Reminiscences of Early Utah: With "Reply to Certain Statements by O. F. Whitney"
352
Reminiscences of Early Utah: With "Reply to Certain Statements by O. F. Whitney"
352Paperback
-
SHIP THIS ITEMTemporarily Out of Stock Online
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781560851936 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Signature Books, Incorporated |
| Publication date: | 09/15/2006 |
| Series: | Signature Mormon Classics Series |
| Pages: | 352 |
| Product dimensions: | 5.50(w) x 8.50(h) x 1.60(d) |
| Age Range: | 3 Months to 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER I.
The Conditions in Utah Which Caused the Opposition of the Gentiles.
A few days after my arrival in Salt Lake City, in the latter part of August, 1865, I became acquainted with Thomas Hearst of Philadelphia, the son of William Hearst, a distinguished lawyer of that city.
Young Hearst was the agent of James P. Bruner of Philadelphia, who owned the North Star mine situated in Little Cottonwood canyon. Near this property was the Emma mine, the richness of which, disclosed by development a few years afterwards, attracted to Utah a large number of prospectors and miners to whom is due the credit of developing the wonderful mineral resources of the State. Mr. Hearst, in urging me to accompany him to the mine, said he had the utmost confidence that in Utah, upon the completion of the Union Pacific railroad, there would be discovered many rich and extensive mines which would soon constitute one of the most important sources of the wealth of the Territory; and in view of that fact alone, Salt Lake City, prospectively, was a very desirable location for any attorney at law.
I accompanied him to the mine, and from the quantity of galena ore on the dump, the large boulders of the same material disclosed at the point of discovery, and the value of the ore as stated by Mr. Hearst, I was convinced that his confidence in the future of the city was probably well founded.
After this visit I changed my intention of going on to California, and concluded to settle in Salt Lake City. I secured an office and began to study the statutes of the Territory and inquire into its existent political and social conditions.
The provisions of the two following acts of the territorial legislature were the first to attract my attention.
“An Act for the Regulation of Attorneys. Sec. 2. No person or persons employing counsel, in any of the courts of this Territory, shall be compelled by any process of law to pay the counsel so employed for any service rendered as counsel before, or after, or during the process of trial in the case.”
“An Act in Relation to the Judiciary. Sec. 1. That all questions of law, meaning or writings other than law, and the admissibility of testimony shall be decided by the court; and no laws or parts of laws shall be read, argued, cited or adopted in any court during any trial, except those enacted by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of this Territory, and those passed by the Congress of the United States when applicable; and no report, decision or doings of any court shall be read, argued, cited or adopted as precedent in any trials.
In commenting on the foregoing acts, let me quote from recognized legal authority:
“The criminal law of England, both written and unwritten, in force at the date the colonies gained their independence, became common law in each colony, and remained in force in the states of the Union so far as it was adapted to the condition of the people and in harmony with the genius of their institutions, and so far as it was not changed by the constitution or laws of the particular state.” (1 McLain’s Crim. Law, Sec. 12).
“It is plain, both on principle and authority, that the common law must extend as well to criminal things as to civil. (Bishop’s Crim. Law, Sec. 35).
Bigamy and polygamy are one and the same crime. Blackstone states that the latter term is “the better expression to designate that crime.” At the date of our independence, under the laws of England, bigamy was a felony. Under the statute of James I, Sec. 11, bigamy was punishable by death; and under 9th George IV, any person counseling, aiding, or abetting the offender was equally guilty with him and subject to the same punishment.
All the states except Louisiana, and territories except Utah, had by statute adopted the common law so far as applicable to new conditions. That law was and is indispensably necessary for the proper government of any American community. It was, therefore, the imperative duty of the Utah legislature to adopt it at the first territorial session. Instead of doing so the foregoing absurd section of the judiciary act excluding it was passed. By adopting the common law under which polygamy is a felony, the legislature would have made the practice of the alleged divine polygamy tenet of the Mormon church a crime. For that reason the legislature failed to perform its imperative duty and stultified itself by passing the section which excluded the common law, and all other laws except those passed by Congress and the territorial legislature.
By the provisions of the act of Congress organizing the Territory, the judicial power of the Territory was vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts and justices of the peace. By that act the supreme and district courts were given, respectively, chancery and common law jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the probate and justices’ courts was to be as limited by law. By an act of the territorial legislature the probate courts were given civil and criminal jurisdiction in all cases except those arising under the acts of Congress. The act in relation to marshals and attorneys provided that there should be elected by a joint vote of both houses of the legislative assembly, a marshal and district attorney, and these officers were respectively made, by said act, the executive and prosecuting officers of the district courts in all cases arising under the laws of the Territory. Moreover, the act of Congress organizing the Territory had already provided for the appointment, by the President of the United States, of executive and prosecuting officers of the district courts.
Another subversion of legal procedure is disclosed in the act prescribing the mode of procuring grand and petit juries for the district courts. This act contained the following provisions:
“Sec. 2. The county court in each county shall at the first session in each year and at subsequent sessions, or other times as a neglect so to do at said first session and as other circumstances may require, make, from the assessment roll of the county, a list containing the names of at least fifty men, residents of the county eligible to serve as jurors.”
The further provisions of said act required the names so selected to be placed in a box in the possession of the clerk of the county court, and that both the grand and petit juries were to be drawn from that box by the territorial marshal or sheriff, and the clerk of the county court. In case the names in the box during any session of the district courts became exhausted, under a provision of said act, talesmen could not be summoned by the court, but the deficiency could only be met by the county court convening and selecting additional names. Until this was done, when the names in the box became exhausted, no case requiring a jury could be tried. To permit the summoning of talesmen—which an ordinary method of filling the panel—might have resulted in forming a jury which was not subject to the will of the priesthood. Said act was evidently formed with a view of making it impossible to impanel any but a jury composed of Mormons. The acts containing the foregoing provisions were passed at the first session of the territorial legislature in 1852, and were approved by Brigham Young, then governor of the Territory.
As the offices of territorial marshal and the county courts were, under an act of the legislature, elective, none but members of the Mormon church were ever elected to any of said offices as long as the act relating to the selection jurors remained in force. It remained in force for many years, and until superseded by an act of Congress. The evident intent of the provisions to which I have referred was to secure immunity to those practicing polygamy, and to enable Brigham Young, the President of the High Priesthood1 of the Mormon church, and his successors, to control the execution of the laws by the district courts in all matters requiring trial by jury. That such was the purpose and effect of said provisions is apparent from the failure for so many years to execute the law of Congress respecting polygamy, and to indict and bring to trial the perpetrators of many horrible crimes hereinafter mentioned. And the sentiments expressed in numerous Mormon sermons of the period is practically conclusive evidence on this point.
Governor Harding, in a message to the legislature, said:
“I am aware that there is a prevailing opinion here that said act (the act of Congress on the subject of polygamy) is unconstitutional, and therefore it is recommended by those in high authority that no regard whatever should be paid to the same. I take this occasion to warn the people of this Territory against such dangerous and disloyal counsel.”
That message was supplemented by Governor Harding, Chief Justice Waite, and Associate Justice Drake, sending to Congress and recommending for passage, a bill providing that juries be selected by the United States marshal; that the governor be authorized to appoint militia officers, and that the powers of the probate courts be restricted to their proper functions. This so intensified the antagonism of Brigham Young that he issued a call for a meeting at the tabernacle, at which many vindictive and inflammatory speeches were made by the leading members of the Mormon church, and resolutions unanimously adopted condemning said message, and the action of the governor and judges. A committee was also appointed to wait on the governor and judges, and request these officers to resign. A petition to the President of the United States was also drawn up and signed requesting their removal. According to Whitney, the motive which inspired the territorial acts referred to is stated in the second volume of his history, page 551, as follows:
“Doubtless the fear, well-founded it seems, that judges would be sent to the Territory who would use the tribunals over which they presided as engines of oppression, was one of the reasons why the legislature clothed the probate courts—whose officers, instead of being sent from abroad, were elected by the people or their representatives—with unusual powers. A similar reason—the fear of conspiring United States attorneys and marshals using their functions to persecute, and not merely to prosecute—may have influenced in part the creation of the offices of territorial attorney general and marshal. A desire to maintain the principle of local self-government, was doubtless the ruling motive.”
Yes, without doubt it was “fear” that inspired these disloyal acts—fear that the federal government would send judges and other officials here to execute impartially the law of the land—the same fear that today inspires the wrongdoer under the shadow of the law. What criminal would not prefer laws and decisions of his own making to those of legally constituted authority? Whitney is right here—if we read between the lines.
It may be well to instance a case in point. The incident following took place in the year 1867:
Isaac Potter, Charles Wilson and John Walker, residing at Coalville, were apostate Mormons. Walker was a boy about nineteen years of age. These three persons had previously been arrested for alleged thefts, and in every instance had been discharged by Judge Snyder, who at the time was probate judge of Summit county. In August of this year, they were again arrested on the charge of having stolen a cow. While they were under guard in the schoolhouse at Coalville, ten persons, armed, appeared about twelve o’clock at night at the building and ordered the prisoners to leave. Upon reaching the street they were placed in single file, a short distance apart, and in each intervening space two of the armed persons placed themselves. The others took positions at the front and rear of the procession thus formed. In this order they marched along the principal street of Coalville, through the mainly inhabited part of the town. Arriving at the outskirts, and their captors continuing to move on, Potter turned around and said to Walker: “John, they are going to murder us! Wouldn’t you like to see your mother before you die?” Thereupon one of the armed men marching behind Potter thrust the muzzle of a shotgun against Potter’s mouth. Potter in terror, shouted “murder!” Whereupon the armed man discharged the gun against the body of Potter at a range so close as to cause his instant death. At the discharge of the gun, both Wilson and Walker broke away and ran for their lives. Wilson was overtaken and killed at the edge of the Weber river. As Walker made his escape, a charge from a shotgun grazed his breast and lacerated his hand and wrist. He was wearing neither coat nor vest, and the charge set his shirt on fire and as he ran he extinguished the fire by the blood from his wounds. He was an athletic youth and soon distanced his pursuers. Although a number of shots were fired at him in the pursuit, he reached the river without further injury, swam across, and thereby escaped assassination. After numerous hardships he succeeded in reaching Camp Douglas, where the commanding officer, upon hearing what had taken place, gave him support and protection.
No steps having been taken by the authorities of Summit county to arrest any of the participants in the homicides mentioned, Judge Titus, whose judicial district included Summit county, upon the affidavit of Walker, issued a warrant for the arrest of the persons accused of the crime. They were arrested, and at the hearing before Judge Titus, at which I was present, what I have here stated respecting the murder of Potter and Wilson and the assault upon Walker, appeared from the testimony of Walker, who was a witness. Several of the residents of Coalville testified that they were awakened by the shots fired, and rushed out to learn the cause of the disturbance; that they saw Potter dead upon the ground, with his throat cut from ear to ear. Walker, when on the witness stand, identified the prisoners severally, and stated what each had done up to the moment Potter was killed. Judge Titus committed the accused to the penitentiary to await the action of the grand jury. John T. D. McAllister, who under the territorial statute before quoted, was the executive officer of the district court, took charge of the prisoners and conducted them in wagons to the penitentiary. Upon arriving there, the prisoners gently lifted the marshal out of the wagon occupied by him and drove away. No effort was made to rearrest them, and a short time afterwards, over the signature of all of them except Arza Hinkley and John C. Livingstone, the following insolent letter appeared in the Salt Lake Daily Telegraph. This newspaper was owned and edited by one Stenhouse, then a zealous member of the Mormon church, but who afterwards apostatized and published a book, and in which he mentioned the murder of Potter and Wilson. The aforesaid letter reads:
“In the Pines, Elk Ranch District, Rocky Mountains,
September 7th, 1867.
“Editor of the Daily Telegraph, and to all whom it may concern:
“After arriving here we thought it due to judge, warden and marshal that they should know the reason for our refusing to accept the proposal of his honor, Judge Titus, to take up our abode in the penitentiary for the period of forty days to await the action of the grand jury then to be assembled.
“Firstly: On our arrival at that beautiful mansion in the delightful neighborhood of the Sugar House ward, we were astounded to learn that mine hosts’ penitentiary larder was but sparsely supplied, and his stock on hand but limited, no appropriation having been made by nation, territory or county for the entertainment of guests whom the fates may send in that direction.
“Secondly: Not wishing to tax the warden’s hospitality unnecessarily, and it generally being our custom to maintain ourselves by the sweat of our brow.
“Thirdly: The atmosphere of warden’s boarding rooms was slightly impregnated with a bad influence arising from being occupied by individuals of the Potter, Wilson and Walker stamp, which is decidedly offensive to our olfactory nerves.
“Lastly: We concluded to sustain ourselves until the memorable fourteenth day of October, 1867, free of expense to the territory and county. On that day we will appear at the court house, G. S. L. City, individually and collectively. (His Honor may put that down).”
“Yours, etc.,
ALMA ELDREDGE,
JAMES MAHONEY,
EDMUND ELDREDGE,
MAHONRI CAHOON,
HYRUM ELDREDGE,
THOMAS DODSON,
JOSHUA WISEMAN,
JOHN STANLEY.”
The only excuse ever claimed by any of the accused was that Potter, Wilson and Walker attempted to escape, and were shot while running away. In the light of the fact that Potter’s throat was cut and his clothes scorched by the charge which killed him, and that Walker’s shirt was set on fire by the shot which wounded him, such a claim is absurd. It was shown by the testimony that Arza Hinkley was in command of the participants in the affair and directed their movements. He was not a resident of Coalville at the time, his home being in Salt Lake City. He went to Coalville shortly after Potter, Wilson and Walker were arrested. After Potter and Wilson were killed he moved permanently to Coalville, was soon installed in the office of probate judge of Summit county in place of Judge Snyder, and served in that capacity for many years. Walker remained for some time at Fort Douglas after the, accused parties were committed, but before the time set for the grand jury of the district court to convene he left the fort to visit his mother at Coalville. He did not visit his mother, but mysteriously disappeared, and has neither been seen nor heard of since that time. No doubt he was assassinated before reaching his home. His testimony was necessary to make a case against the accused, and his disappearance gave them perfect immunity.
The deportment of these men at the hearing, notwithstanding the evidence, showed beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty. What subsequently transpired at the penitentiary, and their insolent letter, convinced me that their crime was one of that class of homicides which like the Mountain Meadows massacre, the murders of Brown, Arnold, of Potter and Parish, of Hartley, Brassfield, Dr. Robinson and others, could be committed with perfect impunity under the conditions then existing, and that the accused were conscious of security from punishment.
Perhaps I should have first cited the cases of Dr. Robinson and Brassfield, since these precede the Coalville tragedy. My only object in reversing the order of events was simply to bring to the attention of the reader a more striking illustration of the subversion of legal procedure and justice than is afforded by the earlier cases.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dr. Robinson was assassinated on October 22, 1866. At that time there were no public or private hospitals in Salt Lake City. He decided to build one, and began by erecting in the vicinity of the Warm Springs, upon unoccupied land situated a considerable distance beyond any habitation of the city, a small frame house to be used as a workshop in the construction of the hospital. Shortly after the workshop was finished a police force tore it down and warned the doctor that it would not be healthy for him to renew his operations there. The doctor subsequently came to my office, and after stating what had occurred, announced that he contemplated bringing suit to recover damages for the destruction of his property and enjoining further interference by the police. He also stated that another attorney whom he had consulted refused to institute a suit because he feared it would subject him, the attorney, to personal violence. Some of his friends had warned him that he would incur great personal hazard by bringing suit.
I replied that the attorney and his friends certainly must be very timid, for I did not believe it possible anywhere in the United States that a citizen would jeopardize his life by applying to the courts of his country for an adjudication of his rights in any case; that while in view of what he had stated I would not advise him to bring suit, if he decided to do so, I would not hesitate to act as his attorney. Shortly afterward he requested me to proceed in the matter, which I did.
A few weeks after the suit was instituted he was called from his bed at midnight by some unknown person, who stated that an acquaintance of the doctor had been severely injured by being thrown from a mule, and that his services were immediately required. Disregarding the dissuasion of his wife, he proceeded with the unknown person, and upon reaching a point near where the Walker dry goods store is now situated, at the corner of Main and Third South streets, he was brutally murdered. At the inquest held it appeared that seven persons were seen running from the place at the time the crime was committed. The suit instituted was never finally tried, and not having been revived, was abated by the death of the doctor.
Some circumstances antecedent to this murder are significant. A short time before, a crowd of men armed with axes broke the windows, doors, and fixtures of a building belonging to him, and destroyed a bowling alley situated therein. He procured a warrant for the arrest of the chief of police and other members of the police force on the charge of having maliciously destroyed his property, and they were bound over to answer to that charge. Two days before the doctor’s assassination he called upon Mayor Wells, who was one of Brigham Young’s counselors, and requested him to interpose and restrain the police force. In place of granting that natural and reasonable request, the mayor grossly insulted the doctor and ordered him out of the house.
Doctor Robinson was an educated gentleman of courteous manners and affable disposition. His deportment was in every respect exemplary. He was superintendent of the first Gentile Sunday school in Salt Lake City: was a skillful physician and surgeon; had an extensive practice, and it was generally known that his attendance could always be obtained by anyone, even when compensation was out of the question. He was charitable, and humane motives alone induced him to begin erecting a hospital. He was exceptionally popular, had no known enemy, nor quarrel with anyone except the city authorities. He had done nothing, so far as known, calculated to subject him to any hostility except that of occupying the land before mentioned, which was against the settled policy of Brigham Young respecting the acquisition of property in Utah by Gentiles. That policy will be fully elucidated herein further on.
As at least seven persons were participants in the murder of Dr. Robinson, it is evident that they had previously met and deliberately agreed upon the manner in which it was to be accomplished. It is anomalous, in view of the circumstances disclosed, that seven or more persons living in a civilized community should conspire to murder such an estimable man as Doctor Robinson.
Following are quotations from an interview by a correspondent of the New York Evening Post, on November 7, 1867:
TALK WITH BRIGHAM YOUNG.
“I have stated that the only explanation given by any of the Mormons of the murder of Dr. Robinson is that it was committed by Gentiles with the object of criminating the church. I called again today on President Young, notifying him that my object was to obtain some facts for the public eye, and in my long conversation with him he said that most of the Gentiles living here were bad enough to commit any act that would injure him and his people, and that he had no doubt that some wretch had been hired for about $10.00 to murder Dr. Robinson. He said that Dr. Robinson was one of the worst men he ever knew. ‘He was saucy and impudent, and pushed himself right against us,’ he said. He said he was sorry that the doctor had been killed, for he wanted him to live and die in the ditch like a dog, as he would have done if he had gone on. Still, he hoped the murderers would be discovered, though he had no idea the one-sided and prejudiced attorney conducting the case meant to discover them, for it would show the wickedness of their own clique, who had planned the deed, he thought. ‘They selected Doctor Robinson,’ he said, ‘on account of having difficulty with the Mormon authorities, thereby intending that the blame should be thrown on them.’ He lavished vigorous epithets on Governor Weller, the Gentile lawyer, and above all on Justice Titus. Referring to the latter gentleman, and some of his decisions, he said they were dictated occasionally by law, but generally by his personal feelings; that all of the United States judges were a set of prejudiced scoundrels, and he did not want any more of their decisions; that they had better be careful or they would have to go out of this place. ‘Yes, I’ll put them out myself pretty soon; send them home by a short cut.’ 2 I referred to the destruction of Doctor Robinson’s bowling alley, and other deeds of mob violence, to which Young said that in his opinion that band of men had done wrong; that instead of going by night to destroy the building, they should have gone through it in broad day. ‘I’d have gutted it at noon, torn it down and destroyed it in the light of day, so that every man might see me.’ ”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brassfield married a woman who had previously been the plural wife of a man named Hill, then on a mission in England. Hill and the woman had severed their relations and had not cohabitated for several years. Shortly after said marriage, Brassfield was brutally assassinated at twilight of an evening on one of the principal streets of Salt Lake City, at the time thronged with people. The assassin escaped and was never arrested.
Brigham Young, in a sermon reported in the Deseret News of April 12, 1866, referring to the event, said: “Whether he (Brassfield) was killed by someone whom he threatened to shoot, or by some relation or friend of Hill’s family, or by someone who had made a catspaw of him in his ill-starred operations, or by some of his acquaintances to settle a grudge, thinking of course it would be laid upon the Mormons, is yet to be learned.”
Such disgusting statements as the above, and those made respecting the murder of Doctor Robinson were characteristic of Brigham Young, as will appear more fully further on.
Brassfield was, beyond doubt, murdered because he married the former plural wife of Hill. There can be no doubt whatever that Brigham was aware of the facts of the crime, and that later he also knew why Doctor Robinson was murdered, and who murdered him.
Marriage between members of the Mormon church and Gentiles had been interdicted by the priesthood, and it was dangerous for any man not a member of the church to even become a suitor of a woman of Mormon predilections. I know of one instance in which a brilliant young man of good character was maltreated because he was a suitor of a daughter of a prominent Mormon. He had for a considerable time been paying his addresses to the young lady. While the father of the girl opposed, her mother favored his addresses. He and the young lady became engaged. He had been warned several times by anonymous letters to cease paying further court to the young lady, but paid no heed to these warnings. One night he and the young lady had attended the theatre, and having escorted her home, while returning to his home he was set upon by several masked men and dragged to one of the trees east of the temple block. His coat and waistcoat were taken off, and while his arms were held around the tree, a policeman named Bill Hyde, whom the young man identified, most brutally lacerated his back with a blacksnake whip.
Under the conditions then existing, it would have been useless for the young man to institute criminal proceedings against Hyde: and to have killed him, as he intended, but from which he was dissuaded by me, would, beyond question, have cost him his life.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From my investigations I became thoroughly convinced that the high priesthood of the Mormon church were the actual rulers of Utah, and that the government established by the Organic Act had only a nominal existence; that the priesthood claimed to be divinely authorized to rule the members of the Mormon church in all matters, temporal and spiritual; that the adherents of that church constituting almost the entire population of the Territory, conceded the claim of the priesthood; that the legislative powers granted by the Organic Act, instead of being used as intended—namely, to pass laws necessary for the proper government of an American community, and thus to prepare the Territory for admission into the Union as a State, republican in spirit and in form, and with institutions in harmony with American civilization—were used only to sanction in legal form the will of the priesthood; to give immunity to the Asiatic system of polygamy which had been adopted as a tenet of the Mormon church, and to prevent the execution of any law except by agencies created and controlled by the priesthood. In short, that there existed here an irrepressible conflict between the system established by the Mormons and the republican institutions of the United States which would preclude the admission of the Territory into the Union as long as that conflict continued, and that it could only be ended by destroying the temporal power of the priesthood. As to the reliability of my convictions on these matters the quotations following are in point.
As early as 1857 President Buchanan, in his message to Congress, said:
“Brigham Young has been both governor and superintendent of Indian affairs. * * He has been at the same time head of the church called the Latter-day Saints, and professes to govern its members by direct inspiration and authority from the Almighty. His power has been, therefore, absolute over both church and state.”
President Garfield, in his inaugural address, said:
“The Mormon church not only offends the moral sense of manhood by sanctioning polygamy, but prevents the administration of justice through ordinary instrumentalities of law * * * nor can any ecclesiastical organization be safely permitted to usurp in the smallest degree the functions and powers of the national government.”
Brigham Young, in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. IV, page 77, said:
“The Kingdom is established. It is upon the earth. The kingdom we are talking about, preaching about and trying to build up is the Kingdom of God on earth—not in the starry heavens, nor in the sun; we are trying to establish the Kingdom of God on the earth, to which really and properly everything pertaining to men, their feelings, their faith, their convictions, their desires, and every act of their lives belong, that they may be sealed by it spiritually and temporally. We are called upon to establish the Kingdom of God literally just as much as spiritually. There is no man on the earth who can receive the Kingdom of God in his heart and be governed according to the laws of that kingdom without being governed and controlled in all temporal matters.”
In Vol. VI, page 23, of said Journal, he further said:
“The Kingdom of God circumscribes the municipal law of the people in their outward government.”
In Vol. I, page 361, he said:
“Admit for the sake of the argument that the Mormon elders have more wives than one, yet our enemies have never proved it. If I have forty wives in the United States they do not know it and could not substantiate it. Neither did I ask any judge, lawyer or magistrate for them. I LIVE above the law, and so do this people.”
In Vol. XI, pages 354 and 355, he said:
“Why do we believe save as we do on these points? Because God has spoken, and we believe him. We are aiming at something more than religious unity. We have a political existence none can ignore and destroy. They think they can ; but they cannot. They cannot make us mingle with the confusion of Babylon no more than they can make oil and water coalesce. There is no affinity between us. They profess very little faith in God, and know nothing about him. While we profess faith in God, and we do know that he loves and speaks to his people. Hence unity between them and us is impossible.”
Orson Pratt, one of the twelve apostles, and the most celebrated scholar of the Mormon church, published, in Liverpool, England, a series of essays from which the following is an extract:
THE ONLY LEGAL GOVERNMENT.
“The Kingdom of God is an order of government established by divine authority. It is the only legal government that can exist in any part of the universe. All other governments are illegal and unauthorized. God, having made all beings and worlds, has the supreme right to govern them by His own laws and by officers of His own appointment. Any people attempting to govern themselves by laws of their own notion, and by officers of their own appointment are in direct rebellion against the Kingdom of God. * * * For seventeen hundred years the nations upon the Eastern hemisphere have been entirely destitute of the Kingdom of God—entirely destitute of a true legal government—entirely destitute of officers legally authorized to rule and govern. All emperors, kings, princes, presidents, lords, nobles and rulers have acted without authority * * *. Their authority is all assumed; it originated in man. Their laws are not from the great law giver, but are the production of their own false governments. Their very foundations were laid in rebellion, and the whole superstructure from first to last is a heterogeneous mass of discordant elements, in direct opposition to the Kingdom of God, which is the only true government which should be recognized on earth or in heaven.”
The following is an extract from a sermon of John Taylor, one of the twelve apostles, and afterwards the successor of Brigham Young, found in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. V, page 149:
“Some people ask, What is priesthood? It is the legitimate rule of God, whether in Heaven or on the earth, and it is the only legitimate power that has a right to rule upon the earth. We came to serve God, to a place where we could more fully keep His commandments, where we could fulfil His behests upon the earth. This is why we came here. Well, then, if we are the only people whom God acknowledges as a nation, have we not a right to the privileges we enjoy? Who owns the gold and silver and the cattle on a thousand hills? God. Who then has a right to appoint rulers? None but Him or the man He appoints.”
I could add a large number of other quotations of like import from Mormon sermons and publications, but it is unnecessary to do so. I will, however, add some enunciations from Gentiles of high standing, who have given the subject studious attention. The following is from the reply of Judge Rosborough, chairman of the Democratic central committee, to a communication from the chairman of the central committee of the People’s party (church party) requesting him to participate in a constitutional convention called by the church party:
“Your party is the dominant church, and that church as a political organization constitutes your party; nothing contained in one is wanting in the other, and neither contains what is not tolerated in the other. They are one and the same in their membership, so that independent political action by an individual can never occur except with apostasy from the creed. The theory upon which our republican institutions are based is that all political power is derived from the people. On the contrary, the leaders of your party claim and teach, and their followers concede, that all rightful political power is derived from God, and is delegated to his chosen ministers, who have a divine commission to rule over the people whose first duty it is to obey counsel (i. e., submit to dictation) in temporal as well as spiritual concerns; and they further hold and teach as a political maxim as well as a dogma of a creed that this divine commission entitles them to the present right to and the near-future possession of sovereignty to be founded upon the ruins of all secular (man-made) governments. Such assumptions are utterly repugnant to American institutions, but at the same time these pretentions gauge the patriotism of these leaders and denote the intelligence and other qualifications of their followers for citizenship and statehood.”
Judge McBride, committee chairman of the Republican party, in reply to a like communication, said:
“If Utah shall be clothed with the forms of a State, the result would be a theocratic State in which, as Mr. Cannon, one of your ablest and wisest oracles expressed it, ‘the voice of God will be the voice of the people,’ and this voice finds expression through his chosen mouthpiece—the head of the Mormon church. This political axiom of your People’s party is announced by its recognized leaders, and is accepted with full faith and obedience. It reverses the entire theory upon which all republican governments are founded, and derives the authority to govern not from the people, but from those anointed, as you claim, by a divine commission to rule over them. These differences are too radical for accommodation, for our fundamental idea of all civil government is that it is derived from the people. In a State established under a theocratic idea, a free public sentiment finds no place. It extinguishes and annihilates all the fundamental beacons of the republican government around us, and remits us to the darkness of that superstition and fanticism which the world of intelligence and law has been struggling to escape. This element of your system—or faith, if you choose to call it such—renders it impossible for your people to live in harmony with any other communities in our land.”
The supreme court of the Territory, in the case of the United States v. The Church (15 Pac. 467), uses this language in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Zane:
“At the head of this corporate body (the church), according to the faith professed, is a seer and revelator who receives under revelation the law of the Infinite God concerning the duty of Man to himself and to his fellow beings, to society, to mankind and to God. In subordination to this head are a vast number of officers of various kinds and description comprising a most minute and complete organization. The people who comprise this organization claimed to be directed and led by inspiration that is above all human wisdom and subject to a power above all municipal government, above all man-made laws. These facts belong to history, therefore we have taken notice of them.”
Governor West, in a message to the territorial legislature, said:
“These many voices of the past, replete with anguish, ask us why-of all the people in our land of nearly every nationality, of no religion, and all religions, with beliefs and creeds as various and numerous almost as the different nations of men-should this people stand singular and alone in its woeful history? Can anyone doubt who approaches with unprejudiced mind the consideration of the question that the cause is founded in the theocracy established and maintained here, in the education of the people to believe that God has chosen this people to take possession of the earth and dominate and control all other peoples? That through his priesthood God governs them immediately, not alone in faith and morals, but in all the affairs and relations of life, and that the council of the priesthood is the supreme voice of God, and must be obeyed without question.”
“It necessarily follows that perfect and complete unity has and does exist among the Mormon people; an absolute oneness, without division and dissent. The unity in the State which comes from a fair discussing of public questions, securing by merit conviction of the mind and triumph of the right, is desirable and commendable. The unity that is obtained by recognizing the supremacy of one man, or set of men, the attributing to him or them a knowledge and power not granted to others—derived from a superhuman and supreme source, and therefore not to be questioned, but must be obeyed—is the establishment of complete absolutism in those holding power, and the most abject and servile slavery on those submitting. The submission to a government by God through his priesthood, and the unity it enforces, brought this people to accept, sustain, and uphold polygamy whether practicing it or not, regardless of the sentiment of the Christian world, and in defiance to the laws of the land.”
The Utah Commission, composed of G. Y. Godfrey, A. B. Williams and ex-Governor Arthur L. Thomas, in their report to the Secretary of the Interior, said:
“They (the Mormons) have established in the Territory a religious system with a political attachment, the two forming a strong, compact government, with the power of control centered in a few men who claim the right to speak by divine right, and whose advice, counsel and command is law unto the people.”
In other connections, further facts in support of my statements will be set forth. The eradication of the intolerable conditions, the existence of which in the Territory I have shown, was the motive which inspired the outspoken opposition of the Gentiles. In Whitney’s history these undesirables are variously designated as “conspirators,” “crusaders,” and “the ring.” In view of these evil conditions which existed, the Gentiles would have shown themselves to be wretched miscreants if they had failed to organize and make a vigorous and united effort to end the iniquitous system. They organized the Liberal party for that purpose alone.
_______________
NOTES:
1. The High Priesthood consists of the president of the Mormon church and his two counselors.
2. In Whitney’s History, Vol. II, page 82B, it is stated that at a banquet in Salt Lake City, Senator Trumbull, of Illinois, related a conversation he had with President Young in which the latter, it was claimed, had said something to the effect that if the federal official in Utah did not behave themselves, he would have them ridden out of the Territo[ry.] [original had only partial word]
[Note: Punctuation in the above, however incorrect, has been maintained from the original.]