The Smiths were no sooner firm in power than rumors began to circulate
of a recrudescence of plural marriage, and I heard reports of political
plots by which the Prophets were to reestablish their autocracy in
worldly affairs in the name of God. I sought to close my mind against
such accusations, for I remembered how often my father had been
misjudged, and I felt that nothing but the most direct evidence should
be permitted to convince me of a recession by the Church authorities
from the miraculous opportunity of progress that was now open to their
leadership. Such direct evidence came, in part, in the state elections
of 1902.
The Utah Democrats re-nominated Wm. H. King for Congress; Senator Joseph
L. Rawlins was their candidate to succeed himself in the United States
Senate. The Republicans nominated President Smith's friend, Joseph
Howell, for Congress; and there began to spread a rumor that Apostle
Reed Smoot was to become a Republican candidate for the Senatorship
under an old promise given him by President Snow and now endorsed by
President Smith. I had been made state chairman of the Democratic party;
and with the growing report of Apostle Smoot's candidacy, I observed a
gradual cessation of political activity on the part of those prominent
Democrats who were close to the Church leaders.
Now, our party was not making war on the Church nor on any of its proper
missions in the world. Our candidates were capable and popular men
against whom no just ecclesiastical antagonism could be raised. We were
asking no favors from the Church. And we were determined to have no
opposition from the Church without a protest and an understanding.
For this reason--after consulting confidentially with the leaders of our
party--undertook to make a personal visit to President Smith's office
to demand that the Church authorities should keep their hands out of
politics. But even while I discussed the matter with our party leaders,
I was afraid that some of them might betray our concerted purpose to
Church headquarters. And my fear was well grounded. When I went to the
offices of the Presidency, the authorities--for the first, last and only
time--refused to see me; and the secretary betrayed a knowledge of my
mission by telling me that I should hear from some one of the hierarchy,
later.
Two or three days afterward, Apostle M. F. Cowley came to me with word
that my call had been considered and that he had been deputed to talk
with me. We appointed a time for conference in my rooms at Democratic
headquarters, where we spent the large part of a day in consultation.
And since the argument between us covered the whole ground of Apostle
Smoot's candidacy, I wish to give an account of that interview, as a
brief exposition of some of the present-day aspects of the Church's
interference in politics.
Apostle Cowley and I had been boyhood friends. He had been one of the
older students at the school that I had attended as a child; and I knew
the integrity and directness of his character. He was a stocky, strong
man, with a wholesome sort of face, brown with the sunburn of his
missionary travels in Canada and in Mexico. (He had been, in fact,
solemnizing plural marriages in these polygamous refuges--as we found
out later.)
As soon as it was clearly understood between us that I represented the
Democratic state committee and he represented the Church authorities, I
asked for an explanation of Apostle Smoot's candidacy.
Cowley began by admitting the candidacy, which President Smith had
endorsed (he said) in spite of the opposition of some of the apostles.
He argued that Apostle Smoot was only exercising his right of American
citizenship in aspiring to the Senatorship; and he explained that the
Church authorities did not see why the Church should be drawn into the
campaign.
But, as I pointed out to him, the Church had already drawn itself in.
It had held a solemn conclave of its hierarchy to authorize an apostle's
candidacy. The opponents of Church rule would circulate the fact; in
any close campaign, the apostle's friends would use the fact upon the
faithful; and the Church would be compelled to support its apostle in an
assumed necessity of defending itself.
Perhaps I was objectionably forceful in my reply to him. With his
characteristic gentleness, he rebuked me by recalling that President
Woodruff had once taken him into "sacred places," assured him that
"Frank Cannon, like David, was a man after God's own heart," and asked
him to "labor" for me in politics. If it had been right for the Prophet
of God to favor me, why was it not right for the Prophet now to favor
some one else?
My personal regard for Apostle Cowley kept me from showing the amusement
I felt at finding myself in this new scriptural role remembering how
President Woodruff had once devoted me to destruction like another Isaac
on the altar of Church control. I replied to Cowley, as soberly as
I could, that I had never consciously received the aid of any Church
influence; that I had always objected to its use, either for or against
either party; that I could oppose it now with free hands.
He retreated upon the favorite argument of the ecclesiasts: that an
apostle did not relinquish his citizenship because of his Church rank;
that the very political freedom which we demanded, to be effective, must
apply to all men, in or out of the Church. He asked naively: "What did
we get statehood for--and amnesty--and our political rights--if we're
not to enjoy them?"
The answer to that was obvious: The Mormon Church is so constructed
that the apostle carries with him the power of the Church wherever he
appears. The whole people recognize in him the personified authority of
the Church; and if an apostle were allowed to make a political campaign
without a denunciation from the other Church authorities, it would be
known that he had been selected for political office by "the mouthpiece
of the Almighty." I cited the case of Apostle Moses Thatcher as proof
that the Church did exercise power openly to negative an apostle's
ambition. If it failed now to rebuke Smoot, this very failure would be
an affirmative use of its power in his behalf; all Mormons who did not
wish to raise their hands "against the Lord's anointed," would have
to support Smoot's legislative ticket, regardless of their political
convictions; and all Gentiles and independent Mormons would have to
fight the intrusion of the Church into open political activities.
Cowley replied that "the brethren"--meaning the hierarchy--believed that
a Mormon should have as many political rights, as a Catholic; and he
asked me if I would object to seeing a Catholic in the Senate.
Of course not. There are, and have been, many such. "But suppose," I
argued, "that the Pope were to select one of his Italian cardinals to
come to this country and be naturalized in some state of this Union that
was under the sole rule of the Roman Catholic Church; and suppose that
still holding his princedom in the Catholic Church and exercising the
plenary authority conferred on him by the Pope--suppose he were to
appear before the Senate in his robes of office, with his credentials
as a Senator from his Church-ruled state--all of this being a matter of
public knowledge--do you think the Senate would seat him? Certainly
not. Yet the cases are exactly analogous. We were but lately alien and
proscribed. We were admitted into the Union on a covenant that forbade
Church interference in politics. It is the whole teaching of the Church
that a Prophet wears his prophetic authority constantly as a robe of
office. The case of Moses Thatcher is proof to the world that the Church
appoints and disappoints at its pleasure. I don't believe that Smoot, if
elected, will be allowed to hold his seat, and--if he is allowed to hold
it--a greater trouble than his exclusion will surely follow. For, with
the princes of the Mormon Church holding high place in the national
councils--and using the power of the Church to maintain themselves
there--we are assuring for ourselves an indefinite future of the most
bitter controversy."
When Cowley had no more arguments to offer, he said: "Well, the Prophet
has spoken. That's enough for me. I submit cheerfully when the will of
the Lord comes to me through his appointed servants. The matter has
been decided, and it does not lie in your power--or anyone else's--to
withstand the purposes of the Almighty." He rose and put his hand on my
shoulder, affectionately. "Your father is gone, Frank. I loved him very
dearly. I hope that you are not going to be found warring against the
Lord's anointed."
"Mat," I replied, "you have already pointed out that Apostle Smoot
appears in politics only as an American citizen. For the purposes of
this fight--and to avoid the consequences that you fear I'll regard him
as a politician merely, and fight him as such."
"But, you know, Frank," he remonstrated, "he has been consecrated to the
apostleship, and I'm afraid that you'll overstep the bounds."
"Mat," I assured him, "I'll watch carefully, and unless he makes his
lightning changes too fast, I'll aim my shots only when he's in his
political clothes. If the change is too indefinite, blame yourselves
and not us. The whole teaching of the Church is that an apostle must be
regarded as an apostle at all times; but the whole teaching of politics
is that all men should appear upon equal terms--in this country. That's
why we insist that no apostle should become a candidate for public
office."
Cowley took his departure with evident relief. He had discharged
his ambassadorial duty--and given me the warning which he had been
authorized to deliver--without a rupture of our personal friendship. And
I saw him go, for my part, in a sorrowful certainty that the Church had
thrown off all disguise and proposed to show the world, by the election
of an apostle to the United States Senate, that the "Kingdom of God" was
established in Utah to rule in all the affairs of men. I knew that if
Smoot were excluded from the Senate, his exclusion would be argued
a proof that the wicked and unregenerate nation was still devilishly
persecuting God's anointed servants, to its own destruction; and, if he
were permitted to take his seat, that this fact would be cited to the
faithful as proof that the Prophets had been called to save the nation
from the destruction that threatened it!
Of course, throughout the campaign that followed, the Church's
newspapers and many of its political workers kept protesting publicly
that the election of the Republican legislative ticket did not mean
the election of Apostle Smoot to the Senate. But by means of the
authoritative whisper of ecclesiasts--carried by visiting apostles to
Presidents of Stakes, from them to the bishops, and from the bishops to
the presiding officers of subsidiary organizations--the inspired order
was given to the faithful that they must vote for the legislators who
could be relied upon to do the will of the Lord by voting for the Lord's
anointed prophet, Apostle Reed Smoot. This message was delivered to the
sacred Sunday prayer circles. Even Senator Rawlins' mother received it,
from one of the ecclesiastical authorities of her ward, who instructed
her to vote against the election of her own son; and it was "at the
peril of her immortal soul" that she disobeyed the injunction. Long
before election day, every Mormon knew that he had been called upon
by the Almighty to sacrifice his individual conviction in politics to
protect his "assailed Church."
The profound effectiveness of that appeal needs no further proof than
the issue of the election. King and Rawlins, the popular leaders of
the Democracy in a state that had but recently been overwhelmingly
Democratic--after a campaign in which they studiously avoided an
attack upon the Church--were overwhelmingly defeated. The Republican
legislative ticket was carried. Apostle Smoot was elected to the United
States Senate; and on January 21, 1903, Governor Wells issued to him a
certificate of election.
Five days later, a number of prominent citizens signed a protest, to
President Roosevelt and the Senate, against allowing Apostle Smoot to
take his seat. And the grounds of the protest, briefly stated, were
these: The Mormon priesthood claimed supreme authority in politics,
and such authority was exercised by the first presidency and the twelve
apostles, of whom Smoot was one. They had not only not abandoned the
practice of political dictation, but they had not abandoned the belief
in polygamy and polygamous cohabitation; they connived at and encouraged
its practice, sought to pass laws that should nullify the statutes
against the practice, and protected and honored the violators of
those statutes. And they had done all these things despite the public
sentiment of the civilized world, in violation of the pledges given in
procuring amnesty and in obtaining the return of the escheated Church
property, contrary to the promises given by the representatives of the
Church and of the territory in their plea for statehood, contrary to
the pledges required by the Enabling Act and given in the State
constitution, and contrary to the laws of the State itself.
These charges were supported by innumerable citations from the published
doctrines of the Church, and from the published speeches and sermons
of the Prophets. Evidence was offered of the continuance of polygamous
cohabitation (since 1890) by President Smith, all but three or four of
the apostles, the entire Presidency of the Salt Lake Stake of Zion,
and many others. New polygamy was specifically charged against three
apostles, and against the son of a fourth. A second protest, signed by
John L. Leilich, repeated these grounds of objection to Apostle Smoot,
and charged further that Apostle Smoot was himself a polygamist; but no
attempt was made to prove this latter charge.
Upon the filing of the protest, there was a storm of anger at Church
headquarters; and the ecclesiastical newspapers railed with the
bitterness of anxious apprehension. Throughout Utah it seemed to be the
popular belief that Apostle Smoot would be excluded--on the issue of
whether a responsible representative of a Church that was protecting and
encouraging law-breaking should be allowed a seat in the highest body of
the nation's law-makers. But the issue against him was not to be heard
until twelve months after his election, and every agent and influence of
the Church was set to work at once to nullify the effect of the protest.
Every financial institution, East or West, to which the Church could
appeal, was solicited to demand a favorable hearing of the Smoot case
from the Senators of its state. Every political and business interest
that could be reached was moved to protect the threatened Apostle. The
sugar trust magnates and their Senators were enlisted. The mercantile
correspondents of the Church were urged to write letters to their
Congressmen and to their Senators, and to use their power at home to
check the anti-Mormon newspapers. The Utah representative of a powerful
mercantile institution, that had vital business relations with the
Church, confessed to me that he had been called East to consult with the
head of his company, who had been asked to use his influence for Smoot.
"I could not advise our president," he said, "to send the letter that
was demanded of him. And yet I couldn't take the responsibility of
injuring the company by advising him to refuse the Church request. You
know, if we had refused it, point-blank, they would have destroyed every
interest we had within the domain of their power. I should have been
ruined financially. All our stockholders would have suffered. They would
never have forgiven me."
The president of the company failed to send the letter. His failure
became known, through Church espionage and the report of the Church's
friends in the Senate. Pressure was brought to bear upon him; and, with
the aid of his Utah representative, he compromised on a letter that did
partial violence to his conscience and partially endangered his business
relations with the Church.
Both these men were aware that the Church had broken its covenants to
the country, and that Apostle Smoot could not be either a loyal citizen
of the nation or a free representative of the people of his state.
"I did not like the compromise we made," my friend told me. "I feel
humiliated whenever I think of it. But I tried to do the best I could
under the circumstances."
The results of this pressure of political and business interests upon
Washington showed gradually in the tone of the political newspapers
throughout the whole country. It showed in the growing confidence
expressed by the organs of the Church authorities in Utah. It showed in
the cheerful predictions of the Prophets that the Lord would overrule in
Apostle Smoot's behalf. It showed in Smoot's exercise of an autocratic
leadership in the political affairs of the State.
He was allowed to take his oath of office as Senator on March 5, 1903;
the protests against him were referred to the Senate Committee on
Privileges and Elections for a hearing (January 27, 1904); and a contest
began that lasted from January, 1904, to February, 1907. During those
years was completed the business and political conspiracy between
financial "privilege" and religious absolutism, of which conspiracy this
narrative has described the beginning and the growth.
It is almost impossible to expose the progression of incident by which
the end of that conspiracy was approached--since it was necessarily
approached in the darkest secrecy. But several indications of the method
and the progress did show, here and there, on the surface of events; and
these indications are powerfully significant.
As early as 1901 it had become known that Apostle Smoot was negotiating
a sale, to the sugar trust, of the Church's sugar holdings. On May
13, 1902, the president of the trust reported to the trust's executive
committee--
[FOOTNOTE: See a synopsis of the minutes of the trust's executive
committee, published in Hampton's Magazine, in January, 1910.]
that he had agreed to buy a one-half interest in the consolidation of
the Mormon factories of La Grande, Logan and Ogden. (The following day,
May 14, 1902, is given by Apostle Smoot as the day on which he obtained
President Joseph F. Smith's permission to become a candidate for the
Senatorship.) On June 24, 1902 the sugar trust's executive committee
was informed of the trust's purchase of one-half of the capital stock
of these three Church-owned sugar companies. On July 5, 1902 the three
companies were consolidated under the name of the Amalgamated Sugar
Company, with David Eccles, polygamist, trustee of Church bonds, and
protege of Joseph F. Smith, as President; and the sugar trust took half
the stock, in exchange for its holdings in the three original companies.
Similarly, in this same year, the old Church-owned Utah Sugar Company
increased its stock in order to buy the Garland sugar factory, and the
sugar trust, it is understood, was concerned in the purchase In 1903,
1904 and 1905, the Idaho Sugar Company, the Freemont Sugar Company,
and West Idaho Sugar Company were incorporated; and in 1906 all these
companies were amalgamated in the present Utah-Idaho Sugar Company,
of which Joseph F. Smith is president, T. R. Cutler, a Mormon, is
vice-president, Horace G. Whitney, the general manager of the Church's
Deseret News, is secretary and treasurer, and other Church officials are
directors. Of the stock of this company the sugar trust holds fifty-one
per cent. So that between 1902 and 1906 a partnership in the manufacture
of beet sugar was effected between the Church and the trust; and Apostle
Smoot became a Sugar trust Senator, and argued and voted as such.
Furthermore, it was at this same period that the Church sold the
street railway of Salt Lake City and its electric power company to the
"Harriman interests" under peculiar circumstances--a matter of which I
have written in an earlier chapter. The Church owners of this Utah Light
and Railway Company, through the Church's control of the City Council,
had attempted to obtain a hundred-year franchise from the city on terms
that were outrageously unjust to the citizens; and finally, on June 5,
1905, a franchise was obtained for fifty years, for the company of
which Joseph F. Smith was the president. On August 3, 1905, another city
ordinance was passed, consolidating all former franchises, then held
by the Utah Light and Power Company, but originally granted to D. F.
Walker, the Salt Lake and Ogden Gas and Electric Light Company, the
Pioneer Power Company and the Utah Power Company; and this ordinance
extended the franchises to July 1, 1955. The properties were bonded for
$6,300,000, but it was understood that they were worth not more than
$4,000,000. They were sold to "the Harriman interests" for $10,000,000.
The equipment of the Salt Lake City street railway was worse than
valueless, and the new company had to remove the rails and discard
the rolling stock. But the ten millions were well invested in this
public-utility trust, for the company had a monopoly of the street
railway service and electric power and gas supply of Salt Lake City; and
its franchises left it free to extort whatever it could from the people
of the whole country side, by virtue of a partnership with the Church
authorities whereby extortion was given the protection of "God's
anointed Prophets."
Joseph F. Smith, of course, was already a director of Harriman's Union
Pacific Railroad, a position to which he had been elected after his
accession to the First Presidency. And he was so elected not because of
his railroad holdings--for he came to the Presidency a poor man--and
not because of his ability or experience as a financier or a railroad
builder, for he had not had any such experience and he had not shown
any such ability. He was elected because of the partnership between the
Church leaders and the Union Pacific Railroad--a partnership that was
doubtlessly used in defense of Apostle Smoot's seat in the Senate, just
as the power of the Sugar Trust was used and the influence of the whole
financial confederation in politics.