As early as 1903, before the Smoot investigation began, the Utah State
journal (of which I became editor) was founded as a Democratic daily
newspaper, to attempt a restoration of political freedom in Utah and
to remonstrate against the new polygamy, of which rumors were already
insistent. I was at once warned by Judge Henry H. Rolapp (a prominent
Democrat on the District bench, and secretary of the Amalgamated Sugar
Company) that we need not look for aid from the political or business
interests of the community, inasmuch as our avowed purpose had already
antagonized the Church. He delivered this message in a friendly spirit
from a number of Democrats whose support we had been expecting. And
the warning proved to be well-inspired. Although a number of courageous
Gentiles, like Colonel E. A. Wall of Salt Lake City, gave us material
aid--and although there was no other Democratic daily paper in
Utah (unless it was the Salt Lake Herald, owned by Senator Clark of
Montana)--the most powerful Church Democratic interests stood against
us, and we found it impossible to make any effective headway with the
paper.
After the Prophets began to give their awful testimony at Washington,
the Democratic National Convention of 1904 (which I attended as a
delegate from Utah) considered a resolution in opposition to polygamy
and the Church's rule of the state. This resolution was as vigorously
fought by some Utah Gentiles as by the Mormon delegates, on the grounds
that it would defeat the Democratic party in Utah. It carried in the
convention. Upon returning to Salt Lake City I called a meeting of the
Democratic state committee (of which I was chairman) and urged that we
make our state campaign on the issue of ecclesiastical domination, in
consonance with the party's national platform. Of the whole committee
only the secretary, Mr. P. J. Daly, supported the proposal. The others
considered it "an attempt to establish a quarantine against Democratic
success." Some of them had been promised by members of the hierarchy
that the party was to have "a square deal this time." Others had
fatuously accepted the assurances of ecclesiasts that "it looked like
a Democratic year." In short, the Democratic party in Utah, like the
Republican party, proved to be then, as it is now, less a political
organization than the tool of a Church cabal. We found that we could no
more hope to move the Democratic machine against the hierarchy than to
move the Smoot-Republican machine itself.
But when Joseph F. Smith, before the Senate committee, admitted that he
was violating "the laws of God and man" and tried to extenuate his
guilt with the plea that the Gentiles of Utah condoned it, he issued a
challenge that no American citizen could ignore. The Gentiles of Utah
had been silent, theretofore, partly because they were ignorant of the
extent of the polygamous offenses of the hierarchy, and partly because
they were hoping for better things. Smith's boast made their silence
the acquiescence of sympathy. A meeting was called in Salt Lake City, in
May, 1904, and under the direction of Colonel William Nelson, editor of
the Salt Lake Tribune, the principles of the present "American party"
were enunciated as a protest against the lawbreaking tyranny of the
Church leaders. Later, as it became clear that the opponents of the
Smith misrule must organize their own party of progress, committees were
formed and a convention was held (in September, 1904) at which a
full state and county ticket was put in the field, in the name of the
American Party of Utah.
We agreed that no war should be made on the Mormon religion as such;
that no war should be made on the Mormon people because of their being
Mormons; that we would draw a deadline at the year 1890, when the
Church had effected a composition of its differences with the national
government, and all the citizens of Utah, Mormon and Gentile alike, had
accepted the conditions of settlement; that we would find our cause of
quarrel in the hierarchy's violation of the statehood pledges; and that
when we had corrected these evil practices we should dissolve, because
(to quote the language used at the time) we did not wish "to raise a
tyrant merely to slay a tyrant."
In the idea that we would fight upon living issues--that we would not
open the graves of the past to dig up a dead quarrel and parade it in
its cerements--the American party movement began. Its first enlistment
included practically all the Gentiles in Salt Lake City who resented
the claim of the Prophet that they acquiesced in his crimes and his
treasons. But the most promising sign for the party was its attraction
of hundreds of independent Mormons of the younger generation. As one
Mormon of that hopeful time expressed it: "The flag represents the
political power. The golden angel Moroni, at the top of the Temple,
represents the ecclesiastical authority. I will not pay to either one a
deference which belongs to the other. I know how to keep them apart in
my personal devotion."
This was exactly what the Church authorities would not permit. It would
have destroyed all the special and selfish prerogatives of the Mormon
hierarchs. It would have subverted their claim of absolute temporal
power. It would have set up the nation and the state as the objects of
civic devotion--instead of the Kingdom of God.
Although we of the American party disavowed and abstained from any
attack upon the Mormon Church as such--and confined ourselves to a war
upon the treasons, the violations of law, the breaches of covenant
and the other offenses of the Church leaders, as the practices of
individuals--these leaders dragged the whole body of the Church as
a wall of defense around them, and in countless sermons and printed
articles declared that the Church and its faith were the objects of our
assault. In other words, though Smith claimed in Washington--and Smoot
continues to claim before the nation--that the Church is not responsible
for the crimes of its Prophets, whenever a criticism or a prosecution is
directed against any of these men, they all unite in declaring that the
Church is being persecuted; and the members of the hierarchy rouse all
their followers, and use all their agencies, in a successful resistance.
There was no blithesomeness in the campaign. It was not lightened by any
humor. It was a hopeless assault on the one side and a grim overpowering
resistance on the other. The American party, being organized as a
protest, had at first little regard for offices. It sought to promulgate
the principles of its cause for the enlightenment of the citizens of
Utah and for the preservation of their rights. Some of the Gentiles who
did not join us felt, perhaps, as strong an indignation as those who
did, but they were entangled in politics with the hierarchs, or had
business connections that would be destroyed. These men, in course of
time, became the most dangerous opponents of our progress. (The average
Mormon is obedient and supine enough in the presence of his Prophets,
but he is a man of personal independence compared with the sycophantic
Gentile who accepts political or commercial favors from the Church
chiefs and yet continues to deny the existence of the very power to
which he bends the knee.) Of the rebellious but discreet Mormons many
came to the leaders of our party to say: "I think you're quite right. I,
myself, have suffered under these tyrannies. I have no sympathy with
new polygamy. But, as you know, I'm attorney for some of the Church
interests"--or "I'm in business with high ecclesiasts"--or "I'm heavily
in debt to the Church bank"--or "I'm closely connected by marriage with
one of the Prophets"--"and I can do you more good by my quiet efforts
than by coming out into the open. I'd be treated as an apostate. All my
influence would be gone." And in most cases he preserved his influence,
and we lost him. The Church had effective ways of recovering his
support.
For many reasons the American party looked for its recruits chiefly
among Republicans, the Democracy being almost entirely Mormon. And in
the first flush of enthusiasm some of our leaders laughed at the boast
of the Republican state chairman that, for every Republican he lost, he
would get two Mormon Democrats to vote the Republican ticket. (This was
Hon. William Spry, a Mormon, since made Governor of Utah, for services
rendered the hierarchy.) But the claim proved anything but laughable.
He got probably four Mormon Democrats for every Republican he lost. As
usual the hierarchy "delivered the goods" to the national organization
in power.
According to our best calculations we got from fifteen hundred to
eighteen hundred Mormon votes. And, during this campaign and those that
followed, I was approached by hundreds of Mormons who commended our work
and gave private voice to the hope that we might succeed in freeing Utah
so that they themselves might be free. After I joined the staff of the
Salt Lake Tribune, as chief editor, these came to my office by stealth
and in obvious fear. I could not blame them then, nor do I now. The cost
of open defiance was too great.
One woman, the first wife of a prominent Mormon physician, came to me
to enlist in the work of the party. (Her husband was living with a
young plural wife.) We accepted her aid. Her husband cut off her monthly
allowance, and she had to take employment as a book canvasser, so that
she might be able to earn her living. One Mormon who came out openly for
us, was superintendent of a business owned by Gentiles. He was somewhat
prominent as an ecclesiast, and he was a Sunday School worker in his
ward. He reconciled his wife and daughters to his revolt against the
recrudescence of polygamy and the tyranny of the Church's political
control. He carried with him the sympathy of his brother, who was a
newspaper editor. He won over some of his personal friends to pledge
their support to our cause. He seemed too sturdy ever to retreat, too
independent in his circumstances to be driven, and with too clear a
vision to be led astray by the threats, the power, or the persuasions
of the hierarchy. Yet, before long he came to confess that he could not
continue to help us openly. His employers--his Gentile employers--had
notified him that his work in the American party would be dangerously
injurious to their business. They were in hearty accord with his
views; they recognized his right as a citizen to act according to his
convictions; but--they dared not provoke a war of business reprisals
with the commercial and financial institutions of the Church. He must
either cease his active opposition to the Church leaders, or lose his
place of employment.... He retired from the fight.
Another Mormon who joined us was Don. C. Musser, a son of one of the
Church historians. He had been a missionary in Germany and in Palestine.
He had been a soldier in the Philippines, and he had edited the first
American newspaper there. His contact with the world and his experience
in the military service of the United States had given him a high ideal
of his country; and a feeling of loyalty to the nation had superseded
his earlier devotion to the Prophets. His family was wealthy, but he was
supporting himself and his young wife by his own efforts in business.
As soon as he came out openly with the American party, his father's home
was closed against him. His business connections were withdrawn from
him. He found himself unable to provide for his wife, who was in
delicate health. After a losing struggle, he came to tell us that he
could no longer earn a living in Utah; that he had obtained means to
emigrate; that he must say good-bye. And we lost him.
Two other young men--the son and the son-in-law of an apostle--came to
me and asked helplessly for advice. They admitted that the practices
of the hierarchy were, to them, a violation of the covenant with the
nation, a transgression of the revelation from God given to Wilford
Woodruff, and destructive of all the securities of community
association. But would I advise them to sacrifice their influence in the
Church by joining the "American movement" publicly? Or had they better
retain their influence and use it within the Church to correct the evils
that we were attacking?
With awful sincerity they spoke of conditions that had come under their
own eyes, and related instances to show how mercilessly the polygamous
favorites of the Church were permitted to prey on the young women
teachers in Church schools. They spoke of J. M. Tanner, who was at
that time head of the Church schools, a member of the general Board of
Education, and one of the Sunday School superintendents. According to
these young men--and according to general report--Tanner was marrying
right and left.
I knew of a young Mormon of Brigham City, who had been a suitor for the
hand of L----, a teacher at the Logan College. He had been away from
Utah for some time, and he had returned hoping to make her his wife.
Stopping over night in Salt Lake, on his way home, he saw Tanner and
L---- enter the lobby of the hotel in which he sat. They registered as
man and wife and went upstairs together. He followed--to walk the floor
of his room all night, struggling against the impulse to break in, and
kill Tanner, and damn his own soul by meddling with the man who had been
ordained by the Prophets to a wholesale polygamous prerogative.
He had kept his hands clean of blood, but he had been living ever since
with murder in his heart. Could these two sons of the Church do more to
remedy such horrors by using their influence to have Tanner deposed, or
by sacrificing that influence in an open revolt against the conditions
that made Tanner possible? I could only advise them to act according to
their own best sense of what was right. They did use their influence to
help force Tanner's deposition, but we lost the public example of their
opposition to the crimes of the hierarchy.
I relate these incidents as typical of the different kinds of pressure
that were brought to bear upon the independent Mormons who wished to
aid us, and of the local difficulties against which we had to contend.
Washington, of course, gave us no recognition. And we did not succeed
in reaching the ear of the nation. Here and there a newspaper noted our
effort and paid some small heed to our protest, but the overwhelming
success of the Republican party--and the dumb-driven acquiescence of
the Democracy--in Utah and the neighboring Church-ruled states, left the
agitation with little of political interest for the country at large.
And yet the struggle went on. Animated by the spirit of the Salt Lake
Tribune, the leading newspaper of the community, the American party
entered the city elections in the fall of 1905 and carried them against
the hierarchy's Democratic ticket, with the help of the independent
Mormons, under cover of the secret ballot. Emboldened by this success
we proposed to move on the state and county offices, with the hope of
gaining some members of the legislature and some of the judicial and
executive offices, through which to enforce the laws that the Church
leaders were defying. But here we failed. Outside of Salt Lake the rule
of the Prophets was still absolute and unquestioned. The people bowed
reverently to Joseph F. Smith's dictum: "When a man says 'You may direct
me spiritually but not temporally,' he lies in the presence of God--that
is, if he has got intelligence enough to know what he is talking about."
The state politicians knew that they would destroy themselves by joining
an organization opposed by the all-powerful-Church; and sufficient
warning of this doom appeared to them in the fact that no member of the
American party could obtain any recognition in Federal appointments.
The Church had meanwhile dictated the election of another United States
Senator (George Sutherland) to join Apostle Smoot, and Senator Kearns
was retired for his opposition to the hierarchy. [FOOTNOTE: When Senator
Aldrich was carrying the tariff bill of 1910 through the Senate, for
the greater profit of the "Interests," Smoot and Sutherland did not once
vote against him. Smoot supported him on every one of the one hundred
and twenty-nine votes and missed none. Sutherland voted with him one
hundred and seventeen times and was recorded as not voting on the
remaining twelve. Only two other senators made anything like such a
despicable record.]
It began to be more and more apparent that whatever success we might
achieve locally, the power of the financial and political allies of
the Prophets in Washington, aided by the executive "Big Stick" of the
President, would beat us back from any attempt to rouse the state or the
nation to our support.
Smoot was in a happy position: all the senators who represented the
"Interests" were for him, and all the senators who represented the
supposed progressive sentiment of Theodore Roosevelt were also for him.
The women of the nation had sent a protest with a million signatures to
the Senate; but they had not votes; they received, in reply, a public
scolding. Long before the Senate voted on its committee's report, many
of the notorious "new" polygamists of the Church returned from their
exile in foreign missions and began to walk the streets of Salt Lake
with their old swagger of self-confident authority. We foresaw the end.
Early in December, 1906, Senator J. C. Burrows of Michigan, chairman
of the committee that had investigated Smoot, called up the committee's
report and spoke upon it in a denunciation of Smoot. Senator Dubois
of Idaho followed, two days later, with a supplementary attack, and
censured President Roosevelt for "allowing his name and office" to be
used in defense of the Mormons. After an interval of a month, Senator
Albert J. Hopkins, of Illinois, undertook to reply with a defense
of Smoot that reduced the Apostle's excuses to the absurd. Smoot, he
declared, had opposed polygamy, "even from his infancy;" there was
"nothing in the constitution" prohibiting "a State from having an
established Church;" the old practices of Mormonism were dying out; and
Smoot, as an exponent of the newer Mormonism, was largely responsible
for the improvement.
This bold falsehood was received with laughter by the members who had
heard the testimony before the Senate committee or read the record of
its sittings; but it was wired to all newspapers; and the contradictions
that followed it failed (for reasons) to get the same publicity. It
was repeated by Senator Sutherland (January 22, 1907); and he had the
audacity to add that the Mormon Church, as well as Smoot, was opposed to
polygamy; that the "sporadic cases" of new polygamy were "reprehended
by Mormon and Gentile alike;" that polygamous marriages in Utah had been
forbidden by the Enabling Act, but that polygamous cohabitation had
been left to the state; and that the latter was rapidly dying out. And
Sutherland knew, as every public man in Utah knew, that almost every
word of this statement was untrue.
Senator Philander C. Knox, of Pennsylvania (February 14, 1907) took up
the lie that Smoot had been "from his youth against polygamy," and he
added to it a legal argument that the Senate could only expel a member,
by a two-thirds vote, if he were guilty of crime, offensive immorality,
disloyalty or gross impropriety during his term of service. Senator
Tillman (February 15) accused President Roosevelt of protecting Smoot
in return for a pledge of Mormon support given previous to the last
campaign. Apostle Smoot (February 19) declared that cases of "new"
polygamy were rare; that they were not sanctioned by the Church; that
every case since 1890 "has the express condemnation of the Church;"
and that he himself had always opposed polygamy. On February 20,
the question was forced to a vote after a debate that repeated these
falsehoods, in spite of all disproof's of them. And Apostle Smoot was
retained in his seat by a vote of fifty-one to thirty-seven, counting
pairs.
After this event, no growth of organization was immediately possible to
the American party. Having gained political control of Salt Lake City
and given it good municipal government, we were able to hold a local
adherency; but hundreds of Mormons, who still vote the American city
ticket, vote for the Church in state elections, because, though they
want reform, they are not willing to risk the punishment of their
relatives and the leaders of the Church to attain that reform. And
when the national government granted its patent of approval to the
hierarchy--by holding the hierarchy's appointed representative in
the Senate as its prophetic monitor--nearly all the people of the
intermountain country lost heart in the fight. Thousands of Gentiles,
who knew the truth and had fought for it for years, argued despairingly:
"If the nation likes this sort of thing--I guess it's the sort of thing
it likes. I'm not going to ruin myself financially and politically by
keeping up a losing struggle with these neighbors of mine, and fight
the government at Washington besides. If the administration wants to be
bossed by the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, I can stand it."
The nation, having accepted responsibility for past polygamy, now,
by accepting Senator Smoot, gave its responsible approval to the new
polygamy and to the commercial and political tyrannies of the Church.
In the old days the Mormons had claimed immunity for their practice
of polygamy on the ground that the constitution of the United States
protected them in the exercises of their faith. The Supreme Court of the
country determined that the free-religion clause of the constitution did
not cover violations of law; and the Church deliberately abandoned its
claim of religious immunity. But now a majority of the Senate, supported
by President Roosevelt, took the old ground--which the Supreme Court had
made untenable and the Mormons themselves had vacated--and practically
declared that violations of law were a part of the constitutional
guaranty!