a prisoner, who was brought up on the train.
We hope the indecent haste exhibited under cover of the expression: ‘was severely criticised by some’–did not exist to any extent beyond the corpus of the writer of that paragraph. We are of opinion that it was confined to the more unmanly and vindictive class of ‘Liberals,’ to whom magnanimity toward political opponents is almost a deadly bane. If a little of that lofty sentiment were to be injected into their composition the effect might be disastrous, so perhaps it may be well enough to leave them to wallow in the juice of their own malignity.” (Deseret Evening News, 21 Nov., 1889; in JH 21 Nov., 1889)
“Father was subpoenaed to appear before the judge in the endowment oath case at 2 p.m. On being called to the witness stand he was only asked by W. H. Dickson to recognized a circular to the brethren of the priesthood in the different stakes, signed by himself and Pres. John Taylor in which they speak of maintaining our rights and urge the establishment of a defense fund.–H. W. Lawrence was also on the stand for the opposition and stated that he labored in the Endowment House from 1865 to 1869 and there were oaths there administered inimical to the interests of the government. The case was continued till tomorrow.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 21 Nov., 1889)
22 Nov.: Anderson case.
“Upon reassembling November 22, Mr. Lawrence’s cross-examination continued–The kingdom of God, used by the ‘Mormons,’ referred to an organization now in existence; the theory is that this is the fulness of the Gospel; this is the establishment of the kingdom that Daniel saw, that is to roll forth and fill the whole earth. It is a spiritual and temporal kingdom, combined completely. The ‘Mormons’ believe the framers of Constitution of the United States were divinely inspired, because it was so free that the kingdom of God could be established and spread over the whole earth. The kingdom’s laws are applicable to all conditions of men. The kingdom of God is not now in existence in its purity, but the elect of God are being called out to form that kingdom. Christ is king when the kingdom is prepared. I never heard it stated that Brigham Young was king, but the people acceded to his desires. P. P. Pratt, in the Voice of Warning, tells what a kingdom is. I accepted his theory in that regard. The people thought the kingdom was being prepared for Christ. They were preparing a kingdom for Christ. I don’t think the kingdom is yet established, but they are trying to do so. It is to be Christ’s. The Mormons acknowledge Him as King. He is to come when the people are pure enough. I think a King is necessary to a kingdom. There can be no kingdom till there is a King. But they are preparing a kingdom and Christ is to be its first King. The Church does not enforce its mandates except by excommunication. A man can apostatize, but he must take the consequences. The state of affairs today is different from that twenty or thirty years ago. Mormonism has been taught to be divine, and no man can turn from it without being very wicked. It encourages apostasy from other denominations. When he leaves it, he is regarded as sinning against the Holy Ghost. Years ago, it meant social ostracism. That was the punishment. The consequences of apostasy today are not of a serious nature. But an apostate is not considered as true to his brethren. If a prominent ‘Liberal’ was to leave that party and join the other side, there would be a great deal of prejudice against him, and he would be ostracized by the non-‘Mormons.’ I admit there would be a prejudice against him. The belief of the ‘Mormons’ in regard to the coming of the Savior to reign differs from that of other religions, in that the ‘Mormons’ believe in a literal kingdom of Christ and the other denominations believe only in a spiritual kingdom.
During the cross-examination Mr. Lawrence shifted uneasily in his chair, and rarely, if ever answered a question direct.
To Dickson–The doctrine of the Church is that the Priesthood should exercise temporal power in building up the kingdom. When I was cut off there were few Gentiles here, and I had but few friends.
To Baskin–The ceremonies of the Endowment are always substantially the same; the same idea may be expressed in slightly differing language, but the aim is to be uniform. In the Church there is an accepted theory that as the States where the Saints were murdered had not brought the murderers to justice, the nation was responsible. The word nation, or government, or United States is not used in the Endowment ceremonies. The theory I have referred to is not taught in the Endowment House. Some say the nation is referred to, but I don’t.
To Le Grand Young–The government is not referred to in an official way in the Endowment House. I do not remember the government being referred to at all. I state it as fairly as I can. I would be glad not to have stated it. If the government had been mentioned,, I think I would have remembered it–distinctly. I do not remember ever having heard the name of the government being mentioned. In fact, I know it is not in the oath. The ritual of the oath will not allow the use of the word government, or reference to it. I was here in 1855, 1856 and 1857. The theory of the government being responsible for the blood of the Saints was referred to during the excitement of those years. I remember the season when the crops were cut off by the grasshoppers, and it was almost impossible to obtain food. The reformation followed that period. The army came in 1857 and 1858. The sermons relating to the government were mainly preached at that time, but there were teachings of that nature from the first. The general acceptation was that the government was our enemy. I have many times heard teachings that were repugnant to my feelings. The idea was that the goverbnment had allowed the Saints to be murdered and driven out. There was a spirit of grumbling about these things. Nowhere in the teachings of the Mormon leaders, or in their ceremonies, are the people taught to be loyal to the government.
Le Grand Young–Are they ever taught to be disloyal? Can you find a solitary instance, in all the history of the Church?
Lawrence–Most of the churches teach loyalty. I must explain. In 1847 there was a Mormon battalion. I suppose that it went in response to a requisition from the government. I have heard the government denounced.
The court reminded Mr. Lawrence that he should answer the questions, and cease giving his views.
Lawrence, continuing–In 1847, at the frontier, the people thought the government had called on them for 500 men to cripple them. If the government had done so, it was most cruel. It was represented that the government called the 500 men out of spite. I afterwards found out that the Battalion was asked for on the solicitation of agents of this Church, and Jesse C. Little was one of them. Instead of the truth being told it was said that it was done to cripple them in the face of the Indians.
Mr. Lawrence got very excited during this, so excited, in fact, that he could not keep quiet while the attorneys called attention to the fact that the question was not responded to.
The court again told Mr. Lawrence to answer the questions directly.
The question was again asked–Have you evern, in any case, or under any circumstances, heard the people taught hostility or disloyalty to the government?
Lawrence–The general teachings were to prejudice the people against the government. This was all the way from 1852 to 1865. This talk was by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George A. Smith and others. They said the government had allowed the Saints to be driven, and had failed to give them the rights that belonged to them as American citizens.
Le Grand Young–Did they teach disloyalty to the government?
Lawrence–Not in those words. They did teach that this was the best government. They taught that the framers of the Constitution were inspired.
Court–The witness will omit anything except direct answers to the questions.
Dickson came to the defense of his witness.
Court–If he answers it must be direct, and if there are qualifications he may give them.
Lawrence began arguing with the court, saying there were pretty theories with the ‘Mormon’ Church but the practice was different.
The court directed him to answer the questions of counsel.
Lawrence, to Le Grand Young–While Col. Steptoe was here, it was possible the teachings were not so rabid. The presence of the army had an effect, I think. I don’t remember that it had. There was a proposition to make Col. Steptoe governor, and it was desired to make a favorable impression on him. Before he went away he endorsed Brigham Young for reappointment as Governor. I have heard that such a paper was signed. I did not hear him asked to sign it, nor do I know that he was asked to sign it. It was signed.
Le Grand Young–That is the first time I have had a direct response. And I move that all the hearsay about this be stricken out.
Court–Let it be stricken out.
Lawrence–I cannot say but that Colonel Steptoe prepared and signed that paper of his own free choice, and on his own volition.
To the court, Mr. Lawrence said–I have heard sermons on how the people should act toward the government. The spirit and purport were to prejudice the people against the government. There was nothing said of duty to the government. The teachings were to be true to the Priesthood. The feeling of the people, had it not been for the teachings, would have been friendly. When the army came, the feeling was not friendly. Since I left the Church, the feeling of the people has been one of friendliness. I believe the Mormon people want to be friendly to the government. But they are taught that their first duty is to the Church.
Court–What has been the feeling–friendly or hostile. Is there a feeling of willingness to obey the laws of the United States, or is the feeling one of antagonism?
Lawrence–If they felt they were free from the Church, they would like to be friendly.
Dickson–The ‘Mormons’ as a class, think the government is unfriendly to them, do they not?
Lawrence–I do not want to be unfair to the ‘Mormons.’ Many of them feel that way, and many of them want to be friendly to the government.
Baskin tried to shut off the attorneys for the defense by saying they would never get through, when they wanted to cross-examine Mr. Lawrence.
Mr. Thurman–Do you mean to say that if a man is loyal to the government he would be cut off?
Lawrence–He probably would not be cut off, but if he was not true to the Church in any issue, he would lose the confidence of the Church.
To R. W. Young–The criticism of the Mormons is on those who have administered the laws, and not adverse to the Constitution. They claim that by wicked men they have been deprived of their rights.
Court–Would a Mormon preacher, in your opinion, dare to advise the Mormons to give up polygamy?
Lawrence–If he should do it without any understanding with the leaders of the Church he would be ostracized. Polygamy is either divine or not divine. Since they believe in the revelation, they must stick to it. I have not heard any prominent Mormon preach giving up polygamy.
To LeGrand Young–I was not in the volunteer service of the United States. I was not with the company of volunteers that went out in response to the call of President Abraham Lincoln.
Arthur Wild testified–I was in Salt Lake in 1879; remember the procession with D. H. Wells, when he came out of imprisonment for contempt. I saw the American flag trailed in the dust. I do not know who trailed it. It was hanging from a wagon. It was in the procession.
To Le Grand Young–I don’t know who was holding it. There were lots of United States flags, but no others were trailed. The others were all up. Don’t know whether it was a man or woman, a white or black man who carried it. The crowd also hooted when they passed the court house. I’ve often mentioned the fact. I made the remark that it was a d—– shame. I told it about two weeks ago, and was brought here. D. H. Wells was in front of the procession. I don’t remember whether or not there was a flag in his wagon. There were many other flags. I am in the saloon business.
To Dickson–Men, women and children were in the procession. Saw no banner with ‘We believe in polygamy.’
P. L. Williams–D. H. Wells was imprisoned for refusing to reveal the endowment ceremonies.
Mrs. Cornelia Paddock testified–I saw the procession referred to. The City Council or Fire Department headed the procession. I saw banners with ‘We will uphold polygamy.’ Another banner was ‘We will obey the Priesthood.’
Dickson read from the Doctrine and Covenants, page 241, from a revelation given to Joseph Smith by the Lord, verses 18, 21, 26, 27, 28 and 29. He also read from a sermon by President Young, in June, 1857, regarding trading with apostates, in which the speaker said the people could do as they pleased, but should bear the results and not whine over it. Several other extracts were read from the Journal of Discourses, by President Young, but Mr. Dickson did not give the references by date. He also read from discourses by Presidents George Q. Cannon, John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, in the years between 1857 and 1865.
Court took a recess till 2 p.m., when George Walton was called as a witness, and testified–I saw the American flag trailed in the dust in the procession which followed D. H. Wells in May, 1879. As they were passing the Federal Court House they gave a hideous, hissing yell.
To Mr. Thurman–There was a good deal of noise and commotion. I am a bailiff in the Third District Court. I told the attorneys of this three or four days ago.
To the Court–The procession was composed of Mormon people.
Judge E. D. Hoge testified that he saw the American flag trailed in the dust on the date named, and also heard the yells.
To Mr. Thurman–There were other American flags, which were flying. The procession was a promiscuous rabble.
To the Court–The procession was about three blocks long; there were 1000 or 2000 people there; don’t remember the banner.
Judge M’Bride testified similarly and said there were demonstrations of derision. It was the largest procession I ever saw in Utah. There were 10,000 or 12,000 people. There was a motto ‘Polygamy is of God;’ another ‘We will be Faithful to our Religion,’ and others of that class. D. H. Wells was committed in the case of the United States vs. Miles, who was being tried for polygamy.
Deputy S. L. Sprague testified: On the day named there was a card out in front of the court house saying Miles was convicted. Saw the procession, and in front of the court house they shouted. Judge Emerson felt very indignant. All kinds of noises were made.
Clayton L. Haines testified–on the 4th of July, 1885, the flag was half-masted on several places in Salt Lake City. I met Captain Evans, and with a number of others went to the City Hall to see why the flag was at half-mast there. A little while afterward Marshal Phillips and Charles Crow came in. Major Wilkes spoke to Phillips, who said it was a whim of his own; he said some of their best men were in prison. Crow said he would like to see somebody put it up. We started, but the door was locked, and Marshal Ireland and Marshal Phillips went to talk the matter over. Crow put his hand behind him. After we went out Crow said he would see if the marshal wanted the mob dispersed. Afterwards Mr. Ireland came out and said Phillips had agreed to put the flag up within twenty minutes. Flags were also at half mast on the Co-op, at the County Court House, Tabernacle, and NEWS office. We telephoned to Sheriff Groesbeck, who had the flag at the County Court House put up. There was a meeting of Grand Army boys, who sent a committee to Mayor Sharp. I think Phillips served his full term as marshal.
To Mr. Thurman–I inquired who was responsible for the half-masting of the flag. We did not trace it to any one. Did not hear of such a thing happening in any other town in Utah. Did not trace it to any authority in the ‘Mormon’ Church. The mayor and City Council disclaimed any authority for the act. Phillips went up street, and no doubt went to the Tabernacle before he hoisted the flag.
To Baskin–I know the Mormon people; never heard any of them protest; heard the Gentiles protest.
To Thurman–I was with a number of Mormons that day–Crow and others.
To Baskin–There was a big crowd near the Co-op.; Baskin objected to the proceedings, and Crow wanted to arrest him. Baskin defied him. The crowd was pretty excited, and was mostly ‘Mormon.’
To Thurman–The crowd was not mostly Gentile. I can’t name any of the ‘Mormons’ there except Crow.
Joseph Follett, an aged and nearly blind gentleman, came forward for the defense, and testified–I was 75 last June; reside at Weston, Idaho; lived in Utah 27 years; came in 1862, in Capt. Dame’s company; there were about sixty wagons; I remember a man named Wardell in the company; I worked with him a couple of years afterward in Salt Lake County. Wardell had his wife and children on the plains. There was no man in our company named Green. No man of our company was killed, nor was there any killing that I knew of. Wardell’s story about the killing is entirely false. Nothing of that nature took place. I never heard of such a thing till last Wednesday, when I was called to this city. There was a woman killed in our train, by being run over by a wagon. An old gentleman from england died in our camp. He was sick when we started. No one was lost from our train.
To Dickson–I am a member of the Church.
George R. Emery testified–I am a Seventy in the ‘Mormon’ Church; am clerk in the Sixteenth Ward; (identifying a document) that paper was issued by order of the Bishop of the Ward.
Otto Van Ostrom testified that the document shown Mr. Emery was served on him. It was relating to a dispute with J. L. Johnson. The suit had been decided in the Commissioner’s Court, in Van Ostrom’s favor, and he received the document after that decision was made.
The paper was offered in evidence and objected to. The court over-ruled the objection.
The notice was for Van Ostrom to answer, on Nov. 27, to a charge for unchristianlike conduct, in enforcing a contract made without a proper understanding.
Dickson read several extracts from remarks by Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, and Orson Hyde in 1857 and 1858.
Mr. Dickson read from C. W. Penrose’s address on ‘Blood Atonement,’ in which reference is made to the doctrine of plural marriage, and the law of 1862 commented upon as unconstitutional. He also presented an account of the return of Bishop George Halliday, of Santaquin, from the penitentiary, and the welcome he received. Of this Dickson said its publication has lead the minds of the children from the government.
Le Grand Young said he would not be one among those to condemn honorable men who suffered imprisonment for what they believed to be right, or to condemn those who welcomed such men on their return from prison. Would Mr. Dickson have had them burn him?
Court–They were honoring a man for disobeying the law.
Le Grand Young–Is it an evidence of disloyalty because they welcomed a man whom they loved?
The court said it was an unusual thing to welcome a man from the penitentiary.
Dickson read from the case of O. P. Arnold, in April, 1885, when he promised to obey the law. He said he read it to show that those who agreed to obey the law were treated with contempt and disfavor by the people. Dickson said that Mr. Arnold was afterwards convicted and imprisoned for violating the law a second time.
Dickson read two editorials from the Deseret News of October 7, 1885, relative to the cases of Bishop H. B. Clawson and S. W. Sears. The one on the position of the former is entitled ‘Imprisonment and Honor,’ and the latter ‘Liberty and Dishonor.’ In the same paper the course of T. O. Angell is mentioned.
Le Grand Young insisted that the remarks of those who had been disfranchised should not be accepted as evidence, in view of the fact that a large majority of the Church were not polygamists.
Baskin said the statement that polygamy is less prevalent or firmly rooted today than heretofore he believed to be incorrect. Polygamists were not allowed to vote but they took part in public meetings and were teachers of the people.
Dickson said that for nearly thirty years the government had striven to suppress polygamy, but it was just as prevalent as ever. He thought it a disgrace to admit a Mormon to citizenship, and the practice could not be stopped too soon.
Le Grand Young said that he knew polygamy was on the decrease. This is a matter that is well known as history. Compare it with the condition in 1851 and 1852, when nearly every man was a polygamist. Now it is entirely different, and most of the cases now prosecuted were for unlawful cohabitation.
Baskin said the people have been drilled better in playing ‘possom.
Le Grand Young said that remark was unworthy of even Baskin. One reason for the great number of convictions was on a technical construction of the law, and the last years had produced a greater number because they had kept out of the way to avoid Dickson’s segregation scheme which would send a man to prison for life, and was set aside by the courts. There was also the unusual severity of the courts at first.
Dickson said that in the early history of the prosecutions the Church leaders urged the people to go into polygamy. One polygamous marriage had been celebrated this year. Every case had been fought where there was a chance of escape.
The Court said that while the applicant was not responsible for the utterances of the Deseret News, yet it was the organ of the Church which he belonged to. For belonging to it he is partly responsible. It’s a case of being in bad company, and that is the basis of the objection to him.
R. W. Young said these utterances were to polygamists, and not to monogamists.
The Court said the editorials encouraged breaking the law.
Dickson read an editorial from the News of October 31, 1885, commenting on the opposition to celestial marriage.
Baskin read dfrom a discourse by F. D. Richards, July 14, 1855.
Baskin’s manner to the attorneys on the other side was at times exceedingly insolent.
Baskin then took up the Book of Mormon, and with an insulting remark to the attorneys for the defense, read from the book relative to the prohibition of polygamy among the Nephites.
Baskin also read a revelation given in 1841, directing the family of E. Robinson to be charitable to a family that needed comfort and assistance. He also read from an old edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, saying that the same revelation was not in the new edition–a statement that is an error.
In the revelation about the Nauvoo House, the Court interrupted by saying, ‘The rates per day are not given are they?’
Mr. Thurman said he protested against this reading if it was done solely to make mirth.
R. W. Young–I will say in reply to the Court’s remark about the rates, that it was understood that strangers were to be entertained free of charge at the Nauvoo House.
Baskin was allowed to go on with his reading. When he got through court took recess till 7:30 p.m. At the evening session Mark M’Kimmins testified–I know Charles gilmor; I think his reputation for truth and veracity is good. I never heard anything against him.
To Le Grand Young–I am acquainted with one person who resides near Gilmor; never conversed with any of his neighbors about him. I sold him some horses six or seven years ago; we speak when we meet; that is all our intimacy.
Deputy Arthur Pratt testified–When D. H. Wells was released from the penitentiary I was a deputy marshal. Judge Emerson committed Mr. Wells. The process was a very large one, made up of vehicles, horsemen and children. The police were ahead. D. H. Wells was in a carriage near the head of the procession.
Le Grand Young–Is a procession by the people unlawful?
Dickson–I want to show its magnitude.
Le Grand Young–People may admire a man without committing treason.
Baskin–When a man was coming from prison is it proper to give him an ovation?
Le Grand Young–It is not unlawful.
Pratt–One of the banners had the words, ‘We believe in polygamy.’ The procession was cheering, and D. H. Wells acknowledged the cheers. In 1874 or 1875, I had a subpoena from the Third District Court for Brigham Young; went to the latter’s office and saw D. O. Calder to whom I told my business. He said I could not see the President, and said they would serve it for me, which I declined to do. I went back and returned to Brigham Young’s office; we were stopped by a guard, Shaw, now dead. Maxwell told Shaw he was resisting. He said ‘The United States be d—-d.’ I arrested Shaw. Cushing knocked Maxwell, who was a cripple, down. Shaw was sent to the penitentiary. We tried again with a posse of eight or ten. The gates were closed. D. H. Wells was there and offered to serve the subpoena. B. Y. Hampton and several police were there. Mr. Wells served the subpoena. I was once employed at Z. C. M. I.; was discharged because I would not sign a paper donating one-tenth of my earnings to the Church.
To Le Grand Young–I did not see the Stars and Stripes there (referring to the procession in honor of D. H. Wells). If it had been dragged there I would have seen it.
To Dickson–I heard it claimed that the flag was trailed, but I did not see it. The streets were crowded.
To the Court–I could not tell how many persons were there; do not [doubt?] there were four or five thousand. The procession was composed of ‘Mormon’ people.
W. J. Van Horn testified–I am an attorney at law; reported the proceedings in the Tabernacle after the procession. The Tabernacle will seat nearly 10,000 persons, and it was crowded. Took a list of the banners that I noticed. One said, ‘We believe in polygamy,’ and others expressed discontent at Mr. Wells’ imprisonment, and rejoiced at his release. The Deseret News claimed that there were ten thousand persons in the procession.
Dickson read from a Deseret News editorial of February 19, 1882, regarding the selection, by revelation, of George Teasdale and Heber J. Grant as Apostles, and Seymour B. Young as one of the first seven Presidents of the Seventies.
Fergus Ferguson testified–I am deputy clerk of the Third District Court. In May, 1885, George Q. Cannon was under indictment for unlawful cohabitation; so were the late President John Taylor and Joseph F. Smith; the latter is still under indictment. Neither President Taylor nor Joseph F. were ever arrested. The first indictment against Orson P. Arnold was before May, 1885; the second indictment was found April 11, 1886.
Mr. Dickson read a letter purporting to be from the late President Taylor to census agent White. The letter is dated Jan. 6, 1881, and explains the duties of Bishops, and states that Bishops had jurisdiction in temporal matters of the church.
William G. Phillips testified–I was city marshal of Salt Lake in 1885. I served my term out. Went on a mission afterwards, and returned a year ago. Am now sanitary inspector for the city; was employed about three months after I returned. My term of office expired in February, 1886.
Dickson read from C. S. Varian’s scrap book a paragraph from a copy of the obituary notice of President John Taylor, published July 26th, 1885 [sic–1887].
Dickson announced that this closed their case, and said that the government desired to be represented in the argument by its proper officer, C. S. Varian.
After some discussion court adjourned till November 23, when W. J. Van Horn was called, and gave a list of what he said were the mottoes on banners carried in the procession that followed D. H. Wells. I did not see the American flag there. Did not see one in the procession. At the meeting the speakers were F. D. Richards, D. H. Wells and John Taylor.
Dickson said that Arthur Wild wanted to change his testimony to say that when he said flags were in the procession, he did not mean American flags.
Van Horn said the speeches were commendatory of D. H. Wells for preferring to go to the penitentiary for contempt, rather than reveal the Endowment ceremonies.
Baskin said he had a judgment in a Bishop’s court, between parties, for a sum of money.
Le Grand Young said that it was a doctrine of the ‘Mormon’ Church that the members should settle their difficulties by the arbitration of Bishops’ courts rather than go to law. There was no effort or intent to enforce judgment. Those who did not comply were sometimes disfellowshiped, and it might be in extreme cases excommunication.
Dr. Jas. E. Talmage was called by the defense. He testified–I am principal of the Latter-day Saints College in this city; was formerly member of the faculty of the Brigham Young Academy in Provo; acted in that capacity four years; attended school there five years; have studied at the Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, and the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; in the Latter-day Saints College we give instructions in theology, the same as other branches; our theological classes study the Bible and other Church works; the principles of the New Testament are taught there; the New Testament is a text book of daily use, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are also; sermons are not referred to. The Constitution of the United States is taught. We teach that the Constitution is inspired, and of all human documents approaches nearest to perfection; it is taught that it is the foundation of the government of the United States and must be revered. We teach celestial marriage, but not plural marriage. We teach that celestial marriage is a contract for both time and eternity, while the civil marriage binds people only in this life; we teach that marriage is a religious as well as a civil contract. We never say anything about polygamy. There may have been a question asked about it, but I recall no instance. The B. Y. Academy follows the same rules as does our college. Both are sustained by voluntary donation from members of the Church. I have been a member of the Church eighteen years. We teach man’s free agency as a part of our course. We teach that man’s free agency is paramount–that it has not been interfered with by the Creator, and should not be by any power. We teach that man’s future depends on his course in this life; that he might by the exercise of his own agency show his nature and preferences. We also teach that the Kingdom of God is to be an outgrowth of the Church of Christ; that it is not here, but that it will be established, and that we should pray for it. When it is established, Christ will be its King. We say that he will come as the Bible says, but the time no man knows, not even the angels in heaven. We have never taught anything contrary to the laws of the land. It is a part of our teachings that people should prepare themselves to be good citizens. The teachings in the B. Y. Academy and in our own college have been approved by the authorities of the Church–that is, the plan of instruction has.
To Dickson–We teach that celestial marriage is distinct from plural marriage; the meaning of plural marriage is expressed, and the meaning of celestial marriage is explained. We teach that celestial marriage may be entered into in the monogamic relation; that it is different from ordinary marriage in that it is available in eternity. We teach the pupils to obey all the laws of the United States. We mention no laws specially. We have not had any questions upon the laws relating to polygamy, that I can recall. We also teach obedience to the revelations of God as a religious duty. We teach that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. We teach students to obey the laws. We also teach them that they have the privilege of obeying God in their religion. I believe in the revelation on plural marriage, and that if the Constitution had been conformed to there would have been no law against it. I teach the pupils what I believe, and not all that I believe. We also explain that the revelations do not require violation of law. I think the statutes against bigamy are constitutional. I don’t think plural marriage is characterized by the features of bigamy, as a crime. I think Congress sought to suppress plural marriages and I think they overstepped the Constitution. In the school we teach the free agency of man; we also teach that it is proper to seek counsel from the best sources. We have not taught that it is wrong to rebel against the Priesthood. We have taught that members of the Church should obey the authority of the Priesthood, but they may disobey if they choose. I think that we should obey the instructions of the President of the Church in his official capacity in relation to the Church. The subject of obedience to the Priesthood is not discussed. I don’t teach anything I do not believe, but I do not force on the pupils all that I do believe. There are many topics that are not referred to. In our college the pupils are from 14 to 30 years of age. I am 27 years old. In regard to the Kingdom of God, I do not understand that it is set up at all. I understand it is the mission of this Church to prepare for the Kingdom of God, but to do so that it is not necessary for them to exercise temporal authority. I have read the sermons of the leaders of the Church, but have not seen any declarations tha the Kingdom of God is set up, without modifications of those declarations. I understand that when the principles of righteousness taught by the Church shall prevail, then the Kingdom will be established. But in the sense of a kingdom, it is the teaching that it is not set up.
To the court–When Christ comes and reigns, then the kingdom will be established; it cannot be a kingdom yet, because there is no king.
To Dickson–The President of the Church is not the representative of the King in temporal matters. He is in spiritual matters. I believe that when Christ comes He will hold control in temporal matters, and that all men who work righteousness will aid in control–that the Priesthood holds no control in temporal matters, but in spiritual matters. I do not believe that the Priesthood have the right to control men in all temporal matters. I don’t think the President has a right to direct absolutely in all temporal matters. A doctrine to that effect is foreign to my understanding. I never have understood that they have a right to dictate in all matters. I have studied the teachings of the authorities of the Church.
To Baskin–We teach the pupils that there is a distinction between plural and celestial marriage. We designate no revelation as the one on polygamy. We have one on the eternity of the marriage covenant. We teach that the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants are divine, and this includes the revelation on celestial marriage. Plural marriage is not given as a command to the Church, but celestial marriage is. Plural marriages in the Church are celestial marriages, but celestial marriages are not all plural marriages. I believe that a deception or fraud is a necessary characteristic of bigamy. I understand there was no law in 1843 against a man marrying two wives, unless he practiced fraud. I understand now that there are laws against polygamy now in existence. I do not consider that our system includes bigamy. In the school we have not given any instructions as to whether plural marriage should or should not be practiced.
To the Court–In the highest grade in the school these questions may come up. We say that celestial marriage is binding for eternity, being consummated by divine authority. We do not explain what plural marriage is, but I understand it to mean plurality of wives. We teach that marriage can be performed as a religious ceremony, or as a civil contract. We don’t mention plural marriage, either one way or another. I am neither authorized nor qualified to teach plural marriage. We do not understand that teaching that plural marriage is corrupting the morals of the pupils, because we do not teach it. There has never been any comparison between the laws of the government and the doctrines of the Church. I believe plural marriage to be a proper condition, but have given no instruction upon it. I think a young man educated in the college would believe that a law which binds his conscience is unconstitutional, but he would not believe that such a law was not binding. I would not advise the breaking of any law, for I consider a law binding until it is annulled.
To Dickson–I believe the anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional, but that it is binding. I have never taught the children that plural marriage is right, because I have not taught it at all. The Priesthood do not now control in temporal matters. I have never heard it taught that plural marriage, of itself, will exalt anyone; I believe celestial marriage is essential to exaltation.
To Le Grand Young–A celestial marriage is one consummated between a man and a woman that will be of avail in eternity as well as in this life. This is the revelation on celestial marriage. I understand that polygamy is not obligatory, but is permissive. I think celestial marriage is obligatory for exaltation–that is an eternal union in marriage of husband and wife. The revelation has been read in school. We teach that marriage for eternity is necessary. We have never taught that polygamy is necessary. We have never taught that the Priesthood control in temporal matters. We teach that advice in temporal matters from those who understand them is proper, and the same as to spiritual matters. I think there must be a king to a kingdom. I think Christ will be King of the Kingdom of God, and that there will be no other ruler. As to the proportion of polygamists in Utah, I would say there is not to exceed one in thirty among the adult male members of the Church.
To Dickson–I think there are less than 200,000 people in the Territory; do not know how many Gentiles there are.
To Baskin–I said if I needed medical advice I would ask one qualified to give it.
Baskin–Is laying on of hands for the healing of the sick a doctrine of the Church?
The court ruled that this was improper.
To Mr. Young–When a man is a polygamist, it is usually but a short time before his neighbors know of it. I don’t think it possible to keep it secret long. I know the monogamists have the elective franchise, and polygamists do not take the oath. Some people do not take it from conscientious scruples. A man who does not take it is usually spotted.
To Dickson–I have never taken any steps to prosecute polygamists. I consider it my duty to mind my own business.
To the court–I know prominent men in the Church who are not polygamists. I do not understand that all the Apostles are polygamists. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Geo. Q. Cannon, J. H. Smith, C. W. Penrose were polygamists. I understand that Apostles H. J. Grant, John W. Taylor and A. H. Lund are not polygamists.
Did you never hear that Heber J. Grant had a second wife, now in England?
Dr. Talmage–I never did.
Court took recess till 7:30, when Joseph Sowden was called by Mr. Dickson, and testified–That paper (identifying a document) was made out by the BIshop’s court of the Fourth Ward. It is a judgment in a suit with Charles Williams.
Wm. Ward was called by the defense. He testified–I was in Salt Lake from September, 1850 to 1856; then went to St. Louis; was back here 13 years ago for a short time. I was once a member of the Church; joined it in 1844 and left it in about 1854. It was generally known that I did not consider myself under any obligations to the Church; I sent a letter to President Young, notifying him of my position; I went east with a number of witnesses; while I was here, after I left the Church, I found no difference in treatment by members of the Church; they treated me just as well after as before. I received my endowments; took no oath or obligation to avenge the blood of the Prophets on this nation; did not hear of any such obligation. I am not now a member of the Church.
To Mr. Dickson–I apostatized from the Church because I changed my views with regard to religion. I believed the leaders had no authority. I disapproved of their assumptions of authority from God. I heard nothing said about avenging the blood of the Prophets that I can remember. I know there was no obligation on that point. I am clear on that point. When my right arm was anointed it was not that it should be strong to avenge the blood of the Prophets when required. When I left here, in 1856, it was known that I was going to stay away.
Le Grand Young said he had but one more witness, who was not here, but they would close early on Monday.
Dickson objected to permitting any more witnesses by the defense, and wanted them to close their case at this session.
The Court said that unless counsel closed, the Court would close the case.
An adjournment was ordered till 9 a.m., November 25th.
After this announcement was made there was a discussion as to who should open and close the case, both sides wanting that privilege. The court ruled with Baskin and Dickson.
This closed the proceedings of Saturday evening.
{To be continued.}” (DW 29(23):724-728, 30 Nov., 1889)
22 Nov.: Interview with Woodruff, re: Anderson case.
“PRESIDENT WOODRUFF SPEAKS.
Following is the full text of the statements made by President Wilford Woodruff to an Associated Press reporter and as published in the eastern press:
Salt Lake City, Nov. 22, 1889. President Wilford Woodruff, of the ‘Mormon’ Church, in the course of an interview today, expressed the following views concerning the investigation now taking place in the Third District Court, arising from the application of a ‘Mormon’ for naturalization.
President Wilford Woodruff said: You must understand that this is the periodical anti-‘Mormon’ sensation, which we are accustomed to expect in November. Congress meets in December and it is presumed that the usual efforts will be made to secure legislation against the ‘Mormons.’ Of course, this cannot be accomplished unless the public mind is first prepared for it. In addition to this, I might explain we are on the eve of an important municipal election here in which the anti-‘Mormon’ party by preventing the naturalization of ‘Mormons,’ and in other improper ways, hope to be successful.
Reporter–But, President Woodruff, what can you say as to the claim made before the court that membership in the ‘Mormon’ Church is incompatible with good citizenship?
[President Woodruff–]I can truthfully say there is absolutely nothing in the ‘Mormon’ religion that is not consistent with the most patriotic devotion to the government of the United States. The revelations and commandments to the Church require that the Constitution and laws of the land shall be upheld. It is also a part of our belief that a time will come when this country will be distracted by departures from the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and when general lawlessness will prevail, and that when that condition shall arrive the ‘Mormon’ people will step forward and take an active part in rescuing the nation from ruin. As a people the ‘Mormons’ have the highest veneration for the institutions of the Republic. There are among our community quite a number of descendants of the revolutionary fathers who fought and bled to establish our popular government.
Reporter–But, Mr. Woodruff, to be specific, what about the claim that the Priesthood or chief authorities of the Church assert or usurp the right to conctol the Mormon people in all their temporal (including political) affairs?
President Woodruff–I am the present head of the Church and I do not make any such claim. It would be impossible to exercise it if I did. The Mormon people would not tolerate any such absolutism. It is true the authorities of the Church have taken a great deal of interest in the temporal affairs of the people, and the results are apparent everywhere. One is that the great majority of the ‘Moromns’ own their own homes. The leading men among them have been mostly men of experience, accustomed to wrestle with the crude elements. Their advice and direction to the people in temporal affairs have therefore been of great value. About political matters, the charge of undue interference is absurd. Elections are conducted under a strictly secret ballot system, so that no man knows how his neighbor votes. All the management of elections, down to the smallest details, is in the hands of the officers of the United States Government and their appointees. True, the ‘Mormons’ are to a considerable degree united in their political affairs. This is largely due to their being constantly and vindictively assailed by a small minority in Utah who have sought to wrest the control of public affairs from the hands of the majority. They have thus been driven together by a common interest and compelled to distinguish their friends from their enemies.
Reporter–One of the aims of the proceedings now going on in court is to prove that there is something antagonistic to the government in the ‘Mormon’ Endowments. What about that charge?
President Woodruff–I have already said that there is nothing of that kind in any part or phase of ‘Mormonism.’ I ought to know about that as I am one of the oldest members of the Church. A good deal is being made of a form of prayer based upon two verses in the sixth chapter of the Revelations of St. John, as contained in the New Testament. It relates to praying that God might avenge the blood of the prophets. An attempt has, I see, been made to connect this with avenging the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and to have areference to this nation. It can have no such application, as the Endowments were given long before the death of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and have not been changed. This nation or government has never been charged by the ‘Mormon’ people with the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, as it is well known the murder was the act of a local mob disguised.
Reporter–Then there is nothing in the cry about blood atonement?
President Woodruff–Well, there is this: The foundation of our religious faith is belief in the atoning blood of Christ, through which the resurrection will be brought about. We believe in the scriptural doctrine, whoso sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed; but we also believe that all executions for murder should be under the law of the land and by its officers only.
Reporter–What about the statements made by two or three apostate ‘Mormon’ witnesses to the effect that the Endowment ceremonies involved the death penalty upon those who leave the Church and disobey the Priesthood?
President Woodruff–Well, there is no accounting for the bitterness and untruthfulness of some men who have been connected with an organization, especially a religious one, and have turned against it. All their former sweetness turns to vinegar and gall. The Catholic and other churches have had much to contend with in that line. If it were not a serious subject, the position of such men would be amusing, it is so ridiculous. After they have been fighting the Church for from fifteen to twenty five years, they are living witnesses to the falsity of their own statements. The investigation in progress shows that no such penalty has ever been inflicted. Many ex-‘Mormons’ are too honorable to make such horrible and unwarranted assertions. It is unjust to judge a church from the statements of its relentless enemies.
Reporter–Why do ‘Mormons’ when on the stand decline to disclose the formula of the endowments?
President Woodruff–Because secret religious rites and ceremonies are the property of the individual citizen, and do not belong to the State. You might as well ask why a Mason, if he were placed on the witness stand, should refuse to reveal the rites and signs of that order. I myself an a Master Mason and have been informed that many Masons as well as people not connected with that fraternity, have been indignant at the attempt that has been made during the last few days to extort secret personal information from ‘Mormons.’ Members of other benevolent societies can see that their rights and organizations would be in danger should such proceedings carry. While Mormons have refused to divulge the rites to the court they have uniformly sworn that there is nothing in the endowment ceremonies inconsistent with good citizenship. Several prominent ex-Mormons testified to the same effect.
Reporter–What is the exciting cause of the present agitation here?
President Woodruff–As I before stated, it is purely political. There are two local parties. The People’s Party is composed largely of our people, although a number of non-Mormons sympathise with it. The self-styled Liberal party is composed almost entirely of anti-Mormons, and they are but a small minority in the Territory. There will be a municipal election next February. The present proceedings have been instituted by the anti-Mormons as a means to enable them to carry that election. A man named Moore, a Mormon, applied to the court for naturalization. Some of the anti-Mormon whips objected on the ground of his membership in the Church. Hence the alleged investigation conducted by prominent anti-Mormons and designed to obstruct, if not prevent, the naturalization of Mormons on account of their religion. Doubtless the agitators have also in view the approaching session of Congress. If they intend applying for more special legislation they are gathering a mass of anti-Mormon sensational material to aid them in their proposed work.”
(DW 29(24):737-738, 7 Dec., 1889)
23 Nov.: Anderson “Endowment House” case.
“MORE CITIZENS ADMITTED.
On November 13, Judge Anderson held a session of court at which a number of citizens were admitted, and will hold another evening session next week for the benefit of workingmen who cannot appear in court in the day time. This morning several other citizens were admitted, their names being Wm. Loder, Thomas Thomas, Andy J. Ross, Richard Wilson, John H. Birrell, G. W. Edgar and Thomas E. Wilkes. Joseph Bull, a man nearly 70 years of age appeared and answered the questions satisfactorily. He was objected to by Joseph Hurd and Joseph Lipman, on the ground that Judge Sandford had refused him because he believed in polygamy. To this Judge Anderson remarked, ‘If he was rejected solely for his belief in polygamy, I think the ruling was wrong.’ Further inquiry caused some doubt as to the reason for the former rejection, and the matter was deferred till tomorrow that the circumstances might be better understood.
When Mr. Loder was being examined, Lipman asked him, ‘Did you ever take an oath in the Endowment House?’ Mr. Moyle thought the question was improper, but the court allowed it. Thomas Goodman was one of the witnesses of the good character of the applicant and Lipman asked him, ‘Do you believe in polygamy?’
Mr. Goodman–From a religious standpoint, yes.
Mr. Lipman–I think that if a man believes in polygamy his testimony to another person’s good moral character should not be admitted.
Mr. Moyle–Will this court say that a man’s religious belief is a reason for holding him to be an incompetent witness?
Judge Anderson–It does not make him incompetent, but it should be considered in giving weight to his testimony.
Thomas Wilkes was objected to by Lipman, because he believed Joseph Smith was a Prophet. Lipman thought that every man who so believed had confidence in a fraud, and should not be naturalized.
Court–I know many good citizens who have been defrauded. Let him be sworn.
A. J. Ross passed the court’s inquiry all right, but when Mr. Moyle asked him if he had ever been guilty of fornication, he blushed, put his hand to his face and denied it.
Mr. Moyle to Mr. Youngberg a witness for Mr. Ross–‘Have you evern known of Ross having committed fornication?’
Mr. Youngberg, growing very red in the face and very angry–That is a foolish question. I don’t think there is any man of his age who has not. I think that is a d–d foolish question.
Mr. Hurd objected to the question, and the Court sustained the objection.
Mr. Moyle called the attention of the court to the fact that it had regularly allowed the ‘Liberal’ representatives to not only ask questions like that, but many which were entirely foreign to the inquiry before the court.
Judge Anderson then stated that Mr. Youngberg should answer the question, which he did after some hesitation, in the negative.
Ross was admitted.
After this was over there was a discussion as to the making of such inquiries by Mr. Moyle, the ‘Liberal’ representatives being very much annoyed at being met with their own manner of procedure. Hurd and Lipman argued that the crimes of fornication and adultery should not be a subject of inquiry when a man’s moral character was being testified to.
The court suggested that in some cases even a man’s belief in polygamy had been proposed as a ground for objection. As this was directly in point on Mr. Lipman’s action he exclaimed, ‘Polygamy is not the custom in this country but the others are. Why, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every one thousand men in the whole country indulge that way.’
Mr. Moyle–I am gratified, Mr. Lipman, at your frank confession of your own situation. I am also pleased that I cannot include the Mormons in your classification.
The first part of the remark brought out roars of laughter, and as there was no further business, court took a recess.
—–
Nov. 14, was again occupied by Judge Anderson in hearing applications for citizenship, and the following was admitted: L. Leonidas, Matthew Hudson, F. O. Webb, Henry Deiner, Frantz Kroll, David Jones, Herman Holm, Gustaf D. Herber, R. Anderson, W. H. Andrews and Casper Pfeister. In the case of Deiner the witnesses had known him but a little over a year, and Mr. Moyle objected to his admission on the ground that the law required that residence in the United States for five years should be shown. The Judge, however, admitted him and Frantz Kroll, who was in the same position, two more ‘Liberal’ voters being thus added. After they had gone, however, the judge said he had some doubt about such a procedure, and would admit no more on the same terms.
When T. O. Webb applied, he was objected to by the ‘Liberal’ representatives because one of his witnesses was not a citizen, having only taken out his first papers. The court admitted him, and said he would look more closely into the issue raised, and act upon the results of his investigation on Monday.
Mr. Norris was refused admission because he thought he might aid in secreting a friend who might be accused of unlawful cohabitation, and because he would not be as willing to convict men accused of polygamy as those charged with other offenses–that is if it was a part of their religion.
Mr. Herber knew nothing of the Constitution or principles of government, but was not a ‘Mormon’ and was willing to obey the laws against polygamy. He was admitted.
When John Moore came he passed the examination satisfactorily and was about to be sworn, when Hurd and Lipman asked him if he had taken an oath in the Endowment House. He said he had not. They further urged that he had taken an oath against the government of the United States. Mr. Moore denied that he had, or that he had any memory of the government even being referred to.
Lipman–I know that they so take an oath, and I want somebody acquainted with those ceremonies–some of the leaders–subpoenaed to tell the court about them. It is the general rule there to take an oath against the government of the United States, but they won’t reveal it.
B. W. Driggs, Jr., said that Mr. Lipman’s statement was untrue. The applicant had testified that he never took such oath, and the court had not the right, upon the assertion of an officious and irresponsible person to compel the exposure of the secret rites of any organization.
Court–I know we cannot make persons divulge the secret rites of any society. But if any organization requires an oath against the Government, then we have the right to get at it. If Mr. Lipman’s statement is correct, then there are some who have left the Church who can tell it.
Lipman–It is a notorious fact such a oath is taken, but it is of such a terrible nature that not even an apostate dares to divulge it. I want some of these people who know, who are in this organization, to tell the court what that oath is.
Mr. Driggs again objected, unless the court would confine the inquiry to matters referring to the government. He thought it was a gross wrong to compel men to divulge secrets just to gratify the curiosity of unscrupulous enemies. If the matter was to be confined to any oath against the government, he would like the court to so express it.
Court–The issue will be confined to ascertaining whether there is required of those who go through the Endowment House an oath that is inconsistent with the duties of a citizen. Other secret rites or obligations shall not be interfered with. Congress has made special laws against this organization and its members, and if there is an oath that is incompatible with the duties of a citizen, that fact should be known.
Lipman wanted authority to subpoena witnesses who might not be willing to come upon his invitation, and the court granted the request.
Mr. Moore’s application was deferred till Thursday next, at 10 a.m., when the witnesses will be called to tell what they know on the subject introducted by Lipman.
The application of Joseph Bull, whose case was postponed from yesterday, to know the reason for his exclusion by Judge Henderson was called, and it was shown that he was refused citizenship because he said he would not take up arms against England in case of war. The matter was referred to Judge Henderson to pass upon at an early day.
—–
More citizens were admitted, but none of those who stated that they were ‘Mormons’ passed, though they were closely pinched in the mill which has been instituted to ascertain the status of every applicant on the question of polygamy. Judge Anderson presided at the proceedings, having returned from Ogden.
Edward Peterson came first. He was not a ‘Mormon’–he became a citizen.
Edward Van Ruty was not a ‘Mormon,’ but he had attended a ‘Mormon’ meeting, and had also been to Sunday school a few times. The ‘Liberal’ representatives attended to him, and he replied that he had been prompted as to the proper way of replying to questions. Mr. Moyle suggested to the court that it was not an offense to be prompted–that was only one way of gaining information. The court ruled that it was all right for a man to be prompted on proper subjects, such as appeared to be the case in this instance, and Mr. Van Ruty was admitted.
Oliver W. Choules had not been a ‘Mormon’ for ten years, and Soren Johnson did not belong to that class, so they were passed.
In the case of Thomas M. Mumford, Lipman asked the court if he had ruled upon the question as to whether it would be proper to inquire of an applicant if he had committed fornication.
The court said he didn’t think it hardly proper to go into that, unless it was followed openly and notoriously. There was a difference between a single act and a continuous violation of the law, as a matter of right, or as a principle of belief.
John Garbett was closely questioned by the judge as to his religious belief, after he had stated that he was a ‘Mormon.’ Mr. Garbett said he had never been taught to obey the Priesthood implicitly. If he was advised to do that which he thought was right he would follow the advice; if he did not, he would not.
Judge Anderson ordered Mr. Garbett to stand aside, as he was a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church, and his case was taken under advisement.
Arthur Townsend, also a ‘Mormon,’ was treated similarly.
In this case the judge remarked: If a man knows enough to obey the laws, he knows more than many better educated men, and will make a good citizen. His case will be continued till Nov. 14, solely on the objection of his membership in the ‘Mormon’ Church. I will say in regard to the practice of fornication, as to that or any other offense, whether it makes him a man of bad moral character depends on the circumstances. If it was a single act it will not exclude him. But if he habitually commits fornication, whether openly or secretly, he is not a man of good moral character. If he is an habitual drunkard, or habitually violates any other law, he is a man of bad moral character. In regard to polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, there is an organized effort to establish them as a social condition. But those are not the only crimes that will exculde a man from citizenship–habitual gambling for instance, but occasional acts will not be sufficient to exclude a man. A single immoral act, or even several, will not be grounds to reject an application for naturalization.
—–
NO ‘MORMONS’ NEED APPLY.
—–
The matter of hearing applications for naturalization was up before Judge Anderson again Nov. 14. one man who had been a ‘Mormon’ was admitted, and Fred. W. Miller was called. He passed the court’s examination all right, saying that he believed polygamy wrong, and that he would obey all the laws against it. To the ‘Liberal’ representative he said he had never been through the Endowment House, but was a ‘Mormon.’
Joseph Lipman then objected to Mr. Miller’s admission on the ground that he was a member of the ‘Mormon’ Church. He said that he expected to show that there was a ceremony of the Church, connected with the Endowment House, which required every member of the Church to take an oath that he would avenge, on the United States, the blood of Joseph Smith and all the other Saints that had been killed. He did not know how the avenging was to be done, whether by maiming or killing citizens, but he would show that such an oath was taken, and he thought that no member of the Church should be admitted to citizenship.
Mr. Moyle denied that any such oath was required; and, however that might be, this man had never been through the Endowment House.
The court said he would pass upon Mr. Miller’s application on Thursday, as it had been shown he was a member of the Church.
Mr. Moyle said it was plain that the course followed by Lipman and his associates was merely a political trick, and asked the court, if it refused to hear the applications of ‘Mormons’ for naturalization, that no distinction be made, and the business of admitting citizens be deferred till after the investigation on Thursday.
This request was refused by Judge Anderson.
Wm. J. Owen was another applicant. His parents were members of the ‘Mormon’ Church, and he was at one time, but he had never performed any of the duties of a member, and did not now consider himself one. He did not know that he had ever been excommunicated.
The ‘Liberals’ objected to him because of his membership, and he was ordered to wait.
Thus every ‘Mormon’ who came up was peremptorily ordered to stand aside, simply because of his membership in the Church, while those who were brought in by the ‘Liberal’ whips were passed through in short order.
Finally one John Y. Phillips presented himself. He passed the court’s questions all right. To Mr. Moyle he stated that he had been married a few months. When asked whether he had been guilty of sustaining improper relations with persons of the other sex he looked surprised that such a thing should be considered anything unusual, and answered ‘Yes.’
My. Moyle objected to his admission, as by his own confession it was shown that he was guilty of a crime and was not a man of good moral character.
This brought Hurd, Lipman and Laney to their feet. They were ‘righteously indignant’ that a man who had engaged in indiscriminate sexual relations should be referred to as not of good moral character and unfit for citizenship in this great government. They were very wrathful at the course taken, and were very emphatic in their denunciations. ‘Why,’ said Hurd, ‘there is not a man in a dozen who hasn’t done just the same as this man, only he has been more honest than most of them, and has admitted it. Besides all the Mormon applicants here are liars and have perjured themselves.’
Mr. Moyle–Mr. Hurd, it ill becomes you to judge the ‘Mormons’ by yourself or by your own methods. If any ‘Mormon’ has perjured himself you would prosecute him too quickly, and that he has not is proved by the fact that you dare not proceed against one of those whom you have unjustly accused.
F. Ferguson, the deputy clerk, remarked that Phillips did not belong to a people who organized themselves to commit a crime.
Mr. Moyle–No, but to the nine-hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand who are not only guilty but think it all right to be.
There was some further discussion of a like nature, which Judge Anderson cut short by saying he had given no thought to the ground of objection, but would take it under advisement and pass upon it next Thursday, November 14.” (DW 29(22):698-700, 23 Nov., 1889)
“RUNNING COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE.
The alleged investigation said to have been instituted for the purpose of deciding whether or not ‘membership in the Mormon Church is compatible with good citizenship,’ has been watched with keen interest by the whole community. A running glance over the evidence produced fails to warrant any other conclusion, thus far, than that the Latter-day Saints are as loyal a people as live within the Republic. In not one instance has it been shown that the Priesthood have taught disloyalty to the government.
It has been darkly hinted by some of the witnesses known to be pronounced and bitter enemies of the Church, that some of the teachings might have been inferred to have a bent in that direction, but the inferentialism of opponents is always to be taken with a few grains of salt. The explanation of Mr. Lawrence on this point was significant. The expressions of the authorities were not directed against the government, but against officials acting under it who dealt oppressively and unjustly with the ‘Mormon’ people, from the latter’s standpoint.
A long and almost inexhaustible list of wrongs could be enumerated. Not only the authorities, but the whole community have taken exceptions to measures of that character. It is not necessary to go outside of the court room where the investigation is in progress for illustrations. Mr. Dickson is understood to have formulated and applied, when he was U. S. District attorney, what has been called the segregation system, by means of which–being an indefinite multiplication of indictments for one offense–‘Mormons’ could be sent to prison for several hundred years, and be fined a sum impossible of satisfaction by a Rothschild. The ex-District attorney and those who operated with him were criticised to some extent for this unwarrantable course. We have never thought that the censure applied to that measure and the U. S. officers who worked it was unpatriotic or treasonable. We couldn’t think of such a thing, because it would be an undue reflection upon the Supreme Court of the United States, which smashed segregation and characterized it as an unprecedented legal monstrosity.
Instead of it being shown that the ‘Mormons’ have been disloyal, even their enemies, in the proceedings of the last few days, have testified that they have always held to the belief that the Constitution is an inspired instrument. The logical inference from this position is that all laws made in pursuance of it are of the same genius. If it has come to pass that men and measures cannot be criticized without those engaging in that Constitutional exercise being not only charged with disloyalty, but virtually punished by disability for it, then let freedom shreik and liberty fall prostrate in the mud to be kicked to disfigurement by the iron shod feet of tyranny.
Belief, during the peculiar investigation in question, has been introduced as an element of unpatriotic quality. But the shoe is on the other foot, the enemy of free government being he who would make his fellow an offender on account of a mental condition superinduced by evidence. A man can no more help his belief on any subject coming within the purview of his intellect than he can the shape and size of his head. The spirit that would apply a coercive process of any kind, either in the shape of disability, a thumb-screw or an ankle-crusher to coerce a man from one belief to another, has not drunk at the living fountain of liberty, but might have been esteemed an average citizen of an unlimited despotism in the dark ages of the world’s history. The Supreme Court of the United States has asserted, on this question, that the law deals only with overt acts, belief not being a proper subject of restriction.
The attempt to present a phase of disloyalty in the endowments has failed, the testimony as a whole being to the effect that the government is not mentioned in connection with them in any form. Then steps in the inferentialism, which was all the coloring there was to the allegation, and it does not amount to more than so much smoke.
The attempt to show that there is any obligation of polygamy associated with these sacred rites has utterly failed. Of course it has been shown that a certain class of witnesses will testify to anything, so long as they can gratify their spleen against the Church with which they were formerly connected. Wardell is an instance in point. His evidence, shown to be totally false, reached the point of ludicrousness when examined in relation to the obligation of polygamy in connection with the endowments. Being asked–after he had stated that it existed–as to its nature he said substantially that some one exclaimed, ‘All those in favor of taking more wives than one, say aye. Contrary, no. The ayes have it.’ Of course nobody, including the ‘Liberal’ prosecutors, believed a word the old man said.
The blood atonement or death penalty business has shared a similar fate. Not one instance has been cited of any such penalty having been inflicted, this fact of itself being unanswerable as showing its non-existence. Of course the witness Wardell tried to furnish a case; a man named Green, a resident of Farmington, who was blood-atoned on an immigrant train near Green River. There seemed to have been a great deal of green about this alleged sanguinary circumstance. Some facts were elucidated in rebuttal that threw a shadow on Wardell’s blood and thunder. The only Green that ever lived at Farmington was produced in court and was ready to testify that he was not at Green River in 1862, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief he had never been killed. As a circumstance of that kind could not very well have occurred without his being cognizant of the fact, Mr. Green’s evidence in rebuttal could not be considered as remarkably weak. If any more proof were needed, it was furnished by Mr. Follett, one of Wardell’s eye-witnesses to the taking off of Mr. Green. He said that there was no Green in the train. After that broad statement his subsequent assertion that he never saw the man who wasn’t there murdered, had a slight tinge of superfluity about it. Wardell’s son and daughter both supported the statements of Messrs. Green and Follet.
Throughout the investigation a particular feature was noticeable. Whenever a witness would testify in a way that damaged the ‘Liberal’ cause, Mr. Dickson would almost invariably ask: ‘Are you a “Mormon?”‘ The answer was occasionally in the negative. The point sought to be made by the attorney was that if the witness was a ‘Mormon,’ he could not be fully relied upon. At this point it is appropriate to reproduce the testimony of Mr. Robert N. Baskin, (it has already appeared in the NEWS) given before the Congressional House Committee on Territories on January 21st, 1870:
. . . .
We do not know whether the case–if such it may be designated–now in progress before Judge Anderson, has ever been definitely entitled. Several names have appeared upon the papers connected with it. We do not wish to be obtrusive, but if a mild suggestion is in order, how would this do: ‘The Bosses of the Liberal Party vs. Constitutional Rights and Religious Liberty.'” (Deseret Evening News, 23 Nov., 1889; in JH 23 Nov., 1889)
“The Church attorneys & John W Young met at the office with Prests Cannon & Smith to consider the property [propriety] of putting further testimony in Court more fully explaining the instructions to pray for the avenging the blood of the prophets in the Endowments also in regard to anointing the arm.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 23 Nov., 1889)
24 Nov.: Anderson case.
“[President Woodruff] with Pres Geo Q Cannon had met this afternoon with Bro. John W. Young, LeGrand Young, Jas H Moyle & R W. Young to consider the matters as presented & talked upon yesterday, and the question was left with Pres Woodruff to decide. The President told me of this & said that he had made the subject a matter of prayer and by the voice of the spirit he was directed to write after he had concluded writing which he was doing when I arrived. he asked me to copy a Revelation which he had received – I did so. . . . ‘Let my servants, who officiate as your Counselors before the Courts, make their pleadings as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit, without any further pledges from the Priesthood, and they shall be justified.'” (L. John Nuttall diary, 24 Nov., 1889)
25 Nov.: Anderson case.
“‘MORMONS’ AND CITIZENSHIP.
On Monday, November 25th, Dickson offered a certified copy of an order by Judge Cradlebaugh, made April 4, 1859, wherein he adjourned court ‘because he could not enforce the laws, owing to the opposition of the people.’
There was also a communication to Judge Cradlebaugh, wherein the reason given by witnesses for non-attendance at court was stated.
Le Grand Young objected to the documents as immaterial and having no bearing on the application of Mr. Moore.
The communication was not received in evidence but the order of court was. This order says that men high in authority in the Mormon Church and civil officers–in fact, the whole community–were opposed to the enforcement of the laws. It also says the grand jury has joined with the community, and permitted ‘Mormon’ murderers and thieves to go unpunished.
Judge Anderson asked what the communication was, and it was given him to read.
Mr. Moyle offered the proceedings of the celebration of Independence Day, 1871, in the Tabernacle, showing the loyalty of the ‘Mormon’ people. The opening prayer was offered by Apostle Orson Pratt, asking for the establishment of the principles of the Constitution of the United States, not only within the present confines of the nation, but over the whole continent of North and South America.
Reuben Simpson was called by R. W. Young and testified–I remember the procession with D. H. Wells; the firemen had an American flag, which was carried upright near the centre of the procession.
To Dickson–I am in the employ of the city, and was at that time.
Le Grand Young announced that the defense rested, and at 9:30 Wm. H. Dickson began his argument. He opened by saying that if there was any doubt as to whether an applicant for naturalization would give the fullest allegiance to the government, that doubt should be resolved against the applicant. He should be attached to the social structure of the people, which lies deeper and beyond the Constitution itself. No foreigner should be admitted if he acknowledges an allegiance to any Church, so far as his conscience is concerned, higher than that of the government. Every sincere ‘Mormon’ is in an attitude of hostility to the government. The teachings of the Church leaders from the first has been intended to place the people in antagonism to the government. The aim of the Priesthood has been to wield absolute obedience in temporal and spiritual matters. The members are required to enter into covenants that bind them to obey the leaders in all things, and to relinquish their free agency. Dickson began his quotations by reading from remarks by Heber C. Kimball, in 1857, in reference to sending an army to destroy the ‘Mormons;’ also from President Young, in the same year, in reference to the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and the requisition for the ‘Mormon’ Battalion. Dickson said the army was coming to instal the officers, not to make war on the people. The President of the Church said the civil officers should not take their offices, and the government sent an army to enforce the laws. There might have been some excuse for the people then, but there was no excuse in 1877, when the present head of the Church prayed for the destruction of the government. Dickson then read from the statement by President Woodruff, published in our dispatches today, regarding the present proceedings before Judge Anderson.
In continuing his speech, Dickson referred to sermons by Orson Hyde and others, in which he claimed the government was arrayed as the enemy of the ‘Mormon’ people. Within the past six or seven years the government had been making an earnest effort to enforce its laws, but there was nothing to indicate that the sentiment of the people toward the government had changed. In 1879 there was a procession in honor of a man who refused to answer certain questions in court, and treasonable banners were carried. In 1885 the national flag was half-masted over public buildings, by ‘Mormons,’ and no word of censure had come from the ‘Mormon’ people. The official organi of the Church has traduced every man who has had the courage–and I am ashamed that there are but few–to stand up in court and promise to obey the law; while they have held up as exemplary those who have refused to give such submission. The attitude of the people now is the effect of the teachings of the past, and is in antagonism to the laws. The head of the Church, and the heads of the People’s party, had united in raising funds to aid those who had violated the law. There was no leader who had advised submission to the government. They say they uphold the Constitution, but they uphold it as interpreted by them, and in it they claim a guaranty of religious freedom.
We might expect that in their secret rites there would be something antagonistic to the government, and we think we have found it in the testimony of Bond, Silver, Wardell, Gilmor, Lawrence and others. Mr. Lawrence is a man of unflinching integrity and truthfulness, and we have but to look at his experience when he had the courage to come out of the Church. His business was ruined; his old friends and acquaintances turned their backs on him, not daring to be seen with him. This is what he had to face, and his punishment was because he stood by his friends when they opposed the exercise of temporal power by the Church. He says the Endowment oath was taken with uplifted hand, to avenge the blood of the Prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and to teach it to their children. I say no one who is sincere in this is not antagonistic to the government. Their witnesses have sworn that in the Endowment House the government was not mentioned or referred to; so does Henry W. Lawrence. There was no need for them to mention the government. When they were asked what did occur, they declined to state. Dr. Richards said there was anointing of the arm to be strong to avenge the blood of the Prophets when required. This means that they are to obey the counsels of the Priesthood. Will the court say that anyone who takes a covenant of that kind is fit for citizenship? We say that a member of an organization that requires of any of its members any such an oath should be excluded from citizenship–that he should have no voice in the government. No man who gives aid to this organization is entitled to become a citizen. This is not persecution. They may believe what they please, but when they ask for a voice in the government, that government should exclude them from the ballot box, and that is not persecution. Will anyone deny that absolute temporal power was claimed? There has been a change of circumstances, but not a change of sentiments and purposes.
George Q. Cannon, who prosecuted Godbe and Harrison, is at the right hand of the head of the ‘Mormon’ Church, and if the conditions were the same he would act as he did then. The policy of the Church has not changed. George Q., in 1865, declared that it was his privilege to dictate to the people in temporal things. Brigham Young declared that his office of Governor was controlled by his Priesthood; he declared that the Church was establishing the Kingdom of God to control all things, temporal and spiritual; he also declared that it was the duty of the leaders to direct in temporal and spiritual affairs that they were the Kingdom of God on earth. Such was the teaching of George Q. Cannon down to December, 1883, and probably later. Before then he had never heard of a disposition to question the control of the Church in temporal matters, and he deprecated it. Joseph F. Smith, in August, 1884, also claimed temporal control for the Church, and made it apply to political affairs. The claim was just as broad and strong five years ago as it was forty years ago. Wilford Woodruff also made the same claim. He is regarded as being divinely chosen, and speaks in the name of Almighty God. If the ‘Mormons’ are not hypocrites they will obey His word, and the history of the people shows that they have obeyed it. This is the covenant they have entered into. Their witnesses say they heard no such covenant in the Endowment House. But an Apostle has declared that the covenant is taken.
The Doctrine and Covenants shows that control in temporal matters is a doctrine, for the revelations go into detail. Mr. Baskin was mistaken when he said it was not in the late edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Never was there greater blasphemy than when Joseph Smith gave that as a revelation. The people who would believe that God said such things are just the people to be priestridden slaves. H. C. Kimball told the people to do as the Priesthood said, whether it was right or wrong. Think of a man favored of God, to receive revelations, teaching such things as are in the Doctrine and Covenants, in the revelation on celestial marriage, regarding the forgiveness of sins and cursing. Think of Wilford Woodruff being able to curse, and God approving it, and saying that a people under that bond are free? That is heresy; it cannot be true. The Doctrine and Covenants has directions as to what the members of the Church should do in temporal affairs. Can any one doubt that they believe the head of the Church is the representative of God? and, if he has this power, that men whose consciences are bound by this superstition have surrendered their free agency.
Polygamy is believed in by all the Mormons. For 30 years the government has been trying to destroy it, and are no nearer now than when they started. Is it persecution to say that such persons should be excluded from citizenship? The government says that it will given them protection, but will not admit them to citizenship. I cannot see how a member of that Church can conscientiously ask to become a citizen. Neither can I see that a man who believes polygamy is right can take an oath of allegiance to the government that is trying to overthrow it. If I believed that polygamy was right, I would have my right hand cut off before I would swear to obey the laws of a government that is trying to overthrow what I believe to be right. I think no sincere Mormon takes such an oath without a mental reservation. I think that no man who believes in polygamy has a right to the franchise, for such a social order is opposed to the monogamic order on which the government is based. We don’t desire to persecute. We desire to uphold the arms of the government in crushing polygamy, and to weaken the power of the Church. It is not persecution to say that these people will have the protection of the laws, but so long as they aid the Church by membership they shall not be admitted to citizenship.
In regard to blood atonement we say that the testimony conceals the real facts of the case. It is claimed that murder and adultery can be atoned for only by death, but that is to be inflicted by the law of the land. They do not call attention to the law that adulterers shall be destroyed. I say that the idea that the Church has no authority to punish the crime of adultery, according to the law of God, is not correct–that it is not sincere. In the lecture on blood atonement, C. W. Penrose says that the time will come when the law of God shall be enforced against adulterers. In the same lecture, speaking of the laws against polygamy, he says those laws are unconstitutional and not binding on the people. That shows they believe the Constitution gives them the right to do anything in obedience to any revelation which they claim to be from God. They say the nation is persecuting the Saints in opposing the practice of polygamy, and that is why Wilford Woodruff prayed for the destruction of the government.
As to the penalty for apostasy, the witnesses say there is nothing buit excommunication; but Brigham Young said that rather than apostates should flourish here he would unsheath his knife and conquer or die.
Surely there is no court that will admit to citizenship members of an organization such as the history of this Church shows it to be.
Le Grand Young said that the facts were all that the court should listen to. Inference of any character should not be taken as evidence, especially when the man interested, the applicant in this case, has taken no part in any of the transactions testified to. Mr. Young read the law on naturalization, and then proceeded with his argument. The discretion of the court in these matters is merely a legal discretion; it is not captious. When a man makes the requisite showing, and shows the proper conduct, it is the duty of the court to admit him. An objection to him must be on legal grounds. Mr. Moore has applied for citizenship. He has shown proper residence, good moral character and attachment to the Constitution. He is a qualified applicant, and we demand that he be allowed to take the oath and that the court give judgment for him.
The objectors said they objected to him because he had taken an oath against the government. They proposed to show this, and we came here to answer them. We have shown that no such oath has been taken. Mr. Young reviewed the testimony of the witnesses for the objectors. It had been claimed that men had been murdered by the Danites. They referred to the killing, by the officers of the law, of the notorious desperado, Ike Potter. This case did not suit them, so they dropped it, and got Wardell’s story about the killing of a man named Green. This is the only time in this Territory that a man has been named as having been blood atoned. We challenged them to the issue, and after 40 years of talk we have this one case. They stand or fall by this record. They came to prove the infamy of the Church by this their champion case. But where has it gone to? Never have I heard such a statement as this Wardell made; he went on to say that Hickman confessed it. Such a story is too absurd. Bill Hickman was a murderer, and lived too long, but he never was fool enough to confess as Wardell says. No man who ever knew him would believe such a statement. If there was no other evidence this would be sufficient to stamp Wardell’s story as false. For forty years there has been a cry of blood athonement, and now the best legal talent of the Territory comes forward with this case at last, to say that the Mormons are a bloody people. Wardell is the kind of witness they have brought here to prove their case–and the witnesses have swept away even a possibility of the truth of his story.
The witness Cahoon says that there was no oath against the government, but he inferred, etc. It is the truth that we want considered in this case, not inferences. Cahoon says there was nothing of an unlawful nature in the Endowment.
McGuffie said he had taught that Brigham Young was God. He was just such an idiot as to do so. But if he had taught it in public, he would not have remained in the Church as long as he did. I do not believe he ever taught it at all, any more than he heard that the Endowment oath never existed.
As for Gilmor, he is an apostate with all that the term implies–a man who quarrels with his neighbors, a man who cannot be believed under oath, as the witnesses here say.
But they say H. W. Lawrence is respectable. His early life was in the Church. He spent 21 or 22 years in the Church, and was in the Endowment House. He does not say he apostatized because there was anything wrong there, or because he was opposed to ‘Mormonism.’ He says he left because his friends took issue with Brigham Young in regard to control of temporal affairs. He says the only reason was because he did not believe that Brigham Young should control private affairs. He says that his custom fell off after he left the Church, and he was socially ostracised. That is the secret of his venom to the people. It was because he was denied the privileges he had had before. No man oppressed him; but those who had patronized him ceased to do so. He says he stood by his friends; but he forgot that the people who had patronized him would do the same thing, and when they did he became venomous. But with all this he does not intimate that there is anything unlawful in the Endowment. On the witness stand he contradicted their witnesses. They did not dare to ask him if there was any oath against the government, and it was only brought out on cross-examination. Then he said there was a covenant for the avenging of the blood of the Prophets, but that the government was not referred to. His is an emphatic denialthat there is any oath of avenging the blood of the Prophets on this nation.
The other side say that the government was meant. That is the first time that the government has been charged with being responsible for the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and I say the charge is false. The government is not and was not responsible. The deed was done by base assassins who should have been punished, and the government never instigated or committed the crime, or approved of it. Henry W. Lawrence, an apostate, says that the government was not even intended; and so does every honest man. It has been found that there is nothing disloyal in all the endowment ceremonies.
Then the objectors fly to the sermons that have been preached, and select isolated passages. But these are not doctrine; they are not accepted by the Church in the sense in which the objectors interpret them. I say that when the Prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed; when 15 or 16 men, women and children were cast in a dark hole and buried; when scores of similar crimes were committed, the State of Illinois shoiuld have punished the murderers. The objectors here dare not deny that these murders were committed in cold blood. And there is no record of one of the murderers being brought to justice. Then 20,000 men, women and children were driven from their homes into the wilderness. Has that outrage ever been punished? But what did those people do? They came to foreign soil, hoisted the Stars and Stripes, and took possession in the name of the United States.
In 1857 word came that 25,000 soldiers were on the way to drive them again. Don’t you think the people were excited? Don’t you think the murder of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children came before their eyes again? Would you expect moderate expressions from a people in this situation? But the expressions were against the mobs who had despoiled and would despoil them, not against the government.
In 1856 the people here were living on roots. The Church did exercise a temporal power then, in one instance, and by it saved the people from destruction. It divided the food. In all the eastern hournals there was not a word of sympathy for us. It was understood there that hundreds of men, women and children were dying of starvation, and one journal stated in its columns that there was at least a solution of the Mormon question, for they were starving to death. I admit that it rankled in my breast in those times.
On this came an army which we understood was to annihilate us. After the sympathy shown to Mormons in Missouri and Illinois; after the sympathy shown in rejoicing that we were starving, we were informed of the additional sympathy of an army coming to destroy us. Is it any wonder that wild expressions were made–expressions that today we would not make, and would not approve under different circumstances? I challenge the other side to compare the history of any State or Territory with ours, as to a law-abiding people, even with the solitary exception of a law against a doctrine of our religion.
Our witnesses emphatically state there is nothing in the Endowment that is repugnant to the government–that there is nothing bearing in any way upon the government. As to obedience to the Priesthood, testified to by McGuffie, Wardell, Bond and Gilmor, who also testified that polygamy was enjoined by covenant, Mr. Lawrence as well as others denied this, as far as the Endowments are concerned. Mr. Lawrence said that was the trend of the teachings outside. The witnesses say that Joseph and Hyrum Smith are included among the Prophets. It is also in evidence that the ceremony is the same for the dead as the living, showing that it has no reference to the individual action; and when Mr. Dickson could get nothing to suit him, he would end by a question which he wanted to impress on the court as meaning that the witness was not telling the truth; that question was: ‘Are you a Mormon?’
But the ‘Mormons’ told the truth, and when it came to matters that were sacredly religious, they declined to answer. So because the alleged oath was shown to be a myth, the other side flew to old sermons, such as I have referred to. I will mention another witness who said there was nothing that was incompatible with citizenship in the Endowments; that there was no covenant to obey the Priesthood; that there was no covenant to avenge the blood of the Prophets; that there was no reference to the government, by inference or otherwise; and that man is E. L. T. Harrison. He is as intelligent and as respected as is Mr. Lawrence, and he declares that there is nothing in the Endowment that is contrary to good citizenship. So does Eli B. Kelsey, also a man of intelligence and reliability. There is nothing in the Endowment that is in any way opposed to good citizenship. That is the declaration of Mr. Harrison and other reputable men. It has been urged that a prayer to avenge the blood of the Prophets is antagonistic to the government. But the answer to this is that not an intelligent man understood that he was to take any part in it–that there was anything objectionable in it. Again I refer to the reason for Mr. Lawrence leaving the Church–that it had no connection with the Endowment House, but it was because of his attachment for certain friends in a question about temporal affairs. The testimony of the witnesses for the applicant has shown that these references to the government never had any existence in fact, and our witnesses are corroborated by all the reputable witnesses for the objectors.
In regard to the sensation of Mr. Wardell, it shocked the community, and there was great excitement in consequence. I suppose the attorneys brought Wardell in good faith, and thought he would tell the truth. I can understand Wardell on no other ground than that he is more a fool than a knave. He named some whom he said were present at the horrible scene. I admit that I never heard such a shocking story before. Wardell’s own son, not a ‘Mormon,’ was sent for and he contradicted flatly his father’s testimony. Then comes Wardell’s wife, daughter and another son, who also state that the story is false. Wardell says Green lived at Farmington. We brought witnesses and proved that the only man named Green who lived at Farmington is still alive, in the northern part of the Territory. Joseph Follett, said by Wardell to be an eye-witness to the horrible deed, is brought, and swears that no such a thing ever occurred. The whole was a trumped-up story, with not a word of truth to base it on. And that is the case with all the noise that has been made about the ‘Mormons.’ There is not a thread on which to hand any of the horrible stories about ‘Mormons.’ They are alike baseless and untrue.
In regard to the intolerance of ‘Mormons,’ the objectors have sought among the dregs of the apostates, who are the most bitter of all toward those who were their former associates. Here the ‘Mormons’ are on trial on the testimony of their sworn enemies. What was the story of Christ Himself, as told by His enemies? It was that He was a winebibber and a glutton; and it was left to His friends, in the four Gospels, to tell the true story of His life. I say that the testimony brought here against the ‘Mormons’ is unworthy of consideration in a court of justice. The history of the ‘Mormons’ has not been one of peace and comfort; it has been one of injustice and persecution, and is it any wonder that some of them have spoken bitter words?
In regard to the alleged trailing of the flag. I say that there never was one purposely dragged in the dust. There may have been one that dropped, but even Mr. Arthur Pratt, who says he would have seen it had it been trailed, declares he saw no such thing. The testimony of it is only from sworn enemies. The court speaks of the demonstration at Mr. Wells’ release. This is the only place on the continent where a man is consigned to a felon’s cell for contempt of court. The people rose up and manifested their distaste of such a thing.
Court–Is there any other place to confine them in?
Le Grand Young–It is the business of the government to treat us as it does people in other parts of the republic. It should have provided a place here as it does elsewhere. It has the means and certainly has had the opportunity. It has no right to discriminate against us. I say that Utah is the only place where the United States, when a witness is committed for contempt, consigns him to a felon’s cell. And the people in the case of Daniel H. Wells manifested their disapproval of it. And was that treason? I say it was not. They had a right to do so. The people had a right to express themselves, just as the English people did when they strewed the path of Defoe with flowers, to and from the pillory, until the executive had to pardon him. Was there any treason in that? Not a breath. They were expressing their distaste of the act of a public officer, just as they had a perfect right to.
At this point court took recess till the afternoon.
This afternoon Mr. Young continued his argument. He said a thorough investigation would show that the charge against the ‘Mormons’ that they had a government within a government was entirely false. It may be that in times past there have been expressions that were loose, but not approved of. That no treason was thought of is plain in the fact that there was no effort to guard the expressions made. The term treason had been applied to the utterances of ‘Mormons’ when no such thought had entered their minds. The half-masting of the flag had been called an insult. There was no such intent. The flag at half-mast is a sign of mourning, and that is all there can be said of it. Its being placed at half-mast may be regarded as inopportune, because it indicted a mourning at the court’s decisions. It was inopportune–an inappropriate action–but it was no treason. No intelligent man can say that an indication of mourning is treason. The flag belongs to every citizen, and using it as a symbol of mourning, of grief, of sorrow, is not treason.
Court–Was there a cause for mourning?
Mr. Young–I suppose some of the people thought there was; but that was not treason. There was no aspect of treason, and it cannot be distorted to that. It may have been disrespect to the courts, and should not have been done. But it was not and could not be treason. Why, in Boston, when the Fugitive Slave Acts were in force, the people of the north claimed that they were unconstitutional. Money was raised for their repeal. Under that law, in the Burns case, the government captured a slave in Boston and sent him back. The people of Boston half masted all of the flags on the public buildings. That was no treason.
Court–Do you think that was to indicate sorrow, or as in insult to the government?
Mr. Young–I would say it was an indication of sorrow. The people there did not want to insult the government–and they were not treasonable.
Court–There can be acts that are not punishable, but are treasonable.
Mr. Young–The framers of the Constitution defined treason, and it ill becomes their descendants to change the definition. As I have said the demonstration when Mr. Wells was released was not treason or treasonable. Mr. Dickson has urged that the raising of money to defend men in court was treason. That is a new doctrine to me. I always understood that men have a right to a fair trial–that they have a right to test the legality of any law. I maintain the right as a citizen to test the constitutionality of any law; and that every man, be he Mormon or Gentile, has a right to a fair trial and to a proper defense, and it is not treason to employ means to contest legally any cases in courts. The history of this nation shows that before the war there was much of this, and even the Supreme Court of the United States had to be rearranged before certain acts could be declared constitutional. And I say that the testing of laws before the national tribunal will not be denominated treason by any gentleman.
I say, further, that the religious belief of this applicant can be no test of his right to citizenship. We have not yet come to judging in the domain of conscience, for we cannot do it constitutionally. Lord Macaulay says that if such things as this was not persecution, there could be no religious persecution. Mr. Young then read from Lord Macaulay’s essay, in which he says that to punish a man because, from some doctrine he holds, it is believed he will commit an offense, is persecution, and foolish and wicked. To argue that becuase a man is a Catholic that he is bound to murder a heretical sovereign, and then base a law on that assumption is persecution. And counsel in this case have used the same arguments that were used against the Catholics in England, with only the change that it is ‘Mormons’ to be disfranchised now instead of Catholics. But the British nation forever silenced the atrument there, and in justice it should be forever silenced here. In this case the applicant has shown himself eligible for citizenship in every sense, and it is his right to be admitted. It is urged that he belongs to a sect that has taught a doctrine which is incompatible with the laws of the nation. It is urged that the ‘Mormons’ must obey the Priesthood; and they say that every ‘Mormon’ in good standing must go into polygamy. What is the fact? The great majority of the ‘Mormon’ people–nineteen-twentieths–have not gone into it, and are therefore not in good standing. The argument is its own refutation when compared to the facts. Say what you please of ‘Mormon’ sermons and the revelations they have, but from their actions you can find no fairer record in any part of the Union. Judge us by our acts, not by the opinions and expressions of avowed enemies.
Hon. S. R. Thurman said that his connection with the case had been irregular, owing to he necessary absence, and he had not expected to make an argument. There were some points, however, which were not fully developed, and to these he would refer. This proceeding was indeed a strange one. We have passed along in the history of this Territory to a time when men speak of a certain people as becoming more liberal, and less peculiar and exclusive than they had been. In other words, they are growing more like other people. Congress has gone over this ground time and time again, on the suggestion of counsel for the other side. Congress had had this matter before them for the same purpose sought to be effected here, and in every instance Congress has refused to take the step that the court is now asked to take. The strongest witness on the other side, H. W. Lawrence, said the people were growing better, and men were saying the ‘Mormon’ question was about solved. Now, on the eve of a great political battle; on the eve of a most important election; when it was claimed that the ‘Mormons’ were in the minority, it is now asked of the court that the ‘Mormons’ be disfranchised. There is no foundation for such an outrage. Go back to the attitude of men in 1857 and 1858, if you will, yet the fact today stares you in the face that the very things complained of are working out, and the cause, if ever there was any for this proceeding, passed away a generation ago. The man who says that for the past 15 years–we will name that period–every man has not had the fullest liberty, so far as the ‘Mormons’ are concerned, that man has some reason for stating a falsehood. It is said that in August 200 or 300 young Mormons voted the adverse side; now this court is asked to disfranchise those Mormons and all others.
When I first entered the court room, as a spectator in this case, Gilmor was on the stand, and he was saying that if he told what he knew, his life would be in danger. Did your honor believe him? Did anybody believe him? I think not. There was falsehood on his face, and he is unworthy of belief. Henry W. Lawrence was not afraid and he had worked in the Endowment House; Mr. Lawrence was even anxious to make ‘explanations,’ and thus gave vent to his prejudices. If the rumors that have been brought in here as evidence were thrown out, there would be a vast difference in the record. The half-masting is cited as a disloyal act, and the whole ‘Mormon’ people are to be held responsible; yet it did not occur in any town throughout the whole Territory, except on a few places in Salt Lake, and the act is one that even the people here condemn. That trailing of the flag has also been shown to be an invention. What purpose could there be in it? It was either the purest accident, or it never happened at all.
‘Mormon’ applicants have been naturalized for years, and recently they have been asked to specially agree to obey certain laws. Now it has been discovered that by objecting to their application in a court of justice ‘Mormons’ can be prevented from being naturalized. Just what logic there is in the position I leave for the present.
Mr. Lawrence told how he was neglected by those who had before patronized. What would be done with any leading ‘Liberal’ if he were to join the People’s party. He would not only be ostracised, he would be hung in effigy.
Reference has been made to the defense fund. Was the raising of it unlawful? Why, at that time there was a movement organized and on foot to send ‘Mormons’ to the penitentiary, on segregated offenses, for extended terms. If it had not been tested, and if the court had not set it aside, ‘Mormons’ would now be serving life sentences in violation of law. Who was then upholding and defending the Constitution. Was it the officers of the government who were enforcing that which the supreme tribunal said was unconstitutional? No; it was the people whom it was now sought to deprive of the rights of citizenship. Was there treason in this? The supreme court said no, by upholding them and setting aside the unconstitutional measure. If a man has no right to test the law he is robbed of a precious right of the citizen. The people subscribed to test the law, as they had a perfect right to and they maintained the Constitution by having a construction put on the law. The people even have the right to agitate for the repeal of the law; yet where they have done so their acts have been deemed treasonable.
There is but one way for the citizen to exercise his right in the courts, and that is to test each individual case. But to take a man and charge him with all the fancied offenses of others, when he applies for naturalization, is most absurd. To take an innocent man, one who never heard of these things, and judge him by them, is to perpetrate a great injustice. It must be true that there are ‘Mormons’ in Utah who are loyal to the government–who would bare their bosoms as readily as any others in defense of their country; and yet your honor is requested to shut them out. Will the court take the responsibility for so much of persecution, of wrong, of outrage, as is meant by this proceeding? I trust that we will have no necessity to find fault with the court for a decision in this case.
R. N. Baskin read from the naturalization laws, and said that he regarded in the case of an applicant for naturalization all doubts should be resolved against him. Every one who leaves the ‘Mormon’ Church should show by five years residence that he is in good faith before he is admitted to citizenship. I say no Mormon is entitled to citizenship. The Mormons do not dispute that they believe in polygamy, and that as it is revealed of God they cannot renounce it.
The ‘Mormons,’ he said, had as much a right to have a revelation commanding burglary. If it had been burglary instead of polygamy, a member of that organization would not be considered of good moral character and well disposed to the happiness and good order of the people of the United States. I say a member of this Church who asks for admission to citizenship displays a cheek that is sublime. They claim this revelation to be divine, and it is not necessary to go one step further. This man is a member of an organization that believes in polygamy, that should be enough to keep him out.
Baskin read from the decision of the Territorial Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs. the Church. Upon this he claimed that the Church was a theocratic organization, and no member could be attached to the Constitution of the United States. The system was founded on revelation from God, and the man who believes in a Supreme Being must consider His laws superior to all others. The central idea of Mormonism is revelation. The laws given relate to man’s social condition, and certain rules are prescribed for the marriage relation. This is taking jurisdiction of matters of civil convern. This system claims to be the Kingdom of God–not in its full strength–but the child is born and is being developed toward manhood, when Christ will come. That is their theory, and as God, the King is not here now, He has delegated His powers to the Priesthood. It is an absolute theocracy and its laws are from the Almighty God. Every Legislature has had to have its laws approved by this Priesthood. I say a member of such an organization cannot be admitted to citizenship. In this instance belief is an important feature. Patriotism itself is a mere sentiment. The member of this Church who says he is attached to the Constitution is either a hypocrite or speaks falsely. If he says he belongs to the Church but does not believe in all its doctrines, his statement is not sincere on its face. You can throw the vail of charity over the man who acknowledges that he believes in all the doctrines, because he is evidently honest.
As to the Endowment oaths, all the witnesses for the applicant declined to say what the convenants were. They concluded that they did not relate to the government. F. D. Richards says that the people are all under covenant to obey the Priesthood in all things.
Baskin began reading from his compilation of ‘Mormon’ sermons, but Mr. Moyle objected, because his compilation was garbled and incorrect, and Baskin had to go to the other publications for his quotations.
Baskin said he asked in the name of all that was holy how the leaders of the Church would speak to the people as they did unless those people had taken covenants, and knew what was meant by covenant breakers. He further referred to blood atonement and said it must be a doctrine of the Church. He declared that apostasy from the Church was punishable by death. There was no doubt that there was a covenant to avenge the blood of the Prophets, and to teach their children to do so. Baskin said this avenging must mean the nation, referred to as the nation that had persecuted the Saints. The government may not be mentioned in the Endowment ceremonies, but it is meant. It would be a gross violation of the law to admit a member of the Church to citizenship. The organic act should be repealed, and every vestige of political power be taken from the ‘Mormons.’ The government has been put to great expense to enforce the laws and to assert its authority. A law was passed against polygamy, but the Church continued to preach and practice it.
Baskin then turned to the Doctrine and Covenants, from which he quoted several passages, giving to them an interpretation peculiar to himself. He found fault with the Church for keeping the revelation on celestial marriage in the book of Doctrine and Covenants. He said the declaration of the ‘Mormons’ that they were loyal should go for naught, as no member of the Church could be a loyal citizen.
C. S. Varian said he was out of the Territory when this proceeding was commenced, but he now appeared as the official representative of the United States, to object to the naturalization of ‘Mormons.’ When Congress made laws providing for naturalization it required the applicant to be attached to the Constitution of the United States. This was a far-reaching provision. The person admitted must respond to the government readily at every call. If in any degree, by his education or association, it is not possible for him to do this fully, he is not fit to be a citizen. I say that the ‘Mormon’ people as a whole would not respond to these calls. In the war of the rebellion they not only gave the Union no aid but prayed for the destruction of the government. They have always stood in antagonism to the laws of the land. The Government is putting forth its entire strength to enforce laws here, and the ‘Mormons’ stand as a unit to defy those laws. Every citizen knows so well that he will not listen to argument, that the ‘Mormons’ are not entitled to citizenship. In the name of the Government of the United States, I protest against the admission of these people to citizenship.
Mr. Moyle–Does the Government enter its protest without giving these people a hearing?
Mr. Varian–I think it is pretty well informed on the matter.
Judge Anderson said he would deliver his opinion in writing, and he hoped to have it ready by Friday, or Saturday, November 29 or 30, at the latest. If he was ready before he would inform the parties.
Le Grand Young said there was a statement made by Mr. Varian which should receive attention. He states that no aid was given to the government during the rebellion. As a matter of fact President Lincoln called for 100 men to protect the mails, and the men were furnished and served their time. He also states that they prayed for the destruction of the government at that time, and his statement is not correct.
Mr. Varian said he read, shortly after he came to Utah, a sermon purporting to be by Brigham Young, and Judge McBride says he heard it, expressing a hope that the two factions would destroy each other. A levy of $100,000 had been made on the Territory and had not been paid. I don’t doubt that men were sent out to protect the route, but none of them joined the contending armies, on either side. They stayed here and prayed that the government might be destroyed.
Le Grand Young said Mr. Varian’s statement was unjust and incorrect. He makes a statement of what the government demands, and makes assertions that are erroneous. As to the $100,000, that was settled in the expenses of Indian wars, and Congress so recognized it. I think Mr. Varian’s demand comes with poor grace at this stage of the case.
Mr. Moyle asked that the record show that the District Attorney had not been present, and had not heard the evidence.
Mr. Varian said it could go as requested. He also wanted it shown that he was familiar with the history of the Territory, and had read the evidence as published.
The court then adjourned.
Mr. Penrose Released.
Later in the evening Judge Anderson made an order that, the case being closed, Charles W. Penrose should be released from the penitentiary, where he had been committed for contempt in refusing to answer a question concerning his family relations. Word was accordingly sent out to the penitentiary, and Mr. Penrose was set at liberty.” (DW 29(24):749-754, 7 Dec., 1889)
27 Nov.: Mandatory excommunication for endowed adulterers
“A son of Bro. Aldridge and daughter of Sam’l. Western have committed fornication. Both were unmarried and had not been through the Temple. In her efforts to conceal her shame the girl laced so tightly as to deform her offspring that it died several days after birth. The couple have since married, and two Sundays ago the boy confessed his sin before the people and asked forgiveness. Some of the people favored it, while others thought he should first be cut off and thereafter received into the Church. As a result of the division the matter has been held in a abeyance. Bro. Kelly was told that on asking forgiveness they should be permitted to receive re-baptism and not be cut off; but where persons thus sin who have received their endowments, they must be excommunicated.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 27 Nov., 1889)
27 Nov.: Fornication: following endowment.
[At Fillmore, two young unmarried people committed fornication.] “Bro. Kelly [1st Counselor in Stake Presidency] was told that on asking forgiveness they should be permitted to receive re-baptism and not be cut off; but where persons thus sin who have received their endowments, they must be excommunicated.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 27 Nov., 1889)
28 Nov.: Anderson case.
“‘BLOOD-ATONED’ GREEN.
He Says that He is Still Alive, and Not a ‘Mormon.’
GREEN TURNS UP.
Quite a sensation was created in Provo on Saturday afternoon upon the appearance of the affidavit of William Green, in the Daily Enquirer, the man claimed by the ‘Liberals’ in their recent judicial fight before Judge Anderson, to have been murdered on the Plains in 1862 in Captain Dame’s company by order of the Danites. He is a ‘Liberal,’ and kept quiet as to his identity until after the proceeding was over. His affidavie is as follows:
Territory of Utah,
County of Utah.} ss.
William Green, being duly sworn, on his oath says: I am an Englishman by birth, fifty-five years of age, and now a resident of Spanish Fork City, Utah County, Territory of Utah. I crossed the plains in 1862 in Captain Dame’s company; I knew a man by the name of Wardell; he crossed the plains and came to Utah in the same company as I did. We traveled together until the company arrived at a point near William Kimball’s ranch, in Parley’s Park, where I left the train ahead of the company, being anxious to meet my wife, who was then in Salt Lake City, she having traveled over the plains the same season with Captain Hoyt’s company. I have lived in Salt Lake City and Spanish Fork City since I came to Utah. I was the only many by the name of Green, that I know of, who came over in Captain Dame’s company. No man was killed in that company by the name of Green, or of any other name, nor did I ever hear of any rumor of any one being killed in said company, until I saw the statement of Wardell recently in the papers. I am not a Mormon, nor have I been for several years. I am not a believe in Mormon theocracy, but do believe it wrong to have any religious sect or body of people assailed by falsehood.
William Green.
Subscribed and sworn to and before me, this 28th day of November, 1889.
William Creer,
Notary Public.”
(Deseret Evening News, 2 Dec., 1889; in JH 1 Dec., 1889)
29 Nov.: Anderson case.
“OVERDOING IT, AS USUAL.
The anti-Mormons will persist in overdoing the thing. They have always been given to that stype of procedure, and as a consequence, boomerangs are frequent and disastrous amongst them. In Judge Anderson’s court the other day the Liberals trotted out Wardell, who went on the stand and manifested a willingness to swear to almost anything which the Liberal attorneys who were conducting the proceedings for their party might suggest that would probably be injurious to the Mormon church and people. Among other things he said that a man named Green was killed by Mormons while crossing the plains in 1862, because he had violated some of the ‘awful’ covenants taken by members of the church. The witness went into minute details of the killing, giving particulars which showed he had carefully thought out his story. Unfortunately for him he gave too many particulars. If he had been more genearl, and less definite in the matter, it might have been impossible to follow him, and some would have believed his ridiculous but sensational tale. As it was, there was no difficulty whatever in establishing to the satisfaction of evrybody the falsity of the story. His own sons and daughters went upon the stand and swore that they crossed the plains with their father and never heard of the assassination. It was also proven by testimony that could not be doubted that there was no man by the name of Green in the company. In fact, the bloody narration was shown to be the invention, pure and simple, of a diseased and vicious imagination. It was a Liberal boomerang of a most destructive character, and cast doubt upon all the Liberal testimony, as well as expound the character and motive of the party which instituted the proceedings.
Now comes another fake growing out of Wardell’s testimony, and one for which we are inclined to believe local Liberals are responsible. The following is a copy of a telegram published in eastern newspapers on the 23d. instant, and although it is dated from a Pennsylvania town, it is not a two to one gamble that the telegram was not written in this city and sent to an agent of the Liberal horror-working gang at Franklin:
Franklin, Pa., Nov. 22.–The Associated Press dispatches of Tuesday last contained an account of the killing of a man named Green by the Mormons of Salt Lake city for revealing the secrets of the Endowment house. Mr. Wardell, in his testimony before the naturalization court in Salt Lake city, testified that he had seen Green killed. The latter’s wife now resides in this city in a hut near Bell Stone quarries, and says there is no doubt that the man killed was her husband. Mr. Green and his family were Mormons and resided near Utah, and she was well acquainted with Mr. Wardell. Five or six years ago she and her husband determined to leave the Mormon church, and in order to do so quietly disposed of all their goods and chattels to Gentile neighbors. By some means the Mormons discovered their intentions and deliberately robbed them of their all, and Green was sent into the mountains on some mission, while she was sent east, arriving in this city in a destitute condition. Up to five months ago she frequently received word from her husband, but all communication between them suddenly ceased, and she is now certain that her husband was murdered by the Mormons as he frequently told her that he was a marked man and that his death by violence might be looked for. Green was very poor, not over-intelligent, and his fear of the Mormon rulers was so great that he was their slave and feared to break away from them lest he would be discovered and killed. Mrs. Green has a large family of children and is in poor circumstances, but her friends have taken steps to have the United States authorities investigate her husband’s death, and interesting developments are looked for.
It will be remembered that Wardell had Green killed in 1862, twenty-seven years ago, while coming to Utah, while Mrs. Green and her husband did not think of leaving the territory until ‘five or six years ago.’ Even then he did not go, but sent her out, and kept her advised as to his whereabouts until five months ago, when his communications ceased. There can be no doubt as to the identity of the case, for Mrs. Green ‘is well acquainted with Mr. Wardell.’
Thus have the anti-Mormons, in their blind vindictiveness, again overshot the mark and defeated themselves by showing what consummate liars they are.” (Salt Lake Telegram, 29 Nov., 1889; in JH 29 Nov., 1889)
30 Nov.: Anderson case.
“IT DOESN’T YIELD MUCH.
Thus far the political scheme operated in the Third District Court by the political ‘bosses’ of the ‘Liberal’ party has not yielded much capital to those who instituted and have operated the proceedings. To our knowledge not a few prominent members of that party have been inexpressibly disgusted at the whole movement. They are heartily ashamed of the attempt to compel persons to divulge secret religious ceremonies, and denounce the whole thing as a outrage.
Even if the ceremonies were described, those who have sought to compel persons to exhibit them, would be more than disappointed, as they would not get what they want, but directly the opposite.
It is plain to the most casual observer, as it is thoroughly known to the initiated, that there is no element of antagonism to the institutions of this government and the principles upon which it was founded, in the religion of the Latter-day Saints. Its whole genius and tendency is preservative in that regard. The testimony of certain apostate anti-‘Mormon’ cranks will not weigh to the contrary with sensible people. As was stated before in these columns their presence in court after a record of virulent opposition to the Priesthood gives the lie direct to their assertion that disobedience incurred the death penalty. Their situation is supremely contradictory and absurd. Similarly false is their statement regarding a covenant of antagonism toward the government of the United States.
Outside of the bitter and unscrupulous class of apostate ‘Mormons,’ doubtless there are members of seceders from the Church who have too much honor and regard for truth to be guilty of bearing such false witness upon those two important points that have been made so prominent in these extraordinary proceedings. The testimony of Mr. Harrison in relation to the alleged antagonism to the goverbnment is in point, and in that direction joins with that given by the brethren, which was clear, straightforward and not susceptible of being overturned.
The evidence given by witnesses showing the preservative character of the Gospel in its relation to the government appeared to sit sourly on the stomachs of Mr. Baskin and Mr. Dickson. The former admitted, ironically and sarcastically, that 10,000 ‘Mormons’ would testify similarly, and the latter increased the array to 150,000, both admissions being accepted by the other side. This admission was in the nature of an insinuation against the honesty and truthfulness of the ‘Mormon’ people. We are pleased to be able to state, from a knowledge of their character, that for truthfulness and integrity they are not excelled by any other people as a class. Abundance of evidence could be offered in substantiation of this assertion, the testimony coming from non-‘Mormon’ sources. Mr. Baskin himself has even made genuine admissions on that score.
In this connection it may be appropriate to quote from a statement made in testimony by a non-‘Mormon’ devoid of affection for that people, before the congressional House committee on Territories, on January 21st, 1870:
I have been for five years past a resident of Utah. I must do the Mormons the justice to say that the question of religion does not enter into their courts, in ordinary cases; I have never detected any bias on the part of jurors there in this respect, as I at first expected; I have appeared in cases where Mormons and Gentiles were opposing parties in the case, and saw, much to my surprise, the jury do what is right.
It will, perhaps, appear somewhat remarkable to our readers when we say that the gentleman who made that statement so eulogistic of the Latter-day Saints, showing how regardful they were of the rights of others, was Robert N. Baskin, ex-Assistant United States District Attorney, and one of the bitterest of bitter anti-‘Mormons.'” (DW 29(23):710, 30 Nov., 1889)
“The attempt made by leading active politicians of the ‘Liberal’ Party to use the court to compel the members of a religious organization to divulge secret rites and ceremonies that are deemed sacred, is an inexcusable invasion of the rights of the citizen. It is an outrage to make such an unprecedented and preposterous demand. It is enough for all legal purposes for witnesses to state that the ceremonies have nothing in them, in form or genius, antagonistic to the government. Beyond that point the State cannot step without invading a sacred right.
If the position taken by the ‘Liberal’ representatives should carry, and the Court demand of a witness not only a statement as to whether the rites and ceremonies in question are or are not in conflict with the government, but that he divulge the whole formula, the Masonic fraternity and every other secret society would be jeopardized. The State has no right to information as to the secret formula further than that which relates to its friendly character to the government. Any other position is unqualified tyranny.” (Editorial, “The Political Scheme,” DW 29(23):712, 30 Nov., 1889)
“RUNNING COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE.
The alleged investigation said to have been instituted for the purpose of deciding whether or not ‘membership in the Mormon Church is compatible with good citizenship,’ has been watched with keen interest by the whole community. A running glance over the evidence produced fails to warrant any other conclusion, thus far, than that the Latter-day Saints are as loyal a people as live within the Republic. In not one instance has it been shown that the Priesthood have taught disloyalty to the government.
It has been darkly hinted by some of the witnesses known to be pronounced and bitter enemies of the Church, that some of the teachings might have been inferred to have a bent in that direction, but the inferentialism of opponents is always to be taken with a few grains of salt. The explanation of Mr. Lawrence on the point was significant. The expressions of the authorities were not directed against the government, but against officials acting under it who dealt oppressively and unjustly with the ‘Mormon’ people, from the latter’s standpoint.
A long and almost inexhaustible list of wrongs could be enumerated. Not only the authorities, but the whole community have taken exceptions to measures of that character. It is not necessary to go outside of the court room where the investigation is in progress for illustrations. Mr. Dickson is understood to have formulated and applied, when he was U. S. District attorney, what has been called the segregation system, by means of which–being an indefinite multiplication of indictments for one offense–‘Mormons’ could be sent to prison for several hundred years, and be fined a sum impossible of satisfaction by a Rothschild. The ex-District attorney and those who operated with him were criticised to some extent for this unwarrantable course. We have never thought that the censure applied to that measure and the U. S. officers who worked it was unpatriotic or treasonable. We couldn’t think of such a thing, because it would be an undue reflection upon the Supreme Court of the United States, which smashed segregation and characterized it as an unprecedented legal monstrosity.
Instead of it being shown that the ‘Mormons’ have been disloyal, even their enemies, in the proceedings of the last few days, have testified that they have always held to the belief that the Constitution is an inspired instrument. The logical inference from this position is that all laws made in pursuance of it are of the same genius. If it has come to pass that men and measures cannot be criticied without those engaging in that Constitutional exercise being not only charged with disloyalty, but virtually punished by disability for it, then let freedom shreik and liberty fall prostrate in the mud to be kicked to disfigurement by the iron shod feet of tyranny.
Belief, during the peculiar investigation in question, has been introduced as an element of unpatriotic quality. But the shoe is on the other foot, the enemy of free government being he who would make his fellow an offender on account of a mental condition superinduced by evidence. A man can no more help his belief on any subject coming within the purview of his intellect than he can the shape and size of his head. The spirit that would apply a coercive process of any kind, either in the shape of disability, a thumb-screw or an ankle-crusher to coerce a man from one belief to another, has not drunk at the living fountain of liberty, but might have been esteemed an average citizen of an unlimited despotism in the dark ages of the world’s history. The Supreme Court of the United States has asserted, on this question, that the law deals only with overt acts, belief not being a proper subject of restriction.
The attempt to present a phase of disloyalty in the endowments has failed, the testimony as whole leading to the effect that the government is not mentioned in connection with them in any form. Then steps in the inferentialism, which was all the coloring there was to the allegation, and it does not amount to more than so much smoke.
The attempt to show that there is any obligation of polygamy associated with these sacred rites has utterly failed. Of course it has been shown that a certain class of witnesses will testify to anything, so long as they can gratify their spleen against the Church with which they were formerly connected. Wardell is an instance in point. His evidence, shown to be totally false, reached the point of ludicrousness when examined in relation to the obligation of polygamy in connection with the endowments. Being asked–after he had stated that it existed–as to its nature he said substantially that some one exclaimed, ‘All those in favor of taking more wives than one, say aye. Contrary, no. The ayes have it.’ Of course nobody, including the ‘Liberal’ prosecutors, believed a word the old man said.
The blood atonement or death penalty business has shared a similar fate. Not one instance has been cited of any such penalty having been inflicted, this fact of itself being unanswerable as showing its non-existence. Of course the witness Wardell tried to furnish a case; the man named Green, a resident of Farmington, who was blood-atoned in an immigrant train near Green River. There seemed to have been a great deal of green about this alleged sanguinary circumstance. Some facts were elucidated in rebuttal that threw a shadow on Wardell’s blood and thunder. The only Green that ever lived at Farmington was produced in court and was ready to testify that he was not at Green River in 1862, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief he had never been killed. As a circumstance of that kind could not very well have occurred without his being cognizant of the fact, Mr. Green’s evidence in rebuttal could not be considered as remarkably weak. If any more proof were needed, it was furnished by Mr. Follett, one of Wardell’s eye-witnesses to the taking off of Mr. Green. He said that there was no Green in the train. After that broad statement his subsequent assertion that he never saw the man who wasn’t there murdered, had a slight tinge of superfluity about it. Wardell’s son and daughter both supported the statements of Messrs. Green and Follet.
Throughout the investigation a particular feature was notic[e]able. Whenever a witness would testify in a way that damaged the ‘Liberal’ cause, Mr. Dickson would almost invariably ask: ‘Are you a “Mormon?”‘ The answer was occasionally in the neegative. The point sought to be made by the attorney was that if the witness was a ‘Mormon,’ he could not be fully relied upon. At this point it is appropriate to reproduce the testimony of Mr. Robert N. Baskin, (it has already appeared in the NEWS) given before the Congressional House Committee on Territories on January 21st, 1870:
I have been for five years past a resident of Utah. I must do the Mormons the justice to say that the question of religion does not enter into their courts, in ordinary cases; I have never detected any bias on the part of jurors there in this respect, as I at first expected; I have appeared in cases where Mormons and Gentiles were opposing parties in the case, and saw, much to my surprise, the jury do what is right.
We do not know whether the case–if such it may be designated–now in progress before Judge Anderson, has ever been definitely entitled. Several names have appeared upon the papers connected with it. We do not wish to be obtrusive, but if a mild suggestion is in order, how would this do: ‘The Bosses of the Liberal Party vs. Constitutional Rights and Religious Liberty.'” (DW 29(23):714-715, 30 Nov., 1889)
“Now contrast the forgoing [claim of Wardell] with the following dispatch received this morning from Spanish Fork, being an affidavit made by the ‘murdered (?) man Green:’
Spanish Fork, Nov. 30, 1889.
My name is William Green; I am not now a ‘Mormon;’ nor have I been for several years; I am a married man, and was in 1862; at which time I crossed the plains in Captain Dame’s company; there was no other man by the name of Green in that company, that I know of; there was no man killed in that company; I left that company near Bill Kimball’s ranch, because I wanted to get into Salt Lake ahead of them.
(Signed) William Green.
Signed this 30th day of November, A.D., 1889, in Spanish Fork city, Utah, in the presence of Joseph A. Reese and others.”
(Utah Enquirer, 3 Dec., 1889; in JH 30 Nov., 1889)
“In the application of some ‘Mormons’ to become naturalized Judge Anderson today gave his decision. He refused them admission because he feels that they belong to an organization that is opposed to the U. S. government. His reasons for the denial are 1st: That the Mormon Church teaches that it is the actual and veritable kingdom of God on earth with the authority thereof vested in the Priesthood. 2nd: That the kingdom is of a temporal and spiritual kingdom, and should rightfully control all affairs of men. 3d: This kingdom will eventually overthrow the United States and all other governments. 4th: That ‘blood atonement’ is a doctrine of the church for certain sins. 5th: That polygamy is a command of God and will exalt all who obey it. 6th:–That Congress has no right to interfere with the practices of the Mormon religion, and all enactments against the people are unwarranted.–Matters seems to be closing in around us, but God is still at the helm, and truth will triumph.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 30 Nov., 1889)
“Judge Thomas Anderson rendered an opinion adverse to the application of Bro Moore & others for Naturalization on account of their being members of the Church &c.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 30 Nov., 1889)
30 Nov.: Anderson’s decision.
“NATURALIZATION OF ‘MORMONS.’
The Federal Court room was filled November 30, by those assembled to hear the decision of Judge Anderson in the case involving the eligibility of ‘Mormons’ for citizenship. The reading of the opinion occupied an hour, and at its conclusion the crowd, which was almost entirely anti-‘Mormon,’ expressed their approval of the judge’s decision by stamping their feet and clapping their hands. The opinion is as follows:
In the District Court for the Third Judicial District of the Territory of Utah.
In the matter of the application of John Moore, Fred W. Miller, Henry J. Owen, John Berg, Walter J. Edgar, Charles E. Clissold, Nils Anderson, Carl P. Larsen, Thomas M. Mumford, John Garbet and Arthur Townsend, to become citizens of the United States.
OPINION.
Anderson, J.
In these applications the usual evidence on behalf of the applicants as to residence, moral character, etc., was introduced at a former hearing, and was deemed sufficient. Objection was made, however, to the admission of John Moore and William J. Edgar upon the ground that they were members of the Mormon Church, and also because they had gone through the Endowment House of that Church, and there had taken an oath or obligation incompatible with the oath of citizenship they would be required to take if admitted. The admission of the other applicants was objected to solely on the ground that by their own statements they were members of the Mormon Church, although they had not gone through the Endowment House, and had not taken the oath usually administered there, nor in fact any oath incompatible with citizenship.
The claim is made by those who object to the admission to citizenship of these persons, that the Mormon Church is and always has been a treasonable organization in its teachings and in its practices, hostile to the government of the United States, disobedient to its laws, and seeking its overthrow, and that the oath administered to its members in the Endowment House binds them, under the penalty of death, to implicit obedience in all things, temporal as well as spiritual, to the Priesthood, and to avenge the death of the prophets Joseph and Hyrum Smith upon the government and people of the United States. The taking of further testimony at this time is for the purpose of determining whether or not these allegations are true.
The third subdivision of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that in order to entitle an alien to be admitted as a citizen of the United States, it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided in the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least, and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. Those objecting to the right of these applicants to be admitted to citizenship, introduced eleven witnesses, who had been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church. Several of these witnesses had held the position of Bishop in the Church, and all had gone through the Endowment House and participated in its ceremonies. The testimony of these witnesses is to the effect that every member of the Church is expected to go through the Endowment House, and that nearly all do so; that marriages are usually solemnized there, and that those who are married elsewhere go through the Endowment ceremonies at as early a date thereafter as practicable, in order that the marital relation shall continue throughout eternity. That these ceremonies occupy the greater part of a day, and include the taking of an oath, obligation or covenant, by all who receive their endowments, that they will avenge the blood of the Prophets, Joseph and Hyrum Smith, upon the Government of the United States, and will enjoin this obligation upon their children unto the third and fourth generations; that they will obey the Priesthood in all things, and will never reveal the secrets of the Endowment House under the penalty of having their throats cut from ear to ear, their bowels torn out, and their hearts cut out of their bodies. The right arm is annointed that it may be strong to avenge the blood of the prophets. An under garment, a sort of combination of shirt and drawers, called the endowment robe, is then put on, and is to be worn ever after. On this robe, near the throat, and over the heart, and in the region of the abdomen, are certain marks or designs intended to remind the wearer of the penalties that will be inflicted in case of a violation of the oath, obligation or covenant he or she has taken or made.
On behalf of the applicants, fourteen witnesses testified concerning the endowment ceremonies, but all of them declined to state what oaths are there taken, or what obligations or covenants are there entered into, or what penalties are attached to their violation; and these witnesses when asked for their reason for declining to answer, stated that they did so ‘on a point of honor,’ while several stated they had forgotten what was said about avenging the blood of the prophets. John H. Smith, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Church, testified that all that is said in the endowment ceremonies about avenging the blood of the prophets is said in a lecture, in which the 9th and 10th verses of the sixth chapter of Revelations is recited, as follows:
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth.
Other witnesses for the applicants testified that this is the only place in the ceremonies where avenging the blood of the prophets is mentioned.
John Clark, a witness for applicants, testified he took some obligations, made some promises, entered into some covenants in the Endowment House, and wore his endowment robes, but did not know the significance of the slit over the heart. E. L. T. Harrison, another of applicants’ witnesses, testified he had a clear recollection that his right arm was washed, and something said about it being made strong to avenge the death of the Prophets, and that the names of Joseph and Hyrum Smith were not mentioned, but were understood to be among the number whose blood was to be avenged; and E. G. Woolley, a witness for the applicants, testified they were to pray to the Lord to avenge the blood of the Prophets. Every other witness for the applicants who was asked the question stated that Joseph and Hyrum Smith were understood to be included among the Prophets whose blood was to be avenged.
The witnesses for the applicants, while refusing to disclose the oath, promises and covenants of the endowment ceremonies, and the penalties attached thereto, testified generally that there was nothing in the ceremonies inconsistent with loyalty to the government of the United States, and that the government was not mentioned. One of the objects of this investigation is to ascertain whether the oaths and obligations of the Endowment House are incompatible with good citizenship, and it is not for applicants’ witnesses to determine this question. The ree refusal of applicants’ witnesses to state specifically what oaths, obligations or covenants are taken or entered into in these ceremonies, renders their testimony of but little value, and tends to confirm rather than contradict the evidence on this point offered by the objectors. The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the endowment ceremonies are inconsistent with the oath an applicant for citizenship is required to take; and that the oaths, obligations or covenants there made or entered into are incompatible with the obligations and duties of citizens of the United States. The applications of John Moore and Walter J. Edgar, both of whom were shown on the former examination to be members of the Mormon church, and to have gone through the endowment house, are therefore denied.
As to the objection made to the admission of the other applicants upon the ground solely of their being members of the Mormon church, a large amount of evidence, mostly documentary, has been introduced, only a small portion of which can be noticed in this opinion without extending it to too great a length. The evidence consists mostly of the sermons and writings of the Mormon rulers and leaders, published under the direction of the church. On the subject of the right of the priesthood and rulers to dictate to the members in temporal matters, portions of section 124, page 436, of the Doctrine and Covenants is offered by the objectors, containing the prophecies of Joseph Smith as follows:
And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph, and his house, have place therein, from generation to generation, for this anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after him. And as I said unto Abraham concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph, in thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed. Therefore, let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in that house, from generation to generation, for ever and ever, saith the Lord. And let the name of that house be called Nauvoo House, and let it be a delightful habitation for man, and a resting place for the weary traveler, that he may contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this the corner stone thereof. That he may receive also the counsel from those whom I have set to be as plants of renown, and as watchmen upon her walls. Behold, verily I say unto you, let my servant George Miller, and my servant Lyman Wight, and my servant John Snider, and my servant Peter Haws, organize themselves, and appoint one of them to be a president over their quorum for the purpose of building that house. And they shall form a constitution whereby they may receive stock for the building of that house. And they shall not receive less than fifty dollars for a share of stock in that house, and they shall be permitted to receive fifteen thousand dollars from any one man for stock in that house; but they shall not be permitted to receive over fifteen thousand dollars stock from any one man; and they shall not be permitted to receive any man as a stockholder in this house, except the same shall pay his stock into their hands at the time he receives stock.
Also from page 241 of the same book, as follows:
And now verily I say that it is expedient in me that my servant Sidney Gilbert, after a few weeks, should return upon his business, and to his agency in the land of Zion; and that which he hath seen and heard may be made known to my disciples, that they perish not. And for this cause I have spoken these things. And again I say unto you, that my servant Isaac Morley may not be tempted above that which he is able to bear, and counsel wrongfully to your hurt, I gave commandment that his farm should be sold.
From page 242 of the same books as follows:
And it is not meet that my servants, Newel K. Whitney and Sidney Gilbert, should sell their store and their possessions here, for this is not wisdom, until the residue of the Church, which remaineth in this place, shall go up unto the land of Zion.
Also an extract from a discourse by President Brigham Young delivered in the Tabernacle in this city, June 16, 1867, in which he used the following language:
You may say it is hard that I should dictate you in your temporal affairs. Is it not my privilege to dictate to you? Is it not my privilege to give this people counsel, to direct them so that their labors will build up the Kingdom of God instead of the kingdom of the devil? I will quote you a little scripture if you wish, the words of an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ to me. You may think that I saw him in a vision, and it was a vision given right in broad daylight. Said he: ‘Never spend another day to build up a gentile city, but spend your days, dollars and dimes for the upbuilding of the Zion of God upon the earth, to promote peace and righteousness and to prepare for the coming of the Son of Man, and he who does not abide this law will suffer loss.’ That is a saying of one of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. He said it to me. Do you want to know his name? It is not recorded in the New Testament among the apostles, but it was an apostle whom the Lord called and ordained in this, my day, and in the day of a good portion of this congregation, and his name was Joseph Smith, Jr. These words were delivered to me in July, 1833, in the town of Kirtland, Geauga County, in the State of Ohio. The word to the Elders who were there was: ‘Never from this time henceforth do you spend one hour to sustain the kingdoms of this world, or the kingdoms of the devil, but sustain the Kingdom of God to your uttermost.’ Now, if I were to ask the Elders of Israel to abide this, what would be the reply of some amongst us? The language in the hearts of some would be, ‘It is none of your business where I trade.’ I will promise those who feel thus that they will never enter the celestial kingdom of our Father and God. That is my business. It is my business to preach the truth to the people, and it will be my business by and by to testify for the just and to bear witness against the ungodly. It is your privilege to do as you please. Just please yourselves, but when you do so, will you please bear the results and not whine over them?–Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 59.
In another discourse made in the Tabernacle in this city, March 9th, 1862, the same distinguished leader used the following language:
There is not a man upon the earth who could magnify even an earthly office without the power and wisdom of God to aid him. When Mr. Fillmore appointed me Governor of Utah, I proclaimed openly that my Priesthood should govern and control that office. I am of the same mind today. We have not received our election returns, but should I be elected Governor of the State of Deseret, that office shall be sustained and controlled by the power of the eternal Priesthood of the Son of God, or I will walk the office under my feet. Hear it, both Saint and sinner, and send it to the uttermost parts of the earth, that whatever office I hold from any government on this earth shall honor the government of heaven, or I will not hold it.–Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 42.
Elder George Q. Cannon, in an address in this city on the 1st day of January, 1865, used the following language:
When the counsel of God comes through his servants to us, we should bow to that, no matter how much it may come in contact with our preconceived ideas; submit to it as though God spoke it, and feel such a reverence towards it as though we believed that the servant of God had the inspiration of the Almighty resting upon him.–Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 71.
In a discourse delivered in this city on the 30th day of August, 1857, Elder John Taylor, afterwards one of the Presidents of the Church, used the following language:
God has established His Kingdom. He has rolled back that cloud that has overspread the moral horizon of the world. He has opened the heavens, revealed the fulness of the everlasting Gospel, organized this His Kingdom, according to the pattern that exists in the heavens, and He has placed certain keys, powers and oracles in our midst, and we are the people of God; we are His government. The Priesthood upon the earth is the legitimate government of God whether in the heavens or on the earth.–Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 187.
In a discourse by President Heber C. Kimball, delivered in this city, Sunday morning, August 30th, 1857, he used the following language:
I want to tell some of my feelings here today in a few words relative to Brother Brigham. I call him brother, because he says if I call him President he shall call me President, and just as sure as he does, I am as flat as a pancake. I shall only call him President before the Saints in his calling. I was going to say, before our enemies, but damn them, they shall never come here. Excuse me, I never use rough words only when I come in contact with rough things, and I use smooth words when I talk upon smooth subjects, and so on, according to the nature of the case that comes before me. You all acknowledge Brother Brigham as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Then you acknowledge him as our leader, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and then you acknowledge him in every capacity that pertains to his calling, both in Church and State, do you not? (Voices, Yes.) Well, he is our gaovernor. What is a governor? One who presides or governs. Well, now, we have declared in a legislative capacity that we will not have poor, rotten hearted curses to rule over us such as some they have been accustomed to send. We drafted a memorial and the council and house of representatives signed it, and we sent to them the names of men of our own choice, as many as from five to eight men for each office, men from our own midst, out of whom to appoint officers for this Territory. We sent that number for the President of the of the United States to make a selection from, and asked him to give us men of our own choice, in accordance with the rights constitutionally guaranteed to all American citizens. We just told them right up and down that if they sent any more such miserable curses as some they had sent were, we would send them home; and that is one reason why an army or rather a mob, is on the way here as reported. You did not know the reason before, did you? * * * I want you to go and get your butcher knives, your bowie knives and jack knives, and sharpen them. There is nothing to fight and there will not be this year. We shall have a year of peace. They may try to come here, and then they will not come here. If they do not undertake to come here, then there will not be any trouble; but they never will force a governor on us again. No, never. Nor their poor, rotten-hearted judges and marshals, etc., if you will do right.–Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 160.
Elder Wilford Woodruff, now president of the church, on the 8th day of April, 1862, delivered an address in this city, in which he used the following language:
This Kingdom has got to rise up and take its stand in majesty, in strength and power, among the nations, and all that the Lord has promised will be realized. Our President has frequently told us that we shall not separate the temporal from the spiritual, but they must go hand in hand together. And so it is, and so must we act in reference to building up the Church and Kingdom of God.–Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 325.
On the 22nd day of October, 1865, President Woodruff delivered an address in the Tabernacle in this city, in which he used the following language:
The Lord has said that in the last days the kingdom should not be taken from the earth nor given to another people, but that the kingdoms of this world should become the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. We have the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and other revelations of God to this effect. Either this is the Kingdom of God or it is not the kingdom of God. If it is not the kingdom of God, then are we like the rest of mankind. Our faith is vain, our works are vain, and we are in the same condition of ignorance with regard to the Gospel and the purposes of God as the rest of the world. There are tens of thousands throughout these valleys who know that this is the kingdom of God. They know this by the revelations of Jesus Christ. It is not the testimony of another man that gives me the knowledge for myself. If I had not the testimony of truth for myself, I would not be qualified to build up this kingdom. There is no man or woman qualified to build up the kingdom of God if they have not the testimony of truth for themselves. I will say to this congregation, Jew and Gentile, believer and unbeliever, that this is the great kingdom spoken of by Daniel, the commencement of the Zion of our God, which every prophet has spoken of who has referred to the Zion in the last days. The Lord has sworn by Himself, because he could swear by none greater, that He wiill establish it in the latter days.–Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 245.
Evidence was also introduced showing that the Bishops’ courts of the Church exercise judicial functions to the extent of rendering judgments and annulling or modifying judgments rendered by the civil courts. It is contended, however, that they have no power of enforcing their judgments except by excommunication or other like means. This is perhaps true, but with a people so completely under the control of their leaders as the members of this Church are, this method is in many, if not in most cases, as effectual as an execution or other process of the civil courts. The following are samples of the procedure in the Bishops’ courts:
Salt Lake City, Utah, November 20th, 1889.
Brother Otto Van Ostrum:
You are hereby notified to attend a Bishop’s court to be held in the Sixteenth Ward School House, Salt Lake City, on Friday evening, November 22nd, 1889, at 7 o’clock, to answer the following charge, which has been preferred against you:
Salt Lake City, Oct. 30, 1889.
To Bishop F. Kessler:
Dear Brother–I hereby prefer a charge against Otto Van Ostrum, a member of the Sixteenth Ward, for unchristianlike conduct in enforcing a contract to exchange property between us through the United States commissioner’s court, before my wife had agreed to the transaction, and before I fully understood the nature of the contract, through my limited knowledge of the English language. And also for my being about to sell a portion of my property by marshal’s sale to satisfy damages which he has never sustained, as neither him nor I were in the least injured by the failure of the exchange. The time of the sale having been advertized for November 16th, I would respectfully ask that a hearing may be had before you in this case as early as possible.
(Signed) G. L. Jensen
Do not fail to appear with your testimony prepared for investigation of the above charge.
By order of Bishop F. Kessler and council.
George R. Emery, Ward Clerk.
N.B.–If you do not appear or send a justifiable excuse for your absence, this case will be heard and acted upon whether you are present or not.
G. R. E.
Salt Lake City, Jan. 24, 1887.
We, the Bishop and Council of the Fourth Ward, after due deliberation render the following judgment in the case of Joseph Sowdan vs. Charles Williams: The interest now due, amounting to $178, is to be paid on the 15th day of April, 1887; $400 of the principal and $42.50 (interest on $350 for six months at 10 per cent per annum) to be paid on the 24th day of July, 1887; the remaining $450 principal and $22.50 (interest on $450 for six months at 10 per cent per annum) to be paid on the 24th day of January, 1888.
Harrison Sperry, Bishop; Thos. Corless and Charles Knight, Counselors; W. F. Smith, Clerk.
I think there can be no question but that the Church claims and exercises the right to control its members in temporal as well as spiritual affairs.
The evidence also shows that blood atonement is one of the doctrines of the Church under which, for certain offenses, the offender shall suffer death as the only means of atoning for his transgressions, and that any member of the Church has the right to shed his blood.
In a discourse delivered September 21st, 1856, Brigham Young said:
There are sins which men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world or in that which is to come; and if they had their eyes open to their true condition they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them. It is true the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall, and those committed by men, yet man can commit sins which it never can remit. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day, and though the principles are trught publicly from this stand, still the people do not understand them. Yet the law is precisely the same. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days, and there are sins that the blood of a lamb or of a calf or of turtle doves cannot remit; but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man. That is the reason why men talk to you as they do from this stand. They understand the doctrine, and throw out a few words about it. You have been taught that doctrine, but you did not understand it.
And again, on the 8th day of February 1857, in a discourse in the Tabernacle, President Young used the following language (see DESERET NEWS, vol. 6, p. 397):
But now I say, in the name of the Lord, that if this people will sin no more, but faithfully live their religion, their sins will be forgiven them without taking of life. You are aware that when Brother Cummings came to the point of loving our neighbors, he could say yes or no, as the case might be. That is true; but I want to connect it with the doctrine you heard in the Bible. When will we love our neighbors as ourselves? In the first place, Jesus said that no man hateth his own flesh. It is admitted by all, every person loves himself. Now, if we do rightly love ourselves, we want to be saved and continue to exist; we want to go into the kingdom where we can enjoy eternity and see no more sorrow or death. This is the desire of every person who believes in God. Now, take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with being saved in the Kingdom of our God and our Father, and being an exalted one, who knows and understands the principles of eternal life, and sees the beauty and excellency of the eternities before him compared with the vain, foolish things of the world, and suppose he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin which he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods. Is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, ‘Shed my blood, that I may be saved and exalted with the gods?’ All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant. He never told a man or woman to love their enemies in their wickedness. He never intended any such thing. I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the last resurrection, if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled upon the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil, until our elder brother Jesus Christ raises them up, conquers death, hell and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left the Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled it would have been better for them. The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbids this principle being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force. This is loving our neighbors as ourselves. If he needs help, help him; and if he needs salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood upon the ground in order that he may be saved, spill it. Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.
President Jedediah M. Grant delivered a discourse March 12, 1854, on the subject of what he calls ‘covenant breakers,’ that is, those who leave the Mormon Church, in which he used the following language:
Then what ought this meek people, who keep the commandments of God, to do unto them? ‘Nay,’ says one, ‘they ought to pray to the Lord to kill them. I want to know if you wish the Lord to come down and do all your dirty work. Many of the Latter-day Saints will pray and petition and supplicate the Lord to do a thousand things they themselves would be ashamed to do. When a man prays for a thing, he ought to be willing to perform it himself; but if the Latter-day Saints should put to death the covenant breakers, it would try the faith of the very meek, just and pious ones among them. It would cause a great deal of whining in Israel. Then there was another old commandment. The Lord God commanded them not to pity the person whom they killed, but to execute the law of God upon persons worthy of death. This should be done by the entire congregation, showing no pity. I have thought there would have to be quite a revolution among the Mormons before such a commandment could be obeyed completely by them. The Mormons have a great deal of sympathy. For instance if they can get a man before a tribunal administering the law of the land, and succeed in getting a rope around his neck and having him hung up like a dead dog, it is all right; but if the Church and Kingdom of God should step forth and execute the law of God, Oh, what a burst of Mormon sympathy it would cause. I wish we were in a situation favorable to our doing that which is justifiable before God without any contaminating influence of Gentile amalgamation, laws and traditions, that the people of God might lay the axe to the root of the tree, and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit might be hewn down. What! Do you believe that people would do right and keep the law of God by actually putting to death the transgressors? Putting to death the covenant breakers would exhibit the law of God, no matter by whom it was done. That is my opinion. You talk of the doings of different governments, the United States if you please. What do they do with traitors? What mode do they adopt to punish traitors? Do traitors to that Government forfeit their lives? Examine also the doings of other earthly governments on this point, and you will find the same practice universal. I am not aware that there are any exceptions, but people will look in the books of theology and argue that the people of God have a right to try people for fellowship, but they have no right to try them on property or life. That makes the devil laugh, saying, ‘I have got them on a hook now. They can cut them off, and I will put eight or ten spirits worse than they are into their tabernacles, and send them back to mob them.’ (‘Deseret News,’ July 27th, 1854.)
Referring to the right of the Church to shed the blood of those who apostatized, Brigham Young, in an address delivered in the Tabernacle March 27th, 1853, and found in vol. 1, Journal of Discourses, page 81, used the following language:
I will tell you a dream that I had last night. I dreamed that I was in the midst of a people who were dressed in rags and tatters. They had turbans upon their heads, and they were also hanging in tatters. The rags were of many colors, and when the people moved they were all in motion. Their object appeared to be to attract attention. Said they to me, ‘We are Mormons, Brother Brigham.’ ‘No, you are not,’ I repolied. ‘But we have been,’ said they; and they began to jump and caper about and dance, and their rags of many colors were all in motion, to attract the attention of the people. I said, ‘You are no Saints; you are a disgrace to them.’ Said they, ‘We have been Mormons.’ By and by along came some mobocrats, and they greeted them with ‘How do you do, sir? I am very happy to see you.’ They kept on that way for an hour. I felt ashamed of them, for they were, in my eyes, a disgrace to ‘Mormonism.’ Then I saw two ruffians, whom I knew to be mobbers and murderers; and they crept into a bed where one of my wives and children were. I said: ‘You that call yourselves brethren, tell me, is this the fashion among you?’ They said, ‘But they are good men. They are gentlemen.’ With that I took my large bowie knife, that I used to wear as a bosom pin at Nauvoo, and cut one of their throats from ear to ear, saying, ‘Go to hell across lots.’ The other one said, ‘You dare not serve me so.’ I instantly sprang at him, seized him by the hair of the head, and, bringing him down, cut his throat and sent him after his comrade. Then told them both if they would behave themselves they should yet live, but if they did not, I would unjoint their necks. At this I awoke. I say rather than that apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my bowie knife and conquer or die. (Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling assenting to the declaration.) Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line and righteousness to the plummet. (Voices generally, ‘Go it, go it.’) If you say it is right raise your hands. (All hands up.) Let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this and every good work.
An effort was made to show that the blood atonement, as preached by Brigham Young, and Jedediah Grant is not now the doctrine of the Church, and a pamphlet containing an address on this subject by Elder Charles W. Penrose in October, 1884, was offered in evidence, but in this pamphlet Mr. Penrose sustains the doctrine of blood atonement as preached by Brigham Young and President Grant. On page 13 of the pamphlet, containing the address of Mr. Penrose, referring to the blood atonement, he uses the following language:
Now, according to the doctrine of President Brigham Young, the blood of Jesus Christ as I have shown you, atoned for the original sin, and for sins that men commit, and yet there are sins which men commit for which they cannot receive any benefit through the shedding of Christ’s blood. Is that a true doctrine? It is true, if the Bible is true. That is Bible doctrine.
Again on page 36 he says:
Now, Brothers Jedediah M. Grant and Brigham Young, because of the transgression of the people, spoke as I have quoted. This was the time of the reformation, and the fears of evildoers were worked upon to induce reform, and hence the strong language used at that time. Do we need the same language now? I hope not; but if there was any need for it, it would be just as applicable now as then.
And again, on page 43 he uses the following language:
These are some of the ideas entertained by the Latter-day Saints on the subject of blood atonement. After baptized persons have made sacred covenants with God and then commit deadly sins, the only atonement they can make is the shedding of their blood. At the same time, because of the laws of the land and the prejudice of the nation, and the ignorance of the world, this law cannot be carried out, and when the time comes that the law of God shall be in full force upon the earth, then this penalty will be inflicted for those crimes committed by persons under covenant not to commit them.
As to the feeling of the members of the Mormon Church toward the government of the United States, the evidence discloses a condition of things greatly to be deplored. Brigham Young was the first governor of the Territory, and for years resisted all attempt of the authorities to install the proper officers for carrying on of the Territorial government, unless men of his own selection should be appointed. He claimed the right to say who the officers of the Territory should be, and the President of the United States finally found it necessary to send an army to Utah. Referring to the sending of troops here, Brigham Young, in a speech in this city on Sunday, April 13th, 1857, said:
I do not often get angry, but when I do I am righteously angry, and the bosom of the Almighty burns with anger towards those scoundrels, and they shall be consumed in the name of Israel’s God. We have borne enough of their oppression and hellish abuse, and we will not bear any more of it for there is no just law requiring further forbearance on our part, and I am not going to have troops here to protect the priests and hellish rabble in efforts to drive us from the land we possess, for the Lord does not want us to be driven, and has said ‘If you will assert your rights and keep my commandments you shall never again be brought into bondage by your enemies. * * * If you do your duty in this respect you need not be afraid of mobs nor of forces sent out in violation of the very genius of our free institutions, holding you till mobs kill you.[‘] Mobs? Yes, for where is there the least particle of authority, either in our constitution or laws, for sending troops here, or even for appointing civil officers contrary to the voluntary consent of the governed. We came here without any help from our enemies, and we intend to stay as long as we please. They say that their army is legal, and I say that such a statement is as false as hell, and that they are as rotten as a pumpkin that has been frozen seven times and then melted in a harvest sun. Come on with your thousands of illegally ordered troops, and I will promise you in the name of Israel’s God that you shall melt away as the snow before a July sun. * * * We are not to be persecuted as we have been. We can say, ‘Come as a mob and we will sweeten you up right suddenly.’They never did anything against Joseph until they had ostensibly legalized a mob, and I shall treat their army and every armed company that attempts to come here, as a mob. (The congregation responsed Amen.) You might as well tell me that you can make hell into a powder house, as to tell me that you could let an army in here and have peace. I intend to tell them and show them this, if they don’t keep away. By taking this course, you will find that every man and woman feels happy, and they say, ‘All right, all is well,’ and I say that our enemies shall not slip the bow on Old Bright’s neck again.
Referring to the same subject, President Heber C. Kimball, in August, 1857, delivered a discourse in this city, found in volume 5, page 133, of the Journal of Discourses, in which he used the following language:
Will the president in the chair of state be tipped from his seat? Yes, he will die an untimely death, and God Almighty will curse him, and He will also curse his successor if he takes the same stand, and He will curse all those who are his coadjutors, and all who sustain him. What for? For coming here to destroy the Kingdom of God and the Prophets and Apostles and inspired men and women, and God Almighty will curse them, and I curse them in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ according to my calling; and if there is any virtue in my calling, they shall be cursed, every man that lifts his heel against us from this day forth.
Elder Orson Hyde, in a discourse delivered in this city, and found in the DESERET NEWS, volume 7, page 275, used the following language:
The last eastern mail, I think, brought me a pamphlet or tract written by Elder Orson Pratt at Liverpool, England–subject, ‘Gathering of the Saints and building up the Kingdom of God.’ The whole matter is handled in a masterly way, free from blind obscurity, unchecked and unrestrained by fear, and untrammeled by the religious or political dogmas of the age. It is the product of a clear head, of a strong heart, and of an unflinching hand. In short, it is heaven’s eternal truth. I do exceeding regret having mislaid it, for I would like to send it to Senator Douglas, with a request that he read it faithfully before he applies the knife to cut out the loathsome ulcer. Having read it, then if he shall be disposed and able to cut, cut away, and carve up to suit his own peculiar appetite and that also of his friends. Will some person having said tract or pamphlet be kind enough to mail it to Hon. Stephen A. Douglas, Washington, D.C.? But let all men, however, know that if what the honorable gentleman calls the loathsome ulcer be cut out, according to his views and suggestions, the United States will be cut off from being a nation, and her star of empire set, and set in blood.
In September, 1857, Brigham Young, in an address delivered in this city, and found in volume 5, Journal of Discourses, used the following language:
There cannot be a more damnable, dastardly order than was issued by the administration to this people while they were in an Indian country in 1846. Before we left Nauvoo, no less than two United States senators came to receive a pledge from us that we would leave the United States, and then, while we were doing our best to leave their borders, the poor, low, degraded curses sent a requisition for five hundred of our men to go and fight their battles. That was President Polk, and he is now weltering in hell, with old Zachariah Taylor, where the present administrators will soon be if they do not repent. * * * Liars have reported that this people have committed treason, and upon their lies the President has ordered troops to aid in officering this Territory, and if those officers are like many who have previously been sent here, and we have reason to believe that they are, or they would not come when they know they are not wanted, they are poor, miserable blacklegs, broken down political hacks, robbers and whoremongers, men that are not fit for civilized society, so they dragoon them upon us for officers. I feel that I won’t bear such cursed treatment, and that is enough to say, for we are just as free as the mountain air. * * * There is high treason in Washington, and if the law was carried out, it would hang up many of them, and the very act of James K. Polk in having five hundred of our men, while we were making our way out of the country, under an agreement forced upon us, would have hung him between the heavens and the earth if the laws had been faithfully carried out. And now, if they can send a force against this people, we have every constitutional and legal right to send them to hell, and we calculate to send them there. * * * Our enemies had better count the cost, for if they continue the job they will want to let it out to sub-contractors before they get half through with it. If they persist in sending troops here, I want the people in the west and in the east to understand that it will not be safe for them to cross the plains.
Whether such language as the above instigated the Mountain Meadow massacre, or whether that horrible butchery was done by direct command of Brigham Young, will probably never be known; but it is a part of the history of this Territory that about this time a party of peaceful emigrants, who were passing through Utah, on their way to California, consisting of about 130 men, women and children, were mercilessly butchered by men under the command of John D. Lee and Captain Dame, both Mormons of high standing.
On the 4th day of April, 1859, Judge Cradlebaugh caused the following order to be entered in the records of his court, to wit:
This court has sought diligently and faithfully to do its duty, to administer the laws of the United States and of this Territory. It could have no other object. But at every turn it has had to encounter difficulties and embarassments. Men high in authority in the Mormon Church, as well as men holding civil authority under the Territorial government seem to have conspired to obstruct the course of public justice and to cripple the earnest efforts of this court. The whole community presents a united and organized opposition to the proper administration of justice, every art and every expedient have been employed to cover up and conceal crimes committed by Mormons. Witnesses have been prevented by threats of violence from obeying the summons of this courtl. Others that have testified have been driven to seek safety in the protection of United States troops stationed near here–who it is proper to say are here on the requisition of the court, and for whose presence the court is responsible–the absolute necessity of having these troops here have been fully demonstrated by all that has transpired during the session of the court. To crown all, the grand jury, sworn to perform a nigh public duty, has lent itself as a willing instrument to this organizeed opposition to the laws of the country and refused to meet its obligations. A most willing inclination has been manifested to prosecute Indians and others persons not Mormons, for their offenses, while Mormon murderers and thieves are allowed to go unpunished. This court has determined, as its action manifests, that it will not be used by this community for its protection alone, but that it will do justice to all, or it will nothing. Not being able to do this, the court now adjourns without day.
Jno. Cradlebaugh,
Judge, 2nd Judicial Dist.
Counsel for applicants, however, contend that the feelings of the people of the Mormon Church towards the government have undergone a change, and that in later years the former feeling of hostility has disappeared, or become greatly modified. The evidence, however, does not sustain this claim. In January, 1887 [1877], at the dedication of the St. George Temple, Wilford Woodruff, who is now President of the Church, prayed for the destruction of the government in the following language, to wit:
Therefore, O Lord our God, we pray that Thou wilt give Thy people faith that we may claim this blessing of Thee, the Lord of Hosts; Thou wilt lay Thy hand upon Thy servant Brigham unto the renewal of his body, and the healing of all his infirmities, and the lengthening out of his days and years. Yea, O Lord, may he live to behold the inhabitants of Zion united and enter into the holy order of God, and keep the celestial law, that they may be justified before Thee. May he live to behold Zion redeemed and successfully fight the devils, visible and invisible, that make war upon the Saints. May he live to behold other Temples built and dedicated unto thy name and accepted of Thee, O Lord our God. And we pray Thee, our Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, if it can be consistent with Thy will that Thy servant Brigham may stand in the flesh to behold the nation which now occupies the land upon which Thou, Lord, hast said the Zion of God should stand in the latter days; that nation which shed the blood of the Prophets and Saints, which cries unto God day and night for vengeance; the nation which is making war against God and His Christ; that nation whose sins and wickedness and abominations are ascending up before God and the heavenly hosts, which causeth all eternity to be pained and the heavens to weep like the falling rain. Yea, O Lord, that he may live to see that nation, if it will not repent, broken in pieces like a potter’s vessel and swept from off the earth, as with the besom of destruction, as were the Jaredites and the Nephites; that the land of Zion may cease to groan under the wickedness and abominations of men.
In May, 1879, one Miles was on trial in this court for polygamy. Daniel H. Wells, one of the Presidents of the Church, was duly called as a witness, and on refusing to answer a question propounded to him concerning the records of marriage in the Endowment house, was committed to prison for contempt of court. On being released, a procession, variously estimated by the witneses at from two thousand to ten thousand Mormon people, headed by the city council and fire department, escorted him from the prison through the streets of the city to the Tabernacle, where a meeting of eight thousand or ten thousand people was held, and speeches were made endorsing his conduct. As the procession moved up Main Street, the American flag was dragged in the dust, and a large banner was carried by little girls on which were inscribed the words ‘We will uphold polygamy.’ As the procession passed the building where the district court was being held, the people gave vent to their feelings by hooting and jeering and hissing. At the meeting in the Tabernacle, banners were numerous, on which were inscribed such sentiments as the following:
‘The nineteenth century is too late for religious pains and penalties to be imposed in the name of the law.’ ‘Prisons are made for thieves, vagabonds and law-breakers, and not for honorable men. When used for such purposes we honor the prisoner more than the persecutor.’ ‘Honor to the man who prefers fealty to his friends, his religions, his country and his God to obedience to the unjust fiat of a jaundiced judiciary.’ ‘When Freemasons, Odd Fellows and others are compelled to make their secrets public, it will be time enough to practice on “Mormons.” Try the others first.’ ‘There is nothing more sacred than a religious obligation.’ ‘Better the penitentiary for faithfulness in this world than the prison house for perjury in the next.’ ‘It would accord more with the dignity of the judiciary in fining an honorable gentleman for contempt, to find a more powerful reason than the cut and color of an apron for its action.’ ‘The women of Utah uphold polygamy.’
On the 4th day of July, 1885, the flags were displayed at half-mast by the Mormons in this city at the city hall, at the county court house, at the office of the Deseret News, at the Gardo House, at the Mormon Co-operative store building, and other places. Counsel for applicants claim that this demonstration was not intended to be an insult to the government nor its flag, but as a sign of mourning, because of the unjust laws against polygamy, and the acts of the officers of the government in enforcing them. But the evidence fails to show that crape or any other emblem of sorrow was displayed in any manner, and there can be no question but that the half masting of the flags was intended to be, as it was understood by those who witnessed it, an insult to the national authority.
The evidence shows that the Church has, in the most determined manner, and with all the means at its command, opposed the enforcement of the laws of the United States against polygamy and unlawful cohabitation, while polygamy has been constantly preached as a cardinal doctrine of the Church. A fund has been raised in this Territory to aid in the defense of all who may be prosecuted for violation of these laws, not only in Utah, but in Arizona and Idaho Territories. In May 1885, John Taylor and George Q. Cannon of the First Presidency of the Church, both of whom were then under indictment for unlawful cohabitation, and were hiding from the officers to avoid arrest, issued a circular to be read in all the churches, calling for contributions to this fund. When men have been convicted for violating these laws, and the court has offered to suspend sentence or inflict a light penalty if the offenders would promise to obey the laws in the future, they have almost invariably refused to make any promise whatever. It has been a common custom among the Mormon people, ever since the enforcement of these laws began, when one of their number has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for violating the law, to give him a reception on his return home, and honor him in every way possible, while those who have promised obedience to the laws have been ostracised, and held up to the public execration and scorn. To suffer fine and improsinment for violating the law, or for ‘living his religion,’ as they usually term it, is deemed by them as worthy of all praise, and will, as their leaders teach, result in the exaltation in the life to come of him who thus proves the sincerity of his faith. As showing the manner in which the violators of the law are honored, I quote from the DESERET NEWS of date January 16, 1889, which was introduced in evidence, as follows:
A CORDIAL RECEPTION.
William Chatwin writes as follows from Santaquin, January 14th, 1889: ‘Will you please insert in the NEWS an account of the following heart-melting scene that was transacted at the Santaquin depot on Sunday morning last, the 13th inst. The residents of Santiquin had been informed that their Bishop, George Halliday, would return home from the penitentiary, as one who had endured imprisonment for conscience sake, by the morning’s Utah Central train. The Sunday school children and teachers were prompted by a feeling of love and respect to go down to the depot in procession to welcome him home, singing songs of welcome, and bearing a banner with the following inscription: “Bishop George Halliday, we truly welcome you home.” But the weather being too unfavorable for such a project, the teachers and larger scholars could only go, though the smaller ones were with great difficulty restrained from following after, notwithstanding the snowy condition of the morning. In arriving at the depot all were moved to tears of joy. Since his arrival home the members of the ward have decided to give him a reception party, but to accommodate all it was found necessary to divide the town and take one half at a time. May all honorable convicts for the truth’s sake be so worthily treated.’
As illustrating the pressure brought to bear by the Mormon leaders to prevent their members when convicted of violating the law from promising obedience, I quote two editorials offered in evidence from the DESERET NEWS, the Church organ, of date September 29th, 1885, one in regard to a member who had refused to make such promise:
IMPRISONMENT AND HONOR.
The position taken by Bishop H. B. Clawson this morning will be endorsed by every true Latter-day Saint. He could assume no other and be true to his religion, his family, and his own manhood. The dilemma in which he was placed was tersely defined by himself. He was left to elect between imprisonment and honor, and liberty and dishonor. To his honor be it said in time and eternity that he chose the former. No man under similar circumstances can consistently take any other course. The reasons for adopting the stand he took were clearly though briefly given by the accused. They might, however, be elaborated indefinitely. There is one principle involved that makes the attitude, from the standpoint of the Latter-day Saints, infallible. Celestial marriage, including plurality of wives, has been accepted by them as a divine revelation. Those who enter into the covenant it involves, take that step with this understanding, and that God is recognized in the formations of the contract. This being the status of the member, to presume that any persons who have entered into the relationship can consistently take part in a diverse contract with any other and necessarily lower power to render it nugatory for any portion of time is absurd. The agreement is for time and eternity, and it is therefore continuously in force, unless broken by one or the other of the parties. Yet such is the position in which the courts place the Latter-day Saints in the present prosecutions. They demand that a covenant of renunciation be entered into with them. THis is speaking from the standpoint of the Saints, opposed to an infallible principle recognized of jurisprudence, that no agreement entered into under direct supervision of a higher tribunal can be disturbed or nullified by one of a lower order. If this be the case in ordinary legal affairs, how much more force is given to it when applied to matters which God himself has instituted for the benefit of those of His children who seek to obey His laws. One point advanced by Bishop Clawson was evidently cruelly taken advantage of by the court, who dwelt upon it as if animated by a desire to make it appear the main basis for his position. The religious and conscientious principles involved were what influenced the conduct of the defendant. The sentiment of the community being against him had he recanted, would not have influenced him one way or the other. Recantation was opposed to his principles and convictions, and would have blasted his hopes for eternal salvation. These considerations, founded the basis of his attitude in accepting imprisonment and honor in place of libertyi and dishonor. Yet the sentiment of the community in which a man lives is entitled to respect when it is correct. The court, however, caught at this straw, in order to accuse Mr. Clawson of cowardice, when that gentleman was exhibiting an act of the truest heroism. Perhaps we may here suggest that when a judge or any other person, official or otherwise, takes advantage of his position to inflict an insult upon a person in his power, he cannot be classed among those who possess courage of the highest order, which is inseparably connected with magnanimity. But the gratuitous insults of his honor were not confined to his immediate victims. They were distributed among and poured upon the heads of innocent women and children who were not before him. Before the learned judge can consistently talk of cowardice, let him take some lessons in courage and temperance, under ordeals from some of the Mormons who are brought into his court. This morning he was confronted by a courageous man, who dared, in the face of threatened fine and imprisonment, decline to recant his religious principles, and discard his family, while he snatched at the opportunity to inflict upon them a gross and unwarrantable insult. Bishop Clawson has gone to prison, but he has been rendered a prisoner merely by prohibition, the offense for which he was punished being in no sense maulm in se. He goes with the best wishes of a host of friends, including the whole of his co-religionists. It is with sadness that one turns from the noble and manly picture presented by the conduct of Brother Clawson to its reverse, as exhibited in the craven course of T. O. Angell, Jr. It is a transformation from sunshine to glood, from the heroic to the contemptible. Had the gentleman climbed to any height in the walks of religion and other departments of life, he might have been designated a fallen angel. As it is, he probably but carries out the highest ideas he has of greatness, and may not be open to censure as severe as would be the just due of minds of greater advancement. It does not appear that Mr. Angel can possess anything like a correct conception of the grandeur of being consistent. Let him pass.
LIBERTY AND DISHONOR.
This afternoon Mr. Septimus W. Sears, as will be seen by a statement elsewhere, went before the court with the same alternative as Bishop Claweson. He chose liberty and dishonor. There is but little need for comment on the case. Let the reader pursue what we have said in relation to Mr. Clawson, and he has but to imagine its opposite in order to understand our estimate of the position. (DESERET NEWS, September 28th, 1885.)
As further showing how the Mormon Church honors those who violate the laws of the United States, it is only necessary to look at the cases of some of its leaders. John Taylor, lately one of the presidents of the Church, was indicted for unlawful cohabitation, and died while in hiding to avoid arrest, still retaining his position as president.
George Q. Cannon, who is now one of the presidents of the Church, was indicted for the same offence, and was convicted and served a term in the penitentiary. Apostle John Henry Smith, a witness in this case, testified that he is a polygamist, and that he married his plural wife since the law of 1862 was passed prohibiting polygamy. Chas. W. Penrose, who was a witness in this case, and who was indicted for unlawful cohabitation, and was pardoned by the president of the United States, is today the Editor of the newspaper organ of the Church. Joseph F. Smith, who is also one of the presidents of the Church, is and has been for several years, under indictment for unlawful cohabitation, and has been hiding from the officers in order to avoid arrest.
It is claimed by counsel for applicants, and some evidence was introduced tending to show that in the Doctrine and Covenants and other Church publications, obedience to the laws of the land is taught, and also that the Constitution of the United States is an inspired instrument; but the evidence discloses that the reason the Constitution of the United States is considered an inspired instrument is that it is construed by Mormons to prohibit the passing of any law against polygamy, and all such laws are considered by them as in violation of the Constitution. As to their teaching obedience to laws of the land, it is only taught in general terms. During the ten days this investigation lasted, not a word of evidence was introduced or offered showing that any preacher or teacher of the Church ever, in a single instance, advised obedience to the laws against polygamy. On the contrary, the evidence in this case, and the whole history of the Mormon Church in Utah show that it ias persistently refused obedience to at least a portion of the laws of the government, has insulted and driven United States officers from the Territory, has denied the authority of the United States to pass laws pronibiting polygamy as unwarranted interference with their religion, and generally has antagonized and denounced the government in almost every possible way. Undoubtedly there are many members of this Church who fel friendly to the government, and would gladly break the shackles that bind them to the Mormon priesthood if they felt that they dared do so; but with an organization the most thorough that can be imagined, which can be wielded against them, they remain in the Church rather than take the risk of financial ruin and social ostracism.
The Mormon Church teaches, First: That it is the actual and veritable kingdom of God on earth, not in its fulness, because Christ has not yet come to rule in person, but for the present he rules through the priesthood of the Church, who are his vice-gerents on earth.
Second: That this kingdom is both a temporal and spiritual kingdom, and should rightfully control and is entitled to the highest allegiance of men in all their affairs.
Third: That this kingdom will overthrow the United States and all other governments, after which Christ will reign in person.
Fourth: That the doctrine of ‘blood atonement’ is of God, and that under it certain sins which they blood of Christ cannot atone for may be remitted by shedding the blood of the transgressor.
Fifth: That polygamy is a command of God which if a member obeys he will be exalted in the future life above those who do not.
Sixth: That the Congress of the United States has no right under the Constitution to pass any law in any manner interfering with the practics of the Mormon religion, and that the acts of Congress against polygamy, and disfranchising those who practice it, are unwarranted interference with their religion.
Can men be made true and loyal citizens by such teachings, or are they likely to remain so surrounded by such influences? Will men become attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States when they hear the government constantly denounced as tyranical and oppressive? It would be as unreasonable to expect such a result as it would be to expect to gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles.
It has always been and still is the policy of this government to encourage aliens who in good faith come to reside in this country, to become citizens; but when a man of foreign birth comes here and joins an organization, although professedly religious, which requires of him an allegiance paramount to his allegiance to the government, an organization that impiously and blasphemously claims to be the kingdom of God, to control its members under his immediate direction, and yet teaches and practises a system of morals shocking to Christian people everywhere, and under which the marriage of a man to two or more sisters, or to a mother and daughter is sanctioned, an organization that sanctions blood atonement as a means of grace, and murder as a penalty for revealing the secrets of its ceremonies, and which for nearly half a century has refused to acknowledge the supremacy of the United States or render obedience to its laws, it is time for the courts to pause and inquire whether such an applicant should be admitted to citizenship.
The evidence in this case establishes unquestionably that the teachings, practices and aims of the Mormon church are antagonistic to the government of the United States, utterly subversive of good morals and the well being of society, and that its members are animated by a feeling of hostility towards the government and its laws, and therefore an alien who is a member of said church is not a fit person to be made a citizen of the United States.
The applications of Fred W. Miller, Henry J. Owen, John Berg, Clarles E. Clissold, Nils Anderson, Carl P. Larsen, Thomas M. Mumford, John Garbett and Arthur Townsend, to become citizens are therefore denied.
{Signed} Thomas J. Anderson,
Associate Justice Supreme Court, and Acting Judge Third Judicial District.”
(DW 29(24):754-760, 7 Dec., 1889)
1 Dec.: Anderson case.
“The evidence in this case establishes unquestionably that the teaching, practices and aims of the Mormon church are antagonistic to the Government of the United States, utterly subversive of good morals and well being of society, and that its members are animated by a feeling of hostility towards the government and its laws and therefore, an alien who is a member of said Church is not a fit person to become a citizen of the United States.” (Judge Thomas J. Anderson, quoted in Salt Lake Tribune, 1 Dec., 1889)
2 Dec.: Anderson case.
“Bro C W Penrose called and submitted the propriety of the First Presidency taking some action or making a manifesto with regard to refuting the false assertions made by Judge Anderson in his decision on Saturday. Pres Geo Q Cannon said it had been talked of having a Mass Meeting of Citizens held to adopt resolutions on that matter. after it can be learned from the attorneys whether an appeal can be taken or not.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 2 Dec., 1889)
5 Dec.: Anderson case.
“Bro C. W. Penrose called & submitted two drafts of denials of the assertions made by Judge Anderson in his decision, which were read & left for further consideration.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 5 Dec., 1889)
6 Dec.: Anderson case.
“In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson, Father [Geo. Q. Cannon] said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs. The Prophet charged Stephen Markham to avenge his blood should he be slain; after the Prophet’s death, Bro. Markham attempted to tell this to an assembly of the Saints, but Willard Richards pulled him down from the stand, as he feared the effect on the enraged people. Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage, when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, ‘Just as I have always looked upon it–that it was a d….d cold-blooded murder.’ The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets, he would have immediately struck him to the heart.” (Abraham H. Cannon diary, 6 Dec., 1889)
“At 2 p.m. I went to the Gardo House where several of the Apostles met with a number of the People’s Party Central Committee when the matter of an appeal from Anderson’s decision in the naturalization cases to the Territorial and U. S. Supreme Courts was considered. Most of those present were in favor of carrying the case to the highest court.–The best method of protesting against Anderson’s ruling was then debated. The plan which seemed to meet with the most favor was for the First Presidency and Apostles to prepare and sign a dignified paper, without even mentioning the actions of the Courts, setting forth our doctrines, and denying the wicked charges of our murderous character and disloyalty to the government. Then another paper was to be signed by the ‘Mormon’ business men of the city giving the lie to Anderson’s statements. Following these massing meetings were to be called throughout the territory to protest against the vile political scheme to which Anderson has lent himself to rob a whole people of their franchise.
About 4.30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant. We here considered and made a few changes in a circular letter that is to be sent out to the Presidents of Stakes advising them to propose to the people of their Stakes to spend the 23d of this month–the anniversary of the Prophet’s birthday–in fasting and prayer that the Lord may interpose in behalf of His people and preserve them from the power of their enemies and incline the hearts of the rulers of the nation to us. We are also to pray for a righteous decision in the Church suits now pending before the U. S. Supreme Court, and also for other things which the Spirit may prompt.–In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs. The Prophet charged Stephen Markhan to avenge his blood should he be slain: after the Prophet’s death Bro. Markhan attempted to tell this to an assembly of the Saints, but Willard Richards pulled him down from the stand, as he feared the effect on the enraged people.–Bro. Joseph F. Smith was traveling some years ago near Carthage when he met a man who said he had just arrived five minutes too late to see the Smiths killed. Instantly a dark cloud seemed to overshadow Bro. Smith and he asked how this man looked upon the deed. Bro. S. was oppressed by a most horrible feeling as he waited for a reply. After a brief pause the man answered, ‘Just as I have always looked upon it–that it was a d–d cold-blooded murder.’ The cloud immediately lifted from Bro. Smith and he found that he had his open pocket knife grasped in his hand in his pocket, and he believes that had this man given his approval to that murder of the prophets he would have immediately struck him to the heart.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 6 Dec., 1889)
“I met with the Presidency & Twelve Presiding Bishops Preston & Winder and members of the Central Committee of the People’s Party at the Gardo House at 2 p. m. This meeting was called to consider what action shall be taken to get an expression of the People so as to come to some conclusion as to what course to take to refute the assertions made in the decision of Judge Anderson in the John Moore Naturalization case. Several of the brethren were in favor of the first Presidency and Twelve, some thought the 1st Presidency alone – others the 1st Presidency, Twelve and about 100 of the leading business men. some thought a mass meeting to adopt suitable resolutions would be the best. but all were in favor of something, making a strong denial of the falsehoods should be made. The question of taking an appeal was also favored by severil. after hearing those who wished to speak, an adjournment was taken, and the Presidency and Twelve considered the matter when it was decided as the mind of the Council that the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles get up a manifesto on this subject, such a one as all can sign.” (L. John Nuttall diary, 6 Dec., 1889)
7 Dec.: Anderson case.
“MR. PENROSE LIBERATED.
The readers of the NEWS would be pleased to learn that, on the order of Judge Anderson, C. W. Penrose, Esp., editor-in-chief of this journal, was released from the penitentiary, November 21st.
The cause of his imprisonment was that, when on the witness stand, November 19, in the investigation resulting from the application of John Moore for naturalization, he declined to answer a question addressed to him by the ‘Liberal’ political attorneys for the prosecution. The interrogatory was: ‘How many wives have you?’ On the refusal of the witness to reply, the Court was appealed to by the political prosecutors and his honor ruled that the question was proper.
Now, just where the propriety of the interrogatory appears is not quite clear. The incident reminds one of the story of a schoolmaster who had puzzled a novice with arithmetical problems which he could not answer. The puzzled person said he could formulate one that the donimie couldn’t solve, and forthwith presented this: ‘If a cheese costs four shillings, what would be the price of a cart load of turnips.’ The utter absence of relevancy in the problem was too much for the skill of the schoolmaster. So just what connection there is between the domestic affairs of Mr. Penrose and the application of John Moore for citizenship has not yet been exhibited. If any exists it is scarcely discernible to the naked eye. The hypothesis of the interrogatory on the part of the political prosecutors must be, as a logical inference, that the particular dimensions of Mr. Penrose’s family would establish the fitness or otherwise of John Moore to be clothed with the dignity of citizenship of the Republic.
We suspect, however, that the ‘Liberal’ anti-‘Mormon’ prosecution simply seized a favorable opportunity to place one whom they esteemed to be an opponent at a disadvantage. They therefore insisted that he be imprisoned for contempt. Their malignancy was gratified, and for a technical offense the victim of their spite, and gentleman of standing and ability in the community was consigned to a prison in which felons convicted of every conceivable crime are confined. We do not attach any special blame to Judge Anderson for what is esteemed, even by many of the political opponents of Mr. Penrose, to be an outrageous indignity. The error of the Court was in allowing the question as proper. For the splentic trio who were the cause of it, however, there is no excuse. Had their demand been carried out the object of their vemon would still have been languishing in prison, but the court could not be induced to perpetrate such an unmitigated infernalism.
The unmerciful Dickson insisted that the witness be imprisoned till such time as he should answer; the wolfish Baskin, with his characteristic combination of snarl, snap and whine, contended that, if necessary, the case could be adjourned ‘for a year or so,’ until he should answer as to his domestic relations. This was followed by the ‘me too’ of the anti-‘Mormon’ cyclone, P. L. Williams, whose bitterness to a people who never harmed him approaches close to the border of lunacy, with perhaps an occasional step over the boundary.
We are pleased to know that many fair-minded ‘Liberals’ have been disgusted with the recent doings in court of some of the ‘bosses’ of their party. They are against the attempts to override the rights of the ‘Mormons’ to belief, free speech and freedom of the press. Attempts to curtail the latter by efforts to induce the courst to imprison editors of public journals among convicted criminals, in a penitentiary, cannot be regarded with favor by any class of citizens who have the slightest regard for honor and the commonest kind of common decency.
In case it might be imagined that the chief editor is defending himself in these columns, we take occasion to state that this article is penned by another hand than his and in his absence from this office.” (DW 29(24):742, 7 Dec., 1889)
“FABRICATORS AND DISTORTERS.
The strong anti-‘Mormon’ tone of a large number of the public journals throughout the country, shows that a degree of success has attended the efforts of the enemies of liberty in this Territory who are seeking to bring the majority of the citizens of utah down into the slough of political slavery. In order to operate the conspiracy it has been necessary, as usual, for the plotters to screen themselves behind ‘the refuge of lies.’ Hence the investigation begun and conducted by the ‘Liberal’ party in the Third District Court. The wires have been used as an auxiliary to spread throughout the country stupendous fabrications, interwoven with distorted facts about ‘Mormon’ disloyalty. A good many newspapers are receiving these tremendous statements as being true as gospel, and are commenting accordingly. Public prejudice is thus created and Congress prepared for the usual clamor for more special legislation against the majority of the people of this fair Territory. The plot is, indeed, most infamous, and the labor of stemming the torrent of falsehood under which it is carried is a task of mammoth proportions.
It will be seen by the dispatches that President Woodruff has expressed himself on the situation, and in the opening paragraph strikes the key note of the whole conspiracy. The entire agitation is political, a part of the proceedings being designed for home consumption and the remainder for Congress.
The most beneficent phases of the Church are twisted into the appearance of obstructions of the law of the land. The system established among the Saints for the settlement of difficulties among themselves has frequently been commented upon by non-‘Mormons’ with admiration, as by its operations disputes without number have been amicably settled without expense to the principals. It is a simple process of arbitration, in which the arbitrators receive no remuneration, performing their duties as a labor of love. Among the chief functions of Bishops’ Courts and High Councils is the preservation of peace among the people, as well as to enable them to avoid litigation, which is frequently ruinous, and always perplexing to one or other, if not all, of the principals. The only penalty imposed by these courts is disfellowship or excommunication. Although the right of the people to settle their own differences cannot be constitutionally questioned, an effort has been made, during the investigation instituted by the ‘Liberal’ bosses in the Third District Court, to show that the Church, by inculcating this excellent feature, are engaged in obstructing the laws. The insinuation is absolutely absurd on its face, but this does not deter active, unscrupulous politicians from distorting it into an evidence of disloyalty.
The ‘Liberal’ prosecutors have sought to make it appear that the Church has obstructed the operation of the laws because the people acted in concert in testing statutes they believed to be unconstitutional in some of their bearings and which were outrageously administered. This objective aspect is sought to be given to a defense fund that was created by donation. The laws in point and their administration were of such a character that testing their merits in the superior courts was necessarily expensive and could not well be met by private individuals placed in jeopardy. By what right does anyone find fault with the friends of those assailed for aiding them under the circumstances?
Doubtless it would have suited Mr. Dickson, the gentleman who, the other day, placed this obstructive construction on the defense fund, for the victims of his segregation theory to have remained in prison instead of being liberated from their illegal incarceration by a decree of the Supreme Court of the United States. The defense fund was used not to defeat the law, but to test it, and to legally smash the extra-judicial infamies practiced under it. The ‘Liberal’ bosses can make what they please out of the defense fund point. A showing can be made on the other side and we have the facts to enable us to present it in its true light should necessity demand.” (DW 29(24):742-743, 7 Dec., 1889)
“AWAITING THE DECISION.
The proceedings in the John Moore naturalization case are completed and in the hands of the court. The public await, with deep interest, Judge Anderson’s decision.
Those who have perused the evidence from an unbiased standpoint cannot help being impressed with the failure of the anti-‘Mormon’ prosecution to prove anything to the detriment of the community against which their assault was directed. The evidence they produced was voluminous, its distended proportions being equaled only by its transparency. It was snowed under by the sterling facts produced by the defense.
The testimony was so completely reviewed i the arguments, that it is unnecessary to analyze it further than has already been done in these columns. The prosecution handled what material they possessed with considerable skill and adroitness, not to say cunning, but as grass was short with them, the attorneys on the side of the defense had a splendid field. Mr. Le Grand Young delivered an argument that does him great credit. It was clear, forcible, independent and logical throughout, leaving the other side scarcely a footing on which to stand. The argument of Mr. Thurman, though comparatively brief, was of similar quality. The labors of Mr. James H. Moyle and Mr. R. W. Young were confined to the examination, and they performed that duty with commendable ability.” (DW 29(24):744, 7 Dec., 1889)
“JUDGE ANDERSON’S DECISION.
The full text of the decision of Judge Thos. J. Anderson, in the cases of John Moore and other applicants for citizenship, will be found in this issue of the Deseret Weekly. The conclusions reached by His Honor will not greatly disappoint persons of either party who watched the proceedings in court, and noted the Judge’s repeated rulings in favor of the objectors and the trend of his own interrogations and remarks during the course of the investigation.
The so-called ‘Liberals’ will greatly rejoice at this obstruction to the naturalization of alien members of the People’s Party. Their present exultation, however, is somewhat tempered by their very evident anticipation of the result from the beginning, the cause of which is not difficult to surmise. The people will see in this decision one more act of gross injustice toward them on account of their adherence to an unpopular religion, and another ‘Liberal’ obstacle thrown in the path to a full and fair election.
At the risk of being considered ‘treasonable,’ in having the temerity to differ in opinion with a Federal official, we will briefly review some points in this peculiar judicial decision. Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution of the United States, and dissent from official views is not included in the definition. Yet men here who claim to represent the Government, or who have at any time represented it officially, seem to take the ground that anything uttered by a ‘Mormon’ in criticism of the ‘servants of the people,’ is treasonable in its character and seditious in its spirit. All the ‘treason’ that either Judge Anderson or the attorneys whose reasonings he appears to have adopted can charge against the ‘Mormon’ Church, consists simply in the denunciation of the conduct of individuals charged with official duties under the Government. This is not in any sense ‘treasonable’ unless the term has acquired a new signification.
Judge Anderson falls into several errors in his review of the testimony. He says that among the eleven witnesses for the objectors ‘several had held the position of Bishop in the Church.’ This was true of only one of these witnesses. In speaking of the garment worn by persons who have received the endowment, he wrongly describes it and also states that ‘near the throat, and over the heart, and in the region of the abdomen are certain marks or designs intended to remind the wearer of the penalties that will be inflicted, etc.’ No such evidence was given, and it is not true. The marks are not as the Judge states, nor are those signs which exist made for any such object. Everybody who knows anything about the matter will recognize the error and so will any Mason who has seen the marks.
The Judge says in regard to the testimony of the witnesses for the applicant, that their refusal to state specifically what oaths, obligations or covenants are taken or entered into in these ceremonies renders the testimony of but little value, and tends to confirm rather than contradict the evidence on this point offered by the objectors. Is this fair and conformable to the rules relating to evidence? We think not. The Judge in the opening of the investigation declared emphatically that it should go no farther than to determine whether there was anything in the endowment in the nature of an oath against the Government of the United States. (How well he kept his promise the report of the proceedings shows.) These witnesses swore there was not and that there was no mention of or allusion to the Government of the United States. In this they were corroborated by all the reputable witnesses for the objectors. There was positively no proof offered to the contrary. The evident fabricators of too willing supporters of the objecting attorneys, or inferences drawn from half forgotton reminiscences, were entirely swamped by the positive testimony on both sides that no such obligation was taken. As to an oath, it was shown that no oath of any kind is administered in these ceremonies.
Now, then, suppose a case: If a Mason were placed on the stand and asked, ‘Is there anything in the Masonic rites which is hostile to the Government of the United States?’ He would answer in the negative. If then questioned in regard to obligations which he had agreed to keep secret, he would reply, ‘I decline to answer.’ And if he were true to his agreements he would suffer imprisonment, and even greater penalties, rather than reveal his secret covenants. The ‘Mormon’ witnesses were on similar ground. Would it then be fair to infer, because a Mason would refuse to ‘state specifically what oaths, obligations or covenants are taken’ in Masonic ceremonies, that his objection would tend to confirm any vicious accusation that might be made against him?
The Judge says: ‘The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt’ that the endowment ceremonies ‘are incompatible with the obligations and duties of citizens of the United States.’ We say the evidence establishes nothing of the kind nor even any approach to it. The Judge has not cited any evidence which goes to establish that conclusion. The preponderance of evidence actually establishes the contrary. The witnesses for the objectors mainly corroborated the testimony for the applicants on this pivotal point. And as a matter of fact, we know and every man and woman who has received the endowment knows that there is nothing of that character in the ceremony, but on the contrary, every covenant taken therein and every instruction imparted, is calculated to make the recipients better citizens and better members of society in every sense of the terms.
In denying the application of the men seeking citizenship on the ground that they had gone through the endowment ceremonies, Judge Anderson, in our opinion, goes directly against the testimony, and in his written decision has not offered any solid ground to support his position. In the case of the applicants who have not received their endowments he is, if possible, on still more untentable soil.
Take all the picked and partial extracts he has presented from old sermons, and the paragraphs selected without giving the explanatory context, and what do they amount to? Simply that over half a century ago, under circumstances not related by the Judge, the Prophet Joseph Smith received revelations to individuals as to the disposition of their property, they having sought for this divine direction as men did in times of old as related in the Bible. That in Nauvoo over forty-five years ago a building was erected under church auspices for the comfort of visiting strangers and a revelation was received in relation to it. That in Bishop’s courts Church members have been tried ecclesiastically for unchristianlike conduct in their business relations with their brethren. That Elders have preached the doctrine that this Church is the Kingdom of God, not fully established and with no king till Christ comes. From this the Judge draws the inference that the Church claims and exercises the right to control its members in temporal as well as spiritual things, but he fails to show where, in the least degree, this infringes on the liberty of the citizen.
He also announces the extraordinary decision that ‘one of the doctrines of the Church’ is that ‘for certain offenses the offender shall suffer death, as the only means of atoning for his transgressions, and that any member of the Church has the right to shed his blood.’ The truth is, the evidence shows to the exact contrary. We unhesitatingly brand as a wicked falsehood the statement that the Church teaches, or holds, or has ever taught or held such an abominable doctrine. All the one-sided utterances of individual opinion which the Judge has selected, fail to bear out his assertion. In an unfair and clearly partial manner, he injects remarks as to the meaning of those speakers, into his comments, conveying ideas that they did not express or entertain.
For instance, speaking of Jedediah M. Grant’s sayings in regard to covenant breakers, he says: ‘That is, those who leave the Mormon Church.’ Also: ‘Referring to the right of the Church to shed the blood of those who apostatized, Brigham Young used the following language.’
These are the Judge’s own fabrications and are not the sense of the quotations he makes, but are gratuitous misrepresentations of both the language and the intention of the speakers. Quoting from a discourse by the Editor of the Deseret News, he gives three isolated paragraphs and carefully suppresses the explanatory context, and thus conveys a meaning contrary to that actually proclaimed and expounded by the lecturer. The plain declaration and proofs that ‘blood atonement’ only relates to murderers and adulterers who have made special covenants not to commit such sins, and that no one except a legal, civil officer has the right to execute the death penalty, Judge Anderson omits and thus leaves a false impression the very opposite of that which the discourse conveys. Comment on this is needless.
Judge Anderson says: ‘Brigham Young for years resisted all attempts of the authorities to instal the proper officers for carrying on the Territorial government.’ ‘He claimed the right to say who the officers of the Territory should be,’ etc. We denounce this as utterly and entirely false. History is against the Judge in this particular, as published matter is against his erroneous assertions on ‘Mormon’ doctrine. The repetition of the stale falsehood that the United States flag was trailed in the dust when Brother Wells was released from prison, and of the stupid notion that half-masting the flag, which has evern been viewed as a token of grief, was intended as an insult to the Government, shows the bias of the Judge and his eagerness to father and sanction the vain imaginations and bald absurdities of anti-‘Mormon’ fanatics.
The editorial opinions of the Deseret News, for which this paper alone is responsible, he distorts into ‘pressure brought to bear by the Mormon leaders to prevent members when convicted of violating the laws from promising obedience.’ They had nothing to do with the utterances of this journal, and what we have said on this matter related not to obeying the law, but agreeing to be governed by the lawless and conflicting constructions of the law by the courts, which involved promises dishonorable to any man placed in the position referred to.
Judge Anderson has suppressed from his opinion the documentary evidence of the patriotic sentiments entertained by the leaders of the ‘Mormon’ Church which was introduced in profusion. He has done the same with the proofs of devotion to the institutions of this Republic on the part of the ‘Mormon’ people, presented by counsel for the applicants. He has drawn conclusions utterly unwarranted by the premises. He has done all that the conspirators to capture this city desired he should do so. He has denied citizenship to men proven to be of good moral character, sober, industrious, honest, peaceable, and thoroughly desirous of the perpetuity of American republicanism, and this because they are ‘Mormons,’ while Liberals whose very faces and manners proclaim their vices and who have had to confess their unchastity, can be welcomed as citizens and viewed as of good moral character.
We do not know what further steps can or will be taken in this matter, but we do not propose to let it rest here. The opinion of Judge Anderson is not an exposition of ‘Mormon’ doctrine but an echo of the misrepresentations of its unscrupulous adversaries. The truth may have a hard struggle against the errors official and unofficial, which are massed against it, but, thank God, it will ultimately prevail. And there is a day appointed when all things and all men shall be tried, and to the Supreme Judge on high we appeal for final arbitrament and eternal justice.” (DW 29(24):745-746, 7 Dec., 1889)
“KILLING FOR APOSTASY.
One of the most infamous things from an infamous source that we have seen for a long time, was the attempt of the ‘Liberal’ organ on Thanksgiving Day to make it appear that the Wardell fiction was a fact, and ‘an actual infliction of the death penalty for the crime of apostasy.’ If any statement of a witness was ever completely annihilated it was the story told by poor, cranky tool of the ‘Liberal’ instigators of the latest attack on American liberty. Not a shred of it was left. We do not believe a dozen men in Utah, out of a lunatic asylum, can be found who have read the evidence and who believe Wardell’s imaginary or fabricated testimony.
The labored effort of the ‘Liberal’ organ was intended for foreign consumption. This is one of its common exhibitions of chronic mendacity. After giving a colored and illuminated version of the Wardell novelette, it pretends to present the evidence in rebuttal as though to show both sides of the story. Instead of doing so, it suppresses entirely the strong points in the rebuttal which punctured and tore to tatters the paointed and inflated bag of falsehood that the semi-imbecile Wardell had been induced to hold up, and then resorts to absolute falsehood in order to turn aside the force of the exposure made by his family. Here it is:
It was discerned that the family of the witness had adhered to the Church, and at once they were summoned to say that they knew nothing of Green or the murder, as if they would have expected them to know anything.
What are the facts? Why, that Wardell’s son, who, the witness swore, drove Green’s teams and wagons into the tithing yard, was the first of the romancer’s family sought for and called to testify, and that he is an apostate, having ‘given up the whole business,’ by which he expressed his secession from the Church, three years ago. His evidence was not and could not be impeached. He drove the team, the use of which was charitably given to Wardell and family at the Missouri river, and that team only, into this city.
The family all testified to similar effect. They described the old man’s failing of talking over imaginary affairs until he appeared to believe them himself. They none of them knew anything about the man Green. Other witnesses were brough forward as fast as it could be learned who was in the train in which this horrible crime was alleged to have been committed, and they all testified that no such thing occurred to their knowledge, and that no such person as Green was in the train.
The ‘Liberal’ organ exaggerates greatly the number of persons in the company, and wants to know where are the other members who did not testify. Why, the defense placed such a number of them on the witness stand that the court cried ‘enough,’ and pointed out the fact that it was useless to further multiply the already overwhelming proofs of the utter baselessness of the Wardell story.
Among all the fabricated horrors which have been ‘Liberally’ used for many years and exploded, as this falsehood has been, no one ever heard before of this Green story, which was sprung on the people in the vain hope that from its very novelty no means would be readily found to refute it. Whatever may be thought of the plainly cranky soul that was used to hold up this new-fangled horror to the gaze of the world, be he lunatic or liar, or a compound of both, no fair and honorable mind can fail to view with disgust and contempt the infamous effort of the ‘Liberal’ organ to make it appear that his falsehood is a fact and that it is evidence of ‘Mormon’ murder of apostates.
The same vile and reckless libelers and their associates have tried for many years to make the world believe that killing men for apostacy was a doctrine of the ‘Mormon’ Church. They have never been able to substantiate their false assertions with a single scrap of proof. And when challenged to name a case of the practice of such a monstrous creed, they have utterly failed to do so. For outside effect they have referred to the shooting of some noted horse thief, or murderer, or person guilty of crimes too filthy to name who, in early times here, received summary and deserved punishment for his guilt. But never before have they presented a case which seemed to bear the color of the crime which they charged against the ‘Mormon’ Church, and the committing of which would be in violation of its fundamental articles of faith and of revelations it holds to be divine.
We once more declare that there is nothing in ‘Mormon’ doctrine or teaching, public or private, which enjoins, justifies, excuses or palliates the crime of murder, which the killing of a humbing being simply for apostasy would most assuredly be. We say again that the hundreds upon hundreds of persons who have apostatized from the ‘Mormon’ Church, and who are still alive and have never been personally attacked, are breathing, walking proofs of the falsity of the assertion that death is the ‘Mormon’ penalty for apostasy.
The liars who make the assertion and those who write it, if they were capable of shame would long ago have been shamed out of their vain repetitions of this monstrous falsehood by the complete lack of anything in the shape of evidence. But they appear to be incapable of feeling that chagrin which an ordinary falsifier would naturally experience under similar conditions. And so without one scrap or shred of proof, they continue to tell their old vile untruths, in order to accomplish their base ends and work out their villainous purposes.
This whole web of wickedness and falsehoods has been woven by ‘Liberal’ leaders and lawyers for political purposes. For a time they may seem to succeed. They will chuckle and guzzle over their fancied triumph. But time works for truth and God is over all. And when they imagine the prize bought by falsehood and dark intrigue is within their grasp, their hands will be paralyzed, the object of their ambition will recede, and they will receive only humiliation and sorrow for their pains. The just can afford to wait. But they must watch and work also.” (DW 29(24):746-747, 7 Dec., 1889)
“TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
After all the evidence adduced before Judge Anderson as to the alleged status of other people, and the blood-and-thunder romances which have been carefully collated by the ‘Liberal’ fanatic whose warped mind has been bent in this direction for over a quarter of a century, and the windy phillipics of the pettifoggers who vainly tried to make those stale and tattered stories respectably presentable, and the distortion of the views and sentiments of ‘Mormon’ leaders, not a scintilla of reason has been brought forward to show that the applicant Moore, whose case was involved, is not of good moral character and well disposed toward the Constitution and Government of the United States.
Further: There has not been any substantial proof presented that there is anything in the recognized doctrines, ordinances, order or discipline of the ‘Mormon’ Church which renders its members in any way disloyal to the United States.
The perversion of facts, of testimony, of public utterances, which has been resorted to for the purpose of making white look black, and by implication to prejudice the case of Mr. Moore, is truly appalling. And only by the most far-fetched logic, and the most arbitrary wresting of language and reason, can the mass of stuff brought forward to vilify and misrepresent the ‘Mormon’ Church, be made to apply to the case before the court. It has been one of the most infamous proceedings ever permitted against a religious body, in the history of modern jurisprudence. It would not be permitted in any other part of the civilized world.” (DW 29(24):747-748, 7 Dec., 1889)
“PHASES OF OSTRACISM.
During the recent investigation in the Third District Court, instituted and conducted by conspicuous managers of the ‘Liberal’ party for anti-‘Mormon’ political purposes, the question of ostracism of apostates from the Church by their former brethren was given a prominent place.
There happen to be several phases to that subject, but only one was suited to the purppose of the active politicians who engaged in the work of manufacturing capital from the proceedings in point. Two distinct aspects were strikingly illustrated by two of the witnesses whose testimony was taken–Mr. Henry W. Lawrence and Mr. William Ward–both of whom seceded voluntarily from the Church many years ago.
The former stated that, in consequence of the position he assumed, his business materially decreased and he was shunned by his former associates. If this were the case, it may be proper to inquire into the cause, and also to ascertain whether the shunning was one-sided. Mr. Lawrence asserted substantially that he did not apostatize from the faith, but voluntarily renounced the fellowship of his co-religionists because he held that the chief authority of the Church usurped power that did not properly belong to him. Had he stopped there his position would have been different to what it has been and is.
The local history of the past twenty years or so shows that Mr. Lawrence has frequently, bitterly and relentlessly assailed the Church and been hand in glove with the most virulent and unscrupulous enemies of the Latter-day Saints. That his former associates who still adhere to the faith and in whose hearts the love of their brethren glows could, under such circumstances, be expected to fall on his neck, so to speak, is quite too much to anticipate. This, however, we can state without fear of successful contradiction–that the community was a whole have treated Henry W. Lawrence with a thousand times more consideration and respect than he has exhibited toward the community. As a matter of fact also we may state that even the unwarrantably prejudiced course taken by the gentleman toward his former brethren has not wiped out of the hearts of many of them a kindly and respectful feeling that has always existed toward him, but which does not appear to be met by any reciprocal sentiment from him. Hence the prejudicial attitude he assumed on the satnd, manifested even in his repeated protestations of not desiring to do the ‘Mormons’ injustice. Shakspeare struck a potent keynote when he put this into the mouth of one of his characters–‘Methinks the lady doth protest too much.’
The bias he displayed was a disappointment, because some of the members of the community against whom it was directed expected better things of him.
But returning to what has been designated as ostracism, it has always appeared to us a manifest absurdity for a man who has pursued a course of the most pronounced antagonism against a community, to complain of being cut by a people whom he thus ostracizes.
Even now there is a friendly feeling among the people toward Mr. Lawrence. He may have so nearly worn it out that it is not appreciably deep, but notwithstanding his constant efforts to uproot it, a remnant still remains. What there is of it is genuine, and a man of his intelligence must know by this time that the real article on the outside is decidedly scarce, especially toward men of his class. There is plenty of that which is spurious, exhibited by demonstrative but unreal lip and pen service, dealt out for the atainment of ulterior ends. Once in a while the real sentiment toward ex-‘Mormons’ in certain quarters crops out. A report came to us of a manifestation of that kind that occurred two or three months ago. When its probable effects were estimated, there followed a fulsome dissertation upon the heroic qualities of apostates in general. Even among seceders from the Church there is a growing belief that in the event of certain conditions arising the ‘Liberals’ would demonstrate in a manner unqualifiedly practical, that the class referred to are only wanted to long as they can be of use for the attainment of the objects of their pretended friends.
Mention was made by Mr. Lawrence, in his testimony, of the late T. B. H. Stenhouse. During one of the latter’s last visits to this city, he said to an old acquaintance, in the hearing of the writer: ‘Stick to the Church. There is nothing equal to it. My experience has taught me this lesson: that there is no real friendship outside of it, and without genuine friendship life is a blank.’
Mr. William Ward, whose name has already been mentioned, belongs to a class of seceders from the Church who incur no ostracism, because he does not ostracize. He renounced the faith completely. He pursued his own course, and left his former brethren to pursue theirs. he does not fight them. The consequence is there is no bitterness on either side, because he has not created it. Indeed, his nature is so kindly that we do not believe he has an enemy anywhere. He is simply regarded here, as we presume elsewhere, as an able architect and a good man, and as such the hand of friendship is always extended to him.
There is another phase of ostracism belonging entirely to the anti-‘Mormon’ side of the fence, erected by that class. When a non-‘Mormon’ shows a humane disposition toward the Latter-day Saints, or in any manner exhibits a desire for them to have fair play, he is dubbed a ‘Jack Mormon.’ He is assailed, bulldozed and vilified in every conceivable way. The assault is mercilessly maintained until he recedes from his position and joins the ranks of the rabidists. The attacks are of such a character that but few can long resist them. This accounts to a large extent for the attitude of many really well-disposed U. S. officials, who would have done right if they had possessed the courage of their convictions. But the war waged against square and fair administration is so wolfish and determined that but few men can withstand the unscrupulous anti-‘Mormon’ assaults. This is the anti-‘Mormon’ phase of ostracism. It is devoid of reason and decidedly inhuman. It is peculiarly and distinctively anti-‘Mormon’ and worthy of its authors.” (DW 29(24):748, 7 Dec., 1889)
12 Dec.: Anderson case.
“At 2 p.m. attended my Quorum Circle meeting at the Gardo House. Pres. Woodruff, being quite sick, did not dress in his temple robes, but Father, Jos. F. Smith, John Henry Smith, H. J. Grant and myself did. Bro. Grant opened with prayer and J. H. Smith led in the circle. A circular letter to all the world was then read and criticised by us and afterwards signed. It announces to the world that we do not believe in the shedding of blood for apostasy or for any capital offense except by the proper officers of the law. We deny the charges of disloyalty made against us, but claim the right to denounce unlawful acts committed by any administrator of the law. We ask a suspension of sentence on the part of all people until they have examined our side of the question. The First Presidency, Twelve Apostles and their Counselors sign this document.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 12 Dec., 1889)
“We declare that there is nothing in the ceremony of the Endowment, or in any doctrine, tenet, obligation or injunction of this Church, either private or public, which is hostile or intended to be hostile to the Government of the United States. On the contrary, its members are under divine commandment to revere the Constitution as a heaven-inspired instrument.” (First Presidency, “Official Declaration,” 12 Dec., 1889. In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 3:185)
19 Dec.: Anderson case.
“At 2 p.m. attended my Quorum Circle meeting at the Gardo House. . . .
During our meeting a revelation was read which Pres. Woodruff received Sunday evening, Nov. 24th. Propositions had been made for the Church to make some concessions to the Courts in regard to its principles. Both of Pres. Woodruff’s counselors refused to advise him as to the course he should pursue, and he therefore laid the matter before the Lord. The answer came quick and strong. The word of the Lord was for us not to yield one particle of that which He had revealed and established. He had done and would continue to care for His work and those of the Saints who were faithful, and we need have no fear of our enemies when we were in the line of our duty. We are promised redemption and deliverance if we will trust in God and not in the arm of flesh. We were admonished to read and study the Word of God, and to pray often. The whole revelation was filled with words of the greatest encouragement and comfort, and my heart was filled with joy and peace during the entire reading. It sets all doubts at rest concerning the course to pursue.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 19 Dec., 1889)
23 Dec.: Anderson case.
“This is the anniversary of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s birthday, and has been set apart as a day of fasting and prayer for all the Saints throughout the Church. About 8 a.m. I had prayers with Mina and the children. I then drove to M. E. C’s. and prayed with her. At 10 a.m. met at the Gardo House with Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith; Apostles John H. Smith, H. J. Grant and John W. Taylor; Counselors J. W. Young and D. H. Wells. All but the two latter dressed in their temple robes. We then kneeled down, and commencing with Bro. Wells, each of us prayed until Pres. Woodruff had his turn. Bro. Jos. F. was strongest in his prayer and urged that Baskin should be made blind, deaf and dumb unless he would repent of his wickedness.–In this prayer we all kneeled with our faces in.–Thereafter those who were clothed prayed in our circle with Father as mouth.” (A. H. Cannon diary, 23 Dec., 1889)