The first measure "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in
the Territories of the United States" was introduced in the House of
Representatives by Mr. Morrill of Vermont (Bill No. 7) at the first
session of the 36th Congress, on February 15, 1860. It contained clauses
annulling some of the acts of the territorial legislature of Utah,
including the one incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints. This bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 14,
the committee declaring that "no argument was deemed necessary to prove
that an act could be regarded as criminal which is so treated by
the universal concurrence of the Christian and civilized world," and
characterizing the church incorporation act as granting "such monstrous
powers and arrogant assumptions as are at war with the genius of our
government." The bill passed the House on April 5, by a vote of 149
to 60, was favorably reported to the Senate by Mr. Bayard from the
Judiciary Committee on June 13, but did not pass that House.
Mr. Morrill introduced his bill by unanimous consent in the next
Congress (on April 8, 1862), and it was passed by the House on April 28.
Mr. Bayard, from the judiciary Committee, reported it back to the Senate
on June 3 with amendments. He explained that the House Bill punished
not only polygamous marriages, but cohabitation without marriage. The
committee recommended limiting the punishment to bigamy--a fine not
to exceed $500 and imprisonment for not more than five years. Another
amendment limited the amount of real estate which a church corporation
could hold in the territories to $50,000. The bill passed the Senate
with the negative votes of only the two California senators, and the
House accepted the amendments. Lincoln signed it.
Nothing practical was accomplished by this legislation, In 1867
George A. Smith and John Taylor, the presiding officers of the Utah
legislature, petitioned Congress to repeal this act, setting forth as
one reason that "the judiciary of this territory has not, up to the
present time, tried any case under said law, though repeatedly urged to
do so by those who have been anxious to test its constitutionality." The
House Judiciary Committee reported that this was a practical request for
the sanctioning of polygamy, and said: "Your committee has not been
able to ascertain the reason why this law has not been enforced. The
humiliating fact is, however, apparent that the law is at present
practically a dead letter in the Territory of Utah, and that the
gravest necessity exists for its enforcement; and, in the opinion of
the committee, if it be through the fault or neglect of the judiciary
of that territory that the laws are not enforced, the judges should
be removed without delay; and that, if the failure to execute the law
arises from other causes, it becomes the duty of the President of the
United States to see that the law is faithfully executed."*
* House Report No. 27, 2nd Session, 39th Congress.
In June, 1866, Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio obtained unanimous consent
to introduce a bill enacting radical legislation concerning such
marriages as were performed and sanctioned by the Mormon church, but it
did not pass. Senator Cragin of New Hampshire soon introduced a similar
bill, but it, too failed to become a law.
In 1869, in the first Congress that met under President Grant, Mr.
Cullom of Illinois introduced in the House the bill aimed at
polygamy that was designated by his name. This bill was the practical
starting-point of the anti-polygamous legislation subsequently enacted,
as over it was aroused the feeling--in its behalf in the East and
against it in Utah--that resulted in practical legislation.
Delegate Hooper made the leading speech against it, summing up his
objections as follows:--
"(1) That under our constitution we are entitled to be protected in the
full and free enjoyment of our religious faith.
"(2) That our views of the marriage relation are an essential portion of
our religious faith.
"(3) That, in conceding the cognizance of the marriage relation as
within the province of church regulations, we are practically in accord
with all other Christian denominations.
"(4) That in our view of the marriage relation as a part of our
religious belief we are entitled to immunity from persecution under the
constitution, if such views are sincerely held; that, if such views are
erroneous, their eradication must be by argument and not by force."
The bill, greatly amended, passed the House on March 23, 1870, by a
vote of 94 to 32. The news of this action caused perhaps the greatest
excitement ever known in Utah. There was no intention on the part of
the Mormons to make any compromise on the question, and they set out to
defeat the bill outright in the Senate. Meetings of Mormon women were
gotten up in all parts of the territory, in which they asserted
their devotion to the doctrine. The "Reformers," including Stenhouse,
Harrison, Tullidge, and others, and merchants like Walker Brothers,
Colonel Kahn, and T. Marshall, joined in a call for a mass-meeting at
which all expressed disapproval of some of its provisions, like the
one requiring men already having polygamous wives to break up their
families. Mr. Godbe went to Washington while the bill was before the
House, and worked hard for its modification. The bill did not pass the
Senate, a leading argument against it being the assumed impossibility of
convicting polygamists under it with any juries drawn in Utah.
The arrest of Brigham Young and others under the act to punish
adulterers, and the proceedings against them before Judge McKean in
1871, have been noted. At the same term of the court Thomas Hawkins, an
English immigrant, was convicted of the same charge on the evidence of
his wife, and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and to pay a
fine of $500. In passing sentence, Judge McKean told the prisoner that,
if he let him off with a fine, the fine would be paid out of other
funds than his own; that he would thus go free, and that "those men who
mislead the people would make you and thousands of others believe that
God had sent the money to pay the fine; that, by a miracle, you had been
rescued from the authorities of the United States."
After the passage of the Poland law, in 1874, George Reynolds, Brigham
Young's private secretary, was convicted of bigamy under the law of
1862, but was set free by the Supreme Court of the territory on the
ground of illegality in the drawing of the grand jury. In the following
year he was again convicted, and was sentenced to imprisonment for two
years and to pay a fine of $500. The case was appealed to the United
States Supreme Court, which rendered its decision in October, 1878,
unanimously sustaining the conviction, except that Justice Field
objected to the admission of one witness's testimony.
In its decision the court stated the question raised to be "whether
religious belief can be accepted as a justification for an overt act
made criminal by the law of the land." Next came a discussion of views
of religious freedom, as bearing on the meaning of "religion" in the
federal constitution, leading up to the conclusion that "Congress was
deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free
to reach actions which were in violation of social duties, or subversive
of good order." The court then traced the view of polygamy in England
and the United States from the time when it was made a capital offence
in England (as it was in Virginia in 1788), declaring that, "in the
face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the
constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit
legislation in respect to this most important feature of social
life." The opinion continued as follows:--"In our opinion, the statute
immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of
Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action
for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the
United States has exclusive control. This being so, the only question
which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their
religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are,
then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may
be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and
go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws
are made for the government of actions, and, while they cannot interfere
with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of
religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil
government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a
sacrifice? Or, if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn
herself on the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the
power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into
practice?
"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive
dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages
shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary
because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the
professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,
and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
"A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is
presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he
knowingly does. Here the accused knew he had been once married, and that
his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was
forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is
presumed to have intended to break the law, and the breaking of the law
is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly
done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.*
* United States Reports, Otto, Vol. III, p. 162.
P. T. Van Zile of Michigan, who became district attorney of the
territory in 1878, tried John Miles, a polygamist, for bigamy, in 1879,
and he was convicted, the prosecutor taking advantage of the fact that
the territorial legislature had practically adopted the California
code, which allowed challenges of jurors for actual bias. The principal
incident of this trial was the summoning of "General" Wells, then a
counsellor of the church, as a witness, and his refusal to describe
the dress worn during the ceremonies in the Endowment House, and the
ceremonies themselves. He gave as his excuse, "because I am under
moral and sacred obligations to not answer, and it is interwoven in my
character never to betray a friend, a brother, my country, my God, or
my religion." He was sentenced to pay a fine, of $100, and to two days'
imprisonment. On his release, the City Council met him at the prison
door and escorted him home, accompanied by bands of music and a
procession made up of the benevolent, fire, and other organizations, and
delegations from every ward.
Governor Emery, in his message to the territorial legislature of 1878,
spoke as plainly about polygamy as any of his predecessors, saying that
it was a grave crime, even if the law against it was a dead letter, and
characterizing it as an evil endangering the peace of society.
There was a lull in the agitation against polygamy in Congress for some
years after the contest over the Cullom Bill. In 1878 a mass-meeting
of women of Salt Lake City opposed to polygamy was held there, and
an address "to Mrs. Rutherford B. Hayes and the women of the United
States," and a petition to Congress, were adopted, and a committee
was appointed to distribute the petition throughout the country for
signatures. The address set forth that there had been more polygamous
marriages in the last year than ever before in the history of the Mormon
church; that Endowment Houses, under the name of temples, and costing
millions, were being erected in different parts of the territory, in
which the members were "sealed and bound by oaths so strong that even
apostates will not reveal them"; that the Mormons had the balance of
power in two territories, and were plotting to extend it; and asking
Congress "to arrest the further progress of this evil."
President Hayes, in his annual message in December, 1879, spoke of the
recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, and said that there
was no reason for longer delay in the enforcement of the law, urging
"more comprehensive and searching methods" of punishing and preventing
polygamy if they were necessary. He returned to the subject in his
message in 1880, saying: "Polygamy can only be suppressed by taking away
the political power of the sect which encourages and sustains it.. .. I
recommend that Congress provide for the government of Utah by a Governor
and judges, or Commissioners, appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate, (or) that the right to vote, hold office, or sit on
juries in the Territory of Utah be confined to those who neither
practise nor uphold polygamy."
President Garfield took up the subject in his inaugural address on March
4, 1881. "The Mormon church," he said, "not only offends the moral sense
of mankind by sanctioning polygamy, but prevents the administration of
justice through ordinary instrumentalities of law." He expressed the
opinion that Congress should prohibit polygamy, and not allow "any
ecclesiastical organization to usurp in the smallest degree the
functions and power, of the national government." President Arthur, in
his message in December, 1881, referred to the difficulty of securing
convictions of persons accused of polygamy--"this odious crime,
so revolting to the moral and religious sense of Christendom"--and
recommended legislation.
In the spirit of these recommendations, Senator Edmunds introduced in
the Senate, on December 12, 1881, a comprehensive measure amending
the antipolygamy law of 1862, which, amended during the course of
the debate, was passed in the Senate on February 12, 1882, without a
roll-call,*and in the House on March 13, by a vote of 199 to 42, and
was approved by the President on March 22. This is what is known as the
Edmunds law--the first really serious blow struck by Congress against
polygamy.
* Speeches against the bill were made in the Senate by Brown,
Call, Lamar, Morgan, Pendleton, and Vest.
It provided, in brief, that, in the territories, any person who, having
a husband or wife living, marries another, or marries more than one
woman on the same day, shall be punished by a fine of not more than
$500, and by imprisonment, for not more than five years; that a
male person cohabiting with more than one woman shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and be subject to a fine of not more than $300 or to six
months' imprisonment, or both; that in any prosecution for bigamy,
polygamy, or unlawful cohabitation, a juror may be challenged if he is
or has been living in the practice of either offence, or if he believes
it right for a man to have more than one living and undivorced wife at
a time, or to cohabit with more than one woman; that the President
may have power to grant amnesty to offenders, as described, before the
passage of this act; that the issue of so-called Mormon marriages born
before January 1, 1883, be legitimated; that no polygamist shall be
entitled to vote in any territory, or to hold office under the United
States; that the President shall appoint in Utah a board of five persons
for the registry of voters, and the reception and counting of votes.
To meet the determined opposition to the new law, an amendment (known
as the Edmunds-Tucker law) was enacted in 1887. This law, in any
prosecution coming under the definition of plural marriages, waived the
process of subpoena, on affadavit of sufficient cause, in favor of an
attachment; allowed a lawful husband or wife to testify regarding each
other; required every marriage certificate in Utah to be signed by the
parties and the person performing the ceremony, and filed in court;
abolished female suffrage, and gave suffrage only to males of proper age
who registered and took an oath, giving the names of their lawful wives,
and promised to obey the laws of the United States, and especially the
Edmunds law; disqualified as a juror or officeholder any person who had
not taken an oath to support the laws of the United States, or who
had been convicted under the Edmunds law; gave the President power to
appoint the judges of the probate courts;* provided for escheating to
the United States for the use of the common schools the property of
corporations held in violation of the act in 1862, except buildings held
exclusively for the worship of God, the parsonages connected therewith,
and burial places; dissolved the corporation called the Perpetual
Emigration Company, and forbade the legislature to pass any law to
bring persons into the territory; dissolved the corporation known as the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and gave the Supreme Court
of the territory power to wind up its affairs; and annulled all
laws regarding the Nauvoo Legion, and all acts of the territorial
legislature.
* The first territorial legislature which met after the passage
of this law passed an act practically nullifying such appointments of
probate judges, but the governor vetoed it. In Beaver County, as soon as
the appointment of a probate judge by the President was announced, the
Mormon County Court met and reduced his salary to $5 a year.
The first members of the Utah commission appointed under the Edmunds
law were Alexander Ramsey of Minnesota, A. B. Carleton of Indiana, A.
S. Paddock of Nebraska, G. L. Godfrey of Iowa, and J. R. Pettigrew of
Arkansas, their appointments being dated June 23, 1882.
The officers of the church and the Mormons as a body met the new
situation as aggressively as did Brigham Young the approach of United
States troops. Their preachers and their newspapers reiterated the
divine nature of the "revelation" concerning polygamy and its obligatory
character, urging the people to stand by their leaders in opposition
to the new laws. The following extracts from "an Epistle from the First
Presidency, to the officers and members of the church," dated October
6, 1885, will sufficiently illustrate the attitude of the church
organization:--"The war is openly and undisguisedly made upon our
religion. To induce men to repudiate that, to violate its precepts, and
break its solemn covenants, every encouragement is given. The man who
agrees to discard his wife or wives, and to trample upon the most sacred
obligations which human beings can enter into, escapes imprisonment, and
is applauded: while the man who will not make this compact of dishonor,
who will not admit that his past life has been a fraud and a lie, who
will not say to the world, 'I intended to deceive my God, my brethren,
and my wives by making covenants I did not expect to keep,' is, beside
being punished to the full extent of the law, compelled to endure the
reproaches, taunts, and insults of a brutal judge....
"We did not reveal celestial marriage. We cannot withdraw or renounce
it, God revealed it, and he has promised to maintain it and to bless
those who obey it. Whatever fate, then, may threaten us, there is but
one course for men of God to take; that is, to keep inviolate the holy
covenants they have made in the presence of God and angels. For the
remainder, whether it be life or death, freedom or imprisonment,
prosperity or adversity, we must trust in God. We may say, however, if
any man or woman expects to enter into the celestial kingdom of our
God without making sacrifices and without being tested to the very
uttermost, they have not understood the Gospel....
"Upward of forty years ago the Lord revealed to his church the principle
of celestial marriage. The idea of marrying more wives than one was as
naturally abhorrent to the leading men and women of the church, at that
day, as it could be to any people. They shrank with dread from the bare
thought of entering into such relationship. But the command of God
was before them in language which no faithful soul dare disobey, 'For,
behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye
abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this
covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory.'... Who would suppose
that any man, in this land of religious liberty, would presume to say
to his fellow-man that he had no right to take such steps as he thought
necessary to escape damnation? Or that Congress would enact a law which
would present the alternative to religious believers of being consigned
to a penitentiary if they should attempt to obey a law of God which
would deliver them from damnation?"
There was a characteristic effort to evade the law as regards political
rights. The People's Party (Mormon), to get around the provision
concerning the test oath for voters, issued an address to them which
said: "The questions that intending voters need therefore ask themselves
are these: Are we guilty of the crimes of said act; or have we THE
PRESENT INTENTION of committing these crimes, or of aiding, abetting,
causing or advising any other person to commit them. Male citizens who
can answer these questions in the negative can qualify under the laws as
voters or office-holders."
Two events in 1885 were the cause of so much feeling that United States
troops were held in readiness for transportation to Utah. The first of
these was the placing of the United States flag at half mast in Salt
Lake City, on July 4, over the city hall, county court-house, theatre,
cooperative store, Deseret News office, tithing office, and President
Taylor's residence, to show the Mormon opinion that the Edmunds law had
destroyed liberty. When a committee of non-Mormon citizens called at the
city hall for an explanation of this display, the city marshal said that
it was "a whim of his," and the mayor ordered the flag raised to its
proper place.
In November of that year a Mormon night watchman named McMurrin was shot
and severely wounded by a United States deputy marshal named Collin.
This caused great feeling, and there were rumors that the Mormons
threatened to lynch Collin, that armed men had assembled to take him
out of the officers' hands, and that the Mormons of the territory were
arming themselves, and were ready at a moment's notice to march into
Salt Lake City. Federal troops were held in readiness at Eastern points,
but they were not used. The Salt Lake City Council, on December 8, made
a report denying the truth of the disquieting rumors, and declaring that
"at no time in the history of this city have the lives and property of
its non-Mormon inhabitants been more secure than now."
The records of the courts in Utah show that the Mormons stood ready to
obey the teachings of the church at any cost. Prosecutions under the
Edmunds law began in 1884, and the convictions for polygamy or unlawful
cohabitation (mostly the latter) were as follows in the years named: 3
in 1884, 39 in 1885, 112 in 1886, 214 in 1887, and 100 in 1888, with
48 in Idaho during the same period. Leading men in the church went into
hiding--"under ground," as it was called--or fled from the territory.
As to the actual continuance of polygamous marriages, the evidence was
contradictory. A special report of the Utah Commission in 1884 expressed
the opinion that there had been a decided decrease in their number
in the cities, and very little decrease in the rural districts. Their
regular report for that year estimated the number of males and females
who had entered into that relation at 459. The report for 1888 stated
that the registration officers gave the names of 29 females who, they
had good reason to believe, had contracted polygamous marriages since
the lists were closed in June, 1887. As late as 1889 Hans Jespersen
was arrested for unlawful cohabitation. As his plural marriage was
understood to be a recent one, the case attracted wide attention, since
it was expected to prove the insincerity of the church in making the
protest against the Edmunds law principally on the ground that it broke
up existing families. Jespersen pleaded guilty of adultery and polygamy,
and was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. In making his plea he
said that he was married at the Endowment House in Salt Lake City, that
he and his wife were the only persons there, and that he did not know
who married them. His wife testified that she "heard a voice pronounce
them man and wife, but didn't see any one nor who spoke." * Such were
some of the methods adopted by the church to set at naught the law.
* Report of the Utah Commission for 1890, p. 23.
But along with this firm attitude, influences were at work looking to a
change of policy. During the first year of the enforcement of the law
it was on many sides declared a failure, the aggressive attitude of
the church, and the willingness of its leaders to accept imprisonment,
hiding, or exile, being regarded by many persons in the East as proof
that the real remedy for the Utah situation was yet to be discovered.
The Utah Commission, in their earlier reports, combated this idea, and
pointed out that the young men in the church would grow restive as they
saw all the offices out of their reach unless they took the test oath,
and that they "would present an anomaly in human nature if they should
fail to be strongly influenced against going into a relation which thus
subjects them to political ostracism, and fixes on them the stigma of
moral turpitude." How wide this influence was is seen in the political
statistics of the times. When the Utah Commission entered on their
duties in August, 1882, almost every office in the territory was held by
a polygamist. By April, 1884, about 12,000 voters, male and female, had
been disfranchised by the act, and of the 1351 elective officers in
the territory not one was a polygamist, and not one of the municipal
officers of Salt Lake City then in office had ever been "in polygamy."
The church leaders at first tried to meet this influence in two ways, by
open rebuke of all Saints who showed a disposition to obey the new laws,
and by special honors to those who took their punishment. Thus, the
Deseret News told the brethren that they could not promise to obey the
anti-polygamy laws without violating obligations that bound them to time
and eternity; and when John Sharp, a leading member of the church in
Salt Lake City, went before the court and announced his intention to
obey these laws, he was instantly removed from the office of Bishop of
his ward.
The restlessness of the flock showed itself in the breaking down of the
business barriers set up by the church between Mormons and Gentiles.
This subject received a good deal of attention in the minority report
signed by two of the commissioners in 1888. They noted the sale of real
estate by Mormons to Gentiles against the remonstrances of the church,
the organization of a Chamber of Commerce in Salt Lake City in which
Mormons and Gentiles worked together, and the union of both elements in
the last Fourth of July celebration.
In the spring of 1890, at the General Conference held in Salt Lake City,
the office of "Prophet, Seer and Revelator and President" of the church,
that had remained vacant since the death of John Taylor in 1887, was
filled by the election of Wilford Woodruff, a polygamist who had refused
to take the test oath, while G. Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow, who were
disfranchised for the same cause, were made respectively counsellor
and president of the Twelve.* Woodruff was born in Connecticut in 1807,
became a Mormon in 1832, was several times sent on missions to England,
and had gained so much prominence while the church was at Nauvoo that
he was the chief dedicator of the Temple there. While there, he signed
a certificate stating that he knew of no other system of marriage in the
church but the one-wife system then prescribed in the "Book of Doctrine
and Covenants." Before the date of his promotion, Woodruff had declared
that plural marriages were no longer permitted, and, when he was
confronted with evidence to the contrary brought out in court, he denied
all knowledge of it, and afterward declared that, in consequence of the
evidence presented, he had ordered the Endowment House to be taken down.
* Lorenzo Snow was elected president of the church on September
13, 1898, eleven days after the death of President Woodruff, and he held
that position until his death which occurred on October 10, 1901.
Governor Thomas, in his report for 1890, expressed the opinion that
the church, under its system, could in only one way define its position
regarding polygamy, and that was by a public declaration by the head
of the church, or by action by a conference, and he added, "There is no
reason to believe that any earthly power can extort from the church
any such declaration." The governor was mistaken, not in measuring the
purpose of the church, but in foreseeing all the influences that were
now making themselves felt.
The revised statutes of Idaho at this time contained a provision (Sec.
509) disfranchising all polygamists and debarring from office all
polygamists, and all persons who counselled or encouraged any one to
commit polygamy. The constitutionality of this section was argued before
the United States Supreme Court, which, on February 3, 1890, decided
that it was constitutional. The antipolygamists in Utah saw in this
decision a means of attacking the Mormon belief even more aggressively
than had been done by means of the Edmunds Bill. An act was drawn
(Governor Thomas and ex-Governor West taking it to Washington) providing
that no person living in plural or celestial marriage, or teaching
the same, or being a member of, or a contributor to, any organization
teaching it, or assisting in such a marriage, should be entitled to
vote, to serve as a juror, or to hold office, a test oath forming a part
of the act. Senator Cullom introduced this bill in the upper House and
Mr. Struble of Iowa in the House of Representatives. The House Committee
on Territories (the Democrats in the negative) voted to report the
bill, amended so as to make it applicable to all the territories. This
proposed legislation caused great excitement in Mormondom, and petitions
against its passage were hurried to Washington, some of these containing
non-Mormon signatures.
As a further menace to the position of the church, the United States
Supreme Court, on May 19, affirmed the decision of the lower court
confiscating the property of the Mormon church, and declaring that
church organization to be an organized rebellion; and on June 21, the
Senate passed Senator Edmunds's bill disposing of the real estate of the
church for the benefit of the school fund.*
* After the admission of Utah as a state, Congress passed an act
restoring the property to the church.
The Mormon authorities now realized that the public sentiment of the
country, as expressed in the federal law, had them in its grasp. They
must make some concession to this public sentiment, or surrender
all their privileges as citizens and the wealth of their church
organization. Agents were hurried to Washington to implore the aid of
Mr. Blaine in checking the progress of the Cullom Bill, and at home
the head of the church made the concession in regard to polygamy which
secured the admission of the territory as a state.
On September 25, 1890, Woodruff, as President of the church, issued a
proclamation addressed "to whom it may concern," which struck out of the
NECESSARY beliefs and practices of the Mormon church, the practice of
polygamy.
This important step was taken, not in the form of a "revelation,"
but simply as a proclamation or manifesto. It began with a solemn
declaration that the allegation of the Utah Commission that plural
marriages were still being solemnized was false, and the assertion that
"we are not preaching polygamy nor permitting any person to enter into
its practice." The closing and important
part of the proclamation was as follows:--
"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress, which laws have been
pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare
my intention to submit to these laws, and to use my influence with the
members of the church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
"There is nothing in my teachings to the church, or in those of my
associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed
to inculcate or encourage polygamy, and when any elder of the church has
used language which appeared to convey any such teachings he has been
promptly reproved.
"And now I publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-Day Saints is
to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the
land."
On October 6, the General Conference of the church, on motion of Lorenzo
Snow, unanimously adopted the following resolution:--
"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as President of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the
present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider
him fully authorized, by virtue of his position, to issue the manifesto
that has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24,
1890, and as a church in general conference assembled we accept his
declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding."
This action was reaffirmed by the General Conference of October 6, 1891.
Of course the church officers had to make some explanation to the
brethren of their change of front. Cannon fell back on the "revelation"
of January 19, 1841, which Smith put forth to excuse the failure to
establish a Zion in Missouri, namely, that, when their enemies prevent
their performing a task assigned by the Almighty, he would accept their
effort to do so. He said that "it was on this basis" that President
Woodruff had felt justified in issuing the manifesto. Woodruff
explained: "It is not wisdom for us to make war upon 65,000,000
people.... The prophet Joseph Smith organized the church; and all that
he has promised in this code of revelations the "Book of Doctrine and
Covenants" has been fulfilled as fast as time would permit. THAT WHICH
IS NOT FULFILLED WILL BE." Cannon did explain that the manifesto was the
result of prayer, and Woodruff told the people that he had had a great
many visits from the Prophet Joseph since his death, in dreams, and also
from Brigham Young, but neither seems to have imparted any very valuable
information, Joseph explaining that he was in an immense hurry preparing
himself "to go to the earth with the Great Bridegroom when he goes to
meet the Bride, the Lamb's wife."
Two recent incidents have indicated the restlessness of the Mormon
church under the restriction placed upon polygamy. In 1898, the
candidate for Representative in Congress, nominated by the Democratic
Convention of Utah, was Brigham H. Roberts. It was commonly known in
Utah that Roberts was a violator of the Edmunds law. A Mormon elder,
writing from Brigham, Utah, in February, 1899, while Roberts's case was
under consideration at Washington, said, "Many prominent Mormons foresaw
the storm that was now raging, and deprecated Mr. Roberts's nomination
and election."* This statement proves both the notoriety of Roberts's
offence, and the connivance of the church in his nomination, because no
Mormon can be nominated to an office in Utah when the church authorities
order otherwise. When Roberts presented himself to be sworn in, in
December, 1899, his case was referred to a special committee of nine
members. The report of seven members of this committee found that
Roberts married his first wife about the year 1878; that about 1885 he
married a plural wife, who had since born him six children, the last
two twins, born on August 11, 1897; that some years later he married a
second plural wife, and that he had been living with all three till the
time of his election; "that these facts were generally known in Utah,
publicly charged against him during his campaign for election, and
were not denied by him." Roberts refused to take the stand before the
committee, and demurred to its jurisdiction on the ground that the
hearing was an attempt to try him for a crime without an indictment and
jury trial, and to deprive him of vested rights in the emoluments of
the office to which he was elected, and that, if the crime alleged was
proved, it would not constitute a sufficient cause to deprive him of
his seat, because polygamy is not enumerated in the constitution as
a disqualification for the office of member of Congress. The majority
report recommended that his seat be declared vacant. Two members of the
committee reported that his offence afforded constitutional ground for
expulsion, but not for exclusion from the House, and recommended that
he be sworn in and immediately expelled. The resolution presented by the
majority was adopted by the House by a vote of 268 to 50.**
* New York Evening Post, February 20, 1899.
** Roberts was tried in the district court in Salt Lake City, on
April 30, 1900, on the charge of unlawful cohabitation. The case was
submitted to the jury of eight men, without testimony, on an agreed
statement of facts, and the jury disagreed, standing six for conviction
and two for acquittal.
The second incident referred to was the passage by the Utah legislature
in March, 1901, of a bill containing this provision:
"No prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except on complaint of
the husband or wife or relative of the accused with the first degree of
consanguinity, or of the person with whom the unlawful act is alleged to
have been committed, or of the father or mother of said person; and
no prosecution for unlawful cohabitation shall be commenced except on
complaint of the wife, or alleged plural wife of the accused; but this
provision shall not apply to prosecutions under section 4208 of the
Revised Statutes, 1898, defining and punishing polygamous marriages."
This bill passed the Utah senate by a vote of 11 to 7, and the house
by a vote of 174 to 25. The excuse offered for it by the senator who
introduced it was that it would "take away from certain agitators the
opportunity to arouse periodic furors against the Mormons"; that more
than half of the persons who had been polygamists had died or dissolved
their polygamous relations, and that no good service could be subserved
by prosecuting the remainder. This law aroused a protest throughout the
country, and again the Mormon church saw that it had made a mistake, and
on the 14th of March Governor H. M. Wells vetoed the bill, on grounds
that may be summarized as declaring that the law would do the Mormons
more harm than good. The most significant part of his message, as
indicating what the Mormon authorities most dread, is contained in the
following sentence: "I have every reason to believe its enactment would
be the signal for a general demand upon the national Congress for a
constitutional amendment directed solely against certain conditions
here, a demand which, under the circumstances, would assuredly be
complied with."
The admission of Utah as a state followed naturally the promulgation by
the Mormon church of a policy which was accepted by the non-Mormons as
putting a practical end to the practice of polygamy. For the seventh
time, in 1887, the Mormons had adopted a state constitution, the
one ratified in that year providing that "bigamy and polygamy, being
considered incompatible with 'a republican form of government,' each of
them is hereby forbidden and declared a misdemeanor." The non-Mormons
attacked the sincerity of this declaration, among other things pointing
out the advice of the Church organ, while the constitution was before
the people, that they be "as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves."
Congress again refused admission.
On January 4, 1893, President Harrison issued a proclamation granting
amnesty and pardon to all persons liable to the penalty of the Edmunds
law "who have, since November 1, 1890, abstained from such unlawful
cohabitation," but on condition that they should in future obey the laws
of the United States. Until the time of Woodruff's manifesto there had
been in Utah only two political parties, the People's, as the Mormon
organization had always been known, and the Liberal (anti-Mormon).
On June 10, 1894, the People's Territorial Central Committee adopted
resolutions reciting the organization of the Republicans and Democrats
of the territory, declaring that the dissensions of the past should be
left behind and that the People's party should dissolve. The Republican
Territorial Committee a few days later voted that a division of the
people on national party lines would result only in statehood controlled
by the Mormon theocracy. The Democratic committee eight days later took
a directly contrary view. At the territorial election in the following
August the Democrats won, the vote standing: Democratic, 14,116;
Liberal, 7386; Republican, 6613.
It would have been contrary to all political precedent if the
Republicans had maintained their attitude after the Democrats had
expressed their willingness to receive Mormon allies. Accordingly, in
September, 1891, we find the Republicans adopting a declaration that it
would be wise and patriotic to accept the changes that had occurred,
and denying that statehood was involved in a division of the people on
national party lines.
All parties in the territory now seemed to be manoeuvring for position.
The Morman newspaper organs expressed complete indifference about
securing statehood. In Congress Mr. Caine, the Utah Delegate,
introduced what was known as the "Home Rule Bill," taking the control of
territorial affairs from the governor and commission. This was known
as a Democratic measure, and great pressure was brought to bear on
Republican leaders at Washington to show them that Utah as a state would
in all probability add to the strength of the Republican column. When,
at the first session of the 53d Congress, J. L. Rawlins, a Democrat who
had succeeded Caine as Delegate, introduced an act to enable the people
of Utah to gain admission for the territory as a state, it met with no
opposition at home, passed the House of Representatives on December
13, 1893, and the Senate on July 10, 1894 (without a division in either
House), and was signed by the President on July 16. The enabling
act required the constitutional convention to provide "by ordinance
irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people
of that state, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be
secured, and that no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in
person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship;
PROVIDED, that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."
The constitutional convention held under this act met in Salt Lake City
on March 4, 1895, and completed its work on May 8, following. In the
election of delegates for this convention the Democrats cast about
19,000 votes, the Republicans about 21,000 and the Populists about 6500.
Of the 107 delegates chosen, 48 were Democrats and 59 Republicans. The
constitution adopted contained the following provisions:--
"Art. 1. Sec. 4. The rights of conscience shall never be infringed.
The state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be
required as a qualification for any office of public trust, or for any
vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness
or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There
shall be no union of church and state, nor shall any church dominate the
state or interfere with its functions. No public money or property shall
be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or
instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment.
"Art. 111. The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the
consent of the United States and the people of this state: Perfect
toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this
state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or
her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are
forever prohibited."
This constitution was submitted to the people on November 5, 1895, and
was ratified by a vote of 31,305 to 7687, the Republicans at the same
election electing their entire state ticket and a majority of
the legislature. On January 4, 1896, President Cleveland issued
a proclamation announcing the admission of Utah as a state. The
inauguration of the new state officers took place at Salt Lake City
two days later. The first governor, Heber M. Wells,* in his inaugural
address made this declaration: "Let us learn to resent the absurd
attacks that are made from time to time upon our sincerity by ignorant
and prejudiced persons outside of Utah, and let us learn to know and
respect each other more, and thus cement and intensify the fraternal
sentiments now so widespread in our community, to the end that, by a
mighty unity of purpose and Christian resolution, we may be able to
insure that domestic tranquillity, promote that general welfare,
and secure those blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
guaranteed by the constitution of the United States."
* Son of "General" Wells of the Nauvoo Legion.
The vote of Utah since its admission as a state has been cast as
follows:--
REPUBLICAN **** DEMOCRAT
1895. Governor 20,833 18,519
1896. President 13,491 64,607
1900. Governor 47,600 44,447
1900. President 47,089 44,949